In Ur Shlonsky, ed., Beyond Functional Sequence, Oxford University Press, New York, 255-274. (2015)

Cartography and Selection: Case Studies in Japanese*
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1 Introduction
The cartographic structure of the Japanese right periphery has been investigated extensively
in recent years. For example, Ueda (2007) examines modals and presents the following
structure:(1) [U-modalP [E-modalP [TP … T ] E(pistemic)-modal] U(tterance)-modal]
Saito (2009) discusses the hierarchical relations of complementizers and arrives at (2).
(2) [CP … [CP … [CP [TP … T ] Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]Endo (2010), on the other hand, considers the distributions of sentence-final particles andproposes (3).
(3) [Mod-SpeechActP [Mod-EvaluativeP [Mod-EvidentialP [Mod-EpistemicP [TP … T ] wa] na] yo] ne]
The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, I would like to put these results together andpresent a more comprehensive picture of the cartography of the Japanese right periphery.
________________________________________________________________*

This is a slightly revised version of the paper presented at the conference, “Syntactic

Cartography – Where Do We Go from Here?”, held at the University of Geneva on June 7-9,
2012. The material was presented also at seminars at the University of Maryland, Nanzan
University and the University of Connecticut. I would like to thank the audiences at theseplaces for helpful comments, especially Jonathan Bobaljik, Norbert Hornstein, Richie Kayne,
Hideki Kishimoto, Keiko Murasugi, Paul Portner, Ian Roberts, and Kensuke Takita. Special
thanks are due to Tomoko Haraguchi for discussions that inspired me to pursue the research
reported here. Section 2 is an extension of her work on Japanese modals, Haraguchi (2012),
and Section 4 is a summary of our joint paper on Japanese sentence-final particles, Saito andHaraguchi (2012).

2
Secondly, I will reconsider the hierarchies themselves and explore their sources. It is assumed
in the Minimalist research that phrase structure is constructed by the minimal operation
Merge, which takes two syntactic objects and forms their union. (See Chomsky 1995, 2013.)
This operation, taken by itself, does not yield the hierarchies in (1)-(3). Then, their sourcesmust be sought elsewhere to the extent that they are correct. I will show that s-selection plays
a role to determine the distributions of heads in the right periphery. I will argue in addition
that compatibilities in morphology, semantics and speech acts limit the distrubutions ofmodals, complementizers and sentence-final particles respectively.
The following section concerns modals. Although Ueda (2007) proposes the hierarchy in(1), she also points out that a simple sentence cannot contain more than one modal. I willshow that this generalization and more generally, the distributions of modals follow frommorphology and s-selection. In Section 3, I will briefly review the discussion in Saito (2009)
and argue that the hierarchy of complementizers in (2) can be expained by the s-selection andsemantic properties of the complementizers. Finally, in Section 4, I will present Haraguchi’s(2012) argument that sentence-final particles are genuine discourse elements whose
distruibutions are confined to matrix contexts, and suggest that their distrubutions are dictatedby s-selection as well as compatibility of speech acts. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2 The Uniqueness Condition on Modals in JapaneseIn the Japanese syntax literature, ‘modal’ often refers to a category of clause-final elementsthat express modality or force and do not carry tense. Ueda (2007) classifies them into thetwo groups shown in (4).
(4) a. E(pitemic)-modals: daroo (surmise), desyoo (formal surmise), mai (negative surmise)b. U(tterance)-modals: ro/e (imperative), (i)nasai (formal imperative), na (negativeimperative), yoo (invitation), (i)masyoo (formal invitation), yoo (volition), mai(negative volition)
She assumes the hierarchy in (1), and at the same time, observes that two modals cannot cooccur in the same clause. The observation is confirmed by the examples in (5).
(5) a. Kimi-wa soko-e ik-u

daroo (*na)

you-TOP there-to go-Pres. will

don’t‘Don’t go there (Don’t be going there)’3b. Taroo-wa soko-e ik-u

maiTaroo-TOP there-to go-Pres. won’t(*daroo)will‘Taroo won’t go there (I guess Taroo won’t go there)’
I will argue in this section that this uniqueness condition on modals follows from their lexical
properties.1
It should be noted here that English modals exhibit a similar uniqueness condition. Thus,(6a) is totally out although it is synonymous with the grammatical (6b).
(6) a. *John may can solve the problem
b. John may be able to solve the problem
It has long been observed that English modals can occur only in finite contexts and hence,cannot follow another modal. This suggests that they have a morphological requirement tomerge with an affixal tense. I will assume that a similar approach should be pursued for theparallel case in Japanese. Yet, the situation is slightly different as Japanese modals, bydefinition, do not carry tense.
First, it seems plausible that all the modals in (4) take propositional complements.
Propositions can take the syntactic forms of a vP (as in small clauses), a TP and a ModalP, forexample. This by itself does not exclude the multiple occurrences of modals in (5). However,each modal has additional lexical requirements. Let’s examine the imperative ro/e first. Thiselement is a suffix that attaches to verb stems. As shown in (7), ro is employed for verb stems
that end in vowels and e for those that end in consonants.
(7) a. Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ro
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Imp.
‘Taroo, eat it’
b. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-e
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Imp.
‘Taroo, go there’

1

The material in this section developed out of discussions with Tomoko Haraguchi over thelast couple of years. See Haraguchi (2012) for an analysis that is different but shares the samegeneral approach.

4
The suffixal nature of ro/e automatically limits its distribution. For example, if it takes a TP
complement, then T intervenes and blocks its morphological merger with the verb, as
illustrated in (8).
(8) a. *Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ru-ro
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Pres.-Imp.
b.

ModalP
Modal’
TP

Modal
T’

vP

ro
T

v’
VP

ru
v

V
tabe
The only morphologically permissible option is for it to take a vP complement. In this case,the suffix can successfully merge with V (or V-v complex). Significantly, ro/e cannot take a
ModalP as its complement because the intervening modal blocks the morphological merger
just like T. There is an independent reason then that ro/e cannot follow another modal.
Most of the other utterance modals have the same suffixal property. Among them are(i)nasai (formal imperative), yoo (invitation, volition), and (i)masyoo (formal invitation).
Examples of (i)masyoo are shown in (9).2(9) a. Sore-o tabe-masyoo
it-ACC eat-let’s‘Let’s eat it’2

The form masyoo appears when the verb stem ends in a vowel, and imasyoo when the verb

stem ends in a consonant. I assume that the morpheme is imasyoo, and that the initial vowelof the suffix is deleted by the following morphophonological rule when the stem ends in avowel:(i)V  Ø / V + __ C

5b. Soko-e ik-imasyoo
there-to go-let’s‘Let’s go there’
I conclude then that they all must take vP complements in order to morphologically merge
with V.
The epistemic modals daroo (surmise) and desyoo (formal surmise) also exhibit a regularpattern. They always take a TP complement. The head T can be present or past, and can be averbal tense (ru/ta) or an adjectival tense (i/katta). This is shown in (10).
(10) a. Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ru /tabe-ta daroo
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Pres./eat-Past will
‘I guess Taroo will eat/ate it’
b. Soko-no huyu-wa samu-i /samu-katta daroo
there-GEN winter-TOP cold-Pres./cold-Past will
‘I guess the winter there is/was cold’(11) shows that they cannot be employed as verbal or adjectival suffixes.3(11) a. *Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-daroo
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-will‘I guess Taroo eats it’
b. *Soko-no huyu-wa
samu-daroo
there-GEN winter-TOP cold-will‘I guess the winter there is cold’Thus, daroo (and desyoo) takes a tensed proposition as a complement and s-selects T. It
follows that they cannot have a ModalP as a complement.
The situation with na (negative imperative) is slightly more complex but is similar. It
takes a TP with verbal present tense as its complement. The following examples meet this3

There is another modal karoo, which is similar in meaning to daroo but is a suffix that

attaches to adjectival stems. Thus, (11b) becomes grammatical when karoo is substituted fordaroo as in (i).
(i) Soko-no

huyu-wasamu-karoo

there-GEN winter-TOP cold-will‘I guess the winter there is cold’6
condition:(12) a. Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ru na
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Pres. don’t‘Taroo, don’t eat it’
b. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-unaTaroo-TOP there-to go-Pres. don’t‘Taroo, don’t go there’(13) shows that na is not a verbal suffix and also cannot take TP complements headed by pastor adjectival present.
(13) a. *Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-na
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-don’t‘Taroo, don’t eat it’
b. *Taroo-wa sore-o tabe-ta na
Taroo-TOP it-ACC eat-Past don’t‘Taroo, you should not have eaten it’
c. *Taroo-wa kimuzukasi(-i) na
Taroo-TOP difficult(-Pres.) don’t‘Taroo, don’t be difficult’It appears then that na selects for a specific subcategory, verbal present tense. But thisrequirement is plausibly s-selection rather than categorial selection (c-selection).
It is well known that verbal present tense ru is more precisely characterized as indicating
non-past. Thus, it occurs also in future contexts as in (14).
(14) a. Hanako-wa
asita
wani-otabe-ru
Hanako-NOM tomorrow alligator-ACC eat-Pres.
‘Hanako is going to eat alligator meat tomorrow’b. Taroo-wa rainen soko-ni ik-u
Taroo-TOP next.year there-to go-Pres.
‘Taroo is going there next year’
This extension to future contexts, as far as I know, is not observed with the adjectival present
i. (15) is ungrammatical.

7(15) a. *Taroo-wa asita
kimuzukasi-i
Taroo-TOP tomorrow difficult-Pres.
‘Taroo will be difficult tomorrow’
b. *Watasi-wa asita
kanasi-i
I-NOM
tomorrow sad-Pres.
‘I will feel sad tomorrow’
Then, it can be hypothesized that na s-selects future tense.
The distribution of mai (negative volition, negative surmise) is similar. The following
examples indicate that it s-selects future tense just like na.
(16) a. Watasi-wa sore-o tabe-ru mai
I-TOP
it-ACC eat-Pres. won’t‘I will not eat it’
b. Watasi-wa soko-ni ik-u
mai
I-TOP
there-to go-Pres. won’t‘I will not go there’
c. *Watasi-wa sore-o tabe-ta mai
I-TOP
it-ACC eat-Past won’t‘I will not have eaten it’
d. *Watasi-wa kanasi(-i) mai
I-TOP
sad-Pres. won’t‘I will not feel sad’
But there is another pattern observed with mai, as in (17).
(17) Watasi-wa sore-o tabe-mai
I-TOP
it-ACC eat-won’t‘I guess Taroo won’t eat it’
In this example, mai is suffixed to the verbal stem tabe. Curiously, mai cannot be suffixed toa verb stem that ends in a consonant. Thus, an example parallel to (17) cannot be formed with(16b). Here, I tentatively propose that the verbal suffix is not mai but (u)mai. Then, theexample with this suffix that corresponds to (16b) is homophonous with (16b) as in (18).44The suffix is umai uniformly. When it is merged with tabe as in (17), the initial u is deleted

according to the morphophonological rule suggested in Footnote 2.

8(18) Watasi-wa soko-ni ik-umai
I-TOPthere-to go-won’t‘I will not go there’
This concludes the discussion of all modals listed in (4). It was shown that most of themare verbal suffixes and hence, must take vP complements so that morphology can interpretthem. Daroo (surmise) and desyoo (formal surmise) s-select T and must take TP
complements. A similar pattern is observed with na (negative imperative) and mai (negative
volition, negative surmise), which s-select T with future tense. It follows then that no modal
can take a ModalP as a complement.5 This accounts for the uniqueness condition on modals.
Ueda (2007) groups the elements in (4) under the category Modal in part because they are incomplementary disctribution. But given the analysis suggested here, it is no longer clear thatthey form a natural class. As shown in the subsequent sections, the complementizer no andthe discourse particle wa s-select T, and hence, are in complementary distribution with theelements in (4). This, however, does not show that they belong to the category Modal. This
state of affairs is expected under the bare phrase structure theory where there are no “fixed
positions” for categories and Merge applies freely to two syntactic objects. It is simply thatthe formed structure must meet the requirements of morphology and s-selection, and thisforces some elements to be in complementary distribution.

3 The Hierarchy of Japanese Complementizers
Japanese has three complementizers, no, ka and to, as illustrated in (19).
(19) a. Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
soko-ni i-runo]-osittei-ta
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM there-in be-Pres. no-ACC know-Past‘Taroo knew that Hanako was there’
b. Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
sono hon-omottei-ru ka] siritagattei-ru
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM that book-ACC have-Pres. ka want.to.know-Pres.
‘Taroo wants to know whether Hanako has that book’c. Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
sono hon-omottei-ru to] omottei-ru
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM that book-ACC have-Pres. to think-Pres.
‘Taroo thinks that Hanako has that book’
These complementizers can co-occur as in (20), and when they do, they appear in the order5

Two modals can appear, although not adjacently, in a structure like V-v-(T)-Modal-(X)-V-

v-(T)-Modal. But the two modals belong to different clauses in this structure.

9indicated.
(20) Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni i-ta(no) ka (to)] minna-ni tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP he-GEN sister-NOM there-at be-Past no ka to all-DAT inquire-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if his sister was there’
Given this, I proposed the hierarchy in (2), repeated in (21), in Saito (2009).
(21) [CP … [CP … [CP … Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)](21) predicts that the complementizer sequences in (22a) are allowed while those in (22b)are not.
(22) a. no-ka, ka-to, no-ka-tob. *to-ka, ka-no, to-no, to-ka-no, ka-to-noc. *no-to
There is, however, one sequence, no-to in (22c), that is consistent with the hierarchy in (21)and yet is illicit. Thus, (23) is ungrammatical.
(23) *Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni i-ru
no to] kitaisi-ta
Taroo-TOP he-GEN sister-NOM there-at be-Pres. no to expect-Past‘Taroo expected his sister to be there’
The purpose of this section is to provide an explanation for the hierarchy in (21), and at thesame time, to account for the exception in (22c).
It is necessary to consider the properties of each complementizer first in order to examine
the source of their hierarchical relations. Ka is straightforward as it is the complementizer forquestions. No and to, on the other hand, require some discussion. Let’s consider to first.
To is ambiguous between a marker of direct quotation as in (24a) and a complementizer
that embeds indirect discourse as in (24b).
(24) a. Hanako-ga, “Watasi-wa tensai da,” to it-ta/omot-ta (koto)
Hanako-NOM I-TOP
genius be to say-Past/think-Past fact‘(the fact that) Hanako said/thought, “I’m an genius”’
b. Hanako-ga[zibun-ga tensai da to] it-ta/omot-ta (koto)
Hanako-NOM self-NOM genius be to say-Past/think-Past fact‘(the fact that) Hanako said/thought that she is an genius’

10In the latter case, it has been widely assumed that to is employed for propositional
complements as it appears when the matrix verb is a typical bridge verb like iw ‘say’ andomow ‘think’. However, I argued in Saito (2009) that to embeds a paraphrase or report of
direct discourse. Plann (1982) shows that the Spanish complementizer que has this function.
What I proposed is that to is specialized for this function. One piece of evidence is that thematrix verbs that s-select to are all verbs of saying and thinking, that is, verbs that arecompatible with direct quotation. A partial list of those verbs is shown in (25).
(25) omo-u ‘think’, kangae-ru ‘consider’, sinzi-ru ‘believe’, i-u ‘say’, sakeb-u ‘scream’,syutyoosu-ru ‘claim, insist’, tazune-ru ‘inquire’, kitaisu-ru ‘expect, hope’,kakuninsu-ru ‘confirm’, kanzi-ru ‘feel’ (all in present tense)
Secondly, to embeds various types of sentences just like que. To follows a question in(26a), imperative sentences in (26b-c), and an expression of invitation in (26d).6(26) a. Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP kanozyo-ga kare-no ie-ni
ku-ru
ka to] tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-DAT she-NOM he-GEN house-to come-Pres. ka to ask-Past‘Taroo asked Ziroo if she is coming to his house’b. Hanako-wa Taroo-ni [CP kanozyo-no ie-ni
i-roto] meizi-ta
Hanako-TOP Taroo-DAT she-GEN house-at be-Imp. to order-Past‘Hanako ordered Taroo to be at her house’c. Hanako-wa Taroo-ni [CP kanozyo-no ie-ni
ik-u-nato] meizi-ta
Hanako-TOP Taroo-DAT she-GEN house-to go-Pres.-don’t to order-Past‘Hanako ordered Taroo not to go to her house’d. Hanako-wa Taroo-o[CP kanozyo-no ie-ni
ik-oo to] sasot-ta
Hanako-TOP Taroo-ACC
she-GEN house-to go-let’s to invite-Past‘Hanako invited Taroo to go to her house’
This is unexpected if to is a complementizer for propositional complements. On the other
hand, the examples in (26) should be grammatical if to embeds paraphrases of direct
discourse. A direct discourse, and hence its paraphrase, can be a question, an order or an
6

Plann (1982) demonstrates that que can take a question CP as a complement when thematrix verb is a verb of saying or thinking. She argues, based on this fact, that que can embeda paraphrase of a quotation. Rivero (1994) shows in support of Plann’s analysis that que takes
an imperative complement as well. The discussion of to in Saito (2009), thus, closely follows
that of que in these two papers.

11
invitation, in addition to a simple statement.
Then, what is the complementizer for embedded propositions in Japanese? It is argued in
Saito (2009) that no is employed for this purpose. (27) is a partial list of matrix verbs thattake CP complements headed by no.
(27) wasure-ru ‘forget’, kookaisu-ru ‘regret’, mi-ru ‘see’, mat-u ‘wait’, tamera-u ‘hesitate’,kyohisu-ru ‘refuse’, ukeire-ru ‘accept’, kitaisu-ru ‘expect, hope’, kakuninsu-ru‘confirm’, kanzi-ru ‘feel’ (all in present tense)
All of these verbs take complements that express events or actions. For example, what one
forgets is an event or to perform an action. What one hesitates is to perform an action andwhat one waits for is for an event to happen. Then, they take propositional complements.
Matsumoto (2010) argues that no is a Finite head, a hypothesis originally proposed byHiraiwa and Ishihara (2002). If no is the complementizer for propositions, it should in
principle be able to embed a ModalP, as a ModalP can stand for a proposition. However,Matsumoto observes that no s-selects T and is incompatible with modals. This is shown in(28)-(29).
(28) a. Taroo-wa [CP [TP ame-ga
hur-u] no]-o kitaisi-ta
Taroo-TOP
rain -NOM fall-Pres. no-ACC expect-Past‘Taroo hoped that it would rain’
b. *Taroo-wa [CP [ModalP ame-ga
hur-u
daroo] no]-o kitaisi-ta
Taroo-TOP
rain-NOM fall-Pres. will no-ACC expect-Past‘Taroo hoped that it would rain’(29) a. Taroo-wa [CP [TP ame-ga
hur-u] no]-oyosoosi-ta
Taroo-TOP
rain-NOM fall-Pres. no-ACC predict-Past‘Taroo predicted that it would rain’
b. *Taroo-wa [CP [ModalP ame-ga
hur-umai] no]-o yosoosi-ta
Taroo-TOP
rain-NOM fall-Pres. won’t no-ACC predict-Past‘Taroo predicted that it would not rain’
Finite, by definition, is closely related to Tense. Then, the fact that no s-selects T, Matsumoto(2010) argues, provides evidence that it is a Finite head.
Let us now consider the hierarchy in (21), repeated in (30), with this background.
(30) [CP … [CP … [CP … Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]12
The fact that no occupies the lowest position in the hierarchy already follows from its sselection requirement. As it s-selects T, it cannot take a CP complement. On the other hand,ka and to are not in selectional relation with any specific head. Ka, for example, merges witha syntactic object that stands for a proposition and creates a question. A proposition can be
expressed as a vP, a TP, a ModalP or a CP. Ka can take a TP, a ModalP and a CP as its
complement, as shown in (31).
(31) a. Taroo-wa [CP [TP Hanako-ga
soko-ni it-ta] ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Past ka all-DAT ask-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if Hanako went there’
b. Taroo-wa [CP [ModalP Hanako-ga
soko-ni ik-u
daroo] ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Pres. will ka all-DAT ask-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if Hanako would go there’
c. Taroo-wa [CP [CP Hanako-ga
soko-ni it-tano] ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Past no ka all-DAT ask-Past‘Taroo asked everyone if Hanako went there’(31c) is the most relevant for the hierarchy in (30), which allows the no-ka sequence. As
argued above, no is the complementizer for embedded propositions and a CP headed by nostands for a proposition. Hence, ka can merge with a no-headed CP as in (31c).
The merger of vP and ka should be possible on semantic grounds but is excluded bymorphology. A verb stem is a dependent morpheme and requires a suffix such as tense. As ka
cannot serve as an appropriate suffix for a verb stem, it cannot take a vP complement. Also,ka cannot combine with ModalPs and CPs that do not stand for propositions. Thus, thefollowing examples are totally ungrammatical:(32) a. *Taroo-wa [CP [ModalP Hanako-ga
soko-ni ik-e]ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Imp. ka all-DAT ask-Past
b. *Taroo-wa [CP [CP Hanako-ga
soko-ni it-ta
to] ka] minna-ni tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM there-to go-Past to ka all-DAT ask-Past
The embedded ModalP in (32a) expresses an order, and the embedded to-headed CP in (32b)a paraphrase of direct discourse. These are examples of semantic incompatibility as ka
requires a complement that stands for a proposition. (32b), in particular, illustrates why thecomplementizer sequence to-ka is impossible.
It was shown so far why no-ka is possible wheras ka-no and to-ka are not. It is necessary
to review the property of to in order to examine the other combinations. It was argued abovethat to embeds a paraphrase of direct discourse. This complementizer, like ka, does not s-13select any specific head, and can combine with various types of clauses as long as its
semantic requirement is satisfied. It was already shown in (19c) and (26) that ka can take a
TP, a CP and a ModalP as its complement. Most relevant in the present context is (26a),
repeated below as (33).
(33) Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP [CP kanozyo-ga kare-no ie-ni
ku-ru
ka] to] tazune-ta
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-DAT
she-NOM he-GEN house-to come-Pres. ka to ask-Past‘Taroo asked Ziroo if she is coming to his house’
As the paraphrased direct discourse can be a question, to can take a question CP as its
complement. A direct discourse, or an utterance, can express a statement, an assertion, aquestion, an order, and the like. It is then not surprising that to can embed various types ofclauses. Outstanding in this context is the ungrammaticality of (23), repeated below as (34).
(34) *Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni i-ru
no to] kitaisi-ta
Taroo-TOP he-GEN sister-NOM there-at be-Pres. no to expect-Past‘Taroo expected his sister to be there’
This example indicates that to cannot take a no-headed CP as its complement. Recall here that
no-headed CPs stand for propositions, and express events, states, actions and the like. Then,they cannot be construed as paraphrases of direct discourse. The no-to sequence is illicit also
because of semantic incompatibility.
In this section, I argued that the hierarchical relation among the complementizers, no, ka
and to, follows from the s-selection requirement of no and the semantics of thosecomplementizers. No, which is the complementizer for embedded propositions, s-selects T.
Hence, it occupies the lowest position in the hierarchy. Ka merges with clauses that stand for
propositions and creates questions. Hence, the no-ka sequence is possible. To embeds
paraphrases of direct discourse. Since the paraphrased direct discourse can be a question, theka-to sequence is also possible. This covers all the possible combinations, no-ka, ka-to, andno-ka-to. On the other hand, the ka-no and to-no sequences are both in conflict with the sselection requirement of no. The to-ka sequence is ruled out because a to-headed CP does notstand for a proposition. Thus, the hierarchy in (30) is precisely what is expected. The only
exception to the hierarchy is that the no-to sequence is illicit. This fact too receives anaccount because a no-headed CP cannot express a paraphrase of direct discourse. In thefollowing section, I turn to the distributions of sentence-final discourse particles, anotherphenomenon for which a hierarchy is proposed.

14
4 Discourse Particles and Speech Act Compatibility
Japanese is rich in sentence-final particles. Endo (2010) discusses four of them in somedetail; wa, yo, ne and na. Roughly speaking, the first two are employed for assertion, and thelatter two for solicitation of response. As Endo observes, their distributions are quite
interesting because some of them can co-occur but only in a fixed order. For example, (35)contains three particles, and they must appear in the order indicated.
(35) Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ta(wa) (yo) (ne)Hanako-TOP there-at be-Past wa yo ne‘Hanako was there’
In this section, I will investigate the source of this hierarchy.7 I will first discuss the propertiesof these particles, and then, suggest that the hierarchy, to a large extent, stems from thespecific speech acts they convey.
First, as Haraguchi (2012) shows, these particles are genuine discourse elements whose
distribitions are confined to matrix contexts. Thus, they cannot occur even within to-headed
CPs, which embed various types of clauses as observed above.
(36) a. Hanako-wa [CP Taroo-wa kanozyo-no ie-ni
i-ru (*wa) to] omot-ta
Hanako-TOP Taroo-TOP she-GEN house-at be-Pres. wa to think-Past‘Hanako thought that Taroo is at her house’b. Hanako-wa [CP Taroo-ga kanozyo-o tasukete kure-ru (*yo) to] kitaisi-ta
Hanako-TOP Taroo-TOP she-ACC help (for her)-Pres. yo to expect-Past‘Hanako expected Taroo to help her’
Nevertheless, wa, in particular, has an s-selection requirement. It takes a TP complement asshown in (37).8(37) a. Watasi-wa soko-ni ik-u
wa / it-ta
wa
I-TOP
there-to go-Pres. wa go-Past wa‘I will go there / I went there’
b. Taroo-wa yasasi-i wa / yasasi-katta wa
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. wa kind-Past wa‘Taroo is kind / Taroo was kind’
7

The content of this section is based on joint research with Tomoko Haraguchi, which isreported in more detail in Saito and Haraguchi (2012).
8

Wa is typically employed in women’s speech.

15

Wa follows verbal tenses (ru/ta) in (37a) and adjectival tenses (i/katta) in (37b).
On the other hand, wa cannot merge with a CP or a ModalP. (38a) shows that wa is
incompatible with a CP complement, and (38b-c) that it cannot take a ModalP as its
complement.
(38) a. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-uno (*wa)
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Pres. no wa‘Taroo will go there’
b. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-e (*wa)
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Imp. wa‘Taroo, go there’
c. Hanako-wa ku-ru
desyoo (*wa)
Hanako-TOP come-Pres. will
wa
‘Hanako will come’Then, wa s-selects T. This predicts that wa must occupy the lowest position in a sequence of
discourse particles. It indeed cannot follow any discourse particle, as shown in (39).
(39) a. Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ta
yo (*wa)
Hanako-TOP there-at be-Past yo wa‘Hanako was there’
b. Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ta
ne (*wa)
Hanako-TOP there-at be-Past ne wa‘Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’
Although yo is also employed for assertion, it exhibits a different distribution. It allows
various clause types as its complement, and as Tenny (2006) notes, it can be translatedroughly as ‘I’m telling you …’ It takes TP complements in (40) and ModalP complements in(41).
(40) a. Taroo-wa soko-ni i-ru
yo / i-ta
yoTaroo-TOP there-at be-Pres. yo be-Past yo‘Taroo is there / was there’
b. Taroo-wa yasasi-i yo / yasasi-katta yo
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. yo kind-Past yo‘Taroo is kind / was kind’16(41) a. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-e / ik-inasai yo
Taroo-TOP there-to go-Imp. go-Imp. yo‘Taroo, go there’
b. Soko-ni ik-oo / ik-imasyoo yo
there-to go-Inv. go-Inv.
yo‘Let’s go there’
The examples in (42) show that yo can follow the complentizer no and the discourse particle
wa.
(42) a. Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ru
no yo
Hanako-TOP there-at be-Pres. no yo‘Hanako is there’
b. Hanako-wa soko-ni i-ru
wa yo
Hanako-TOP there-at be-Pres. wa yo‘Hanako is there’
Yo clearly does not have any s-selection requirement, and given this, it is not surprising that it
can follow another discourse particle.
Na and ne, which solicit response, are similar to yo in distribution. Here, I will provide
some examples of ne.
(43) a. Taroo-wa yasasi-i ne
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. ne‘Taroo is kind, isn’t he?’b. Taroo-wa soko-ni ik-inasai ne
Taroo-wa there-to go-Imp. ne‘Taroo, go there. Will you?’c. Soko-ni ik-imasyoo nethere-to go-let’s
ne‘Let’s go there. Shall we?’d. Taroo-wa yasasi-i no ne
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. no ne‘Taroo is kind, isn’t he?’e. Taroo-wa yasasi-i wa ne
Taroo-TOP kind-Pres. wa ne‘Taroo is kind, isn’t he?’17
What appears in the complement position of ne is a TP in (43a), a ModalP in (43b-c), a CP in(43d), and a sentence headed by the speech act particle wa in (43e). Thus, ne does not s-selecta specific head, either.
As Keiko Murasugi observes, there is clear evidence that wa and the other discourse
particles differ in selectional properties. Yo, ne and na can appear not only sentence-finally
but after any major constituent. (44) illustrates this with ne.
(44) Taroo-ga
ne soko-ni ne i-tene …
Taroo-NOM ne there-at ne be-and ne‘It’s Taroo, alright? It’s there, alright? He was there, alright? And, …’This is consistent with the proposal that ne does not s-select any head. Wa, on the other hand,cannot be employed in this way as it s-selects T.
Nevertheless, there are restrictions on the complements of yo, ne and na. For example, ne
and na can follow yo, but yo cannot follow them. Further, ne and na are mutually exclusive.
Relevant examples are shown in (45)-(46).
(45) a. Hanako-wa
soko-ni i-ta
yo ne/na
Hanako-NOM there-at be-Past yo ne/na
Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’b. *Hanako-wa
soko-ni i-ta
ne/na yoHanako-NOM there-at be-Past ne/na yo(46) a. *Hanako-wa
soko-ni i-ta
ne na
Hanako-NOM there-at be-Past ne na
Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’b. *Hanako-wa
soko-ni i-ta
na ne
Hanako-NOM there-at be-Past na ne
Hanako was there, wasn’t she?’Then, descriptively, the hierarchy in (47) obtains.
(47) [[[ TP wa] yo] ne/na]
As argued above, wa must occupy the lowest position because it s-selects T. In the remainderof this section, I will suggest that the rest should be accounted for in terms of the speech acts
these particles yield.
First, yo is employed for assertion, and hence, its complement must be capable of18
expressing an assertion. The following examples demonstrate this:(48) a. [CP Dare-ga soko-ni ik-uka] yowho-NOM there-to go-Pres. ka yo‘Who will go there? = No one will go there’
b. [CP Taroo-ni nani-ga
deki-ruka] yoTaroo-DAT what-NOM can.do-Pres. ka yo‘What can Taroo do? = Taroo can’t do anything’A question can be interpreted at the discourse level as a literal question or as a rhetoricalquestion. However, when a question is embedded under yo as in (48), only the rhetoricalquestion interpretation survives. This is expected because a rhetorical question expresses anassertion while a literal question does not. The situation is different with ne and na, whichsolicit response. (49a-b), unlike (48a-b), retain the ambiguity.
(49) a. [CP Dare-ga soko-ni ik-uka] newho-NOM there-to go-Pres. ka ne‘Who will go there? / (I think) no one will go there. What do you think?’
b. [CP Taroo-ni
nani-gadeki-ruka] neTaroo-DAT what-NOM can.do-Pres. ka ne‘What can Taroo do? / (I think) Taroo can’t do anything. What do you think?’
This should be because a response can be solicited on a question or an assertion.
Given the observation above, it is not at all surprising that the yo-ne/na sequence isallowed whereas the ne/na-yo sequence is not. Yo combines with an expression of assertionand reinforces the speech act. It is then possible to solicit a response on the assertion byplacing ne/na after yo. On the other hand, ne/na adds the speech act of soliciting a response.
A sentence with these particles is in fact best translated as a tag question. But it was shown
above that the complement of yo cannot express a literal question for the simple reason that aquestion cannot be asserted. Thus, the hierarchical relation between yo and ne/na is predictedfrom their discourse roles.
The final question to be addressed is why ne and na cannot co-occur, as was shown in(46). Although I do not have a clear-cut answer for this, I would like to make a suggestion,
based on an observation in Endo (2010). Endo notes that na is appropriate when talking toonself whereas ne is not. Let’s compare the following two examples:19(50) a. Dekake-ta na
go.out-Past na‘It looks like she/he went out’
b. Dekake-ta ne
go.out-Past ne‘You/she/he went out, didn’t you/he/she?’Suppose that you go home alone and find that your roommate is not there. Then, you could
utter (50a), talking to yourself. (50b) is inappropriate in this context. On the other hand,
suppose that you go home with your friend. Then, you could say (50b) to your friend,
referring to your roommate. Or (50b) can be addressed to your roommate when she/he comeshome. This suggests that na solicits a response from the discourse participants including the
speaker, while ne seeks a response from those excluding the speaker. Na can be employedwhen talking to oneself, as there is a discourse participant to whom the utterance can beaddressed, namely, the speaker. Ne has no function in this context. If this characterization ofne and na is correct, then they should be mutually exclusive because their discourse functions
are not compatible.

5 Conclusion
As discussed in this paper, constraints and hierarchies have been proposed and entertained in
the recent investigation of the Japanese right periphery. Ueda (2007) examines Japanese
modals in detail and entertains the constraint that a clause can contain at most one modal.
Saito (2009) observes the hierarchy of Japanese complementizers in (30), repeated below in(51).
(51) [CP … [CP … [CP … Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]Endo (2010), on the other hand, examines the hierarchy of discourse particles, which can beformulated as in (52).
(52) [[[ TP wa] yo] ne/na]
These constitute facts to be explained.
In this paper, I explored the possibility that they are consequences of the properties of therelevant lexical items. In Section 2, I showed that Japanese modals are either suffixes or sselect T, and argued that the uniqueness condition follows from these lexical properties. In
Section 3, I argued that the hierarchy of complementizers in (51) is a consequence of the s-20
selection requirement of no and the semantics of the complemetizers. Finally, in Section 4, I
suggested that the discourse particles are hierarchically organized as in (52) because wa sselects T and any other ordering of yo, ne and na causes a contradiction in the composit
speech act. These accounts need to be made more precise in future research. But they suggestthat there is no need to postulate constraints or hierarchies for Japanese phrase structure as therelevant facts are derivable from lexical properties. This is in line with the Minimalist
hypothesis that all that is required for phrase structure building is the minimal operation,
Merge.

References
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare phrase structure. In Gert Webelhuth (ed.), Government andbinding theory and the minimalist program, 383-439. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33-49.
Endo, Yoshio. 2010. The cartography of sentence final particles. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.),New developments in syntactic theory and the analysis of Japanese: Beyond propositions,
67-94. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. (in Japanese)
Haraguchi, Tomoko. 2012. Distributions of modals and sentence final particles: Selection orsomething else?” Presented at the Thirteenth Workshop of the International Joint Research
Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition (February 20, 2012), Center for
Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Hiraiwa, Ken and Shin’ichiro Ishihara. 2002. Missing links: Cleft, sluicing, and ‘no da’construction in Japanese. Proceedings of Humit 2001 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
43). 35-54.
Matsumoto, Eriko. 2010. Quotative expressions and sentential complementation in Japanese,
Nagoya: Nanzan University B.A. thesis. (in Japanese)
Plann, Susan. 1982. Indirect questions in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 297-312.
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1994. On indirect questions, commands, and Spanish quotative que.
Linguistic Inquiry 25. 547-554.
Saito, Mamoru. 2009. Selection and clause types in Japanese. Presented at the International
Conference on Sentence Types: Ten Years After (June 26-28, 2009), Goethe Universität
Frankfurt am Main.
Saito, Mamoru and Tomoko Haraguchi. 2012. Deriving the cartography of the Japanese right
periphery: The case of sentence-final discourse particles. Iberia 4(2). 104-123.
Tenny, Carol. 2006. Evidentiality, experiencers and the syntax of sentience in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15. 195-244.
Ueda, Yukiko. 2007. Syntactic structure and person restrictions of Japanese modals. In
Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Main clause phenomena in Japanese, 123-150. Tokyo:

21
Kaitakusha. (in Japanese)

Abstract: The cartographic analysis has been applied to the Japanese right periphery withfruitful results and hierarchies have been proposed for modals, complementizers andsentence-final particles. The purpose of this paper is to refine the proposed hierarchies and toshow that they follow to a large extent from the lexical properties of the relevant functional
heads. It argues that s-selection properties are important in all cases. It shows in addition thatcompatibility in morphology, semantics and the conveyed speech acts constrains the
distributions of modals, complementizers and sentence-final particles respectively.

Keywords: Japanese right periphery, modal, complementizer, discourse particle, selection.