McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 25.1 (Special Issue in Honour of Lisa Travis), 382-391, 2018.

Kase as a Weak Head*

Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

SUMMARY/ RÉSUMÉ
Chomsky (2013) proposes that a finite clause can be labeled because of f-feature agreement. This raises aquestion on languages like Japanese that lack f-feature agreement. I suggest in this paper that the KP (Casephrase) hypothesis, argued for in Travis and Lamontagne (1992), opens up a way to answer this question.
More specifically, I propose that Ks (Case markers) in Japanese are weak heads in the sense of Chomsky(2015), and hence, cannot participate in labeling. The proposal predicts that finite clauses of the form,{{DP, K}, TP}, are labeled by T. Another consequence is that although Case marked DPs have the form,{DP, K}, D provides their label.

1

INTRODUNCTION

Travis and Lamontagne (1992) was one of the first works to argue for the Case phrase (KP)
hypothesis. According to this, the object DPs in the Japanese (1) and the English (2) have thestructures in (3a) and (3b) respectively.
(1)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-osikat-ta.
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo.’(2)

Mary scolded John.

*

I was really lucky to have Lisa Travis as a classmate in graduate school. And it has given me much encouragement
over the years since then to see her continue to develop as a researcher and remain the same kind conscientious personthat she always was. I am happy that I was given an opportunity to contribute this paper to a volume in her honor. The
research reported here was supported in part by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) #16K02647 and the
Nanzan University Pache Research Subsidy I-A-2 (2017). I have benefitted from discussions with many people on thismaterial, including Željko Bošković, Noam Chomsky, and Kensuke Takita. I would like to thank Hisa Kitahara, inparticular, for his comments and suggestions that led to the main proposal of this paper.
McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume#.Issue#, Year© 2018 by Mamoru Saito

KASE AS A WEAK HEAD
(3)

a.

2

KP

b.

KP

DP

K

K

DP

Taroo

o

Ø

John

In this paper, I argue that this KP hypothesis leads to a solution for a problem that arises in
my recent work on labeling in Japanese. Chomsky (2013) proposes that a finite clause with DP in
the subject position, {DP, TP}, is labeled through f-feature sharing between D and T. On theassumption that Japanese lacks f-feature agreement, I suggested in Saito (2016), for example, thatsuffixal Cases in the language function as anti-labeling devices and make phrases invisible in thelabeling process. Then, bP provides the label for g in (4).
(4)

g = {aP-Case, bP}

As the subject DP appears with Case, as shown in (1), it is predicted that TP provides the label fora finite clause in Japanese, which is of the form {DP-Case, TP}. This analysis, if correct, raises a
new question: why is it that Case functions as an anti-labeling device? Adapting Chomsky’s(2015) distinction between strong and weak heads, I entertain the possibility in this paper that thisis because suffixal Cases in Japanese are weak heads that are unable to participate in labeling.
In the following section, I first review Chomsky’s (2013) labeling algorithm. Then, I
introduce the proposal on Japanese in Saito (2016) and explain the problem it raises. In Section 3,
I illustrate how the extension of the KP hypothesis solves the problem. This involves a slight
reinterpretation of Chomsky’s (2015) weak heads. Section 4 concludes the paper.

2

LABELING IN JAPANESE

2.1

CHOMSKY (2013) ON LABELING AND f-FEATURE AGREEMENT

Among the fundamental questions that have been pursued in the minimalist approach is why ffeature agreement is observed in languages. In this section, I briefly go over Chomsky’s (2013)
proposal on this. I first describe the mechanism of f-feature valuation he assumes, and then,present his labeling algorithm.
Chomsky (2008) proposes that the valuation of f-features on T, for example, takes place asin (5).
(5)

à

TP
T
[f: _ ]
DP
[f: a][Case: _ ]

vP

TP
T
[f: a]vP

vP

DP[f: a][Case: NOM]

vP

T, with unvalued f-features, searches its domain and enters into Agree relation with the subject

KASE AS A WEAK HEAD

3

DP. T obtains the f-feature values from the DP and as a reflex of this, the Case feature of the DP
is valued as nominative.
Then, why is it that f-feature agreement exists in the first place? Chomsky (2013) provides
an answer with his labeling algorithm. He notes first that syntax not only forms a constituent with
Merge as in g = {a, b}, but must also specify the label (nature) of g. The idea is that when averbal element and a nominal element are merged, the interpretation of the constituent depends onwhether it is verbal (VP) or nominal (NP). Hence, a constituent must be labeled when they aretransferred to the interfaces. Given this, he considers the following three cases of Merge:
(6)

a.
b.
c.

g = {H, aP}
g = {aP, bP}
g = {H1, H2}

The case (6a) is straightforward as search into g yields a unique head H. Then, it can be assumed
that H provides the label of g in this case. On the other hand, the label cannot be determined inthis way for (6b) and (6c).
However, Chomsky notes that (6b) arises in actual derivations and examines what happensin those cases. Let us take a simple transitive sentence as in (2). Its derivation is illustrated in (7).
YP <f, f>

(7)
DP
[f]

TP
T
[f]

XP (vP)
DP
[f]

vP
v

VP
V

DP

The structure is constructed bottom-up and the configuration in (6b) first arises when the subject
DP merges with vP. Here, the DP moves out of XP after T is introduced into the structure.
Chomsky assumes then that vP provides the label for XP because it is the only element that isfully contained within XP. But the subject DP merges with TP, creating the configuration in (6b)again. This is where f-feature agreement comes into play. The search into YP yields DP and TP.
Further search into these two phrases locates two heads D and T with identical f-features.
Chomsky proposes that YP can be labeled as <f, f> because of this feature sharing.
The analysis illustrated above not only constitutes a hypothesis on why languages have ffeature agreement but also accounts for the distribution of DPs to a large extent, including the lastresort nature of NP-movement and why it applies obligatorily when it does. In (7), for example,
the subject DP must move out of XP for otherwise XP fails to be labeled. And NP-movement canterminate only in a position of f-feature sharing.

KASE AS A WEAK HEAD
2.2

4

SUFFIXAL CASE AS AN ANTI-LABELING DEVICE

The theory outlined above raises a number of questions for the analysis of languages like
Japanese, which lacks f-feature agreement at least on the surface. For example, according toChomsky, Case is valued as a reflex of f-feature agreement. How is then Case valued inJapanese? Further, a finite clause can be labeled as <f, f> because of f-feature agreement. How
are finite clauses in Japanese labeled then? These are the questions I addressed in Saito (2016).
I first adapted Bošković’s (2007) proposal that Case valuation takes place independently of
f-feature valuation. His analysis is illustrated in (8).
(8)

à

TP
T
[f: _ ]vPDP
[f: a][Case: _ ]T[f: a]vP

TP (<f, f>)

à

TP
vP

DP
[f: a][Case: _ ]DP[f: a][Case: NOM]
vP

TP
T
[f: a]vP__

vP

The f-features of T are valued exactly as Chomsky (2008) proposes, but the Case feature of thesubject is not valued at this point, as the middle structure illustrates. According to Bošković(2007), the subject DP raises to Spec, TP, as shown in the rightmost structure, and probes T sothat its Case feature can be valued as nominative.
Noam Chomsky and Hisa Kitahara point out that the Case feature is not valued throughprobe-goal relation because DP is not a head. I assume, following Kitahara’s suggestion, that theCase valuation is achieved through search into {DP, TP} as in (9).
TP (<f, f>)

(9)
DP
D
[Case: _ ][f: a]TPT[f: a]

Search into the structure finds DP and TP. Further search into both yields D with unvalued Casefeature and T. This makes it possible for T to value the Case feature on D. If this is tenable, Casefeature valuation is accomplished by exactly the same mechanism as the labeling of the clause as<f, f>. With or without this revision, Bošković’s (2007) proposal on Case feature valuation isapplicable to Japanese as it does not rely on f-feature agreement. The nominative Case on thesubject Hanako in (1), for example, can be valued exactly as in (9).
The next question to be addressed is how finite clauses are labeled in Japanese. Recall that(9) is labeled as <f, f> because D and T share identical f-features. But if Japanese lacks f-featureagreement, then there are no f-features on T in the language. Then, a finite clause {DP, TP} fails
to be labeled. Here, I proposed in Saito (2016) that suffixal Cases in Japanese function as antilabeling devices. In other words, Case markers make DPs invisible in the labeling process. This
allows XP to provide the label for g in (10).

KASE AS A WEAK HEAD
(10)5

g = {DP-Case, XP}

This is consistent with the fact that Case-marked elements never “project” further, and allows
Japanese finite clauses to be labeled. The Japanese counterpart of (9) is not labeled <f, f> but islabeled by the lower TP because the subject DP accompanies a Case marker.
Further, the proposal accounts for why scrambling is possible in Japanese, as in (11).
(11)

Taroo-oHanako-ga__
Taroo-ACC Hanako-NOM‘Hanako scolded Taroo.’sikat-ta.
scold-Past

In this example, the object DP, Taroo-o, internally merges with TP as in (12).
(12)??
DP-ACCTPAs this is an {XP, YP} structure without feature-sharing, scrambling is illicit, for example, inEnglish. But thanks to the suffixal Case on the object DP, the structure is allowed in Japanese. As
the accusative Case marker makes the object DP invisible for labeling, TP provides the label forthe structure.
This analysis has other desirable consequences as well, as discussed in Saito (2016), butraises a new question. Why is it that suffixal Case markers in Japanese function as anti-labelingdevises? In the following section, I suggest that the KP hypothesis leads to an answer.

3

KASE IN LABELING

3.1

ON THE STATUS OF CASE MARKERS IN PHRASE STRUCTURE

I first briefly introduce Chomsky’s (2015) distinction between strong and weak heads. Then, I
consider the labeling issue with the KP hypothesis on the assumption that K is a weak head.
Chomsky (2015) addresses Comp-trace effects and the pro-drop parameter. For the latter, he
proposes that the parametric variation exists because pro-drop languages allow the structure in(13a) whereas non-pro-drop languages do not.
(13)

a.

TP
T

TP (<f, f>)

b.
vP

DP

TP
T

vP

The hypothesis is that T, being weak, does not qualify to provide the label for (13a) in non-prodrop languages. Then, the only way that a finite clause can be labeled is by merging the subject
DP with TP as in (13b). (13b) is labeled as <f, f> because of f-feature sharing. Then, a finite
clause can be labeled only when the subject is present in Spec, TP. This, according to Chomsky,
is the EPP. It is assumed here that f-feature sharing makes T strong, and consequently, T labels
the lower TP in (13b).

KASE AS A WEAK HEAD

6

In this section, I assume, following Travis and Lamontagne (1992), that Case markers inJapanese are K heads, and suggest that they are weak. In addition, I slightly reinterpret thelabeling mechanism involving weak heads. Chomsky assumes that {H, XP} simply fails to belabeled when H is weak. I suggest instead that search for a label provider applies to XP in thiscase. The proposal is stated more precisely in (14).1(14)

Search {a, b} for a label. If a is a weak head or search into a yields a weak head, thensearch on the a side is suspended and it continues only on the b side.

Let me illustrate this with the examples in (15).
(15)

a.
b.

{DP, K}{{DP, K}, {vP, T}}(15a) is the structure of a Case-marked argument. Search into this structure immediately yields ahead K. Given that K is weak, search for a label provider shifts to DP and eventually locates D.
This is a desirable result. When a Case-marked DP appears in the object position, for example, V
is in selectional relation with D, not K. Hence, D should provide the label for the object.
(15b) is the configuration of a Case-marked DP in the subject position. The structure isillustrated in (16).
(16)?? (TP)
DP
DP

TP
K

vP

T

Search into {DP, TP} applies to seek a label provider. Further search into DP locates the head K.
Since it is weak, the search shifts to the alternative, that is, TP. On the assumption that T is astrong head in Japanese, T provides the label for (16). Here, search into DP and TP does yield thetwo heads, K and T. This allows the Case feature of K to be valued as nominative. It is just that K
does not count for labeling as it is a weak head.

3.2

EXTENSIONS TO SCRAMBLING AND MULTIPLE SUBJECT SENTENCES

The proposal in (14) extends to labeling of sentences with scrambling and multiple nominative
subjects. Let us start with the former.
The example in (11) is repeated below in (17).
(17)

Taroo-oHanako-ga__
Taroo-ACC Hanako-NOM‘Hanako scolded Taroo.’sikat-ta.
scold-Past

The relevant part of the structure of this sentence is as in (18).
1Given (14), (13a) is labeled by vP when T is weak. I assume that this is incompatible with the selectional requirementof C, which (13a) later merges with.

KASE AS A WEAK HEAD
(18)

7?? (TP)
DPDP

TP (= (16))
K

DP

o DP

TP

K

vP

T

ga
In this structure, the object DP is internally merged with a finite clause, which is labeled as TP as
illustrated in (16). The issue is how the resulting structure is labeled.
Search into (18) first yields DP and the boxed TP. A weak head K is found with further
search into DP. Thus, search shifts to the boxed TP. One finds the subject DP and the lower TP inthis case. Further search into the subject DP yields a weak head, K, again. Search shifts to thelower TP and a label provider T is finally located. Thus, the whole structure is labeled by T. Thisaccounts for why scrambling is allowed in Japanese.
It is suggested in Saito (2016) that Bošković’s (2007) mechanism for Case valuation,
together with the analysis of suffixal Cases as anti-labeling devices, leads to an explanation forwhy multiple subject sentences are allowed in Japanese. The most famous example from Kuno
(1973) is shown in (19).
(19)

Bunmeikoku-ga
dansei-ga heikin-zyumyoo-ga
mizika-i.
civilized.country-NOM male-NOM average-life.span-NOM short-Pres.
‘It is in civilized countries that male’s average life span is short.’

In the remainder of this section, I show that the suggestion can be made precise with the KP
hypothesis.
Multiple subject sentences have a structure identical to (18), except that the initial DP
accompanies nominative instead of accusative Case. The structure is shown in (20).
(20)?? (TP)
DPDP

TP (= (16))
K

DP

ga DP

K

TP
vP

T

ga
Then, labeling can be achieved exactly as in the scrambling case. Initial search yields the higher
subject DP and the boxed TP. As the former is headed by K, the boxed TP is the target for further
search. This brings us to the lower subject DP and the lower TP. As search into the subject yields
K, search shifts to TP and locates the label provider T. Thus, (20) is successfully labeled by T.
Here, a slight adjustment is necessary for the valuation of Case of the higher subject. I
argued above that nominative Case on the subject is valued in the configuration of (16), repeatedbelow in (21).

KASE AS A WEAK HEAD
(21)

8?? (TP)
DP
DP

TP
K

vP

T

Search into the structure finds DP and TP. Then, further search into both locates K and T. This
allows K to be valued by T as nominative. However, the situation is a little more complex in thecase of higher, extra subjects. This is best illustrated with examples with three subjects as in (19).
The structure is as follows:
(22)

TP
DP
DP

TP
K

DP

ga DP

K

TP (= (16))
DP

ga DP

TP
K vP

T

ga
Search into this structure yields the topmost subject DP and its sister TP. Search into the DP
locates K. On the other hand, the first head found by search into the TP is K in the second subject.
Then, it is not obvious how K in the topmost subject DP is valued as nominative.
As a technical solution to this problem, I tentatively suggest that it is the label provider thatvalues a Case feature. That is, in the configuration in (23), the label provider of ZP values thefeature F.
(23)

XP
YP

ZP

W
[F:_ ]
Then, K in the topmost subject DP in (22) is successfully valued as nominative by T.

4

CONCLUSION

I argued in this paper that the KP hypothesis, argued for in Travis and Lamontagne (1992), opens
up a way to pursue an issue that arises with labeling in Japanese. I proposed in Saito (2016) thatsuffixal Case markers in Japanese function as anti-labeling devices. The issue that I discussed inthis paper is why this should be so. I showed that the KP hypothesis, together with the assumptionthat K is a weak head, leads to a possible explanation.
Travis and Lamontagne (1992) propose that Case (K) is a head in all languages. On the other
hand, I argued in this paper that if K is a weak head in Japanese, it can be explained why thelanguage allows scrambling and multiple subject sentences. Then, if K is a weak head in all

KASE AS A WEAK HEAD

9languages, scrambling and multiple subject sentences should be observed universally. Since thisis not the case, it must be that in languages like English, K is either strong or absent. The former
is consistent with Travis and Lamontagne (1992), but it remains to be seen whether it is tenable.

REFERENCES
Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even moreminimalist theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589-644.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On phases,” in R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Fundamental
issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-166, Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2013) “Problems of projection,” Lingua 130: 33-49.
Chomsky, N. (2015) “Problems of projection: Extensions,” in E. Di Domenico, C. Hamannand and S.
Matteini, eds., Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3-16,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuno, S. (1973) The structure of the Japanese language, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru (2016) “(A) Case for labeling: Labeling in languages without f-feature agreement,”
The Linguistic Review 33: 129-175.
Travis, L. and G. Lamontagne (1992) “The Case filter and the licensing of empty K,” Canadian
Journal of Linguistics 37: 157-174.