Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518
www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

A derivational approach to the interpretation ofscrambling chains
Mamoru Saito
Department of Anthropology and Philosophy, Nanzan University, 18 Yamazoto-cho,Showa-ku, Nagoya 466-8673, Japan
Received 1 June 2002

Abstract
Japanese (and Korean) scrambling is known for its unique properties. It freely applies longdistance, but does not establish an operator-variable relation like the standard cases of
A0 -movement. It is also distinct from NP-movement in that its trace exhibits strict proper binding
eﬀects. Further, as observed by Tada [1990, Scrambling(s). MS., MIT] among others, it shows apattern similar to Hindi scrambling with respect to binding: A phrase preposed by clause-internal
scrambling can serve as an A-binder, but one preposed by long scrambling cannot. The purposeof this paper is to discuss these properties in some detail and to suggest a uniﬁed analysis forthem. First, I assume, following Tada, that scrambling to sentence-initial positions is subject
to total reconstruction, implementing the idea with a slightly modiﬁed version of Chomsky’s(1993, A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S.J. (Eds.), The View
from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) copy and deletion analysis of movement. This accounts for the ‘‘semanticallyvacuous’’ nature of scrambling. Then, building on the insights of Kitahara (2000, Case andscrambling: a derivational view. MS., Keio University), I propose that the total reconstruction
applies derivationally. This explains the A/A0 asymmetry observed with clause-internal
scrambling and long-distance scrambling. Finally, I argue that the proper binding eﬀects onscrambling require an independent condition, and suggest its formulation as a constraint on theapplication of Merge. If the analysis proposed in this paper is on the right track, Japanese (andKorean) scrambling does not have subtypes like A-scrambling and A0 -scrambling, but is a uniform operation with well-deﬁned abstract properties. The most fundamental among them is theradical (total) reconstruction property. It is this property that makes scrambling exhibit patterns
that are quite diﬀerent from operator movement and NP-movement.
# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Scrambling; Radical reconstruction; Binding conditions; Chain interpretation; Featuredecomposition; Derivational approach to interpretation; Derivational phase

E-mail address: saito@nanzan-u.ac.jp (M. Saito).
0024-3841/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0024-3841(02)00083-9

482

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis for the following major properties of Japanese (and Korean) scrambling:(1)a. Scrambling need not have any eﬀect on the interpretation.
(the radical reconstruction property)
b. Clause-internal scrambling and long scrambling are both possible. But onlya phrase preposed by the former can serve as an ‘‘A-binder.’’(the A/A0 problem discussed by Mahajan (1990) and Tada (1990))
c. A trace of scrambling is constrained strictly by the proper binding condition.
(the proper binding eﬀect)
I will assume throughout the discussion that Japanese scrambling is uniform, i.e.,that it does not have subtypes like A-scrambling and A0 -scrambling with diﬀerent
landing sites. This assumption makes the task to explain (1a–c) more challenging. I
hope to show that it also has signiﬁcant consequences.
The analysis in this paper is built on the proposals in two important works, Tada
(1990) and Kitahara (2000). Tada proposes that all instances of scrambling to sentence-initial positions are subject to total reconstruction at LF, and attempts to
explain the apparent A0 -properties of scrambling based on this proposal. Kitahara,on the other hand, argues that the eﬀects of total reconstruction can be explained
elegantly within the derivational model, where syntactic objects are interpreted
throughout the course of the derivation. The basic idea is that scrambling exhibits
the apparent A0 -properties when it applies after the scrambled phrase is sent forinterpretation.
Extending these ideas, I will propose in this paper that chains are interpreted asthey are formed. Chomsky (1993) adopts a copy and deletion analysis of movement
in order to secure proper interpretations for examples like (2).
(2) Whose brother did he see
He suggests that movement leaves behind a copy as in (3a) and deletion creates aproper operator-variable relation as in (3b).
(3)a. [Whose brother] did he see [whose brother]b. [Who Ø] did he see [x’s brother]
I will entertain the hypothesis that this ‘‘deletion for interpretation’’ applies as soon
as a chain is formed in the derivation, and argue that it makes a uniﬁed account forthe properties of scrambling in (1a–c) possible.
In the following section, I will discuss the basic facts on the radical reconstruction
property (1a) and the A/A0 problem (1b), and brieﬂy review Tada’s (1990) and Kitahara’s (2000) analyses. In Section 3, assuming Kitahara’s general approach, I willargue for an alternative based on the hypothesis mentioned above. The proposed

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

483

analysis has the same two consequences on binding as Tada (1990). One is that
Condition (A) is an ‘‘anywhere condition’’, a hypothesis already proposed on independent grounds by Belletti and Rizzi (1988), Lebeaux (1988) and Epstein et al.
(1998), among others. The other is that Condition (C) is an LF condition. Section 4
is concerned with the proper binding eﬀect (1c). I will ﬁrst argue that this eﬀectcannot be explained by the Minimal Link Condition as suggested in Kitahara(1997), but requires an independent condition. Then, I will propose a formulation of
the condition as a constraint on the application of Merge. In Section 5, I will discuss
the remaining problems with anaphor scrambling and VP-internal scrambling, andsuggest directions toward their solutions. Section 6 concludes this paper.

2. (The absence of) semantic eﬀects with scrambling
2.1. The radical reconstruction property
The most outstanding property of Japanese scrambling is probably its radical
reconstruction property. I will start the illustration of this property with examples ofwh scrambling. Let us ﬁrst consider the following examples:1(4)a. [TP John-ga [CP[TP dare-ga
sono hon -okatta] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)-NOM
who -NOM that book-ACC bought Q want-to-know fact‘[John wants to know [Q [who bought that book]]]’b. *[TP Dare-ga [CP[TP John-ga
sono hon -okatta] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)
who -NOM-NOM that book-NOMbought Q want-to-know fact‘[Who wants to know [Q [John bought that book]]]’Only the embedded clause is a question in these examples. As noted in Harada(1972), contrasts of this kind then indicate that a wh-phrase must be contained
within a question CP, or more speciﬁcally within the CP where it takes scope. Thiscondition applies to wh-phrases in English as well, as shown in (5).
(5)a. [CP Whoi [TP ti asked whom to ﬁnd out [CP whatj [TP Bill bought tj]]]]b. [CP Whoi [TP ti wonders [CP[which picture of whom]j [TP Bill saw tj]]]]c. ??[CP[Which picture of whom]j does [TP Bill wonder [CP whoi [TP ti saw tj]]]]When a wh moves overtly to a CP Spec, it takes scope there. Hence, who and what in(5a), and who and which in (5b and c) satisfy the condition trivially. Whom is left insitu in (5a). This wh is contained within the matrix CP but not within the embedded
CP. Hence, the condition correctly predicts that it can only take matrix scope. On
1

I will add koto ‘the fact that’ at the end of some example sentences in order to avoid the unnaturalness resulting from the lack of a topic in a matrix clause. But I will ignore koto in the ‘‘translations’’ andalso in the discussion. The ‘‘translations’’ in single quotes are provided to illustrate the rough structures ofthe examples, and are not meant to be the correct English translations.

484

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

the other hand, examples like (5b) are ambiguous as van Riemsdijk and Williams(1981) point out: whom can take matrix or embedded scope. This is also predicted by
the condition because the wh is contained within the embedded CP as well as thematrix CP. (5c) contrasts sharply with (5b). This example is marginal because it is a
wh-island violation. But its interpretation is clear: it only allows whom to take matrix
scope, again, as predicted by the condition.
Let us now consider the examples in (6b) and (7b) in light of the discussion sofar.
(6)a. [TP John-ga [CP[TP Mary-ga
dono hon -oyonda] ka] siritagatteiru]-NOM-NOM which book-ACC read Q want-to-know(koto)
fact‘[John wants to know [Q [Mary read which book]]]’b. ?[TP Dono hon -oi[John-ga [CP[TP Mary-ga
ti yonda] ka] siritagatteiru]]
which book-ACC -NOM
-NOM read Q want-to-know(koto)
fact‘[Which booki, John wants to know [Q [Mary read ti]]]’(7)a. [TP John-ga [CP[TP minna-ga [CP Mary-ga
dono hon -oyonda to]
-NOM
all
-NOM
-NOM which book-ACC read thatomotteiru] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)
think
Q want-to-know fact‘[John wants to know [Q [everyone thinks [that Mary read which book]]]’b. ??[TP[CP Mary-ga
dono hon -oyonda to]i [John-ga [CP[TP minna-ga ti-NOM which book-ACC read that
-NOM
all
-NOM
omotteiru] ka] siritagatteiru]] (koto)
think
Q want-to-know fact‘[[That Mary read which book]i, John wants to know [Q [everyone thinks ti]]]’(6b) is derived from (6a) by scrambling the wh dono hon-o ‘which book-ACC’ fromthe embedded object position to the initial position of the matrix clause. The
movement clearly places the wh out of the CP where it takes scope. Thus, given thecondition on wh-phrases, we expect the example to be as bad as (4b), but it is only
slightly marginal. In (7a), the wh dono hon-o is located within the most deeply
embedded CP. In (7b), this CP is scrambled out of the middle CP, where the whtakes scope. Again, we expect the example to be totally out, but it is only marginal.
Assuming that the condition on wh-phrases illustrated by (4) and (5) applies at
LF, I proposed in Saito (1989) that scrambling can be literally undone (i.e., that thescrambled phrase can be totally reconstructed) in the LF component.2 Given thishypothesis, (6b) and (7b) can satisfy the condition straightforwardly because their
LF representations can be identical to those of (6a) and (7a) respectively. This ‘‘LF
2

It is actually assumed in Saito (1989) that the relevant condition is the proper binding condition
applying to the trace of LF wh-movement.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

485

undoing’’ property of Japanese scrambling later came to be called its radical reconstruction property.
2.2. The A/A0 problem
What is often discussed in conjunction with the radical reconstruction property inthe recent literature is the A/A0 properties of scrambling. As noted by Tada (1990),
among others, a phrase preposed by clause-internal scrambling can serve as an ‘‘Abinder.’’ The examples in (8) and (9) illustrate this point with the lexical anaphor
otagai ‘each other’.
(8)a. [TP Karera-ga[otagai-nosensei] -ohihansita] (koto)
they -NOM each other-GEN teacher-ACC criticized fact
‘They criticized [each other’s teachers]’
b. ?*[TP[Otagai-nosensei] -ga
karera-ohihansita] (koto)each other-GEN teacher-NOM they -ACC criticized fact‘[Each other’s teachers] criticized them’(9) ?[TP Karera-oi [[otagai-no sensei] -ga ti hihansita]] (koto)
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM criticized fact
‘Themi, [each other’s teachers] criticized ti’
The contrast in (8) shows that otagai requires a c-commanding antecedent. (9) is
derived from (8b) by scrambling the object karera-o ‘they-ACC’ to a positionc-commanding otagai. The example improves as expected.
The following examples with bound pronouns exhibit the same pattern:(10)a. ?*[TP[Sonoi tyosya] -ga
dono hon -ni-moi keti-o tuketa]itsauthor -NOM which book-to-even gave-criticism‘[Its author] criticized every book’
b. [TPDono hon -ni-moi [[sonoi tyosya] -ga
ti keti-o tuketa]]
which book-to-even its
author -NOM gave-criticism‘Every booki, [its author criticized ti]’Sono ‘its’ in (10a) cannot be construed as a bound pronoun because it is not ccommanded by dono hon-ni-mo ‘to every book’ in the object position. But thescrambling of the object to the sentence-initial position makes this binding possible.
Long scrambling, however, exhibits a diﬀerent pattern with the licensing of anaphors and bound pronouns. As (11) shows, a phrase preposed by long scrambling
cannot serve as the antecedent of a lexical anaphor.
(11)a. *[TP[Otagai-no sensei] -ga [CP[TP Tanaka-ga
karera-ohihansita]
each other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM they -ACC criticizedto] itta] (koto)that said fact‘[Each other’s teachers] said that Tanaka criticized them’486

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

b. *[TP Karera-oi [[otagai-no sensei] -ga [CP[TP Tanaka-ga ti
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM
hihansita] to] itta]] (koto)criticized that said fact
‘Themi, [each other’s teachers] said that Tanaka criticized ti’
In (11b), karera-o ‘they-ACC’ is scrambled out of the embedded CP to the initial
position of the matrix clause, where it c-commands otagai. Yet, there is no
improvement in sharp contrast with (9). Similarly, long scrambling fails to license abound pronoun as shown in (12).3(12) ?*[TP Dono hon -ni -moi [[sonoi tyosya] -ga [CP[TP Hanako-ga ti keti-o tuketa]
which book-to-even its
author -NOM
-NOM gave-criticism
to] itta]]that said‘Every booki, its author said that Hanako criticized ti’
Mahajan (1990), who ﬁrst noted this diﬀerence between clause-internal scrambling andlong scrambling with Hindi data, proposed that there are two distinct types of scrambling, A and A0 , with diﬀerent landing sites. Clause-internal scrambling can be A-movement, and hence, (9) and (10b) are grammatical exactly like the English (13a) and (13b).
(13)a.
b.

Theyi seemed to each otheri [ti to be smart]
Everyonei seemed to hisi mother [ti to be smart]

Clause-internal scrambling can be A0 -movement as well, for otherwise, (14) would
be incorrectly ruled out by Condition (C).
(14) [TP Zibunzisin-oi[Taroo-ga
ti semeta]] (koto)
self
-ACC
-NOM blamed fact
‘Himselfi, Taro blamed ti’Long scrambling, on the other hand, can only be A0 -movement, and this accounts
for the ungrammaticality of (11b) and (12). Mahajan hypothesizes that A-scrambling is movement to AGR Spec while A0 -scrambling involves adjunction.
However, a research project was initiated by Tada (1990) and others to solve theA/A0 problem under the assumption that scrambling, whether clause-internal or
long-distance, is uniform. I will pursue this approach below in Section 3. But before
moving on to the main proposal, I will brieﬂy review two important works in thistradition, Tada (1990) and Kitahara (2000), in the following subsection.
3
Yoshimura (1989) and Saito (1992) argue that when a wh-NP is preposed by long scrambling, it canlicense a bound pronoun. As Daiko Takahashi points out (personal communication, 1994), there seems to
be a distinction here between wh-phrases and regular quantiﬁers. I will put aside the wh cases in this paper,
but see Saito (1995) for a possible analysis of this distinction.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

487

2.3. Tada’s total reconstruction and Kitahara’s derivational approach
Tada (1990) proposes that scrambling is uniformly an adjunction operation, andas noted above, that all cases of scrambling to sentence-initial positions are subject
to total reconstruction at LF.4 The latter hypothesis amounts to saying that radical
reconstruction is obligatory. Then, he explains the apparent A/A0 ambiguity ofclause-internal scrambling observed in (9) and (14), repeated below as (15a) and(15b), on the assumption that Condition (A) and Condition (C) apply at distinct
levels.5(15)a. ?[TP Karera-oi [[otagai-nosensei] -ga
ti hihansita]] (koto)
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM criticized fact
‘Themi, [each other’s teachers] criticized ti’b. [TP Zibunzisin-oi [Taroo-ga ti semeta]] (koto)
self
-ACC
-NOM blamed fact
‘Himselfi, Taro blamed ti’
If scrambling must be ‘‘undone’’ and the scrambled phrase must be reconstructed at
its initial position at LF, (15a) cannot satisfy Condition (A) at this level. Then,
Condition (A) must be an S-structure condition or an ‘‘anywhere condition,’’ i.e., a
condition that can be satisﬁed at any point in the derivation.
On the other hand, the grammaticality of (15b) implies that Condition (C) cannot bean S-structure condition. (15a) shows that the landing site of clause-internal scramblingis a position from where A-binding is possible. Hence, if Condition (C) applies at Sstructure, it should exclude (15b). But the example is not problematic if Condition (C) isan LF condition. As the scrambled phrase is reconstructed to its initial position, theexample does not violate the condition at this level. Thus, Tada successfully explains(15a and b) without assuming two distinct types of scrambling with diﬀerent landingsites. I will adapt this analysis with further supporting arguments in Section 3.
But when it comes to the A0 -properties of long scrambling, Tada’s account seems
less principled. The issue is why the scrambled phrase in (11b), repeated in (16)below, cannot serve as the antecedent of the lexical anaphor despite the fact that it isadjoined to TP exactly as the preposed phrase in (15a).
(16) *[TP Karera-oi[[otagai-nosensei] -ga [CP[TP Tanaka-ga
ti
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM
hihansita] to] itta]] (koto)criticized that said fact
‘Themi, [each other’s teachers] said that Tanaka criticized ti’
4
According to Tada (1990), the total reconstruction does not apply to VP-internal scrambling. I will
put aside this type of scrambling for the moment and return to it in Section 5.
5
Since anaphor binding and the licensing of bound pronouns more or less show the same pattern, I
will mainly use examples with lexical anaphors in the discussion of the A/A0 properties of scrambling fromhere on.

488

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

Tada’s solution, roughly, is that a scrambling chain counts as an A-chain when andonly when its head and tail are both L-related to a single head. He assumes that V
raises to I (=T) overtly in Japanese. Then, in some sense, the landing site and theinitial site in (15a) are both in the projection of the verb hihansita ‘criticized’. Hence,
the TP-adjoined position, Tada claims, counts as an A-position. This does not apply
in the case of (16) because the embedded verb clearly does not raise to the matrix T.
Although Tada (1990) is the most important early work that attempted to solve
the A/A0 problem with a uniform analysis of scrambling, it seems fair to say that heleft the account for the contrast between (15a) and (16) incomplete.6 It was, then,still unclear why this contrast obtains given that the landing sites of clause-internal
scrambling and long scrambling are identical. An elegant solution to the problem
was proposed 10 years later in Katahara (2000), to which I now turn.
Kitahara (2000) extends the derivational model of Epstein et al. (1998) by adding
the following:(17)

Items are interpreted as they become interpretable in the course of thederivation.

More speciﬁcally, he proposes that NPs are interpreted and enter into binding
relations at the positions where their uninterpretable Case features are checkedand deleted. This proposal provides an elegant solution to the A/A0 problem
when combined with the hypothesis in (18), which Kitahara adapts from Saito(1992).
(18)

The objective Case in Japanese can be checked at the v-projection or at the
T-projection.

Let us ﬁrst reconsider the examples in (15) in light of Kitahara’s theory. Given (18),
karera-o ‘they-ACC’ in (15a) can move directly to the sentence-initial position and bechecked for Case there. In this case, by hypothesis the NP is interpreted at the landing
site, which c-commands otagai ‘each other’. Hence, it can serve as the antecedent of theanaphor. On the other hand, successive-cyclic movement through the v-projection canbe assumed for (15b). Then, zibunzisin-o ‘self-ACC’ is checked for Case and is interpreted in the v-projection. Any further movement is irrelevant for the interpretation.
In particular, the movement to the sentence-initial position is ‘‘semantically vacuous’’ and cannot aﬀect the binding relations. Hence, (15b) need not be a Condition(C) violation.
More importantly, Kitahara’s theory provides a straightforward analysis for theA0 -properties of long scrambling. Let us consider (16) again. If Case checking
applies derivationally, then karera-o ‘they-ACC’ must have been checked for Case at
the v-projection or the T-projection of the embedded clause before it moves into thematrix clause. The NP, then, is interpreted and enters into binding relations within
6

See Nemoto (1993) for a detailed discussion of Tada’s (1990) analysis. Tada himself tried to improveon his analysis in Tada (1993), but the discussion of the revised analysis will take us too far aﬁeld.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

489

the embedded clause. Hence, further movement of the NP to the sentence-initial
position of the matrix clause cannot license otagai ‘each other’.
According to Kitahara (2000), scrambling exhibits the radical reconstruction
property because it can move an NP that is already interpreted. Such movement isnecessarily semantically vacuous. If LF is the sole level of interpretation, semantically vacuous movement must be ‘‘undone’’ in the LF component. But there is noneed for ‘‘undoing’’ in a model where interpretation takes place as the derivation
proceeds. Kitahara’s analysis is in accord with the intuition expressed in Chomsky
and Lasnik (1977) that scrambling is (in some cases) a stylistic rule applying in thePF side of the grammar.
However, Kitahara inherits a major problem from Saito (1992), which claims
that Case plays a crucial role in the explanation of the A/A0 properties ofscrambling.7 As he acknowledges, his Case-based analysis is unable to capture thefact that clause-internal scrambling can have A-properties even when the moved
phrase is not the object but a PP. He cites the following examples from Takano(1998).8(19)a. *[TP[otagai-no hahaoya]-ga [Taroo-to Hanako]-kara hon -oeach other-GEN mother -NOM
-and-from book-ACC
karita] (koto)borrowed fact‘[Each other’s mothers] borrowed books from Taroo and Hanako’
b. ?[TP[Taroo-to Hanako]-karai [[otagai-no hahaoya]-ga ti hon -o-and-from each other-GEN mother -NOM book-ACC
karita]] (koto)borrowed fact
‘From Taroo and Hanakoi, [each other’s mother borrowed books ti]’If the preposed PP in (19b) does not have any uninterpretable feature, it should beinterpreted at the position of its trace. The movement, then, should be semanticallyvacuous exactly as in the case of long scrambling.
In the following section, I will suggest an alternative analysis which is based not
on Case but rather on chain interpretation. Although I will not discuss the exact
landing site of scrambling, I will assume, as in Kitahara (2000), that it is uniformly a position from where A-binding is possible.9 The analysis incorporates
Tada’s analysis of (15a-b) and Kitahara’s insight on the contrast between (15a)and (16).
7

The problem is actually already present in Mahajan (1990), where it is proposed that A-scrambling is
movement to AGR Spec.
8
In (19b), the postposition -kara ‘from’ apparently does not prevent Taroo-to Hanako ‘Taroo andHanako’ from binding otagai ‘each other’. The ‘‘invisibility’’ of P in binding is a general phenomenon in
Japanese. See Hoji (1985) and Murasugi (1991) for discussion.
9
Among the possibilities raised for the landing site of scrambling are the TP-adjoined position and thehigher TP Spec in a multiple Spec structure. See, for example, Saito (1985), Fukui (1986), Kuroda (1988),
Miyagawa (1997), Saito and Fukui (1998) for detailed discussions on the relevant issues.

490

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

3. Scrambling and the derivational interpretation of chains
In this section, I will ﬁrst suggest a mechanism for the derivational interpretationof chains. I will then show how it can capture the radical reconstruction property
and provide a solution to the A/A0 problem.
3.1. Chain interpretation by copy and deletion
As noted in Section 1, Chomsky (1993) proposes that an operator-variable chain
is created by copy and deletion. (20a and b) illustrate this procedure for the simple
example in (20).
(20) Whoi did John see tia.
b.

[CP Who [C0 did [TP John see who ]]]jj[CP Who [C0 did [TP John see x ]]]In (20b), who is retained in CP Spec as an operator, but its copy in the object position is turned into a variable.
As far as I can see, this procedure can be interpreted as follows. An NP has
the D-feature, which makes it possible for the NP to have a ‘‘reference’’ andparticipate in binding/coreference relations.10 An overt NP also has phonetic
features, say, P-features. A wh-phrase, in addition, is equipped with an operator
feature O. We may say that the O-feature of who is responsible for its interpretation in the CP Spec as [for which x: x a person], and its D-feature for its
interpretation in the object position as a variable. Then, what is deleted in the
CP Spec in (20b) is the D-feature of who, and the other features are retained. In
the object position, the O-feature and the P-features delete while the D-featureremains.
Construed this way, the copy and deletion procedure can be applied straightforwardly in a cyclic fashion as movement takes place.11 Let us consider the example in(21) to illustrate one way to execute this idea.
(21)

10

Who do you think John saw

It is possible that there is an independent feature, say, R-feature, that is responsible for the referential
properties and is closely tied to the categorial feature D. For simplicity’s sake, I will assume that the Dfeature itself enters into binding relations.
11
Chomsky (1999) in fact suggests that information is sent for interpretation phase by phase throughout the derivation. It seems that as far as wh-movement and NP-movement are concerned, this idea can be
adopted instead of ‘‘chain interpretation upon its formation’’ without any substantial eﬀect. But I postpone the discussion of phase until Section 5 because it does have signiﬁcant consequences for the analysis
of scrambling.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

491

If who moves successive-cyclically through CP Spec, we obtain the following structure with the initial movement:(22)[CP who[TP John saw who]]{P,O,D}{P,O,D}Let us suppose, as it seems reasonable, that deletion applies to the features of who,
P, O and D, so that each of them is retained at only one position. The P-features
must be retained at the head position of the chain. This, if anything, must be part ofthe deﬁnition of overt movement. For the rest, suppose further that deletion is constrained by selection in a broad sense, and that the features can remain only inpositions where they are selected.12 The D-feature is selected in the object position
but not in the CP Spec. Hence, it must delete at the CP Spec. Chomsky (1998) proposes that the movement of who to the CP Spec takes place because a feature of theC head (call it the EPP-O feature) attracts the O-feature of the wh-phrase. Extending
the use of the term ‘selection’, we may say then that the O-feature satisﬁes a selectional requirement of the C head.13 As it is clear that the O-feature is not selected in
the object position, it can be retained only in the CP Spec. We then obtain (23).
(23)[CP who [TP John saw who]]
{P,O}
{D}

If interpretation takes place as a chain is created, (23) must be interpreted before thederivation proceeds. Here, as Chomsky (1999) notes, the CP Spec cannot be interpreted
at this point because it is involved in a further operation: who moves eventually to thematrix CP Spec. Let us assume then that information on the TP, the maximal Xmax
properly contained within the CP, is sent to the interpretive component. As the
O-feature is already deleted at the object position, who at the initial site, which only
has the D-feature, is interpreted appropriately as a variable. With the next step of thewh-movement from the embedded CP Spec to the matrix CP Spec, the following
structure is created:(24)[CP who [C0 do [TP you think [CP who ([TP John saw x])]]]]
{P,O}
{P,O}

Note that the moved wh-phrase carries only the P-features and the O-feature, since
the D-feature is deleted at the embedded CP Spec prior to the movement. The P
features are retained in the matrix CP Spec, the head of the chain. The O-feature isselected by the matrix [+Q] C, and hence, can also be retained there. The copy of
who in the embedded CP Spec disappears as all of its features are deleted.
12This is a variant of Lee’s (1994) idea that only the XP positions that participate in feature-checking
are retained at LF. See also Kawamura (2001), for a similar proposal.
13
I assume with Chomsky (1998) that the EPP-O feature on C deletes prior to interpretation after its
selectional requirement is satisﬁed.

492

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

3.2. Radical reconstruction as a consequence of chain interpretation
In this subsection, I will apply the derivational chain interpretation mechanism toscrambling. I assume as in my previous works that Japanese scrambling is not featuredriven and is truly an optional movement operation.14 The wh-movement in (25a) is
triggered by the [+Q] C, while the raising in (25b) is necessiated by the EPP feature on T.
(25)a. Whati did Mary buy ti
b. Billi is likely [ti to be in the house]
The assumption is that there is no feature that triggers scrambling. If we continue toemploy the broad usage of the term ‘selection’, this means that wh-movement andNP-movement apply to satisfy selectional requirements of heads, but scrambling has
nothing to do with selection.
Another proposal entertained in the literature is that radical (=total) reconstruction is a consequence of the copy and deletion mechanism (see Lee (1994) and Saito(1994)). The idea is that radical reconstruction results when the higher copies in ascrambling chain are deleted. Assuming that scrambling does not satisfy any selectional requirement, I will suggest a speciﬁc instantiation of this idea in this subsection. Then, in the following subsection, I will show how it solves the A/A0 problem.
Let us ﬁrst consider a simple case of scrambling in (26).
(26) [TP Sono hon -oi[Yamada-ga ti yonda]] (koto)that book -ACC
-NOM readfact‘That booki, Yamada read ti’
Given the copy and deletion analysis, this example has the following initial structure:(27) [TP Sono hon-o [ . . . sono hon-o . . . ]]
{P,D}
{P,D}
The P-features are interpreted at the sentence-initial position. The D-feature cannot
be retained in this position because by hypothesis it is not selected there. Then,
deletion creates (28).
14
See Saito (1985, 1989), Fukui (1986), Kuroda (1988), Tada (1993), Saito and Fukui (1998) among
many others for arguments for this assumption. This view is shared by Bošković and Takahashi (1998),
who claim that scrambled phrases are generated directly in their surface positions and undergo covert
lowering to receive thematic roles. For the opposing view that scrambling is feature-driven, see, forexample, Miyagawa (1997, 2000), Grewendorf and Sabel (1999), and Kawamura (2001). It is actually
unclear how crucial the assumption is for the proposals in this paper. Miyagawa’s feature-checking analysis of scrambling entails that A-scrambling and A0 -scrambling are distinct operations, and hence, contradicts the fundamental hypothesis of this paper that scrambling is uniform. But the situation is less clear
with Kawamura’s analysis. She develops Grewendorf and Sabel (1999), and argues that Japanese scrambling is triggered uniformly by a ‘‘scrambling feature,’’ which deletes completely after it is checked. It may
be possible to reconcile her analysis and the proposals in this paper.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

493(28) [TP Sono hon-o [ . . . sono hon-o . . . ]]{P}
{D}This structure already represents radical reconstruction. Only the phonetic features
are retained at the scrambled position, and hence, (28) is indistinguishable fromcases of PF movement. Scrambling, then, is always semantically vacuous.
A similar result obtains with long scrambling.
(29)[TP Sono hon -oi [Tanaka-ga [CP Yamada-ga ti yonda to] omotteiru]
that book-ACC-NOM-NOM read that think(koto)
fact‘That booki, Tanaka thinks [that Yamada read ti]’If long movement must proceed through the embedded C-projection, the scrambling
initially creates the following structure in the embedded CP:(30) [CP Sono hon-o [TP . . . sono hon-o . . . ]]
{P,D}
{P,D}
The P-features remain at the CP Spec position, the head of the chain. The D-feature is retained in the object position because this is the only position where thefeature is selected. We then end up with (31).15(31) [CP Sono hon-o [TP . . . sono hon-o . . . ]]{P}
{D}In the matrix clause, sono hon-o ‘that book-ACC’ moves on and the structure in (32)is created.
(32) [TP Sono hon-o [ . . . [CP sono hon-o [TP . . . sono hon-o . . . ]]]]
{P}
{P}
{D}
The P-features in the embedded C-projection delete to yield (33).
(33) [TP Sono hon-o [ . . . [CP [TP . . . sono hon-o . . . ]]]]
{P}
{D}
Since only the phonetic features are displaced, we expect the movement to besemantically vacuous in this case also.

15
Nothing prevents the scrambled phrase from moving ﬁrst to the embedded T-projection. In this case,the deletion of features applies at this point and only the P-features of the scrambled phrase move on to
the embedded C-projection. The resulting structure is identical to (31).

494

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

So far, we have seen how the copy and deletion mechanism captures the radical
reconstruction property, or more speciﬁcally, the eﬀects of obligatory total reconstruction in the sense of Tada (1990). One attractive feature of this analysis is that itconforms strictly to the fundamental hypothesis that Japanese scrambling is uniform,
whether it is clause-internal or long-distance. Scrambling is always to a position
without any selectional relation, and hence, only the phonetic features of the moved
phrase are retained at the landing site. But then, a question remains with the A/A0 . . .
problem. As discussed above, clause-internal scrambling, and only clause-internal
scrambling, exhibits the A-properties with respect to the binding phenomena. The
relevant examples in (9) and (11b) are repeated again in (34a) and (34b) below.
(34)a. ?[TP Karera-oi [[otagai-nosensei] -ga
ti hihansita]] (koto)
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM criticized fact
‘Themi, [each other’s teachers] criticized ti.’b. *[TP Karera-oi [ [otagai-nosensei] -ga [CP[TP Tanaka-ga ti
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM
hihansita] to] itta]] (koto)criticized that said fact
‘Themi, [each other’s teachers] said that Tanaka criticized ti’
If scrambling is always semantically vacuous, how is it possible to explain this contrast? I will turn to this question in the following subsection.
3.3. Condition (A) as an ‘anywhere condition’
Although the ﬁnal forms of the chains created by clause-internal scrambling andlong scrambling look identical, there is a crucial diﬀerence in the ways in which thoseﬁnal forms are obtained. The movement in (34a) initially constructs the chain in (35).
(35) [TP Karera-o [ . . . otagai . . . karera-o . . . ]]
{P,D}
{P,D}
Then, the D-feature of the sentence-initial karera-o ‘they-ACC’ and the P-features ofthe object are deleted to yield (36).
(36) [TP Karera-o [ . . . otagai . . . karera-o . . . ]]{P}
{D}This means that at one point of the derivation, the D-feature of karera-o appears ina position c-commanding otagai ‘each other’.
The situation is quite diﬀerent in the case of (34b). The following chain is createdby copy and deletion in the embedded CP:(37) [CP Karera-o [TP . . . karera-o . . . ]]{P}{D}

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

495

Then, karera-o with only phonetic features moves on to the matrix-initial position asin (38).

(38) [TP Karera-o [ . . . otagai . . . [CP karera-o [TP . . . karera-o . . . ]]]]
{P}
{P}
{D}
The copy of karera-o in the embedded C-projection disappears as its P-features aredeleted, and the ﬁnal form of the scrambling chain, shown in (39), is virtually identical to (36).
(39) [TP Karera-o [ . . . otagai . . . [CP [TP . . . karera-o . . . ]]]]{P}
{D}
However, it is clear from (38) and (39) that the D-feature of karera-o does not ccommand otagai ‘each other’ at any point of the derivation of (34b). Then, thecontrast between (34a) and (34b) follows if Condition (A) is an anywhere condition,i.e., a condition that can be satisﬁed at any point of the derivation. And arguments
for this formulation of Condition (A) have already been presented in Belletti andRizzi (1988), Lebeaux (1988), and Epstein et al. (1998).
Here, I will brieﬂy discuss Belletti and Rizzi’s argument, which is based on examples of ‘‘backward anaphora’’ such as (40).
(40) Pictures of himselfi worry Johni
They hypothesize that the NP pictures of himself, being the theme argument, originates in a position lower than the experiencer argument John, as in (41).
(41)[TP [Pictures of himselfi]j [VP[V0 worry tj] Johni]]

Then, the grammaticality of (40) is accounted for if Condition (A) is an anywherecondition. The anaphor is bound by John prior to the movement of pictures of himself to the subject position. Lebeaux (1998) presents further examples that support
Belletti and Rizzi’s analysis. Some of them are shown in (42) and (43).
(42)a. [Each other’sj mothers]i seem [ti to please the two boysj]
b. *Johni seemed to each other’sj mothers [ti to please the two boysj](43)a. [Hisj ﬁrst performance]i seems [ti0 to be expected [ti to please every
composerj]]
b. *The presidenti seems to hisj ﬁrst wife [ti0 to be expected [ti to please
every manj]]
The b-examples show that the object of a psych predicate cannot bind into higher
clauses. Yet, (42a) and (43a) are clearly much better than them. Belletti and Rizzi’s
analysis straightforwardly extends to the grammatical cases in (42) and (43). If

496

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

anaphors and bound pronouns can be licensed at any point of the derivation, eachother in (42a) and his in (43a) can be licensed before movement applies in theseexamples.
The argument based on (40), (42) and (43) that Condition (A) is an anywherecondition is not conclusive. Lebeaux (1998) in fact takes (42) and (43) as evidence
instead that an NP can reconstruct in LF to any position of its A-chain. Accordingly, he assumes that Condition (A) is an LF condition. However, the argument
can be made complete when Condition (C) eﬀects are taken into consideration. Let
us ﬁrst consider the following examples adapted from Lebeaux (1998):(44)a. *Himselfi seems to Johni [ti to be very smart]b. *Each otheri seem to John and Maryi [ti to be very smart]
These examples are plausibly Condition (C) violations. But given Lebeaux’s
hypothesis that an NP can reconstruct to any position of its A-chain, the matrix
subjects in (44) can reconstruct to the embedded subject position. Consequently,
these examples cannot be ruled out by Condition (C) at LF. Based on this, Lebeauxconcludes that Condition (C) is an everywhere condition, i.e., a condition that mustbe satisﬁed throughout the derivation.
However, this faces a problem with examples like (45), as Chomsky (1993) points out.
(45) [The claim that Johni was asleep]j seemed to himi [tj to be correct]
If Condition (C) is an everywhere condition, this example violates it before raisingtakes place.16 This example in fact seems to show that Condition (C) must be an LF
condition. Given the elimination of D-structure and S-structure with the Minimalist
Program, Condition (C), to the extent that it is a syntactic principle, must be aneverywhere condition as Lebeaux proposes or an LF condition. And (45) excludes
the former option. Once it is established that Condition (C) applies at LF, we cantrace Lebeaux’s reasoning backwards. (44) should violate Condition (C) at LF. Thisimplies that NP-movement is not subject to reconstruction.17 Hence, the only way to
explain (40), (42) and (43) is to make Condition (A) an anywhere condition.
As noted above, the explanation for the contrast in (34) is straightforward if
Condition (A) is an anywhere condition. The D-feature of the preposed NP karerao ‘they-ACC’ c-commands the lexical anaphor otagai ‘each other’ at one point in
the derivation in the case of (34a), but not in the case of (34b). Further, it was

16This problem is discussed in Lebeaux (1988, 1998), where he suggests, following van Riemsdijk andWilliams (1981), that Condition (C) applies (or starts applying) after NP-movement but prior to whmovement.
17
These conclusions have been proposed in the literature. For example, Chomsky (1993) argues that
Binding conditions are in general LF conditions. Arguments for the absence of reconstruction with NPmovement can be found in Mahajan (1990), Chomsky (1995), and Lasnik (1999), among many otherplaces.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

497

concluded above that Condition (C) applies at LF. This automatically solves theinitial problem posed by (15b), which is repeated in (46) with another similar
example.
(46)a. [TP Zibunzisin-oi [Taroo-ga ti semeta]] (koto)
self
-ACC
-NOM blamed fact
‘Himselfi, Taro blamed ti’b. [TP Otagai-oi [Taroo-to Hanako-ga
ti semeta]] (koto)each other-ACC
-and
-NOM
blamed fact
‘Each otheri, Taro and Hanako blamed ti’
If scrambling is uniformly to a position from where A-binding is possible as I havebeen assuming, and Condition (C) is an everywhere condition as Lebeaux proposed,
then these examples should be Condition (C) violations. But if Condition (C) applies
at LF, these examples are correctly predicted to be grammatical. The derivation of(46a) is illustrated in (47).
(47)a. [TP Zibunzisin-o [ . . . Taroo-ga . . . zibunzisin-o . . . ]]
{P,D}
{P,D}
b. [TP Zibunzisin-o [ . . . Taroo-ga . . . zibunzisin-o . . . ]]{P}{D}
As before, the scrambled NP is initially copied at the sentence-initial position. Then,the D-feature is deleted at the landing site, and the P-features are deleted at theinitial site. Thus, after deletion applies, the D-feature of the scrambled NP is notin a position c-commanding the name Taroo. Hence, there is no Condition (C)violation.
I have argued above that the derivational interpretation of chains enables us
to maintain the uniform analysis of scrambling and still capture the apparent A/
A0 ambiguity of clause-internal scrambling as well as the A0 -properties of longscrambling. The account proposed for (34a) and (46) is virtually identical to
Tada’s (1990). As noted above, he maintains that radical reconstruction is obligatory, and Condition (A) is an S-structure (or anywhere) condition while
Condition (C) applies at LF. I simply proposed that radical reconstruction is aconsequence of the derivational chain interpretation mechanism, and provided a
supporting argument for his assumptions on the binding conditions. The contrast between (44) and (46) highlights the main proposals here. The landing sitesof NP-movement and scrambling are both positions from where A-binding ispossible, as indicated by (13) and (34a). Yet, only NP-movement induces Condition (C) violations at LF as observed in (44). This is because scrambling issubject to radical reconstruction, while there is no reconstruction in the case of
NP-movement.
The proposed account for the contrast between clause-internal scrambling andlong scrambling in (34) appeals to derivational interpretation like that in Kitahara(2000). It is an improvement on Kitahara’s Case-based approach, as it naturally

498

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

extends to cases of PP scrambling. The relevant example, (19b), is repeated below as(48).
(48) ?[TP[Taroo -to Hanako]-karai [[otagai-nohahaoya]-ga
ti hon -o-and-from each other-GEN mother -NOM book-ACC
karita]] (koto)borrowed fact
‘From Taroo and Hanakoi, [each other’s mother borrowed books ti]’This example is correctly predicted to be grammatical, since the D-feature of Tarooto Hanako ‘Taroo and Hanako’ in the scrambled position binds otagai ‘each other’before it is deleted.

4. The proper binding eﬀect with scrambling
In this section, I will turn to the proper binding eﬀect on scrambling. I will ﬁrst
argue that the eﬀect is real, showing that the relevant facts cannot be accounted forby Chomsky’s (1995) Minimal Link Condition, a possibility suggested in Kitahara(1997). Then, I will consider the implications of the eﬀect for the chain interpretation mechanism proposed in the preceding section. Finally, I will suggest a derivational formulation of the proper binding condition.
4.1. Conﬁrmation of the problem
It is noted in Saito (1985) that scrambling is constrained by the proper binding
condition. A relevant example is shown in (49).
(49) *[TP[Hanako-ga
ti iru to]j [Sooru-nii [Taroo-ga
tj omotteiru]]] (koto)-NOM be that Seoul -in-NOM thinkfact‘[That Hanako lives ti], in Seouli, [Taroo thinks tj]’

This example is derived from (50a) by multiple applications of scrambling.
(50)a. [TP Taroo-ga [Hanako-ga
Sooru-ni iru to] omotteiru] (koto)-NOM-NOM Seoul -in be that thinkfact‘Taroo thinks that Hanako lives in Seoul’b. [TP Sooru-nii [Taroo-ga [Hanako-ga
ti iru to] omotteiru]] (koto)
Seoul -in
-NOM
-NOM be that thinkfact‘In Seouli, Taroo thinks that Hanako lives ti’First, the PP Sooru-ni ‘in Seoul’ is scrambled from the embedded clause to the matrix
initial position. This yields a grammatical sentence as shown in (50b). Then, theembedded CP is scrambled to the position preceding the PP. The resulting sentenceM. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

499(49) is totally ungrammatical. CP scrambling and multiple scrambling are bothallowed in Japanese, as shown in (51a) and (51b).
(51)a. [TP[Hanako-ga
Sooru-ni iru to]i [Taroo -ga ti omotteiru] (koto)-NOM Seoul -in be that
-NOM thinkfact‘[That Hanako lives in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks t1’
b. [TP Sono hon -oi [Hanako-nij [Taroo-ga [CP Ziroo-ga tj ti watasita to]that book-ACC-to-NOM-NOM handed thatomotteiru]]] (koto)
think
fact
‘That booki, to Hanakoj, Taroo thinks that Ziroo handed ti tj’
Thus, it seems reasonable to attribute the ungrammaticality of (49) to the unboundtrace ti.
However, examples like (49) have become problematic because the proper binding
account seems untenable under the Minimalist assumptions. Recall here thehypothesis proposed in Saito (1989) that scrambling is subject to radical reconstruction at LF. Given this hypothesis, (49) cannot be ruled out by the proper binding
condition at LF because no trace exists after the reconstruction. It was proposed in
Saito (1989) then that (49) is ruled out by the S-structure application of the proper
binding condition, an analysis that clearly contradicts the Minimalist assumptions.
An extremely interesting suggestion is made in Kitahara (1997) on this problem.
He ﬁrst provides an explanation in terms of the Minimal Link Condition (MLC) forMüller’s (1996) generalization, illustrated in (52) and (53).
(52)a. [VP ti Gelesen]j hat das Buchi keiner tj
read
has the book no one‘No one has read the book’
b.*da [VP ti gelesen]j das Buchi keiner tj hat
that
read
the book no one has‘that no one has read the book’(53) ??dab [VP sich so richtig ti dumm vorgekommen] der Fritzi noch nicht ist
that
REFL so reallystupid struck-asART
yet not is‘that Fritz has not yet struck himself as really stupid’(52a) shows that in German a phrase containing a trace of scrambling can be topicalized. An unbound trace is apparently allowed in this case. (52b), on the other
hand, shows that an unbound trace cannot be created by multiple applications ofscrambling. (53) indicates that a phrase containing an NP trace can be scrambled toa position higher than the antecedent of the trace.18 Given these examples and others, Müller proposes the following generalization:

18

According to Müller, the awkwardness of (53) is due to the VP-scrambling, and has nothing to dowith the unbound trace.

500

(54)

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

A phrase containing a trace of movement cannot undergo movement of thesame type (operator movement, scrambling, NP-movement).

Müller’s generalization is conﬁrmed further by the English examples in (55) and (56).
(55)(56) a.
b.

[How likely [ti to win the race]]j is Johni tj??Whoi does John wonder [which picture of ti]j Mary liked tj*[Which picture of ti]j does John wonder whoi Mary liked tj

In (55), two distinct kinds of movement, NP-movement and wh-movement, apply
and create an unbound trace. The result is grammatical as predicted by Müller’s
generalization. On the other hand, the matrix wh-movement in (56b) operates on aphrase that contains a trace of wh-movement. The example is hopeless, again, as
predicted by the generalization.
Kitahara’s (1997) explanation for Müller’s generalization is very principled. Let us
consider the structure of the relevant cases shown in (57).
(57)

First, the phrase WP is attracted by the feature f2 of X, and it moves to the Spec ofXP. Then, the feature f1 of U attracts ZP, which contains the trace of WP, and pulls
it up to the Spec of UP. Here, in the illicit cases, WP and ZP undergo the same typeof movement. This means that f1 is identical to f2, which in turn implies that either
WP or ZP could check the feature f2. The movement of WP to the Spec of XP, then,violates the MLC, which, roughly, requires a feature to attract the closest phrasewith which it can enter into a checking relation. This problem does not arise in thelegitimate cases, where WP and ZP undergo diﬀerent types of movement. In thesecases, f1 and f2 are distinct features, and hence, f2 cannot enter into a checking
relation with ZP. Thus, it can attract WP without violating the MLC.
Note that grammatical examples like (52a), (53) and (55) are in apparent violationof the proper binding condition. This provides an additional reason to reconsider

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

501

the proper binding analysis of (49). Given this situation, Kitahara (1997) suggests
the possibility that (49) is also excluded by the MLC. Note that this example falls
under Müller’s generalization because the CP scrambled to the matrix-initial position contains a trace of scrambling. It seems then that the example can be accounted
for in exactly the same way as the ungrammatical (52b) and (56b).
Although Kitahara’s suggestion is quite attractive, it cannot be adopted in thispaper. The MLC analysis crucially assumes that Japanese scrambling is feature-driven, an assumption not employed here. And more importantly, there are examplesof Japanese scrambling that exhibit the proper binding eﬀect, and yet, cannot be
accounted for by the MLC. One of them is shown in (58).
(58) *[TP [PRO ti iku koto]-gaj
Sooru-madei Taroo-ni tj meizirareta]go N -NOM Seoul-to-to ordered-was‘[To go ti]j, to Seouli, was ordered Taroo tj’
This example involves two instances of movement. First, the PP Sooru-made ‘toSeoul’ is scrambled out of the inﬁnitival complement as illustrated in (59).
(59)a. Hanako-ga Taroo-ni [PRO Sooru-made iku koto]-omeizita-NOM -toSeoul -togo N
-ACC ordered‘Hanako ordered Taroo to go to Seoul’b. Hanako-ga
Sooru-madei Taroo-ni [PRO ti iku koto]-omeizita-NOM Seoul -to-togo N -ACC ordered‘Hanako, to Seouli, ordered Taroo to go ti’This type of scrambling is legitimate as (59b) shows.19 Note that the inﬁnitive complement in (59) is headed by the nominalizer koto, and appears in the object position. Thus, it can be passivized as a regular object as shown in (60).
(60)[PRO Sooru-made iku koto]-gaj Taroo-ni tj meizirareta
Seoul -togo N -NOM-to ordered-was‘[To go to Seoul]i was ordered Taroo ti’
The ungrammatical (58) is derived when this passive applies after the scrambling in(59b).
(58), like (49), contains an unbound trace of scrambling. But this example does
not fall under Müller’s generalization, as it is derived by scrambling and passive.

19

The landing site of this scrambling is the matrix vP or VP. As noted in Mahajan (1990) for Hindi,
scrambling out of an inﬁnitival complement shows both A and A0 properties, and in this sense, behaves
more like clause-internal scrambling than long scrambling out of a tensed CP complement. I assume thata control inﬁnitive like the one in (59) consists of a TP directly embedded under a projection of thenominalizer koto, and that the absence of C-projection accounts for the observed properties of this type ofscrambling. See Nemoto (1993) and Saito (1996) for detailed discussions on this point, and Murasugi(1991) for a general discussion on the structure of Japanese complex NPs.

502

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

Kitahara’s MLC account does not extend to this example either, unless passive andscrambling are triggered by the same feature.20 It seems then that the proper binding
eﬀect on scrambling is real and calls for an explanation. Once it is established thatthe proper binding eﬀect exists as a real phenomenon, two questions arise. The ﬁrst
is why the eﬀect is absent in examples like (52a), (53) and (55), in particular those cases
where a trace of NP-movement is unbound. The second concerns the formulation of
the relevant condition. I will discuss these questions in turn in the following two
subsections.
4.2. The absence of NP-traces
An answer to the ﬁrst question is already suggested in Kuno (2001). He adopts
Lasnik’s (1999) proposal that NP-movement does not produce a trace, and argues
that the proper binding condition is satisﬁed vacuously in examples like (55), repeated below as (61).
(61) [How likely [ti to win the race]]j is Johni tj
If ti does not exist, then nothing violates the proper binding condition in this example. Lasnik’s proposal, in turn, is based on the absence of scope reconstruction with
NP-movement. Since the relevant scope phenomenon requires involved discussionthat would take us too far aﬁeld, I will instead present an independent argument forhis proposal here.21
First, recall the conclusion in the preceding section that the examples in (44) areexcluded by Condition (C) at LF. (44a and b) are repeated below in (62a and b).
(62)a. *Himselfi seems to Johni [ti to be very smart]b. *Each otheri seem to John and Maryi [ti to be very smart]
Crucial in this analysis was the hypothesis that there is no reconstruction with NPmovement. But how can this be expressed in precise terms with the copy and deletion analysis of movement? I have hypothesized above that an NP is accompanied
by a D-feature and P-features. Then, NP-movement should initially create a chain of
the following form:
20

Miyagawa (2000) argues that A-scrambling is triggered by the EPP-feature. It may appear that thismakes it possible to analyze (58) as an MLC violation. But as noted in Footnote 19, long scrambling out
of a control inﬁnitive can have A0 -properties. The following example conﬁrms this point:meizita(i)
Hanako-ga
otagai-oi [Taroo-to Ziroo]-ni [PRO ti hihansuru koto]-o-NOM each other-ACC

-and

-to

criticize

N-ACC ordered‘Hanako, each otheri, ordered Taroo and Ziroo to criticize ti’Hence, even if we assume Miyagawa’s theory, the prediction is that (58) should be grammatical with
A0 -scrambling.
21
Another argument can be found in Saito and Hoshi (2000), which also considers the possiblity that
NP-movement does not produce a trace on yet independent grounds.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

503(63) [TP NP . . . [ . . . NP . . . ]]
{P,D}
{P,D}
Here, the P-features are retained at the landing site. And (62a and b) show that the
D-feature is as well: if this feature can be deleted at the landing site, then theseexamples cannot be excluded by Condition (C) at LF. Hence, given that features canbe retained in only one position, the P-features and the D-feature must both delete
at the initial site. The initial site is then left with no features, which amounts tosaying that there is no trace.
I have argued that the discussion in the preceding section implies that NP-movement leaves no trace. One more thing needs to be said to make the analysis complete. In the discussion of chain interpretation in the preceding section, I
hypothesized that a D-feature and an O-feature can be retained only in positions
where they are selected. This prevents an O-feature from being retained in an argument position, and a D-feature from being in an operator position. But given thishypothesis, the D-feature in (63) can be retained in either position. If selection isconstrued in a broad sense to include the feature-checking relation, then the D-feature is selected in both positions. In order to guarantee that the D-feature is retained
only at the landing site, I tentatively suggest (64), hoping that it will eventually
receive a principled explanation.
(64) Chain interpretation makes the chain minimum.
The P-features in (63) must remain at the landing site. So, if the D-feature is retainedat the initial site, the chain ends up having two positions as its members. On theother hand, if it is retained at the landing site, the result will be a singleton chain.
Thus, (64) forces the deletion of the D-feature at the initial site, and consequently,
prevents NP-movement from leaving a trace.
It is probably worth noting here that the elimination of NP-traces is quite plausible when the issue is considered from a broader perspective. As Lasnik (1999) explicitly mentions, there is no clear theta-theoretic reason that an NP-trace should exist.
An NP can pick up a theta-role, and then, undergo movement without leaving a
trace. Then, whether an NP-trace should be assumed or not depends to a large
extent on how NP-movement is constrained by the syntactic principles. If the principles explain the relevant phenonena with the aid of NP-traces, the traces should beassumed. If, on the other hand, the traces get in the way in the explanation, theyshould be eliminated.
The discussion on NP-movement in Lasnik and Saito (1992) seems quite relevantin this context. There we argued that Chomsky’s (1986a) chain condition and ourgeneralized uniformity condition account for most cases of illicit NP-movement.
The chain condition requires the head of an A-chain to be its unique Case position.
The relevant part of the generalized uniformity condition is shown in (65).
(65) Suppose that b bears a theta-role assigned by . Then, if g is a barrier for , gdominates b.

504

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

This condition states basically that an NP movement cannot cross a barrier in thesense of Chomsky (1986b). One of the conclusions drawn in this discussion was that
there is no need to assume that NP-traces are subject to Condition (A) or the classical ECP as formulated in Chomsky (1981), Lasnik and Saito (1984), or any otherwork around the time. Thus, examples like those in (66), which had been excluded
by Condition (A), are explained by the chain condition.
(66)a. *Johni seems [CP [TP Mary visited ti]]b. *Johni seems [CP [TP ti is intelligent]]
And the super-raising example in (67) is accounted for by (65).
(67) *Johni seems [CP that [TP it is believed [TP ti to be intelligent]]](65) also accounts for (68), which Lasnik (1985) explained in terms of the locality
condition on chains, yielding the condition redundant.
(68) *Johni seems [CP [TP [NP hisi belief [TP ti to be intelligent]] is crazy]]This discussion on NP-movement rai=0ses serious doubts for the existence of
NP-traces. If there were cases of NP-movement that are excluded by Condition (A)or the classical ECP, traces would have been necessary. This is so because theseprinciples apply to traces. The locality condition on chains also requires traces
because the relevant chains contain them. But if NP-movement is not constrained bythese conditions, but only by the chain condition and (65), then NP-traces seem
redundant. (65) clearly does not refer to traces. And Chomsky (1986a) proposes to
explain the relevant part of the chain condition by the classical last resort principle,
which implies that NP movement applies only when the NP needs to be assigned
Case. The classical last resort principle does not refer to traces, either. Note that thisconclusion stands even with more advanced analysis. Chomsky (1995), for example,
explains many of the examples excluded by (65) in terms of the MLC, and the MLC
does not require traces. He also proposes to do away with the last resort principle infavor of a reﬁned theory of formal features. Again, NP-traces are not necessary forthis explanation.
The only empirical facts that made Lasnik and Saito (1992) continue to assume
NP-traces are of the kind shown in (69).
(69)a. *[How likely ti to be taken of John]j is advantagei tj
b. *[How likely ti to be a riot]j is therei tj
The conﬁguration of these examples seems identical to that of (61). The only difference, it appears, is that the NP that undergoes raising is a referential NP in (61)while it is an idiom chunk or an expletive in (69). Given the contrast between (61) and(69), there are two possible ways to proceed. One may assume that the conﬁguration

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

505

is in general disallowed, hoping that the apparent grammaticality of (61) is to be
explained away on independent grounds. This is the possibility pursued in
Lasnik and Saito (1992). We argued that (61) and (69) are both ruled out by
the proper binding condition, and (61) appears to be allowed because thesentence can have an alternative structure involving control rather than raising. Given this analysis, NP-traces cannot be dispensed with since their presence is assumed crucially in the account for (69). But then, (61) ceases to bea problem for the proper binding condition and it can be assumed that thecondition is quite general.
Another way to approach the contrast between (61) and (69) is to assume that
wh-movement can follow raising generating examples like (61), hoping this timethat (69) can be ruled out on independent grounds. This approach implies that
(61) and (69) are not proper binding violations. Hence, to the extent that it isviable, examples such as (69a and b) do not constitute decisive evidence for
NP-traces.
This is the context in which Lasnik (1999) suggested to eliminate NP-traces. As
noted above, the conceptual basis for NP-traces is quite shaky. Further, there isvery little empirical reason, if any, to assume NP-traces. Then, if there is evidence
that NP-traces do not exist, it provides strong reason to eliminate them. Since thediscussion in the preceding section provides such evidence, as shown above, I
conclude, like Lasnik (1999) and Kuno (2001), that NP-movement does not leave a
trace.
As Kuno (2001) argues, the absence of NP-traces immediately explains the grammaticality of (61) as well as the German (52), repeated below as (70).
(70) ??da [VP sich so richtig ti dumm vorgekommen] der Fritzi noch nicht ist
that
REFL so reallystupid struck-asART
not yetis‘that Fritz has not yet struck himself as really stupid’
These examples are not proper binding violations because they do not contain
unbound traces. The last problematic case is the German (51a), repeated below in(71).
(71) [VP ti Gelesen]j hat das Buchi keiner tj
read
has the book no one‘No one has read the book’
In this example, scrambling is followed by topicalization, and hence, it is a traceof scrambling that is apparently unbound. Here, I have little to say about German scrambling, but given the analysis presented so far, the grammaticality of(71) implies that it need not leave a trace. This implies in turn that it should be
like NP-movement in the relevant respects. It should be feature-driven, as proposed for example in Grewendorf and Sabel 1999, and further, the feature that
attracts the scrambled phrase must be able to enter into checking (and hence,
selectional) relation with the categorial feature of the scrambled phrase. If this is506

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

tenable, then (71) also ceases to be a problem for the proper binding condition.22
4.3. On the proper formulation of the proper binding condition
I have been assuming Epstein et al. (1998) and Kitahara’s (2000) derivationalmodel for interpretation in this paper. With this model, they propose to eliminate
LF as a level of representation where interpretation applies. The hypothesis that
Condition (A) is an anywhere condition, which I adopted and argued for, is inaccord with this proposal. At the same time, I argued that Condition (C) is an LF
condition. If this is correct, then LF is still needed as a representation where somekinds of interpretive procedures apply, contrary to the strong hypothesis of Epstein
et al. and Kitahara.
Given this, the proper binding condition can be formulated straightforwardly asan LF condition. Note that the argument in Saito (1989) that proper binding is an
S-structure condition no longer holds. It was proposed there that scrambling is literally undone in LF to yield the radical reconstruction eﬀects. Hence, it was necessary to apply the proper binding condition at S-structure to exclude examples like(49), repeated below as (72).
(72) *[TP [Hanako-ga
ti iru to]j [Sooru-nii [Taroo-ga tj omotteiru]]] (koto)-NOM be that Seoul -in-NOM thinkfact‘[That Hanako is ti]j, in Seouli, [Taroo thinks tj]’
On the other hand, I proposed in this paper that the radical reconstruction eﬀects
obtain because of the application of the copy and deletion mechanism in a speciﬁcway. Thus, in the scrambling chain in (73a), the D-feature is deleted at the landingsite while the P-features are retained there as shown in (73b).
(73)a.
b.

[TP NP [ . . . NP . . . ]]
{P,D}
{P,D}
[TP NP [ . . . NP . . . ]]{P}
{D}Since only P-features remain at the landing site, scrambling is semantically vacuous.
But according to this hypothesis, the scrambling chain itself remains even at theoutput of the syntactic computation. Hence, (72) can be ruled out at LF by theproper binding condition, which can be formulated for example as in (74).
22German scrambling, then, is feature-driven while Japanese (and Korean) scrambling is not. This is
not surprising given the many diﬀerences between the two movement operations. As is well known,
German scrambling is more local and does not allow extraction out of a ﬁnite CP. And more importantly, it seems to have ‘‘semantic eﬀects’’ unlike Japanese scrambling. It induces the specﬁc/deﬁnite
interpretation of the moved phrase as discussed in detail in Diesing (1992), and it does not apply to whphrases as noted in Grewendorf and Sabel (1999). See Grewendorf and Sabel (1999) and Saito (2000) for
discussion on the diﬀerences between German scrambling and Japanese scrambling.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

507(74) Given a chain < a1, . . ., an > , ai c-commands ai+1.
However, even if we accept the hypothesis that there are LF conditions, we may
ask what kinds of conditions qualify as such.23 One possibility in this regard is that only
those principles that relate to systems external to the language faculty apply at LF.
Condition (A) states that an anaphor is interpreted coreferential with a c-commanding
NP in its local domain. This condition can be viewed as an interpretive procedure to
determine the actual reference of an anaphor or a formal mechanism to specify theanaphoric relation between an anaphor and its linguistic antecedent. The former would
require interaction with systems that concern (the knowledge of) the actual world.
Given that Condition (A) is derivational, it seems reasonable to assume that the condition has to do with the anaphoric relations between linguistic objects. Two possibilities arise for Condition (C) as well. It can be part of the procedure to determine theactual references of NPs or it can specify the relation between linguistic objects. If
Condition (C) is indeed an LF condition, the former interpretation may be plausible.
If this speculation is on the right track, it is dubious that the proper binding condition, as formulated in (74), is an LF condition. (74) seems internal to the language
system. Then, it seems desirable to reformulate the condition as a derivational constraint. Further, as Akira Watanabe (personal communication) points out, it probably does not make much sense in the ﬁrst place to claim that a scrambling chain
like (73b) is constrained at LF. According to the analysis presented above,
scrambling chains are headed only by phonetic features after deletion applies. Thus,
if (74) applies to them at LF, it should demand the phonetic features to be in aposition c-commanding the D-feature they are associated with. However, it is atleast strange to say that an LF condition refers to phonetic features. Those features
are plausibly invisible at the LF interface.
Based on these considerations, I would like to suggest a reformulation of theproper binding condition as a constraint on the application of Merge.24 Merge
combines two linguistic objects to form a constituent. The two objects to be combinedby Merge must also be constituents. Let us then say that an object that contains only apart of a chain, e.g., a trace but not its antecedent, does not qualify as a constituent in
the relevant sense. This can be stated more formally as in (75) and (76).25(75)  is subject to Merge only if  is a complete constituent.
(76)  is a complete constituent =df (i)  is a term, and23
The discussion here is quite speculative. A more precise theory of interpretation is needed to makethe discussion more concrete. For example, it is unclear at this point what ‘LF’ exactly means. It may be
the output of the syntactic computation, or the collection of the interpretive information obtained
throughout the course of the derivation.
24
Here, I understand Merge as either pure Merge or Merge as part of Move in the sense of Chomsky(1994).
25
After the draft of this paper was completed, it was brought to my attention that a similar proposal ismade in Ausin (1998). He rejects the classical proper binding condition on independent grounds, andproposes a similar condition to exclude unbound wh-traces.

508

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518(ii) if a position within  is a member of achain g, then every position of g iscontained within .
This condition prevents the merger of an object that contains a trace but not its
antecedent. In particular, it prevents the merger of the CP containing a trace at thematrix TP in (72).
5. Further issues
Before I conclude this paper, I will make brief remarks on two remaining issues. I
will ﬁrst suggest that if an anaphor contains a feature (A or [+anaphor]) that
requires a binder, the feature can be detached from the D-feature by the applicationof deletion in chains. Secondly, I will discuss VP-internal scrambling in relation to
Chomsky’s (1998) derivational phase.

5.1. Condition (A) and the radical reconstruction of anaphors
The anywhere nature of Condition (A) was crucial in the solution for the A/A0
problem proposed in Section 3. The following examples discussed in Dejima 1999
conﬁrm this hypothesis.

(77)a. Taroo-gai [CP Hanako-gaj [CP Ziroo-gak zibunzisin-o*i,*j,k hihansita to]
-NOM
-NOM
-NOMself-ACC criticized thatitta to] omotteiru (koto)said that thinkfact‘Tarooi thinks [that Hanakoj said [that Zirook criticized self*i,*j,k]]’b. Taroo-gai [CP Hanako-gaj [CP zibunzisin-o*i,j,k Ziroo-gak t hihansita to]-NOM-NOM self-ACC-NOM criticized thatitta to] omotteiru (koto)said that thinkfact‘Tarooi thinks [that Hanakoj said [that self*i,j,k Zirook criticized t]]’c. Taroo-gai [CP zibunzisin-oi,j,k Hanako-gaj [CP Ziroo-gak t hihansita to]-NOM self-ACC-NOM-NOM criticized thatitta to] omotteiru (koto)said that thinkfact‘Tarooi thinks [that selfi,j,k Hanakoj said [that Zirook criticized t]]’The status of zibunzisin ‘self’ as a local anaphor is controversial since the required
locality is not always clear-cut.26 But the judgments in (77) are reasonably clear on
26

On this point see Nakamura (1996) and the references cited there.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

509

contrastive basis. As indicated, the possible antecedents for zibunzisin increase as theanaphor is preposed further.
Another contrast from Dejima (1999) is shown in (78).
(78)a. *Karera-ga [CP Hanako-ga [CP Ziroo-ga otagai
-o
they
-NOM
-NOM
-NOM each other -ACC
sonkeisiteiru to] itta to] omotteiru (koto)respectthat said that thinkfact‘They think [that Hanako said [that Ziroo respect each other]]’b. Karera-ga [CP otagai-oHanako-ga [CP Ziroo-ga t sonkeisiteiru
they -NOM each other-ACC-NOM-NOM respectto] itta to] omotteiru (koto)that said that thinkfact‘They think [that each other, Hanako said [that Ziroo respect t]]’Again, it is controversial whether otagai is a local anaphor, but the contrast is clear.
(78b) shows that when the anaphor is scrambled to the sentence-initial position of
the second clause, the matrix subject qualiﬁes as the antecedent.
What is particular striking here is the grammaticality of (78b) and the fact that zibunzisin ‘self’ in (77c) can take the matrix subject as its antecedent. If the classical radical
reconstruction analysis is assumed, these facts constitute straightforward evidence that
Condition (A) is an anywhere condition. The scrambled anaphors must be reconstructedat LF, and hence, cannot satisfy Condition (A) at this level. On the other hand, if Condition (A) is an anywhere condition, it can be satisﬁed prior to the reconstruction.
However, reﬁnements are necessary for a more precise account of the examples in(77) and (78). Recall ﬁrst that a phrase preposed by long scrambling cannot serve as theantecedent of a lexical anaphor. The relevant example (34b) is repeated below in (79).
(79) *[TP Karera-oi [[otagai-nosensei] -ga [CP[TP Tanaka-ga ti
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM
hihansita] to] itta] (koto)criticized that said fact
‘Themi, [each other’s teachers] said that Tanaka criticized ti’
According to the analysis proposed above, the movement of karera-o ‘they-ACC’
from the embedded C-projection to the matrix initial position is movement of thephonetic features alone as shown in (38), repeated as (80).
(80) [TP Karera-o [ . . . otagai . . . [CP karera-o [TP . . . karera-o . . . ]]]]
{P}
{P}
{D}
Then, the ﬁnal step of the scrambling of otagai-o ‘each other-ACC’ in (78b) should
also be movement of phonetic features. But it cannot be that the phonetic features
establish the desired binding relation. Then, how is the anaphor in (78b) licensed
and interpreted? What (78b) and (79) show after all is a kind of a binder/bindee

510

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

asymmetry: long scrambling of an anaphor can create a new binding possibility but
long scrambling of the antecedent cannot.
What seems to be playing a role here is an anaphoric feature (A-feature or simply[+anaphor]) that needs to be bound by a D-feature. If an anaphor has this featureand this feature can move along with the P-features of the anaphor, then (78b) can
successfully be explained as in (81).
(81) [TP Karera-ga . . . [CP [TP otagai-o . . . [CP otagai-o [TP . . . otagai-o . . . ]]]]]
{P,D}
{P,A}
Ø
{D}
Otagai-o ‘each other-ACC’ originates in the object position of the most deeply
embedded clause with the features {P, D, A}. The initial movement copies it in thelower C-projection. After deletion, {P, A} are in the C-projection and {D} is in theobject position. The second movement copies otagai-o with {P, A} in the initial
position of the middle clause. Then, {P, A} are deleted in the lower C-projection.
After karera-ga ‘they-NOM’ is introduced into the matrix subject position, its
D-feature can serve as the local antecedent of the A-feature of otagai. Thus, otagai is
successfully licensed and interpreted in (78b).
The proposal that an A-feature, unlike a D-feature, can move along with the
P-features may sound like a mere stipulation. But this is in a sense what we expect
given the discussion so far. It has been assumed that P-features are always retainedat the head of the chain. As noted above, this may be considered part of the deﬁnition of overt movement. For D-features and O-features, it was hypothesized thatthey can be retained only in positions where they are selected (in a broad sense).
Then, what constraint could apply to A-features? Note that they do not participate
in any selectional relation. For example, it is not part of the general selectional
properties of verbs to have or to not have an anaphor in the object position. It seems
then that where an A-feature is retained in a chain cannot be constrained by selection. Consequently, it is plausible, to say the least, to hypothesize that an A-feature
can be retained at any position of a chain.27
The analysis of (78b) outlined above extends to well-known examples like (82).
(82)

John wonders [CP[which picture of himself]i[TP Mary thinks [CP[TP Susan liked ti]]]]If the analysis in Section 3 is assumed, only the O-feature and the P-features of thewh-phrase move from the most deeply embedded CP Spec to the ﬁnal landing site, as
illustrated in (83).
(83) John wonders [CP[which picture of himself] [TP Mary thinks{O,P}[CP[which picture of himself] [TP Susan liked [which picture of himself]]]]]
{O,P}
{D}
27

This remark may also apply to the wh-feature of the Japanese in situ wh-phrases if it requires a [+Q]
C as an ‘‘antecedent.’’

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

511

Eventually, the intermediate copy disappears as all of its features are deleted. Here,if himself has the A-feature and the feature moves along with the P-features of thenoun, (83) is more precisely as in (84).
(84) John wonders [CP[which picture of himself] [TP Mary thinks
{O,P}
{A}
[CP[which picture of himself] [TP Susan liked [which picture of himself]]]
{O,P}
{A}
{D}
In this structure, the A-feature of himself is ‘‘bound’’ by the D-feature of John in its
local domain. The grammaticality of (82) is, then, correctly predicted exactly as in
the cases of (77c) and (78b).
5.2. VP-internal scrambling and Chomsky’s (1998) phase
Up till now, I have concentrated on scrambling across the subject and have postponed the discussion of VP-internal scrambling. In the remainder of this section, I
will present a tentative analysis for this type of very local scrambling. I will thenshow that the suggested analysis makes it possible to embed the proposals made so
far in Chomsky’s (1998) theory of phase.
It has standardly been assumed that (85a) represents the ‘‘basic word-order’’ inJapanese, and that (85b) is derived by scrambling the direct object across the indirect
object.28(85)a. Hanako-ga Taroo-ni sono hon -owatasita (koto)-NOM-to that book-ACC handed fact
b. Hanako-ga
sono hon -oi Taroo-ni ti watasita (koto)-NOM that book-ACC-to handed fact
‘Hanako handed that book to Taroo’
Tada (1990), applying Mahajan’s (1990) work on Hindi to Japanese, shows that thiskind of scrambling patterns strictly like A-movement with respect to binding. The
examples in (86) indicate that a phrase preposed by VP-internal scrambling canserve as an antecedent for otagai ‘each other’, as in the case of clause-internal
scrambling across the subject.
(86) a.

?*Hanako-ga[otagai-noryoosin]-ni [Taroo-to Ziroo]-o-NOM each other-GEN parents-to
-and
-ACC
syookaisita (koto)introduced fact
‘Hanako introduced Taroo and Ziroo to each other’s parents’28
Actually, it has been somewhat controversial whether VP-internal scrambling indeed exists as an
operation. Miyagawa (1997), for example, argues that (85a and b) are both base-generated, while Yatsushiro (1999) defends the movement analysis. I will assume the operation here in part because the issues
it raises arise on independent grounds within the theory of phase, as will be discussed directly.

512

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

b.

Hanako-ga[Taroo-to Ziroo]-oi [otagai-noryoosin]-ni ti
-NOM
-and
-ACC each other-GEN parents-tosyookaisita (koto)introduced fact

The ungrammaticality of (87b), on the other hand, suggests that this kind of
scrambling must always have the A-properties, unlike scrambling across the subject.
The examples in (87) are from Nemoto (1993).
(87) a. Maikeru-ga [Keeto-to Zyoo]-ni otagai-osyookaisita (koto)
-NOM
-and
-to each other-ACC introduced fact
‘Michael introduced each other to Kate and Joe’b. *Maikeru-ga
otagai-oi [Keeto-to Zyoo]-ni ti syookaisita (koto)-NOM each other-ACC-and-to introduced fact
If VP-internal scrambling always has the A-properties, then (87b) can be ruled out
by Condition (C), exactly as (62b), repeated below as(88).
(88) *Each otheri seem to John and Maryi [ti to be smart](87b) contrasts sharply with (46b), repeated below as (89), which shows that clauseinternal scrambling across the subject can pattern with A0 -movement.
(89)[TP Otagai-oi [Taroo-to Hanako-ga
ti semeta]] (koto)each other-ACC-and-NOM blamed fact
‘Each otheri, Taro and Hanako blamed ti’

The data discussed above indicate that VP-internal scrambling should be analyzed
exactly like NP-movement. But how is this possible? I argued in Section 4 that in the
conﬁguration of NP-movement shown in (90), all features are deleted from the lower
copy and hence, the lower copy itself disappears.
(90) [TP NP . . . [ . . . NP . . .]]
{P,D}
{P,D}
The P-features are retained at the landing site. The D-feature by hypothesis can beretained only at a position where it is selected (in the broad sense). It is selected inboth positions in (90), but the principle in (64), repeated in (91), forces it also to beretained at the landing site.
(91) Chain interpretation makes the chain minimum.
Consequently, in (88) the D-feature of each other c-commands that of John andMary at LF, and the example is ruled out by Condition (C). The situation was quite
diﬀerent in the case of scrambling across the subject. The D-feature of the scrambled

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

513

NP is not selected at the landing site, and hence, cannot be retained there. As aresult, it is deleted at the landing site while the P-features are retained there. Then,the scrambling chain remains, but with the D-feature of the scrambled NP ‘‘reconstructed.’’ Since the D-feature of otagai in (89) is no longer at the landing site at LF,
the example is not a Condition (C) violation.
Deletion clearly cannot apply to VP-internal scrambling chains in the same way it
does to chains created by scrambling across the subject. If it does, (87b) should not be a
Condition (C) violation. Given the mechanism proposed so far, the only way to makethe example violate Condition (C) is by somehow forcing the D-feature of the VPinternally scrambled NP to remain at the landing site. This is, in turn, possible if thelanding site of VP-internal scrambling counts as a selected position. Then, (91) will force
the D-feature to be retained at the landing site exactly as in the case of NP-movement.
The target of VP-internal scrambling is either VP or vP. Let us ﬁrst consider VP.
In this case, the scrambled phrase remains within the projection of its theta-role
assigner. Thus, the following will yield the desired result:(92) If an NP is combined with a projection of its theta-role assigner by Merge, theposition of the NP counts as a selected position.
Given (92), scrambling to VP should fail to leave a trace exactly as in the case of NPmovement. This account can be extended to scrambling to vP if V raises to v inJapanese. We can say that when V raises to v, the phrases headed by v become projections of the V–v complex. Then, the scrambling of, say, an object NP to vP counts
as movement to a selected position, again, exactly as in the case of NP-movement.29
The account presented above for VP-internal scrambling is still stipulative in ﬂavor.
But it has a desirable consequence when we try to reevaluate the proposals in the preceding sections against Chomsky’s (1998) theory of phase. Chomsky proposes that aderivation proceeds phase by phase, where CP and vP constitute phases. One central
condition in this theory is the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), given in (93).
(93) In phase a with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations
outside a, but only H and its edge.

29

The similarity between this account of VP-internal scrambling and Tada’s (1990) analysis of
the A-properties of clause-internal scrambling should be obvious. If scrambling to vP is indeed possible, it should be guaranteed that the scrambling applies before the external argument is merged. Otherwise, since Condition (A) is an anywhere condition, the object preposed by vP-internal scrambling shouldbe able to serve as the antecedent of an anaphor contained within the subject in examples like (i).
(i)?*Otaigai -nosensei -ga
karera-oi minna-ni ti syookaisita (koto)each other-GEN teacher-NOM they -ACC all -to introduced fact
‘Each others’ teachers, themi, introduced ti to everyone’I tentatively assume that this ‘ordering’ is necessary so that the subject can be properly attracted to TP
Spec. Note that a similar problem arises with object shift if it is movement to the v-projection as proposed
in Chomsky (1999). See Ura (2000) and the references cited there for much relevant discussion.

514

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

This condition states that only the head and the Spec of a phase is accessible to an
operation taking place in a higher phase. It forces successive-cyclic wh-movement, as
illustrated with the CP phase in (94).
(94) [CP wh [TP . . . [CP wh [TP . . . wh . . . ]]]]
The wh cannot move directly from within the embedded TP to the matrix CP Spec,
because the initial position is not accessible to operations in the matrix CP. Then,the wh must ﬁrst move to the embedded CP Spec, the edge of the embedded CPphase. The position is accessible to operations in the matrix clause, and the wh canmove on to the matrix CP Spec. To make the initial step of this movement possible,
Chomsky suggests that a head of a phase may be assigned a feature that attracts a whphrase. In the discussion above, I have called this feature the EPP-O feature.
The analysis of wh-movement proposed in Section 3 above is consistent with thistheory of phase. It was proposed there that deletion applies to chains as they are
created. Then, for (94), deletion yields the chain in (95) at the point the wh moves
into the embedded CP Spec.
(95) [CP [TP . . . [CP wh [TP . . . wh . . . ]]]]
{P,O}
{D}
Only the P-features and the O-feature of the wh move on to the matrix CP Spec, andafter deletion, the chain in (96) obtains.
(96) [CP wh [TP . . . [CP wh [TP . . . wh . . . ]]]]
{P,O}
Ø
{D}
As noted above, Chomsky (1998) proposes that not only CPs but also vPs constitutephases. The evidence for the phasehood of vPs seems less direct, but its adoptation
does not aﬀect the analysis in any case. The initial step of the movement will, then,be as in (97) instead of (95).
(97) [CP [TP . . . [vP . . . [CP [TP . . . [vP wh [VP . . . wh . . . ]]]]]]]
{P,O}
{D}
The P-features and the O-feature of the wh move on successive-cyclically to thematrix CP Spec.
Chomsky (1999) suggests further that interpretation also applies phase byphase. The suggestion, roughly, is that information is sent to interpretation ateach phase for that phase excluding its head and its edge. It is possible toabandon the idea that chains are interpreted as they are created and adopt‘‘interpretation by phase’’ instead, without much eﬀect on the discussion presented above. As far as I can see, they yield the same results for the cases of
wh-movement. Or put more precisely, ‘‘interpretation by phase’’ implies derivational interpretation of chains. Proper interpretation for the VP in (97) can be

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

515

obtained at the most deeply embedded vP only if the O-feature is already deleted
from the initial position of the wh at this point.
However, an interesting problem arises when the theory of phase is applied toscrambling. Let us consider again (34a), repeated in (98a), and the initial form of its
scrambling chain in (98b).
(98)a.

b.

?[TP Karera-oi [[otagai-no sensei] -ga
ti hihansita]] (koto)
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM criticized fact
‘Themi, [each other’s teachers] criticized ti’[TP NP [ . . . NP . . . ]]
{P,D}
{P,D}

The analysis proposed above was that Condition (A) is satisﬁed at the point
the structure in (98b) is created. With this structure, the D-feature of thescrambled phrase karera-o ‘they-ACC’ locally c-commands the anaphor otagai‘each other’. Later, the chain is interpreted by the deletion of the D-feature at
the landing site and of the P-features at the initial site. The resulting chain isshown in (99).
(99) [TP NP [ . . . NP . . . ]]{P}{D}
But this does not aﬀect the grammaticality of (98a), given that Condition (A) is ananywhere condition.
This analysis, however, cannot be maintained straightforwardly if vP is a phase as
suggested in Chomsky (1998). The scrambled phrase in (98a) will then ﬁrst move tothe v-projection as in (100a).
(100)a.
b.

[vP NP [ . . . NP . . . ]]{P,D} {P,D}[vP NP [ . . . NP . . . ]]{P}{D}

If chain interpretation applies at this point and yield (100b), then what moves on to
the T-projection across the subject is just the P-features of the scrambled phrase.
Hence, it will be predicted incorrectly that (98a) is ungrammatical. But recall here
the suggestion above that scrambling to vP is exactly like NP-movement as its
landing site counts as a selected position. Given this, the scrambling chain in (100a)is interpreted as (101) instead of (100b).
(101)[vP NP [ . . . NP . . . ]]{P,D}Ø
Thus, the analysis of (98a) proposed in Section 3 can be maintained as such evenwith the vP phase.

516

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

6. Conclusion
In this paper, I assumed following Tada (1990) that Japanese scrambling is a
uniform operation, whether it is clause-internal or long-distance, and provided ananalysis for its radical reconstruction property, the A/A0 distinction it exhibits, andthe proper binding eﬀect it induces. I ﬁrst suggested that radical reconstruction
results from the interpretation of scrambling chains by the deletion of D-featurefrom the landing site. Then I proposed that this chain interpretation takes place
derivationally, modifying the idea of Kitahara (2000). This made it possible to solve
the A/A0 problem while maintaining that scrambling is a uniform operation. I alsopresented an analysis for the proper binding eﬀect based on the proposed chaininterpretation mechanism. Finally, I brieﬂy discussed VP-internal scrambling, andsuggested a way to embed the proposals in this paper under Chomsky’s (1998) theory of phase.
Japanese (and Korean) scrambling is potentially theoretically signiﬁcant becauseof its unique properties. The radical reconstruction property is quite distinctive. If
scrambling is in fact a uniform operation, it is unique also in that it exhibits both A
and A0 properties. I argued that these unique properties provide evidence for a speciﬁcmechanism of chain interpretation and for speciﬁc proposals on the binding conditions; Condition (A) is an anywhere condition whereas Condition (C) is an LF
condition. The proper binding eﬀect distinguishes Japanese (and Korean) scrambling from other types of non-operator movements, for example, NP-movement andGerman scrambling. I suggested a condition on the application of Merge based on
this unique property of Japanese (and Korean) scrambling.

Acknowledgements
The material in this paper was developed in the syntax seminar at Nanzan University between 1998 and 2000, and was presented in part at the 3rd Formal
Approaches to Japanese Linguistics Conference at MIT in May 2001. I would liketo thank the participants, especially Mayumi Dejima, Tomoko Kawamura andMizuki Nishida, for comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank DannyFox, Hisatsugu Kitahara and David Lebeaux for discussions on this material, andDaiko Takahashi, Ayumi Ueyama and Akira Watanabe for comments on the initial
version of the paper. Part of the research reported in this paper was supported by
the Nanzan University Pache Research Grant IA.
References
Ausin, A., 1998. A minimalist approach to the remnant movement constraint. MS, University of Connecticut.
Belletti, A., Rizzi, L., 1988. Psych-verbs and -theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291–
352.
Bošković, Ž., Takahashi, D., 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347–366.

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

517

Chomsky, N., 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N., 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger, New York.
Chomsky, N., 1986b. Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N., 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S.J. (Eds.), The
View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Chomsky, N., 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 5.
Chomsky, N., 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N., 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 15.
Chomsky, N., 1999. Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 18.
Chomsky, N., Lasnik, H., 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425–504.
Dejima, M., 1999. A Study on Remnant-Scrambled Sentences in Japanese and their LF Representations.
MA thesis, Nanzan University.
Diesing, M., 1992. Indeﬁnites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Epstein, S.D., Groat, E., Kawashima, R., Kitahara, H., 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic
Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fukui, N., 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and its Applications. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Grewendorf, G., Sabel, J., 1999. Scrambling in German and Japanese: adjunction versus multiple speciﬁers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 1–65.
Harada, K., 1972. Constraints on WH-Q binding. Studies in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 5, 180–206.
Hoji, H., 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Conﬁgurational Structures in Japanese. PhD dissertation,
University of Washington.
Kawamura, T., 2001. A Feature-Checking Analysis of Japanese Scrambling. MA thesis, Nanzan University.
Kitahara, H., 1997. Elementary Operations and Optiomal Derivations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kitahara, H., 2000. Case and scrambling: a derivational view. MS, Keio University.
Kuno, M., 2001. Why does movement sometimes leave a trace and sometimes not? MS, University ofTokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y., 1988. Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In: Poser,
W. (Ed.), Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax. CSLI Publications,
Stanford.
Lasnik, H., 1985. Illicit NP movement: locality conditions on chains? Linguistic Inquiry 16, 481–490.
Lasnik, H., 1999. Chains of arguments. In: Epstein, S.D., Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Working Minimalism.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lasnik, H., Saito, M., 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–289.
Lasnik, H., Saito, M., 1992. Move a. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lebeaux, D., 1988. Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lebeaux, D., 1998. Where does the binding theory apply? MS, NEC Research Center, Princeton.
Lee, R. K., 1994. Economy of representation. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Mahajan, A., 1990. The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Miyagawa, S., 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 1–25.
Miyagawa, S., 2000. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in situ. MS, MIT.
Müller, G., 1996. A constraint on remnant movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 355–
407.
Murasugi, K., 1991. Noun Phrases in Japanese and English. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nakamura, M., 1996. Sokubaku Kankei (Binding Relations). Hitsuji Shobo, Tokyo.
Nemoto, N., 1993. Chains and Case Positions: A Study from Scrambling in Japanese. PhD dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Riemsdijk, H. van, Williams, E., 1981. NP-structure. The Linguistic Review 1, 171–217.
Saito, M., 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M., 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A0 -movement. In: Baltin, M., Kroch, A. (Eds.),
Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

518

M. Saito / Lingua 113 (2003) 481–518

Saito, M., 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 69–118.
Saito, M., 1994. Improper adjunction. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 263–293.
Saito, M., 1995. Radical reconstruction. MS, University of Connecticut.
Saito, M., 1996. Barriers for A-adjunction. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, 1–36.
Saito, M., 2000. Japanese scrambling in a comparative perspective. MS, Nanzan University.
Saito, M., Fukui, N., 1998. Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 439–474.
Saito, M., Hoshi, H., 2000. The Japanese light verb construction and the minimalist program. In: Martin,R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of HowardLasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tada, H., 1990. Scrambling(s). MS, MIT.
Tada, H., 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Takano, Y., 1998. Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 817–889.
Ura, H., 2000. Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Yatsushiro, K., 1999. Case Licensing and VP Structure. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Yoshimura, N., 1989. Parasitic pronouns. MS, University of Southern California.