ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF JAPANESE DITRANSITIVES*
Atsushi Ito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
The issue on Japanese ditransitive construction concerns its hierarchical relation between
dative and accusative arguments. There have been two different proposals on this issue. The
standard approach (Hoji 1985, Takano 1988) claims that the dative>accusative word orderreflects the base structure, and that the accusative>dative word order is derived by theapplication of Move α (Saito 1985, 1992). While the other approach (Miyagawa 1995,
Kitagawa 1994) contends that the two orders are best viewed as being base-generated,indicating that they are not equivalent. These traditional approaches give rise to a hot debate
on the view of the movement; whether the movement is optional or obligatory. What do theytell us about Japanese ditransitives? Is there any way to unify the two approaches? A hint isfound in a finer-grained syntax and semantic approach proposed by Matsuoka (2003). In thispaper, incorporating Matsuoka’s (2003) hypothesis and Miyagawa & Tsujioka’s (2004)
observation on a certain ditransitive verb, I will claim that the thematic hierarchy, Agent >Possessor (Possessor Goal) > Theme> Goal, is universal.
This paper is organized in the following way. In section 2, I will review the traditional
analyses and find the issue they have. In section 3, I will argue that Matsuoka’s (2003)
hypothesis that there are two kinds of ditransitive verbs is superior to the traditional analyses.
Following Miyagwa & Tsujioka’s (2004) observation on two kinds of dative arguments of acertain kind of ditransitive verbs, I will claim that Matsuoka (2003) is partially correct, but
not totally correct. Altering their hypothesis on the word order of the two kinds of dativearguments, I will try to present a unified view of the competing traditional hypotheses. In
section 4, incorporating Kitagawa’s (1994) insight on the decomposition of a ditransitive verb,
I will propose that the two kinds of verbs are decomposed into abstract verbs. This
decomposition analysis not only gives an account for why there are the two kinds ofditransitive verbs in Japanese, but also captures the semantic difference between the
ditransitive constructions. Section 5 is a conclusion.
2. Traditional Analyses
There are two possible surface word orders in Japanese ditransitives; thedative-accusative word order and the accusative-dative word order, as shown in (1a) and (1b),*This paper was presented at the Cambridge-Tsinghua-Nanzan Workshop on Word Order andFunctional Categories, held at Nanzan University in December 2006. I’d like to thank the participatingaudience for their useful comments.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 127-150© 2007 Atsushi ItoNanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

respectively.
(1)a.

John-ga Mary-ni hon-oage-ta / okur-ta / mise-ta (koto)
John-Nom Mary-Dat book-Acc give-Past / send-Past / show-Past‘John gave/sent/showed Mary a book.’b.

John-ga hon-oMary-ni age-ta / okur-ta / mise-ta
John-Nom book-Acc Mary-Dat give-Past / send-Past / show-Past(koto)

This fact gives rise to a hot debate; whether the word orders are transformationally related, orbase-generated. In the next section, I will briefly examine the traditional views on this issue.
2.1. Goal-centered Approach (Movement Hypothesis)
Hoji (1985) argues that dative-accusative word order in (1a) reflects the base sturucure,and that accusative-dative word order in (1b) is derived by a scrambling of the accusative
phrase over the dative phrase. According to Hoji (1985) and Takano (1998), there is only one
type of indirect object, a goal. Hence I shall call this approach goal-centered approach. They
assume the following thematic hierarchy in (2).
(2)

a.

vP
NP

b.
v’

Agent

VP

NP

NP
v

Theme-Acc

v’

Agent

V’

Goal-Dat NP

vP

VP

NP
V

v
V’

Themei-Acc NP
Move αGoal-Dat NP
ti

V’
V

They assume that the thematic hierarchy, agent>goal>theme, in (2a) reflects the base,and propose to derive the theme>goal order by scrambling as shown in (2b). One piece ofevidence for this claim comes from the bound variable reading of a pronoun observed by Hoji
(1985). Consider the examples in (3) from Hoji (1985).
(3)a.

Mary-ga [subete-no gakuseii] -ni [soitui-no sensei] -o syookaisi-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom every-Gen student-Dat he-Gen student-Acc introduce-Past‘Mary introduced his teacher to every student.’b.

*Mary-ga [soitui-no sensei] -ni [subete-no gakuseii] -o syookaisi-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom he-Gen student-Dat every-Gen student-Acc introduce-Past-128-

Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)c.

Mary-ga [subete-no gakuseii]j-o [soitui-no sensei]-ni tj syookaisi-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom every-Gen student-Acc he-Gen teacher-Dat intoroduce-Past‘Mary introduced every student to his teacher.’d.

? Mary-ga [soitui-no sensei]j-o [subete-no gakuseii]-ni tj syookaisi-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom he-Gen teacher-Acc every-Gen student-Dat introduce-Past

Assuming a binary branching structure in (2), Hoji (1985) argues that the bound variable
reading of a pronoun follows the condition in (4).
(4)

A variable cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun or anaphor that it does not c-command(Saito and Hoji 1983)(3a) shows that in the dative-accusative word order, the pronoun contained in the accusativeargument is bound by the antecedent dative argument. (3b) is the crucial data. The sentence in(3b) is no good. The rough structure of (3b) is given in (5). In (5) the intended antecedent
does not c-command the pronoun in the dative phrase. The unacceptability of (3b) is
explained by the condition of (4) if we assume that dative-accusative order reflects the base.
(5)

VP
NP

V’

soitu-no senseii-ni

NPV

subete-no gakuseii-osyookaisu-(ru)The example sentences in (3c) and (3d) are counterparts of (3b) and (3a), respectively. If theaccusative>dative word order is derived by scrambling in (3c), the antecedent in theaccusative phrase c-commands the pronoun in the dative phrase from its moved position. An
anaphoric relation can thus be established in (3c). (3d) is marginal, but it is much better than(3b). The rough structure in (3d) is given in (6).
(6)
NP

VP

[soitui-nosensei-o]j NP
subete-no gakuseii-ni

V’
NP

V

tj

syookaisu-(ru)In (6), the accusative phrase is moved over the dative phrase. Scrambling is undone at LF, and-129-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

the pronoun in the accusative phrase is bound by the antecedent dative phrase at its trace
position. The acceptability of (5d) is thus gained by a reconstruction effect. If we assume theother way word order as its base, we make a wrong prediction.
Thus, the standard analysis identifies one order (goal>theme) as basic and the other(theme>goal) as being derived by scrambling of the theme over the goal. Under thishypothesis, there is only one type of indirect object, a goal. If we assume this standard
analysis, an interesting problem arises. A mismatch in the thematic hierarchy occurs between
Japanese and English. In the English ditransitive construction in (7), Larson (1988) identifies(7a) as the base and (7b) as being derived by passive like movement of the goal phrase over
the theme phrase.
(7)

a.

John passed an E-mail to Mary.

b.

John passed Mary an E-mail.

Baker (1993,1995) presents further evidence for Larson’s (1988) claim and concludes that thethematic hierarchy, theme>goal, is universal. If Japanese and English employ different
thematic hierarchies, this poses a nontrivial problem for learnability. Thematic hierarchy is
not a thing that children should acquire through linguistic evidence. This suggests that theanalysis of English and Japanese should be reconsidered.
2.2. Two Kinds of Indirect Objects (Base-generation Hypothesis)
Concentrating on the VP-internal word orders, Miyagawa (1994,1995) and Kitagawa(1994) argue that the two possible word orders, dative-accusative and accusative-dative, havedifferent sources. They argue that the former string corresponds to English double object
construction in (7b), and that the latter string is equivalent to to-dative construction in (7a).
One crucial data for this claim is based on a diagnosis of numeral quantifier floating. As
is well known, a numeral quantifier may float off its host only if the host is a NP (Shibatani
1978, Haig 1980, Miyagawa 1989, among others). Miyagawa (1994, 1997) observes that thepossibility of floating numeral quantifiers differs depending on the position of the dative
phrase relative to that of the accusative argument. Consider the sentences in (8). The
judgment shown in (8) is Miyagawa’s (1994, 1997), not that of my informants.
(8)a.

Mary-ga tomodatii-ni futa-ri ti tanzyoobi-ni MD-owatasi-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom friend-Dat 2-CL birthday-at MD-Acc hand-Past‘Mary handed two friends a MD at his/her birthday.’b. * Mary-ga MD-o tomodatii-ni futa-ri ti tanzyoobi-ni watasi-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom MD-Acc friend-Dat 2-CL birthday-at hand-Past(Miyagawa 1994, 1997 slightly modified)According to Miyagawa (1994, 1997), as shown in (8), if the dative precedes the accusative, it-130-Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)is acceptable to float the numeral quantifier construed with the dative phrase, but if the dative
phrase follows the accusative phrase, the floating numeral quantifier off the dative phrase isunacceptable for many speakers. Based on this observation, he concludes that the dative ni inthe dative-accusative order is a case marker, and that the dative ni in the accusative-dative
order, is a postposition. According to him, the two orders for dative and accusative phrases
are thus schematized as follows.
(9)a.

[DP [NP …]-ni] [DP [NP … ]-o]-ni : Case markerb.

[DP [NP …]-o] [PP [DP … ]-ni]-ni : postpostion

Miyagawa (1994, 1997) does not directly say anything about the thematic difference
between the two dative phrases. As long as he calls the dative phrase goals, the basegeneration hypothesis is no different from the movement hypothesis in the face of the issue on
the thematic hierarchy. But Miyagawa’s (1994, 1997) point is that there are two kinds ofdative phrases in the ditransitive construction. What does this approach tell us about the
ditransitive constructions in Japanese? Why are there two different views on the word order ofthe construction? Matsuoka’s (2003) classification on ditransitive verbs gives us a hint. He
claims that there are two kinds of ditransitive verbs in Japanese; the Show-type and thePass-type (hence force S-type and P-type,respectively). Checking on the verbs that Miyagawa(1994, 1997) adopts for numeral quantifier floating diagnosis, it has turned out that the verbs
belong to the P-type. As for the discussion on the bound variable reading of a pronoun, Hoji
(1985) mainly uses the S-type. In the next section, let us look at a finer grained syntax andsemantic approach proposed by Matsuoka (2003) and Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) and finda solution to the issue on the thematic hierarchy.
3. A Finer Grained Syntax and Semantic Approach
3.1. Two Kinds of Ditransitive Verbs
Baker’s (1993,1995) observation on the pattern of inchoative alternation led Matsuoka(2003) to make an important proposal for ditransitive verbs. Matsuoka (2003) claims that
there are two kinds of ditranstive verbs; the S-type and the P-type, which are shown in (10).
(10) a.
b.

S-type: mise-ru (show), azuke-ru (deposit), osie-ru (teach), syookaisu-ru (introduce)
P-type: wata-su (pass), oku-ru (send), todoke-ru (deliver), age-ru (give)

Matsuoka (2003) argues that the constructions of these two kinds of verbs exhibit distinct
structures, as shown in (11). The phrase structures in (11a) and (11b) represent the structuresof the S-type and the P-type, respectively.

-131-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(11) a.

S-Type
vP
NP

b.

vP
v’

Agent

VP
NP

P-Type

NP
v

Agent

V’

Posessor-Dat NP

v’
VP
NP

V

v
V’

Theme-Acc NP

Theme-Acc

V

Goal-Dat

As (11a) shows, the dative argument of the S-type is generated in a position higher than theaccusative argument. Essentially, this structure is no different from Hoji’s (1985). On theother hand, according to Matsuoka, the dative argument of the P-type is always generated in aposition lower than the accusative argument, as shown in (11b). Matsuoka (1999, 2003)
assumes that the dative NP in (11a) is a possessor, which behaves as an inner subject, while
the dative NP in (11b) represents a goal. If this hypothesis is correct, the thematic hierarchy ofJapanese is as follows.
(12)

Theme > Goal

This hierarchy in (12) is the same as the one assumed by Baker (1993, 1995). There is noneed to worry about the issue on the thematic hierarchy, if this hypothesis is correct. One
piece of evidence for this claim that the goal phrase is base generated in a position lower than
the accusative phrase in the P-type comes from inchoative alternation.
3.1.1. Inchoative Alternation
First, let us look at the inchoative alternation of the P-type ditransitive verbs. The verb
watasu (pass) selects three arguments; an agent with nominative case; a goal with dative caseand a theme with accusative case, as shown in (13).
(13)

Taro-ga Hanako-ni ronbun-o watasi-ta
Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat article-Acc pass-Past(koto)‘Taro passed Hanako an article.’
The ditransitive verb watasu (pass) in (13) has a morphologically related inchoative
unaccusative variant, watar-u (pass to). Unlike the ditransitive, the inchoative variant takes
two arguments; a theme with nominative case and a goal with dative case, but no agent
subject. The subject of (14a) corresponds to the object NP in (13). The sentence in (14a) isgood, but the sentence in (14b) is no good as an inchoative alternant.

-132-

Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)(14) a.

Ronbun-ga Hanako-ni watar-ta
article-Nom Hanako-Dat pass to-Past(koto)‘The article passed onto Hanako.’b. * Hanako-ga ronbun-o watar-ta
Hanako-Nom article-Acc pass to-Past(koto)‘(Lit.) Hanako passed to an article.’
In (13), it is the theme object that is promoted to the subject position of the inchoative variantin (14). If the dative object in (13) is promoted to the subject position of the inchoative, thesentence becomes unacceptable, as the example in (14b) shows. Given the structure in (11b),
the inchoative pattern in (14) is explained in terms of minimality. Minimal Link Condition(MLC) proposed by Chomsky (1995) is given in (15).
(15) MLC
K attracts α only if there is no β, β closer to K than α, such that K attracts β.
The structure of the inchoative sentence in (14a) is shown in (16).
(16)

TP
NP

T’
VP

NP
ronbun

T
V’

NP

V

Hanako-ni

watar-

In (16), the verb, watar- (pass to), being unaccusative verb, cannot assign accusative case to
the object NP ronbun. The probe T, which has a case feature, searches for the closest NP to T
and attracts the NP ronbun to the Spec of TP. T assigns nominative case to the NP in the Specof TP. If T attracts the goal NP Hanako over the closest NP, ronbun, the ungrammaticalsentence in (14b) is unexpectedly generated as an inchoative alternant.
Secondly, Matsuoka (2003) examines the inchoative alternation pattern of the S-type
ditransitive verbs and argues that the pattern is also explained by MLC in (15). The verb,
osier-u (teach) selects three arguments; an agent with nominative case, a possessor withdative case, and a theme with accusative case, as shown in (17).

-133-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(17)

Taro-ga Hanako-ni Itariago-o osie-ta(koto)
Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat Italian-Acc teach-Past‘Taro taught Hanako Italian.’

The verb osier-u in (17) has an inchoative variant, osowar-u (learn). The verb osowar-u(learn) selects two arguments; a possessor with nominative case and a theme with accusative
case, as shown in (18a). The subject NP in (18a) corresponds to the dative NP in (17). The
sentence in (18a) is good, but the sentence in (18b) is no good as the inchoative alternant.
(18) a.

Hanako-ga Italiago-o osowat-ta (koto)
Hanako-Nom Italian-Acc learn-Past‘Hanako learned Italian.’b. * Italiago-ga Hanako-ni osowat-ta (koto)
Italian-Nom Hanako-Dat learn-Past‘(Lit.) Italian learned Hanako.’
In (17), it is the dative object that is promoted to the subject position of the inchoative variantin (18a). If the accusative object in (17) is promoted to the subject position of the inchoative
variant, the sentence becomes unacceptable, as shown in (18b). The structure of the sentencein (18a) is shown in (19).
(19)

TP
T’
VP
NP

T
V’

Hanako

VP

V

NP

V

Ø

Itariago-oosowa-(ru)In (19), the verb osowar-u (learn), not being lexical causative verb, cannot assign dative caseto the object NP, Itariago. The probe T, which has a case feature, searches for the closest NP
to T, and attracts Hanako rather than the NP, Itariago. T assigns nominative case to the NP in
Spec of TP. If T attracts the NP, Itarigo, over the closest NP Hanako, the ungrammaticalinchoative sentence in (18b) is unexpectedly generated as an inchoative alternant.
If this analysis is correct, we would expect that bound variable reading of a pronoun in-134-Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)

the P-type differs from the one of the S-type shown in (3). But the diagnosis does not favor
the structure in (11b), which is assumed by Matsuoka (2003).
3.1.2. Two Kinds of Bound Variable Readings of a Pronoun in the P-type
As noted by Matsuoka (2003), there are some speakers of Japanese who claim that theanaphoric relation can be established even if a pronoun contained in the dative argument
precedes the antecedent in the accusative argument in the P-type. I have applied the same
diagnosis on several P-type ditransitives and have gained the same results as Matsuoka’s frommy informants. But later, I have found that majority subjects do not accept our judgments.
This means that there are two kinds of judgments in the bound variable pronoun diagnosis of
the P-type. The following examples are mine. I have put majority reading in the parenthesis.
(20) a.

Mary-ga subete-no pizai-osorei-o tanonda seito-ni
todoke-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom every-Gen pizza-Acc it-Acc ordered student-dat deliver-Past‘Mary sent every booki to the student who ordered iti.’b.*(?)Mary-ga soitui-ga tanonda piza-osubete-no seitoi-ni
todoke-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom he-Nom ordered pizza-Acc every-Gen student-Dat deliver-Past‘Mary delivered the pizza that hei ordered to every studenti.’c.

Mary-ga [subete-no seitoi-ni]j soitui-ga tanonda piza-o tj todoke-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom every-Gen student-Dat he-Nom ordered pizza-Acc deliver-Past‘Mary sent every studenti the pizza he i ordered.’d.?(*)Mary-ga [sorei-o tanonda seito-ni]jsubete-no pizai-o tj todoke-ta (koto)
Mary-Nom it-Acc ordered student-Dat every-Gen pizza-Acc deliver-Past‘Mary delivered the student who ordered iti every pizzai.’
In (20a) and (20c), the anaphoric relation can be established because the antecedent
c-commands the pronoun at the surface structure, no matter which word order, thedative-accusative or the accusative-dative reflects the base structure.
The more crucial data are (20b) and (20d). There are two kinds of judgments in boundvariable reading of the pronoun in (20b) and (20d). The sentences in (20b) and (20d) also
contrast with the data with the S-type in (3d) and (3b), respectively. As we have already seenin the previous section, we find (3d) to be marginal in the accusative-dative order. But in thesame word order, some speakers find (20b) to be unacceptable. The assumed structure for(20b) is shown in (21).

-135-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1(21) The assumed structure (some speakers)

NP

VP

soitui-ga tanonda pizza-oNPVsubete-no gakuseii-ni

todoke-(ta)If we assume that the accusative-dative word order is basic, as shown in (21), the pronoun
contained in the accusative phrase cannot be c-commanded by the dative phrase. Hence, ananaphoric relation cannot be established. The unacceptability of (20b) for some speakers isgained in the assumed structure (21). On the other hand, many speakers judge (20b) to be
marginal. This judgment is parallel to the one that all speakers obtain in (3d). So there is nocontrast in judgments between (3d) and (20b) for many speakers. If we assume that thedative-accusative word order reflects the base structure of the P-type, as shown in (22), whichis contrary to Matsuoka’s (2003) proposal, the bound variable reading of the pronoun in (20b)is expected to be marginal.
(22) The assumed structure (most speakers)

NP

VP[soitui-ga tanonda pizza-o]jNPV’subete-no gakuseii-ni

NP
tj

V
todoke-(ru)If we assume that the accusative phrase is moved over the dative phrase by scrambling, asshown in (22), the pronoun in the accusative phrase is bound by the antecedent in its trace
position. The marginal acceptability of (20b) for many speakers is expected to be obtained byreconstruction effect in this assumed structure in (22).
The sentence in (20d) is the more controversial data. (20d) is marginal, but it is muchbetter than (20b), for some speakers. The rough structure of (20d) is given in (23).

-136-Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)(23) The assumed structure (some speakers)

NP

VP[sorei-o tanonda gakusei-ni]jNPV’subete-no pizai-o

NP

V

tj

todoke-(ta)If we assume that the dative phrase is moved over the accusative phrase by scrambling in (23),the pronoun in the dative phrase is bound by the antecedent in the accusative phrase in its
trace position. The marginality of (20d) for some speakers is expected to be gained byreconstruction effect in this assumed structure in (23). But I found that majority of people do
not accept this judgment of ours in (20d). They judge (20d) to be unacceptable. So there is nocontrast in judgment between (20d) and (3b) for many speakers. If we assume that thedative-accusative word order reflects the base structure, as shown in (24), which is contrary to
Matsuoka’s (2003) proposal, the bound variable reading that most speakers get in (20d) canbe expected to be obtained.
(24) The assumed structure (many speakers)
VP
NP

V’

sorei-o tanonda gakusei-ni

NPV

subete-no pizai-o

todoke-(ta)In (24), the pronoun contained in the dative phrase is not bound by the antecedent accusative
phrase. Hence, an anaphoric relation cannot be established in (24).
If Matsuoka’s (2003) hypothesis is correct, it is quite odd that there are two kinds of
judgments in the bound variable pronoun diagnosis only in the P-type. There is no peculiarity
in judgments of bound variable anaphora with the S-type. As we have seen, Matsuoka’s(2003) hypothesis accounts for inchoative alternation of the P-type ditransitive, but as far as
the bound variable pronouns with the P-type is concerned, the diagnosis does not favor
Matsuoka’s (2003) proposal. Why does such an idiocyncracy in the bound variable reading ofa pronoun exist only in the P-type? There must be more in the P-type ditransitive thanMatsuoka’s (2003) proposal. In the next subsection, I will argue that the distinction on
ditransitive verbs that Matsuoka (2003) makes is correct, but Matsuoka (2003) cannot becorrect in capturing the goal dative as a NP. Although the judgment in the bound variablepronoun in the P-type is highly controversial, there is a clear evidence for Matusoka’s (2003)-137-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

distinction of ditransitive verbs. The evidence comes from the two goals construction which
Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) observes.
3.2. High and Low Goals in a Certain Kind of Ditransitive
3.2.1. High and Low Goals
Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) observes that two different kinds of dative phrases occur
in the same sentence with right ditransitive verbs. The evidence comes from the sentence, as
shown in (25). The example sentence is mine.
(25)

Situzi-ga oozi-ni
obentoo-ogakkoo-ni todoke-ta (koto)butler-Nom prince-Dat lunch box-Acc school-to deliver-Past‘The butler delivered a lunch box to school to the possession of the Prince.’

The sentence in (25) means that the butler sent a lunch box to school, which is a location (lowgoal), with an intention that the Prince (high goal) will come to possess it. The contrast in (26)shows that a high goal is a NP, which can be passivized for a case reason, and that a low goal
is a PP, to which passivization cannot apply.
(26) a.

Oozi-gasituzi-niyotte obentoo-ogakkoo-ni todoke-rare-ta(koto)
prince-Nom butler-by
lunch box-Acc school-to deliver-Pass-Past‘The Prince was delivered a lunch box to school by the butler.’b. * Gakkoo-ga situzi-niyotte oozi-ni
obentoo-otodoke-rare-ta (koto)school-Nom butler-by
prince-Dat lunch box-Acc deliver-Pass-Past‘(Lit.) The school was sent a lunch box to the Prince by the butler.’Interestingly, as the sentence in (27) shows, an animate goal may appear as a low goal.
(27)

Situzi-ga oozi-ni
obentoo-otukibito-ni todoke-ta (koto)butler-Nom prince-Dat lunch box-Acc attendant-Dat deliver-Past‘The butler delivered a lunch box to the attendant to the Prince.’

In (27), oozi is a high goal, and tukibito is a low goal. As the contrast in (28) shows,passivization can be applied to the high goal (NP), oozi, but not to the low goal (PP), tukibito.
(28) a.

Oozi-gasituzi-niyotte obentoo-otukibito-ni todoke-rare-ta (koto)prince-Nom butler-by
lunch box-Acc attendant-Dat deliver-Pass-Past‘The Prince was sent a lunch box to his attendant by the butler.’-138-

Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)b. *Tukibito-ga
situzi-niyotte oozi-ni
obentoo-otodoke-rare-ta (koto)attendant-Nom butler-by
prince-Dat lunch box-Acc deliver-Pass-Past‘The attendant was sent a lunch box to the Prince by the butler.’
The question at hand is what kind of ditransitive verbs may allow the two goals, highand low in the same sentence. Next, I will show that what Miyagawa & Tsujioka call right
ditranstives for the two goals construction corresponds to the P-type ditransitive verbs. This
fact gives us a further support for Matsuoka’s distinction of ditransitive verbs. Consider thesentences in (29). The verbs, azuke-ru (entrust) in (29a) and mise-ru (show) in (29b),
instantiate the S-type ditransitive verbs. While the verbs, todoke-ru (deliver) in (29c) andwata-su (hand) in (29d) are instances of the P-type ditransitive verbs.
(29) a. * Taro-ga Hanako-ni okane-oginkoo-ni azuke-ta(koto)
Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat money-Acc bank-to deposit-Past‘Taro deposited money to Hanako to the bank.’b. * Taro-ga Yamada sensei-ni kao-okenkyusitu-ni mise-ta (koto)Taro-Nom Yamada teacher-Dat face-Acc office-to
show-Past‘Taro showed his face in front of Prof. Yamada at his office.’c.

Taro-ga Hanako-ni piza-oheya-ni todoke-ta (koto)Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat pizza-Acc room-to deliver-Past‘Taro delivered a pizza to Hanako to her room.’d.

Taro-ga Hanako-ni hanataba-o hisyo-ni
watasi-ta (koto)Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat bouquet-Acc secretary-to hand-Past‘Taro handed a bouquet to the secretary to Hanako.’

The example sentences in (29a) and (29b) show that the two dative phrases cannot appear in
the sentences with the S-type verbs. On the other hand, the example sentences in (29c) and(29d) show that two dative phrases may occur simultaneously in the sentences with the P-type
verbs. The contrasts in (29) show that what Miyagawa & Tsujioak (2004) call right
ditranstives that may allow the two goals is equivalent to the P-type ditransitive verbs. This
fact provides a good evidence for Matsuoka’s (2003) distinction of ditransitive verbs. Then
what about the word order of the two goals?
3.2.2. Word Order of the Two Goals
According to Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004), the word order of the two goals is quite rigid,
the hierarchical order in (30) reflects the word order of the two goals.
(30) a.

High goal (possessor goal) > accusative (theme) > low goal (locative goal)-139-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1b.

High goal (possessor goal) > low goal (locative goal) > accusative (theme)

The descriptive generalization in (30) tells us that a low goal cannot precede a high goal, andthat a theme phrase cannot be moved over a high goal. If high and low goals in (25) and (27)appear in the reverse word order, low goal.>high goal, as shown in (31a) and (31b), thesentences become quite odd.
(31) a. * Situzi-ga gakoo-ni obentoo-ooozi-ni
todoke-ta (koto)butler-Nom school-to lunch box-Acc prince-Dat deliver-Past‘The butler delivered a lunch box to school to the possession of the Prince.’b. * Situzi-ga tukibito-ni obentoo-ooozi-ni
todoke-ta (koto)butler-Nom attendant-Dat lunch box-Acc prince-Dat deliver-Past‘The butler delivered a lunch box to the attendant to the possession of the Prince.’
The sentence in (31b) is good in the meaning, ‘The butler delivered a lunch box to the Prince
to the possession of the attendant, but not good in the original meaning of (27). What about
the word order theme-high goal? Although Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) judge the sentencein (32) unacceptable, I find it to be marginal. I have put their judgment in the parenthesis.
(32)(*)? Situzi-ga obentoo-ooozi-nigakkoo-ni todoke-ta (koto)butler-Nom lunch box-Acc Prince-Dat school-to deliver-Past‘The butler delivered a lunch box to school to the Prince.’

I assume that the marginality found in the sentence of (32) is due to the successive occurrenceof the dative phrases. If we put the phrase, baiku-de (by motorcycle) between the two dative
phrases, as shown in (33), the marginality suddenly disappears.
(33)

Situzi-ga obentooi-ooozi-ni ti baiku-de
gakoo-ni todoke-ta (koto)butler-Nom lunch box-Acc Prince-Dat motorbike-by school-to deliver-Past‘The butler delivered a lunch box to school to the Prince by mortorbike.’

I find the sentence in (33) to be perfect. This fact shows that the theme obentoo may be
moved over the high goal oozi in (33), if the hierarchy in (30a) reflects the base structure. I
propose in this section that the generalization in (30) should include the fact that a theme may
be moved over a high goal. So the revised generalization on the word order would be (34).
(34)*Low goal > High goal

The constraint in (34) is so simple. In (34), the low goal is prohibited to be in a position whereit c-commands the high goal. We have seen that a high goal (a possessor goal) is a NP, whichis case marked ni, while a low goal (a locative goal) is a PP, whose ni is a postposition. This
fact nicely corresponds to Miyagwa’s (1994,1997) conclusion that the dative ni is a case-140-

Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)marker in the dative-accusative word order, and that the dative ni is a postposition in theaccusative-dative word order. Building on Marantz’s (1993) proposal on the applicative head,
Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) proposes the following structure in (35b) for the two goals
construction in (25), which is repeated in (35a).
(35) a.

Situzi-ga oozi-ni
obento-ogakko-ni todoke-ta (koto)butler-Nom prince-Dat lunch box-Acc school-to deliver-Past‘The butler delivered to school to the Prince.’

b.

vP
NP
situziv’
Applicative Phrase
NPoozi-ni

Applicative’
VP

NP
obento-ov

Applicative (HAVE)
V’

PP

V

gakoo-ni

todoke- (ta)In (35b), according to Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004), the applicative head (with an abstract
verb HAVE) relates the high goal, oozi (the Prince), to the event that the theme, obentoo(lunch box) ultimately comes into the possession of the Prince by way of the low goal. But as
Kageyama (2006) notes, the sentence in (35a) does not imply that the high goal oozi
actually possesses the theme obentoo. A success of transfer of the theme to the goal is not
implied in the sentence in (35a). This structure in (35b) captures the hierarchical relation of
the arguments, but it is incorrect to call the high goal a possessor. I shall call it a locative goal.
I will give an account for why the P-type does not imply a success of transfer later bypresenting a decomposition analysis of the ditransitive verb. In the previous section, we haveseen that there is an idiosyncrasy on the bound variable reading of the pronoun in the P-type.
One possibility which comes to mind is that for majority of people, an anaphoric relation isestablished between the high goal and the theme in the structure assumed in (35b). For
minority of people, like Matsuoka (2003) and I, an anaphoric relation is established between
the theme and the low goal in (35b). If this structure in (35b) is correct, what Matsuoka(2003) has been capturing as a NP goal must be a low goal, which is a PP. A further
prediction is that the inchoative alternation of the P-type ditransitive verbs must occur in thelowest VP; an event structure. Otherwise, the high goal NP, oozi, is incorrectly attracted to the-141-Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

subject position of the inchoative alternant, since the high goal is closer to T than the low goal.
Such a derivation wrongly predicts the unacceptable alternation, as shown in (36).
(36)* Oozi-ga
obentoo-ogakkoo-ni todoi-ta (koto).
prince-Nom lunch box-Acc school-Dat reach-Past‘(Lit.)The Prince reached a lunch box to school.’In the next subsection, I will argue that the two possible word orders; thedaitive-accusative and the accusative-dative, which Miyagawa (1994, 1997) captures as beingbase generated, are equivalent to the word orders shown in the two goals construction; highgoal-theme and theme-low goal, respectively.
3.3. Numeral Quantifier Float
As Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) point out, there is no way to tell which goal is present
if the sentence includes only one goal in the dative-accusative word order, as shown in (37).
(37)

Taro-ga Hanako-ni MD-o okut-ta (koto)Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat MD-Acc send-Past‘Taro sent MD to Hanako.’

In (37), the goal Hanako may be a high goal or a low goal in the goal-theme order. This iswhat Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) mean, based on their generalization on the word order of
the two goals, which is shown in (30). Then what about the case in which the sentence
includes one goal phrase in the accusative-dative word order, as shown in (38).
(38)

Taro-ga
MD-oHanako-ni okut-ta (koto)Taro-Nom MD-Acc Hanako-Dat send-Past‘Taro sent MD to Hanako.’

Although Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) conclude that Hanako in (38) is a low goal in theaccusative-dative word order, but we have seen that a theme may be moved over a high goalin the two goals construction. Now we can say that there is no way to tell which goal ispresent if the sentence includes only one goal even in the accusative-dative word order. In(38), the goal Hanako may be a high goal or a low goal. Notice that a high goal is a NP,
which allows a numeral quantifier float, and that a low goal is a PP, which does not allow anumeral quantifier to float off its host. This means that it is no use applying a numeral
quantifier float diagnosis on the single goal of the P-type ditransitive construction to tellwhether it is a NP or a PP. Although Miyagawa (1994, 1997) claims that there is a contrast in
the judgments of numeral quantifier float diagnosis between the two sentences in (8), which isrepeated in (39), the judgment may be controversial. The judgment in (39) is Miyagawa’s(1994,1997).

-142-

Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)(39) a.

Mary-ga tomodatii-ni san-nin
Mary-Nom friend-Dat 3-CL

ti tanzyoobi-ni MD-o watasi-ta (koto)birthday-at MD-Acc hand-Past‘Mary handed a MD to three friends at their birthday.’b. * Mary-ga MD-otomodati-ni san-nin
Mary-Nom MD-Acc friend-Dat 3-CL

ti tanzyoobi-ni watasi-ta (koto)birthday-at hand-Past

As I have mentioned, there is no way to tell which goal is present in single goal constructions,as shown in (39). The dative phrases in (39) may be a high goal (NP), or a low goal (PP).
Some of my informants find (39a) to be unacceptable and some judge (39b) to be acceptable,
contrary to Miyagawa’s (1994, 1997) judgment. The judgment in numeral quantifier float
diagnosis in a single goal construction with the P-type is highly controversial. This factsuggests that what Miyagawa (1994, 1997) has captured as being base-generated in a single
goal construction with the P-type cannot be correct. Does this mean that the basegeneration-hypothesis is incorrect? What about the possibility of floating numeral quantifier
off the two goals? The base-generation hypothesis needs to be reconsidered in the two goals
construction. Consider the sentences with the two goals, as shown in (40).
OK(40) a. * Situzi-ga oozii-ni
san-nin ti piza-ogakkooj-ni NOT OKsan-kasyo tj
Butler-Nom Prince-Dat 3-CL
pizza-Acc school-to
3-CL
todoke-ta (koto)deliver-Past‘The butler delivered a pizza to three Princes to three schools.’OKb. * Situzi-ga oozii-ni
san-nin ti piza-otukibitoj-ni
butler-Nom Prince-Dat 3-CL
pizza-Acc attendant-to
todoke-ta (koto)deliver-Past

NOT OK

hito-ri
1-CL

tj‘The butler delivered a pizza to three Princes to their one attendant.’
In (40), it is acceptable to float a numeral quantifier off the high goals (NP) , oozi (prince), but
not off its PP host, the low goals, gakkoo (school) and tukibito (attendant). We can conclude
that the dative ni of a high goal is a case marker, while that of a low goal is a postposition.
The contrast in (40) shows that what Miyagawa (1994,1997) has been capturing as being
base-generated is all about the rigid word order of the high and low goals. If the word orderconstraint in (34) is correct, both base-generation hypothesis (Miyagawa 1994, 1997) andmovement hypothesis (Hoji 1985, Takano 1988, Saito 1989) can be maintained, as far as theP-type ditransitive construction is concerned. In this section, I have shown that what
Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004) call right ditransitive verbs for allowing the two goals in thesame sentence corresponds to the P-type ditranstiive verbs. This is the clearest evidence for
Matsuoka’s distinction of ditransitive verbs. But, Matsuoka (2003) is incorrect in capturing
the goal as a NP in the P-type verbs. The low goal is a PP. Here we have an issue. Why doJapanese have two kinds of ditransitive verbs? The lexical decomposition of ditransitive verbs-143-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

assumed by Kitagawa (1994) gives us a hint. In the next section, I will propose that the twokinds of ditransitve verbs are lexically decomposed into more fundamental elements, abstract
verbs HAVE or GO, which denote their dative arguments as a possessor or a locative goal.
4. Proposal
4.1. The Decomposition of Ditransitives
In the previous section, we have seen that there are two kinds of ditransitive verbs inJapanese. Then two different kinds of questions arise; first of all, why does Japanese have twokinds of ditransitive verbs? Secondly, why does the P-type ditransitives allow two kinds ofgoals in the same sentence? Kitagawa’s (1994) lexical decomposed structure, which is shownin (41b) gives us a hint. Kitagawa (1994) gives the structure in (41b) to the sentence in (41a).
(41) a.

Taro-ga Hanako-ni ronbun-o watasi-ta (koto)Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat article-Acc hand-Past‘Taro handed Hanako an article.’

b.

vP
NP

v’

Taro-ga

VP

NP

v
V’

Hanako-niNPronbun-o

CAUSEV
HAVE (watasi-(ta))

In (41b), Kitagawa (1994), based on Kayne (1983)’s insight on a small clause analysis ofEnglish double object construction, postulates an abstract verb HAVE for Japanese ditransitive
construction in (41a). Notice that the verb watasu (hand) is an instance of the P-type, whichallows the two dative phrases in the sentence. The structure in (41b) is not the correct
structure for the P-type ditransitive verbs. Then what does this structure in (41b) stand for? As
we have seen in the previous section, the S-type ditransitives associtates its dative argumentwith a position higher than the accusative argument. The structure in (41b) correctly ccaptures
the one of the S-type in (42).
(42)

Taro-ga Hanako-ni ronbun-o mise-ta(koto)
Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat article-Acc show-Past‘Taro showed Hanako an article.’-144-

Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)

The structure for (42) is given in (43).
(43)

vP
NP1

v’

Agent

VP

v

NP2
Posessor-Dat

V’
NP3

CAUSE
V

Theme-Acc HAVE
I will propose that the S-type ditransitive verb is decomposed into something like; X Cause[Y HAVE Z], in which the variable outside the bracket is an agent, and the variable inside thebrackets are internal arguments. These variables are linked to the structure in (43). In (43), theabstract verb HAVE is specified as assigning an agent role, a theme role, and a possessor role.
In (43), NP1, NP2, and NP3 have these respective thematic roles. The possessor meaning of
the S-type ditransitives, which I will touch on in the next sub section, is correctly captured if
we postulate the predicate HAVE in the structure in (43). What about the P-type ditransitives?
As I have pointed out, the sentences of the P-type ditiransitives does not imply a possessor
effect. Hence, the predicate HAVE is not necessary for the P-type. I will propose that theP-type ditransitive verbs are decomposed into something like, X CAUSE [Y APPLICATIVE(BE) [Z GO to α]. The variable X outside the brackets is an agent, the variable inside thebrackets are internal arguments. These variables are linked to the structure in (35) assumed by
Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004), which is repeated in (44b), with a little bit alternation. The twogoals construction in (25) is repeated in (44a) for convenience.
(44) a.

Situzi-ga oozi-ni
obentoo-ogakkoo-ni todoke-ta (koto)butler-Nom prince-Dat lunch box-Acc school-to deliver-Past‘The butler delivered a lunch box to school to the possession of the Prince.’-145-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

b.

vP
NP

v’

situzi(Agent)

vP

v

NP

v’

oozi-ni(Possessor goal)
NP

CAUSE

VP

obentoo-o PP(Theme)NPv
V’

BE (light verb Applicative)
V

P

GO

gakkoo-ni (to)(Locative goal)
According to Marantz (1993), an applicative head is a light verb, which takes as its
complement an event structure denoting VP and at the same time introduces an indirect object.
Note that the applicative in (44b) is a light verb, which has no thematic role of its own toassign. Saito & Hoshi (1994) argue that in such a circumstance the next lower predicate canraise to the light verb in LF, and the resulting configuration is one of the theta marking. The
NP in the spec of vP is assigned a thematic role goal by the light verb in a compositional way.
In (44), the high goal is not a possessor, but a possessor goal. The fact that a possessor effectis absent in the P-type ditransitive construction is captured correctly in the configuration in(44), if we assume an abstract verb GO, instead of HAVE. Under this decomposition analysis,
it is assumed that the first argument obentoo in the lowest VP is always attracted to thesubject position of the inchoative variant, as shown in (45).
(45)

Obentoo-ga
oozi-nigakkoo-ni todoi-ta (koto).
lunch box-Nom prince-Dat school-to arrive-Past‘The lunch box was delivered to school to the Prince.’

In this section, I have shown that the thematic roles of the dative arguments of the two kindsof ditransitives are determined by abstract verbs, HAVE and GO. The abstract verb HAVE
denotes the dative argument of the S-type as a possessor, while the abstract verb GO specifies
the dative argument of the P-type as a possessor goal. In the P-type ditransitive construction,an additional goal, a locative goal may appear in the same sentence. I assume that theoccurrence of the two goal phrases in the P-type is due to the characteristic of the abstractverb, GO. This decomposition analysis can be further supported by a semantic difference.

-146-

Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)

4.2. Semantic Difference
Semantic differences are observed between the S-type and the P-type. As shown in (46a)and (46b), the sentences of the S-type ditransitive do not co-exist with cancellation sentences.
On the other hand, the sentences of the P-type ditransitive are quite natural if cancellation
sentences are added, as the sentences in (46c) and (46d) show.
(46) a. * Taro-ga Kei-ni hakase-no rainiti-o sirase-ta ga, Kei-wa sira-nai (koto)Taro-Nom Kei-Dat Dr.-Gen arrival-Acc know-Past but Kei-Top know-not‘Taro let Kei know the doctor’s arrival in Japan, but Kei does not know about it.
b. * Taro-ga Kei-ni ronbun-o mise-ta ga, Kei-wa mite-inai
Taro-Nom Kei-Dat article-Acc show-Past but Kei-Top see-not(koto)‘Taro showed Kei an article but Kei has not seen it.’c.

Taro-ga Kei-ni nimotu-oL.A.-ni okur-ta ga, Kei-wa uketotte-nai (koto)Taro-Nom Kei-Dat package-Acc L.A.-to send-Past but Kei-Top receive-not‘Taro sent a package to L.A. to Kei, but Kei has not received it yet.’d.

Taro-ga Kei-ni obento-o situji-ni todoke-ta ga, Kei-wa uketotte-nai (koto)Taro-Nom Kei-Dat lunch-Acc butler-Dat deliver-Past but Kei-Top receive-not‘Taro delivered a lunch box to the butler to Kei, but Kei has not received it yet.’

The contrasts in (46) show that the S-type constructions in (46a) and (46b) imply what Pinker(1989) calls a possessor effect, and that the P-type sentences in (46c) and (46d) specify only apositional transition of theme phrases to the goals. This difference in semantics can be
captured in the structures in (43) and (44), if we assume abstract verbs, HAVE and GO. The
same semantic differences are observed in English ditransitives, as well. As noted in theliterature (Oehrle 1976, Kayne 1975, Larson 1988, Pinker 1989), the double object
construction in (47a) has an implication that the students actually learned some French, whilein the to-dative construction in (47b) does not.
(47) a.
b.

Mary taught the students French.
Mary taught French to the students.

It is assumed that the the students in (47a) has a possessor role, while the students in (47b)bears a location goal (see Pinker 1989, Miyagawa & Jung 2004 for further discussion). This
semantic resemblance between Japanese and English ditransitive constructions suggests that
the S-type in Japanese corresponds to the double object construction in English, and that theP-type is equivalent to English to-dative construction.
As is noted by Matusoka (1999), another semantic difference between the S-type and the-147-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

P-type is that the dative argument of the S-type behaves as an inner subject, while the one of
the P-type does not. A diagnosis to detect the subject in Japanese is to examine if theargument in question can serve as the antecedent of the subject oriented anaphor zibun(Kuroda 1965, Kuno 1973, among others). The anaphor zibun takes only a human argument
as its antecedent. Consider the contrast in (48). The sentences of (48a) and (48b) are instancesof the S-type and the P-type, respectively.
(48) a.

Mahoo-no kagami-ga majyoi-ni zibuni-no kireina sugata-o mise-ta (koto)magic-Gen mirror-Nom witch-Dat self-Gen beautiful figure-Acc show-Past‘The magic mirror showed the witch her beautiful figure.’b. * Mahoo-no hooki-ga
oozii-nizibuni-no bentoo-o
todoke-ta (koto)
Magic-Gen bloom-Nom prince-Dat self-Gen lunch box-Acc deliver-Past‘The magic bloom delivered a lunch box to the Prince.’(Matsuoka 1999, slightly modified)
In (48), the nominative agents are inanimate arguments, hence they are disqualified for theantecedents of the anaphrs, zibun. As the sentence in (48a) shows, the dative argument, majyo(the witch) can be the antecedent of zibun. On the other hand, as shown in (48b), the dativeargument, oozi (the Prince) is not coreferential with zibun. This contrast between (48a) and(48b) shows that the dative argument of the S-type, not the P-type has the status of subject.
What about the two goals construction, as shown in (49)?
(49)

Mahoo-no hooki-ga oozii-ni
suguni tukibitoj-ni zibun*i/*j-no
Magic-Gen bloom-Nom prince-Dat quickly attendant-Dat self-Gen
bentoo-otodoke-ta (koto)lunch box-Acc deliver-Past‘The magic bloom delivered his lunch box to the Prince to the attendant.’

As shown in (49), both oozi (the Prince) and tukibito (attendant), which are high and low
goals, respectively, are not coreferential with the anaphor, zibun. The diagnosis with thesubject oriented anaphor zibun shows that only the dative argument of the S-type can becoreferential with the anaphor. The contrast we have seen above suggests that the dative
phrase of the S-type counts as an inner subject, but not high and low goals of the P-type.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, incorporating Matsuoka (2003) and Miyagawa & Tsujioka (2004), I haveclaimed that in Japanese there are three kinds of dative arguments; a possessor (an innersubject), a possessor goal (a high goal), and a locative goal (a low goal). I have proposed thatthe two kinds of ditransitive verbs; the S-type and the P-type in the sense of Matsuoka (2003),
are lexically decomposed into abstract verbs, HAVE and GO, respectively. The thematic roles-148-

Argument Structure of Japanese Ditransitives (A. Ito)of the dative arguments are determined by these abstract verbs. Based on the hypothesis thatthe thematic hierarchy is universal, I will propose the thematic hierarchy in (50).
(50)

Agent > Posessor (Posessor Goal) > Theme > Locative Goal

If the hierarchy in (50) is correct, the base generation hypothesis (Miyagawa 1994, 1997) can
be fundamentally unified with the movement hypothesis (Hoji 1985, Takano 1988).

References
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003) The Syntax of Ditransitives, Evidence from Clitics. Mouton de
Gruyter.
Baker, M. (1996) On the Structural Positions of Themes and Goals, In J. Rooryck and L.
Zaring, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, 7-34.
Baker, M. (2003) Lexical Categories, Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge University
Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, J. (1991) Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Hoji, H. (1985) Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structure in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington.
Hoji, H. and M. Saito (1983) “Weak Crossover and Move α in Japanese,” Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 245-60.
Jung, Y.-J. and S. Miyagawa (2004) “Decomposing Ditransitive Verbs.” In Proceedings of
SICGG, 2004.
Kageyama, T. (2006) “The Syntax of Japanese Passive.” In Lexicon Forum NO.2, Hituji
Press.
Kayne, R. (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kitagawa, Y. (1994) “Shells, Yolks, and Scrambled e.g.s.” Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. 24:221-239.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Larson R. (1988) “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Lasnik, H. (1998) Minimalist Analysis. Blackwell Publishers.
Marantz, A. (1993) “Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions.” In S. A.
Mchombo ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications, 113-150.
Matsuoka, M. (1999) “Two External Arguments in One Clause,” Proceedings of the Nanzan
Glow.
Matsuoka, M. (2003) “Two Types of Ditransitive Constructions in Japanese,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 12: 171-203.

-149-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Miyagawa, S. (1988) “Predication and Numeral Quantifier.” In Papers from the Second
International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, Stanford, Clif.* CSLI Publications,157-192.
Miyagawa, S. (1994) “Scrambling as an Obligatory Movement.” In Proceeding of the Nanzan
University International Symposium on Japanese Language Education and Japanese
Language Studies, Nanzan University, Nagoya, 81-92.
Miyagawa, S. (1997) “Against Optional Scrambling,” Linguistic Inquiry 28,1-25.
Miyagawa, S. and T. Tsujioka (2004) “Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Lingistics 13, 1-38.
Oehrle, R. (1976) The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (1989) “Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A’-movement.” In M. Baltin and A.
Kroch, eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 182-200.
Saito, M. and H. Hoshi (2000) “The Japanese Light Verb Construction and the Minimalist
Program.” In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essayson Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,261-296.
Takano, Y. (1998) “Object Shift and Scrambling,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
16: 817-889.

-150-