Remarks
andReplies
Psycholinguistic Evidence for the VP-Internal Subject
Position in Japanese
Masatoshi Koizumi
Katsuo Tamaoka
The question of whether the subject stays in its thematic position within
the VP or moves to Spec,TP is difficult to answer with respect to freeword order languages such as Japanese because the surface constituent
orders in these languages do not necessarily provide sufficient information to determine syntactic positions. In this article, we present psycholinguistic evidence for the theoretical hypothesis that, in Japanese, thesubject must move to Spec,TP in sentences with the subject-objectverb word order, but may stay within the VP in sentences with theobject-subject-verb word order.
Keywords: experimental syntax, scrambling, sentence processing, VP
adverb, word order

1 Introduction
The introduction of the internal subject hypothesis (ISH) in the mid-1980s led to a debate regardingwhether the subject in a particular language should stay in its thetamatic position at Spec,VP (orSpec,vP in more recent terminology) or move to its ‘‘derived position’’ at Spec,IP (or TP) (e.g.,
Fukui 1986, Kitagawa 1986, Koopman and Sportiche 1988, Kuroda 1988). This question is particularly difficult to answer with respect to free word order languages such as Japanese because thesurface constituent orders in these languages do not necessarily provide sufficient information todetermine syntactic positions. In this article, we present psycholinguistic evidence for the theoretical hypothesis that, in Japanese, the subject may stay within the VP in sentences with the objectsubject-verb (OSV) word order (Miyagawa 2001). (Purely for the purpose of exposition, we will

Parts of earlier versions of this article were presented at the 133rd meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan; the
4th Cognition, Brain, and Language seminar; the 5th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics; the 27th Conference of
the English Linguistic Society of Japan; Doshisha University (Kyoto, Japan); Dong-eui University (Busan, South Korea);South-Central University for Nationalities (Wuhan, China); Hubei University (Wuhan, China); and Fukuoka University(Fukuoka, Japan). We would like to thank the audiences, especially Nobuko Hasegawa, Shigeru Miyagawa, Edson Miyamoto, Yayoi Miyaoka, Satoru Nakai, Hajime Ono, and Hiromu Sakai, for useful questions and discussions. We are also
grateful to three anonymous reviewers for Linguistic Inquiry for invaluable comments and suggestions. The study reported
here was partially supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no. 19320056 and no. 22222001) from the Japanese
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.
Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 41, Number 4, Fall 2010
663–680
䉷 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

663

664

REMARKS AND REPLIES

veer away from the distinction between VP and vP, and will use VP as a cover term throughout
this article.)
The article is organized as follows. Section 2 provides essential background information
regarding the distribution of adverbs in Japanese and its effects on sentence processing. Section
3 explains two competing syntactic analyses of the position of the external argument in scrambled
sentences, together with their predictions about sentence processing. The results of the experimentthat tests these predictions are presented in section 4, followed by a discussion in section 5.
Section 6 concludes the article.
2 Adverb Positions and Sentence Processing
For the purpose of this study, we make the following two basic assumptions:(1) a. Assumption 1(Other things being equal) sentences involving an instance of scrambling are moredifficult to process than their counterparts without an instance of scrambling.1
b. Assumption 2
The canonical positions for so-called VP adverbs such as manner and resultative
adverbs are within the VP. Therefore, when VP adverbs occur outside the VP, they
have undergone scrambling.
Assumption 1 is fairly standard in the psycholinguistic literature, and we adopt it without further
discussion here (Mazuka, Itoh, and Kondo 2002, Miyamoto and Takahashi 2002, Tamaoka et al.
2005; see also Gibson 1998, Hawkins 2004, Marantz 2005).2 As for Assumption 2, its meaning
may be less obvious, and it thus requires explanation.
Japanese adverbs can be divided into three broad classes based on their syntactic distribution:(a) adverbs that are initially merged with a projection of a verb (i.e., VP adverbs); (b) adverbs
that are initially merged with a projection of a tense (i.e., TP adverbs); and (c) adverbs that are
initially merged with a projection of a modal (i.e., MP adverbs) (Koizumi 1993, Kimura 2004;
see also Minami 1974, Nakau 1980, Noda 1984, Takubo 1987, Cinque 1999). The canonicalpositions of the three classes of adverbs are schematically shown in (2), where A represents anadverb.
(2) [ CP[ MP (MP-A) [ TP (TP-A) S (TP-A) [ VP (VP-A) O (VP-A) V] T] M] C]

1
As an example of ‘‘other things,’’ it has been observed that the longer the object, the stronger the preference for
the OSV word order, in cases where the phrase length was counted in terms of the number of words involved (Yamashita
and Chang 2001). In the experiment reported in section 4, the effects of factors such as phrase length were made minimal
by using simple sentences without nominal modifiers. See also the methodological remarks in section 4.1.
2
A generalized version of Assumption 1 is explicitly stated, for example, in Marantz 2005:439: ‘‘[A]ll other things
being equal, the more complex a representation . . . [is], the longer it should take for a subject to perform any task
involving the representation and the more activity should be observed in the subject’s brain areas associated with creatingor accessing the representation and with performing the task.’’

REMARKS AND REPLIES

665

VP adverbs include manner and resultative adverbs such as hayaku ‘fast’ and konagonani ‘into
pieces’. Their canonical positions within a VP are c-commanded by the negative morpheme inshort negation sentences such as (3), where the negative morpheme occurs between a verb stem
and a tense morpheme. VP adverbs therefore tend to be the focus of negation; hence, (3) isinterpreted as ‘I ran not fast’ (i.e., ‘I ran slowly’).
(3) [ VP Hayaku hasir]-ana-katta.
fast
run-NEG-PAST‘(I) did not run fast.’
TP adverbs include time and aspectual adverbs such as kinoo ‘yesterday’ and sibasiba ‘frequently’.
Their canonical positions within a TP are outside the c-command domain of the negative morpheme in short negation sentences. Thus, in the short negation sentence (4a), the verb ‘run’ isnegated rather than the adverb ‘yesterday’. However, a TP adverb can be the target of negation
in a long negation sentence with wakedewanai ‘it is not the case’, which takes a TP as its
complement. Therefore, the preferred reading of (4b) is ‘The time when I ran was not yesterday’.
[[ VP hasir]-ana]-katta].
(4) a. [ TP Kinoo
yesterday
run-NEG-PAST‘(I) did not run yesterday.’[ VP hasir]-ta]-wakedewanai.
b. [ TP Kinoo
yesterday
run-PAST-it.is.not.the.case‘It is not the case that (I) ran yesterday.’Finally, MP adverbs include various types of modal adverbs such as osoraku ‘probably’ andsaiwai ‘fortunately’. MP adverbs occur outside the c-command domain of the negative morphemein both short and long negation sentences. Hence, they cannot be the target of negation, as shownin (5).
(5) a. [ MP Osoraku [ TP[ VP hasir]-ana-katta] daroo].
probablyrun-NEG-PAST
seem‘Probably (he or she) did not run.’b. [ MP Osoraku [[ TP[ VP hasir]-ta]-wakedewanai] daroo].
probablyrun-PAST-it.is.not.the.case seem
‘Probably it is not the case that (he or she) ran.’
According to the structure shown in (2), for sentences with a VP adverb, subject-adverbobject-verb (SAOV) and subject-object-adverb-verb (SOAV) are the canonical word orders, andadverb-subject-object-verb (ASOV) is a noncanonical derived word order involving adverb scrambling (6a–c).
(6) a. ASOV (derived word order with a VP adverb)
Yukkuri Taroo-ga sinbun-oyonda.
slowly Taro-NOM newspaper-ACC read
‘Taro read a newspaper slowly.’

666

REMARKS AND REPLIES

b. SAOV (canonical word order with a VP adverb)
Taroo-ga yukkuri sinbun-oyonda.
Taro-NOM slowly newspaper-ACC readc. SOAV (canonical word order with a VP adverb)
Taroo-ga sinbun-oyukkuri yonda.
Taro-NOM newspaper-ACC slowly read
Similarly, for sentences with a TP adverb, ASOV and SAOV are the canonical word orders, and
SOAV is a noncanonical derived word order (7a–c). Further, for sentences with an MP adverb,
ASOV is the canonical word order, and SAOV and SOAV are noncanonical derived word orders(8a–c).
(7) a. ASOV (canonical word order with a TP adverb)
Kinoo
Taroo-ga kabin-o kowasita.
yesterday Taro-NOM vase-ACC broke‘Taro broke a vase yesterday.’b. SAOV (canonical word order with a TP adverb)
Taroo-ga kinoo
kabin-o kowasita.
Taro-NOM yesterday vase-ACC brokec. SOAV (derived word order with a TP adverb)
Taroo-ga kabin-o kinoo
kowasita.
Taro-NOM vase-ACC yesterday broke(8) a. ASOV (canonical word order with an MP adverb)
Zannennagara Taroo-ga syoosin-ozitaisita.
unfortunately Taro-NOM promotion-ACC refused‘Unfortunately Taro refused (an offer of) promotion.’b. SAOV (derived word order with an MP adverb)
Taroo-ga zannennagara syoosin-ozitaisita.
Taro-NOM unfortunately promotion-ACC refusedc. SOAV (derived word order with an MP adverb)
Taroo-ga syoosin-ozannennagara zitaisita.
Taro-NOM promotion-ACC unfortunately refused
The relationship between the adverb classes and the canonicity of word order is summarized in(9).
(9) Adverb classes Canonical word orders Derived word orders
VP adverbs:
SAOV and SOAVASOVTP adverbs:
ASOV and SAOVSOAVMP adverbs:
ASOV
SAOV and SOAVIn the psycholinguistic literature, it is generally believed that, other things being equal, thehuman parser processes canonical word orders faster than derived word orders (see Assumption

REMARKS AND REPLIES

667

1). Thus, the analysis summarized in (9) predicts that in sentences with VP adverbs, SAOV and
SOAV are processed faster than ASOV; in sentences with TP adverbs, ASOV and SAOV areprocessed faster than SOAV; and in sentences with MP adverbs, ASOV is processed faster than
SAOV and SOAV.
(10) Predictions ( X ⬍ Y stands for ‘X is processed faster than Y’)
a. VP adverbs: 兵SAOV, SOAV其 ⬍ ASOV
b. TP adverbs: 兵ASOV, SAOV其 ⬍ SOAV
c. MP adverbs: ASOV ⬍ 兵SAOV, SOAV其In an earlier study (Koizumi and Tamaoka 2006), we tested these predictions by performinga reading experiment involving a sentence correctness judgment task (Chujo 1983, Tamaoka et
al. 2005). In this experiment, transitive sentences with adverbs such as those in (6)–(8) as well
as semantically anomalous filler sentences were visually presented to the participants in the centerof a computer screen, in random order. The participants were instructed to respond as quickly
and accurately as possible by deciding whether or not the sentences were correct. They registered
their responses by pressing either the ‘‘Yes’’ or the ‘‘No’’ button. To determine whether or nota sentence was correct, the participants had to determine its syntactic structure as well as retrieve
lexical information. The results of the experiment confirmed all of the predictions indicated in(10). In sentences with VP adverbs, the response times were reliably longer for ASOV than for
either SAOV or SOAV, while the response times for the latter two did not differ significantly.
In sentences with TP adverbs, the response times were longer for SOAV than for ASOV and
SAOV, and the response times for the latter two were comparable. In sentences with MP adverbs,
ASOV was processed faster than SAOV, which in turn was processed faster than SOAV. Taken
together, these results support the analysis of adverb distribution represented in (2).
Given the discussion above, in this article we accept the two general assumptions shown in (1).
3 Competing Syntactic Analyses and Their Predictions
Traditionally, the subject was defined as an NP immediately dominated by an S node (Chomsky1957). Thus, when Saito and Hoji (1983) argued that in Japanese, the object is base-generated
within VP (11a) and that when it occurs to the left of the subject, it has undergone scrambling(11b), it was presumed that the subject occupies a position directly under the S node throughout
the derivation (see also Hoji 1985, Saito 1985).
(11) a. [ S S [ VP O V]]
b. [ S Oi [ S S [ VP ti V]]
However, according to the ISH, the ‘‘base’’ or ‘‘thematic’’ position of the subject (i.e., the externalargument), as well as that of the object (i.e., the internal argument), is within the VP, and when
the subject is outside the VP, it has moved from its base position for some reason (e.g., theExtended Projection Principle). In Japanese, it is now a standard analysis that the subject in a
canonically ordered SOV sentence moves from its thematic position, Spec,VP, to its derived
position, Spec,TP, as shown in (12) (Miyagawa 1989, Kishimoto 2001).

668

REMARKS AND REPLIES(12) [ TP Si [ VP ti OV]]The discussion in section 2 was also based on this assumption, although the presence of a subject
trace within the VP was not explicitly mentioned because it was not relevant.
Regarding Japanese sentences with the OSV word order, there are at least two competing
analyses with respect to the placement of the subject. One is that the subject in OSV sentences,like the subject in SOV sentences, obligatorily moves to Spec,TP, and the object moves to aneven higher position, as shown in (13) (see, e.g., Saito 2003).
(13) Analysis 1[ TP Oj Si [ VP ti tj V]]
Although this structure contains a VP-internal subject trace, it is fairly similar to the traditional
structure presented in (11b). Therefore, it can be considered an updated version of the traditional
structure.
A more innovative analysis has been proposed by Miyagawa (2001), according to which it
is possible that the subject stays in its base position within the VP and only the object moves toSpec,TP, as shown in (14).
(14) Analysis 2[ TP Oi [ VP ti′ S ti V]]↑↑
Note that the derivation of this structure involves two movements of the object: the first, in which
the object moves to the edge of VP, which is necessary for locality reasons, and the second, inwhich the object moves to Spec,TP (Miyagawa 2001, Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007). Hence, theOSV word order has a more costly derivation than the SOV order.
Part of the evidence for the proposal that the subject may stay in the VP as in (14) comesfrom scope interpretation. Recall that constituents within a VP are c-commanded by the negationin short negation sentences; however, this is not the case with constituents that belong to a TPor an MP. Thus, if the universal quantifier zen’in ‘all’ occurs in the object position of an SOV
sentence, it may be interpreted as being inside the scope of negation, thereby yielding a partialnegation reading (i.e., ‘not all’). If zen’in occurs in the subject position, it is interpreted as beingoutside the scope of negation.
(15) a. Taroo-ga zen’in-o sikar-anakat-ta.
Taro-NOM all-ACC scold-NEG-PAST‘Taro did not scold all.’ (not ⬎ all, all ⬎ not)b. Zen’in-ga Taroo-o sikar-anakat-ta.
all-NOM Taro-ACC scold-NEG-PAST‘All did not scold Taro.’ (??not ⬎ all, all ⬎ not)Significantly, Miyagawa (2001) observes that if the object scrambles across the subject zen’in,partial negation becomes easier to obtain with appropriate prosody, as exemplified in (16) (seealso Miyagawa 2006, Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007).

REMARKS AND REPLIES

669(16) Sono tesuto-oi zen’in-ga ti uke-nakat-ta (yo/to omou).
that test-ACCi all-NOM ti take-NEG-PAST‘That test, all didn’t take.’(Miyagawa 2001:299)
Miyagawa argues that the partial negation interpretation of (16) is readily explained if we assume
that its subject occupies a VP-internal position (as in (14)) that is c-commanded by the negation.
The two competing analyses in (13) and (14), together with the two assumptions summarizedin (1), create different predictions for the processing of OSV sentences with VP adverbs in threedifferent positions such as those in (17).
(17) a. AOSV
Yukkuri sinbun-oTaroo-ga yonda.
slowly newspaper-ACC Taro-NOM read
‘Taro read a newspaper slowly.’b. OASV
Sinbun-oyukkuri Taroo-ga yonda.
newspaper-ACC slowly Taro-NOM readc. OSAV
Sinbun-oTaroo-ga yukkuri yonda.
newspaper-ACC Taro-NOM slowly read
Before discussing the predictions, however, we must make Assumption 2 more precise. We
have shown that VP adverbs may be base-generated either to the left or to the right of the baseposition of the object within VP. It is not yet clear, though, whether they can be base-generated
to the left of the base position of the subject within VP, as shown in (18a), or not, as shown in(18b).
(18) Base positions of VP-adverbs: Two versions of Assumption 2
a. Assumption 2a: [ VP (A) S (A) O (A) V]
b. Assumption 2b: [ VP S (A) O (A) V]
We will therefore take both possibilities into consideration in the following discussion.
Let us now turn to the predictions of Analysis 1 and Analysis 2 for the processing of OSV
sentences with VP adverbs. In Analysis 1, with either Assumption 2a or Assumption 2b, the VP
adverb yukkuri ‘slowly’ occupies its base position within the VP in the OSAV order (17c) andhas undergone scrambling in the other two orders (17a–b). This is schematically represented in(19). (The traces of the arguments are omitted, and (ti′) stands for the intermediate traces of theadverb that would be left at the VP edge for locality reasons under Assumption 2b.)(19) Schematic structures of the sentences in (17) in Analysis 1 with either Assumption 2aor Assumption 2ba. [ TP Ai O S [ VP . . . (ti′) . . . ti . . . V]]
b. [ TP O Ai S [ VP . . . (ti′) . . . ti . . . V]]
c. [ TP O S [ VP . . . A . . . V]]

670

REMARKS AND REPLIES

Thus, Analysis 1 predicts that AOSV and OASV are more difficult to process than OSAV.
Analysis 2 makes different predictions with Assumption 2a and with Assumption 2b. With
Assumption 2a, both OASV (17b) and OSAV (17c) are canonical word orders with respect toadverb placement, and AOSV (17a) alone involves adverb scrambling, as shown in (20).
(20) Schematic structures of the sentences in (17) in Analysis 2 with Assumption 2aa. [ TP Ai O [ VP . . . ti S . . . V]]
b. [ TP O [ VP . . . A S . . . V]]
c. [ TP O [ VP . . . S A . . . V]]
It is then expected that AOSV is more difficult to process than both OASV and OSAV. In contrast,with Assumption 2b, AOSV (17a) involves two movements of the adverb: a movement to theedge of VP and a movement to Spec,TP from the VP edge. OASV (17b) involves a movementof the adverb across the subject within VP. OSAV (17c) is a canonical word order with respect
to the adverb. This is schematically shown in (21), which predicts that AOSV is more difficult
to process than OASV, which in turn is more demanding than OSAV.
(21) Schematic structures of the sentences in (17) in Analysis 2 with Assumption 2ba. [ TP Ai O [ VP ti′ . . . S ti . . . V]]
b. [ TP O [ VP . . . Ai S ti . . . V]]
c. [ TP O [ VP . . . S A . . . V]]
The predictions regarding the cognitive load associated with the processing of sentences like
(17a–c) are summarized in (22).
(22) Predicted processing loada. Analysis 1 with Assumption 2a or 2b: AOSV ⳱ OASV ⬎ OSAV
b. Analysis 2 with Assumption 2a:
AOSV ⬎ OASV ⳱ OSAVc. Analysis 2 with Assumption 2b:
AOSV ⬎ OASV ⬎ OSAV
4 Experiment
4.1 Rationales for Sentence Correctness Decisions
We tested the predictions in (22) by conducting a psycholinguistic experiment with a sentenceplausibility judgment task that involved whole sentence reading (see Chujo 1983, Tamaoka et al.
2005).
The study measured efficiency of sentence processing by examining accuracy and speed.
Since the study used only simple sentences, accuracy—correct ‘‘yes’’ responses to grammaticallyand semantically acceptable sentences—was expected to be very high. (In fact, the error rates inthe study were all lower than 3%, as shown below.) Thus, the critical measure was reading time(or processing time), rather than accuracy. In the experimental condition of the study, participants
were asked to decide as quickly and accurately as possible whether or not a visually presented
sentence was correct. Before the trial sentences, the experimenter instructed the participants toprocess each sentence as fast as possible without making a mistake. Processing time is crucial

REMARKS AND REPLIES

671

in the reaction time paradigm that has been used for over 40 years in experimental psychology.
Because of syntactic manipulations (i.e., resolving filler-gap dependencies), sentences with ascrambled order are expected to require longer processing times than the same sentences with acanonical order (see Assumption 1).
The sentence plausibility task with whole sentence reading measures overall reading time.
This task has been criticized for not being sensitive enough to investigate the details of phrasal
processing (Miyamoto and Nakamura 2005). In order to measure phrasal processing, the selfpaced reading method is often used. Self-paced reading requires participants to read one part
(often a single phrase) of a sentence at a time and press a button (usually the space bar on a
keyboard) to see the next part. The length of time between button presses is interpreted as thereading time for each part of a sentence. The idea that self-paced reading can measure the reaction
times required for reading each part of a sentence seems appropriate for the investigation ofsentence processing, especially from the syntactic perspective. However, this method has seldom
detected scrambling effects in simple sentences (Nakayama 1995, Yamashita 1997, Tamaoka et
al. 2003). Upon further consideration, then, what initially appears to be an ideal method turns
out to face inherent problems, especially when one is investigating the processing of grammaticallyand semantically simple sentences.
First, this tendency becomes extreme in a simple active sentence with a transitive verb (fordetails, see Tamaoka and Koizumi 2006). Since this type of sentence is read by pressing the space
bar three times, participants are likely to repeat a three-beat rhythm for NP-ga, NP-o, and VP.
Likewise, a four-beat rhythm is used for active sentences with ditransitive verbs such as NP-ga,
NP-ni, NP-o, and VP. Since the target stimulus sentences used for the present experiment wereconstructed using four phrases, participants could finish reading a sentence by pressing the space
bar four times. With this repetitious behavior, reaction times varied little between phrases. Second,in the case of long and complex sentences, self-paced reading locks participants’ reading at a
certain region, so participants are not allowed to read backward to check phrases they have alreadyread. As a result, self-paced reading entails heavy memory loads to remember previously readphrases, which is often reflected by longer reading times of over 1,000 milliseconds for eachphrase—an extremely tedious pace of reading. Third, a spillover tendency is also occasionallyobserved in which the phrase that follows the target phrase shows a significantly longer readingtime.
A recent eye-tracking study (Tamaoka et al. 2009) used the sentence correctness decisiontask to investigate the processing of simple canonical-order and scrambled-order active sentenceswith ditransitive verbs.
1. Canonical order: [ S NP-ga [ VP NP-ni [ V′ NP-o V]]]
2. Single-scrambled order: [ S NP-ga [ VP NP-o1 [ VP NP-ni [V′ gap1 V]]]]
3. Double-scrambled order: [ S NP-ni1 [ S NP-o2 [ S NP-ga [ VP gap1 [ V′ gap2 V]]]]]
That study showed that prehead (before seeing a verb) reading times were delayed for the third
noun phrase in both single- and double-scrambled sentences, each compared with canonical sentences. This result implies that native Japanese speakers construct phrasal syntactic structures

672

REMARKS AND REPLIES

prior to encountering the head verb. However, while the posthead reading times (i.e., regression)
did not differ between canonical and single-scrambled sentences, double-scrambled sentences
showed posthead reading times that were significantly longer for all three noun phrases than they
were in the other two sentential conditions. Thus, single-scrambled sentences that contain a single
filler-gap dependency can be mostly resolved through prehead parsing in the third noun phrase
whereas double-scrambled sentences containing two filler-gap dependencies require heavy posthead parsing. Using the eye-tracking method, Tamaoka et al. (2009) revealed the involvement ofscrambling effects in the processing of grammatically and semantically simple sentences consisting of only four phrases. On the basis of their eye-tracking study, we assumed that the sentence
correctness decision task measures all of these forward and backward readings for scrambledorder sentences that cannot be measured by the self-paced reading method. The present study
used simple sentences constructed of four phrases, the same number of phrases per sentence asin the eye-tracking study of Tamaoka et al. (2009). Since all the nouns in the minimal-paired
four-phrase sentences are the same, it can be assumed that the delay in processing speed foundwith scrambled sentences compared with canonical sentences is caused by differences in word
order. Therefore, the sentence correctness decision task with whole sentence reading can beconsidered a reasonable method for measuring scrambling effects in simple sentences.3
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Participants Participants were 33 native speakers of Japanese (21 females and 12 males).
Their ages ranged from 18 years and 11 months to 32 years and 8 months (average age 21 years
and 10 months on the day of testing).
4.2.2 Materials Test items were 48 semantically plausible triplets such as those in (17), constructed using 48 VP adverbs (24 manner adverbs and 24 resultative adverbs). All the test items
had the same format as the examples in (17). Using a Latin square design, they were distributed
into three lists, each of which was then combined with 110 semantically plausible and implausible
fillers, yielding three lists of 158 sentences each. Each list was presented to 11 participants, andeach participant saw exactly one list.
4.2.3 Procedure The stimuli were presented to the participants in random order in the centerof a computer screen. The participants were instructed to respond as quickly and accurately as
possible in deciding whether or not the sentences made sense. They registered their responses bypressing either a ‘‘Yes’’ or a ‘‘No’’ button. The length of time between the appearance of asentence on the screen and the pressing of a button was recorded as the response time.
4.2.4 Data Analysis The extremes among sentence correctness decision times (less than 400
and longer than 5,000 milliseconds) were recorded as missing values. Before the analysis was
3
Although the details of phrasal processing for simple sentences were shown by the eye-tracking method using thesentence correctness decision task with whole sentence reading (Tamaoka et al. 2009), the present study used only thesentence correctness decision task, without measuring eye movements. The present study still has to make the assumptionthat overall reaction times for the task reflect the syntactic phrasal processing of filler-gap dependencies.

673

REMARKS AND REPLIES

performed, reaction times outside of 2.5 standard deviations at both the high and low ranges
were replaced by boundaries indicated at 2.5 standard deviations from the individual means ofparticipants in each category. The statistical tests that follow analyze both subject (F1 ) and item
(F2 ) variability. Only the stimulus items that evoked correct responses were used in the analysesof reaction times.
4.3 Results
The means of correct ‘‘Yes’’ reaction times and the error rates for sentence correctness decisions
are presented in table 1. A series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with repeatedmeasures in the three different word orders were conducted on reaction times (milliseconds) anderror rates (percentages) for sentences with VP adverbs (resultative adverbs and manner adverbs)
by using subject (F1 ) and item (F2 ) variabilities. The experiment revealed significant main effects
of word order on reaction times [F1(2, 64) ⳱ 13.911, p ⬍ .001; F2(2, 94) ⳱ 4.280, p ⬍ .05],
but not on error rates [F1(2, 64) ⳱ 0.103, p ⳱ .902; F2(2, 94) ⳱ 1.444, p ⳱ .241]. Whensentences with resultative adverbs and those with manner adverbs were analyzed separately, thesame trends were found. Subsequent simple paired contrasts indicated that sentences with VP
adverbs took longer to process in AOSV order than they did in OASV order [F1(1, 32) ⳱ 27.324,
p ⬍ .001; F2(1, 47) ⳱ 8.187, p ⬍ .01] or in OSAV order [F1(1, 32) ⳱ 20.456, p ⬍ .01; F2(1,47) ⳱ 4.207, p ⬍ .05]. The response latencies for OASV and OSAV orders did not differ
significantly from each other [F1(1, 32)⳱1.439, p⳱.239; F2(1, 47)⳱0.001, p⳱.970] (figure 1).
Overall, transitive sentences in which the object precedes the subject took longer to process
in the AOSV word order than they did in the OASV and OSAV orders, and the processing times
for the latter two were comparable, as indicated in (23).
(23) Overall reaction times
AOSV ⬎ OASV ⳱ OSAV
5 Discussion
There are two major competing syntactic analyses of the subject position in Japanese transitive
sentences in which the subject is preceded by the object. Analysis 1 claims that the subject
obligatorily moves to Spec,TP, as shown in (13) and (19), thereby predicting that sentences with
Table 1
Reaction times and error rates for OSV sentences with VP adverbs
Positions ofadverbs
AOSV
OASV
OSAV

Reaction times (ms)Error rates (%)

M

SD

M

SD

1,695
1,550
1,590

259
253
222

2.55
2.92
2.92

3.92
4.26
5.06

674

REMARKS AND REPLIES

*

1,800

*

1,750
Reaction time (ms)

1,700
1,650
1,600
1,550
1,500
1,450
1,400
1,350
AOSV

OASV

OSAV

Figure 1
Histograms for the reaction times of the sentences with the AOSV, OASV, and OSAV word
orders. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean, and the asterisks denote p ⬍ .05.

VP adverbs take longer to process in AOSV and OASV word orders than in OSAV order. Analysis
2, in contrast, holds that the subject may stay in situ within the VP, as shown in (14), (20), and(21), leading to the expectation that AOSV is more difficult to process than OASV and OSAV,
and that OASV is either as easy as OSAV (with Assumption 2a) or more difficult than OSAV
(with Assumption 2b).
The overall results of the present experiment summarized in (23) are consistent with theprediction of Analysis 2 with Assumption 2a (i.e., (22b)) but not with the prediction of Analysis
2 with Assumption 2b (22c) or the prediction of Analysis 1 (22a). Most importantly, the OASV
word order was significantly less difficult to process than the AOSV word order, contrary to theprediction of Analysis 1. This suggests that the subject of a Japanese transitive sentence may stayin the VP when it follows the object, as has been argued and defended in a series of papers by
Miyagawa (e.g., Miyagawa 2001, 2003).4 This, in turn, supports the central premise of the ISH,
namely, that the base position of the external argument is within the VP rather than being outside
the VP to begin with. Furthermore, the comparable reaction times for OASV and OSAV are

4
One might object to this conclusion by pointing out that the observed heavier cost for AOSV compared with OASV
could also be consistent with Analysis 1 if the distance factor in chain formation were taken into account: the adverb
crosses O and S in AOSV, whereas in OASV, it crosses only S. This move, however, would lead to the incorrect predictionthat OASV takes longer to process than OSAV, because in Analysis 1 the adverb crosses S in the former but crosses
nothing in the latter.

REMARKS AND REPLIES

675

consistent with Assumption 2a but not with Assumption 2b, indicating that VP adverbs can beinitially merged to the left of the base position of the subject within the VP.
Thus far, it is evident that the subject of a transitive verb may stay in situ within the VP
when it is preceded by the object, as schematically represented in (14). However, this by nomeans entails that the structure in (13), in which the subject as well as the object has moved outof the VP, is impossible to attain. On the contrary, there is good reason to believe that Japanesegrammar allows not only the structure in (14) but also the structure in (13). Consider the following
example:(24) Kabin-o Taroo-ga [ T′ kinoo
kowasita].
vase-ACC Taro-NOM
yesterday broke‘Taro broke a vase yesterday.’The subject in (24) occurs to the left of the TP adverb kinoo ‘yesterday’. Assuming that TP
adverbs occur in TP, this example suggests that the subject may move to TP (or a higher position)even if it is preceded by the object. Furthermore, the subject appears to be able to move even toMP, as suggested by (25), in which the subject precedes the MP adverb zannennagara ‘unfortunately’, which by hypothesis occurs in MP.
(25) Syoosin-oTaroo-ga [ M′ zannennagara zitaisita].
promotion-ACC Taro-NOM
unfortunately refused‘Unfortunately Taro refused (an offer of) promotion.’
The analysis that the subject in sentences like (24) and (25) is located outside the VP is further
supported by the fact that the subject zen’in ‘all’ cannot be inside the scope of negation when it
occurs to the left of an MP or a TP adverb, as pointed out by Miyagawa (2001).
ti yom-anakat-ta (yo/to omou).
(26) Kono ronbun-oi zen’in-ga kinoo
this article-ACCi all-NOM yesterday ti read-NEG-PAST‘This article, all did not read yesterday.’ (??not ⬎ all, all ⬎ not)(27) Kono ronbun-oi zen’in-ga saiwaini ti yom-anakat-ta (yo/to omou).
this article-ACCi all-NOM fortunately ti read-NEG-PAST‘This article, all did not fortunately read.’ (*not ⬎ all, all ⬎ not)(Miyagawa 2001:301)
In contrast, if an MP or a TP adverb is substituted for a VP adverb, the sentence becomesambiguous between the partial negation reading and the total negation reading, as shown in (28).
(28) Kono ronbun-oi zen’in-ga yorokonde(wa) ti yom-anakat-ta (yo/to omou).
ti read-NEG-PAST
this article-ACCi all-NOM happily‘This article, all didn’t read happily.’ (not ⬎ all, all ⬎ not)(Miyagawa 2001:302)
This example is semantically ambiguous because it can be parsed either as in (29a), in which thesubject has moved to Spec,TP (i.e., Analysis 1 in (13)), or as in (29b), in which the subject stays
in the VP (i.e., Analysis 2 in (14)).

676

REMARKS AND REPLIES(29) a. [ TP Oj Si [[ VP ti VP-A tj V] Neg] T]
b. [ TP Oi [[ VP S VP-A ti V] Neg] T]
The structures in (29a) and (29b) are associated with the total negation reading and the partial
negation reading, respectively. Similarly, the example provided in (16) is semantically ambiguous.
On the basis of these examples, Miyagawa (2001) concludes that with respect to grammar, thesubject in Japanese may or may not stay in the VP when it follows the object.
If the discussion in the previous paragraph is on the right path, the experimental materials,
such as those in (17), must be structurally ambiguous as well. This implies that the sentences in(17) may be parsed either as in (19) or as in (20). For the sake of convenience, (17), (19), and(20) are repeated here, with some modifications, as (30), (31), and (32), respectively.
(30) a. AOSV
Yukkuri sinbun-oTaroo-ga yonda.
slowly newspaper-ACC Taro-NOM read
‘Taro read a newspaper slowly.’b. OASV
Sinbun-oyukkuri Taroo-ga yonda.
newspaper-ACC slowly Taro-NOM readc. OSAV
Sinbun-oTaroo-ga yukkuri yonda.
newspaper-ACC Taro-NOM slowly read(31) Schematic structures of the sentences in (17) (⳱ (30)) in Analysis 1 with Assumption
2aa. [ TP Ai O S [ VP . . . ti . . . V]]
b. [ TP O Ai S [ VP . . . ti . . . V]]
c. [ TP O S [ VP . . . A . . . V](32) Schematic structures of the sentences in (17) (⳱ (30)) in Analysis 2 with Assumption
2aa. [ TP Ai O [ VP . . . ti S . . . V]]
b. [ TP O [ VP . . . A S . . . V]]
c. [ TP O [ VP . . . S A . . . V]]
We assume that the structures in (31a) and (32a) are both grammatically possible structures forthe sentence in (30a) (and likewise for the (b) and (c) items), and we refer to this analysis as
Analysis 2′. Analysis 2′ makes the same predictions as Analysis 2 with respect to the reaction
times to sentences like those in (17) (⳱ (30)) (i.e., AOSV ⬎ OASV ⳱ OSAV). This is because(31a–c) are structurally more complex than (32a–c), respectively, and because it is widely assumed
in the sentence-processing literature that the human parser preferentially constructs simpler syntactic structures (e.g., (32a)) when the input (e.g., (30a)) and the grammar allow for multiple possibilities (e.g., (31a) and (32a)) (see, e.g., Frazier and Fodor 1978, Pritchett and Whitman 1995, Frazierand Clifton 1996, Gibson 1998, Hawkins 2004, Marantz 2005). This implies that although (31)REMARKS AND REPLIES

677

and (32) are both grammatically possible analyses of (30), the human parser is likely to construct
the structures in (32) rather than those in (31) in the present experiment, in which the stimuli
contain no explicit cues to the contrary. Thus, if we adopt Analysis 2′ instead of Analysis 2, themain conclusion remains the same—namely, that in Japanese, the subject may stay in the VP
when it occurs to the right of the object.5
Thus far, we have been assuming that the subject always moves to Spec,TP in canonicallyordered SOV sentences. However, there exists a differing view. In some versions of the ISH, thesubject in Japanese stays within the VP throughout the derivation, regardless of whether it precedes
or follows the object (Fukui 1986, Kuroda 1988). Although this proposal is not very widely
accepted in the current literature, for the sake of completeness, we will consider whether or not
it can account for the experimental results reported here. With respect to this particular versionof the ISH, the discussion in section 2 needs to be reinterpreted in such a way that VP adverbs
initially occur in ‘‘the lower part of VP’’ and TP adverbs, in ‘‘the higher part of VP,’’ as shownin (33).
(33) [ VP (TP-A) S (TP-A) [ V′ (VP-A) O (VP-A) V]]
When the object undergoes scrambling as shown in (34), the subject stays in the same position
as the subject in (33).
(34) Oi S [ V′ (VP-A) ti (VP-A) V]
We will refer to this analysis as Analysis 3. In Analysis 3, the VP adverb occupies its canonicalposition in sentences with the OSAV word order, such as (17c), and the adverb has undergone
scrambling in sentences with the AOSV order, such as (17a), and those with the OASV order,
such as (17b), as indicated in (35). (The trace of the object is not represented.)(35) Schematic structures of the sentences in (17) in Analysis 3
a. Ai O S [ V′ . . . ti . . . V]
b. O Ai S [ V′ . . . ti . . . V]
c. O S [ V′ . . . A . . . V]
Since (35a) and (35b) involve scrambling and are therefore syntactically more complex than(35c), it is predicted that sentences with a VP adverb should be more difficult to process in the
AOSV order and the OASV order than in the OSAV order.
(36) Predicted processing load
Analysis 3: AOSV ⳱ OASV ⬎ OSAV

5
To put it the other way around, as pointed out by a reviewer, in constructions where the structures in (31) areforced or favored over those in (32), we would expect that the processing prediction of Analysis 1 (i.e., AOSV ⳱ OASV⬎ OSAV) should be borne out. For example, in Miyagawa’s (2001) approach, if the object is an anaphor, and theantecedent is the subject, the object would be in an Ā-position and the subject in Spec,TP, as in (31). Testing this prediction
will be an important topic for future research.

678

REMARKS AND REPLIESThe prediction of Analysis 3 shown in (36) is the same as the prediction of Analysis 1 shown in(22a), and it is crucially incompatible with the results of the experiment, reported in section 4.
Therefore, Analysis 3 cannot account for the distribution of Japanese adverbs and their processing
data. In other words, the subject of a transitive sentence in Japanese must move to Spec,TP when
it precedes the object.
6 Conclusion
In this article, we have presented processing evidence for the hypothesis that the subject, or theexternal argument, of a transitive verb in Japanese overtly moves to Spec,TP when it precedes
the object, but it may stay in situ within the VP when it follows the object. This, in turn, supports
the central premise of the ISH, which states that the base position of the external argument iswithin the VP. A broader implication of this study is that sentence processing constitutes animportant testing ground for the evaluation of competing linguistic hypotheses. Finally, the technique used in this study to investigate the syntactic positions of subjects and other sentential
constituents in Japanese may be applicable to many free word order languages other than Japanese.
This will hopefully contribute to the development of experimental syntax in nonconfigurational
languages.
References
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chujo, Kazumitsu. 1983. Nihongo tanbun-no rikai katei – Bunrikai sutoratejii no sougo kankei [The interrelationships among strategies for sentence comprehension]. Japanese Journal of Psychology 54:
250–256.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Frazier, Lyn, and Charles Clifton, Jr. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frazier, Lyn, and Janet D. Fodor. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition
6:1–34.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its applications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68:1–76.
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical Form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Kimura, Naoki. 2004. An analysis on Japanese multiple adverbial construction: Configurationality of modality, negation, and VP. Master’s thesis, International Christian University, Tokyo.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese. Linguistic
Inquiry 32:597–633.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Modal Phrase and adjuncts. In Japanese/Korean linguistics 2, ed. by Patricia
M. Clancy, 410–428. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

REMARKS AND REPLIES

679

Koizumi, Masatoshi, and Katsuo Tamaoka. 2004. Cognitive processing of Japanese sentences with ditransitive verbs. Gengo Kenkyu 125:173–190.
Koizumi, Masatoshi, and Katsuo Tamaoka. 2006. Bunkaisekijikken-niyoru nihongo-fukushirui-no gojyunno hantei [Determination of basic word order of adverbs in Japanese by a sentence-processing experiment]. Cognitive Studies 13:392–403.
Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1988. The positions of subjects. Lingua 85:211–258.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not. Lingvisticae Investigationes 12:1–47.
Marantz, Alec. 2005. Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic
Review 22:429–445.
Mazuka, Reiko, Kenji Itoh, and Tadahisa Kondo. 2002. Costs of scrambling in Japanese sentence processing.
In Sentence processing in East Asian languages, ed. by Mineharu Nakayama, 131–166. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai nihongo-no kozo [Structure of contemporary Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Light verbs and the ergative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 20:659–668.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by
Michael Kenstowicz, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In Word order andscrambling, ed. by Simin Karimi, 177–200. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2006. Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers in Japanese and Korean. In
Japanese/Korean linguistics 14, ed. by Timothy J. Vance and Kimberly Jones, 270–282. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Koji Arikawa. 2007. Locality in syntax and floating numeral quantifiers. Linguistic
Inquiry 38:645–670.
Miyamoto, Edson T., and Michiko Nakamura. 2005. Unscrambling some misconceptions: A comment on
Koizumi and Tamaoka 2004. Gengo Kenkyu 128:113–129.
Miyamoto, Edson T., and Shoichi Takahashi. 2002. Sources of difficulty in the processing of scramblingin Japanese. In Sentence processing in East Asian languages, ed. by Mineharu Nakayama, 167–188.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Nakau, Minoru. 1980. Bunfukushi-no hikaku [The comparison of sentential adverbs]. In Nichi-eigo hikaku
koza 2: Bunpo [Lectures on Japanese-English comparative studies 2: Grammar], ed. by Tetsuya
Kunihiro, 157–219. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Nakayama, Miheharu. 1995. Scrambling and probe recognition. In Japanese sentence processing, ed. by
Reiko Mazuka and Noriko Nagai, 257–273. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Noda, Hisashi. 1984. Fukushi-no gojyun [Word order of adverbs]. Nihongo Kyoiku 52:79–90.
Pritchett, Bradley L., and John B. Whitman. 1995. Syntactic representation and interpretive preference. In
Japanese sentence processing, ed. by Reiko Mazuka and Noriko Nagai, 65–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Saito, Mamoru. 2003. A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua 113:
481–518.
Saito, Mamoru, and Hajime Hoji. 1983. Weak crossover and Move ␣ in Japanese. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 1:245–259.
Takubo, Yukinori. 1987. Togokozo-to bunmyaku joho [Syntactic structure and contextual information].
Nihongogaku 6.5:37–48.
Tamaoka, Katsuo, Michiko Asano, Yayoi Miyaoka, and Kazuhiko Yokosawa. 2009. Pre- and post-headphrasal parsing of canonical and scrambled Japanese active sentences measured by the eye-tracking

680

REMARKS AND REPLIES

method. In Nihon Gengo Gakkai Dai 138-Kai Taikai Yokooshuu [Proceedings of the 138th General
Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan], 270–275. Kyoto: Linguistic Society of Japan.
Tamaoka, Katsuo, and Masatoshi Koizumi. 2006. Issues on the scrambling effects in the processing ofJapanese sentences: Reply to Miyamoto and Nakamura (2005) regarding the experimental study by
Koizumi and Tamaoka (2004). Gengo Kenkyu 129:181–226.
Tamaoka, Katsuo, Hiromu Sakai, Jun-ichiro Kawahara, and Yayoi Miyaoka. 2003. The effects of phraselength order and scrambling in the processing of visually-presented Japanese sentences. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 32:431–454.
Tamaoka, Katsuo, Hiromu Sakai, Jun-ichiro Kawahara, Yayoi Miyaoka, Hyunjung Lim, and Masatoshi
Koizumi. 2005. Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic roles,
case particles or grammatical functions? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34:273–324.
Yamashita, Hiroko. 1997. The effects of word-order and case marking information on the processing ofJapanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26:163–188.
Yamashita, Hiroko, and Franklin Chang. 2001. ‘‘Long before short’’ preference in the production of a headfinal language. Cognition 81:B45–B55.
(Koizumi)
Department of Linguistics
Graduate School of Arts and Letters
Tohoku University27-1 Kawauchi Aoba-ku, Sendai
980-8576 Japankoizumi@sal.tohoku.ac.jp(Tamaoka)
Graduate School of Languages and Cultures
Nagoya University
Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya
464-8601 Japanktamaoka@lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp