In Patrick Brandt and Eric Fuss, eds., Form, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift Presented to
Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of His 60th Birthday, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 255-273. (2006)

Expletive Replacement Reconsidered:
Evidence from Expletive Verbs in Japanese*
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University and University of Connecticut

1. Introduction
It is argued in Hoshi 1995, and Saito and Hoshi 2000 that the Japanese expletive verb su
shares the basic properties with the English expletive there. These works suggest further that its
distribution can be accounted for by the expletive replacement analysis proposed in Chomsky
1986. The aim of this paper is rather modest: it is to confirm these conclusions by further
developing the analysis of the Japanese expletive verb.
It has been known that the English existential construction, exemplified in (1), exhibits
properties that indicate that the indefinite (associate) NP occupies the subject position in place ofthe expletive there.
(1)

There were linguists in the room

Thus, the indefinite NP linguists participates in subject-verb agreement exactly as in (2).
(2)

Linguistsi were ti in the room

The parallelism between (1) and (2) goes further. For example, when NP-movement as in (2) isillicit, the corresponding existential sentence is ungrammatical. This is illustrated in (3) and (4).
(3) a.
b.

*Linguistsi seem to ti that Warlpiri is the most fascinating language*There seem to linguists that Warlpiri is the most fascinating language(4) a. *Linguistsi seemed that it was likely ti to be in the roomb. *There seemed that it was likely linguists to be in the room*

While my indebtedness to Günther Grewendorf in my research on scrambling is obvious, I have also
benefited much from discussions with him on the topic of complex predicates. I am happy to be able tocontribute a paper on this topic to the volume in his honor. The material in this paper is based on joint
research with Hiroto Hoshi over the years. His contributions, which are evident in the pages to follow, aregratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank an anonymous reviewer for detailed, helpfulcomments on the earlier version of the paper.

2

Given these observations, Chomsky (1986) proposed that the indefinite NP moves to thesubject position and replaces the expletive at LF. The failure of expletive replacement, according
to him, results in a violation of Full Interpretation, which requires that every element receive
interpretation at the interface levels, LF and PF. Since there is void of meaning, its presence at
LF is illicit. The expletive replacement is itself NP-movement and hence, (4b) is ruled out due tothe SSC effect, precisely as (4a). Chomsky further proposed Last Resort in this context as aprinciple to exclude (3a) and (3b). The principle states that movement can take place only tosatisfy a morphological requirement of the moved item. It prohibits the movement of linguists in(3a-b) since the NP is checked for Case at its base position and there is no need for this NP tomove to the subject position. (3b), then, violates the Last Resort Principle if expletive
replacement takes place, and if not, it is excluded by Full Interpretation.
The analysis just described played an important role in the development of the syntactic
theory toward Minimalism. The Last Resort Principle provided the incentive to pursue theeconomy of derivation, and Full Interpretation is just another name for the economy ofrepresentation. However, as the Minimalist model was developed, the Last Resort Principle lostits place within the theory and was eliminated in favor of a more refined theory of featurechecking in Chomsky 1995. The purpose of this paper is neither to discuss this development nor
to examine the analysis of the English existential construction. Instead, I will show that theanalysis in terms of Last Resort and Full Interpretation successfully extends to expletive verbs inJapanese. This not only adds to the data to be considered in the analysis of expletives but alsosuggests that there is an insight behind expletive replacement that must be captured even in amore refined analysis.
The following section concerns the distribution of the expletive verb su in the Japanese lightverb construction. I will first go over the analysis of the construction presented in Saito and Hoshi
2000. Then, I will revise the analysis of one of the constraints on the construction and argue thatit can be derived from the Last Resort Principle and Full Interpretation. In Section 3, I will
discuss another construction in which this expletive verb appears, i.e., the one in which the topic
marker wa or a focus particle like sae ‘even’ is attached to the regular verb. After updating
Hoshi’s (1995) analysis of the distribution of the expletive su in this construction, which is in fact
in terms of the Last Resort Principle and Full Interpretation, I will show that it has further
desirable empirical consequences. Section 4 contains a summary and a brief remark on aconsequence of the proposed analysis within the derivational model of syntax.

2. Expletive Verbs in the Light Verb Construction
In Section 2.1, I will go over the properties of the Japanese verb su and discuss Sells’ (1989)
argument that it can function as an expletive verb. Then, in Section 2.2, I will present anddevelop the covert head movement analysis proposed in Saito and Hoshi 2000.

3

2.1. Su as an Expletive Verb
The verb su mentioned above appears in contexts such as those in (5).
(5) a. Hanako-ga
yama-nobori -osita (sita = su + ta (past))-NOM mountain-climbing-ACC did‘Hanako did mountain-climbing’b. Hanako-ga Taroo-ni toti -ozyooto-sita-NOM-to land-ACC giving -did‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo’c. Hanako-ga Taroo-ni [NP toti -no zyooto]-o
sita
-NOM
-to
land-GEN giving -ACC did‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo’
In (5a), it is used as the main predicate, very much like the main verb do in English. (I will
henceforth refer to this su as the main verb su.) In this case, it takes an agentive subject and an
accusative object that typically refers to some action. It may optionally take other arguments suchas the goal phrase in (6).
(6)

Taroo-ni sore-osuru koto-wa yurus -are-nai (suru = su + ru (present))-to it -ACC do fact -TOP permit-passive-not‘It is not permissible to do that to Taroo’

In (5b), su is a category-changing suffix that turns a noun into a verb. This su can attach to an
unaccusative, unergative, or transitive noun to create the corresponding verb, as shown in (7).1(7) a. Mizu -ga
zyoohatu -sita (unaccusative)
water-NOM evaporation-did‘The water evaporated’b. Taroo-ga
sanpo-sita (unergative)-NOM taking a walk-did‘Taroo took a walk’c. Hanako-ga Taroo-ohihan -sita (transitive)-NOM-ACC criticism-did‘Hanako criticized Taroo’(5c) is an example of what is called the ‘Japanese light verb construction’ and represents thecase where su is used as an expletive verb. As discussed in Grimshaw and Mester 1988, su can bevoid of meaning and the accusative noun zyooto ‘giving’ can serve as the predicate in this1

See Miyagawa 1989 and Tsujimura 1990 for detailed discussion on the properties of this su.

4example. It is pointed out by Terada (1990) and others that su in examples of this kind canplausibly be analyzed as a main verb because the main verb su can sometimes take a goalargument as mentioned above. However, Sells (1988) persuasively argues that there is indeed an
expletive su based on examples such (8).
(8) ??Hanako-ga Taroo-ni toti -ozyooto-osita-NOM-to land-ACC giving -ACC did‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo’
This example is degraded because it violates the ban on multiple accusative phrases, known
as the ‘double-o constraint’. It is shown in Harada 1973 and Shibatani 1973 that this constraint
has two separate subtypes. When there are two accusative argument NPs in a simple sentence, theresult is hopeless as in (9a).2(9) a. *Hanako-ga Taroo-osake-onom -aseta-NOM-ACC sake-ACC drink-made‘Hanako made Taroo drink sake’b. ??Hanako-ga Taroo-ohamabe-ohasir-aseta-NOM-ACC beach -ACC run -made‘Hanako made Taroo run on the beach’
On the other hand, the result is only marginal when one of the two accusative NPs is a nonargument. In (9b) hamabe ‘beach’ is a locative adverbial and hence, the example is much better
than (9a). What Sells points out is that (8) has the grammatical status of (9b) and not of (9a). Thisimplies that one of the accusative NPs in this example is a non-argument. If su is a main verb andassigns q-roles to all arguments, then both of the accusative NPs would be arguments and hence,
we would expect a strong violation as in (9a), contrary to the fact. On the other hand, if su is an
expletive verb and zyooto ‘giving’ serves as the predicate of the sentence, the marginal status of
the example is correctly predicted. In this case, the only accusative argument in the sentence istoti ‘land’. Thus, examples like (8) indicate that su indeed can be an expletive verb. And if (8)contains an expletive su, we expect this expletive verb to be able to occur in (5c) as well.3
The remaining task is to provide an analysis for the light verb construction. If a head can2

In the Japanese causative construction, the causee can be marked either dative or accusative as shownin (i).
(i) Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni /-ohasir-aseta-NOM-DAT/-ACC run -made‘Hanako made Taroo run’The examples in (9) are perfect if the causee ‘Taroo’ is marked dative instead of accusative.
3

If Terada (1990) is correct, (5c) is ambiguous. That is, the verb su in this example may be a main verb
or an expletive verb.

5

assign q-roles only to phrases within its maximal projection, the construction is quite interesting
because the q-role assigning noun heads the accusative object NP and (some of) its arguments
appear outside this NP in the surface configuration. The analysis, then, must explain how q-role
assignment is possible in the construction. In particular, it must show how the nominal headzyooto ‘giving’ assigns q-roles to the clausal arguments in (8) and (5c).

2.2. Expletive Verb Replacement in LF
Given this background, it was proposed in Saito and Hoshi 2000 that the q-role assigning
noun in the light verb construction covertly moves to the position of the expletive verb anddischarges its q-roles from that position. Let us consider the structure of (8), shown in (10).
(10)

TP
／ ＼
Hanako-gai
T’
／ ＼
vP
T
／＼
|
ti
v’ -ta／＼VPv／ ＼Taroo-niV’／ ＼toti-o
V’
／ ＼
NP
V
|
|
N
su
|
zyooto-oAccording to this analysis, the noun zyooto ‘giving’ moves to the position of su in LF, anddischarges its theme role to toti ‘land’ and its goal role to Taroo.4 Note that the expletive verb is
replaced (or adjoined to) as a result and does not appear in the LF representation. Although Saito
and Hoshi did not consider this crucial, the analysis is thus consistent with Full Interpretation.
One piece of evidence for this analysis is that the q-role assigning noun resists any kind ofovert movement, a fact reported in Grimshaw and Mester 1988. The cleft sentences in (11)illustrate the generalization.
(11) a.

4[CP Opi [IP Mary-ga John-ni ti zyooto-osita] no] -wa toti -oida-NOM-to giving -ACC did COMP-TOP land-ACC is‘It is a piece of land that Mary gave to John’(Lit. It is a piece of land that Mary did giving to John.)

Saito and Hoshi (2000) actually do not assume the v-projection and place the subject at the specifier
position of VP. Hence, according to their analysis, the raised noun assigns the agent role to Hanako as
well. I will come back to this point later in this section when the choice becomes relevant.

6b. *[CP Opi [IP Mary-ga John-ni toti -o
ti sita] no] -wa zyooto-oida-NOM-to land-ACC did COMP-TOP giving -ACC is(Lit. It is giving that Mary did a piece of land to John.)(11a-b) are based on the multiple accusative sentence (8). In (11a), the theme argument toti-o‘land-ACC’ is focused. The example is better than (8) as one of the two accusative NPs is
dislocated.5 (11b), on the other hand, is derived by focusing the q-role assigning noun zyooto-o‘giveng-ACC’, and the result is hopeless. This readily follows from the covert head movement
analysis. The q-role assigning noun would have to move sideways in order to discharge its qroles in this example. Hence, the required q-role assignment fails to take place.
Similarly, scrambling of the q-role assigning noun results in ungrammaticality, as shown in(12).
(12) a. *Hanako-ga
zyooto-oi
Taroo-ni toti -o
ti sita-NOM giving -ACC
-to land-ACC
did‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo’
b. *Zyooto-oi
Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni toti -o
ti sitagiving -ACC
-NOM
-to land-ACC
did‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo’
These examples can be explained in basically the same way as (11b).
This account of (12) is consistent with the (radical) reconstruction properties of scrambling.
As shown in detail in Tada 1993 and Nemoto 1993, VP-internal scrambling exhibits strict Aproperties and is not subject to LF reconstruction. Thus, (13b) contrasts sharply with (14b).
(13) a. Hanako-ga (kinoo) karera-ni otagai-osyookaisita-NOM yesterday they -to each other-ACC introduced‘Hanako introduced them to each other yesterday’b. *Hanako-ga
otagai-oi (kinoo) karera-ni-NOM each other-ACC yesterday they -toti syookaisita
introducedc. *Otagai -oi
Hanako-ga(kinoo) karera-ni
each other-ACC-NOM yesterday they -toti syookaisita
introduced(14) a. Karera-ga
otagai-osemetathey -NOM each other-ACC blamed‘They blamed each other’5

As noted in Harada 1973 and Shibatani 1973, this kind of improvement is observed with the weak typeof “double-o” effect represented by (9b) but not with the strong type shown in (9a).

7b. Otagai-oikarera-ga ti semeta
each other-ACC they -NOM blamed
It was proposed in Saito 1989 on independent grounds that scrambled phrases can be placed backin their initial positions at LF. This offers a possible account for the grammaticality of (14b). But
then, the ungrammaticality of (13b) shows that VP-internal scrambling (as opposed to scrambling
across the subject) is not subject to this LF reconstruction. Similarly, the ungrammaticality of(13c) indicates that scrambling out of VP proceeds through the edge of VP (or vP), andreconstruction applies only to the movement originating from this position. Then, zyooto-o‘giving-ACC’ in (12) is at the edge of VP (or vP) at LF, and hence, it must lower to the positionof su in order to discharge its q-roles.
I have so far introduced the covert head movement analysis of Saito and Hoshi 2000. There isanother argument presented in favor of this analysis in the paper, and that is where refinement isnecessary. I will now turn to this argument.
Grimshaw and Mester (1988) note the following as one of the peculiar properties of theJapanese light verb construction:(15) At least one internal argument of the q-role assigning noun must be realized outside the NP
it projects.
The examples in (16) illustrate this generalization.
(16) a. Hanako-ga Taroo-to kekkon -o
sita
-NOM
-with marriage-ACC did‘Hanako married Taroo’
b. ?Hanako-ga [NP Taroo-to -no kekkon] -o
sita
-NOM
-with-GEN marriage-ACC did(16a) receives a straightforward interpretation as a regular instance of the light verb construction
with the expletive su. (16b), on the other hand, is marginally allowed but only with the main verb
interpretation of su. It roughly means that there is a specific act of getting married with Taroo andHanako did it. Grimshaw and Mester, hence, consider (16b) to be ungrammatical as an instanceof the light verb construction. This example contradicts the generalization in (15) since only theexternal argument Hanako is realized outside the NP headed by kekkon ‘marriage’.
Saito and Hoshi (2000) argued that the generalization in (15) follows from the Last Resort
Principle. The structures they posit for (16a-b) are shown in (17a-b) respectively.

8(17) a.

TP／ ＼Hanako-gai
T’
／ ＼
VP
T
／ ＼
|
ti
V’
-ta
／ ＼
Taroo-to
V’
／ ＼
NP
V
|
|
N
su
|
kekkon-o

b.

*TP
／ ＼
Hanako-gai
T’
／ ＼
VP
T
／ ＼
|
ti
V’ -ta
／ ＼
NP
V
／ ＼
|
Taroo-to-no
N su|kekkon-o

It is assumed here that the subject Hanako is generated in VP Spec. In (17a), kekkon ‘marriage’
moves covertly to the position of the expletive verb and assigns q-roles to Taroo as well as to
Hanako. In (17b), on the other hand, kekkon discharges its internal q-role to Taroo within the NP.
In this case, there is no motivation for the q-role assigning noun to move to the position of su
because a noun, as opposed to a verb, only optionally assigns its external q-role. The movement
is, therefore, excluded by the Last Resort Principle and consequently, the subject Hanako fails toreceive a q-role.
This analysis, however, cannot be maintained under the hypothesis that v assigns the external
q-role. The structure of (16b) would then be as in (18).
(18)

*TP
／ ＼
Hanako-gai
T’
／ ＼
vP
T
／ ＼
|
ti
v’ -ta
／＼
VP
v
／ ＼
NP
V
／ ＼
|
Taroo-to-no
N su|kekkon-oIn this structure, Hanako and Taroo receive q-roles in their base positions from v and kekkon‘marriage’ respectively, and hence, q-role assignment takes place properly even in the absence ofthe covert movement of the q-role assigning noun. In Saito 2001, I tentatively assumed that the qrole assigning noun assigns the external q-role together with v. Then, kekkon must and hence, canmove to the position of v in order to discharge the external q-role, but this movement violates thehead movement constraint. Although this account provides a technical solution to the problem, itbegs the question because it after all assumes that an external q-role is assigned by a lexical head.
There is an obvious, straightforward alternative analysis for the illicitness of (18). Since allarguments are successfully assigned q-roles, there is nothing wrong with the q-role assignment.
But because the q-role assigning noun discharges its q-role at the base position, there is no reason
for it to replace the expletive verb. Consequently, the expletive verb remains at LF in violation of
Full Interpretation. According to this slightly modified analysis, (16b) is excluded in precisely the9same way as the English (3b), repeated below as (19).
(19) *There seem to linguists that Warlpiri is the most fascinating language
Since the indefinite NP linguists is checked for Case at its base position, the Last Resort Principle
prevents it from replacing the expletive there. In the case of (16b), since the q-role assigning
noun kekkon ‘marriage’ discharges its q-role at its base position, again, the Last Resort Principle
prohibits it from replacing the expletive verb su. As the result, both (19) and (16b) are excluded
by Full Interpretation.
The grammatical (16a) parallels (1), repeated in (20).
(20) There were linguists in the room
In this example, linguists moves to the position of the expletive there in order to be checked forCase. Similarly, in (16a), kekkon moves to the position of the expletive verb su in order todischarge its q-role. Because of these independently motivated movements, the expletives are
successfully replaced in both (20) and (16a).
If the slight revision of the analysis of (16b) presented above is correct, then the Japaneselight verb construction provides evidence not only for the Last Resort Principle but also for thenecessity of expletive replacement to satisfy Full Interpretation. In the following section, I willconsider another construction with the expletive su that points to the same conclusion.

3. Expletive Verbs in the VP Focus Construction
The verb su occurs also when the regular verb is followed by the topic marker wa or a focus
particle like mo ‘also’ and sae ‘even’. This is illustrated in (21b-d).
(21) a. Hanako-ga Taroo-onagutta-NOM-ACC hit‘Hanako hit Taroo’
b. Hanako-ga
Taroo-onaguri-wa sita
-NOM
-ACC hit-TOP did‘Hanako did hit Taroo’c. Hanako-ga Taroo-onaguri-mo sita
-NOM
-ACC hit -also did‘Hanako also hit Taroo’

10d. Hanako-ga Taroo-onaguri-sae sita
-NOM
-ACC hit -even did‘Hanako even hit Taroo’
Kuroda (1965), who first discussed this phenomenon, postulated a rule of si-insertion, similar to
do-support in English. Hoshi (1995), on the other hand, reconsiders the phenomenon based on theproperties of the verb su discussed in the preceding section. He proposes in fact to explain the
distribution of the expletive su in this construction in terms of the Last Resort Principle and Full
Interpretation. In Section 3.1, I will discuss the basic properties of this construction, focusing on
the particle sae ‘even’, and introduce Hoshi’s analysis. Then, in Section 3.2, I will present
independent evidence for the analysis and thereby confirm the conclusion that Last Resort andFull Interpretation both play crucial roles in the explanation of the phenomenon.

3.1. The Illicitness of VP-scrambling with Expletive su
Given that su can function as a main verb or an expletive verb, as was shown in the preceding
section, it is tempting to analyze the occurrences of su in (21) as instances of these. The analysis
in terms of the main verb su seems straightforward. (21d), for example, can have the following
structure:
(22)

TP
／ ＼
Hanako-gai
T’
／ ＼
vP
T
／ ＼
|
ti
v’ -ta
／＼
VP
v
／＼
VP
V
／＼
|
Taroo-oV su|naguri-sae

This is identical to the structure of the sentences with the main verb su discussed in the preceding
section except that the complement of su is a VP instead of an NP.6
Examples such as (21b-d) have drawn much attention in part because they allow VPscrambling. Thus, the VP headed by naguri-sae ‘hit-even’ in (21d) can be preposed as shown in(23).
(23) [VP Taroo-onaguri-sae] Hanako-ga tVP sita
-ACC hit
-even
-NOM
did
‘Hanako even hit Taroo’
6

The examples in (21b-d) are ungrammatical without the particles wa, mo, and sae. I assume that this isdue to a property of su that it can only be merged with nominal categories and phrases with topic/focus
particles. This suggests that those particles are nominal in some sense.

11

Nothing seems to prevent this VP-scrambling if (21d) has the structure in (22).
Hoshi (1995) argues that there is another possible analysis for examples like (21b-d), that is,that the su in these examples may be an expletive verb. Given that su can function as an expletive
verb in the light verb construction, this would be the null hypothesis. More specifically, heproposes that (21d) may have the structure in (24) with the expletive su.
(24)

TP
／ ＼
Hanako-gai
T’
／ ＼
VP
T
／＼
|
ti
V’ -ta／＼VP
V／＼|
Taroo-oV su|naguri-sae

Hoshi (1995), like Saito and Hoshi (2000), assumes that external q-roles are assigned by lexical
heads and not by v. The verb nagur ‘hit’ assigns its theme role to Taroo in its base position andcovertly moves the position of su in order to discharge its agent role to the trace of Hanako.7
Hoshi specifically argues that (25) is not a possible structure with the expletive su.
(25)

TP
／ ＼
Hanako-gai
T’
／ ＼
VP
T
／ ＼
|
VP
V -ta
／ ＼
|
ti
V’ su
／＼
Taroo-o V|
naguri-sae

Since nagur ‘hit’ assigns all of its q-roles in the base position, there is no reason for it to move tothe position of su. Hence, the Last Resort Principle prohibits the movement, and the expletive su
remains at LF. Hoshi proposes that the structure is consequently excluded by Full Interpretation.
The analysis introduced above makes an interesting prediction, as Hoshi notes. If thestructure in (25) were possible, VP-scrambling should be allowed even with the expletive su.
Nothing seems to prevent the scrambling of the lower VP in (25). On the other hand, if (24) is the
only option with the expletive su, VP-scrambling should be impossible. If the lower VP in (24) is
scrambled, the verb nagur ‘hit’ is no longer in the c-command domain of the expletive su. Hence,
it would have to move sideways to the position of su in order to assign its external role to the7Note that the structure in (24) may be possible also with the main verb su. In that case, the verb su
assigns the agent role to the subject.

12

trace of Hanako. Hoshi’s analysis predicts, then, that although examples like (21d) are
ambiguous between the main verb and the expletive verb interpretations of su, once VPscrambling applies, only the former interpretation obtains. Hoshi states that this prediction isindeed borne out. That is, the main verb interpretation of su is forced in (23) but not in (21d).
Although Hoshi’s analysis is complete, one drawback is that it is somewhat difficult todistinguish the main verb and the expletive verb interpretations of su in examples like (21d) and(23). It is therefore desirable to examine examples where the distinction comes out more clearly.
In the following subsection, I will consider the illicit cases of VP-scrambling discussed in Hoji,
Miyagawa and Tada 1989, and argue that they constitute evidence for Hoshi’s analysis. But
before I move on to this, I will briefly update the analysis assuming that v is the external q-role
assigner.
The required modification is straightforward. If v assigns the external q-role, the structure in(25) would be as in (26).
(26)／
Hanako-gai

TP

＼
／

T’
＼

vP
T
／ ＼
|
ti
v’
-ta
／＼
VP
v
／＼
VP
V
／＼
|
Taroo-o V su|
naguri-sae

This is disallowed according to Hoshi’s analysis. The verb nagur ‘hit’ discharges its theme role atits base position and has no reason, therefore, to move to the position of su. The expletive verb
remains at LF and the structure is ruled out by Full Interpretation.8
It is then necessary to place an internal argument within the projection of the expletive verb
su, exactly as in the case of the light verb construction. The structure is shown in (27).

8Note that (26) is identical to (22), the structure of (21d) with the main verb interpretation of su. If su is
the main verb, it satisfies Full Interpretation and need not be replaced. Hence, there is nothing wrong withthe structure in this case.

13

(27)

／
Hanako-gai

TP

＼

T’
／ ＼
vP
T
／＼
|
ti
v’
-ta
／＼
VP
v
／ ＼
Taroo-o
V’
／＼
VP
V
|
|
V
su
|
naguri-sae

Here, the verb nagur ‘hit’ must and hence, can move to the position of su in order to discharge itstheme role, and as a result, the expletive verb is successfully replaced. (21d), thus, has the
structure in (22) with the main verb su and that in (27) with the expletive su. The appropriate
structure depends on which su is included in the numeration.
The prediction that VP-scrambling is illicit with the expletive su remains the same. In thecase of (27), Taroo-o and naguri-sae ‘hit-even’ do not form a constituent. But since multiple
scrambling is allowed in Japanese, the object NP and the VP dominating naguri-sae could
scramble to the sentence-initial position separately. This is ruled out because the verb would haveto lower to the position of su in LF in order to discharge its theme role. Consequently, the object
fails to receive a q-role and the expletive verb fails to be replaced. Thus, VP-scrambling in thisconfiguration is ruled out in exactly the same way as the scrambling of the q-role assigning nounin the light verb construction. A parallel example of the light verb construction, (12b), is repeatedbelow as (28).
(28) *Zyooto-oi
Hanako-ga Taroo-ni toti -o
ti sitagiving -ACC
-NOM
-to land-ACC
did‘Hanako gave a piece of land to Taroo’

3.2. VP-scrambling in Unaccusative and Passive Sentences
Clear evidence for Hoshi’s analysis discussed above can be found in Hoji, Miyagawa andTada 1989 (henceforth, Hoji, et al.). They discuss illicit cases of VP-scrambling such as those in(29)-(31) and propose to rule them out by the proper binding condition.
(29) a. Hanako-ga Taroo-onaguri-sae sita
-NOM
-ACC hit-even did‘Hanako even hit Taroo’
b. *Naguri-saei Hanako-ga Taroo-oti sita
hit
-even
-NOM
-ACC
did

14

(30) a. Ame-ga
huri-sae sitarain -NOM fall -even did‘It even rained’
b. *Huri-saei ame-ga ti sita
fall -even rain -NOM did(31) a. Hanabi -ga
utiage -rare -sae sita
firework-NOM set off-passive-even did‘They even set off fireworks’b. *Utiage-rare -saei hanabi -ga ti sita
set off-passive-even firework-NOM did
It looks like the verbs are preposed by themselves in the ungrammatical examples in (29)(31). But the examples can be derived by VP-scrambling, as Hoji, et al. point out. A possible
derivation of (29b) is shown in (32).
(32) [VP tj naguri-sae] [Hanako-ga [Taroo-oj tVP sita]]
hit -even
-NOM
-ACC
did
The object Taroo-o is first scrambled out of the VP headed by naguri-sae, and then, the remnant
VP is scrambled to the sentence-initial position. Similarly, (30b) can be derived as in (33).
(33) [VP tj huri-sae] [ame-gaj [tVP sita]]
fall -even rain -NOM
did
Since hur ‘fall’ is unaccusative, Hoji, et al. assume that the subject ame ‘rain’ originates in its
complement position and moves to the specifier position of TP. After this NP-movement applies,
the VP headed by huri-sae is scrambled over the subject.
Although the ungrammatical examples in (29)-(31) can be derived by VP-scrambling, thepreposed VPs contain unbound traces as can be seen in (32) and (33). The VP in (32) contains a
trace of scrambling and that in (33) a trace of NP-movement. Hoji, et al. then argue that theexamples violate the proper binding condition, which requires that traces be bound. This accountmay be tenable in the case of (29) because it has been argued that traces of scrambling exhibit
strict proper binding effect.9 On the other hand, a question can be raised for this account of (30)and (31) since there is evidence that traces of NP-movement are not subject to the proper binding
condition. If they were, examples of VP-preposing such as those in (34) would be incorrectly
excluded.
(34) a. They said the ball might fall into a ditch, and fall into a ditch, it did
b. Mary said she would be praised by the critics, and praised by the critics, she was
9

For relevant discussion on this point, see Saito 2003 and the references cited there.

15

The structures of the second conjuncts of (34a-b) are shown in (35a-b) respectively.
(35) a. [VP fall ti into a ditch] [iti did tVP]b. [VP praised ti by the critics] [shei was tVP]
Since fall is unaccusative, it in (35a) originates in the complement position of the verb and moves
to TP Spec. Then, the preposed VP contains the trace of this NP-movement. A similar situation
obtains in (35b), where a passive VP is preposed.10
It is clear at this point that an alternative analysis is required for (30b) and (31b). And
Hoshi’s analysis of the VP focus construction readily serves this purpose. Note first that theexamples in (30) and (31) lack an agentive subject. Since the main verb su requires an agent, thesu’s in these examples cannot be main verbs but must be instances of the expletive su. Then, thestructure of (30a), for example, is as in (36).
(36)／
Ame-gai

TP

＼

／
vP
／ ＼
VP
v
／＼
ti
V’
／ ＼
VP
V
|
|
V
su
|
huri-sae

T’
＼

T
|
-ta

Here, it is crucial that ame ‘rain’ is merged at the spec position of the expletive su. Then, hur‘fall’ must and therefore, can move to the position of su in order to discharge its q-role. As aresult, the expletive verb is successfully replaced and there is no violation of Full Interpretation.
If (36) is the structure for (30a), the ungrammaticality of (30b) follows. When the VP headedby huri-sae is scrambled, the verb can no longer move to the position of su in LF because thiswould require lowering. Consequently, ame ‘rain’ fails to receive a q-role and the expletive su
remains in violation of Full Interpretation. Note that this account for (30b) is possible because of
Full Interpretation. If an LF representation could contain an expletive verb, the structure in (37)
would be possible for (30a).

10NP-traces and Wh-traces exhibit different patterns in this respect. Thus, Maggie Browning (personalcommunication, 1986) points out that (ib) is hopeless and contrasts sharply with (ia).
(i) a. ?… ready to marry John, I wonder whether Mary is
b. *… ready to marry ti, I wonder whoi Mary is

16

(37)

／
Ame-gai

TP

＼

／
vP
／ ＼
VP
v
／＼
VP
V
／＼
|
ti
V su
|
huri-sae

T’
＼

T
|
-ta

The verb hur assigns its q-role at the base position and hence, does not replace the expletive. But
this is, in relevant respects, the structure assumed in Hoji, et al., and as we have seen, it predicts
incorrectly that VP-scrambling is possible. Thus, Full Interpretation plays a crucial role in the
explanation of (30b), in addition to the Last Resort Principle.

4. Summary and Another Consequence
In Section 2, I discussed the analysis of the Japanese light verb construction proposed in
Saito and Hoshi 2000, and examined the distribution of the expletive verb su in this construction.
One of the conclusions is that Grimshaw and Mester’s (1988) constraint in (15), repeated below
in (38), is to be explained not only by the Last Resort Principle but also by Full Interpretation.
(38) At least one internal argument of the q-role assigning noun must be realized outside the NP
it projects.
In Section 3, I updated Hoshi’s (1995) analysis of the distribution of the expletive verb in the VP
focus construction and presented further evidence for it. The theoretical consequence remains thesame: both the Last Resort Principle and Full Interpretation play crucial roles in the analysis.
Thus, the discussion in this paper provides strong support for the expletive replacement analysis
proposed in Chomsky 1986. As stated at the outset of this paper, the purpose here is not to defend
the expletive replacement analysis of the English existential construction against the recent, morerefined analysis, say, in Chomsky 1995. It is rather to suggest that there is an insight in theanalysis that needs to be reconsidered and reexamined in future research. I also hope that thediscussion in this paper will stimulate further research on Japanese expletive verbs to advance thetheory.
Before I conclude this paper, I would like to briefly point out a consequence of the proposed
analysis for the derivational model of syntax, put forward in Bobaljik 1995 and Nissenbaum 2000,
among many others. Based on the idea of cyclic interpretation and cyclic Spell-out, it is proposedin these works that covert movement can be interwoven with overt movement. For example,
Bobaljik suggests that covert movement applies basically in the same way as overt movement
except that the phonetic features are interpreted at the initial site instead of the landing site. If thisconception of covert movement is adopted, then the analysis presented above for (30b), for17example, must be slightly modified.
Let us consider (36), i.e., the structure of (30a), again. It was assumed above that overt
movement precedes covert movement, and hence, VP-scrambling blocks the LF expletive
replacement by the verb hur ‘fall’. But if covert movement can precede overt movement, anotherderivation must be considered. That is, the verb can first move to the position of the expletive su,
leaving behind its phonetic features. Then, the VP can be scrambled to the sentence-initial
position. There is no obvious violation of the Last Resort Principle or Full Interpretation with thisderivation.
I would like to suggest that the derivation just described is excluded by the proper binding
condition.11 That is, the preposed VP contains the trace left by the covert movement of hur ‘fall’
and this trace violates the condition. This account is consistent with, and hence, provides support
for the recent discussion in defense of the proper binding condition in Kuno 2001 and Saito 2003.
As noted above, there is evidence that NP-traces are not subject to this condition. At the sametime, it is suggested in Lasnik 1999, and Saito and Hoshi 2000, among others, that NP-movement
does not leave a trace. The basic idea is that if q-role assignment can take place in the course of
the derivation, then there is no feature of the NP that must be represented at the initial site. Thiscan probably be best illustrated with (36). The verb hur ‘fall’ can first move covertly to theposition of the expletive su, and assign the theme role to ame ‘rain’ in the Spec position. Then,ame, having already been assigned a q-role, can move to TP Spec overtly. There is evidently noneed to postulate a trace in the initial position. And if there are no NP-traces, they could not be
subject to the proper binding condition.
On the other hand, Wh-traces exhibit the proper binding effect as shown in (39).
(39) *[Which picture of ti]j does John wonder whoi Mary likes tj
In this example, who is extracted out of which picture of whom to the embedded CP Spec andthen, the remnant which picture of t moves to the matrix CP Spec. The latter movement violates
Subjacency, but the example is much worse than a normal Wh-island violation, which suggeststhat the unbound trace is the main source of ungrammaticality. This is expected because a Whphrase needs to be represented both at the initial site and at the landing site. Its phonetic featuresand its operator feature are interpreted at the landing site. And the initial site must have thosefeatures that make it possible to interpret the Wh-phrase (or its trace) as a variable. Thus, a traceis necessary in order for Wh-movement to create an operator-variable chain with a variable at its
11

The condition is reformulated as a constraint on the application of Merge in Ausin 1998 and Saito
2003. The proposal in the latter work is that Merge applies only to ‘complete constituents’, which isdefined as in (i).
(i) a is a complete constituent =def (1) a is a term, and(2) if a position within a is a member of a chain g, then every positionof g is contained within a.
But I will keep referring to the proper binding condition as a condition on traces for ease of exposition.

18

tail.
By the same logic, the covert movement of hur ‘fall’ in (36) must form a chain. The verb
must be represented at the landing site so that it can replace the expletive su. And it must also beat the initial site because that is where its phonetic features are interpreted. Hence, the movement
must leave a copy (or a trace) behind, and we would expect the movement to be constrained by
the proper binding condition. Note that the present analysis does not predict that head movement
always exhibits the proper binding effect. It does when the moved head must be represented bothat the initial site and at the landing site. If this approach is on the right track, the expletive verb
replacement offers important data for the investigation of the proper binding effect as well.

References
Ausin, A. (1998) “A Minimalist Approach to the Remnant Movement Constraint,” Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Connecticut.
Bobalijk, J. (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, New York.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Grimshaw, J. and A. Mester (1988) “Light Verbs and q-Marking,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 205-232.
Harada, S.-I. (1973) “Counter Equi NP Deletion,” Annual Bulletin 7, The Research Institute of
Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo, 113-147.
Hoji, H., S. Miyagawa, and H. Tada (1989) “NP-movement in Japanese,” Presented at WCCFL 8,
University of British Columbia.
Hoshi, H. (1995) Passive, Causative, and Light Verbs: A Study on Theta Role Assignment, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Kuno, M. (2001) “Why does Movement Sometimes Leave a Trace and Sometimes Not?”, Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Tokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Lasnik, H. (1999) “Chains of Arguments,” in S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein, eds., Working Minimalism,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) “Light Verbs and the Ergative Hypothesis,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 659-668.
Nemoto, N. (1993) Chains and Case Positions: A Study from Scrambling in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Nissenbaum, J. (2000) Investigations of Covert Phrasal Movement, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (1989) “Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A’-movement,” in M. Baltin and A. Kroch, eds.,
Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Saito, M. (2001) “Movement and q-roles: A Case Study with Resultatives,” in Y. Otsu, ed., The
Proceedings of the Second Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.
Saito, M. (2003) “A Derivational Approach to the Interpretation of Scrambling Chains,” Lingua 113, 481518.
Saito, M. and H. Hoshi (2000) “The Japanese Light Verb Construction and the Minimalist Program,” in R.
Martin, D. Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor19

of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Sells, P. (1988) “More on Light Verbs and Theta-Marking,” Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
Shibatani, M. (1973) “Semantics of Japanese Causativization,” Foundations of Language 9, 327-373.
Tada, H. (1993) A/A-bar Partition in Derivation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Terada, M. (1990) Incorporation and Argument Structure in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tsujimura, N. (1990) “Ergativity of Nouns and Case Assignment,” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 277-287.