DRAFT, August 2011
To appear in Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order
Leading Linguists Series, Routledge. Publication planned for 2012
Genitive of Dependent Tense in Japanese and Its Correlation with
Genitive of Negation in Slavic
Shigeru Miyagawa

1. Introduction
In Japanese, the subject of relative clauses and noun-complement clauses may bemarked by the nominative case marker or, in some instances, by the genitive case marker.
(1)[watasi-ga/no

yonda]

hon-waomosiroi.

[I-NOM/GEN

read]book-TOP interesting‘The book I read is interesting.’
While it is generally assumed that T licenses the nominative case marker (Takezawa
1987), there is lively debate as to what licenses the genitive case on the subject. In the Dlicensing approach (e.g., Bedell, 1972, Miyagawa 1993, 2008, 2011a, Ochi, 2001, Saito,1983), this genitive is licensed by the D head that takes the RC/noun-complement clause.
In contrast, in the C-licensing approach (Watanabe 1996, Hiraiwa 2001, 2002, 2005), it is
the “subjunctive” C of the RC/noun-complement clause that makes the genitive marking
possible. In Miyagawa (2011a/Chapter 5; henceforth, Miyagawa 2011a), I givearguments for D-licensing of the genitive subject. One point that I note is that, contrary to
the prediction made by the C-licensing approach, which portrays the choice between
nominative and genitive to be optional, which means that there should be no realdifference resulting from choosing one over the other (Watanabe 1996: 399-400; Hiraiwa

	
  

1	
  

2001: 72-73, 115), there are, in fact, substantial differences. Many of these differenceswere first noted by Harada (1971) in the first comprehensive study of the genitive-subject
construction. As Harada observed, while the nominative marking virtually always leads
to a grammatical sentence, that is not the case with the genitive subject, the latter having
a narrower range of grammatical possibilities. In Miyagawa (2011a), following Hale’s(2002) work on Dagur genitive subjects, I argue that at least some of what Harada noted
can be accounted for by the fact that the clause containing the genitive subject is smaller
than the one containing the nominative subject; the compact nature of the genitive-subject
clause allows the D that selects the clause to reach in and license the genitive on thesubject.
We can see the difference in the size of the clauses in the range of adverbs that are
possible (Miyagawa, 2011a). Cinque (1999) holds that speech act, evaluative, andevidential adverbials (honestly, unfortunately, evidently) occur in the CP region, while,for example, a “modal” adverb such as “probably” occurs lower, possibly in the TP
region. We can see below that while a “CP adverb” is possible when the nominative casemarker occurs, this is not the case with the genitive subject (thanks to Heizo Nakajima forthis point). No such difference occurs with an adverb that occurs lower in the structure.
(2) a. Kore-ga[saiwai-ni

this-NOM fortunately

Taroo-ga/?*-no

mituketa] yubiwa desu.

Taro-NOM/-GEN

found

ring

COP

‘This is the ring that Taro fortunately found.’b. Kore-ga[kittothis-NOM probably

Taroo-ga/-no

mituketa] yubiwa desu.

Taro-NOM/-GEN

found‘This is the ring that Taro probably found.’

	
  

2	
  

ring

COP

This difference suggests that when the nominative subject occurs, the structure is a fullCP, while the genitive subject is contained in a smaller clause, which I argue inMiyagawa (2011a) to be a TP. The following structures illustrate the difference (I haveleft out the RC head; also, see Miyagawa, 2011a, for arguments that the genitive subject
stays in vP, a point suggested earlier by Watanabe 1996).
(3)

Nominative

D’
CP

D
C’

TP

C

SUBNOM

T’
vP

(4)

T

Genitive

D’
TP

D

vP
SUBGEN

T
v’

VP

v

Why does the nominative subject in (3) move to Spec, TP, while the genitive subject in(4) doesn’t? In (3), a full CP occurs, and T inherits formal features from C, including thenominative Case feature, in turn, triggering movement of the nominative subject. In
contrast, in (4), there is no CP, so that the T does not end up with relevant formal

	
  

3	
  

features, which makes movement of the subject unnecessary.1 This difference solves a
problem noted by Harada (1971: 80) that there is a difference between the nominative
and the genitive subject when it comes to elements that may intervene between thesubject and the verb.
(5) a. kodomotati-ga

minna-deikioi-yoku kake-nobotta

kaidanchildren-NOM

togethervigorously run-climb up

stairway‘the stairway which those children ran up together vigorously’	 b. *kodomo-tati-no minna-dechildren-GEN

togetherikioi-yoku kake-nobotta

kaidanvigorously run-climb up

stairway

I argued in Miyagawa (2011a) that in (b), the genitive subject violates economy because
it had to have moved — presumably to Spec, TP — although nothing requires it to do so.
This analysis further predicts that an adverb may occur between a genitive subject and theverb if it is a low, VP adverb that does not require the genitive subject to move from its
original position of Spec, vP.
(6)

Koozi-no mattaku sir-anai
Koji-GEN at.all

kakudoknow-NEG angle‘an angle that Koji doesn’t know at all’
The genitive subject occurs to the left of the adverb mattaku ‘at all’, which is a VP adverbthat can be viewed as directly modifying the VP and sits lower than the Spec,vP, hence
the genitive subject need not have moved. As further evidence, Nambu (2010) points outthat in two large corpora that he examined, there are 34 cases of a phrase occurring
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1In Miyagawa (2010), I give arguments that the effect of EPP only shows up when there
are relevant formal features on the head (e.g., T).
	
  

4	
  

between a genitive subject and the verb, and all 34 are either VP adverbs or PPs, the latterpresumably also occurring within the VP.
Further evidence for the difference in the size of the clause comes from Sakai’s(1994:187) observation based on Binding Theory, Condition B (I have changed his
example slightly).
(7)a.	  	  	  	
  Maryi-­‐no	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  [kinoo	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  kanozyoi-­‐ga	
  	
  yatotta]	
  	
  	
  	
  gakusei	  Mary-GENyesterday she-NOM

hired

student	 ‘Mary’s student whom she hired yesterday’	 b. ??Maryi-­‐no	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  [kinoo	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  kanozyoi-­‐no	  	
  yatotta]	
  	
  	
  	
  gakusei	  Mary-GEN yesterday she-GEN

hired

student

As Sakai notes, if we put a possessor phrase in Spec, DP, it is possible to have a pronounin the subject position of the embedded structure be coreferential with the possessor
phrase only if the subject pronoun is marked by the nominative case. This again suggeststhat the clause that contains the nominative subject is larger than the one that contains thegenitive subject. As noted above, I argue in Miyagawa (2011a) that, while the nominative
subject is contained in a CP, the clause that contains the genitive subject is a TP without a
CP above it. Because the structure that contains the nominative subject is a CP, and the C
selects the T, it is a “full” structure with an active T, and this allows the CP/TP to act as agoverning category. But in the case of the clause that contains the genitive subject, there
is no CP, but only a TP, so that this T is not selected by C and therefore is defective, andthis TP fails to constitute a governing category, very much like the cases of the infinitivethat we see in English constructions such as the ECM.

	
  

5	
  

One way in which the T here is defective is that, being unselected by C, it cannot
assign nominative case. This allows D that takes the TP to license the genitive on thesubject because T is not a case assigner, so there is no minimality violation. I also gave
evidence that the clause with the genitive subject, having a defective T, is limited to theinterpretation of “stative,” where the stativity may be the actual Aktionsart of a predicate
or the result of an eventuality, which typically has a stative interpretation (e.g., Kratzer
1994, Iatridou, Anagnostopoulou, and Izvorski 2001). So, there is ample evidence thatthe genitive case on the subject is licensed by D, and what makes this possible is that theclause that contains this subject is smaller — a TP and not a full CP.
In this chapter, I will look at an entirely different phenomenon of genitive marking
on the subject that apparently does not depend on the occurrence of D, but rather, itappears to be licensed by a certain type of v in combination with dependent tense. As wewill see, the distribution of this genitive virtually matches the genitive of negation in
Slavic, the only difference arising from the fact that it is licensed in part by depedent
tense, which only occurs in subordinate structures, while the genitive of negation in
Slavic may occur freely in matrix as well as subordinate clauses.

2. Challenges to the D-licensing approach
Watanabe (1996) drew our attention to examples that ostensibly show that genitive
subjects may occur in contexts where there is apparently no D, which, he argued, gavecredence to the idea that the genitive is licensed by some other means than D — for him,
C. Extending this line of analysis, Hiraiwa (2002) gave examples below, one of which istaken from Watanabe, that presumably further demonstrate that the genitive case marking

	
  

6	
  

on the subject is not dependent on the occurrence of D.
(8) a. John-wa [Mary-ga/-noyondayori] takusan-no hon-wo yonda.

John-TOP Mary-NOM/GEN read-PST-ADN than many-GEN books-ACC read-PST‘John read more books than Mary did.’ (Watanabe 1996:396)
b. John-wa [ame-ga/-noyamu

made] office-ni i-ta.

John-TOP rain-NOM/GEN stop-PRES-ADN until office-at be-PST‘John was at his office until the rain stopped.’c. [Boku-ga/no omou ni]

John-wa Mary-ga

suki-ni-tigainai

I-NOM/GEN think-PRES-ADN -DAT John-TOP Mary-NOM like-must-PRES‘I think that John likes Mary.’d. Kono atari-wa[hi-ga/no

kureru nitsure(te)]hiekondekuru.

around-here-TOP sun-NOM/GEN go-down-PRES-ADN as colder-get-PRES‘It gets chillier as the sun goes down around here.’tot
e. John-wa [toki-ga/notatsu totomoni]John-TOP time-NOM/GEN pass-PRES-ADN with as
Mary-nokoto-wo wasurete-itta.

Mary-GEN FN-ACC forget-go-PST‘Mary slipped out of John’s memory as times went by.’Maki and Uchibori (2008) argue that these are not counterexamples to D-licensing;
they propose that these examples all have a silent nominal head, such as teido ‘degree’for (a) or toki ‘time’ for (b), so that these structures actually do have a D head thatlicenses the genitive marking. However, H. Takahashi (2010) shows that this cannot betrue because, as we will see later, examples with and without such an overt head behave

	
  

7	
  

differently. If the example without a nominal head really did have a covert head, wewould not expect any variation in the examples. However, in another context, we will see
evidence that supports the type of approach suggested by Maki and Uchibori.
An important point that H. Takahashi notices about Hiraiwa’s examples is thatthree of them (b, d, e) contain an unaccusative verb. Although Takahashi does notprovide an analysis, she notes that unaccusatives have been observed to behave in a
special fashion in the context of genitive subjects (Fujita 1988, Miyagawa 1989). What I
will argue is that the examples from Hiraiwa that contain an unaccusative verb are, as
Hiraiwa and Watanabe argue, genitive case markings licensed in the absence of D.
Contrary to Hiraiwa/Watanabe, I will show that this special instance of genitive marking
is similar to the genitive of negation found in Slavic languages, which occurs only oninternal arguments, including the subject of the unaccusative. I will show that the genitivein these examples is licensed by the “weak” v in combination with dependent tense. For(a) and (c), I will argue that these are cases of of D-licensing with an empty nominal
head, along the lines of Maki and Uchibori (2008). This special genitive marking must be
dealt with separately from the D-licensed kind, the latter strictly dependant on theoccurrence of the D head.

3. Temporal clause: CP or DP
In Miyagawa (1989: 103-105), I reported on Fujita’s work (1988) that identified atype of genitive subject that, from the perspective of today’s D- vs. C-licensing debate, ispuzzling under either approach; Fujita’s work is an extension of Terada’s (1987) original

	
  

8	
  

insights. I will begin with examples that clearly fall under the D-licensing approach, thenmove onto the puzzling examples.
In a temporal clause headed by a phrase such as toki ‘time’, only the nominative
case is possible, with one exception that I will discuss later.
(9)[kodomo-ga/*-nowarattatoki], tonari-no

heya-niita.

child-NOM/GENlaughedwhen next-GEN room-in

was‘When the child laughed, I was in the next room.’
Here the “when” clause is a temporal adjunct. However, as Fujita (1988) noted, if thetemporal clause occurs as an argument, the genitive subject becomes possible. This isshown below.
(10) [Kodomo-ga/-nowarattachild-NOM/GEN laughedtoki]-oomoidasita.

when-ACC recalled‘I recalled the time when the child laughed.’
For the “adjunct clause” effect in (9) in which the genitive subject is excluded, I
will adopt a suggestion by Whitman (1992), who, upon examining this data, proposedthat an adjunct clause headed by a word such as toki ‘when’ (or koto ‘matter’) is a CP, sothat toki in this construction is itself a C. This is comparable to a when-adjunct clausesuch as the following in English.
(11) When the kids laughed, I was in the next room.
Given that there is no D, we would not expect the genitive subject to occur, and this iswhat we find, at least with examples such as (9) above. When this temporal clause occurs
in an argument position as in (10), the clause takes on a DP structure, with toki ‘when’occurring as an N head instead of as a C head (Whitman 1992), which is evident from the

	
  

9	
  

fact that the accusative case marker occurs on it. One can also find the nominative, as
shown below (Miyagawa 1989). The first example is an instance of the temporal clausefunctioning as an adjunct; in the second example it is functioning as an argument with thenominative ga marking attached to the subordinate structure.
(12) a. [Minna-ga/?*-no odotta
all-NOM-GEN

toki], nigiyaka-ni natta.2

danced when lively

became‘When everyone danced, it became lively.’b. [Minna-ga/-noall-NOM-GEN

odottatoki]-ga

itiban nigiyaka datta.

danced when-NOM most

livelywas‘The time when every danced was very lively.’

3.1. Genitive of dependent tense
We saw that genitive subjects are impossible in temporal adjunct clauses. However,there is one exception to this prohibition. Note that the verbs in the ungrammaticalexamples in (9/12a) above are unergative (“laugh,” “dance”). As Fujita (1988) observed
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2 Some speakers do not find (12a) so bad. It is possible that these speakers are
topicalizing the ‘when’ phrase, keeping the topic marker –wa silent, which is an option(see Kuno 1973). The topic marker functions like a case marker in turning toki into an N.
These speakers are thus allowing D-licensing of the genitive. One such speaker I checkedwith does not allow ‘fortunately’, a sure sign that the genitive is being D-licensed.
(i)[Saiwai-ni minna-ga/?*-no odotta toki](-wa) nigiyaka-ni natta.
fortunately all-NOM/GEN danced when-(TOP) lively
became‘When everyone fortunately danced, it became lively.’

The sentence with the genitive is fine without ‘fortunately’ if –wa is assumed to occur
overtly or covertly. Another possibility is that these speakers are silently assuming –ni
intead of –wa; -ni can occur optionally on temporal clauses and it has the same effect ofturning toki into a nominal.
	
  

10	
  

(Miyagawa 1989: 104-105), genitive subjects are in fact allowed in this environment if
the predicate is unaccusative.
(13) [Kodomo-ga/-nokitatoki],

tonari-no

heya-niita.

child-NOM/-GEN camewhen

next-GENroom-inwas‘I was in the next room when the child came.’(14) [Kaze-de doa-ga/-noaitatoki] daremo kizukanakatta.

wind-by door-NOM/GEN opened when no one noticed‘When the door opened due to wind, no one noticed.’Though not as natural as the nominative, the genitive in these examples is certainly
within the range of ready acceptability. Given our assumption that these temporal adjunctclauses are CPs, with no relevant D in the structure, the occurrence of the genitive iscompletely unexpected. Clearly, it is licensed by something other than D.
We can in fact show that the genitive in (13/14) is fundamentally different from the
D-licensed genitive that we have been looking at up to know. The D-licensed genitive
occurs in TP, which allows D selecting the TP to reach inside the TP to license thegenitive, but the adjunct clause that contains the genitive subject is a CP because thetemporal word such as toki ‘when’ is C, so that the genitive of unaccusative must be
occurring in CP and not TP. To show this, recall that in a typical case of D-licensed
genitive subject, a CP adverb such as “fortunately” is infelicitous because this structure
only has a TP.
(15) Kore-ga[saiwai-ni

this-NOM fortunately

Taroo-ga/?*-no

mituketa] yubiwa desu.

Taro-NOM/-GEN

found‘This is the ring that Taro fortunately found.’

	
  

11	
  

ring

COP

However, with the genitive subject involving an unaccusative, the situation is different.
(16) [Saiwai-ni

ame-noyanda

toki], minnakooen-de asonda.

fortunately rain-GEN stopped when everyone park-in played‘When the rain fortunately stopped, everyone played in the park.’(17) [Saiwai-ni seki-noaitatoki], Hanako-wa obaasan-ni osiete-ageta.

fortunately seat-GEN opened when Hanako-TOP grandmother-DAT let.know‘When a seat fortunately opened up, Hanako let her grandmother know.’
Given that passives, like unaccusatives, involve a subject that starts out as an internalargument, we expect the subject of passives to also allow the genitive in the adjunctclause, and this is indeed the case.
(18) Watasi-wa [kodomo-no home-rare-ta
I-TOPtoki] hontouni uresii kimoti datta.

child-GEN praise-PASS-PST when really happy feeling was‘When my child was praised, I was really happy.’
As in the case of the genitive of unaccusative, the genitive of the passive occurs in CP.
(19) Watasi-wa [saiwai-ni kodomo-no erab-are-ta
I-TOPtoki], hottosimasi-ta.

fortunately child-GEN choose-PASS-PST when relieved was‘When my child was fortunately chosen, I was relieved.’
What is the nature of this genitive marking that is allowed in the absence of D forthe subject of unaccusatives and passives, but not for transitives and unergatives? Isuggest that this unusual genitive is similar to the genitive that occurs in the context ofnegation in Slavic languages such as Russian (Babby, 1980, Pesetsky, 1982, Bailyn,
1997, Babyonyshev, 1996, etc.). What is of interest is that this genitive case marking
only occurs on internal arguments — the “subject” of passives and unaccusative and the

	
  

12	
  

direct object of transitives, but not the subject of unergatives or transitives. The following
examples are taken from Pesetsky (1982, 40-50) to demonstrate this point.3
Direct objects(20)a.

Ja ne polučal pis’ma.
I NEG received letters.ACC.PL

b. Ja ne polučal pisem.
I NEG received letters.GEN.PL
Subjects of passives:(21) a. Ni odna gazeta

ne bylapolučena.

not one newspaper.FEM.NOM.SG NEG was.FEM.SG received.FEM.SGb. Ni odnoj gazety
not onene bylopolučeno.

newspaper.FEM.GEN.SG NEG was.NEUT.Sg received.NEUT.SG

Unaccusative subjects:(22) a. Gribyzdes’ ne rastut.

mushrooms.NOM here NEG grow.3PL
b. Gribov

zdes’ ne rastet.

mushrooms.GEN here NEG grow.3SG(23) a. Otvet

iz polka

ne priel.

answer.NOM from regiment NEG arrived.MASC.3SG
b. Otveta

iz

polka

ne prilo.

answer.GEN from regiment NEG arrived.NEUT.3SG
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
3 These examples from Pesetsky (1982) were organized by Jason Merchant in a handout.
	
  

13	
  

Unergative subjects:(24) a. V pivbarax kul’turnye ljudi

ne p’jut.

in beerhalls cultured people.NOM NEG drink.3PL
b. *V pivbarax kul’turnyx ljudej
in beerhalls cultured(25) a. Ni odin rebenok

ne p’et.

people.GEN NEG drink.3SG
ne prygnul

not one child.M.SG.NOM NEG jumped.MASC.SG
b. *Ni odnogo rebenka
not onene prygnulo

child.M.SG.GEN NEG jumped.NEUT.SG

Transitive subjects (regardless of their agentivity):(26) a. Studenty

ne smotrjat televizor.

students.NOM NEG watch.PL TV
b. *Studentov

ne smotrit

televizor.

students.GEN NEG watch.SG TV
In Japanese the genitive is apparently licensed by v, specifically, a “weak” v in thesense of Chomsky (1995, etc.), in combination with dependent tense. I will call this“genitive of dependent tense” for short. In fact, as H. Takahashi (2010) notes, some of theexamples that Hiraiwa (2002) gives as counterexamples to D-licensing are the Fujita-type
examples involving an unaccusative verb. Following is one such example from Hiraiwa(2001).4

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4 Other unaccusatives in his examples include kureru ‘(something) goes down’ and tatsu‘(something) passes’. There are examples of transitive/unergative such as yomu ‘read’
	
  

14	
  

(27) John-wa[ame-ga/no

yam-u

made]

John-TOP rain-NOM/GEN stop-PRES until

office-ni ita.
office-at be-PST‘John was at his office until the rain stopped.’
This is a type of adjunct clause headed by the temporal head, made ‘until’, which Hiraiwa
points out is not associated with D. As H. Takahashi (2010) notes, this temporal adjunctconstruction becomes ungrammatical with the genitive subject if the verb is unergative.
(28) John-wa
John-TOP[ oogoede Mary-ga/?*nowara-u -made]odotteita.

loudly Mary-NOM/GEN laugh-PRES until was.dancing‘John was dancing until Mary laughed loudly.’In this regard, Hiraiwa’s example is a demonstration of the genitive marking that occurs
with v (and dependent tense), but it is not a demonstration of the overall phenomenon ofgenitive marking in Japanese as he assumed.
But is there evidence that the v is indeed responsible for licensing the genitive case?
Takahashi (2010) makes an interesting observation in this regard. First, as noted in
Miyagawa (1993) (see also Ochi 2001), there is a scope difference between nominativeand genitive case markings.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
and omou ‘think’, but in other constructions such as the comparative. I will comment on
those examples later.
	
  

15	
  

(29) a. [[Taroo-ka
Taro-orHanako]-gakuru] riyuu-o

Hanako-NOM come reason-ACC

osiete.
tell.me‘Tell me the reason why either Taro or Hanako will come.’
reason > Taro or Hanako, *Taro or Hanako > reasonb. [[Taroo-ka Hanako]-no
Taro-or Hanako-GENkuru] riyuu-oosiete.

come reason-ACC

tell.me‘Tell me the reason why Taro or Hanako will come.’
reason > Taro or Hanako, Taro or Hanako > reason
The nominative subject in (a) only takes narrow scope relative to the head ‘reason’, sothat this sentence is asking for the reason why either Taro or Hanako will come. In (b),there is this reading, but also, there is a reading in which the genitive subject takes wide
scope relative to ‘reason’, so that, on this latter reading, the speaker is asking for thereason why Taro will come or the reason why Hanako will come. I argued in Miyagawa(2011a) that because the clause containing the genitive subject is a TP, not a CP, there isno barrier to having the genitive subject QR to the higher D projection, allowing the wide
reading that we see.

	
  

16	
  

(30)

D’
[Taroo-or Hanako]-GEN

D’

TP

D
T’

vP

	
  

T

	
  
This is similar to the observation that QR in English, which is known to be clause-bound(May 1977), may nevertheless extract a quantifier out of an infinitival clause, that is, a TP
(Johnson 2000, Miyagawa, 2011).
(31) Someone wants to order every item in the catalogue.
This sentence readily admits the inverse scope interpretation, “every item > someone.”H. Takahashi (2010) observes that in the temporal adjunct clause, scope relations arefundamentally different.
(32) a. [[John-ka Mary]-ga

kuru -made] mati-masyou.

[John-or Mary]-NOM come -until

wait-let.us‘Let’s wait until the time when John or Mary comes.’*‘Let’s wait until the time John comes or the time Mary comes.’b. [[John-ka Mary]-nokuru -made] mati-masyou.

[John-or Mary]-GEN come -until wait-let.us	
 ‘Let’s wait until the time when John or Mary comes.’*‘Let’s wait until the time John comes or the time Mary comes.’
In (a), with the nominative case, the subject only takes narrow scope, which is what we
expect. What is surprising is that in (b), the genitive subject does not lead to scope
	
  

17	
  

ambiguity, unlike what we saw earlier. Although Takahashi does not give a reason forthis difference, an analysis based on Miyagawa (2011a) together with the assumption thatv (and dependent tense — see below) assigns the genitive case in (b) provides a possible
account. In Miyagawa (2011a), I argue that phases are specified by Case: if a head has
Case to assign (or whatever formal statement one prefers for Case), that head isdesignated as a phase head. I also suggested that QR is limited in its local domain to thephase in which the quantifier occurs (see Miyagawa (2011b) for exceptions and otherrelevant discussion of QR). If we assume that v (in combination with dependent tense)
licenses the genitive case marking on the internal argument of the unaccusative verb, v isdesignated as a phase head, and it would block the genitive subject from raising by QR
beyond it. This blocks the wide scope reading of the genitive subject relative to ‘until’.
As Takahashi also notes, if we change (32) so that there is an overt nominal head, scope
ambiguity returns with the genitive subject.5(33) a. [[John-ka Mary]-ga

kuru zikan-made] mati-masyou.

[John-or Mary]-NOM come time-until wait-let.us‘Let’s wait until the time when John or Mary comes.’*‘Let’s wait until the time John comes or the time Mary comes.’b. [[John-ka Mary]-no kuru

zikan-made] mayi-masyou.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
5 This raises an issue of QR in English, in particular, how can the object quantifier takescope over the subject quantifier in examples such as Someone loves everyohe, if theobject is inside vP, presumably a phase? Johnson and Tomoika (1997) and Johnson(2000) give arguments that the object takes scope over the copy of the subject in Spec,vP.
On this account, the object quantifier need not raise out of vP to take inverse scope.
	
  

18	
  

[John-or Mary]-GEN come time-until

wait-let.us‘Let’s wait until the time when John or Mary comes.’‘Let’s wait until the time John comes or the time Mary comes.’
This is clear evidence that when an overt nominal heads the clause, D may license thegenitive; the clause containing the genitive subject being a TP, the genitive subject canraise above the TP and take scope over the head. As Takahashi (2010) notes, this fact is acounterexample to Maki and Uchibori’s (2008) argument that when there is no nominal
head, there is a covert nominal head. If Maki and Uchibori are right, we should not detect
any difference between those with and without an overt nominal head. See Takahashi(2010) for other interesting facts that parallel the scope observation. I will return to theidea of covert head later, showing that Maki and Uchibori are correct in certain instances.
An immediate question that arises with this genitive in Japanese is, why doesn’t it
ever occur in the matrix clause? Given that it isn’t dependent on the occurrence of D, weshould, in principle, expect it to occur everywhere, but, in fact, it does not.6(34) *Ame-no futta.
rain-GEN fell
‘It rained.’
The reason why this genitive does not occur in root environments is due to the fact thatits licensing is dependent not only on weak v, but also on the occurrence of a certain typeof tense, dependent tense, which only occurs in subordinate clauses.
Tense in subordinate contexts, including temporal clauses of the type we have been
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6There are dialects on the southern island of Kyushu that allow the genitive case innominative positions even in the matrix clause. See Kato (2008) and Yoshimura (1994).
	
  

19	
  

looking at, are often not a fully specified tense. Ogihara (1994) points out that thesemantic content of tense in the subordinate clause is determined “in relation to
structurally higher tenses” (p. 256). Following demonstrate this.
(35) a. [Hanako-ga

te-o

ageta

toki]

kore-o watasite kudasai.

Hanako-NOM hand-ACC raisedwhen

this-ACC giveplease‘Please hand this (to her) when Hanako (lit.) raised her hand.’b. [Hanako-ga

te-o

ageru

toki]

kore-o watasite kudasai.

Hanako-NOM hand-ACC raise

when

this-ACC giveplease‘Please hand this (to her) when Hanako (lit.) raises her hand.’In (35a), the inflection on the verb within the adverbial clause is that of past, yet, theevent points to a future time. The past inflection simply indicates a sequence in which
Hanako raises her hand first, then the event of giving “this” to her should take place. In(35b), the verb within the temporal clause has the “present” inflection, which again
denotes a future event. In this sentence, it simply denotes the sequence of either following
or simultaneous with giving “this” to her. Ogihara (1994) points out that “a present tense
morpheme in a temporal adverbial clause shows that the episode described in it issimultaneous with (or is subsequent to) the event or state described in the matrix clause”(1994:257). What we see, then, is that in these temporal constructions, the subordinate
tense is somehow not fully specified as tense in that it is dependent on the higher tense
for semantic determination. We therefore have the following generalization for genitive
subjects in general, whether it is D-licensed or by weak v.
(36) Genitive subjects in Japanese are contained in a TP headed by T that is not fully
specified as independent tense.

	
  

20	
  

Although we can state the generalization in (34) to cover all instances of genitive
subjects in Japanese, there is clearly a difference between the D-licensed type and thoselicensed by weak v. The former (D-licensed) occurs in a TP clause without a CP, whichallows the D to license the genitive in Spec,TP without violating minimality. We can seethat lack of CP in a variety of ways including the fact that a CP-level adverb cannot occur
in a D-licensed genitive environment. On the other hand, the genitive licensed by weak v
occurs within a CP, as indicated by the fact that a CP-level adverb occurs without aproblem. We know that the D-licensed genitive is licensed by the D head. What about thegenitive that is licensed by the weak v? It cannot just be any weak v since there is the
additional condition that the T that takes the vP must be dependent tense. It appears, then,that this genitive is licensed by a combination of a weak v and dependent tense. Let us
stipulate the following.
(37) Genitive of dependent tense (GDT)
The combination of weak v + dependent tense licenses genitive case in Japanese.7
Presumably, this combination is implemented by v raising to T. Though merely astipulation that needs to be derived from independent assumptions, (37) captures the factthat the subjects with the genitive of dependent tense (GDT) occur only in subordinate
clauses, unlike Russian, because dependent tense never occurs in the main clause. In
Russian, we can imagine a similar stipulation, not with dependent case, but withnegation.
(38) In Russian, the combination of weak v + negation licenses genitive case.8

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
7 See footnote 9 for a suggestion that only a subset of dependent tense licenses GDT.
	
  

21	
  

Since both weak v and negation occur in root as well as subordinate clauses, in Russian
the genitive may occur in root clauses.
In the remainder of this chapter, I will give further evidence for (37).

4. Temporal adjuncts vs. other types of adjuncts
We saw that the genitive subject is licensed within a temporal adjunct that clearly
does not contain a D. These include ‘when’ and ‘until’.
(39) Hanako-no

kaeru

Hanako-GEN come.home

toki/made, uti-ni

ite-kudasai.

when/until home-at

be-please‘When/until Hanako comes home, please be at home.’
The tense in these temporal adjuncts may all be dependent. We saw this for toki ‘when’
above; following shows it for made ‘until’, which requires the preceding predicate to bein the present form.
(40) [Taroo-ga/-no
Taro-NOM-GEN

kuru

made]

matte-ita.

come

until

wait-PAST‘I waited until Taro came.’
I suggested that the GDT is licensed by a combination of weak v and dependent
tense. This predicts that if a subordinate clause does not contain dependent tense, genitive
should be impossible. The reason-clause and nara-conditionals are exactly such adjunctclauses. The tense marking on the subordinate verb is deictic, thus has independent tense
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
8 In Slavic, the genitive of negation may occur on the object of transitive verbs; I assume
that when this happens, the small v is somehow partially defective in that it fails to assign
accusative case.
	
  

22	
  

reference based on time of speech.
(41) Hanako-ga

kekkon-suru/*kekkon-sita kara/nara,

Hanako-GEN marry/marriedbecause/if

kanozyo-no

kekkonsiki-ni

de-tai.

her

wedding-DAT attend-want‘Because/if Hanako is getting married/was married, I’d like to attend her wedding.’
As predicted, the GDT cannot occur in either the reason-clause or naraconditionals.
(42) a. Hanako-ga/*-no
Hanako-NOM/-GEN

kuru

kara,

uti-niite-kudasai.

comebecause home-at

be-please‘Because Hanako will come, please be at home.’b. Ame-ga/*-nofutta kara,rain-NOM/GEN fallmiti-ganurete-iru.

because street-NOM

wet-is‘Because it rained, the streets are wet.’(43) a. Hanako-ga/*-no
Hanako-NOM/-GEN

kuru

nara,

uti-niite-kudasai.

come

if

home-atbe-please‘If Hanako is coming, please be at home.’b. Ame-ga/*-nofuru nara,rain-NOM/GEN fallifdekake-na-i.
because go.out-NEG-PRESENT‘If it rains, I won’t go out.’9

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
9 There is a complication here in that another conditional, -tara ‘if’, which contains the“past” morpheme –ta but there is no independent tense interpretation. This means that the
	
  

23	
  

5. Objects and the genitive caseWe have seen that GDT is clearly different from the D-licensed counterpart. Thereis one issue which I have not focused on about the licensing condition for these two typesof genitives, namely, is there a difference in the status of T for for these two kinds ofgenitive markers? In the D-licensing environment, because T is not selected by C, T is
defective, and it cannot assign nominative case. That is the reason why D that selects the
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
conditional with –tara has dependent tense interpretation, yet, genitive subject is notallowed.
(i) Hanako-ga/*-noki-tara, osiete kudasai.

Hanako-NOM/-GEN come-if tell.me please‘Please let me know if Hanako comes.’
Similarly, the conditional –to, which requires the non-past inflection on the preceding
predicate, blocks genitive case. This tense marking is also dependent tense marking.
(ii) Hanako-ga/*-nokuru-to, paatii-ga

motto tanosiku naru.

Hanako-NOM/GEN come-if party-NOM more fun

becom‘If Hanako comes, the party will become more fun.’Chiharu Kikuta pointed out to me that –nara ‘if’ and –node ‘because’ can occur withdependent tense, yet they never allow the GDT. All this point to the possibility that what
licenses GDT is a subset of dependent tense that goes with such temporal notions as‘when’ and ‘until’. I leave this issue open.
	
  

24	
  

TP can reach inside the TP and license the genitive case of the subject. What about the T
involved in the GDT? The TP that contains this genitive is selected by C, as we saw fromthe fact that CP level adverbs occur easily, so, we predict that unlike in the case of T for
the D-licensed genitive, the T for GDT should be able to assign the nominative case. We
will see that this prediction is borne out.
I drew a parallel between the GDT in Japanese and genitive of negation in Slavic,
showing that the internal argument of unaccusatives and passives may be licensed by the
weak v + dependent case in subordinate environments. There is so far one gap in thisparallel, namely, while genitive of negation in Slavic may place a genitive case on the
direct object of transitive verbs, such a construction in Japanese is impossible.
Direct objects(44)a.

Ja ne polučal pis’ma.
I NEG received letters.ACC.PL

b. Ja ne polučal pisem.
I NEG received letters.GEN.PL(45) *[Hanako-ga

tegami-no okutta] hito

Hanako-NOM letter-GEN sent

person‘the person to whom Hanako sent a letter’
Is this a gap in otherwise close parallel between the two types of genitive? As itturns out, there in fact exists a parallel with genitive of negation even here in that,
although objects of transitive verbs such as ‘send’ above cannot bear the genitive casemarker, objects of stative predicates may do so. First of all, objects of stative predicatesmay (or in some cases, must) be marked by the nominative case marker.

	
  

25	
  

(46) Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM

eigo-gahanas-e-ru.

English-NOM

speak-can-PAST‘Hanako can speak English.’
When we put this in a temporal adjunct clause, the following pattern of judgment
emerges.
(47)a.

[Ziroo-ga

eigo-gawakar-anakat-ta

toki]

Jiro-NOM

English-NOM

understand-NEG-PAST

when

Hanako-ga

tasuke-ta.

Hanako-NOM help-PAST‘When Jiro didn’t understand English, Hanako helped out.’b. *[Ziroo-no

eigo-gawakar-anakat-ta

Jiro-GEN

English-NOM understand-NEG-PAST

Hanako-ga

tasuke-ta.

toki]
when

Hanako-NOM help-PAST
c. ?*[Ziroo-no

eigo-nowakar-anakat-ta

Jiro-GEN English-GEN understand-NEG-PAST
Hanako-ga

toki]
when

tasuke-ta.

Hanako-NOM help-PASTd.

[Ziroo-ga eigo-no
Jiro-NOM
Hanako-ga

wakar-anakat-ta

English-GEN understand-NEG-PAST

toki]
when

tasuke-ta.

Hanako-NOM help-PAST
In (a), both the subject and the object have nominative case, and there is no problem. In

	
  

26	
  

(b) and (c), the subject has the genitive case; just as with Russian, we do not expect thegenitive on the subject of a transitive predicate. The striking example is (d). In thisexample the subject has the nominative case and the object has the genitive case. This
example is predicted to occur on our analysis because this is an instance of a GDT, andthis genitive occurs with T that is selected by C. Though it is dependent tense, being
selected by C, this T is capable of licensing the nominative on the subject. The v here is
weak because the entire predicate is stative and the v does not assign accusative case.
This v, in conjunction with the dependent tense, can license the genitive on the object.
Let us now look at the same construction, but in an environment where the genitive
may be D-licensed. Unlike the GDT case above, all four possibilities are essentially fine(Miyagawa 1993).10(48) a. Hanako-ga

furansugo-ga hanas-e-ru

koto (NOM-NOM)

Hanako-NOM French-NOM speak-can-PRS fact‘the fact that Hanako can speak French’b. Hanako-no

furansugo-ga hanas-e-ru

koto (GEN-NOM)

Hanako-GEN French-NOM speak-can-PRS factc. Hanako-no

furansugo-no hanas-e-ru

koto (GEN-GEN)

Hanako-GEN French-GEN speak-can-PRS fact
d. Hanako-ga

furansugo-no hanas-e-ru

koto (NOM-GEN)

Hanako-NOM French-GEN speak-can-PRS fact
Transitive stative predicates such as ‘can-speak’ above mark their object with thenominative case, although for complex predicates like ‘can-speak’ the object may
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
10 In an earlier version of Miyagawa (2011), I mistakenly said that some of the examplesin (48) are not very good, but it has become clear that they are basically fine after
checking with a large number of native speakers.
	
  

27	
  

alternatively be marked by the accusative case marking (Kuno 1973, etc.). It is assumed
in Miyagawa (1993) that the “alternation” on the object is nominative/genitive, and notaccusative/genitive, because, as we saw earlier, an object that can only be marked by theaccusative cannot bear the genitive case instead. As we can see in the four examples
above, in this subordinate environment, all four possibilities exist in which thenominative case marking may alternate with the genitive on the subject and objectphrases. Assuming that the genitive on the subject is D-licensed, which is the only option
because, like in Slavic, the GDT does not occur on the subject of transitive predicates,
what we want to know is the licensing mechanism for the genitive on the object.
Let us begin by asking about the size of the relative clause in each case. What we
predict is that those examples in which the subject is marked with the genitive is a TP,
not a CP, because the genitive on the subject of a transitive predicate must be D-licensed.
We can see that this prediction is borne out.
(49) a. saiwai-ni
fortunately

Hanako-ga furansugo-ga hanas-e-ru

koto (NOM-NOM)

Hanako-NOM French-NOM speak-can-PRS fact‘the fact that Hanako fortunately can speak French’b. *saiwai-ni

Hanako-no furansugo-ga

hanas-e-ru

koto (GEN-NOM)

fortunately Hanako-GEN French-NOM speak-can-PRS factc. *saiwai-ni
fortunately
d. saiwai-ni
fortunately

Hanako-no furansugo-no

hanas-e-ru

Hanako-GEN French-GEN

speak-can-PRS fact

Hanako-ga

furansugo-no hanas-e-ru

koto (GEN-GEN)koto (NOM-GEN)

Hanako-NOM French-GEN speak-can-PRS fact

The relative clause in examples (b) and (c), which contain a genitive subject, is a TP,

	
  

28	
  

while in (a) and (d), which have a nominative subject, the clause is a CP.
Let us look at (d), which has a nominative subject and a genitive object. The
relative clause here is a CP, so the T is selected by C, and this gives T the ability tolicense the nominative on the subject. This is exactly the same construction as (48d),
again showing that the T that enters into licensing of the genitive with the weak v mayassign nominative, so that the only requirement on this T is that it be dependent tense,
which it clearly is (Ogihara 1994). We can thus maintain the licensing condition given in(37) for the GDT intact; it is repeated below.
(50) Genitive of dependent tense
The combination of weak v + dependent tense licenses genitive case in Japanese.
The examples in (b) and (c) raise questions which I will indicate, but will not
attempt to answer. In (c), both the subject and the object are marked with genitive case.
We know that the genitive on the subject is D-licensed, but what about the genitive on theobject? There are two possibilities, and I will simply list them. First, the genitive on theobject may also be D-licensed under multiple agreement with the D head; we know thatsuch multiple agreement occurs in Japanese (see, for example, Hiraiwa 2005). The otherpossibility is that the genitive on the object is the GDT kind, and it is in principle also
possible due to the fact that the licensing condition is met (weak v + dependent tense).
We have to account for the fact that the structure is TP, not CP, as shown by the fact that‘fortunately’ is not possible.
In (b), the subject is marked with the genitive case while the object has thenominative case. This example challenges the most straightforward analysis of
nominative object, namely, that it is licensed by T just like the subject nominative

	
  

29	
  

(Koizumi 1994, Ura 1999, Kishimoto 2001; see also Takezawa 1987). One piece ofevidence given for this analysis is that when the nominative case on the object alternateswith the accusative case, the two case markers give rise to different scope interpretations(Sano 1985, Tada 1992). See Koizumi (2008) for a summary of the different approaches;the following is taken from his work, which, in turn, uses data from several previous
works including Tada (1992).
(51) a. Kiyomi-wa

migime-dake-otumur-e-ru.

Kiyomi-TOP right.eye.only-ACC

close-can-PRES‘Kiyomi can close only his right eye.’[can > only]: Kiyomi can wink his right eye.
b. Kiyomi-wa

migime-dake-ga

tumur-e-ru.

Kiyomi-TOP right.eye.only-NOM

close-can-PRES[only > can]: ‘It is only the right eye that Kiyomi can close.’
As we can see in (a), when the accusative case occurs on the object, this object takes
scope low in the structure, presumably in its original position, but when the object has thenominative case as in (b), it takes scope wider than the higher predicate ‘can’, suggestingthat the nominative object raises to a position in the TP region. This would be consistent
with the idea that the nominative is licensed by T. However, what we saw in (42b), which
has a genitive subject and a nominative object, is an instance in which the T cannot
assign nominative, yet the nominative shows up on the object. This may indicate that theT that cannot license the nominative on the subject may nevertheless somehow license
the case marker on the object; or, that the nominative object is somehow licensed
differently, albeit by some high functional head, something that would be consistent with

	
  

30	
  

Tada’s (1992) analysis. I will leave this question open.
Let us return to the main point of this chapter, namely, the phenomenon of the
GDT. We saw in the transitive stative predicate construction that the examples in which agenitive object that occurs with a nominative subject are instances of the GDT. I will
give further evidence for this analysis. Recall that one hallmark of the GDT is that thegenitive phrase is unable to take scope above vP. In this regard, we can find in Miyagawa(1993) evidence that the genitive on the object in (d) above (NOM-GEN) is GDT. The
following are taken from that work.
(52) a. Taroo-ga[tenisu-ka sakkaa]-ga

dekiruTaro-NOM [tennis-or soccer]-NOM

riyuu

can

(NOM-NOM)

reason‘the reason why Taro can play tennis or soccer’
reason > [tennis or soccer]; *[tennis or soccer] > reason
b. Taroo-no [tenisu-ka sakkaa]-ga

dekiruTaro-GEN [tennis-or soccer]-NOM canriyuu(GEN-NOM)

reason‘the reason why Taro can play tennis or soccer’
reason > [tennis or soccer]; *[tennis or soccer] > reason
c. Taroo-no
Taro-GEN[tenisu-ka sakkaa]-nodekiruriyuu(GEN-GEN)[tennis-or soccer]-GEN

canreason‘the reason why Taro can play tennis or soccer’
reason > [tennis or soccer]; [tennis or soccer] > reason
d. Taroo-ga[tenisu-ka sakkaa]-no dekiru

Taro-NOM [tennis-or soccer]-GEN

can‘the reason why Taro can play tennis or soccer’

	
  

31	
  

riyuu
reason(NOM-GEN)reason > [tennis or soccer]; *[tennis or soccer] > reason
In these examples, there is a disjunctive phrase (‘tennis or soccer’) in the object position,and in all but (b), this phrase is incapable taking scope over the head noun ‘reason’. The
reason why this object phrase can scope over the head noun is because both the subject
and the object bear the genitive case, and, as noted earlier, there is one analysis available
in which both genitive cases are licensed by D. At LF both can raise by QR outside of the
TP and above the head noun in the absence of a CP projection.
(53)

D’
Taro-GEND’[tennis-or soccer]-GEN

D’

TP
N
T’ reason
	
  

vP

D

T

	
  
Of the remaining three, (a) and (b) are straightforward: the object cannot take scope overthe head noun because the object is marked with the nominative. This means that bothhave a CP structure. Let us look at (d), which has the sequence NOM-GEN. The
occurrence of the nominative on the subject entails that a full CP structure exists, and the
C selects T, which allows T to be fully specified and assign the nominative case. Thisaccount forces the analysis of the genitive on the object to be the GDT kind, not one thatis D-licensed, and, as H. Takahashi (2010) observes, this object does not take scope overthe head noun

	
  

32	
  

5. Two remaining exceptions
Watanabe (1996) gives the following as a counterexample to the D-licensing
approach.
(54) John-wa [Mary-ga/noyondayori] takusan-no hon-oyonda.

John-TOP Mary-NOM/GEN read-PST-ADN than many-GEN books-ACC read-PST‘John read more books than Mary did.’ (Watanabe 1996:396)
What is noteworthy is that the predicate that goes with the genitive subject is a transitive
verb, hence it is not an instance of the GDT. What the comparative must represent, then,is an instance where there is a covert nominal head, as argued by Maki and Uchibori(2008), and from a different, semantic point of view, by Sudo (2009). A piece ofevidence for this covert nominal analysis is that there are speakers who do not find
Watanabe’s example fully grammatical. However, it becomes grammatical even for these
speakers if the nominalizer no is inserted (thanks to Hisako Takahashi for this point).
(55) John-wa [Mary-no

yonda

NO yori] takusan-no hon-oyonda.

John-TOP Mary-NOM/GEN read-PST-ADN NO than many-GEN books-ACC read-PST‘John read more books than Mary did.’This no represents an overt nominal head, thus allowing D-licensing of the genitive. One
way to view Watanabe’s example is that what is covert is this nominal head no, or somesuch semantically consistent head, an analysis that is consistent with Maki and Uchibori’s(2008) approach. Furthermore, the comparative clause cannot host a CP adverb as
predicted by the D-licensing of the genitive.
(56) John-wa [saiwaini

Mary-ga/?*-noyatotta(NO) yori]

John-TOP fortunately Mary-NOM/-GEN hire-PST-ADN NO than

	
  

33	
  

takusan-no gakusei-oyato-e-nakat-ta.

many-GEN students-ACC

hire-can-NEG-PST‘John was unable to hire more students that Mary fortunately hired.’This leaves the following counterexample (Hiraiwa 2002).
(57) [Boku-ga/no omou ni]

John-wa Mary-ga

suki-ni-tigainai

I-NOM/GEN think-PRES-ADN -DAT John-TOP Mary-NOM like-must-PRES‘I think that John likes Mary.’
The occurrence of the dative case marker suggests that this structure is a DP despite thefact that there is no indication of a nominal head. If so, like the comparative construction,
this would also be an instance of a covert nominal head, as argued by Maki and Uchibori(2008). We can see this by the fact that the subject is an external argument (subject of‘think’), hence the genitive case can only be the D-licensed kind based on all that wehave seen.

6. Conclusion
In this chapter I gave evidence for genitive case marking that is not licensed by D,
but rather by a combination of weak v and dependent tense. While this licensing
condition itself must be derived from other assumptions, what we have been able tocapture are similarities and differences between this genitive and the genitive of negation
in Slavic. In both cases, the genitive occurs on the internal argument of a predicate —unaccusative, passive, and the direct object (in Japanese, only of stative predicates). In
Slavic, the licensing condition for this type of genitive is, informally, by a combination of

	
  

34	
  

weak v and negation, and since both may occur in root as well as subordinate clause,
genitive of negation occurs in root as well as subordinate clause. In contrast, in Japanese,due to the fact that one element of the licensing condition is dependent tense, which only
occurs in subordinate clause, this type of genitive only occurs in subordinate clause inJapanese. Finally, we gave ample evidence that this GDT is different from the D-licensed
kind, which also occurs in Japanese, but with a clearly different distribution from the
GDT.

REFERENCE
Babby, Leonard H. 1980. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Karoma Publishers.
Babyonyshev, Maria A. 1996. Structural connections in syntax and processing: Studies
in Russian and Japanese, MIT: Ph.D. dissertation.
Bailyn, John F. 1997. Genitive of negation is obligatory. In Annual Workshop on Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting 1995, eds. W. Browne,
E. Dornsich, N. Kondrashova and D. Zec, 84-114. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic
Publications.
Bedell, George. 1972. On no. In: UCLA Papers in Syntax 3: Studies in East Asian
Syntax, pp. 1-20.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press, Oxford.	
  Fujita, Naoya. 1988. Genitive subject in Japanese and Universal Grammar. Masters
thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

	
  

35	
  

Hale, Kenneth. 2002. On the Dagur object relative: some comparative notes. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 11, 109-122.
Harada, S.-I., 1971. Ga-no conversion and ideolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo
Kenkyu 60, 25-38.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. On nominative-genitive conversion. In: Guerzoni, E., and O.
Matushansky (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39: A Few from Building
E39, pp. 66-125.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2002. Nominative-Genitive Conversion Revisited. Japanese/Korean
Linguistics10. Stanford: CSLI/The University of Chicago Press, 546-559.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal
Architecture, Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.
Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Izvorski, R. 2001. Observations about the form
and meaning of the perfect. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a Life in Language.
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 189-238.
Johnson, Kyle. 2000. How far will quantifiers go? In: Martin, R., Michaels, D.,
Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor ofHoward Lasnik. MIT
Johnson, Kyle, and Satoshi Tomioka. 1997. Lowering and mid-size clauses. In
Proceedings of the 1997 Tubingen Workshop on Reconstruction, ed. Graham Katz,
Shin-Sook Kim, and Heike Winhart, 185–206. Universitat Stuttgart and Universitat
Tubingen.
Kato, Sachiko. 2008. Scrambling and EPP: from the viewpoint of Kumamoto
dialect of Japanese. Proceedings of the Formal Approaches to Japanese

	
  

36	
  

Linguistics IV.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in
Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 597–633.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Nominative objects: The role of TP in Japanese. In: Koizumi
M., Ura., H. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1: MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 24, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 211-230. 	
 Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2008. Nominative object. In: Miyagawa, S., Saito, M. (Eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 141–164..
Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms. U.
Mass.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
Maki, Hideki, and Aasako Uchibori. 2008. Ga/no conversion. In Miyagawa, S., Saito, M.
(Eds.), Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp.192-216.
May, Robert. 1977.	
  The	  Grammar	
  of	
  Quantification.	
  	
  Ph.D.	
  dissertation,	
  MIT.	
  Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. Academic Press,
New York.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. Case-checking and minimal link condition. In: Phillips, C.
(Ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: Papers on Case and Agreement II.
MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 213-254.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2008. Genitive subjects in Altaic. In: Ulutas, S., Boeckx, C. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL4), MITWPL
	
  

37	
  

56, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 181-198.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying Agreement-based anddiscourse-configurational languages. MIT Press. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph54.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011a. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua
121, 1265-1282. Special volume on nominalization edited by Jaklin Kornfilt
and John Whitman.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011b. Optionality. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic
Minimalism, 354-376. Ed. Cedrix Boeckx, Oxford UP.
Nambu, Satoshi. 2010. Nominative/genitive alternation in Japanese: A quantitative Study
and its Theoretical Implications. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.
Ochi, Masao. 2001. Move F and ga/no conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 10, 247-286.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1994. Adverbs of Quantification and Sequence-of-Tense
Phenomena. In the proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV. 251-267.
CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,.
Mass.
Saito, Mamoru. 1983. Case and government in Japanese. In: Proceedings of the Second
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 247-259.
Sakai, Hiromu. 1994. Complex NP constraint and case-conversions in Japanese. In:
Nakamura, M. (Ed.), Current Topics in English and Japanese. Hituzi Syobo,
Tokyo, pp. 179-200.

	
  

38	
  

Sano, Masaki. 1985. LF movement in Japanese. Descriptive and applied linguistics,
18:245-259.
Sudo, Y. 2009. Invisible degree nominals in Japanese clausal comparatives.
In Reiko Vermeulen and Ryosuke Shibagaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5thWorkshop on Altaic in Formal Linguistics. MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass., pp. , 285–
295.
Tada, Hiroaki. 1992. Nominative objects in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14,
91-108.
Takahashi, Hisako. 2010. Adverbial Clauses and Nominative/Genitive Conversion in
Japanese. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics (WAFL6). MITWPL.
Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A Configurational Approach to Case-marking in Japanese.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.
Terada, Michiko. 1987. Unaccusativity in Japanese. NELS 17. GLSA, Department ofLinguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 619-640.
Watanabe, A., 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A
cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 373-410.
Whitman, John. 1992. String Vacuous V to Comp. Ms. Cornell. Paper presented at 1991
GLOW.

	
  

39