John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons.
Edited by Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman and Rachel Nye.
© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies tobe used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post
this PDF on the open internet.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from thepublishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

Agreements that occur mainlyin the main clause*
Shigeru Miyagawa
MIT

Most agreement systems target a grammatical entity within the sentence,
typically the subject but in some cases the object or the dative. There is anotherkind of agreement found in languages such as Souletin, a Basque dialect, thattargets the hearer. I will look at this type of so-called allocutive agreement andpursue two main issues. First, although it targets the hearer, the form of theagreement is the same as the regular phi-feature agreement used for subject/
object. This means that the allocutive agreement must be part of a probe-goalrelation, leading to the question, where is the goal? I argue that something like
Ross’s Performative Analysis furnishes the second-person goal. Second, thedistribution of the allocutive agreement is essentially the same as the politenessmarking on the verb in Japanese, which leads to the hypothesis that, despite
Japanese being characterized as a typical agreementless language, the politenessmarker is, in fact, an implementation of second-person agreement. Moreover, thisallocutive agreement in Japanese has a distribution that limits it to the root clauseas originally conceived by Emonds (1969).

1. Root vs. non-root
Emonds (1969, 1976) noted that while structure-preserving transformations may
apply ­virtually in any type of clause, those that he identified as non-structure preserving transformations are limited to the root clause, which he defined as follows.
(1) Root(Emonds 1969: 6)
		A root will mean either the highest S in a tree, an S immediately dominatedby the highest S or the reported S in direct discourse.

* I am grateful to Liliane Haegeman for extensive comments on an earlier version that helped
shape this work as well as to two anonymous reviewers. I also thank Hiroki Maezawa, Hideki
Maki, Asako Uchibori, Yukiko Ueda, Reiko Vermeulen, and the audiences at the GIST2 conference on the Main Clause Phenomena at Ghent University in November 2010 and at a classat the Nagoya University in June 2011 for their comments and suggestions.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved

Shigeru Miyagawa

In these contexts, a non-structure preserving transformation such as N
­ egative
Constituent Preposing (NCP) may apply, but not in a non-root clause, which
requires all transformations to be structure-preserving (see also Emonds 2004, thisvolume).
(2) a.
		 b.
		 c.

Never had I had to borrow money.
John said that never had he had to borrow money.
*The fact that never had he had to borrow money is well-known.

Hooper and Thompson (1973) criticize Emonds’ proposal by pointing out that roottransformations apply in a variety of clauses outside of what Emonds called root
clauses. One such example is the following:(3)

I found out that never before had he had to borrow money. (H&T (119))Why is it that root transformations (RTs) are possible in some subordinate environments but not in others? What Hooper and Thompson point out is that the RTs that
Emonds identified all involve some sort of emphasis; the following is a partial listof RTs.
(4) Root transformations:
(Emonds 1969; see also Emonds 2004)		NCP, VP preposing, topicalization, prepositional phrase substitution,­subject replacement, direct quote preposing, etc.
For example, NCP is a transformation that places special emphasis on the negative­portion of an asserted clause (Never have I had to …), and direct quote preposing
moves the quoted material to the left edge in order to highlight it. According to Hooper
and Thompson, the correct way to view the root/non-root distinction is to recognizethat the so-called RTs that Emonds identified all embody this meaning of emphasis,and because emphasis occurs naturally in asserted environments, “[r]oot transformations are restricted to application in asserted clauses” (H&T: 472). On this view, roottransformations are incompatible with presupposed clauses such as the complementin the complex NP headed by fact in (2c), which by nature does not involve assertion(see Heycock 2006 for criticism of Hooper & Thompson). But in (3), the predicate findout allows its complement to contain the meaning of assertion, something I return tolater.1

1. See Emonds (2004) for a revision of Emonds (1969, 1976) that accounts for many of
Hooper & Thompsons’s (1973) counterexamples. I maintain the original conception of Root
(Emonds 1969) because, as I will show, it captures precisely the distribution of allocutive­agreement in Japanese.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause

In a series of works, Haegeman (e.g. 2006, 2010) and Haegeman and Ürögdi(2010) argue that the asserted/non-asserted distinction follows from proposals that
postulate movement in those structures that block root transformations. For example,
temporal adjunct clauses have been argued to involve the movement of an operator
such as a wh-phrase or a null operator (e.g. Geis 1970; Larson 1987, 1990). H­ aegemanargues that this movement gives rise to an intervention effect for RTs such as NCP
and topicalization, in turn, suggesting, as Hooper and Thompson, that there is noinherent and independent distinction to be made between root and non-root clauses.
I support this general approach of using syntactic intervention to account for theabsence of RTs in certain environments. At the same time, I show that Emonds was
essentially correct to isolate certain clauses as having a special status: unlike the RTs
he identified, which can be explained in principle by syntactic intervention, the phenomenon I discuss – agreements that occur mainly in the main clause – requires asuper-structure above the utterance that recalls Ross’s Performative Analysis (1970).
As we will see, this special type of agreement is identical in form to the standard subject (or object) – verb agreement, except that the goal represents the hearer and not
the subject. To implement this within the probe-goal system, we need to postulate asuper-structure above the utterance that contains a representation of the hearer in aposition that constitutes the local search domain for the relevant probe. This superstructure happens to correspond perfectly to Emonds’ original conception of root
clause as defined above in (1).
I first discuss allocutive agreement in Basque, and then turn to a similar phenomenon in Japanese, that of politeness marking. I show that the distribution of allocutive agreement matches Emonds’ original root clause. Finally, I turn to topicalizationin Japanese, where we will see that its distribution diverges widely from “allocutive
agreement,” indicating that, as argued widely since Emonds’ original work, RTs suchas topicalization are not RTs as Emonds originally conceived, but rather, they are
conditioned by syntactic/semantic factors such as intervention.

2. Allocutive agreement in Basque
There is a type of agreement called allocutive agreement, which is found in Souletin,
an eastern dialect of Basque (Oyharçabal 1993).2 For the proposition “Peter worked,”
one typically finds two agreements, the subject-verb agreement, which holds constant,and allocutive agreement, which varies in four ways depending on whom the speakeris speaking to.

2.

I am grateful to Karlos Arregi for bringing Oyharçabal (1993) to my attention.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa(5) a. To a male friend
allocutive agr.
subject agr.
			 Pettek
lan
egin
dik.
			 Peter.erg work.abs do.prf aux-3.s.abs-2.s.c.msc.alloc-3.s.erg
			‘Peter worked.’		b. To a female friend
			 Pettek
lan
egin
din.
			 Peter.erg work.abs do.prf aux-3.s.abs-2.s.c.fm.alloc-3.s.erg
		c. To someone higher in status (formal)
			 Pettek
lan
egin
dizü.
			 Peter.erg work.abs do.prf aux-3.s.abs-2.s.f.alloc-3.s.erg
		d. Plural addressee
			 Pettek
lan
egin
du.
			 Peter.erg work.abs do.prf aux-3.s.abs-3.s.erg
All of these sentences mean “Peter worked,” but in (a), the sentence is uttered to a malefriend, and (b) to a female friend. The version in (c) is appropriate for a hearer who isolder or higher in status. The example in (d) shows that there is no plural allocutive
agreement so it does not occur if the addressee is plural.
An important point to note about allocutive agreement is that it is authentic
agreement on a par with subject and object agreement. In Basque, there can only
be one 2nd person agreement within a clause (also only one 1st person agreement)(thanks to K
­ arlos Arregi for this information). We see that the allocutive agreement,
which is always 2nd person, competes with the subject/object 2nd person agreement
morpheme. If a sentence contains a 2nd person subject or object, the allocutive agreement cannot occur (Basque is a subject/object agreement language). Consequently, inthe following, the allocutive agreement cannot arise.
(6) a. (Nik
hi)
ikusi
haut.
			 (1.s.erg 2.s.c.abs) see.prf aux-2.s.c.abs-1.s.erg
			‘I saw you.’		b. (Zuek
ni)
ikusi
naizue.
			 (2.p.erg 1.s.abs) see.prf aux-1.s.abs-2.p.erg
			‘You saw me.’
Allocutive agreement is a Main Clause Phenomenon in a way that is more strict
than the typical RTs in English: it only occurs in the main clause, as far as it is reported
in Oyharçabal (1993). So, for example, it does not occur in relative clauses:(7) a.
						[Lo egiten duen]
gizona Manex dun
sleeping aux.3e.comp man.the John cop.3a.allo.fem‘The man [who is sleeping] is John.’© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause

		b.
			

*[Lo egiten dinan]
gizonasleeping aux.3e.allofem.comp man.the			 Manex dun
			 John 3a.cop.allofem
It also does not occur in complements:(8) a. Ez dinatnahi [gerta dakion]
			 neg aux.1e.allofem want happen 3a.aux.3d.comp			‘I don’t want it to happen to him.’
		b.
			

*Ez dinatnahi [gerta diakionan]
neg aux.1e.allofem want happen 3a.aux.3d.allofem.comp

Not only is allocutive agreement excluded from subordinate environments, but it isprohibited even in the main clause if the sentence is a question.
(9) a. Lan egiten duia hire lagunak?
			 work aux.3e.q your friend.erg
			‘Does your friend work?
		b.
			

*Lan egiten dinahire lagunak?
work aux.3e.allofem.q your friend.erg

This last point is particularly important because it hints at the source of the allocutive
agreement. As Oyharçabal (1993) notes, the distribution of such agreement points
to the fact that it can occur only if there is no lexical complementizer. Questions
have such a Q complementizer, and embedded structures have other types of lexical
complementizer. Based on this, Oyharçabal argues that the allocutive agreement isrelated to C, despite it being pronounced at T where the subject/object agreement is
pronounced.
(10)

Allocutive agreement is borne by C. (see Oyharçabal 1993)

The fact that the allocutive agreement is limited to those clauses that do not have alexical complementizer recalls the proposal by den Besten (1977/1983) that the root/
non-root distinction is a function of whether there is a lexical complementizer (nonroot) or not (root). On this analysis, RTs such as the NCP are to C, and they can only
apply if some lexical material does not already fill C. This derives the root/non-root
distinction strictly from what is on the head (C).3

3. In cartographic approaches (cf. Rizzi 1997) this would not hold. See also Haegeman(2000) who discusses embedded NCP.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa

However, there must be more to it than just the issue of whether the C alreadyhas lexical material. We saw that the allocutive agreement is authentic agreement byvirtue of the fact that it competes with the normal subject/object 2nd person agreement. This means that it starts out as an uninterpretable feature (probe), and mustfind a goal (“you”) with the proper interpretable features in order to undergo valuation. There are at least two questions to answer. First, where is the probe? Second,
where is the goal?
For the first question, we already saw from Oyharçabal (1993) that the allocutive
agreement is related to C. This is consistent with the recent idea that the probe foragreement begins at C (or, more precisely, on a phase head) (Chomsky 2005, 2008,
etc.) and is typically inherited by T, where it is pronounced. The fact that the allocutive
agreement competes with a lexical element associated with C provides clear evidence
that it starts out at C. Turning to the second question, in order for the allocutive probe
at C to be properly valued, it must find a goal within its local search domain. We sawfrom the example earlier (“Peter works”) that there is no overt 2nd person noun phrase
in the sentence to give value to the allocutive probe. This means that some 2nd person
element must be present that is not pronounced. I adopt Speas and Tenny’s (2003)
proposal that in the main clause and in some subordinate clauses, there is a superstructure, which they call “Speech Act” headed by “sa” (Speech Act) that furnishes
information about the speaker and the hearer and their relationship. Their proposal is
the modern version of Ross’s Performative Analysis.
(11)

saP
(SPEAKER)
sa

sa
sa

(UTTERANCE CONTENT)sasa(HEARER)This is a declarative sentence, and the asymmetrical relations holding among thevarious elements such as the speaker and the hearer are a function of the particularsyntactic relation that each holds within the structure. The head of the structure is“sa” (Speech Act), which begins in the lower position, and moves to the head position of the shell (saP). They suggest that the hearer is raised in the case of questions,something that I will not be concerned with in this article. See their article for thedetails.
How is the allocutive probe given valuation in this structure? Let us look at thestructure with the allocutive probe, which is a normal uninterpretable agreement­feature at C of the utterance, CP. For reasons that will become clear in a moment,© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clauseI adopt Haegeman and Hill’s (2011) revision of Speas and Tenny’s structure, given
below. ­Following them, I mark the highest projection, the “shell,” as SAP, and the lower
one of “sa” “saP.”
(12)

SAP
SA′

SPEAKER

saP

SA

sa′

HEARER

CP = utterancesaSpecifierC′

C φallocutive probeTP

Two points to be noted for this structure are, first, the allocutive probe does not­c-command its goal (HEARER) at this point, and second, the allocutive agreement, asa marking of politeness/informality, should have scope over the entire sentence. With
these points in mind, let us suppose that the allocutive probe raises to the head “sa,”possibly as a result of head-raising of C, and, as with Speas and Tenny’s proposal, this“sa” head moves to the head position of the shell (thanks to an anonymous reviewer
for suggesting to use Haegeman and Hill’s revision of Speas and Tenny’s structure).
(13)

SAP
SPEAKERSA′
SAφallocutive probe

saP

HEARERsasa′
CP = utterance
Specifier

C′
C

TP

Now the allocutive probe properly c-commands its goal, HEARER. Moreover, once
it is raised to this higher position inside the SAP shell, it has the entire sentence in its
scope, which gives it the right interpretation of marking the overall utterance for levelsof politeness. The HEARER in Souletin comes with not only the 2nd person feature,
but also gender and level of politeness (colloquial, formal). The reason for adopting
this structure by Haegeman and Hill over Speas and Tenny’s is that in this structure,
the allocutive probe (and possibly the C that it occurs on) is able to c-command it’s

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa

original position after being raised to the higher SA. In Speas and Tenny’s structure,
the “sa” head fails to c-command the C that initially hosts the allocutive probe.

3. Politeness marking in Japanese as a form of allocutive agreement
Politeness marking in Japanese parallels allocutive agreement in Basque both in function and in being associated with C (Miyagawa 1987; Oyharçabal 1993). The politenessmarker -mas- (its nominal counterpart is -des-) occurs on the verbal inflection andindicates that the speaker is intending to be polite to the hearer. In its absence, thespeaker is intending to show the informal nature of the speaker-hearer relationship.
(14) a. Peter-wa hataraki-mas-i-ta.
			 Peter-top work-mas-past(formal)		b. Peter-wa hatarai-ta.
			 Peter-top work-past			‘Peter worked.’(colloquial)

Harada (1976: 553) aptly calls this polite form “performative honorifics” because its
usage is conditioned by “such categories as the speaker, the addressee, the situationin which the sentence is uttered, and so on…”. To use the politeness marker, or todecide not to use it, the speaker must minimally be aware of his/her relationship to thehearer; one would use the politeness marker for a hearer who is socially superior or
equal (Harada 1976). The fact that it is normally directed to the hearer (see Uchibori
2007, for example) makes it appear as a form of agreement, an idea that I support. I
go further and argue that the politeness marker is a form of 2nd person agreement
parallel to the Souletin allocutive agreement, which we saw is a standard 2nd person
agreement that occurs at C and interpreted in the Speech Act structure to give it theforce of politeness-level marking.
Unlike the allocutive agreement in Souletin, the politeness marker in Japanese canoccur in certain complement clauses as well as in the main clause. Complement clauses
in Japanese typically have one of two types of complementizers, to for non-­factive
or quoted clauses and koto/no for factive clauses, and “[t]he few complement constructions that do permit [the politeness marker] to occur are interpretable, without
exception, as ‘direct discourses’”, and as such, they are all instances of to complement
constructions (Harada 1976: 544). As we will see, there are a handful of exceptions
that Harada himself noted, which we return to later. What the politeness marker inJapanese has in common with the Souletin allocutive agreement is that it is borne by C.
I begin with the argument for this point.
In Miyagawa (1987), I argued that the politeness marker is borne by C despite
the fact that it is pronounced at T. In that work, I assumed that the politeness marker
begins at T, and at LF, it raises by excorporation to the C region. However, given the© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clauserecent assumptions about agreement as starting out at C, and the fact that this view isconsistent with the Basque allocutive agreement, I assume that the politeness marker isa form of allocutive agreement that begins at C. Below, I briefly summarize the relevant
portion of the analysis in Miyagawa (1987).
One way to ask a wh-question in Japanese, a wh-in-situ language, is to use thequestion particle ka, which comes at the end of the sentence.
(15) Dare-ga ki-mas-uka?
		who-nom come-mas-pres q		 ‘Who will come?’
Note that this question has the politeness marker -mas- on the verb; without the politeness marker, the ka question is illicit (Miyagawa 1987).4(16) *Dare-ga kuru ka?
		 who-nom come q		 ‘Who will come?’
To ask (16) appropriately, one must use another particle, no, or simply rising intonation. I will focus on ka. What is the difference between the grammatical wh-questionin (15), which has the politeness marker, and the ungrammatical one in (16) that lacks
the politeness marker? The relevant condition, although not so apparent from theseexamples, is that the question particle ka must be selected by a head.
(17)

Ka must be selected by a head.

We can see this below, in which ka is fine with a bridge verb but is degraded witha non-bridge verb (see Miyagawa 1987 for other arguments to support (17)) (somespeakers find a sharper contrast if these sentences are turned into yes-no questions).
(18) Bill-wa [CP dare-ga
kuru ka] kiita.
		Bill-top
who-nom come q asked
		 ‘Bill asked who will come.’(19) ?*Bill-wa [CP dare-ga
kuru ka] donatta.
		Bill-top
John-nom come q shouted		 ‘Bill shouted who will come.’
A bridge verb selects its complement, so ka is fine, but a non-bridge verb such as“shout” does not, and ka is not allowed in its complement clause. Note that in (18),which contains a bridge verb, the verb in the subordinate clause is in the colloquialform, not in the polite form. This means that the selecting head – the matrix verb

4. As noted in Miyagawa (1987), adding a sentential particle such as -na ‘I wonder…’ after
ka makes (16) acceptable. I give the analysis for why such a head as a sentential particle canlicense ka in the absence of the politeness marker.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa“ask” – is playing the same function as the politeness marker in the matrix clause question in (15) above.
A reasonable way to think about what we just observed is that the politenessmarker is associated with a head that is capable of selecting the matrix clause andthe ka contained in it. If it is to parallel indirect questions such as in (18), which are
selected by a verbal head, the head associated with politeness marking should besome kind of a predicate head. A good candidate for this is the Speech Act structure proposed by Speas and Tenny (2003) (with revision by Haegeman & Hill 2011),
who ­suggest that there is a structure above the pronounced portion of a sentencethat contains discourse information about the participants – speaker, hearer, and therelationship between the two. There are two points essential to our discussion. First,
as we saw earlier, the Speech Act structure furnishes the representation of the hearer,which is a second ­person entity. This is needed to give valuation to the allocutive
agreement. ­Second, the head of the Speech Act structure, “speech act,” according
to Speas and Tenny, parallels small v in being a predicate of some sort. They suggest, in fact, that the Speech Act structure, headed by the Speech Act head (“sa”), is
equivalent to the predicate structure found in the vP domain as proposed by Haleand Keyser (1998, 1999). That “sa” is a predicate head finds support in the analysis
of verb-based sentential particles in Romanian and West Flemish by Haegeman and
Hill (2011), in which these verb-based particles occur as “sa” heads. As we will see,the analysis of politeness marking provides further support for the predicate natureof “sa.”Following is the structure for allocutive agreement with the CP being the questionthat is uttered. I have given a head-final structure now that we are discussing Japanese.
One point on which Japanese differs from Souletin is that the politeness marker – what
I assume to be allocutive agreement – may occur in questions, as we saw. This is not
surprising since Japanese allows C recursion, as in to-ka ‘C-Q’. In (20), C recursion
allows CQ that takes ka to occur with C that initially hosts the ϕ allocutive probe.
(20)

SAP
SPEAKERutterance

HEARER

SA′

saP

SA
sa′
sa

CP
C′

C

TP
CQ
ka

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved

Cφallocutive probeAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause

In Japanese, CQ is the head that hosts the question particle ka, and, as shown in (20),this CQ is appropriately selected by “sa,” a predicate element according to Speas andTenny. “sa” occurs because there is politeness marker -mas- in the structure. The factthat “sa” can license ka in the same way that a verb can in indirect questions is further
evidence for the verbal nature of “sa”. The other C head hosts the allocutive probe; likein Souletin, I assume that this probe raises to the “sa” head, and this “sa” head raises
to the position of SA, where it c-commands its goal (HEARER) and it has the entire
utterance in its scope as the politeness marker.
The analysis of politeness marking in Japanese as allocutive agreement makes theprediction that the politeness marker should not occur in indirect questions, a prediction that is borne out in the following example.
(21) Hanako-wa [dare-ga kuru/*ki-mas-uka] sitte i-mas-u.
		Hanako-top who-nom come/come-mas-pres q know mas-pres		 ‘Hanako knows who is coming.’
In its use as a verb of indirect question, the matrix verb “know” must select anindirect question with ka. This is fine with the informal form of the verb. However, if the politeness marker appears, what the matrix verb is selecting for is not
an indirect question because the CP with ka is embedded in the larger Speech Act
structure, and “know” has inappropriately selected this Speech Act structure. As
a result, inclusion of the politeness marker leads to a violation of the selectional
requirement for the matrix verb “know.” This further shows that in the absence ofthe politeness marker, the Speech Act structure is not projected, which differentiates it from Souletin, where colloquial as well as formal forms apparently project
the Speech Act structure.

3.1 Strong uniformity
At this point, we might ask, why does agreement occur in Japanese, when Japanese
is typically an agreementless language? If a proposal I made in Miyagawa (2010) is
on track, we in fact predict that Japanese should have ϕ-feature agreement of somesort.
(22) Strong Uniformity(Miyagawa 2010)
		Every language shares the same set of grammatical features, and every­language overtly manifests these features in some fashion.
This is an instantiation of the Uniformity Principle (Chomsky 2001):(23) Uniformity Principle		In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, assume languages
to be uniform, with variety restricted to easily detectable properties ofu­ tterances.
© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa

The Uniformity Principle, or something like it, is needed because we can no longer
depend on the kind of parametric variation statements of the GB era, where variations were defined over the application of universal principles. Unfortunately, theseprinciples turned out to be descriptions of the problems they were intended to solve.
In MP, effort is made to rid elements from the theory that are not independently
motivated, and the many – maybe all – principles, such as subjacency and the ECP,
are examples that do not find independent motivation. We must therefore find a
new way to state the uniform nature of human language, and where they can vary.
Strong Uniformity states that languages all share exactly the same set of formal features, which are used for structure building and other operations, and that we do
not expect to find variation of the sort whereby some languages have some of thesefeatures while other languages have some other subset of the universal set of features.
All languages share all formal features, and all languages manifest these features insome fashion. The politeness marker in Japanese is person agreement that utilizes thesame ϕ-feature agreement as the typical agreement-based languages. As an allocutive
agreement, it finds its goal not in the domain of vP (subject, for example), but in the
Speech Act structure, where it is valued by the second-person element corresponding
to the hearer, “you.”
Strong uniformity is, in appearance and probably in content, in opposition to
the cartographic approach (e.g. Rizzi 1997), which postulates “topic,” “focus,” andother functions as fixed positions in a structure. In contrast, Strong Uniformity
states that notions like topic and focus are featural in nature, and they may occur
on ­various heads, most notably, C and T. On the other hand, the two approaches
share the assumption that such notions are universally represented in syntactic
structure.

4. Politeness marking and the main clause phenomenon
Speas and Tenny (2003) propose the Speech Act structure with the idea that certain
discourse-related phenomena are best viewed as being part of the syntactic structureof a sentence. What we have seen is that the SA structure occurs in a root domain
where allocutive agreement may occur (and also discourse particles in Romanian andWest Flemish – see Haegeman & Hill 2011). A question naturally arises, is the SA
structure the domain for all root transformations? The SA structure is the only type ofclause that allows the allocutive agreement, which is only natural because this structure furnishes the second person element needed as the goal for the allocutive agreement. But the type of root transformations originally identified by Emonds are allowedin asserted clauses, which occur independent of the SA structure. No root operationis allowed in presupposed clauses, as noted by Hooper and Thompson (1973). There© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clauseare, then, two types of main clause phenomenal, agreements that occur mainly in themain clause, which are the allocutive agreements we saw that are licensed within the
SA structure, and the RTs such as the NCP that Emonds originally identified and wasshown by Hooper and Thompson to apply in asserted clauses. Below, I show that these
two types of main clause phenomena are indeed distinct, and that the latter – the RTs
identified by Emonds and others – are ruled out on independent, syntactic grounds
on a par with Haegeman and others, leaving only the allocutive agreement and other,related phenomena such as sentential particles in Romanian and West Flemish that
depend on the occurrence of the SA structure to remain as a genuine MCP in theoriginal spirit of Emonds.

4.1 Politeness marking in subordinate clauses
As Harada (1976) pointed out, the politeness marker may occur in limited types of­subordinate clauses. Presumably, these are clauses that, despite being embedded, allow
the SA structure, which led Harada to say that these are interpretable as “direct discourses,” all accompanied by the non-factive “quotative” complementizer to. In order
to investigate the types of complements that allow the politeness marker, and thosethat do not, I turn to the classification of complement types Hooper and ­Thompson(1973) used for MCP possibilities in English subordinate clauses.
Hooper and Thompson (H&T) test for root transformations in five environments,
A–E below.
(24) Hooper and Thompson (1973: 473–4)
		Nonfactive:		
		A
B
C		 saysuppose be (un)likely		 reportbelievebe (im)possible		 exclaim thinkdeny		etc.
etc.
etc.

Factive:D
resentregretbe surprisedetc.

E
realize
learn
know
etc.

According to H&T, for Class A, it is possible for the complement to comprise themain assertion. For Class B, the main verb does not always have the meaning ofassertion, allowing the complement to express the main assertion of the sentence.
Class C verbs have the meaning of assertion, and they take a complement that isneither asserted nor presupposed. Class D verbs likewise express assertion, andtheir complement is presupposed. Finally, Class E verbs are called “semifactive” andtheir complement is not always presupposed. H&T show that RTs are possible in thecomplement clause in those classes where the complement can express assertion,
namely, A, B, and E.
(25)

I exclaimed that never in my life had I seen such a crowd. (A) (H&T: (43))© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa(26)

I think that this book, he read thoroughly. (B)(27)	I found out that never before had he had to borrow money. (E)(H&T: (119))C and D do not allow RTs in the complement clause.
(28)*It’s likely that seldom did he drive that car. (C)(H&T: (96))(29)*He was surprised that never in my life had I seen a hippopotamus. (D)(H&T: (103))

4.2 C
 omparison to Japanese: Allocutive agreement andcomplementizer type
In Japanese, asserted and presupposed clauses are often, though by no means always,
distinguished by the type of complementizer heading the clause.
(30) Complementizers in Japanese		
to: non-factive (=not presupposed)		koto/no: factive (=presupposed)(see Kuno 1973; McCawley 1978, etc.)

When we look at complementizer selection in Japanese, we find that the five verb
classes in H&T cluster precisely into two groups, those in English that allow RTs andthose that do not. As shown below, while A, B, and E may take to or koto, C and D arelimited to koto.
(31) A:
		B:
		C:
		D:
		E:

to, koto
to, kotokoto
koto
to, koto

We see that those verb classes whose complements allow RTs as identified by H&T(A, B, E) may take the non-factive to, while those that do not can only take koto(C, D). The fact that A, B, and E can also take koto simply shows that any verb has
the option of taking a presupposed complement with the right construction, as we
can see in English with Class A verbs (I reported the fact that Mary will miss themeeting). In English, factive/non-factive difference is not lexically encoded on thecomplementizer.
Let us now look at the distribution of the politeness marker in these classes,­paying attention to the complementizer type. As we can see below in an example
taken from Harada (1976), Class A verbs allow the politeness marker in their complement clause:© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause(32) Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
ki-mas-i-tato]		Taro-top [Hanako-nom come-mas-past cnonfact		 ‘Taro said that Hanako came.’

it-ta.5
say-past(Harada’s (102b))

If a Class A verb takes the koto complement instead of to, the politeness marker is
not possible (I have changed the verb to ‘report’, which more readily allows the kotocomplement).
(33) Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
kita/*ki-mas-i-takoto]-o		Taro-top [Hanako-nom came/come-mas-past cfact-acc
		hookokusi-ta.
		report-past		 ‘Taro reported the fact that Hanako came.’
Before looking at Class B, let us look at C and D. We predict that Classes C and D,
which only allow koto, do not allow the politeness marker.
CLASS C:(34) Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
kita/*ki-mas-ukoto]-o		Taro-top [Hanako-nom came/come-mas-prs cfact-acc
		hitei-sita.
		deny-past		 ‘Taro denied that Hanako will come.’
CLASS D:(35) Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
kita/*ki-mas-i-takoto]-ni		Taro-top [Hanako-nom came/come-mas-past cfact-dat
		odoroi-ta.
		surprise-past		 ‘Taro was surprised that Hanako came.’
We can conclude from the examples above that:(36) to nonfactive complementizer may occur with the sa projection;
		koto (and no) factive complementizer does not occur with the sa projection.

5. Following Harada’s original example in (32) (his (102b), the matrix verb is given in theinformal form. As his example shows, the verb in the complement clause of Class A may takethe politeness marker without causing a stylistic conflict with the informal matrix verb. Later,
I discuss other examples by Harada where the matrix verb must also be in the polite form andsuggest, following Uchibori (2008), that this is a distinct phenomenon from allocutive agreement. Also, it has been pointed out to me that the politeness marker becomes possible evenwith koto if the complement verb with -mas- is in the honorific style, something I also discusslater in conjunction with the examples.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa

Let us now turn to Classes B (believe-type) and E (know-type), which allow RTs in
English and, in Japanese, they can take either the to or the koto complement just as
with Class A verbs. With koto, predictably the politeness marker is ungrammatical,
just as we saw for Class A.
CLASS B:(37) Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
kuru/*ki-mas-ukoto]-o		Taro-top [Hanako-nom come/come-mas-pres cfact-acc
		 ‘Taro believes that Hanako will come.’

sinzitei-ru.
believe-pres

CLASS E:(38) Taroo-wa [sono hikooki-ga tuirakusita/*tuirakusi-mas-i-ta
		Taro-top that plane-nom fall/fall-mas-past
		koto]-o		cfact-accsira-nakat-ta.
know-neg-past		‘Taro didn’t know that the airplane fell down.’ (adapted from Harada’s(104b))
It is surprising that even with the non-factive to, the politeness marker is not possible
with these two classes of verbs.6(39) Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
kuru/*ki-mas-u to]		Taro-top [Hanako-nom come/come-pres cnonfact		 ‘Taro believes that Hanako will come.’

sinzitei-ru.
believe-pres

6. Harada gives the following (his (103b)) using the Type B example “believe”. The example
uses the nominal politeness marker -des-, which is why I did not use the example in the main
text, although it makes the same point.
(i)		*Taroo-wa [zibun-no tuma-ga CIA-no supai des-u
Taro-top self-gen wife-nom cia-gen spy des-pres		to] sinzite i-mas-u.
		c believe-mas-pres		‘Taro believes that his wife is a CIA spy.’

In (40) below, I have also changed the Class E verb to “realize,” which more readily takes the tocomplement (thanks to Hiroki Maezawa for noting that Class E verbs can take to).
Uchibori (2008) notes the following Class B example as ungrammatical (her (14b)).
(ii)
		*Isya-wa[oosama-ga sono kusuri-onomi-mas-i-ta
doctor-top king-nom that medicine-acc take-mas-past		to]		cnonfac
		omotta.
thought‘The doctor thought that the king took that medicine.’© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause(40) Taroo-wa [sono hikooki-ga tuirakusita/*tuirakusi-mas-i-ta
		Taro-top that plane-nom fell/fall-mas-past
		
to]
		
cnonfact

satot-ta.
realize-past		 ‘Taro didn’t know that the airplane fell down.’
In English, complements of Class B and E verbs allow RTs, hence, the complements
may be assertions under H&T’s analysis. So, why isn’t the politeness marker possible in Japanese in the same context? Is the complement of these verbs in Japanese
simply different, and presupposed, in contrast to English? Minimally, what we cansay about complements of Class B and E verbs is that they lack the SA structure
because they do not allow the politeness marker in their complement, regardlessof whether the complementizer is koto or to. Thus, so far, only root clauses andcomplement of Class A verbs, which is “reported S in direct discourse” (Emonds
1969), allow the allocutive politeness marker. Below, I will return to these classesof verbs and show that, just as in English, Japanese does allow a “root” operation
distinct from allocutive agreement.

4.3 Reason clause
So far, we have identified the distribution of the politeness marker as being in two of
the three environments identified by Emonds (1969).
(41) Root		A root will mean either the highest S in a tree, an S immediately dominatedby the highest S or the reported S in direct discourse.
(Emonds 1969: 6)
The politeness marker occurs in the “highest S in a tree” and “the reported S in
direct discourse,” the latter being the complement of Class A verbs in H&T’s classification. What about the third environment, that of “an S immediately dominatedby the highest S”? If we can show that the politeness marker occurs in such an environment as well, Emonds’ original conception of Root turns out to have identified
those structures that allow the Speech Act projection, and showing that his notionof Root therefore has nothing to do with RTs, which must be derived by some othermeans.
One type of sentence that H&T noted as a counterexample to Emonds (1969) is
the reason adverbial clause, which allows RTs.
(42)	Robert was quite nervous, because never before had he had to borrowmoney.
However, one way to look at this is that the reason clause itself occurs high in the
structure, possibly directly hanging from the matrix TP (highest S in Emonds’ words),© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa

which would make it the third environment that Emonds identified as root.7 That thisis the case is shown by the fact that the politeness marker occurs in reason clauses, afact already noted by Harada (1976) (-des- is the politeness marker that attaches to anominal; see the subsequent example for a sentence with -mas-):(43) Hima des-i-ta kara
Ginza-ni iki-mas-i-ta.
		free des-past because Ginza-to go-mas-past		‘I went over to the Ginza Street because I had nothing to do.’(Harada’s (137d))
The same is observed with the verbal politeness marker -mas-, cf. (44).
(44) Hanako-ga
ki-mas-ukara,
uti-niite-kudasai.
		Hanako-nom come-mas-pres because home-at be-please		 ‘Because Hanako will come, please be at home.’
Based on the distribution of the politeness marker in Japanese, which I consider to bea form of allocutive agreement, we can state unequivocally that the original proposal
for the Root by Emonds (1969) is a proposal about clauses that allow the Speech Act
projection. His proposal is not about distinguishing environments that allow RTs of
the type he noted (see also Emonds 2004, this volume). For the RTs and their environments, we need a very different approach to identify when they may apply, something
I turn to in the remainder of the article.

5. Topic wa
A root phenomenon commonly mentioned in the literature is topic wa, which may
occur in a limited type of subordinate clauses (e.g. Heycock 2008; Kuno 1973; Kuroda
2005; Maki et al 1999; Sato-Zhu & Larson 1992; Tomioka 2007, 2010; Ueyama 1994;
Whitman 1989, etc.). Kuroda (2005: 19–20) specificially points out that the topic wa
can only occur in “statement-making contexts,” which we can interpret to mean something like ‘root’ contexts (see Heycock 2008 for further comment on this point as wellas an extensive discussion of the literature). Thus, it is possible for this topic to occur
in the complement of Class A verbs.
(45) Hanako-wa [piza-wa Taroo-ga tabeta to]		Hanako-top pizza-top Taro-nom ate
cnonfact		 ‘Hanako said that pizza, Taro ate.’

.

itta.
said

I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this possibility for reason clauses.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clauseClass A verbs such as ‘say’ above may take the non-factive to complement. We saw
earlier that this class of verbs may also take the factive koto complement; with thiscomplement, topicalization turns out to be ungrammatical (I have changed the mainverb to “report,” which readily takes the koto complement).
(46) *Hanako-wa [piza-wa Taroo-ga tabeta koto]-ohookokusita.
		 Hanako-top pizza-top Taro-nom ate
cfact-acc reported		 ‘Hanako said that pizza, Taro ate.’

As topic, the phrase with wa is destressed (Kuno 1973; Nakanishi 2004); if it is stressed,
it is not topic wa but contrastive wa, which has a wider distribution and is not a root
phenomenon (e.g. Kuno 1973).8
We saw earlier that while Class A verbs with the to complement allow the politeness marker, Class B and E, which in English allow RTs, do not allow the politenessmarker. I concluded that B and E do not allow their complement to project the SA
structure, only leaving the complement of Class A verbs to do so. However, when we
look at topicalization, we see a different pattern: topicalization is possible, as shown
for Class B below.
(47) Taroo-ga [Hanako-wa kuru
to]		Taro-nom [Hanako-top come-pres cnonfact		 ‘Taro believes that Hanako will come.’

sinzitei-ru.
believe-pres(Class B)

Just as we saw for Class A verbs, topicalization with Class B and E verbs is possible only with the to complement; with the koto complement, topicalization is
ungrammatical.
(48) *Taroo-ga [Hanako-wa ku-rukoto]-o		 Taro-nom [Hanako-top come-pres cfact –acc		 ‘Taro believes that Hanako will come.’ (Class B)

sinzitei- ru.
believe- pres

The fact that Class A, B, and E verbs allow the root transformation of topicalization to
apply in the complement clause, but only Class A allows the politeness marker, showsthat RTs such as topicalization do not depend on the notion of Root as proposed by
Emonds. From our perspective, Emonds’ RTs do not depend on the occurrence of the
SA structure.

8. I am assuming the topic/contrastive wa bifurcation of Kuno (1973). For a different­approach to wa and also the nominative ga, see Kuroda 2005 and references therein.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved





Shigeru Miyagawa

Class C and D verbs only allow the koto complement, so that topicalization is not­possible, a point demonstrated in the following example from Maki et al. (1999).9(49) John-wa [kono hon-*wa/ozibun-no-kodomo-ga yonda
		John-top this book-top/acc self ’s-child-nom
read		koto]-o		cfact-acckookaisita.
regret		 ‘John regrets that this book, his child read.’ (Class D)

(Maki et al.’s (12b))

One interesting point that this example by Maki et al demonstrates is that while­topicalization to the left edge of the Class D verb complement is ungrammatical,
scrambling, indicated by the accusative case marking, is fine. I return to this distinction below.
What precisely is the difference between to (non-factive) and koto (factive­complementizer) that gives rise to the pattern of grammaticality we have observed?
In a series of works, Haegeman (e.g. 2006, 2009, 2010) (see also Haegeman & Ürögdi2010) argues that the prohibition against RTs is a syntactic phenomenon in which an
occurrence of movement, such as operator movement, intervenes to block RTs.
Munsat (1986) argues that factive clauses contain an operator that moves to C(see also Melvold 1991; Hiraiwa 2010; Watanabe 1993, 1996, among many others).
Using a proposal in Haegeman (2007), Haegeman and Ürögdi (2010) argue that thisoperator movement is what causes an intervention effect in factive clauses (they callthem “referential clauses”), leading to blocking of root operations such as topicalization.
(50) Adapted from Haegeman (2007):
		[CP opi C . . . [FP ti [TP . . . ]]]This operator movement to Spec,CP blocks anything else from moving to this position. Recall from Maki et al (1999) that while topicalization to the left edge of thecomplement clause of a Class D verb leads to ungrammaticality, scrambling is perfectly acceptable. This distinction between topicalization and scrambling would findthe same explanation based on intervention if we assume that, while scrambling may
be to TP (e.g. Saito 1985), topicalization is to Spec,CP. The latter assumption is notstandard, with Kuno (1973) arguing that topicalization, as opposed to constrastive
wa, need not involve movement (see also Hoji 1985, Saito 1985). If we accept certain assumptions in Maki et al (1999) and hypothesize that topicalization in Japaneserelates to C, and it involves movement, the intervention analysis would account for

9. Maki et al. (1999) use the complementizer no instead of koto. Although Maki et all markwa as “*” in (40), those I consulted feel that it is not as severely degraded, and judgment of“??” is more appropriate; see also Hiraiwa (2010). I comment on this later. I also changed theembedded subject so that the possessor inside it can be coreferential with the matrix subject,something that some speakers require with the verb ‘regret’.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause

the pattern of grammaticality we have observed between to and koto complementizer
clauses. It is possible that when -wa is interpreted as contrastive, which means thatthe -wa phrase receives emphatic focus stress, it moves to TP, as Saito (1985) argued(see also Hoji 1985). This would make the movement fine because it does not compete with the operator movement. But as topic movement, which is characterized bya lack of emphatic stress, the movement is to Spec,CP and competes with the operator movement.10 The fact that there is a range of judgments reported (for example,
Hiraiwa 2010, p. 193, Footnote 4) suggests that the two types of movement of the -wa
phrase are not always being distinguished.
The operator that arises with the koto complementizer does not occur with thenon-factive to complementizer, so that for Classes A, B and E, which allow both toand koto, the complement with to allows topicalization, as we saw above. The fact that
Class B and E verbs allow topicalization with the to complement but not the politeness marker, as we saw earlier, indicates that the complement of these two classes ofverbs cannot occur with the SA structure. Independent of the SA structure, a root
operation such as topicalization is predicted to be impossible if there is a competingA’-movement in the structure already, but such an operation is fine if there is no competing ­A’-movement to begin with. This shows that root/non-root distinction finds
justification only relative to whether the structure allows the SA projection, and does
not find justification by whether the structure allows RTs. All the RTs identified in­English are such that they can, in principle, be dealt with by the syntactic intervention
approach. This leads to the question, is there a genuine root phenomenon in English?
Later, I will introduce the study by Amano (1999), who draws the same distinction
between MCP that are only allowed in what I am calling SA structures and other MCP
that are allowed in non-SA constructions.11

6. Adverbial clauses and indirect questions
We saw earlier that the politeness marker is possible in the reason-clause.
(51) Hanako-ga
ki-mas-ukara,
uti-niite-kudasai.
		Hanako-nom come-mas-pres because home-at be-please		 ‘Because Hanako will come, please be at home.’
We can see below that the reason-clause also allows topicalization.
10. The analysis in Miyagawa (2010) should in principle make it possible for topicalization
to take place within the TP projection instead of the CP projection, although movement to the
CP region is not excluded. I leave this issue open.
11. Amano (1999) was brought to my attention in the last stages of writing this article byHiroki Maezawa.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved Shigeru Miyagawa(52) Hanako-wa kuru kara,
uti-niite-kudasai.
		Hanako-top come because home-at be-please		 ‘Because Hanako will come, please be at home.’
There is one issue about the reason-clause that makes a distinction between politenessmarking and topicalization.
The reason-clause is often ambiguous between presupposed reason and asserted
reason, and it is only in the asserted meaning that RTs such as topicalization are allowed(Hooper & Thompson 1973; Sawada & Larson 2004, this volume; H­ aegeman 2006). As
Koizumi (1993), Sawada (2011), and others note, we see a parallel in ­Japanese. In fact,
we can use this structure to ask a question we have not been able to address before:
is the SA structure compatible with presupposed clauses (or, on the intervention
story, with clauses that contain movement), or is it limited to occurring with assertedclauses (or clauses without movement)? There is, in principle, no reason why the SA
structure cannot occur with presupposed clauses, and this is what we will see in thereason-clause.
In the example below, the reason-clause is ambiguous between being presupposedand being asserted.
(53) Hanako-ga
kuru kara,
uti-niite-kudasai.
		Hanako-nom come because home-at be-please		‘Because Hanako will come, please be at home (assertion)/Please be at homebecause Hanako will come (presupposed).’We see in the following example that topicalization disambiguates the reason-clause,
forcing it to solely take on the assertion interpretation.
(54) Hanako-wa kuru kara,
uti-niite-kudasai.
		Hanako-top come because home-at be-please		 ‘Because Hanako will come, please be at home.’
This shows that, just as in English, presupposed clauses are incompatible with RTs.
An interesting point about this example is that, if the intervention story is on the righttrack, the reason-clause apparently has an operator if it is presupposed despite thefact that the clause does not have a complementizer that marks the clause as factive(like koto in sentential complementation), and this operator blocks topicalization fromoccurring, which leaves only the asserted reason-clause as the environment where thisRT can take place.
Let us now look at the reason-clause with the politeness marker.
(55) Hanako-ga
ki-mas-ukara,
uti-niite-kudasai.
		Hanako-nom come-mas-pres because home-at be-please		‘Because Hanako will come, please be at home/Please be at home because
Hanako will come.’© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause 

As indicated by the English translation, this reason-clause is ambiguous between­presupposed and asserted interpretations. This indicates that the SA structure is independent of whether the CP within it contains presupposed or asserted clause (or movement or no movement). This further separates Root (SA structure) from the notion ofasserted/non-asserted clauses, leaving the latter to be analyzed by such approaches assyntactic intervention.

6.1 Temporal clauseLet us turn to temporal adverbial clauses. This construction does not allow the politeness marker, showing that a temporal clause does not contain the SA structure.
(56) *Taroo-ga [Hanako-ga
ki-mas-itatoki],		 Taro-nom Hanako-nom come-mas-past when		
uti-ni
i-mas-en-desita.
		 home-at be-mas-neg-past		 ‘When Hanako came, Taro wasn’t home.’
Let us now see if temporal clauses in Japanese allow topicalization. First of all, it
is well known that English temporal clauses do not allow RTs such as topicalization(e.g. Hooper & Thompson 1973; Haegeman 2010).
(57)*When her regular column she began to write again, I thought she would
be OK.

Haegeman (2010) argues that the impossibility of this sort of operation within temporal clauses is not due to the fact that this clause is non-assertive. Rather, she points
out that there is a separate operation of movement of the temporal wh-phrase, andthis movement intervenes to block such operations as topicalization. The evidence formovement of the wh-phrase is found in Larson (1987, 1990), who proposes the following representations for high (58a) and low (58b) construal (see also Geis 1970 andJohnson 1988, among others, for relevant discussion).
(58) a.
		 b.


John left [CP wheni [IP Sheila said [CP[IP he should leave ]] ti ]]John left [CP wheni [IP Sheila said [CP [IP he should leave ti ]]]]
(Larson 1987)

Likewise in Japanese, the rt, topic wa, is not possible.
(58) *Taroo-ga [Hanako-wa kita toki], uti-ni
i-nakat-ta.
		 Taro-nom Hanako-top came when home-at be-neg-past		 ‘When Hanako came, Taro wasn’t home.’
At first blush, it is puzzling why we find intervention in Japanese, because the sort ofambiguity for temporal adjuncts that we observed for English above does not appear
to hold in Japanese, suggesting that there is no operator movement.
© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved Shigeru Miyagawa(59) John-wa [Sheila-ga [kare-ga dekakeru beki
da to]
		John-top Sheila-nom he-nom leaveshould cop c
		itta] toki, dekaketa.
		 said when left
		 ‘John left when Sheila said that he should leave.’This sentence only has the high reading of when Sheila’s utterance took place, and notwhen he should leave. This suggests that there is no operator movement. However, as itturns out, with a slight change in the example, we are able to obtain the same ambiguity as in English (thanks to Hiroki Maezawa for this example).
(60) John-wa [Sheila-ga [kare-ga dekakeru beki
da to]
		John-top Sheila-nom he-nom leaveshould cop c		itta] toki-ni, dekaketa.
		 said when-at left
		 ‘John left when Sheila said that he should leave.’In this example, the postposition -ni appears with the toki ‘when’ phrase, and although
the high reading is more natural, it is also possible to obtain the lower reading. Thissuggests that Japanese also has operator movement within temporal clauses, and,for some reason, the movement of this operator is blocked from the lower clause in
the absence of the postposition -ni (see Endo in this volume for some preliminary
remarks). I leave this problem open.

6.2 Indirect question
We saw earlier that an indirect question does not allow the politeness marker. The
example is repeated below.
(61) Hanako-wa [dare-ga ku-ru/*ki-mas-uka] sitte-i-ru.
		Hanako-top who-nom come-pres/come-mas-pres q know-pres		 ‘Hanako knows who is coming.’
However, the following shows that topicalization is possible (Maki et al. 1999).
(62) Hanako-ga [CP Taroo-wa nani-okatta ka] sitte-i-ru.
		Hanako-nom Taro-top what-acc bought q know-pres		 ‘Hanako knows what Taro bought.’
This is different from English, where RTs are not possible in indirect questions presumably due to intervention. What is the difference? There are analyses of wh-constructionin Japanese that would be compatible with the absence of intervention. For example,
Hagstrom (1998) argues that in Japanese, the Q-particle (ka in above) is merged withthe wh-phrase, and moves by head movement to C. In Miyagawa (2001), I gave this as© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause 

the reason why the wh-phrase does not have to move in Japanese, drawing a parallelwith head-movement of pronominal agreement to T that makes it unnecessary for a
DP to move to Spec, TP in Romance (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998). On thisaccount, the movement that occurs is head movement, and it is not surprising thatsuch a movement does not to intervene in topicalization, which is XP movement.

7. SA structure and the MCP in Japanese and English
The following summarizes the data we have looked at in this paper.
(63)

MCP in English and JapaneseType A Type B Type C Type D (be Type E because when Indirect(say) (believe) (deny) surprised) (know)question

English

√

√

*

*

√

√

*

*

Japanese-mas-wa

√
√

*
√

*
*

*
*

*
√

√
√

*
*

*
√

In the cases where there is a difference between the politeness marker and -wa (Classes
B and E, and indirect question), this difference arises because these are clauses that do
not allow the SA structure but at the same time, these clauses do not have an independent operator movement to intervene in topicalization. For Classes B and E, topicalization is allowed only in clauses that are associated with the non-assertive to because, byassumption, these clauses do not contain a factive operator. Type A and reason-clauseallow the politeness marking, indicating that these are environments where the SA
structure may emerge along with the matrix clause.
There is a question as to whether in English, the SA structure also occurs, something that cannot be checked with allocutive agreement because English does nothave such agreement nor does it have sentential particles found in Romanian andWest Flemish, which are also MCP in the SA structure. As it turns out, there is one
phenomenon in English observed by Amano (1999) that precisely matches the allocutive agreement and sentential particles in apparently only being able to occur in
Emonds’ original root environments (and the reason-clause). Following Greenbaum(1969) and Quirk et al (1972, 1985), Amano distinguishes between “attitudinal” and“style” adverbs.
(64) a.
			

attitudinalapparently, certainly, definitely, evidently, annoyingly, astonishingly,…

		b.
			

style
frankly, truthfully, honestly, …

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved Shigeru Miyagawa

According to Greenbaum (1969), attitudinal adverbs indicate the speaker’s attitude
toward the proposition, in some cases this attitude is about the truth value of the
proposition (e.g. apparently), while in other cases some other attitude is expressed(e.g. annoyingly). Amano’s proposal is that attitudinal adverbs indicate assertions, and,quite strikingly, Amano observes that the attitudinal adverbs occur in all the environments that H&T identified as allowing RTs (Amano 1999: 206).
(65)
		
		
		
		
		

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Carl told me that this book certainly has the recipes in it. (Class A)
Bill believes that certainly, John will lose the election.
(Class B)*I doubt Kissinger certainly is negotiating for peace.
(Class C)*I regret that I unfortunately attended the concert.
(Class D)
I know that Santa certainly has lost a lot of weight.
(Class E) Sam is going out for dinner, because his wife certainly is cooking
J­ apanese food.
(reason-clause)

According to Greenbaum (1969), style adverbs indicate the speaker’s manner of expression (e.g. frankly), and Amano proposes that this type of adverb need not modify anassertion, and importantly, its occurrence is limited to Emonds’ original characterization, plus the reason-clause. First, style adverbs are compatible with all types of mainclauses (Amano 1999: 210).
(66) a.
		b.
		c.

Frankly, did you like the article? (question)
Truthfully, who broke the window? (question)
Honestly, don’t tell him about it. (order)

However, style adverbs in embedded contexts are only compatible with Class A verbs.
(67)

She said, “Honestly, I do not know anything about their plans.” (Class A)

Amano points out that the style adverb is only compatible with Emonds’ original characterization of root clauses. He notes this for indirect questions and indirect requests,
given in (a) and (b) below; the rest I have created using his examples from earlier,replacing the attitudinal adverb with a style adverb.
(68) a.
		 b.
		
		
		
		

c.
d.
e.
f.

*She asked me whether honestly I would stay.
(ind. question)*He requested that, frankly, the papers be turned in next Monday.		
(ind. request)*Bill believes that honestly, John will lose the election. (Class B)*I doubt Kissinger frankly is negotiating for peace.
(Class C)*I regret that I frankly attended the concert.
(Class D)*I know that Santa honestly has lost a lot of weight.
(Class E)

Finally, Amano notes that style adverbs are compatible with reason-clauses (“?” isbased on native speakers he consulted).
(69)?John fired his secretary, because, frankly, she was incompetent. (reason)© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause 

Very clearly, Amano discovered a way for English to distinguish SA-structures from
non-SA structures that allow RTs. Why should style adverbs require the SA-structure?
In a semantic analysis of adverbs, Bellert (1977: 349), who calls the style adverbs “pragmatic adverbs,” notes that these adverbs “are the only ones that are strictly speaking
speaker-oriented adverbs, for one of the arguments is the speaker.” If this is correct,
then the semantic representation of the speaker would be expressed explicitly in the
SA structure. Finally, the fact that attitudinal adverbs only occur with assertion is achallenge to the intervention approach to RTs. While the typical RT involves movement, hence amenable to an intervention approach if blocked, adverbs presumably
do not involve movement, so that with these adverbs, we will need to revert to H&T’s
notion of assertion vs. non-assertion (see also Sawada & Larson 2004, this volume,for relevant discussion of the semantics of assertion and clause size). See Haegeman(2011) for a possible account of how the distribution of these adverbs can be derived
on an intervention account.

8. Some problems
Before concluding the paper, I will note some remaining problems, all drawn from
Harada (1976). Harada (1976: 559) lists the following subordinate environments asallowing the politeness marker:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

direct discourse complement
factive complement
nonrestrictive relative clauseconjunct clauseadverbial subordinate clause

We have already seen (i) and (v) as those that allow the SA structure; (iv) is also not a
problem given that what is conjoined are two or more SA-structure clauses. Following
is an example given by Harada (his (137b)).
(71) Kesa
Ueno Doobusuen-ni iki-mas-i-te, sukosi
		 this.morning Ueno zoo-to
go-mas-conj bit		sanpo-o si-te mairi-mas-i-ta.
		 walk
take went-mas-past		 ‘This morning I went to the Ueno Zoo and took a short walk.’This is presumably a conjunction of two main clauses, so the occurrence of the politeness marker is not at all surprising. While these can be readily handled, the remaining
two are not so easily accounted for, and I will simply give the data and some thoughtson them.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved Shigeru Miyagawa

One example that Harada gives for (ii), factive complement, is the following(his 131b).
(72) Yamada-kun-ga kono tabi
Nooberu-syoo-o zyuyo-sare		Yamada-nom
lately Nobel Prize-acc
was.given		
mas-i-ta koto-wa mina-sama go-zonzi to omoi-mas-u.
		mas-past fact-top you allknow
c think-mas-pres		 ‘I think you all know that Mr. Yamada was given the Nobel Prize lately.’
One point that Harada notes is that the occurrence of the honorific sare on the predicate ‘was given’ appears to make the politeness marker sound more felicitous (theother example Harada gives in this category also has such an honorific form). This
may suggest that the honorific form has the ability to project the SA structure independent of the type of complement that it occurs in. Uchbori (2008) also notes thatfor the politeness marker to be grammatical in certain embedded contexts, it must be
accompanied by the honorific form.
Finally, the example for non-restrictive RC is the following.
(73) Watasi-wa mizu-tama-moyoo-no ari-mas-u
kami		I-top
polka.dots
exist-mas-pres paper		gahosi-i to omoi-mas-u.
		
nom want c think-mas-pres		 ‘I want the paper with polka dots.’
Harada points out that the referent of the head noun ‘kami’ is unambiguous in referring to a specific entity and this fact led him to the conclusion that when the politeness marker occurs, the RC is non-restrictive. As he notes, if we take off the politenessmarker, as in the example below, the head noun becomes ambiguous between being
specific and nonspecific.
(74) Watasi-wa mizu-tama-moyoo-no aru kami-ga
hosi-i		I-toppolka.dots
exist paper-nom want		
to omoi-mas-u.
		
c think-mas-pres		 ‘I want (the) paper with polka dots.’
There is one point about the non-restrictive RC in (73) that is worth mentioning. Notethat the politeness marker occurs both within the RC and on the matrix verb ‘think’.
Without the politeness marker on the matrix verb, the entire sentence sounds decidedly odd. This is not always the case, as we saw in Harada’s example of Class A verb
earlier, repeated below.
(75) Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
ki-mas-i-ta
to]it-ta.
		Taro-top Hanako-nom come-mas-past cnonfact say-mas-past		 ‘Taro said that Hanako came.’
(Harada’s (102b))© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause 

In this example, while the complement verb has the politeness marker, the matrix
verb ‘said’ does not, and the sentence sounds perfectly natural. What is the difference
between this and the non-restrictive RC example? Uchibori (2008) observes precisely
the phenomenon we just looked at. She notes that not all instances of the embedded
politeness marker require the matrix verb to be in the polite form as well. Where there
is such a requirement, and apparently the non-restrictive RC is one, Uchibori suggests that it is a form of long-distance licensing by a modal head that reaches into theembedded environment in certain contexts to allow the politeness marker to occur.
On this view, it is not an instance of the allocutive agreement because the politenessmarker is licensed by some head outside of its clause instead of by the SA structure.
It is also interesting to note that Harada (1976) calls the honorific form in the nonrestrictive RC “hyper-polite”, which he somehow distinguishes from the normal useof the politeness marker. This special form of politeness marker may reflect ­Uchibori’s
long-distance licensed politeness marker instead of one made possible by the SA
structure.12

12. Uchibori (2007: 309) observes that the politeness marker may also occur in what she calls“subjunctive” clauses.
(i) Ame-ga
huri-mas-u
yooni.
		rain-nom fall-mas-pres CSUBJUNC(Uchibori: (28))

This is an expression of hope or, in other contexts, ordering, and may be embedded undera verb like “pray” or “order.” An interesting point about this subjunctive clause is that whenembedded under a verb such as “pray,” there are two options for the politeness marking toappear, as noted by Uchibori (2007; see also 2008). If the complementizer yooni occurs, themain verb must also have the politeness marker.
(ii) Hitobito-wa [ame-ga
huri-mas-u
yooni] negai-mas-i-ta/ ?*negatta.
		people-top rain-nom fall-mas-pres cpray-mas-past/prayed		 ‘People prayed that it will rain.’On the other hand, if the complementizer is accompanied by the quotative particle to, themain verb need not be in the polite form.
(iii) Hitobito-wa [ame-ga
huri-mas-u
yooni to] negai-mas-i- ta/negatta.
		people-top rain-nom fall-mas-pres cpray-mas- past/prayed		 ‘People prayed that it will rain.’This pattern of grammaticality suggests that when to occurs, it is a quote, allowing thepoliteness marker to occur independent of the form that the matrix verb takes, but without it,
it is embedding that behaves similarly to other verbs that do not allow the politeness marker
in the complement.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved Shigeru Miyagawa

9. Conclusion
Emonds’ (1969) seminal work opened the door to a large body of literature on the
MCP. We have learned from these efforts that much of what Emonds observed as­having a special status as root transformations finds explanation on independent
grounds, either a semantic one in terms of assertion/non-assertion or a syntactic one
in terms of intervention, which does not require us to postulate a special “root” structure. However, his original conception of the root clause as being the matrix clause,clause directly dominated by the highest S, and the complement of verbs of direct
discourse finds support in the phenomenon of allocutive agreement, which is genuine agreement that occurs mainly in the main clause and agrees with the hearer inthe discourse. The allocutive agreement requires a super-structure above the utteredexpression that introduces a representation of the hearer, much like Ross’s original
Performative Analysis. I used the modern version of the Performative Analysis by
Speas and Tenny, which they call Speech Act projection, with revision by Haegeman
and Hill, to argue that, indeed, Emonds’ original conception of Root refers to clausesthat project the SA structure that supports allocutive agreement. Finally, given thatthe research on the MCP began with discussion of English, a natural question to ask
is, are there indications of the SA structure in English? While the work of Ross on the
Performative Analysis naturally comes to mind, some of the most interesting evidence
he marshals for it is based on the occurrence of reflexives that do not have an antecedent in the utterance, but instead refer to the speaker, for example. It is possible thatsuch use of the reflexive points to the existence of the super-structure, but we must
tread carefully, given that since his study we have come to understand that certain usesof the anaphor are logophoric, and although logophoricity itself may be evidence forthe super-structure, we will need to see if his work provides genuine evidence for the
discourse-related layer of syntactic structure that he argued for. We saw that a different
test suggested by Amano (1999) using attitudinal and style adverbs may hold promiseof identifying SA and non-SA structures even in English.

References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing word order, V-movement,
and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539.
Amano, Masa-chiyo. 1999. Gengoyoso-no ninka: Doshi, meishiku, fukushi (On the licensing of
linguistic elements: Verbs, noun phrases, and adverbs). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic
Inquiry 8: 337–351.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael­Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause 
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–23.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin,
Carlos Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizaretta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
den Besten, Hans. 1977/1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical ­deletive
rules. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics
Today 3], Werner Abraham (ed.), 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Emonds, Joseph. 1969. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York NY: Academic
Press.
Emonds, Joseph. 2004. Unspecified categories as the key to root constructions. In ­Peripheries:
Syntactic Edges and their Effects, David Adger, Cécile De Cat & George Tsoulas (eds),
75–121. Kluwer.
Geis, Michael. 1970. Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Greenbaum, Sydney. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Negative inversion, the Neg criterion and the structure of CP. In­Negation and Polarity, Larry Horn & Yasuhiko Kato (eds), 29–69. Oxford: OUP.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2007. Operator movement and topicalisation in adverbial clauses. Folia­Linguistica 41: 279–325.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2009. The movement analysis of temporal adverbial clauses. English­Language and Linguistics 13: 385–408.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120: 628–648.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2011. The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry
41: 595–621.
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virginia. 2011. The syntacticization of discourse. Ms, Ghent­University and University of New Brunswick-SJ.
Haegeman, Liliane & Barbara, Ürögdi. 2010. Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement
account. Theoretical Linguistics 32(2–3): 111–152.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. In Papers
from the UPenn/MlT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect [MITWPL 32], Heidi
Harley (ed.), 73–118. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1999. Bound features, merge and transitivity alternations.
In Papers from the Upenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon [MITWPL 35], Liina Pylkkanen,
Angeliek van Hout & Heidi Harley (eds), 49–72. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
Harada, S.-I. 1976. Honorifics. In Syntax and Semantics, 5: Japanese Generative Grammar,
Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 499–561. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax,
Vol II, Henk van Riemsdijk & Martin Everaert (eds), 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heycock, Caroline. 2008. Japanese -wa, -ga, and information structure. In Oxford Handbook ofJapanese Linguistics, Shigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito (eds), 54–83. Oxford: OUP.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2010. Complement types and the CP/DP parallelism – A case of Japanese.
­Theoretical Linguistics 36(2–3): 189–198.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations.
Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved Shigeru Miyagawa
Johnson, Kyle. 1988. Clausal gerunds, the ECP and government. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 583–609.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Modal phrase and adjuncts. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2: 409–428.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 2005. Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 14: 1–58.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Larson, Richard, 1987. ‘Missing prepositions’ and the analysis of English free relative clauses.
Linguistic Inquiry 18: 239–266.
Larson, Richard, 1990. Extraction and multiple selection in PP. The Linguistic Review 7: 169–182.
McCawley, Noriko Akatsuka. 1978. Another look at no, koto, and to: Epistemology and complementizer choice in Japanese. In Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, John Hinds &Irwin Howard (eds), 178–212. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Maki, Hideki, Kaiser, Lizanne & Ochi, Masao. 1999. Embedded topicalization in English andJapanese. Lingua 109: 1–14.
Melvold, Janis. 1991. Factivity and definiteness. In More Papers on Wh-Movement [MITWPL15],
Lisa Cheng & Hamida Demirdache (eds), 97–117. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. LF affix raising in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 362–367.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 293–338. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse
Configurational Languages [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 54]. Cambridge MA: The MIT
Press.
Munsat, Stanley. 1986. Wh-complementizers. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 191–217.
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2004. Prosody and scope interpretation of the topic marker wa in Japanese.
In Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Intonation and Meaning, Chungmin Lee,
Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 177–193. Dordrecht: Springer.
Oyharçabal, Beñat. 1993. Verb agreement with non arguments: On allocutive agreement. In
Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 105], José
Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds), 89–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey N. & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar ofContemporary English. London: Longman.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey N. & Svartvik, Jan.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: A Handbookof Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ross, Robert. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar,
Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 222–272. Waltham MA: Xerox College
Publishing.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Sato-Zhu, Eriko & Larson, Richard. 1992. Topic phrases in Japanese. Ms, State University of
New York at Stony Brook.
Sawada, Miyuki. 2011. Bottom-Up clause structure: Where Nihongogaku and generative grammar meet. In The Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Kansai LinguisticSociety, 216–227.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reservedAgreements that occur mainly in the main clause 
Sawada, Miyuki & Larson, Richard. K. 2004. Presupposition & root transforms in adjunctclauses. In Proceedings of NELS 34, Matthew Wolf & Keir Moulton (eds), 517–528. Amherst
MA: GLSA.
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carole. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57–58], Anna-Maria Di Sciullo(ed.), 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1570–1590.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2010. A scope theory of contrastive topic. Iberia 2.1: 113–130.
Uchibori, Asako. 2007. Modaritii yooso ni yoru ninka no (hi) futoumei ryouiki (Nontransparent domains for licensing by modality features). In Nihongo no shubun gensho (Main clausephenomena in Japanese), Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), 295–330. Tokyo: Hituji Shobo.
Uchibori, Asako. 2008. A short note on Japanese politeness verb -des/mas in embedded c­ ontexts.
Scientific Approaches to Language 7: 103–122. Chiba: Kanda University of International
Studies.
Ueyama, Ayumi. 1994. Against the A/A’-movement dichotomy. In Studies on Scrambling,­Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 459–486. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vermeulen, Reiko. 2009. Topics, contrast and contrastive topics in Japanese. In Proceedings of the­ ermeulen &5th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 5) [MITWPL 58], Reiko V
Ryosuke Shibagaki (eds), 361–372. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
Watanabe, Akira. 1993. Larsonian CP recursion, factive complements, and selection. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23, Amy J. Schafer (ed), 523–537. Amherst MA:
GLSA.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5(4): 373–410.
Whitman, John. 1989. Topic, modality, and IP structure. Harvard studies in Korean Linguistics
III, 341–356. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.

© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved