TWO NOTES ON FEATURE INHERITANCE:A PARAMETRIC VARIATION IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE EPP *Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
Chomsky (2008) proposes an analysis where φ-features are located in phase heads andare inherited by their complements. This analysis is motivated by the fact that T, for example,
carries φ-features only in the presence of C. The feature inheritance mechanism is illustratedin (1).
(1)[C[TP NP [T [vP NP [ …
{φ, edge}

T with unvalued φ-features probes and enters into Agree relation with an NP, and the edge
feature of T raises the NP to its Spec. This paper reports a preliminary investigation into how
this applies in Japanese, which arguably lacks φ-feature agreement. As the edge feature inquestion requires the Spec position to be filled, I use the more traditional term, the EPP, in its
place.
If Japanese indeed lacks φ-feature agreement as argued in Kuroda (1988), Saito (2007),and Şener and Takahashi (2010), among many others, then a few possibilities arise. If thepresence of the EPP (edge) feature on phase heads is contingent on that of φ-features, thenphase heads in Japanese may lack both φ and EPP. On the other hand, if the presence of EPP
is independent of that of φ, then phase heads in Japanese may only carry the EPP. In this case,there are two further possibilities with feature inheritance. First, the EPP on phase heads may
be transmitted to their complement heads exactly as in English. Second, it may be retained by
the phase heads. This is plausible if φ-features are the locus of feature inheritance and the EPP
is “pied-piped” in φ-feature agreement languages only because formal features form an
inseparable bundle. In what follows, I present two pieces of evidence for this last possibility.
That is, I argue that phase heads in Japanese carry and retain the EPP feature. I suggest further
that C and v are equipped with the EPP regardless of whether they constitute phase heads.
This is in line with Rothstein’s (2001) proposal that the EPP reflects the required predication
relations in sentential domains.
The two pieces of evidence alluded to above both originate in my critique of Miyagawa’s* The material in this paper was presented in syntax seminars at Keio University, the University ofConnecticut and Nanzan University. I thank the audiences there, including Hisa Kitahara, Željko
Bošković and Yuji Takano, for helpful comments.
Nanzan Linguistics 7, 43-61©2011 Mamoru Saito

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

(2001, 2003) analysis of subject-negation scope interaction. Two of his core examples areshown in (2).
(2) a.

Zen’in-ga sono tesuto-o uke-na-katta (yo / toomo-u)
all-NOM that test-ACC take-Neg.-Past (Part COMP think-Pres.
‘All didn’t take that exam’ (all > not, *not > all)b.

Sono tesuto-oi zen’in-ga ti uke-na-katta (yo / toomo-u)
that test-ACC all-NOM
take-Neg.-Past (Part COMP think-Pres.
‘That exam, all didn’t take’ (all > not, not > All)The subject zen’in ‘all’ takes scope over negation in (2a). On the other hand, in (2b), where
the object is scrambled over the subject, zen’in may take narrow scope with respect to thenegation. Miyagawa’s analysis, which is discussed in more detail in the following section, isthat the subject in (2a) is in TP Spec, satisfying the EPP requirement of T, and hence,
asymmetrically c-commands the negation. In (2b), on the other hand, the object may be in TP
Spec, allowing the subject to stay in vP Spec. This leads to the narrow scope reading of thesubject.
I presented a slight modification of this analysis in Saito (2009, 2010), arguing that thelocus of the EPP is not T but Pred, which is the lowest head in the recursive C projections.
Then, zen’in in (2a) is in PredP Spec, while that in (2b) may remain in TP Spec because thescrambled object can satisfy the EPP requirement of Pred. The remaining question in thisrevised analysis was why Pred carries the EPP instead of T in Japanese. But this is precisely
what is expected if T does not inherit the EPP from C in Japanese. I go over the arguments forthis revised analysis and discuss its implication for feature inheritance in more detail in thefollowing section. Another issue I raised with Miyagawa’s analysis concerns the definition of‘subject’. It is well known that the Japanese reflexive zibun is subject-oriented, and ‘subject
position’ is standardly defined as TP Spec. This poses a potential problem for Miyagawa’s
analysis as a scrambled object never qualifies as the antecedent of zibun. However, I argued
in Saito (2009) that the situation is a little more complex. More specifically, I argued that v isalways equipped with the EPP in Japanese and that the possible antecedents of zibun are thosephrases that satisfy the EPP requirement of v.1 This leads to the question why v in Japanesecarries the EPP. Again, the absence of feature inheritance provides an answer. I present thisargument with a few additional consequences in Section 3. Section 4 concludes the paper.
2. The “Clause-Initial Position” is Spec, CP
In this section, I first go over Miyagawa’s (2001, 2003) analysis of the subject-negation
scope interaction, pointing out a few potential problems. Then, I present the revised analysis
in Saito (2009, 2010) and discuss how it leads to evidence for the absence of feature
1

The hypothesis is presented more explicitly with further supporting arguments in Takano (2010).

- 44 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)

inheritance in Japanese.
2.1. Miyagawa 2001, 2003 on the Subject-Neg Scope Interaction
Miyagawa’s data in (2) are repeated in (3).
(3) a.

Zen’in-ga sono tesuto-o uke-na-katta (yo / toomo-u)
all-NOM that test-ACC take-Neg.-Past (Part COMP think-Pres.
‘All didn’t take that exam’ (all > not, *not > all)b.

Sono tesuto-oi zen’in-ga ti uke-na-katta (yo / toomo-u)
that test-ACC all-NOM
take-Neg.-Past (Part COMP think-Pres.
‘That exam, all didn’t take’ (all > not, not > All)As noted above, the subject takes scope over negation in (3a), and the scrambling of theobject over the subject creates a scope ambiguity as in (3b). Miyagawa assigns the structure in(4a) to (3a).
(4) a.

b.

TP
NPi

T’

All

NegP
vP

ti

v’
VP

NP

NPi
T [EPP]

Neg

TP
T’

that exam

katta

NegP

vP

na

Neg katta

NP

v

v’

all

V

VP
ti

that exam uke

T [EPP]

na
v

V
uke

The subject asymmetrically c-commands Neg in (4a), and hence, zen’in ‘all’ takes wide scopeover negation in (3a). (3b) can be derived by A’-scrambling, which, according to Miyagawa,involves focusing and adjunction to TP. In this case, the scope relation of the subject andnegation remains the same. But he argues that the example can also be derived by
A-scrambling as in (4b). His hypothesis is that A-scrambling is movement to TP Spec andconsequently, the scrambled phrase satisfies the EPP requirement of T. Then, the subject canremain in vP Spec and take narrow scope with respect to negation. Thus, the scope ambiguityof (3b) follows.
As Miyagawa points out, it is not that scrambling always has an effect on the scope ofthe subject as in (3b). In (5), for example, the embedded object is scrambled out of a CP to theinitial position of the matrix clause.

- 45 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011(5)

Syukudai-oi
homework-ACC
omow-ana-katta
think-Neg-Past

zen’in-ga [CP sensei-ga
ti das-u
to]all-NOM
teacher-NOM
assign-Pres. COMP
(yo)
(Part

‘Homework, all did not think that the teacher will assign’ (All > Not, *Not > All)
This example sharply contrasts with (3b) and does not allow the narrow scope reading of
zen’in with respect to negation. This is predicted nicely by the analysis. As the scrambling isout of the embedded CP, it cannot be A-scrambling to TP Spec. Hence, the matrix subject
must move to this position to satisfy the EPP requirement of T. This yields the wide scope
reading of the subject.
Although Miyagawa’s analysis is quite elegant, a few questions can be raised. First, it isassumed that a quantified NP in TP Spec takes scope over negation because of their structural
relation. But it is known that this assumption does not hold in English. Thus, (6) exhibits
scope ambiguity.
(6)

Everyone didn’t take the exam (Every > Not, Not > Every)

Second, the analysis of A-scrambling as movement to TP Spec necessitates thereconsideration of the notion ‘subject’, as mentioned above. The Japanese reflexive zibun issubject-oriented. In (7), for example, only the subject Hanako qualifies as the antecedent ofzibun.
(7)

Hanakoi-ga Tarooj-o zibuni,*j-no heya-de sikat-ta
H.-NOM T.-ACC self-GEN room-in scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo in her room’Given the standard definition of ‘subject position’ as TP Spec, it is then predicted that ascrambled object should be a possible antecedent for zibun. But (8) shows that this prediction
is not borne out.
(8)

Tarooj-o [Hanakoi-ga tj zibuni,*j-no heya-de sikat-ta]
T.-ACC [H.-NOM
self-GEN room-in scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo in her room’

In this example also, Hanako is the only possible antecedent for zibun. It is necessary then to
pursue an alternative analysis of scrambling or to redefine ‘subject’ in the relevant sense. I
argue in Section 3 that we must do both.
Finally, pairs like (9) constitute counterevidence for Miyagawa’s analysis.

- 46 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)(9) a.

Zen’in-ga zibun-zisin-ni toohyoosi-na-katta (toomo-u)
all-NOM self-self-DAT vote-Neg.-Past(COMP think-Pres.
‘Everyone did not vote for herself/himself’ (all > not, *not > all)b.

Zibun-zisin-nii zen’in-ga ti toohyoosi-na-katta (toomo-u)
self-self-DAT all-NOM
vote-Neg.-Past(COMP think-Pres.
‘For herself/himself, everyone did not vote’ (all > not, not > all)

These examples indeed confirm his generalization. The sentence-initial subject zen’in takes
wide scope over negation in (9a). In (9b), the (dative) object is scrambled across the subject
and a scope ambiguity emerges. But note that the scrambled phrase is a reflexive in thisexample. According to Miyagawa’s analysis, the narrow scope reading of the subject obtains
with the structure in (10a).
(10) a.

b.

TP
NPi

T’

self

NegP
vP

NPi

v’

all

VP
ti

NPi
T [EPP]

Neg

TP

self

katta

TP
NPi

T’

all

na

NegP
vP

v

ti

V

Neg
v’

VP

toohyoosti

T [EPP]
katta

na
v

V
toohyoosAs the object moves to TP Spec and satisfies the EPP requirement of T, the subject canremain in vP Spec and take narrow scope with respect to negation. But the structure is inviolation of Condition (C) as the object A-binds the subject. In order to avoid this, thestructure in (10b) must be assumed where the object is preposed by A’-scrambling. But then,it is predicted incorrectly that zen’in must take scope over the negation.
In the following subsection, I briefly discuss the modification of Miyagawa’s analysis
proposed in Saito (2009, 2010). It basically maintains his insights but proposes to shift thelocus of the EPP to a higher functional head.
2.2. The Role of C in the Slightly Revised Analysis
The EPP feature on T plays a crucial role in Miyagawa’s analysis. When the subject issentence-initial, it is in TP Spec and satisfies the EPP requirement of T. On the other hand,when a scrambled object moves into TP Spec and checks the EPP feature, the subject may
remain in a lower position. In Saito (2009, 2010), I proposed that the locus of the relevant- 47 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

EPP is not T but C.2 In this subsection I show how this proposal solves most of the potential
problems mentioned above.
Let us start with the reexamination of (9a-b). If the relevant EPP feature is on C insteadof T, the structures of these examples would be as in (11a-b) respectively.3(11) a.

b.

CP
NPi

C’

all

TP

vP

C’

self

T’
NegP

ti

NPi
C [EPP]

ti’

CP

TP
NPi

T

all

Neg katta
v’

VP

self

toohyoos

NegP

ti

v
V

T’

vP

na

NPi

C [EPP]

Neg
v’

VP
ti

T
katta

na
v

V
toohyoos

Let us first assume that a phrase in TP Spec scopally interacts with negation. This makes theanalysis consistent with the scope ambiguity observed in the English (6). If the locus of the
EPP is C, the subject in (9a) should be in CP Spec, as indicated in (11a). As it is out of the TP,
it takes scope over negation. In (9b), on the other hand, the object moves to CP Spec as in(11b) to satisfy the EPP requirement of C. This allows the subject to remain in TP Spec andthe scope ambiguity between the subject and negation obtains exactly as in the English (6).
Further, the example is not in violation of Condition (C), as the preposed object is in CP Spec,
which is an A’-position. This analysis is basically Miyagawa’s with slight adjustments. But it
does not face the problems mentioned in the preceding subsection.
Recall that long scrambling out of CP does not yield the narrow scope reading of thematrix subject. The relevant example in (5) is repeated below as (12).

2In Saito (2010), I called the relevant C ‘Pred’, speculating that it corresponds to the lowest C‘Subject’ in the recursive CP system proposed in Rizzi (1997). It is to be distinguished with higher Cssuch as Force.
3

I assume here that the subject moves to TP Spec for its nominative Case to be licensed, but thisassumption is not crucial.

- 48 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)(12)

Syukudai-oi
homework-ACC
omow-ana-katta
think-Neg-Past

zen’in-ga [CP sensei-ga
ti das-u
to]all-NOM
teacher-NOM
assign-Pres. COMP
(yo)
(Part

‘Homework, all did not think that the teacher will assign’ (All > Not, *Not > All)
This indicates that an embedded object cannot satisfy the EPP requirement of the matrix C,
and consequently, the matrix subject should move to CP Spec. In Saito (2009, 2010), I
presented an analysis for this on the assumption that the EPP of C attracts the closest phrase
to its Spec position. The analysis is based on the derivational interpretation of scrambling
chains originally proposed in Saito (2003). But as the precise analysis is not important for the
purpose here, I outline a simplified account below.
If the EPP feature of C attracts the closest phrase, the derivation of (9b) should be more
precisely as in (13).
(13)

CP
NPi

C’

self

TP
ti’

C [EPP]
TP

NPi

all

T’
NegP

vP
ti

Neg katta
v’

VP
ti

T

na
v

V
toohyoosThat is, the movement of the object to CP Spec should be mediated by scrambling to the edgeof TP. This is so because the subject would be attracted to CP Spec as the closest phrase
without this scrambling. Suppose now, as seems reasonable, Specs of T are A-positions as
opposed to Specs of C, which are already assumed to be A’-positions. Then, an embedded
object cannot undergo scrambling to the edge of the matrix TP. As it has to first move to theedge of the embedded CP phase, which is an A’-position, further movement to the edge of thematrix TP would be an improper movement from an A’-position to an A-position.
Consequently, the embedded object cannot be located in a position to be attracted by the EPP
feature of the matrix C, and the matrix subject moves to CP Spec instead. The subject, beingin CP Spec, takes scope over negation.

- 49 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

The structure of the relevant parts of (12), then, should be as in (14).
(14)

CP
NPi
self

CP
NPi
all

C’
TP

C [EPP]

ti

T’
NegP

vP

.… ti ….

T

Neg

katta

na

The EPP feature of C attracts the subject to its Spec, and the embedded object is raised to theouter CP Spec by A’-scrambling. According to this revised analysis of Miyagawa’s paradigm,
scrambling is a uniform operation. A-scrambling is movement to an outer Spec of T whileA’-scrambling targets the outer Spec of C. Neither takes place to satisfy an EPP requirement.
But A-scrambling can feed an EPP driven movement to CP Spec.
This analysis implies that the locus of EPP is C in Japanese while it is T in English.4
Then, the remaining question is why this difference obtains. Here, the hypothesis thatφ-features are subject to feature inheritance and the EPP is only “pied-piped” provides a direct
answer. In English, T inherits the φ-features from C, and hence, inherits the EPP as well. In
Japanese, on the other hand, there is no φ-feature agreement and C does not have φ-features tobegin with. Consequently, C retains the EPP feature.
If this analysis is on the right track, we should expect feature inheritance to be absent in
the v-V domain as well in Japanese. In the following section, I argue that the prediction isindeed borne out.
3. “Subjecthood” and the EPP Feature on v
Among the potential problems for Miyagawa’s analysis mentioned in the preceding
section, there is one that I have not examined so far. It has to do with the definition of ‘subject
position’. The relevant examples in (7)-(8) are repeated as (15a-b) below.

4

In Saito (2009, 2010), I assumed that the EPP feature is on T as well as C in Japanese. But theanalysis requires the feature only on C.

- 50 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)(15) a.

Hanakoi-ga Tarooj-o zibuni,*j-no heya-de sikat-ta
H.-NOM T.-ACC self-GEN room-in scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo in her room’b.

Tarooj-o [Hanakoi-ga tj zibuni,*j-no heya-de sikat-ta]
T.-ACC [H.-NOM
self-GEN room-in scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo in her room’

As these examples show, zibun is subject-oriented and a scrambled object does not count as a
subject. According to Miyagawa’s analysis, Hanako in (15a) checks the EPP feature of T andso can the scrambled object Taroo in (15b). It is therefore not immediately clear how thesetwo can be distinguished.
I took up this issue in Saito (2009) and argued that the problem is more complex thanexamples like (15) indicate. More specifically, I argued that v is equipped with the EPP
feature in Japanese and what qualifies as the antecedent of zibun is a phrase that satisfied the
EPP requirement of v. Based on this, I went on to show that there is A-scrambling that is not
driven by the EPP because scrambling to the vP edge has A-properties and yet does not makethe scrambled phrase a possible antecedent for zibun. In this section, I briefly go over the
relevant parts of these arguments and show that they support the absence of feature
inheritance in the v-V domain in Japanese. I first discuss the distribution of the possible
antecedents of zibun and present evidence that vP spec, instead of TP Spec, is the relevant
position. Then, I argue that v is equipped with an EPP feature and relate this conclusion to theabsence of feature inheritance.
3.1. A Reexamination of Possible Antecedents for Zibun
First of all, there is fairly clear evidence that an external argument in vP Spec counts as a
subject in the relevant sense. It is well known since Kuroda (1965) that causative sentences inJapanese involve clausal embedding despite the appearance to the contrary.5 Thus, zibun cantake not only the causer but also the causee as its antecedent in (16).
(16)

Hanakoi-ga Tarooj-ni [zibuni,j-no sensei]-ohihans-ase-ta(koto)
H.-NOM T.-DAT [self-GEN teacher-ACC criticize-cause-Past (fact‘Hanako made Taroo criticize her/his teacher’This is unexpected if (16) is a simple sentence with Hanako as the subject and Taroo as theindirect object because zibun is subject-oriented. The examples in (17) confirm the subject
orientation of zibun.

5

A detailed description on this is provided also by Kuno (1973) and Oshima (1979), among manyothers.

- 51 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011(17) a.

Tarooi-ga Hanakoj-ni [zibuni,*j-no atarasi-i sensei]-osyookaisi-ta (koto)
T.-NOM H.-DAT[self-GEN new-Pres. teacher-ACC introduced (fact‘Taroo introduced his new teacher to Hanako’b.

Tarooi-ga Hanakoj-o [zibuni,*j-no atarasi-i sensei]-nisyookaisi-ta (koto)
T.-NOM H.-ACC[self-GEN new-Pres. teacher-DAT introduced (fact‘Taroo introduced Hanako to his new teacher’On the other hand, the ambiguity of (16) follows if the causee Taroo is the embedded subject.
When zibun is in an embedded sentence, it can take the matrix subject as well as theembedded subject as its antecedent as (18) shows.
(18)

Tarooi-ga Hanakoj-ni [CP Zirook-ga [zibuni,*j,k-no ie]-ni
i-ru
to]T.-NOM H.-DAT
Z.-NOM [self-GENhouse-at be-Pres. COMP
it-ta(koto)
say-Past (fact‘Taroo said to Hanako that Ziroo was at his house’

In this example, the matrix subject Taroo and the embedded subject Ziroo are both possible
antecedents of zibun.
The verbal complex in (16) has the form, hihans ‘criticize’ + (s)ase ‘cause’ + ta ‘Past’.
This indicates that the embedded clause lacks T and is a bare vP exactly as in the small clausecomplement of the English (19), as argued by Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), among others.
(19)

Mary made John criticize her/his teacher

Then, the structure of (16) is as in (20).66

I ignore the matrix CP as it is immaterial for the discussion here. I assume in (20) that the causee
Taroo moves from the embedded vP Spec to an internal argument position of the matrix verb (s)ase‘Cause’ in order to receive the causee role. But this assumption does not affect the argument in anyway.

- 52 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)

(20)

TP
NPi

T’

Hanako

vP

ti’

T
v’

ta

VP
NPj
Taroo

v
V’

vP

tj

V
v’

VP
NP

sase
v

V

self’s teacher hihans

Here, the only position that Taroo can possibly acquire a ‘subject status’ is the embedded vPSpec. The external argument position then must count as a ‘subject position’ in the relevant
sense.
This raises the question whether a generalization can be maintained that possible
antecedents of zibun are those phrases in vP Spec instead of TP Spec. The answer for thisdepends on the analysis of unaccusative and passive sentences. As shown in (21), the derived
subjects in those sentences qualify as antecedents of zibun.
(21) a.

Taroo-gai zibun-no ie-deti sin-da / koron-da(koto)
T.-NOM self-GEN house-in
die-Past fall.down-Past (fact‘Taroo died/fell down at his house’b.

Taroo-gai karera-niyotte zibun-no ie-deti koros-are-ta(koto)
T.-NOM they-by
self-GEN house-in
kill-Passive-Past (fact‘Taroo was killed by them at his house’

If Taroo in (21a), for example, moves from the object position directly to TP Spec, TP Specshould be included among ‘subject positions’. On the other hand, if it moves through vP Spec
as in (22), it is possible to restrict the position for antecedents of zibun to vP Spec.

- 53 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

(22)

TP
NPi

T’

Taroo

vP

ti’

T
v’

ta

VP
PP
… zibun … ti

v
V’
V
korob

And there is evidence, again from causatives, that the internal argument moves to vPSpec in unaccusatives and passives. The causative sentences in (23) contain unaccusativecomplements and that in (24) a passive complement.
(23) a.

Sono isya-wa
Taroo-o zibun-no ie-de
sin-ase-tethat doctor-TOP T.-ACC self-GEN house-in die-Causesimat-tahave-Past‘The doctor has let Taroo die in his own house’b.

Kaigonin-ga
Taroo-o zibun-no heya-de korob-ase-tesimat-tacaretaker-NOM T.-ACC self-GEN room-in fall.down-Cause have-Past‘The caretaker has let Taroo fall down in his own room’(24)

Taroo-wa dai-sensei-ozibun-no gakusei-tati-niyotte
T.-TOP big-professor-ACC self-GEN student-PL-bysuuhais-are-sase-te
oi-ta
worship-Passive-Cause leave-Past‘Taroo let the big professor be worshiped by his/her students’

In all of these examples, the causee, in addition to the matrix subject, can be the antecedent ofzibun. (23a) makes sense under this interpretation if the doctor failed to realize the seriousness
of Taroo’s condition, and indirectly caused his death by not hospitalizing him and letting him
go home. Similarly, (23b) is appropriate when a caretaker was assigned to Taroo so that hedoes not fall down in his room, but failed to pay sufficient attention to him.
The structure of (23b), for example, should be as in (25).77(25) indicates the structure with simple past to avoid unnecessary complications.

- 54 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)

(25)

TP
NPi

T’

caretaker

vP

T

ti’

v’

ta

VP
NPj
Taroo

v
V’

vP

tj

V
v’

VP

v

PP
in self’s room

sase

V’
tj

V
korob

The causee Taroo originates in the embedded object position because the embedded verb
korob ‘fall down’ is unaccusative. It is assumed in (25) that it moves to an internal argument
position of the causative verb to receive the causee role. Whether this movement takes placeor not, it must move through or to the embedded vP Spec as this is the only position where it
can obtain a ‘subject status’. Thus, the example indicates that the object of an unaccusative
verb moves to vP Spec. (24) leads to the same conclusion for passive. Then, it can be assumed
that the internal arguments qualify as antecedents of zibun in the simple unaccusative andpassive sentences in (21) because they move through vP Spec.
3.2. vP as a Predication Domain
It has been shown so far that possible antecedents of zibun can be restricted to phrases in
vP Spec. But the analysis presented above raises a couple of related questions. First, why do
the internal arguments of unaccusatives and passives move to vP Spec? Is this simply an
optional movement? Or is it necessitated by some feature of v? Second, scrambling to or
through the vP edge does not qualify the moved phrase as the antecedent of zibun, as (8),repeated below in (26) with more precise structure, indicates.
(26)

Tarooj-o [Hanakoi-ga [vP tj’ [vP ti [VP zibuni,*j-no heya-de tj sikat-ta]]]]T.-ACC [H.-NOM
self-GEN room-in
scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo in her room’The scrambled phrase Taroo is not a possible antecedent for zibun as already mentioned
above. But this phrase must move through the outer Spec of the vP as the vP is a phase. Thus,
the example indicates that neither the final landing site nor the intermediate vP Spec is a

- 55 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011‘subject position’ in the relevant sense. Then, how can the vP Spec in (25) be distinguishedfrom the intermediate landing site in (26)?
The hypothesis that v is equipped with an EPP feature provides an answer to bothquestions. Given this hypothesis, it is possible to define possible antecedents of zibun as thosephrases that satisfy the EPP requirement of v. If the verb is transitive or unergative, theexternal argument is merged with v and satisfies its EPP requirement. Hence, an externalargument qualifies as a ‘subject’ in the relevant sense. If the verb is unaccusative or passive,
the EPP feature of v attracts the internal argument to its Spec. Thus, the derivations in (22)and (25) obtain. The scrambled phrase in (26) moves to the edge of vP but this has nothing to
do with the EPP as the EPP requirement of v is already satisfied by the external argument.
Consequently, scrambling does not create a new ‘subject’.8
The final question is why v has the EPP feature in Japanese. It was argued in thepreceding section that feature inheritance from C to T is absent in Japanese as the language
lacks φ-feature agreement. The same answer can be given here. That is, there is no feature
inheritance from v to V and v retains the EPP feature for the same reason.
There are further consequences of the analysis just presented. First, it was argued abovethat not only transitive and unergative v’s but also unaccusative and passive v’s have the EPP
feature. As mentioned at the outset of this paper, this is in line with Rothstein’s (2001)
proposal that the EPP reflects the predication relation required in sentential domains. If vP
and CP are two relevant clausal domains, then we would expect a vP to represent a
predication relation even when the verb is unaccusative or passive.
Second, the analysis leads to a prediction for φ-feature agreement languages. It is
assumed that unaccusative and passive v’s lack φ-features even in those languages. Hence, if
the inheritance of the EPP feature is contingent on that of φ-features, as argued in this paper,then unaccusative and passive v’s should retain the EPP feature in those languages, just as inJapanese. There is evidence that seems to support this prediction. For example, the object
precedes the passive verb in (27a).
(27) a.

There was [a booki [stolen ti]]8

The ordering here should follow from Hale and Keyser’s (1993) hypothesis that θ-roles are definedon configuration. The lower Spec of vP, then, should be the locus of the external θ-role.

- 56 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)

b.

TP
NPi

T’

there

T [EPP]
was

vP

ti

v’

v [EPP]

VP

V

vP

tBE

NPj

v’

a book v [EPP] VPVtj

stolenThe proposed structure for this example is shown in (27b). The verb be is raised to T thoughv. And more importantly for the purpose here, the two v’s, one associated with theunaccusative be and the other with the passive stolen, have the EPP feature. I assume that
there can satisfy the EPP requirement of the unaccusative v. This is necessary for examples
like (28a), which should have the structure in (28b).
(28) a.

There arrived a man

b.

TP
NPi

T’

there

T [EPP]
Past

ti

vP
v’

v [EPP]

VP

V

NP

arrivea man

In this example, there satisfies the EPP requirement of the unaccusative v and raises to TP
Spec to check the EPP of T, which was inherited from C. But suppose that passive verbs (inEnglish) have an idiosyncratic property that their associate v’s cannot fulfill the EPP
requirement by the merger of expletive there. Then, as shown in (27b), the internal argument
a book must raise to the Spec of v associated with stolen to satisfy the EPP requirement. The
peculiar word order in (27a) is thus accounted for.
Finally, the approach provides a clue for the analysis of some mysterious “subjectlesssentences” in Japanese, which to my knowledge have resisted a satisfactory description. The
examples in (29) are typical examples with dative subjects and nominative objects.

- 57 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011(29) a.

Hanakoi-ni Tarooj-ga (zibuni,*j-no heya-kara) yoku mi-e-ru(koto)
H.-DAT
T.-NOM (self-GEN room-from well see-can-Pres. (fact‘Hanako can see Taroo well from her room’b.

Hanakoi-ni-wa Tarooj-ga (zibuni,*j-no heya-de) sikari-yasu-i
H.-DAT-TOP T.-NOM (self-GEN room-in scold-easy-Pres.
‘It is easy for Hanako to scold Taroo in her room’

As discussed in Kuno (1973), stative predicates allow nominative objects and dative subjects.9
The verbal suffix e ‘can’ and the adjectival suffix yasu ‘easy’ make the predicates stative in(29a) and (29b) respectively. It is widely assumed that the dative phrase is the ‘subject’ as it
qualifies as the antecedent of zibun. Let us assume, following Bobaljik and Wurmbrand(2007), that the verbal suffix e ‘can’ in (29a) takes a VP complement, and following Ura(1999), that the subject is assigned inherent dative in vP Spec. Then, the structure of (29a) isroughly as in (30) with the C-projection discussed in the preceding section.
(30)

CP
NPi

C’

Hanako

TP
vP

ti

T
v’

VP
VP

C [EPP]ruv [EPP]

V

NP

V

Taroo

mi

e

What is curious is that the sentences in (29) sound perfect and complete without thedative subjects. Further, the omission of the dative subject does not make the nominative
object a possible antecedent for zibun. This is shown in (31).
(31) a.

Tarooi-ga (*zibuni-no heya-kara) yoku mi-e-ru(koto)
T.-NOM (*self-GEN room-from well see-can-Pres. (fact‘Taroo can be seen well (from his room)’

9

Actually, only a subset of those predicates allow dative, as opposed to nominative, subjects. For the
analysis of this Case marking pattern, see, for example, Kuno (1973), Kuroda (1978), Koizumi (1995),
Ura (1999), and M. Takahashi (2010).

- 58 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)b.

Tarooi-ga (*zibuni-no heya-de)
T.-NOM (*self-GEN room-in

sikari-yasu-i
scold-easy-Pres.

‘Taroo is easy to scold (in his room)’Thus, the examples in (31) seem to be without subjects. There is now a way at least to
describe this phenomenon. In (30), e ‘can’ takes an external experiencer argument. Supposethat this verbal suffix can also be “truly unaccusative,” that is, it can have a lexicallyidiosyncratic property that it does not take an external argument and its associate v lacks an
EPP feature. Then, the structure of (31a), for example, is as in (32).
(32)

CP
NPi

C’

Taroo

TP
vP
VP

VP
ti

C [EPP]
T

v

ru

V
V

e

mi

As Taroo is the only argument and it does not check the EPP feature of v, there is no ‘subject’in this sentence.10
4. Conclusion
This paper has reported a preliminary investigation of ‘feature inheritance’ (or its
absence) in Japanese. The hypothesis entertained is that feature inheritance applies to
φ-features, and when this happens, the EPP is ‘pied-piped’. This, coupled with the assumptionthat there is no φ-feature agreement in Japanese, implies that feature inheritance of the EPP
does not apply in the language. A few pieces of evidence were presented to show that thisprediction is borne out. First, if C does not transmit the EPP feature to T and retains it, then it
is possible to complete Miyagawa’s (2001, 2003) analysis of the subject-negation scopeinteraction. Second, if v retains the EPP without transmitting it to V, then the possible
antecedents for zibun can be properly characterized as those phrases that satisfy the EPP
requirement of v.
It was argued in the course of the discussion that v carries the EPP feature even when it
is associated with an unaccusative or passive V. This suggests that the distribution of the EPP
10“Truly unaccusative” suffixes are exceptional as v should normally have the EPP feature. It can be
speculated then that they are undergoing “reanalysis” as auxiliaries.

- 59 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011is not confined to phase heads, but reflects predication domains along the lines proposed inRothstein (2001). Further, when combined with the mechanism of feature inheritance argued
for in this paper, it predicts that v retains the EPP even in φ-feature agreement languages when
it is associated with an unaccusative or passive V. This is so because the v associated withunaccusatives and passives lacks φ-features even in those languages. It was hinted that thisprediction might also be borne out.

References
Bobaljik, J. and S. Wurmbrand (2007) “Complex Predicates, Aspect and Anti-Reconstruction,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, 27-42.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phases,” in R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational
Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essay in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 133-166.
Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (1993) “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic
Relations,” in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in
Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 53-109.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda S.-Y. (1965) “Causative Forms in Japanese,” Foundations of Language 1, 30-50.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1978) “Case Marking, Canonical Sentence Patterns, and Counter Equi (A Preliminary
Study),” in J. Hinds ad I. Howard, eds., Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics,
Kaitakusha, Tokyo, 30-51.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.
Miyagawa, S. (2001) “EPP, Scrambling, and Wh-in-situ,” in M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life inLanguage, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 293-338.
Miyagawa, S. (2003) “A-Movement Scrambling and Options without Optionality,” in S. Karimi, ed.,Word Order and Scrambling, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 177-200.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) “Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame,”
Nanzan Linguistics 1: 1-19.
Oshima, S. (1979) “Conditions on Rules: Anaphora in Japanese,” in G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M.
Muraki, eds., Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue, Kenkyusha,
Tokyo, 423-448.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery,” in L. Haegeman, ed., Elements ofGrammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 281-337.
Rothstein, S. (2001) Predicates and Their Subjects, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Saito, M. (2003) “A Derivational Approach to the Interpretation of Scrambling Chains,” Lingua 113,481-518.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203-227.
Saito, M. (2009) “Optional A-Scrambling,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16, 44-63.
Saito, M. (2010) “Semantic and Discourse Interpretation of the Japanese Left Periphery,” in N.
Erteschik-Shir and L. Rochman, eds., The Sound Patterns of Syntax, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 140-173.
Şener, S. and D. Takahashi (2010) “Argument Ellipsis in Japanese and Turkish,” in H. Maezawa andA. Yokogoshi, eds., Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL
6), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61, 325-339.

- 60 -

Two Notes on Feature Inheritance (M. Saito)

Takahashi, M. (2010) “Case, Phases, and Nominative/Accusative Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 19, 319-355.
Takano, Y. (2010) “Double Complement Unaccusatives in Japanese: Puzzle and Implications,”
unpublished manuscript, Kinjo Gakuin University.
Ura, H. (1999) “Checking Theory and Dative Subject Constructions in Japanese and Korean,” Journalof East Asian Linguistics 8, 223-254.

- 61 -