NELS 33 SpecialSessionon Configurationalitr"inMemon'of Ken Hale
November.2002.MIT.

On the Role of Selectionin the Application of Merge.

Mamom Saito
Nanzan Universitt

1. Introduction
This paperattemptsto developKen Hale's ConfigurationalitvParameteras appliedto the
As is rvcll knorvn.Hale (1982) notedthat acomparativesyntaxof English and Japanese.
number of languagesshare some outstanding properties that are not observed rvith the'"standard"
configurationallanguages.Among thosepropertiesare.
( 1) a ''free" r.vord-orderb. complex verb-rvordsor verb-cum-Auxs,vstems
c. free or frequent"pronoundrop"'non-configurationallanguages'and set
out to explain
He namedthis group of languages
rvh1.the1'havethis cluster of properlies.His initial proposalnas that in those languages
the phrasestmcture is not prolectedfrom the lexicon^i.e.. that thel'do not observethe
Projection Principle. This implies that the D-structure and the S-structurein thoselanguagesneed not configurationalll' represcntthe predicate-argumentstructure.Thev are'linking
rules'. Hence.
subiectonl-vto the X'-theory and can bc relatedto LF b1'meansof'srltar-scmantics
misnratches'exemplified in
non-configurationallanguagesexhibit the(l) Applied to Japanese,this hr,pothesisnot onlv explairredits non-configurational
properties but also rvas in perfect hamronv rvith the rvideh- believed factual assumption
have a "flat'' stntctttren'ithout a VP-node.
of the time that its sentences

presented
in the 2000 svntar setninarat Narzan IJniversiN^at theAn earlierversionol'this paperr.r.as
7th annualmeetingofthe SociolinguistioSocielvol'.lapan(2t)01)and atthe l6th annualnreetingofthc
IroreigrrLanguageand Literature Societv of Okinarva(2001), and this version at the 3rd meeting of Asian
GI.O\,V held at the National Tsing IIua liniversitt' in .Ianuary.2002 as u'cll as at NELS .13.I thank theaudience at these places for helpful conrrnents.ln parlicular, I henefited l'rotrt discussionsuith Zeljko
Boskovic, JorratrLin- Keiko Murasugi and izunri Nistri. The researcltrcported here rvas supporlcdin parlbv tlie NarrzanUnivelsifr PacheResearchGLantlA.

Mamoru Saito
It rvas shorvn later that this initial proposal cannot be maintained in its original form
as it rvas discoveredthat the phrasestructurein some non-configurational languagesdoes
reflect the predicate-argumentstructllre to a large extent. Horvever- the non-configurationalitv hypothesishas been developedin man1.'fruitful lvay'ssincethen. One representative case is the extensive study on those languages rvhere the predicate-argument
relation is encodednot in s1'ntacticstructurebut in verbal morpholog.v-as we can see.for
cxample, in Jelinek's (1984) anall'srsof Warlpiri and Bakcr's (1996) proposal of thepoly5tn n.ris parameter.The project has been pursued rvith the syrtar of Japanese(andKorean) as rvell. Fukui (1986) and Kuroda (1988) propossto place the parameternot in
the sl,ntactic realization of predicate-argumentstructure but in the domain of functional
categories.Mivagarva(1997).on the otherhand.arguesthat Hale's initial proposalcan be
maintained as such if rve restrict its application to the VP-intemal structure.
's
Knroda's proposal. in particular. can be vier.vedas an e\.tensionof Hale in aninterestrng rval'. As noted above. Hale's initial proposal rvas that non-configurational
languagesare not subiect to the Proiection Principle. This means that the 0-criterion.
statedin (2). neednot be satisfiedat D-structureor S-structure.
(2)a. Every argumentmust be assignedexactl-vone O-role.
b. Every B-rolernustbe assignedto eractly'onealgumont

Then. there must be a l-l relation betr,veenO-rolesand argumentsin configurational
languagesbut not in non-configurational languages.Kuroda's h1'pothesis-roughly. is thata 1-1 rclation is required betrveenan agreeinghead and its Spec in forced agreement
languagessuch as English but not in non-forced agreementlanguageslike Japanese.r
Thus Japanesehas a multiple-sub.ject
constructionrvhereT agreesrvith multiple Specs.
Further the Spec position can be left vacant or be occupied b.v a phrase that does notagree r,vithT. The latter case is exemplified b-vscrambling. rvhich. according to Kuroda.
is movementof a non-nominativephraseto TP Spec.
In this paper,I rvill tr-r'to developHale's configurationalitvparametcrin fi.vorespects.
First. I rvill suggestthe incorporationof Kuroda's agreementparameter.The basic claim
is that selectionalrelation- broadll' construedto include both O-relationand featurechecking relation" must be directl.vreflected in the s;-ntaxin configurational/forcedagreelanguages.Second.I rvill proposea denvational
ment languagesbut not in Japanese-t1pc
formulation of the parameter.Hale formulated the parameterin temrs of the applicabiliry'of the ProjectionPrinciple to D-structureand S-structurerepresentations.
But it is obviousll, impossibleto maintain this formulation rvithin the Minimalist model of synta-r.
rvhere D-struchue and S-structureare eliminated together rvith the Proiection Principle.
As an altemative,I rvill suggestplacingthe parameterin the derivation.or more preciselv,
in the rval. Merge, either as an independentoperation or as part of Move- constructs
phrasestructure.The concreteproposalis shorvnin (3).
''agreemeut'includesq-teatureagreement.Casechecking
Kuroda's
relation.and the relationbetrveena
Wh-phraseand a [-rvh] C.

On the Role oJ'Selectionin the Appltcation of Merge(3)

The Derivational Configurationalit)' Parameter:
Configurational languagesare subject to (3a-b), but Japanesest_vlenon-configurational languagesare not.
(a) Merge appliesonlv to satis!.'selectionalrequirements.(Merge implies selection.)(b) Selectionalrequirementsmust be satisfiedbv Merge. (Selcctionimplies Merge.)

I ftirther speculatethat Chinesefalls inbetrveen,being subjectto (3a) but not to (3b).
In order to substantiatethis proposal, I rvill examine three phenomenain Japanese.
ivhich roughly'correspondto Hale's ( la-c). ln the follor,vingsection,I rvill briefl;" go over
the argumentsthat Japanesescramblingis not featrredriven but involves pure Merge at
is not subiectto (3a).
the root. Ifthe conclusionis coffect.rve have evidencethat JapaneseThen, in Section 3. I r.vill discussthe analvsisof the Japaneselight verb construction
proposedin Saitoand Hoshi 2000. and shorvthat the anall'sisalso implies that (3a) is notoperativein Japarese.In Section4. I considerthe proposalb1'Kim (1999) and Oku(1998) that JapaneseallorvsNP-ellipsis.Follor.vingOku's insight. I rvill suggestthat NPellipsis is possiblein the languagebecauseit is not subjectto (3b).
2. Scrambling"Free rvord-order' or productive applicatiou of scramblingis one of the distinguishedpropertiesof Japanese.
Examplesof clause-intemalscramblingand long scramblingare
given in (ab) and (5b).'(4) a. [Yamada-ga
sono hon -o
1,'ondal(koto)-NOM that book-ACC readfact
'Yamadaread that book'b. [Sonohon -o1 fYamada-ga l; vondall (koto)-NOM readthat book-ACC
fact
'That
(5) a

book1.Yarnadaread,tr'[Tanaka-ga [Yamada-ga sono hon -o
1'ondato] omotteim] (koto)-NOM-NOM that book-ACC read that thinkfact.Tallttta thinks thtt Yttada К
ad that book・K o t o ' t h e l a c t t h a f i s a d d e d a t t h ee n d o f s o t . n e x a m p l e s i t i o r d e r t o a v o i d t h e u n n a t u r a l n e s s t h a t r e s u l t s
frorn tlie lack ofa topic in a niatrix clause.l'he "translations"in single quotesare provided to illustrate therough stlucturesoflhe exantplesand are not r-neant
to be the correctEnglishtranslations.

Marnoru Saitob. [Sonohon-o; [Tanaka-ga fYamada-ga I yondato] ornotteimll (koto)-NOM-NOM read that thinkthat book-ACC
fact
'That

booki. Tanakathurks that Yamada read ri'

It has been controversialrvhetherthis movement opcration is featnre-drir,'en.'3
In thissection,I lvill presentsomeevidenccthat it is not. and arguethat Japanesescramblingis
possiblebecausethe languageis not subjectto (3a).
2,1. Scrambling is not Topicalization
The standardcasesof "unbounded" movement establishoperator-variablerelations as
illustratedin (6).
(6) aWhat; did John bu1't, : [For u'hich x; r a thingl Jo]urboughtr

b. That booki. Mary readri . [For x: x = that book] Mary readx
One important issue in the investigationof scramblinghas been .ivhetherit sharesthis
propertv. As scrambling supcrficialll' resemblestopicalization.attemptsrvcre made inearly rvorlis such as Whitman 1987 and Saito 1985 to analvze the trvo operations in thesamewa\'. I ivill shou' in this subsectionthat the approachrvas misguided.Then. I rvill
argue in thc follorving subsectronthat scrambling does not create an operator-r,ariable
relationof anl,kind.
Note first that there is a scverercstnctionon the elementsthat can be topicalized.For
example.a Wh-phrasecannotbe topicalizedas shou'nin (7)-(8).
(7) aWhoi /; said that Jolin bought that bookb. Who; 4 saidthat that boo\. Johnbought 4(8) aWho; /i said that John bought u,hich bookb. *Who; l; said that iihich book,.Johr bought ri(7b) is fine for thoser'r'hoallorv embeddcdtopicalizationgenerousll'.But (8b) is hopelesseven for them. Thus, rve arrive at the simplc gcneralizationin (9).
(9)

A Wh-phrasecannotbe interpretedas a topic.
This generalizationholds in Japancseas rvell. as shorvnin (10)-(l l).

3 scc,Ibr c、
ric a1ldakahashi
I｀
ainplc、
Ktlrotla 1 988,Sait()1989^
ada I｀
1991ζ
, Sailo and Fukui 1998.13osko、′1998 1or argtlnlcnts that Japancsc scralllbling is llol
lcaturc―
dli、
cn Thc opposing vic、
、is a18tlcd ibr in
vclldorral,d sabcl 1999.aildvalllura
Ka、
va 1997.2(D01.(〕
riyaga、
ic、
200 1.alnollg ̀otilels
lllan卜On tke Role oJSelectionin the Application of Merge(10) a. Taroo-ga sonohon -okatta no-NOM that book-ACC bought Q'Did

Taroo bu-vthat book'b. Sono hon -rva1 Taroo-ga ei katta no-NOM bought Q
that book-TOP'As

for that book- did Taroo bu,vit"(11) a. Taroo-ga dono hon -okatta no-NOM u.hich book-ACC bought Q'Whichbook did Taroo bu1.''b. *Dono hon -rvai Taroo-ga e; katta no-NOM bought Q
rvhich book-TOP'As

for ivhich book. did Taroo buy'it''that'rvhich
In ( l0b) and ( I lb)^ ,sonohon
book' and dono hon
book' are accompaniedby'
the topic marker -wa. The latter is out becausea Wh-phraseis topicalized.
Interestingll',ho\r'ever.a Wh-phrasecan freel,vbe scrambled.(12) is perfectand contrasts sharply rvith ( I 1b).
(12)

Dono hon -o;
Taroo-ga t, katta no-NOM bought Q
rvhich book-ACC'Whichbook did Taroo buy'"

The examplesin (13) confirm this result. The movementin (12) ma.vbe consideredan
instanceof optionalWh-movementbecausethe Wh-phraseis preposedto the initial position of the sentencenfiere it takes scope. But this possibilitl,is excludedin the caseof(l3b), and ths movementis clearly an instanceof scrambling.
(13) a. Taroo-rva ft{anako-ga
dono hon -okatta to] omotteim no-TOP-NOM rvhich book-ACC bought that thinka'[Q[Taroothink that Hanakoboughtr.r.hichbookll'

Hanako-ga /i katta tol omotteiruno
b. Taroo-q,a ldono hon -o;-TOP rvhich book-ACC-NOM boughtthat thinka'[Q[Taroothink that rvhichbooki. Hanakobought r;l]'Given (9), the grammaticalitl'of(12) and (l3b) impliesthat a scrambledphraseneed
not be interpretedas a topic. In the following subsection,I rvill presentevidencethat

Mamonr Saito
scrambling is not onll' distinct from topicalization but does not create an operatorrariablerelationat all
2.2. Radical Reconstruction
Further examinationof Wh-scramblingrevealsthat it has little effect on the scopeof theWh-phrase.Let us first considerthe rrlation betu'eenthe position of a Wh-phraseand its
scope.
( 14) *John askedrvho to find out [rvhatilMafr boughtti]l
The embeddedclauseis the only'questionCP in (14) This erample is out becausethe
Wh-phrasew/ro must take scopeat the questionCP but is not containedivithin it. Tlrus. it
eremplifies the generalizatronin (15).
( 15) A Wh-phrasecan onll' take scopeat a CP that containsit.
This generalizationholds in Japaneseas rvell. as pointed out in Harada 1972.(16) is theJapanesecounterpartof ( 1.1).
katta kal tazuneta(koto)(16) *Taroo-ga dare-ni [Hanako-ga nani-o-NOM ivhat-ACC bought Q asked-N{OM rvho-to
fact'(the factthat) Taroo askedrvho [Q Hanako bought u'hatl''lho' rnust
take scopeat the embeddedCP, the onlv question
Iri this example also.dore
CP in the sontence.But the Wh is not containedivithin this CP.
The eramples in (17) indicate that (15) interactsrvith operator movelnent in the
expectedrvar'.
(17) a.

\[']rot ti knorvs [[rvhrchpictureof n'hon,]' Bill bought 4l

b. ?'l[Which pictureof u'homli doesJohnknorv [ivho; li bought li](l7a) is ambiguouswith respectto the scopeof whom. as van Rienisdijk and Williams(1981) point out. When a Wh is attractedto a CP Spec,it takes scopeat that position.
Hence.u,ho andwhich takematrir and cmbeddedscoperespectivelv.But the scopeof thc
in-situ Wh vt'homis not fixed in this rval'. Sinceit is containedn ithin both the matrix CP
and the embeddedCP. it can take scopeat either CP. On the otlier hand. no arnbiguitf isobservcd in the case of (l7b). The example is marginal becauseit is a Wh-island
violation. But its interpretivepropertf is clear. Wich andv'ho take matrir and embeddcd
scoperespectivelvbecausethe-vare attractedto CP Spec.And the in-situ u,hom in thiscase carl only take matrir scope.This is again predicted by (15) becausethe Wr is
containedn,ithin the matrix CP but not lvithir, the ernbeddedCP.
Having establishedthe generality'of (15). let us next examinehoiv it interactss'ith
scrambling.

On the Role oJ'Selectionin the Application oJMerge( 18) a.

-o
1'onda]kal[n,Taroo-ga [cp[r Hanako-ga dono hon-NOM rvhich book-ACC read a-NOMsintagatteiml (koto)rvant-to-knorv fact'(the fact that) Taroo rvantsto knor,v Hanako read rvhich book]'[Qri vonda] kalb ?[*Dono hon *o; [Taroo-ga [1,lpHanako-ga-NOM read a-NOMu,hichbook-ACC
siritagatteirull (koto)r.vant-to-kno* fact'(the factthat) rvhich booki. Taroo n'antsto knoiv [Q Hanako rcad ri]'

'rvhichbook' is contained( l8a) is a straightfonvardexamplervherc the Wh dono hon
uithin the embeddedquestionCP. And (l8b) is derivedfrom ( l8a) b-vscramblingthe Wh
out of the embeddedCP to the initial positionof the matnx clause.Given (15). r.reexpect
the cxamplc to bc as bad as (16) since thc Wh is clearll'outsidc the CP rvhere it takes
scope.But it is almost perfect.
( l9b) involvesfurther cmbcddingand is configurationallvmore parallelto ( 17b).
( 19) a.

-ovonda
[11Taroo-ga [r."r[1'minna-ga [spHanako-ga dono hon
-NOM
-NOM
-NOM
*hich book-ACCreadall
tol omotteirul kal siritagatteirul (koto)that thinka u'ant-to-knou fact
'Taroo warltsto kno*'[Q everyonethinks [that Mary readrvhichbook]]'

vondato]i [Taroo-ga
b. ??[rp[c'rHanako-ga dono hon -o-NOM-NOM rvhichbook-ACC read that
k:r,Ir'pminna-ga r; omotteim] kal siritagatteirull(koto)-NOM thinkalla rvant-to-knorv fact'[That Hanakoreadrvhichbook];. Taroo rvantsto knoiv[Q cveryonethinks ri]'In this exanrplc,the most deopli,embeddedCP that containsthe Wh is scrambledout of
the middle CP. rvherethc Wh takes scope.The exampleis onlv marginal and contrasts
sharph' rvith the ungrammatical( i6).
Assumingthat (15) holds turiversallyat LF. I proposedin Saito 1989on the basisof(18b) and (l9b) that scramblingcan be literallr"'undonc" in LF. Given this hrpothesis.
these examplesceaseto be probleniaticfor ( l5) becausethe scramblodphrasesarc totalll'Mantom Saito
reconstructedto their initial positionsat LF. This property'of scramblingrvaslater nalred
its'radical reconstructionprope$".
Aside frorn the exact nature of radical reconstruction,(l8b) and (l9b) shoi.vthat
at LF. And
relationthat is represented
scramblingdoesnot establishan operator-variableThe
scrambling.
featuretriggersthat
nois
operator
there
that
impliesintum.
thisdiflerencebenveenWh-movementand scramblingis illustratedin (20).
(20) a. rvVh-ntovementb. Scrambling
TP

CP
/

/ ＼

＼

XPi
C'
Opcrato1
/ ＼
[Wh‐
C
TP
I+Wh1 /＼
/
＼

XPi

TP

/

/＼
＼
… … F l ……

………F i … …

Va ablel「A questronCP is hcadedb1,a [+nh] C and this head requiresa Wh-operatorin its Spec
position. A Wh-phrasemovcs to CP Specin order to satisfythis requirement.Heuce.themovement is obligatory and it establishesan operator-variablerelation. Scrambling,onthe other hand, has neither of these properties.The moved phrasedoes not satisfl' an1"
requirement of a head arrd is simply' rnerged at the root, w'hetherthe operation is
adjunctionas proposedin Saito 1985 orsimple merge as suggcstedin Kuroda 1988 and\\orksmanr subsequent
According to this vierv. the merger of a Wh-phrase at CP satisfies a selectional
requirementof thc [+rvh] C. but a scrambledphraseis mergedat TP independentlvof an1'
selectionalrequirentent.Hence.the existenceof scrambhngindicatesthat Japaneseis not
subjectto (3a). repeatedbelorv.
(3) aMerge appliesonll- to satisf,'selectronalrequirements.(Merge unplies selection.)

Or put the other rval' around,scrambhngis allori'edin Japanesebecausethe languagcis
not subjectto (3a).
3. The JapaneseLight Verb Construction
If (3a) is off. then a phrasecan be initialll' mergedat a position u{rere it is selected.andthen merged again at a position rrhere it is not. The secondmerger does not affect theinterpretation becausethe phrase is interpreted at the initial site. It I'as shorvn in theprecedingsectionthat scrarrbling eremplifies this case.Interestingh'-there is one morepattem that rvould be expectedrvhena languageis not subjectto (3a). That is, a phrase
mal. initiallv be mcrged at a position r,vhercit is not selected.and then a later operation

On the Role oJ-Selectionin the Application of-Merge
ma,vallorv it to receivean interpretation.In this section.I n'ill arguethat this pattem isrealizedrvith the Japaneselight verb construction.
Mismatch
3.1. The Syntax-Semantics
usesthe verb slz-rvhich roughll' correspondsto do in English. Sorne
Japanesee$ensivel--v
cxamplesare given rn (21).
(21) a. Halako-ga
sita (: su t ta (past))[1p(suugaku-no) srukudail -o-NOMmath -GEN homervork-ACCdid'Hanako

did the (math)homervork'b. Hanako-ga Taroo-ni ll'rtoti -no zvootol-o
sita
-DAT
-NOM
land-GENgiving -ACC did'Hanako gave piece land Taroo'aofto
The first example shorvsthat .rzrcan be used as a main verb that takes both a subject andan obiectexactll'like the Englishdo.On the otherhand"sa in (2lb) seemsto be void of
meaning.That is. it seemsthatthe ssmanticpredicateof the sentenceis the head of theaccusativeNP. n-ooto'giving'- and that srl functionsas an "expletive verb." (2lb) exemplifies rvhat is callcd the Japaneselight verb construction.
As drscussedin detail in Gnmsharr and Mester 1988. the Japaneselight verb construction appears to manifest a radical svntax-semanticsmismatch: the predicate is
contained rvithin rvhat appears to be the direct object NP. Although it is difficult toeliminatethe possibilitl'that specificexampleslike (2lb) ernplo-vthe main vert ^!'2,Sells(1988) presentspersuasiveevidencethat the light verb constructionrvith the alleged
mismatchexistsas a real phenomenon.
svntax-semantics
His argumentis basedon thc "double-o" effect illustratedin (27)-(23).
(22) a. Taroo-ga
hasiru-NOM rurr'Tarooruns'

hasir'l-asem
b. Hanako-ga [Taroo-ni l-o-NOM-DAT/-ACC run -make'Hanakomakes Taroo run'(23\ a. Taroo-ga
hon -ovomu-NOM book-ACC read
'Tarooreadsa book'MarnonrSaitoyorl]-aseru
hon -ob. Hanako-ga [John-ni l*-o
-NOM
-DAT/ -ACC book-ACC read -make'Hanakomakes Taroo read a book

As shorvnin(22b), thc causeein a causativesentencecan be marked eitherbl'dative or
accusative.However, (23b) shorvsthat dative is the onlv option r,vhenthe embeddedverb
is transitive and takes its ou'n accusativeargument.Based on examples of this kind,
Shibatali (1973) and Harada (1973) obsen'edthat Japanesedoes not allor.vtwo accusative NPs in a simple sentence.
'"double-o"At the sane time. thev notedthat thiseffect comesin trvo varieties.(23b)is an example of the strong kind rvhich is observedwhen the trvo accusativeNPs are botharguments.The otlrer, rveakerkind obtains lr,hen one of the accusativeNPs is a non'beachargument.An examplc of this latter kind is shorvn in (24b). r.vherehamabe-o
ACC' is an adverbiallocative.
Q$

hamabe-ohasim
a. Taroo-ga-NOM beach -ACC nur'Taroo runson the beach'b. Hanako-ga [Taroo-ni l'l'l-o―-NOM
DAT/ ― ACC'Hanakohamabe-ohasirl-asem
beach -ACC run -makemakes Taroo run on the beach'

Civen thesegeneralizations,Sells reexaminesthe light verb examplessuch as (2lb).
repeatedbelou' as (25)(25)

Hanako-ga Taroo-ni [lptoti -no zy'ooto]-o
sita
-DAT
-NOM
land-GENgiving -ACC did'Hanako gave piece land Taroo'
a
of
to

'land
In this example^the ther,reargument toti
appearsrvithin the NP headedbt, 4,noto'giving'.
while the agent and goal argumentsarc outsidethis NP. Since the arguments
need not be containeduithin the NP" it should be possible.in principle, to place all ofthcm outsidethe NP. Then. rveobtain examplessuchas (26a-b).
(26) a.?'/Hanako-ga Taroo-ni
toti -o["-pz1'ooto]-o sita
-NOM
-DAT land-ACC
eivinq -ACC did'Hanako gave pieceaof land to Taroo'On the Role oJ'Selectionin the Appltcation o.l-Mergeb.??Honda-ga ohaio-de akoodo-osite -iru[r,,rseisan] -o-NOM Ohio -in-ACCproduction-ACCdoing-is'Honda is producingAccords in

Ohio'

These examplesare degradedas expectedsince thev contain two accusativeNPs. But
ivhat is interestingis that thel'-have the stahrsof the rveak"double-o''violation like (2ab).
If sr is the main vert taking both accusativeNPs as its arguments,thev should exhibit thestrong "double-o" effect. Hence. their marginal statussuggeststhat tl,ere is indeed thelight verb szr.and further implies that one of the accusativeNPs is a non-argument.Since'Accord''land'
toti
and akoodo
are clearh, interpreted as argunents- then. 4,ooto'production''giving'
ntustbe nol'r-arguments.
As thev are not adverbials-Sells
urdseisttrt
concludesthat the-vare predicates.
Once it is establishedthat the predicateof a sentencecan hcad the accusativeNP andassign 0-roles to argumentsoutside this NP, examples like (25) are expected to begrammaticaldespitethe svntax-sernantics
mismatch.Or more generallr,.Sells' aryument
confirms that Japanesc phrasc structure does not necessarill.-reflect the predicateargument structure. as encodcd in Hale's configurationalitl' parar-neter.The remaining
problem is to erplain horv this kind of "exceptionalO-roleassignment"is possible.
3.2. The Covert Head-movementAnalysis
A coverthead-mo\.'ement
analvsisis proposedin Saitoand Hoshi 2000 in orderto explain
mismatch and other notable properties of the Japaneselight verb
the svnta:ri-semantics
constnrction.According to this analvsis.(2-r).for example.has the structurein (27).
(27\

TP
\
Hanako-gai(agcnt)

\
T

＼
Ｖ

VP

＼
／
Ｐ
Ｖ
／

Taroo-ni(goal)

T'
,/

V'
,/\
NPV
\l
,/
N sitatoti-no(theme)Iz]'ooto-o(predicate)Mamom Saito'giving'dischargesits theme role to toti 'land' in situ.
The O-role assigning fioun 4t11s1s
Then it adjoinscoveftl-vto the light verb sr.rand assignsits goal role to T'aroofrom thisposition. Finally it raisestogetherrvith the light verb to the position of v and discharges
its agentrole.
'-double-o"
efFects.It
One piece of evidencefor this anall'sisis basedagain on the'double-o''effects, strong and r,veak.Asidervas noted above that there are trvo kinds offrom the degree of deviance, Shibatani (1973) and Harada (1973) point out another
difference betlveentlie trvo. That is. the strong varietl is still obsen'edbut the lveak
effect disappearsrvhen one of the accusative.NPsis an emptl'category'.The follorving
examplesof cleft illustratethis generalizat:rcn:"-wa hon -oi(28) a. *[ceop; [pHanako-ga
ti 1'om-aseta]nolTaroo-oda-NOM-ACC read-madeCOMP-TOP book-ACC is'It

is a book that Hanako made Taroo read'-wa Taroo-o; da/; hou -ono]b. *[.-t'Op; lpHanako-ga-vom-aseta]-NOM book-ACC read-madeCOMP-TOP-ACC is'It

is Taroo that Hanako made read a book'-wa hamabe-o1 da(29) a. lcr Op; [pHanako-ga Taroo-o/; hasir-aseta.lno]-NOM-ACC run -made COMP-TOP beach -ACC is'It

is on the beachthat Hanako made Taroo mn-\\.a Taroo-o1 dahasir-aseta]nol
b. [cpOpi [1pHanako-ga r; hamebe-o-NOM beach -ACC run -made COMP-TOP-ACC is'It is Taroo

that Hanako made run on the beach'

The strong "double-o" violation in (23b) cannot salvagedb.v clefting one of the accusative NPs as the examples in (28) indicate. On the other hand. {29a-b) shor,vthat therveak "double-o" effect in (24b) can be circumventedbv the dislocationof either of tne
accusativeNPs.

''

For rnan-vspeakers.clel't seutencesare degradedto begin u'ith u'hcn an accusativeNP appearsin theas noled br Koiztrmi (1995) and others.thoseexantplesare l-tne
tbcus positionas in (28)-(29).Ilor.vever.
for all speakersrvith the addition ofa l)oatiug numeralquantilieras in (i).
(i)-\\a lton -osansatuda[..pOpifrp1'aroo-ga li vonda] no]-NOMread COMP-TOP book-ACC three-vrlumesis'11is three book that Taro<lread'

Since exarnpleslike (28a-b) rernainungramrnaticalcven rlhen floating numeral quantiliers ale added,llierr'can safelvbe attributedto the ''doubls-o" efTect.
ungramrnaticalit-v

On rhe Role ol-Selectionin theApplication oJ-Merge
Let us non'consider (30). a cleftedversionof the light verb example(26a).in light ofthis differencebetu'eenthe strongand rveak'-double-o'teffects.
(30) lcpop; [pHanako-ga Taroo-ni /i z]'ooto-osital noJ -\va toti -o;da-NOM-DAT giving -ACC did COMP-TOP land_ACC
is'It
is a piece of land that Hanako gave to Taroo.
In (30). the theme argumenttoti-o 'lutd-ACC' appearsin the focus position. The example improves.confimring Sells'observationthat (26a) exhibits onlv the rveak varietv
of"doubls-o" effect. Given the discussionso.far- (26a) nav be expectcd
to improvc also
rvlrenthe other accusative
NP. q,ooto-o'giving-ACC'.is focusedin the cleft co'strucfio'.
But the resultis hopelessas shorvnin (31)(31) *[.'ropi [apHanako-ga Taroo-ni toti -o-r\ra z'ooto-oi
4 sita] no]da-NOM-DAT land-ACC did COMP-TOpgiving_ACC
is'Lit . k is givtng that Hanakodid a pieceof land to Taroo'
The. total ungrammaticalitvof (31) ma1' seem surprising. but it is exactlr, rvhat rs
predictedby the coverthead-movemcntanal.vsisof ttre tiglit verb construction.According
to this analvsis.the 0-role assigningnoun 4,ooto'giving' must movc to the position o1
the light verb sita in ord.erto assign the theme roles to /o/i 'land' and the goal role tolaroo. But this is impossiblein (31) becausethe noun is dislocatedor.rtof the i-commanddomain of the light verb. Hence.the requiredB-roleassignmentfails in this example.The
ungrammaticalitl'of (3 l), thus, constitutessuppoftingevidencefor the coveft heai mooement analvsis.)_ The light verb constntction.like scranbling, seemsto reflect a unique property ofJapanese.And interestingll', if the covcrt head movement analvsis itii urrocontradicts(3a). nhich is repeatedagainbelou.
"ooe"ti(3) a. Mergeappliesonh'to satisf,'selectional
requirements.
(Mergeimpliesselection.)
Let us considerthc structureof (25), repeatedbelou'as (32). oncemore.

' (irirnsha\
and Mester (1988) note that the NP headeclbv thc 0-rolc assigningnoun resistsrelalivizatronand topicalization.
Reler.ant
exanrplesareshonn in (i).
(i) a. *Zvooto-rva; [Ilanako-ga Taroo-ni toti -oc; sita]-NOM-DAI'land-ACC
giving -TOP
didb. *llJanako-ga Taroo-ni toti -oei sital zvootol-NOM-DAT Iand-ACC did giring
The accountlbr (.ll ) crtendsalsoto thcsecases.

Mamom Saito

(32)

rP
,/\
Hanako-ga1(agcnt)

T'
rP

T
\

Ｖ

／ Ｐ＼
Ｖ
／

＼
ｖ

,/'

Ｖ

Taroo-nr(goal)

totr-no(theme)

,/\
NPV

\t

N

sita

I

zvooto-o(predicatc)

If (3a) holds in Japanese.
this structurecannotbe constructedbecauseit involves mergerof elementsthat have no selectionalrelation. For example.rvhenthe VP is constructed,
tlre goal argument Taroo-ni is rnerged rvith a prolection of the light vcrb sita. But T'aroonl is an argumentof the noun zvooto'giving' and hasno selectionalrelationivith the lightverb. Thus,the existenceof the light verb constructionprovrdesfurther evidenccthat (3a)is not applicablein Japanesc.
I have suggestedso fur that Japanesehas scrambling and the light vert constuction
because(3a) is off in the language.This implies that those languagesthat are sub;ectto(3a). c.g. English. cannot have either phenomenon.The light verb constnrction, rn
particular,suggestsan additional parametricvanation. Note that (25) receivesa proper'giving'
interpretationat the end bccauscthc O-role assigning noun 4tes1111
covertlv
adjoinsto the light verb and dischargesits 0-role frorn the adjoinedposition.This meanithat selectionalrequirementscan be satrsfiedb1'covcrt adiunction,or tnore generalll.,b1.
n'loans other than Merge- constnted here as the basic operation for phrase stru-cturebuilding. That is to saythat (3b). the converseof (3a). is also inapplicablein Japanese.
(3) b

Selectionalrequirements
must bc satisfiedbr.Merge.(SclectionimpliesMcrge.)

In the folloiving section.I n'ill presentfurther evidencefor this claim.
4. Further Extensionto Argument Ellipsis
Japaneseis one of thoselanguagesthat allou,extensive''prodrop." Anv argumentcan be"tttissing" rn propercontertsas shorvnin (33).

C)nthe Role ol Selectionin the Application o.l'Merge
mottekimasitaka(33) A. Taroo-rva sonohon -o-TOP that book-ACC broughta'Did

Taroo bring the book'

B. Hai. e e mottekimasita
broughtl'es'Yes.

he broughtit'

It rvasproposedin Kuroda 1965that Japanesehas a phoneticallvempty pronoun.and it
has been rvidelr,believedsince that all the relevantphenomenacan be erplained b1'thishypothesis.Horvever.Kim (1999) and Oku (1998)have arguedrecentlr that the languageI
hasthe operationof NP-deletionorNP-ellipsisin addition.In the folloning subsection.
rn
4.2,
I
go
Thcn.
Section
rvill
adapt
Oku's
explanation
Kim'sargumcnt.
overrvill briefll
for rvhv Japaneseallorvs NP-ellipsis and suggestthat it is duc to the inapplicabilitl''of(3b)4.1. Kim's 1999Argument for NP Ellipsis
Kim"s proposaldevelopedout of Otari and Whitman's (1991) h,vpothesisthat Japanese
has VP-ellipsis.In an attcmptto extendHuang's (1987) anall'sisof Chineseto Japanese,
Otanrand Whitman examiueeramplessuchas (34).
(34) John-ria zibun-no tegami-osuteta: Man'-mo s suteta-also discarded-TOP self -GEN letter -ACC discarded'John

threw out l'risletter.and Man' did too'a. Mary thren,out his (John's)letter.too. (strict reading)b. Man threu"outher (Man''s)lctter.too. (sloppvrcading)''missing"in this example. And this sentenceis
The obiect of the second sentenceis
ambiguousbetrveenthe stnct reading(34a) and the sloppv reading(34b).
As is rvell knor.vn.tlie sloppv interpretationis possibleivith ellipsis but not rvith pronouns.The examplesin (35)-(36)confirm this generalization.
(35) Peterlikes his picture.and Joandoestoo.
a. Joanlikes his (Peter's)picture.too. (strict reading)b. Joanlikes her (Joan's)picture,too. (sloppl' reading)(36) Peterlikeshis picturc,andJoanlikes it too.
a. Joanlikes his (Peter's)picture. too. (stnct reading)b. *Joan likes her (Joan's)picture.too. (slopp1,reading)Mamom Saito
Hence.the ambiguit"vof (3a) and in particular the availability of the sloppy'readingare
unexplainedif the "missing" argumentmust be an emptv pronoun. Otani and Whitman
conclude,then, that the examplecan involve ellipsis."More concretely.thel' proposethat the example can be derived b1' VP-deletion as
illustratedin (37).
Ｐ＼
Ｔ
／

(37)

Ｔ
VP
,'/ \
/r'
NP

＼

／

NP

V+T

Thel' h1'pothesizethat Japaneseis like Frenchin that the main verb moves overtl.vto T.
Then, rvhen VP-deletion applies. onll the object is deleted becausethe verb alreadr,
moved out of the VP. Thus" (34) is anal-vzedas an example of VP-deletion and theavailabilit-vof the sloppr interpretationis accourtedfor.
Kim (1999) shorvsfirst that Otani and Whitman"s observ'ationin Japaneseholds in
Korean as rvell. But he goes on to demonstratethat there are cramples in Korean thatcannot be anall.zedin terms of VPdeletion. One kind involves the dotrble-accusative
constmctionas in (38).
(38) a. Mrke-nun Jarneslul talilul
ketechassta-TOP-ACC leg-ACC kicked'MikekickedJameson thgles'

b. *Mike-nun talilul
Jameslul ketechassta
-TOP
-ACC
-ACC kicked(38a) is fine in Koreanthough its Japanese
cormterpaftis ungrammatical,instantiatingthe"double-o" effect discLrssed
above. And (3ttb) shorvsthat the order betrveenthe tu'oaccnsativeNPs is fixcd in this construction:thc inalienablepossessormust precedethe
possessee.
Interestingly',the ambiguity observed in (3a) obtair,seven when the secondaccusative'missing"
in the double-accusative
NP isconstruction.One of Kim's eramples is shorvn
in (39)" As J.-I{. Ha,vashishita
points out. this c,onclusionis not uncoutror.ersial.
For exarnple.data that suggest
sorne interpretir.edifl-erencesbetrveenc.aseslike (34) and clearer cascsof ellipsis are presentedin l-Ioji
l99lJ. But I lvill out asidethis issuehere.

On the Role oJ-Selectionin the Application oJMerge(39) A. Jem'-nun caki-u1- ai -lul phal-r.rl ttayliessta-TOP self-GEN child-ACC amr -ACC hit'Jern'hitB

his child on thc ann'

Kulena Salll'-nun e tali-lul
ttar,liessta-TOP leg-ACC hit
buta. Sally [i1 his (Jem"s) child on the leg. (strict reading)b. Sallv his her (Sall--v's)child on the leg. (sloppvreading)
As Kim obserr,'es.
it is difficult. if not impossible.to accountfor the sloppr-reading of(39B) rvith VP-deletion.A rough structLrreof the exampleis shonn in (40).
(40)

TP
NP

T'
,/\
VPT
/\

NP

V'
',/ \
NPV

In (398) the first accusativeNP is "missing.'' and the position of this NP is indicatedby.
'|lP'in (40). If V raisesto T and VP-deletionapplies,the secondaccusativeNP ivould bedeletedalong u'ith the first accusativeNP. But the secondaccusatir.eNP does appearin(39B). Hence.the VP-deletionanal.vsisof (34) cannotbe extendedto this case.Note thatsince the trvo accusativeNPs have a fixed order, it is unlikelr, that the secondaccusative
NP is scrambledout of VP beforeVP-delctionapplies.
Kim argues. based on (39) and other eramples. that the relcvant phenomenon
involves elhpsrsbut not necessadlvVP-ellipsis. He concludcsthen that Japaneseand
Korean alloiv NP-ellipsis,ivhich directlv deletesarglunentNPs. Further.he suggeststhat
this anall"sisextendsto Chineseas rvell. Examplessuch as (41) are discussedin Huang
1984.
(41) Zhangsan da le ehit Perfa *Zhangsanhit himself.
b. Zhangsanhit someoneelse.
''missing" (41).
The object isinand the examplecan be interpretedas in (.llb) but not asin (4la). This follorvs from Condition (B) if the empb,categoryin the object position is a

Mamom Saito
prorrou,l.tOnthe other hald. Xu (1986) presentseramples such as ('i2) and arguesthat
Chinesehasa "frce emp[' categon"'that can have arrybinding features.
(42) Meigerenpiping le ziji ma? Bu. Johnnei piping le enonot criticize Perfeveryone criticize Perf self Q'Did

every.onecritrcizcl-rimself/No. John did not criticizc himself

It seemsclear that the emptl' categoryin (42) is interpretedas an anaphorand not as apronoun.
Huang ( 1987)suggestsa V-raising/VP-deletionanalysisfor (42), r.vhichrvasthe basis
for Otani and Writman's analy5i5of (3a) discussedat the outsetof this sectiot't.Kim. on
the other hand. arguesthat the essenceof Huang's analysiscan be maintainedivith his
NP-cllipsis hypothcsis.ln (42). and only in(42). ziji'self is avarlableas the antecedent
for the elided NP. Hence. the "missins" NP can be intemretcd as a reflerive in thiserample.
Once it is establishcdthat Chinese. Japancsoand Korean allorv NP-ellipsis. it
becomesnecessan,to explain lvh.v this is the case.In the follorving subsection,I rvill
suggestthat this is because(3b). repeatedbelorv"is inapplicablein theselanguages.
(3) b

Selectionalrcquircurentsmnst bc satisfiedb1'Mergc.(Selectionimplies Merge.)

the stnrcIt u'as shown in tl-rediscussionof the light vcrb constmctionthat in Japaneserelation need not be createdb1' Merge as ature that representsthe predicate-argument
means for phrase structurc building. but can bc establishedlater bv covert headmovenlent.The idea tlrat I will plrrslrein the follorving subsectionis that LF copf ing into
relationin the
an ellipsis site is anothcr\\ia)'to createthe structurefor predicate-argument
language.Since a..similar idea is alreadv presentedin Oku 1998.I r.vill first briefly' goof (3b)Thcn. I rr"illadaptit arldrcstatcit as a parancterization
over his proposal.n
4.2. A Restatementof Oku's 1998Analysis
Oku (1998) independentlvarrives at the conclusionthat Japaneseallou's NP-ellipsisandand not in English.His proposal
furthercxaminesxh1'NP-ellipsisis possiblein Japaneseis bascdon Boskovic and Takahashi's(1998)theory of scrambling,rvhich I ri'ill briefly
discussfirst.
Follorving the idea suggestedin Kitagau'a 1990.Boskovic and Takahashiproposeto
eliminate scramblingas a s\ ntactic operation.The]' argue that "scrambledphrases"aredirectly merged at their surf'acepositions and are covertl.vlo$,eredto positions rvherethat the elnptv categoryis a variableboundbv an
Huang'sactualanalvsisis rnoreitrvolved.lle argrues
oflhe subin (-lla) is ruled out becausetire coirrdexalion
ernptl topic, and proposesthal tire interpretatiott
ject aud the emplr categor)'resultsin a configuratiotrofstrong crossovel.
8

I am indebtedto Zeljko Boskovic lbr pointing out tlie rclevanceof Oku 1998in this contert.

On the Role o.l'.\electiontn the Application oJ'Merge
thel' are interpreted.e
Thel-then addressthe questionrvhy this is possiblein Japaneseandnot in English.lheir ans\reris basedon the folloiving assumptions:(43) a. Movement (rarsingor lorvering) is sublectto the Last Resort Principle. ivhich
statesthat movementappliesonh' fbr the purposeof feafure-checking.
(Chomsky'1986)
b. O-rolesare fcaturcsthat needto be checkcd.(Lasnik 1995)
c. There are trvo kinds of syntactic features-strong and u-eak,and onlv the former
needsto be cl,eckedprior to Spell-out.(Chomsk1l993)
Since_"scrambledphrases' appcar in positions that involve no featurc-checking.(43a)excludesscrarlbling as l'novement.Those phrasesmust be directly'merged at their surface positions.On the other hand.given that 8-rolesare features that needto be checked,(43a) allorvs lorveringof "scrambledarguments"to their O-positions.Hcnce. there is no
scrambling but onll' lolr"eringor 'anti-scrarnbling'in Kitagarva's (1990) terminology.
Here.0-featurecheckingb1'covertlorveringshouldbe possibleonlv if O-featureis rveak.
''scrambling"Thus. the eristence/norr-existenceofcan be explained in temrs of thestrengthof B-feature.It is rvealiin Japanesebut strong in English. Since O-fcaturesmust
be checkedovertlr.in English,''scrambling"is impossiblein the language.
Oku (1998) directlv applies this anal--vsis
to NP-ellipsis. Given that 8-featuresare
u'eak in Japanese.predicate-argument
relations need not be representedol'ertlv in thelanguagg In particular-an argumentneednot be prcsent prior to Spell-outeven n hcn it isrequired b1' the predicate. Oku argues then that an argument can be inserted rnto thestructureafter Spell-outbv the mechanismof LF-copf ing. u'hich copies the antecedelt
into an-ellipsisiite.r" Thus. he proposesthat ''free irord-order" and Np-ellipsis both
follorv from the single propertv of Japanesethat 0-fcaturesare rveak.
Here. I rvill not go into the detailsof Boskovicand Takahashi'stheon, of scrambline.
*'hich rvould take us too far afiold. Instead.I u'ill simpll, reinterpretOhu's proposal ilthat it fits the discussionhere. His basicidea.divorced fronl the sirengthof 0-features.isthat in Japanese.an argumentc:ur bc insertedinto the stnlcture covirtli.. The relevalt
1'a1'to introduce an argument.isLF*opt,ing into ellipsis sites.Thus, in (34), repeatedbelorvas ('14).the antecedentzibun-notegami'self s lcttcr' fills the gap in LF to viita Ure
appropriatepredicate-argurltent
relationas shor,n in (4i).
(44) John-wa zibun-no tegami-osuteta: Man,-mo e suteta-TOP self -CEN letter -ACC discarded-also discarded'John

thrervout his letter,and Man did too'(45) John-iva lzibun-no tegami-o] suteta: Mary-mo lzibun-no tegami-o] sutetaoIn the case of claLrse-inlemalscrarnbling,thev suggestthat the appropnatoconliguration fbr g-role'l-as
assignmenl
can be createdbr V-raisingto
re ll.
r0

Oku assumes
that this l,Ii-cop,ving
is netuallva co\,ertapplicationof MelgeMamom Sartolf zibun refersto John,the strict readingobtains.On the other hand. the interpretationof
zibun as a variablebound b1'the sub.iectvieldsthe sloppv reading.
The LF-cop-vrngcan be consideredan operation on stmcturesto achieve proper interpretation.exactll' like the coveft head-movementin the caseof the Japaneselight verb
construction.Since it can create the proper configuration to representthe predicatealgument relatron. the anall'sis implies that selectional requirementscan be satisfied b--v
means othcr than Merge as the operation to construct phrase structure. Hence, this anal-vsisof NP-ellipsisconstitutesftirther evidencethat Japaneseis not subjectto (3b).
To summarizethc discussionso far.I have suggestedthe pararneterizationof (3a-b).
(3)

The DerivationalConfigurationalit)'Parameter:
Configuratronallanguagesale subjectto (3a-b). but Japanesest1'lenon-configurational languagesare not.
(a) Merge appliesonl-vto satis!' selectionalrequirements.(Merge implies selection.)(b) Selectionalrequirementsmust be satisfiedb1'Merge. (Selectionimplies Merge.)

Scramblingis a movementoperationrvhich mergesa phraseinto a positronn'here thephrase has no selectional relation u,ith the head. The Japaneselight verb constmction
involves direct merger of an argumentto a position *'here it is not selected.Thus. theseIn the caseof scrambling"the moved item isshorvthat (3a) is not applicablein Japa:-rese.
interpretedat the original site. Hence"the movementoperationis "semanticallvvacuous."On the otherhand. in the caseof the light verb constmction,the argumentmergedinto an
unselectedposition receivesinterpretationonly after its predicateraisesto the appropriate
head position covertl-v. Thus, the selectional rclation betleen the argument and thepredicateis configurationallvrepresentedat LF rvith the aid of covert head movemsnt.
Further I suggestedin this subsectionthat JapaneseallorvsNP-ellipsisbecausethe selectional requirementof a predicatecan be satisfiedb1' the LF-cop-vingof an antecedcntinto
an ellipsis site. The light verb constructionand NP-ellipsisthen constituteevidencethat(3b) is also offin Japanese.
The claim here is that English. as opposedto Japanese(and Korcan), has none ofthesephenomenabecauseit is sr:bjectto both (3a) and (3b). What about Chinese?If Kim(1998) is correct,it has NP-ellipsisexactll'like Japaneseand Korean. But it does nothave scramblingor the light verb constructionin the sensediscussedhere. It seemsthenthat Chineseis subjectto (3a) but not (3b) Although this is onll' a speculationat thispoint- it fits r,vell rvith the characteization in Huang 1982 that Chinese is a partiall_vconfigurationallanguage.
5. Conclusion
In this paper,I have suggesteda derivationalreformulationof Hale's (1982) configurationaliq' parameter.The reformulation is motivated in part by the Minimalist model.
rvhich eliminates D-structure and S-struchrreas rvell as the Projection Principlc. The
proposal also extends the domain from lexical projections that representpredicateargumentstructuresto functional prqections. incorporatingKuroda's (1988) insights.It

On lhe Role oJ'Seleclionin the Application of Merge
rvas shown that the ne'n,formulation accountsfor the existenceof scrambling (free rvordorder). the light verb construction(complex predicates)and NP-ellipsis(free or frequent
pronoundrop) in Japaneseasrvell as their absencein Errglish.
Aside from the derivationalfomrulation.the proposalhere has one notabledifference
from Hals's original hvpothesis.Hale assumedthat syrtactic structure(s)and LF are notderivationalll' related in non-configurational languages.Their relation insteadis mediatedb1.'linking rules that connect positions in s1'ntactic stmcture(s) and LF. Here. I am
relations,or lnore generalll.,selectionalrelationsmust
proposingthat predicate-argument
be representedconfigurationalll, in all languages.The peculiaritl' of non-configurational
languagesrs that the opcration Merge can applv independentl.vof this requirement andthat this requirement can be satisfied b--vmeans other than Merge. Put the other rvav
around.the peculiaritl' of configurationallanguagesis that the applicationof Merge isstrictly tied to this requirenrent.Metaphoricalh.speaking.the Protection Principle is
imposed on the apphcation of Merge as an additional constraint in configuratronallanguages.
In this sense.thc presentproposalis sirnilarto Kitagarva's( 1990)as far as scrarnbling(free rvord-order) is concerned. Hc assumcs non-configurational s1'ntactic structures's"similar to Hale and then, proposesto denve the appropnateconfigurationalLF reprcsentationsfrom them. Boskovic and Takahashi'stheon. briefl1.'discussed
above.can bevier,vedas an updatedversion of this proposal.The difference,on the other hand. lies inrvhat is considereda legitimate opcration. Boskovic and Taliahashiassumcthat movement is constrainedb-vthe Last Resort Principle and follorving Lasnik and Saito 1984.
propose that LF lorvering is a legitimaie opcration to yield an appropriate predicateargument configuration. In the presentpaper, I have claimed that the Last Resort effects
to (3a), and suggestedthat covefi headobtain in English becausethc languagcrs sr"rbject
nlovementand LF-cop,vingare legitimateLF operationsforthe purposeof interpretation.
What seems clear at this point is that the proper formulation of Hale's insrghts
dependsvery much on the overall theory of st'ntax. in particular.on the definition of
movement and the characteization of legitimate covefi operations. Conversel.v,further
explorationof the configurationali8.issuervill have importantimplicationsfor the overall
organizationof s),ntacticflreory'.What is suggestedin this paperis one possibledirection
to pursllethe issuein relationto the comparativesyntaxof Japaneseand English.

References
parameter-Oxford Universitr,Press:Oxford.
Baker,Mark C. 1996.L'hepoll,synthe,sis
Boskovic. Zeljko and Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Lingtistic
Inquiry,29'.347-366.
Chomskl'" Noam. 1986.Knov'ledgeof language:Its nature,origin. and use. Nerr, York:
Praeger.
Chonrskr'.Noam. 1993. A mrnimalist program for linguistic theory'.ln T'heview.fromin linguistics in honor oJ-.5)tlv61in
Bromberger'. ed. Kenneth Hale
Building 20: Essot:.sl-52. Cambridge.Mass.:MIT Press.
Ja1-Ke1'ser.
and Samr.rel

Mamoru Saito
Chomskl',Noam. 1995.Bare phrasestructure. In Governntentanclbinctingtheor7,snclthe
minimolistprogram- ed. Gert Webelhuth.383-439.Oxford: Blackrvell.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986.A theory,of categoryprojectionand its in,plications.Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge,Mass.
Grervendorf,Giinther and Joachim Sabel. 1999. Scrambling in German and Japanese:
Adlnnction versus multiple specifiers.NqturqlLanguage& Linguistic Theor.vl7: L6_5.
Grimshar,v.Janeand Armin Mester. 1988.Light verbs and 8-marking.Lingristic Inquiryt
19 205-232.
Hale. Ken. 1982.Preliminaryremarkson configurationalitl'.InNEZS 12.86-96. GLSA.
Amherst.
Departmentof Linguistics.Universitvof Massachusetts,
Harada, Kazuko L 1972. Constraintson v,ir-Q binding. In Studie,sin descriptiveondapplied linguistics5" 180-206.Division of Languages,InternationalChristianUniversity, Tokl'o.
Harada.Shin-lchi. 1973.Counterequi NP deletion.In Annual bulletin 7- 113-147.\\eResearchlnstituteof Logopedicsand Phoniatrics.Universitv of Tokvo.
LingtristicInquiryt )Q'.
Hoji. Hajime. 1998.Null object and sloppv identih ir, Japanese.
127-152.
Huang. C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chincse and the theory of grammar.
Doctoraldissertation.MIT. Cambridge"Mass.
Huang. C.-T. Jarnes.1984.On the distributionand referenceof empt.vpronolrns.Linguistic Inquiry-15:-531-574.
Huang, C.-T. James.1987. Rcmarkson emptv categonesin Chinese. Linguistic Incputy,
18.321-337.
Jelinek"Eloise. 1984. Emptv categories.case,and configurationalitl. NattrralLctngtrctge& Linguistic Theory,2'. 39-76.
Kato, Sachiko.200l. A head-movementanall'sis of Japaneseslntactic complex predicates.Master'sthesis.NanzanUniversitv.Nagova.
Karvamura"Tomoko. 2001. A feature-checkinganal1'sisof Japanesescrambling.Master's thesis.NanzanUniversitr',Nagol'a.
identity. enlptv objects. and NP ellipsis. .knrrnal ofKinr. Soorvon. 1999. S1opp1,/51;6t
8" 255-284.
EsstAsianLingui,srics
Kitagarva,Yoshihisa. 1990. Anti-scrambling. Ms., Univenit;" of Rochester.Rochester.
Nei,vYork.
Koizumi. Masatoshi.199,5.Phrasestructurein minimalist svntax.Doctoral dissertation.
MIT" Cambridge,Mass.
Kuroda S.-Y. 1965 Generativegrammaticalstudiesin the Japaneselanguage.Doctoral
dissertation,MIT. Cambridge.Mass.
Kuroda- S.-Y. 1978. Case n,arking- canonical sentencepattems. and counter-equi ins)t/t{11v
and semantic.s.ed.
Japanese(a preliminary sun'ey-).ln Problem,sin Jopane,se
JohnHrnds and Invin Horvard.30--51.Tokl'o: Kaitakusha.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparativesl,ntax of English andJapanese.Linguisticae Invesfigationes l2'. l-47 .
Lasnik, Horvard. 1995 A note on pseudogapping.In MlTworkingpopers in linguistics
27: Paperson minimaliststntax. 143-163.MITWPL. Departmentof Linguistics andPhilosophl'"MIT, Cambndge.Mass.
Lasnik. Horvardand Mamoru Saito. 1984.On the natureof propcr government. Linguisfic Insuirv l-5:23-i-289.

On tke Role o.fSelectionin the Application oJA4erge
Mivagarva.Shigeru.1997.Againstoptronalscrambling.Linguistichqui r1t28'.l -25.
Mi1,'agarva,
Shigem. 2001. The EPP, scrambling,and u,/r-in-situ.ln KenHale: A li,fbin
Cambridge.Mass.: MIT Press.
language.ed. Michael Kenstor'vicz-293-338.
.In WCCI;'L 13,302Murasugi.Keiko and Mamoru Saito. 1996.Adjunction and c1'cliciq.'
317. SLA, Dcpartmentof Linguistics.StanfordUniversity'.Stanford.
Oku Satoshi 1998.A theory of selectionand reconstmctionin the minimalist perspectiveDoctoraldissertation"Utrivcrsitvof Connecticut-Storrs.
Otani. Kazuvo and John Wtitman. 1991. V-raising and VP-cllipsis. LinguisticInquin,
22:345-358.
RiemsdijkHenk van and Eduin Williams. l9tll. NP-structure.TheLinEdsticReviev,l'.

1 7 l - z .r 7
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Sonrcasvmmetricsin Japaneseand their tlreoreticalimplications.
Doctoraldissertation.MIT. Cambridge,Mass.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrarnblingas semanticalh'vacuottsA'-movement.In Alternative
qf'phrosestnrchffe.ed. Mark R. Baltin and Anthonv S. Kroch, 182-20A.
conceptictn.s
Chicago.Univcrsitl of ChicagoPress.
Saito, Mamom and Naoki Fukui. 1998.Order in phrasestructureand moverr-erfi. Lingtristic Inquin- 29 439-474.
Saito. Mamoru and Hiroto Hoshi. 2000. The Japaneselight verb constructionand theminimalist program.In Stepby step' Essat'son minimalistsvntqxin honor oJ'Hov'ard
Insnik- ed. RogerMartin. JuanUriagerekaand David Michaels.261-295.Cambridge,
Mass.:MIT Press.
Sells, Pctcr. 1988. Morc on light verbs and theta-marking.Ms.. Stanford UniversiS',
Stanford.
Shibatani. Masaloshi. 1973. Semantics of Japanesecausativization.IioundcttionsoJ'
lnnguage 9'.32'7-373.
Tada. Hiroaki. 1993.A/A-bar partition rn derivation. Doctoral disscrtation.MIT, Cambridge.Mass.
linguistics,ed.
in Japane,seWritnran. John. l9tt7 Configurationalitvparameters.In Is.gues
Takashitmai and Mamoru Saito.3,sl-374. Dordrecht:Foris Publications.
categon. I.inguisticInquin, 17; l-5-93.
Xu, Liejiong. 1986.Freeempt1"

Depafirnentof Anthropologvand Philosophl'
NanzanUniversitl'
I 8 Yamazato-cho-Shorva-ku
Nagol'a 466-8673Japananzan-u .acj psaito(a-;n