DERIVATIONAL THETA-MARKING AND A UNIFORM ANALYSIS OF THE
PROGRESSIVE/PERFECTIVE -TE IRU*
Masumi Aono
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
In this paper, we will propose a uniform analysis of the Japanese aspectual expression -teiru, and this analysis supports Saito and Hoshi's (1998) LF incorporation hypothesis. As
shown in (1), -te iru is one aspectual expression which expresses a state of things or events.
(1)

Te iru is the aspectual expression which expresses a state of things.
(Kindaichi 1976)

However, as shown in (2), it is well known that the sentence including -te iru has the
progressive vs. the perfective interpretations. (2) is the examples.
(2)a. The Progressive
Akanbou -ga
nai -te -i-rubaby-NOM cry -TE -IRU -pres.
'The baby is crying'b. The Perfective
Kingyo -ga
sin-de2 -i-ru
goldfish -NOM die-TE -IRU -pres.
'The goldfish is dead'(nak<naku)1(sin<sinu)(Teramura 1984)(2a) has the progressive interpretation. On the other hand, (2b) has the perfective
interpretation. Then, -te iru is just an aspectual expression which expresses a state of things* This paper was presented at the Cambridge-Hyderabad-Nanzan Joint Seminar on Functional andLexical Categories. I would like to thank Yasuaki Abe, Hiroshi Aoyagi, especially Keiko Murasugi
and Mamoru Saito for helpful comments and suggestions on the material in this paper. I am also
grateful to the audience, especially to Hitoshi Akahane, R. Amritavalli, and Ian Roberts for valuablecomments.
1

This shows the verb which precedes -te iru. cf. (stem<bare form)

2

The morpheme -te is realized as -de after stems that end with a voiced consonant (ex. sin: sin-de 'die',
asob: ason-de 'play', yom: yon-de 'read').
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1, 1-21
© 2007 Masumi Aono

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

or events, why does the -te iru sentence have two different interpretations? Many
researchers sought the answer and most of them consider that the two interpretations relate theinternal aspect of verb that precedes -te iru. (Kindaichi 1950, Fujii 1966, Kudou 1995,
among others). They suggest, when -te iru is preceded by a verb which expresses durative
activity, -te iru sentence has progressive interpretation. In contrast, when -te iru is precededby a verb which expresses temporal activity, the -te iru sentence has perfective interpretation.
This means that the classification of verbs has to be parallel with the two interpretations (theprogressive vs. the perfective). Yet, it does not seem that the case is so simple, relating with-te iru.
Mihara (1997) divided -te iru into two parts; one is the participle -te and the other is thepredicate iru. He examines the scope of negation and the interpretation of idiom chunks,and he proposes raising structure for the progressive -te iru sentences and control structure for
perfective sentences. In other words, there are two types of the predicate iru: one has theexternal argument and the other does not. Then, it seems that iru determines theinterpretation of -te iru sentence. However, he indicates that there are some perfective -te
iru sentences which have the raising structure. This means that the argument structure of iru
cannot determine the interpretation of -te iru sentence.
Then, we propose that the morpheme -te sometimes has the past tense, and sometimes
doesn't, and this factor determines the interpretation. That is, when -te has the non-pasttense, the -te iru sentence has the progressive interpretation. On the other hand, when -te has
the past tense, the -te iru sentence has the perfective interpretation. Our claim is that these
two interpretations, the progressive and the perfective, arise due to the tense feature of themorpheme -te itself. The crucial evidence is found in my own dialect, or Ehime Dialect, thedialect spoken in the west part of Japan. In Ehime dialect, we use the special aspectual form
instead of -te iru. Roughly speaking, -toru expresses both the perfective and progressive
meanings, while -yoru expresses only the progressive meaning. We discuss that this isbecause of the tense feature which toru has.
Then, we will discuss the tense feature of -te in detail. Martin (2001) shows that thefeature [+tense, -finite], which to-infinitive in English has, licenses PRO. We hypothesizethat -te is an infinitive, and discuss that the feature [+tense, -finite] in -te iru sentences license
PRO. Then, it seems that the interpretations of -te iru sentence due to the structure. Yet,
we point out that, some perfective -te iru sentences cannot have control structure with thefeature [+tense, -finite]. In order to solve the problems, we discussed that if we assumed
derivational theta-marking proposed by Saito and Hoshi's (1998) analysis, the natural
explanation can be given. Since control can operate directly on the thematic structures ofpredicates, the feature [+tense, -finite] need not to license PRO. In consequence, ouranalysis provides a piece of evidence for Saito and Hoshi's LF incorporation analysis.

- 2 -A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)

2. The interpretations of -te iru
First, we will overview the previous studies on the aspectual properties of te iru
interpretations. As mentioned above, many researchers have classified the verbs, relating
the -te iru sentence to the interpretation. One of the most popular classification of verbs inJapanese is Kindaici's classification. As shown in (3), Kindaichi (1950) classifies theJapanese verbs into four categories: stative verbs, durative verbs, instantaneous verbs, and thetype four, or fourth verbal categories. This classification is based on the two interpretationsof verb plus -te iru.
(3) Kindaichi's (1950) classification of Japanese verbsa.
Stative verbs: cannot co-occur with -te iru(ex. aru '(inanimate subject) exist', iru '(animate subject) exist', dekiru 'can do')b.
Durative verbs: -te iru have progressive readings (ex. yomu 'read', kaku 'write')c.
Instantaneous verbs: -te iru have perfective readings(ex. sinu 'die', (denki-ga)tuku '(the light) comes on')d.
Fourth verbal category: must be used with -te iru and express perfective readings(ex. sobieru 'tower', arifureru 'be common')As shown in (3a), stative verbs cannot occur with -te iru. Durative verbs in (3b) can precede-te iru and express the progressive readings. In (3c), instantaneous verbs also can precede-te iru and express the perfective readings. Forth verbal category in (3d) must be used with-te iru and express the perfective readings. Yet, it seems impossible to classify theinterpretations of the -te iru sentence by the internal aspects of verbs. (4) indicates that theclassification of verbs cannot be necessarily parallel with the two interpretations. For
example, many verbs have one of the four properties shown in the classification given in (3).
Some verbs, however, have more than one property.
(4)a.

Ima, kotira -ni ki
-te i
-ru
now here -to come -TE IRU-pres.
'Now, (he) is on (his) way here'b.

Sudenialready(ki<kuru)

koko-ni ki
-te i
-ru
here-to come -TE IRU -pres.

'(I) have already been here'c.

(Kindaichi 1950)

Ano hito-wa mootakusan -no
syoosetu -o
kai -te i-ruthat man-TOP already many -GEN novel-ACC write -TE IRU -pres.
'That man have written many novels'-3-(kai<kaku)

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

d.

Kare -wa
he -TOP(ima) tegami -o
kai -te i-ru(now) letter -ACC write -TE IRU -pres.

'He is writing a letter (now)'e.

(Fujii 1966)

Niwa -ni sakura-nohanabira -ga
tit -te i-rugarden -in cherry blossom -GEN petal-NOM drop -TE IRU -pres.
'Petals of cherry blossom have dropped off in the garden'f.

(tit>tiru)

Sakura-nohanabira -ga
hirahirato
tit -te i-rucherry blossom-GEN petal-NOM lightly(onomatopoeia) drop -TEIRU -pres.
'Petals of cherry blossom are dropping lightly'(Mihara 1997)

As in (4a) and (4b), the verb kuru (to come) has properties of the durative verbs and theinstantaneous verbs. (4a) expresses the progressive reading, so, kuru 'to come' has theproperty of durative verbs. On the other hand, (4b) express the perfective meaning. So,
kuru 'come' has the property of instantaneous verbs.
Moreover, Fujii (1966) shows that most verbs with -te iru can express experience.
Adverbials that indicate complete events or past intervals frequently co-occur with these verbs.
(4c) expresses experience meaning. In contrast, (4d) expresses progressive meaning,although the verb preceding -te iru in (4d) kaku 'to write' is the same as (4c).
In addition, Mihara (1997) points out that so-called instantaneous verbs with -te iru canhave progressive readings in some situations. As shown in (4e) and (4f), the verb preceding-te iru is the same, tiru 'to drop'. The verb tiru 'to drop' is commonly considered as an
instantaneous verb. So, the sentence in (4e) has perfective reading. However, (4f) also has
progressive reading.
Thus, a -te iru sentence can have various interpretations according to the situation.
Since the sentences of the experiential interpretation are regarded as the sentences of theperfective generally, a -te iru sentence can have both progressive and perfective interpretation
despite the verbs preceding -te iru. Therefore, it is clear the difference between progressive
and perfective readings cannot be due to the internal aspect of verb only.
Then how can we capture these two distinct interpretations in a principled way?
Mihara (1997) attempts to solve this mystery by proposing that these two distinct
interpretations are crucially related to the argument structure of the predicate iru. Next
chapter, we will overview Mihara’s argument.

- 4 -A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)

3. The Syntactic Analysis of -Te iru
3.1. Mihara's (1997) analysis
He points out that a progressive -te iru sentence has a raising structure and a perfective -te iru
sentence has a control structure. The sentences in (5) and (6) shows difference in the scopeof the subject and the negation.
(5)

the progressive -te iru sentence(only>not, not>only)a.
Taroo -dake -ga
hasi(t) -te(wa)i-nai-only -NOM run-TE(TOP)IRU -not'Only Taro is not running' or 'Not only Taro is running'b.

(hasi(t)<hasiru)

Hanako -dake -ga
nai -te(wa)i-nai-only -NOM cry -TE(TOP)IRU -not'Only Hanako is not crying' or 'Not only Hanako is crying'(nai<naku)(6) the perfective -te iru sentence (only>not, *not>only)a.
Yasumono -no
sara -dake-ga
ware -te(wa)i-naicheap thing -GEN plate -only-NOM crush -TE(TOP)IRU -not'Only cheap plates have not crashed'b.

(ware<wareru)

Higasigawa -no
kabe -dake -ga
koware -te(wa)i-naieast side-GEN wall -only -NOM damage -TE(TOP)IRU -not'Only the east side of wall has not damaged'(koware<kowareru)

In Japanese, dake means only, and nai is a negative morpheme. In (5), nai shows theambiguity on its scope. The possible meanings of (5a) are 'Only Taro is not running' and'Not only Taro is running'. The parenthesized wa which is inserted in te iru phrase is theword making the sentence more natural. Similarly, the possible meaning of (5b) is 'Only
Hanako is not crying' and 'Not only Hanako is crying'. These -te iru sentences have theprogressive meaning. In contrast, (6) is not ambiguous. The possible meaning of (6a) is'Only cheap plates have not been crashed'. This sentence cannot be interpreted as 'not only
cheap plates have been crashed'. Similarly, (6b) means 'Only the east side of wall has notbeen damaged'. We cannot interpret this sentence as 'Not only the east side of wall has beendamaged'. The sentences in (6) have the perfective meaning. Based on this paradigm,
Mihara (1997) conjectures the structures that are indicated in (7)-5-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(7) a. the progressive -te iru sentence
S
NPi

VP
S

ti

b. the perfective -te iru sentence
S
NPi

VP

V

S

V

V-te i-nai

PROi V-te

i-nai

That is, the examples in (5) show that the dake NP (the NP including 'only') is base-generated
in a position lower than the negative 'not'. In contrast, the examples in (6) show that thedake NP is base-generated in a position higher than the negative 'not'. Consequently, as
shown in (7), the progressive -te iru sentence has the raising structure like (7a). And theperfective -te iru sentence have the control structure like (7b).
Given the structures in (7), he implies that the difference of the argument structure of thestative verb, -iru, relates to two different interpretations of the -te iru sentence. So, hehypothesizes that the predicate iru which is included by the progressive -te iru sentence do
not take an external argument. On the other hand, the predicate iru included by theperfective -te iru take an external argument.
Now, consider the examples in (8). (8a) and (8b) is generally called the perfective -te
iru sentence. So, these examples must not be ambiguous, and these sentences must have acontrol structure. In other word, the predicate iru must take an external argument.
(8) Some perfective -te iru sentences(only>not, not>only)a.
A gaisya-dake -ga(baburu-houkai -ki-ni)
A corporation -only -NOM (bubble economy -burst -moment -at)tousan-si -te(wa)i -nai
bankrustcy -do -TE(TOP)I -not'(When the bubble economy burst,) only A-corporation had not gone bankrupt' or'(When the bubble economy burst,) not only A-corporation had gone bankrupt'b.

Kare -dake -ga(1975 nen-ni) saharasabaku -osouha -si -te(wa)i -nai
he -only -NOM (1975 year-in) the Sahara -ACC ride -do -TE(TOP)I -not'(In 1975) only he had not ridden the Sahara' or '(In 1975) not only he had ridden
the Sahara'

However, (8) is ambiguous. (8a) literally means '(When the bubble economy burst,) only
A-corporation had not gone bankrupt' or '(When the bubble economy burst,) not only
A-corporation had gone bankrupt' And also, (8b) literally means '(In 1975) only he had not
ridden the Sahara' or '(In 1975) not only he had ridden the Sahara'. Then, we predict that (8)have the raising structure. This is not a desirable result, because (8) are exceptions to the
hypothesis that the perfective -te iru sentence has the control structure. But then, we can no- 6 -A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)

longer relate the interpretations of -te iru sentences to the argument structure of iru in astraightforward way.
3.2. The Tense Feature of -Te
So far, we have seen that it is neither the internal aspect of the verbs nor the argument
structure of the verb iru that is responsible for the two distinct interpretations, the progressiveinterpretation and the perfective interpretation. Then, going back to the question, why does
the -te iru sentence have two different interpretations? Now, we will argue about themorpheme -te. Arikawa (1992) and Kuno (1973) note that the morpheme -te can have thepast tense. In (9), the morpheme -te has the non-past tense. While, in (10), the morpheme-te has the past tense3.
(9) Te has the non-past tensea.
Yasuku -te oisii
cheap -TE deliciousb.

'cheap and delicious'

samuku nat-te ki-ta
cold
become -TE come -past'It has become cold'(Arikawa 1992)(10) Te has the past tensea.
Gohan-otabe -te, hon -o
kat -talunch -ACC eat -TE book -ACC buy-past'Having eaten lunch, I bought a book'b.

Gohan -otabe, hon -olunch -ACC eat book -ACC

kat -tabuy-past'I did things like eating lunch and buying a book'(Arikawa 1992)

In (9a), for example, -te serves to connect two predicates. Thus, the -te in (9) doesn't express
past tense. In (10), I show -te expressing a past meaning. (10a) means 'Having eaten lunch,
I bought a book'. In contrast, (10b) means 'I did things like eating lunch and buying a book'.
In (10a), unlike (10b), the order of eating lunch and buying a book is fixed. That is, you eat
first and then you buy. The examples in (10) suggest that -te in (10a) has a past meaning.
(9) and (10) indicate that -te sometimes expresses the past meaning and sometimes doesn't.
Then, does -te in -te iru phrase have a past meaning? In (11), the -te iru sentences
expresses the progressive meaning, and -te has a non-past meaning.

3

There is another question as to whether -te expresses the past or the perfect.

-7-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(11) the progressive -te iru sentence
a. Taroo -ga
eiga -o-NOM movie -ACC

mi -te i-ruwatch -TE IRU -pres.

'Taro is watching a movie'b.

(mi<miru)

Hanako -ga
odot -te i-ru-NOM dance -TE IRU -pres.
'Hanako is dancing'c.

(odot<odoru)

Hi -gamoe-te i-rufire -NOM burn-TE IRU -pres.
'Fire is burning'd.

(moe<moeru)

Satiko -ga
tenin
-ni
-NOM hairdresser -bykami-ohair -ACC

some -rare
-te i
-ru
dye -passive -TE IRU -pres.

'Sachiko is being dyed her hair by a stuff'(some<someru)(11a) literally means 'Taro is watching a movie'. Thus, -te in (11a) has the non-past meaning.
That is, the activity eiga-o miru 'to watch the movie' continues on, and iru expresses the stateof the continuous activity. (11b, c, d) shows the same continuous activity as (11a). In
contrast, -te in (12) and (13) has the past meaning.
(12) the perfective -te iru sentencea.
Taroo -gahaha -no-NOM mother -GENnamae-oname -ACC

wasure -te i-ruforget -TE IRU -pres.

'Taro have forgot his mother's name'b.

Jiroo -gamoo
-NOM alreadysyougakkou-ni nyuugaku-si -te i-ruprimary school -to enterance-do -TE IRU -pres.

'Jiro already enters a primary school'c.

316(wasure<wasureru)(si<suru)

gousitu -no
denki -gakie-te i-ruroom -GEN light -NOM off-TE IRU -pres.

'The lights in room 316 is off'(kie<kieru)

d. Hon -ga
nusum -(r)are -te i-rubook -NOM steal -passive -TE IRU -pres.
'Books have been stolen'(nusumare<nusumareru)- 8 -A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)(13) the experiencea.
Jiroo -wa moo
10-ken-mo ie-o-TOP already NUM -too house -ACC

tate -te i-rubuild -TE IRU -pres.

'Jiro already has the experience of having built 10 houses'(tate<tateru)

b. Haruko-wa
kyonen suupaa-de hatarai -te i-ru -node,-TOP last year supermarket -at work -TE IRU -pres. -so
rejiuti-ga
hayai
work of a cashier -NOM quick'Since Haruko has the experience of having worked at a supermarket, she can use aregister quickly'(hatarai<hataraku)
c. Kono kisyu -wa itido koware -te iru
-node
this
model -TOP once break -TE IRU -sosinpai-da
worry-COPULA-pres.

'Since this model has broken once, I worry about it'd. Sono kutu -wa yoku
thatshoes -TOP wellsurihet -te i-ruworn-out -TE IRU -pres.

(koware<kowareru)

hak -(r)are-te iru-node
wear -PASSIVE -TE IRU -so'Since those shoes have been worn well, those have worn-out' (surihet<suriheru)(12) express the perfective meaning. (12) show that -te has a past meaning. For example,(12a) means 'Taro have forgot his mother's name'. -Te in (12a) has the past meaning, that is,
the activity 'to forget the name' occurred in the past, and iru expresses the resultative state
caused by the activity. (12b,c,d) have the same perfective interpretation as (12a).
(13) have so-called the experiential interpretation which is one of the perfective
interpretations. Crucially, these sentences in (13) include -te which expresses the pastmeaning. (13a) means 'Jiro already has the experience of having built 10 houses'. In (13a),-te in -te iru phrase expresses the past meaning. That is, the activity ie-o tateru 'to build ahouse' occurred in the past, and iru expresses the resultative state caused by the activity.
(13b, c,d) have the same perfective interpretations as (13a). So, all -tes in (12) and (13) havea past meaning.
As shown in (11) through (13), though -te in the progressive -te iru phrase has thenon-past meaning, -te in the perfective -te iru phrase has the past meaning. As mentioned in(1), basically -te iru is just an aspectual expression which expresses a state of something.
The two interpretations of the -te iru sentence arise from the tense feature of the morpheme-te, but not the internal aspect of the verb. That is, the so-called progressive -te iru expresses-9-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

the durative state of a non-past phenomenon. In contrast, the so-called perfective -te iru
expresses the resultative state of a past phenomenon.
3.3. Some Evidence for Tense Features of Te
Furthermore, there is a piece of empirical evidence for the claim that two interpretations
could arise from the tense feature of the morpheme -te itself. The crucial evidence is foundin my own dialect, or Ehime Dialect, the dialect spoken in the west part of Japan. In
Standard Japanese, -te iru is used to express the progressive and perfective aspects. On theother hand, in Ehime dialect, two aspectual expressions are used instead of -te iru; one is -toru,
and the other is -yoru. Roughly speaking, -toru expresses the perfective and sometimes
progressive meanings, while -yoru only expresses the progressive meaning. The table in(14) shows the distributions of -yoru, -toru and -te iru.
(14)
a. to express the progressive interpretation'Taro is watching a movie'-yoru

b. to express the perfective interpretation'Taro has already watching the movie'

Taroo-ga eiga -o mi -yoru-NOM movie-ACC watch-TE IRU-pres.

-toru

Taroo-ga-te iru

Taroo-ga eiga -o mi-NOMeiga -omi -toru

movie -ACC watch-TE IRU-pres.

-te iru- NOM movie- ACC watch -TE IRU-pres.

Taroo-ga eiga -o- NOM

mi -toru

movie - ACC watch-TE IRU-pres.

Taroo-ga eiga-o

mi -te iru- NOM movie- ACC watch-TE IRU-pres.

In Standard Japanese, -te iru has the progressive interpretation and the perfective
interpretation.
Taroo-ga eiga-o miteiru means either 'Taro is watching a movie' or ' Tarohas already watched a movie'. -Toru also can have the progressive interpretation and theperfective interpretation. So, Taroo-ga eiga-o mitoru means 'Taro is watching a movie' or 'Taro has already watched a movie', according to situations. On the other hand, the -yoru
sentence, Taroo-ga eiga-o miyoru means 'Taro is watching a movie'. It has the progressiveinterpretation only.
This is because of the past tense feature which -te iru and -toru include. Since -yoru
may not include the past tense feature, the -yoru sentence cannot have the perfective
interpretation. Moreover, -toru shows the other same property as -te iru. Ends of verbs
which precede both -toru and -te iru are identical. In (15), Inflection of verbs is listed up.

- 10 -

A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)(15) Inflection of verbs which precede aspectual expressions
-yoru

-toru

-te iru-tenaku 'cry'

naki-

nai-

nai-

nai-

iku 'go'

iki-

it-

it-

it-

saku 'blossom'

saki-

sai-

sai-

sai-

kau 'buy'

kai-

kat-

kat-

kat-

odoru 'dance'

odori-

odot-

odot-

odot-

yomu 'read'

yomi-

yon-

yon-

yon-

tobu 'fly'

tobi-

ton-

ton-

ton-

For example, the verb naku ‘cry’ change the end, and became naki preceding -yoru. In
contrast, preceding -toru and -te iru, it became nai. This may be because of same property
that -toru and -te iru have.
Then, some data from Ehime dialect provides a piece of evidence for our proposal thatthe tense feature of -te is responsible for the two interpretations of -te iru sentences, theprogressive interpretation and the perfective interpretation. So far, we have discussed that-te is responsible for expressing the past tense versus non-past tense, and for distinguishing
the progressive reading versus the perfective reading.
3.4. The tense feature of 'to'
Next, we will discuss the analysis that it is actually the tense feature that distinguishes
the two interpretations, and the two interpretations are available in both control and raising
structures. That is, we propose that when -te is associated with minus tense feature, then the
progressive interpretation is available under the raising structure. On the other hand, when-te is associated with plus tense feature, then the perfective interpretation is available, and in
this case, control takes place.
Our analysis stands on the insight by Stowell (1982) and Martin (2001) on their analysesof English to-infinitives. Now, we will overview these two proposals. Stowell (1982)shows that 'to'-infinitive has future or non-future tense. This distinction is realized in (16).
(16) a.
b.

Jim tried [PRO to lock the door]
John appears [ to like poker](16a) means literally 'Jim tries so that he will lock the door'. Thus, the ‘to’-infinitive in (16a)has the future tense. On the other hand, (16b) literally means 'It seems that John likes poker',but not 'It seems that John will like poker'. Thus, a ‘to’-infinitive in (16b) has the non-futuretense. Generally, when a ‘to’-infinitive has the future tense, the infinitival sentence has thecontrol structure, and when a ‘to’-infinitive has the non-future tense, the infinitival sentence
has the raising structure. As shown in (17), Stowell characterizes this interpretive difference- 11 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

in terms of the feature [plus-minus tense]: control infinitivals are [+tense] whereas raising
infinitivals are [-tense].
(17) The feature of [Head, TP]a.
[+tense,+finite] (nominative case checking)b.
[+tense,-finite] (null case checking)c.
[-tense,-finite]
Martin (2001) points out that this provides a natural characterization for the casedistinction between control and raising as well. [+tense] checks case. More precisely,[+tense,+finite] checks nominative case, [+tense, -finite] checks null case, and [-tense, -finite]
does not check case at all.
Then, we hypothesize that -te is an infinitive because of past tense. If -te is an infinitive
which is related to license of PRO, Mihara (1997)’s proposal can be supported without the
problem. -Te iru sentence has the control structure, when -te iru sentence have perfective
interpretation; -te has [+tense,-finite]. -Te iru sentence has the raising structure, when -te iru
sentence have progressive interpretation; -te has [-tense,-finite]. Based on -te’s feature, theproblematic sentences in (8) can be properly expected to have control structures, because of
the feature [+tense,-finite]. However, as shown in his analysis, there are some examples
which has the raising structure despite of its feature [+tense,-finite]. In the following section,
we can observe an idiomatic sentence, in which -te has the feature [+tense,-finite].
4. A Uniform Analysis of -te iru
In this section, we propose that the structure of the -te iru sentence is not determine theinterpretation. The tense feature of -te is related to the interpretation, but not the structures.
The feature [+tense, -finite] does not always license PRO, so that the structure of the -te iru
sentence is determines arbitrarily.
4.1. Idiom and PRO
Then, we will consider the idiomatic sentence including -te iru.

(18) is the example.

(18) 3 nen -mae siraha
-no
ya
-ga
Taroo-ni tate -rare -te iru
3 year -ago white feather -GEN arrow -NOM
-to hit -PASS -TE IRU-pres.
'3 years ago, Taro had been singled out'

( Te has a [+tense,-finite] feature)

Then, (18), literally means '3 years ago, Taro had been singled out', is idiomatic sentence, andhere -te has [+tense,-finite] feature as an adverb 3 nen-mae '3 years ago' indicates. Then, we
suppose that the structure of (18) is in (19).

- 12 -

A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)

(19)

TP1
siraha-no ya-ga

T'

VP1
ti

T
V'

-ru

TP2
PROi

V
T'

i

VP2
Taroo-ni

T
VP2

ti

-te [+tense,-finite]tate-rare

According to Martin's (2001) analysis, the feature [+tense,-finite] licenses PRO. That is,(19) has the structure of control. However, as shown in (20), Nishigauchi (1993) states that
idiomatic infinitival sentence can be interpreted idiomatically when the sentence has raising
structure.
(20) a.
b.
c.

The cat is out of the bag.
(Idiomatic interpretation: A secret leaks out)
The cat seems [to be out of the bag]*
The cat tried [to be out of the bag]
(Nishigauchi 1993)(20a) literally means 'A secret leaks out'. Although (20b) can be interpreted idiomatically,(20c) cannot be interpreted. This is because of difference of the structure shown in (21).
(21) a.
b.

The cati seems [ti to be out of the bag]
The cat tried [PRO to be out of the bag]

As shown in (21), (20b) has raising structure like (21a), and (20c) has control structure like(21b). In raising structure, ‘the cat’ is base-generated in the same constituent as ‘be out of
the bag’. On the other hand, in control structure, ‘the cat’ is base-generated out of theinfinitive clause.
Then, in order for (19) to be interpreted as an idiom, siraha-no-ya 'arrow with whitefeather' has to be base-generated in the same constituent as taterareru 'be hit'. Then, it
should have the structure without PRO. Hence, the idiom examples lead us to the- 13 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

conclusion that -te associated with the feature [+tense, -finite] does not necessarily license
PRO.
Now, if the feature [+tense, -finite] cannot license PRO, the fact that iru in the perfective-te iru sentences has the external argument should be explained in the other way. In (22a),the subject Jiroo is the external argument of iru, so the structure in (22b) is expected.
(22) a.

Jiroo -wa moo
10 ken -mo ie-o-TOP already NUM. -too house -ACC

tate -te i-rubuild -TE IRU -pres.
(tate<tateru) (=(13a))'Jiro already has the experience of having built 10 houses'b.

TP1
Jirooi-ga

T'
VP

ti

T
V'

TP2
PROi
experiencer

-ru
V

T'

i

vP
ti
agent

T
v'

-te
[+tense,-finite]v

VP
moo 10 ken-mo ie-otate

In (22), Jiroo is assigned the thematic role 'experiencer', and PRO is assigned the 'agent'.
However, PRO is no longer licensed by the feature [+tense, -finite].
Then, Saito and Hoshi's (1998) LF incorporation Analysis explains the control relation
without PRO. Following this analysis, all -te iru sentences do not need to include PRO.
Now, we will overview LF incorporation analysis.
4.2. Saito and Hoshi's (1998) LF Incorporation Analysis
An example of the light verb construction is shown in (23).
(24).

- 14 -The rough structure of (23) is

A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)(23) John -ga
Mary -kara [NP hooseki-no
ryakudatu]-o
si-ta
-NOM
-from
jewellery-GEN plunderage-ACC do-past'John stole jewellery from Mary'(24)

VP
John-gaV'

Mary-karaV'NP

hooseki-no

V
N

sita

ryakudatu-o
As discussed in detail in Grimshaw & Mester 1988, this construction is peculiar in a few
respects. First, it exhibits a case of 'syntax-semantics mismatch'. In (23), the threearguments are arguments of the noun ryakudatu 'plunderage', and the verb su 'do' is more likean expletive, playing no role in the compositional semantics. Yet, two of the threearguments, John-ga and Mary-kara, apppear not within the NP headed by ryakudatu'plunderage but in positions that are normally occupied by the arguments of the verb.
Saito and Hoshi (2000) propose a covert incorporation analysis for the light verb
construction. According to this analysis, the head noun ryakudatu 'plunderage' in (23),discharges its theme role inside the NP, and then incorporates into the verb su in the covert
component to assign its source and agent roles to Mary-kara and John-ga respectively. In
this case, the head noun must discharge the theta role, according to the thematic hierarchy.
If this analysis is correct, it provides direct evidence against D-structure as the pure
representation of the thematic structures and also the Projection Principle, since in (23) the
source role and the agent role are assigned only in the covert component.
Interestingly, as noted in Grimshaw & Mester (1988) and discussed extensively in
Matsumoto (1996), example like (23) remain grammatical even when we substitute a control
verb, such as kokoromi 'attempt', for the light verb su. Thus, (25) is perfectly fine.
(25) John -ga-NOM

Mary -kara [NP hooseki-no
ryakudatu]-okokoromi -ta-fromjewellery-GEN plunderage-ACC attempt -past'John attempted to steal jewelry from Mary'- 15 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

(26)

VP
John-gaV'

Mary-kara

V'
NP

PRO

V
N'

hooseki-no

kokoromitaNryakudatu-o

Since (25) is virtually identical to (23) in structure, it is only natural to suppose that it issubject to a similar analysis. Note that Mary-kara is the source argument of the nounryakudatu 'plunderage' in (25) exactly as in (23)However, the application of the covert incorporation analysis to (24) is notstraightforward. The rough structure of (25) is in (26). Here, the noun ryakudatu'plunderage' assigns the theme role to hooseki-o with in the NP. Then, after it adjoins
covertly to V, it discharges its source role to Mary-kara. But a problem arises with respect
to the agent role of the noun. In the case of (23), the subject John-ga could receive thetheta-role since the light verb su does not assign any role to John-ga. In (25), on the other
hand, John-ga is the agent argument of the verb kokoromi 'attempt'. If ryakudatu'plunderage' assigns the agent role to PRO within the NP, and then, discharges the source roleto Mary-kara, this would not be consistent with the thematic hierarchy, and hence, we should
expect the example to be out.
Then Saito and Hoshi (1998) propose that the agent role of the noun is merged with orabsorbed by the agent role of the verb through the relation of control. It is not difficult toconsider that control can relate thematic roles of distinct predicates without the mediation ofPRO, as shown in (27).
(27) a.
b.

John performed an operation on HarryJohn performed Mary's operation

Williams (1987) discuss the examples in (27). In (27a), John is the agent of operation.
Here, we could say that John controls a PRO in the Spec position of the NP headed byoperation. However, this control relation is unaffected even when there is a genitive phrase
in NP Spec, excluding PRO in this position, as in (27b). This example shows that control
can identify the agent roles of the verb ‘perform’ and the noun ‘operation’ without the- 16 -

A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)

mediation of PRO. Thus, it seems that control can operate directly on the thematic
structures of predicates.
Then, examples like (25) show that incorporation into a control verb can result in'merger' or 'absorption' of the controlled theta-role of the adjoined head. According to thishypothesis, the LF of (25), for example, is as in (28).
(28)

VP
John-gaV'

Mary-karaV'NP

hooseki-no

V
tN

N

V

ryakudatu-o kokoromita
agent absorption→agent
sourcetheme
theme
The head noun ryakudatu 'plunderage' in (28), discharges its theme role inside the NP, andthen incorporates into the verb kokoromi 'attempt' in the covert component to assign its sourcerole to Mary-kara. Then, the agent role of ryakudatu 'plunderage' is absorbed by the control
verb kokoromi 'attempt'.
Given this LF incorporation analysis, we can capture the derivation of the -te iru
sentence without the contradiction.
4.3. LF Incorporation and a control structure
Finally, I propose the derivation of the -te iru sentence adopting Saito and Hoshi's LF
incorporation analysis. Consider (22) repeated in (29).
(29) a.

Jiroo -wa moo-TOP already10 ken -mo ie-otate -te iru
NUM. -too house -ACC build -TE IRU-pres.

'Jiro already has the experience of having built 10 houses'- 17 -(tate<tateru)

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

TP1
Jirooi-wa

T'
VP1

ti

T
V'

-ru

TP2

V

vP
VP2

tT
tv

moo 10 ken-mo ie-o tVTVtate-teiagent experiencer
theme proposition

In (29), iru has an external argument and discharges the experience theta-role to Jiroo. First,
the verb tate 'to build' in TP2 discharges the theme role to ie 'houses', and then, incorporates
into iru cyclically to assign the agent role. But, iru controls and absorbs (or merges) thisagent role. At last, iru discharges the experience theta role. According to this derivation,
without the mediation of PRO, Jiroo in (29a) can be an experiencer who has experience of
having built 10 houses.
Then, how about the idiomatic sentence? The example is repeated in (30a) and thestructure is in (30b).
(30) a.

(3 nen -mae) siraha
-no
ya
-ga
Taroo -ni
(3 year-ago) white feather -GEN arrow -NOM
-totate-rare-te iruhit -PASSIVE -TE IRU-pres.
'(3 years ago), Taro had been singled out'

- 18 -

A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)b.

TP1siraha-no yai-ga

T'
VP1

T

TP2

V

VP2
Taroo-ni

tT
VP2

ti

-ru

T

V

tate-rare-teitV2

In (30), we do not need to license PRO despite of the feature [+tense,-finite] no longer. So,
the NP siraha-no-ya 'arrow with white feather' is base-generated in VP2 and moves to spec
position of TP1 for case checking. And iru in (30) does not have an external theta role, since
the subject siraha-no-ya 'arrow with white feather' is inanimate. The reason why the verb
taterare 'be hit' incorporates into iru is in morphology.
(31a) is the example of the progressive -te iru sentence.
(31) a.

The structure is in (31b).

Taroo -gaeiga -omi-te iru-NOM movie -ACC watch -TE IRU-pres.
'Taro is watching a movie'b.

TP1
Tarooi-ga

T'
VP1

T

TP2
vP
ti

tT
v'

VP2
eiga-o

V

-ru

T
mi-te

V
i

tv
tV

The progressive -te iru sentence is regarded as raising, so the mediation of PRO has not been
assumed. However, as shown in (29) and (30), PRO cannot be licensed in any -te iru- 19 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

sentences. Therefore, the only structural distinction between the -te iru sentences is whether
iru has the external argument or not. This distinction is not related to the semanticinterpretations, and iru have the external argument optionally.
Thus, we can capture the structures of the all -te iru sentences in a uniform way.
tense feature of -te just distinguishes the interpretation of the -te iru sentence.

The

5. Conclusion
In conclusion, -te iru is 'one' aspectual expression which expresses a state of something.
Two basic interpretations (the progressive and the perfective) are originated from the tensefeature of -te. And we propose the -te iru structure without contradictions shown ininterpretations of -te iru sentences. Since the structure of the -te iru sentence is not dependon the interpretation, the structure is captured in a uniform way. And this proposal is basedon the LF incorporation analysis. Then, this analysis provides an evidence for the LF
incorporation hypothesis.

References
Arikawa, K. (1992) Binding Domain and Modality: A Case Study of Tense Binding in Japanese,
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Bošković, Ž. (1996) Selection and the Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 269-304.
Fujii, T. (1966) 'Doosi+teiru' no Imi. Kokugo Kenkyusitu 5. University of Tokyo.
Grimshaw, J. & Mester, A. (1988). Light Verbs and θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 205-232.
Kageyama, T. (1993) Bunpoo to Gokeisei. Hituzi Syoboo.
Kindaichi, H. (1950). Kokugo Doosi no Ichibunrui. Gengo Kenkyu, 15, 48-63.
Kindaichi, H. (1976) Nihongo Doosi no Tensu to Asupekuto. In Kindaichi, H. (ed.), Nihongo
Doosi-no Asupekuto, Mugi Syoboo.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Martin, R. (2001) Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 141-166.
Mihara, K. (1997) Doosi no Asupekuto Kouzou. In K. Mihara and R. Washio, Voisu to Asupekuto.
Kenkyusya.
Nishigauchi, T. (1993) Long Distance Passive. In N. Hasegawa, (ed.), Japanese Syntax in
Comparative Grammar (pp.79-114), Kurosio.
Saito, M. & Hoshi, H. (1998) Control in Complex Predicates. Tsukuba Daigaku Tozai Gengo Bunka
no Ruikeiron Tokubetsu Purojekuto Kenkyu Hokokusho, Heisei 10 Nendo Ⅱ, Bessatsu.
15-46.
Saito, M. & Hoshi H. (2000) The Japanese Light Verb Construction and the Minimalist Program. In R.
Martin, et al. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik(pp.261-295), Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Stowell, T. (1982) The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 561-570.
Takezawa, K. (1991) Judoubun, Noukakubun, Bunri Hukanou Syoyuu Koubun to 'teiru' no Kaisyaku.
In Y. Nitta, (ed.), Nihongo no Voisu to Tadoosei. Kurosio Syuppan.
Teramura, H. (1984) Nihongo no Sintakusu to Imi Ⅱ. Kurosio Syuppan.
Williams, E. (1987). Implicit Arguments and Control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.1.

- 20 -

A Uniform Analysis of the Progressive/Perfective -te iru (M. Aono)

Yoshikawa, T. (1973) Gendai Nihongo Soosi no Asupekuto no Kenkyu. In H. Kindaichi (ed.),Nihongo Doosi no Asupekuto (pp.155-328), Mugi Syoboo, 1976.

- 21 -