In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman (eds.), The Sound Patterns of Syntax, 140-173, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010.

Semantic and Discourse Interpretation of the Japanese Left Periphery*
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
Japanese scrambling often makes no contribution to interpretation and seems purely stylistic.
Yet, it can have semantic and discourse effects. The purpose of this paper is to examine theinterpretive mechanism for movement chains by investigating this peculiar property of scrambling.
In the course of the discussion, I will also present a hypothesis on the structure of the Japanese left
periphery.
The basic idea pursued in this paper is that Japanese scrambling is stylistic but cannevertheless affect interpretation because of the general mechanism of movement and its
interpretation. Let us consider the example of wh-movement in (1) to illustrate this mechanism first.
(1)

a.
b.

Whati did John buy ti[For which x: x a thing] John bought x(1a) is interpreted as in (1b), which indicates that the wh-phrase is construed as an operator [forwhich x: x a thing] at the landing site and as a variable x at the initial site. This in turn suggests thatthe wh-phrase is composed of a feature, say [wh], which yields its interpretation as a wh-operator,
and a feature, say [arg(ument)], which is responsible for its interpretation as a variable, in addition
to the phonetic features [phon] and the categorial features [cat]. Then, extending Chomsky’s (1993)
copy and deletion analysis of movement, it can be hypothesized that movement copies thewh-phrase at the landing site as in (2a), and the chain is interpreted as in (2b) with the appropriatedeletion of features.

*This is a revised and shortened version of the paper presented at the Sound Patterns of Syntax Workshop
held at Ben-Gurion University on June 11-13, 2007. A still earlier version of this paper was presented insyntax seminars at Nanzan University and the University of Connecticut in the spring of 2007, and also at
the Siena-Nanzan Workshop on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition held at the University of
Siena on May 4-5, 2007. I would like to thank the audiences at these places, especially Jonathan Bobaljik,
Steve Franks, Idan Landau, Luigi Rizzi, Ian Roberts, Masaki Sano, Koji Sugisaki and Kensuke Takita, andalso an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and suggestions. The research leading to the final revision
was supported in part by the Nanzan University Pache Research Grant I-A-2 (2008).

2
(2)

a.
b.

What{wh, arg, phon, cat} [did John buy what{wh, arg, phon, cat}]What{wh, arg, phon, cat} [did John buy what{wh, arg, phon, cat}][phon] is retained at the landing site as the movement is overt, and I assume that [cat] is retained at
all positions of the chain. The specific syntactic features [wh] and [arg], on the other hand, areretained at the positions where they are licensed and properly interpreted. The [arg] feature satisfies
the selectional requirement of the verb at the object position, and the [wh] feature is attracted to the
CP Spec position by the question C.
Given this mechanism for movement and its interpretation, the simple example of scramblingin (3a) is analyzed as in (3b).
(3)

a.

Hon -oi[Taroo-ga ti katta]
book-ACC-NOM bought‘Taroo bought a book’b.

Hon-o{arg, phon, cat} [Taroo-ga

hon-o{arg, phon, cat} katta]

As the scrambled phrase hon-o ‘book-ACC’ is not an operator, it consists only of [arg], [phon] and[cat]. The [arg] feature should be retained at the object position because hon-o is interpreted as anargument at that position. Hence, the scrambling chain is interpreted as in (3b). This makes
scrambling purely stylistic or semantically vacuous as no substantial feature is retained at thelanding site. But note that the [arg] feature is copied at the landing site although the copy is
eventually deleted. I will argue in this paper that this enables the [arg] feature to interact with higher
functional heads, and that scrambling can have semantic effects because of this. Further, ascrambled phrase may contain features such as [top(ic)] in addition to [arg]. This, I will argue, is thesource of the discourse effects of scrambling.
In the following section, I will first present examples of the Japanese wh-construction anddemonstrate that scrambling can indeed be semantically vacuous as illustrated in (3b). Then, I willshow how the mechanism of chain interpretation captures the A/A’ properties of scrambling
discussed in detail by Mahajan (1990) and Tada (1993), among others. In Section 3, I will turn tothe effects of scrambling on the scope interaction between the subject and sentential negation.
Modifying Miyagawa’s (2001, 2003) analysis of the phenomenon, I will argue that there is afunctional head, Pred(ication), above TP, and that the [arg] feature preposed by scrambling can be
attracted by this head. Then, in Section 4, I will consider Kuno’s (1973) observation that only amatrix-initial topic can receive thematic (as opposed to contrastive) interpretation, and also some
exceptions to this generalization pointed out in Kuroda (1988). I will argue that only those topics inthe specifier position of the Pred projection can be interpreted as thematic, and that scrambling of

3
topics interacts with this in an intricate way. Section 5 concludes the paper with a brief discussionof the Japanese left periphery from a crosslinguistic perspective.

2. The Basic Properties of Japanese Scrambling
In Section 2.1, I will review two well-known properties of Japanese scrambling. I will firstconsider scrambling of wh-phrases and show that it need not have any effect on interpretation. Then,
I will discuss Mahajan’s (1990) generalization that only clause-internal scrambling exhibits
properties of A-movement. In Section 2.2, I will argue that the chain interpretation mechanism
alluded to above successfully accounts for the relevant facts.
2.1. Radical Reconstruction and the A/A’ Distinction
Let us first consider the examples of wh-questions in (4).1(4)

a.

[TP Taroo-ga [CP [TP dare-ga
sono hon -okatta] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)-NOM
who-NOM that book-ACC bought Q know-wantfact‘[Taroo wants to know [Q [who bought that book]]]’b. *[TP Dare-ga [CP [TP Taroo-ga sono hon -okatta] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)-NOM-NOM that book-ACC bought Q know-wantfact‘[Who wants to know [Q [John bought that book]]]’In both (4a) and (4b), the embedded CP is a question, as indicated by the question marker ka in C.
In the former, the wh-phrase dare ‘who’ is contained within this CP and takes scope at this CP. The
example is interpreted as in (5).
(5)

Taroo wants to know [for which x: x a person] x bought that bookIn (4b), on the other hand, dare is the matrix subject and is not contained within the question CP.
As the example is totally ungrammatical, the contrast in (4) suggests the simple generalization in
(6).
(6)
1

A wh-phrase must be contained within the question CP where it takes scope.

In these examples and some others to follow, I show the rough structure of the sentence in single quotes
instead of English translation. Also, koto ‘the fact that’ is added at the end of some examples in order toavoid the unnaturalness resulting from the lack of topic in a matrix clause. I ignore this in the rough structure
or translation in single quotes.

4This generalization, first discussed by Harada (1972), extends to the English examples in (7).
(7)

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]]]]Since wh-movement places wh-phrases in their scope positions, who takes matrix scope and whattakes embedded scope in (7a). The third wh-phrase, whom, is in the matrix object position. As it iscontained in the matrix question but not in the embedded question, it must take scope at the matrix
CP in accordance with (6). Thus, the example only has the interpretation as a matrix multiple
wh-question. (7b), on the other hand, is ambiguous as pointed out by van Riemsdijk and Williams(1981). Wh-movement places who at the matrix CP Spec and which (picture) at the embedded CP
Spec. The third wh-phrase, whom, is pied-piped to the embedded CP Spec, and is contained in thematrix CP as well as the embedded CP. Accordingly, it can take either matrix or embedded scope,
again as correctly predicted by (6). Finally, whom in (7c) is pied-piped out of the embedded
question CP, and hence, can only take matrix scope. Although the example is degraded because of
the wh-island effect, its interpretation clearly conforms to the generalization in (6).
Having seen that (6) is well-motivated, let us now turn to an example of wh-scrambling. (8a)is a straightforward example with an embedded wh-question.
(8)a.

[TP Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga
dono hon -oyonda] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)-NOM-NOM which book-ACC read Q know-wantfact‘[Taroo wants to know [Q [Hanako read which book]]]’b.

[TP Dono hon -oi [Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga ti yonda] ka] siritagatteiru]] (koto)
which book-ACC-NOM-NOM read Q know-wantfact‘[Which booki, Taroo wants to know [Q [Hanako read ti]]]’

In (8b), the wh-phrase, dono hon ‘which book’, is scrambled out of the embedded question all theway to the initial position of the matrix clause. Given (6), we would expect the example to beungrammatical like (4b) because the wh-phrase is not contained within the CP where it takes scope.
Yet, (8b) is grammatical and receives the same interpretation as (8a).
Based on examples of this kind, I proposed in Saito (1989) that scrambling can be“semantically vacuous” in the sense that a scrambled phrase can be radically (totally) reconstructedat LF. Then, the scrambled object in (8b) can be placed back in its initial position at LF, and theexample can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with (6), that is, exactly like (8a). This
amounts to saying that scrambling can be merely stylistic and need not have any effect on5interpretation. However, it is known that scrambling can affect interpretation. In the remainder ofthis section, I will discuss one such case, namely, the interaction of scrambling with anaphor
binding.
It was observed by Mahajan (1990), who examined Hindi scrambling, that a phrase preposedby clause-internal scrambling can serve as the antecedent of an anaphor. For example, (9b)contrasts sharply with (9a).
(9)

a. ?*[Otagai -no sensei] -ga [Taroo-to Hanako]-osuisensita(koto)
each other-GEN teacher-NOM-and-ACC recommended fact
‘Lit. Each other’s teachers recommended Taroo and Hanako’b.

[Taroo-to Hanako]-oi[[otagai-no sensei] -ga
ti suisensita](koto)-and-ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM
recommended fact‘[Taroo and Hanako]i, each other’s teachers recommended ti’(9a) is out because the anaphor otagai ‘each other’ is not bound. This is remedied in (9b) as thepotential antecedent Taroo-to Hanako is scrambled to a position c-commanding the anaphor. This
indicates that scrambling can affect binding relations. Interestingly, it is only clause-internal
scrambling that exhibits this effect. Thus, long scrambling out of a finite clause does not extend thebinding possibility as (10) shows.
(10) a. * [Otagai -no sensei] -ga [CP Ziroo-ga [Taroo-to Hanako]-osuisensita
each other-GEN teacher-NOM
-NOM
-and
-ACC recommendedto] itta (koto)that said fact
‘Lit. Each other’s teachers said that Ziroo recommended Taroo and Hanako’
b. *[Taroo-to Hanako]-oi [[otagai-no sensei] -ga [CP Ziroo-ga
ti suisensita-and-ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM recommendedto] itta] (koto)that said fact‘[Taroo and Hanako]i, each other’s teachers said that Ziroo recommended ti’(10b) is ungrammatical despite the fact that long scrambling places Taroo-to Hanako in a position
that c-commands otagai.
Mahajan concludes then that clause-internal scrambling can be A-movement while longscrambling out of a finite clause is necessarily A’-movement. More specifically, he hypothesizes

6
that there are two kinds of scrambling: A-scrambling to TP Spec and A’-scrambling that involves
adjunction to TP.2 The former is clause-bound because it is A-movement. The latter, on the other
hand, can take place across a CP boundary. Given this hypothesis, nothing prevents aclause-internal application of A’-scrambling. The prediction is borne out by the following example:(11) Zibunzisin-oi[Taroo-ga ti suisensita](koto)self-ACC-NOM recommended fact
‘Himselfi, Taroo recommended ti’
If clause-internal scrambling is necessarily A-movement, zibunzisin ‘self’ A-binds its antecedent
Taroo and the example should be in violation of Condition (C) of the Binding theory. Its
grammaticality, thus, constitutes evidence that clause-internal scrambling can be A’-movement.
In the following subsection, I will briefly go over the unified analysis of A and A’
scramblings proposed in Saito (2003, 2005). It relies crucially on the chain interpretation
mechanism mentioned in Section 1 and forms a basis, together with Mahajan’s (1990) analysis, forthe discussion in the subsequent sections.
2.2. A Unified Analysis of A and A’ Scramblings
Although Mahajan’s analysis successfully accounts for the A/A’ properties of scrambling, it
is tempting not to postulate two distinct kinds of scrambling and to pursue a uniform analysis. The
radical reconstruction property of scrambling also remains to be explained. In this section, I will
briefly discuss an attempt at a uniform analysis presented in Saito (2003, 2005).
Recall first the chain interpretation mechanism introduced in Section 1. According to it, theexample of clause-internal scrambling in (12a) is analyzed as in (12b).3(12) a.

b.

[TP [Taroo-to Hanako]-oi[[otagai-no sensei] -ga
ti suisensita]] (koto)-and-ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM
recommended fact‘[Taroo and Hanako]i, each other’s teachers recommended ti’[TP [T.-to H.]-o{arg, phon} [[otagai-no …] -ga [T.-to H.]-o{arg, phon} suisensita]]

2

More accurately, Mahajan (1990) proposes that the landing site of A-scrambling is AGR Spec. It was
Miyagawa (2001, 2003) that updated this analysis and proposed that A-scrambling is movement to TP Spec.
See also Kuroda (1988), which presents a TP Spec analysis from a different perspective.
3

I will henceforth omit the categorical features [cat] as they play no role in the discussion in this paper.

7
All features of Taroo-to Hanako are first copied at the landing site.4 Then, [arg] is deleted at thelanding site and [phon] is deleted at the initial site. As a result, only [phon] is in a position thatc-commands otagai ‘each other’. Then how can this scrambling license the anaphor? We would
expect the [arg] feature to be responsible for anaphor binding. I argued in Saito (2003) that thederivational application of Condition (A) provides an answer. It is proposed by Belletti and Rizzi(1988), among others, that Condition (A) is an anywhere condition. They present examples ofpsych-verb construction such as (13) as evidence.
(13) [TP [Pictures of himself]i [VP [V’ worry ti] John]]
The reflexive himself is not bound by its antecedent John in this sentence. However, the subject is atheme argument and hence, it is plausible that it originates in a position lower than the experiencer
John. Belletti and Rizzi argue then that the reflexive can be licensed prior to the movement ofpictures of himself to the subject position. This analysis implies that Condition (A) can be satisfied
at any point of a derivation. Given this conception of Condition (A), otagai in (12b) is licensed
when its antecedent is copied at the sentence-initial position, that is, prior to the deletion of [arg]from this position.
The failure of long scrambling to license anaphors follows from this analysis, given that CPs
constitute phases in the sense of Chomsky (2000). Let us first consider how the chain interpretation
mechanism applies to the long-distance wh-movement in (14).
(14) Which booki does John think that Mary read ti
Given that the embedded CP is a phase, the wh-phrase which book must first move to its edge as in(15a).
(15) a.
b.

[CP Which book{wh, arg, phon} [C’ that [TP Mary read which book{wh, arg, phon}]]][CP Which book{wh, arg, phon} [C’ that [TP Mary read which book{wh, arg, phon}]]]Upon the completion of this phase, the complement TP is transferred to the interpretive components
4

Given that vP constitutes a derivational phase, the movement must proceed though its edge. However, I
will ignore vP phase and assume that only CP constitutes a phase in this paper for ease of exposition. The
simplification is justified in part because short scrambling to the vP edge is known to have properties quitedistinct from scrambling across the subject. For example, as pointed out by Mahajan (1990), Tada (1993),
and Nemoto (1993), among others, it exhibits strict A-properties with respect to binding. I will assume that it
is more like object shift and in particular, that the [arg] feature copied at the vP edge by short scrambling isretained at that position. This means that real scrambling, as analyzed in this paper, originates at the vP edge.
See Saito (2003) for more detailed discussion on this point.

8
before the derivation continues to construct the matrix clause. This implies that chain interpretation
by feature deletion must apply at this point as in (15b) because [wh] and [phon] are not interpreted
at the object position. (15b) indicates properly that which book is not pronounced and is interpreted
as a variable at this position. Then, the matrix part is constructed as in (16a) and construed as in(16b).
(16) a.
b.

[CP Which book{wh, phon} [C’ does [TP John think [CP which book{wh, arg, phon} [C’ …
[CP Which book{wh, phon} [C’ does [TP John think [CP which book{wh, arg, phon} [C’ …

Which book is copied at the matrix CP Spec with two sets of features, [wh] and [phon], because[arg] is already deleted at the embedded CP Spec. The wh-phrase is pronounced there and isinterpreted there as a wh-operator.
Long scrambling out of a CP should apply in basically the same way. Let us consider (10b),
the example that shows that a phrase preposed by long scrambling cannot serve as the antecedent ofan anaphor. In this example, Taroo-to Hanako should first move to the edge of the embedded CP asin (17a).
(17) a.
b.

[CP T.-to H.-o{arg, phon} [TP Ziroo-ga T.-to H.-o{arg, phon} suisensita]][CP T.-to H.-o{arg, phon} [TP Ziroo-ga T.-to H.-o{arg, phon} suisensita]]

Then, chain interpretation by feature deletion should apply as in (17b) before the complement TP istransferred to the interpretive components. Next, the matrix clause is constructed as in (18a) and thederivation is completed with the deletion of [phon] at the embedded CP Spec as in (18b).
(18) a.
b.

[TP T.-to H.-o{phon} [[otagai-no …]-ga [CP T.-to H.-o{arg, phon} [TP Ziroo-ga …
[TP T.-to H.-o{phon} [[otagai-no …]-ga [CP T.-to H.-o{arg, phon} [TP Ziroo-ga …

Note here that [arg] is not copied at the matrix-initial position because it was deleted at theembedded CP Spec. Hence, the [arg] feature of Taroo-to Hanako does not c-command the anaphor
otagai at any point of the derivation. The ungrammaticality of (10b) is thus accounted for.
According to the analysis illustrated above, the landing site of scrambling can always be aposition from which anaphor licensing is possible. Long scrambling out of a CP fails to license ananaphor not because the landing site is an A’-position but because the [arg] feature of the scrambled
phrase is not copied at the landing site. The analysis crucially relies on the hypothesis that
Condition (A) is an anywhere condition. This is consistent with (11), repeated below as (19).

9(19) Zibunzisin-oi[Taroo-ga ti suisensita](koto)self-ACC-NOM recommended fact
‘Himselfi, Taroo recommended ti’
As the (subject-oriented) anaphor zibunzisin can be licensed prior to the application of scrambling,
the example is correctly predicted to be grammatical.5
Let us finally return to the example of radical reconstruction in (8b), repeated below as (20).
(20) [TP Dono hon -oi [Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga ti yonda] ka] siritagatteiru]] (koto)
which book-ACC-NOM-NOM read Q want-to-know fact‘[Which booki, Taroo wants to know [Q [Hanako read ti]]]’
The problem was that the wh-phrase dono hon ‘which book’ is not contained within the question CP
where it takes scope. The wh-phrase first moves to the edge of the embedded CP as in (21).
(21) [CP Dono hon-o{wh, arg, phon} [TP Hanako-ga dono hon-o{wh, arg, phon} yonda] ka]
As Japanese lacks syntactic wh-movement, two hypotheses have been entertained for wh-licensing
in this language. Huang (1982) proposes that wh-phrases are raised covertly to CP Spec and areinterpreted there. If this is the case, the [wh] feature can be retained at the landing site as in (22a)and the matrix clause can be derived as in (22b).
(22) a.
b.

[CP Dono hon-o{wh, arg, phon} [TP Hanako-ga dono hon-o{wh, arg, phon} yonda] ka][TP Dono hon-o{wh, phon} [Taroo-ga … [CP dono hon-o{wh, arg, phon} [TP …

In (22b), [wh] is retained at the embedded CP Spec as it is licensed and interpreted there, and isdeleted at the final landing site. On the other hand, Nishigauchi (1990) argues that wh-phrases inJapanese are licensed through unselective binding from [+Q] C. In this case, the first step of the
movement is interpreted as in (23), and the [wh] feature is retained at the embedded object position.
5

This analysis of (19) is inconsistent with Lebeaux’s (1988) conception of Condition (C) as an everywherecondition, and provides an additional piece of evidence for Chomsky’s (1993) proposal that the condition
applies to the output of the derivation. This is so because the [arg] feature of zibunzisin is copied at thesentenced-initial position as shown in (i).
(i)

Zibunzisin-o{arg, phon} [Taroo-ga zibunzisin-o{arg, phon} suisensita]Thus, if Condition (C) is an everywhere condition, the example is predicted to be ungrammatical, contrary to
the fact.

10(23) [CP Dono hon-o{wh, arg, phon} [TP Hanako-ga dono hon-o{wh, arg, phon} yonda] ka]
In either case, the radical reconstruction property of scrambling is captured by the proposedmechanism of chain interpretation.
In this section, I presented a uniform analysis of scrambling, clause-internal and long-distance,with a feature-based interpretive mechanism of movement chains. In the following section, I will
extend the analysis to data on subject-negation scope interaction discussed in detail in Miyagawa(2001, 2003). I will argue that the [arg] feature that is copied at the landing site of the initial step ofscrambling can be attracted by a higher functional head Pred. This provides further support for the
analysis of scrambling just presented, and interestingly, resurrects part of Mahajan’s (1990)
hypothesis that there are two distinct kinds of scrambling.

3. Pred Phrase above TP
In Section 3.1, I will review Miyagawa’s analysis of subject-negation scope interaction. Then,in 3.2, I will present a revision of his analysis, proposing that a functional projection above TP
plays a crucial role in the account for the phenomenon.
3.1. Miyagawa on Subject-Neg Scope Interaction
Miyagawa (2001, 2003) makes an important observation about the effects of scrambling on
the scope of subject in relation to sentential negation. First, a subject tends to take scope overnegation, as (24a) shows.6(24) a.

b.

Zen’in-ga
sono tesuto-o
uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u)
all-NOM that test -ACC take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres‘All did not take that exam’ (All > Not, *Not > All)
Sono tesuto-oi
zen’in-ga
ti uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u)that test -ACC all -NOM take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres‘That exami, all did not take ti’ (All > Not, Not > All)

However, once the object is scrambled to the sentence-initial position, the narrow scope reading of6

I will show the morphological make-ups of the verbal complexes in the examples in this section because
the position of negation is important for the discussion.

11
the subject becomes readily available as in (24b).7 This effect is observed only with clause-internal
scrambling. (25) indicates that long scrambling out of a CP does not make the narrow scope
construal of the subject possible.
(25) Syukudai -oi
zenn’in-ga [CP sensei -ga ti das -u
to] omow-ana -katta (yo)homework-ACC all-NOM teacher-NOM assign-Pres that think -Neg-Past Part
‘Homeworki, all did not think that the teacher would assign ti’ (All > Not, *Not > All)The difference between clause-internal scrambling in (24b) and long scrambling out of a CPin (25) is reminiscent of the binding paradigm discussed in the preceding section. In both cases,
only clause-internal scrambling can affect interpretation. Miyagawa in fact argues that it provides
supporting evidence for Mahajan’s non-uniform analysis of scrambling, which he himself has
developed over the years. Let us first consider the structure of (24a), shown in (26).
(26) [TP Zen’in-gai [T’ [NegP [vP ti [v’ [VP sono tesuto-o [V uke-]] v ]] [Neg -na-]] [T -katta]]]
The subject zen’in-ga ‘all-NOM’ is raised to TP Spec in order to satisfy the EPP requirement of T.
Consequently, it is in a position higher than the Neg head and takes wide scope. According toMiyagawa’s version of the non-uniform analysis of scrambling, the object may move to TP Specand check the EPP-feature of T instead of the subject, or it may adjoin to TP after the subject moves
into TP Spec. The two cases are shown schematically in (27).
(27) a.
b.

[TP Objecti [T’ [vP Subject [v’ [VP ti V] v ]] T]][TP Objecti [TP Subjectj [T’ [vP tj [v’ [VP ti V] v ]] T]]]

In the former case, the object is in an A-position and can license an anaphor contained within the
7

The wide scope construal of the subject in examples without scrambling is a tendency and is not without
exceptions. As Miyagawa notes, the facts are relatively clear with specific quantifiers (such as zen’in ‘allmembers’), specific verbs (native Japanese as opposed to Sino-Japanese), and specific sentence endings(such as the assertive particle yo or embedding by to omo-u ‘I think that’). But even then, exceptions can befound. For example, suppose that an instructor for a course gives the students a choice between taking thefinal exam and submitting a term paper. If she utters (i) in this context while trying to guess how many
copies of the exam she should prepare, the narrow scope reading of the subject is quite natural.
(i)

Zen’in-ga
siken -oerab -ana -i
to omo -u
all-NOM exam-ACC choose-Neg-Pres that think-Pres‘I think that all will not choose an exam (over a term paper)’ (All > Not, Not > All)

Nevertheless, the contrast between (24a) and (24b) is clear, and I agree with Miyagawa that it represents aphenomenon that needs to be explained.

12
subject as in (9b). The latter accounts for A’-scrambling that is observed in examples like (11).
Given this analysis of scrambling, (24b) has two possible structures, depending on whether
the object moves to TP Spec or adjoins to TP. These structures are shown in (28).
(28) a. [TP Sono tesuto-oi [T’ [NegP [vP zen’in-ga [v’ [VP ti [V uke-]] v ]] [Neg -na-]] [T -katta]]]b. [TP Sono tesuto-oi [TP zen’in-gaj [T’ [NegP [vP tj [v’ [VP ti [V uke-]] v ]] [Neg -na-]] [T -katta]]]]In (28a), the object NP moves to TP Spec and checks the EPP-feature of T. This allows the subject
to remain in vP Spec. The subject is then asymmetrically c-commanded by the Neg head, and takes
narrow scope. This is how scrambling makes the narrow scope construal of the subject possible,
according to Miyagawa. In (28b), on the other hand, the structure is identical to (26), except that theobject is adjoined to TP. In particular, the subject moves to TP Spec to check the EPP-feature of T.
Hence, it takes wide scope over negation. The scope ambiguity of (24b) is thus accounted for. This
analysis also predicts correctly that long scrambling out of a CP has no effect on the scope of thematrix subject. It is known that A-movement to TP Spec cannot take place across a CP boundary.
Hence, long scrambling must involve TP-adjunction. The structure of the matrix part of (25) is thenas in (29).
(29) [TP Syukudai-oi [TP zen’in-gaj [T’ [NegP [vP tj [v’ [VP [CP .. ti .. ] [V omow-]] v ]] [Neg -ana-]] [T -katta]]]]Here, the matrix subject must raise to TP Spec to check the EPP-feature of T. Therefore, it musttake wide scope over negation.
Although Miyagawa’s account for the contrasts in (24)-(25) is quite elegant, a couple ofquestions arise. First, the English counterpart of (24a), shown in (30), exhibits scope ambiguity.
(30) Everyone didn’t take that exam (Every > Not, Not > Every)
This suggests that negation can take sentential scope, and if so, the non-ambiguity of (24a) cannot
be attributed to the fact that the subject is in TP Spec. Secondly, and more importantly, the contrast
in (24) seems to obtain even when the object is an anaphor bound by the subject. This is illustratedby (31) and (32).
(31) a.

b.

Zen’in-ga
zibun-zisin-ni toohyoosi-na -katta (to omo -u)
all-NOM self -self -DAT vote
-Neg-Past that think-Pres‘Everyone did not vote for herself/himself’ (All > Not, *Not > All)
Zibun-zisin-nii
zen’in-ga
ti toohyoosi-na -katta (to omo -u)
self -self -DAT all -NOM vote
-Neg-Past that think-Pres‘For herself/himself, everyone did not vote’ (All > Not, Not > All)13(32) a.

b.

Zen’in-ga
zibun-zisin-oseme -na -katta (to omo -u)
all-NOM self -self -ACC blame-Neg-Past that think-Pres‘Everyone did not blame herself/himself’ (All > Not, *Not > All)
Zibun-zisin-oi
zen’in-ga
ti seme -na -katta (to omo -u)
self -self -ACC all -NOM blame-Neg-Past that think-Pres‘Herself/himself, everyone did not blame’ (All > Not, Not > All)

To my ear, there is no substantial difference whether the object is a regular NP as in (24) or it is ananaphor as in (31) and (32). And Miyagawa’s account does not extend to the latter case.
When the scrambled object is zibunzisin ‘self’, it cannot be in TP Spec because that would
cause a Condition (C) violation. The illicit structure for (31b) is shown in (33).
(33) [TP Zibun-zisin-nii [T’ [NegP [vP zen’in-ga [v’ [VP ti [V toohyoosi-]] v ]] [Neg -na-]] [T -katta]]]
The structure is ruled out as zibunzisin in TP Spec A-binds its antecedent zen’in ‘all’. Then, thescrambled object must be adjoined to TP as in (34).
(34) [TP Zibunzisin-nii [TP zen’in-gaj [T’ [NegP [vP tj [v’ [VP ti [V toohyoosi-]] v ]] [Neg -na-]] [T -katta]]]]But in this case, zen’in must move to TP Spec in order to check the EPP-feature of T. It is thenpredicted incorrectly that zen’in must take wide scope over negation in (31b) exactly as in (31a).
The examples in (31) and (32), thus, suggest that Miyagawa’s account cannot be maintained as such.
In the following subsection, I will propose a revision based on a functional projection PredP, above
TP, together with the chain interpretation mechanism discussed in the preceding section.
3.2. Pred Phrase and Scrambling
The generalizations that emerge from the discussion in the preceding subsection are as
follows. First, when the subject is sentence-initial, it takes scope over negation, as in (24a), (31a)and (32a). Second, when the object is placed before the subject by clause-internal scrambling andthe subject is no longer sentence-initial, the subject need not take wide scope over negation even if
it is in TP Spec. This is shown by (31b) and (32b). The initial conclusion that can be drawn fromthese facts is that the sentence-initial element must take scope over negation but a phrase in TP
Spec need not. Then, what is the position of the sentence-initial element? If negation can scope over
TP Spec, it must be higher in the structure than TP Spec. This leads to the hypothesis that the14sentence-initial element is in the Spec of a higher functional head, which I call Pred here.8 The
structure of (24a) will then be as in (35).
(35) [PredP Zen’in-gai [Pred’ [TP ti’ [T’ [NegP [vP ti [v’ [VP sono tesuto-o [V uke-]] v ]] [Neg -na-]] T]] Pred]]
The scope of negation extends to TP, as suggested also by the English example (30). But the subject
zen’in ‘all’ in (35) is in PredP Spec, and hence, takes wide scope over negation. In (31b), on theother hand, the scrambled object zibunzisin ‘self’ occupies the PredP Spec position, being
sentence-initial. The structure of the example is then as in (36).
(36) [PredP Zibunzisin-nii [Pred’ [TP zen’in-gaj [T’ [NegP [vP tj [v’ [VP ti [V toohyoosi-]] v]] [Neg -na-]] T]] Pred]]In this case, zen’in can take narrow scope because it remains in TP Spec. (36) suggests that the Specof PredP is an A’-position as the example is not a Condition (C) violation.
This accounts for the effect of clause-internal scrambling on the scope of the subject. The
analysis entertained here is in fact quite similar to Miyagawa’s. It just employs a higher functional
projection PredP instead of his TP. The remaining problem is the contrast between (24b) and (25),that is, the fact that long scrambling out of a CP has no effect on the scope interaction between thesubject and negation. (24b) and (25) are repeated below as (37a-b).
(37) a.

b.

Sono tesuto-oi
zen’in-ga
ti uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u)that test -ACC all -NOM take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres‘That exami, all did not take ti’ (All > Not, Not > All)
Syukudai -oi
zenn’in-ga [CP sensei -ga ti das -u
to] omow-ana -katta (yo)homework-ACC all-NOM teacher-NOM assign-Pres that think -Neg-Past Part
‘Homeworki, all did not think that the teacher would assign ti’ (All > Not, *Not > All)

Given the mechanism for the formation and interpretation of movement chains discussed in
the preceding section, the contrast suggests that the Pred head attracts an [arg] feature. Recall thatthe interpretation of clause-internal scrambling proceeds as follows:(38) [TP α{arg, phon} [ Subject [T’ [vP …α{arg, phon}…] T ]]]Suppose, as seems reasonable, that chain interpretation by the deletion of features need not take
The Pred projection is proposed in Bowers (1993), where Pred roughly corresponds to v of Chomsky(1995). Its role is quite different in the present context: it is higher than TP and is intended intuitively tocapture the theme-rheme relation in traditional terms.
8

15
place as soon as a chain is formed, but only needs to apply before a phase is completed and its
complement is transferred to the interpretive components. Then, the [arg] feature of the scrambled
phrase can be attracted by the Pred head before it is deleted at the landing site of scrambling. In thiscase, the scrambled phrase moves into PredP Spec as in (39).
(39) [PredP α{arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP α{arg, phon} [ Subject [T’ [vP …α{arg, phon}…] T ]]] Pred]]As the [arg] feature is attracted by Pred, it is retained at the PredP Spec position as well as theinitial site. On the other hand, long scrambling out of a CP proceeds as in (40).
(40) a.
b.

[CP α{arg, phon} [TP Subject [T’ [vP …α{arg, phon}…] T ]]][TP α{phon} [ Subject [T’ [vP …[CP α{arg, phon} [C’ … ]] …] T ]]]The scrambled phrase first moves to the embedded CP Spec as in (40a), and chain interpretationmust apply at this point because the complement TP is transferred to the interpretive components
upon the completion of the CP phase. In the matrix clause, only [phon] is copied at thesentence-initial position as in (40b). As a result, the Pred head in the matrix clause cannot attract[arg] of the scrambled phrase and attracts that of the subject instead. Consequently, the matrix
subject takes wide scope over negation in (37b).
It was shown above that Miyagawa’s (2001, 2003) paradigm can be successfully accounted
for by postulation of the Pred head that attracts an [arg] feature. Before concluding this section, I
would like to briefly discuss the implications of this proposal for the analysis of scrambling. First,
scrambling is distinct from the movement to PredP Spec illustrated above, but it feeds thismovement. Since Pred attracts an [arg] feature, it must attract the [arg] feature of the subject if
scrambling does not take place, as illustrated in (41).
(41) [PredP α{arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP α{arg, phon} [T’ [vP ... object V …] T]] Pred]]This is so because the closest [arg] feature to the Pred head is that of the subject. Then, how can the[arg] feature of the object be attracted by the Pred head in (37a)? Here, scrambling plays a crucialrole. That is, scrambling places the object in a position closer to Pred than the subject, andconsequently allows Pred to attract the object. This derivation was shown in (39). (39) in fact
illustrates the peculiar role that scrambling plays for the interpretation of a sentence. The [arg]feature is deleted at the landing site of scrambling because it is not licensed there. Thus, scrambling
itself is “semantically vacuous.” But it allows the [arg] feature of the scrambled phrase to be
attracted to PredP Spec. As a result, it allows the subject to remain in TP Spec and fall within thescope of negation.

16
Secondly, the edge of PredP should be allowed as a landing site of scrambling in addition to
the edge of TP. This can be best illustrated with long scrambling out of a CP. Recall that only[phon] of the scrambled phrase is copied at the sentence-initial position in this case, as was shownin (40b). I just argued that Pred then cannot attract the scrambled phrase as it lacks [arg] and must
attract the subject as in (42).
(42) [PredP Subject{arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP Object{phon} [ Subject{arg, phon} [T’ …
But this results in a wrong word order: the matrix subject precedes the scrambled object.9 The
sentence, then, should be derived instead by first moving the subject to PredP Spec and thenscrambling the object to a position preceding it as in (43).
(43) [PredP Object{phon} [ Subject{arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP Subject{arg, phon} [T’ …
This implies that there are two kinds of scrambling across the subject. One is to the left edge of TP
and the other is to the left edge of PredP. As far as I can tell, there is no need to suppose that they
are different except for the landing site. In particular, both are optional and are not triggered by aspecific feature such as the EPP. So this does not undermine the uniform analysis of scrambling.
But descriptively, scrambling to the edge of TP corresponds to Mahajan and Miyagawa’s
A-scrambling and scrambling to the edge of PredP to their A’-scrambling. In this sense, the analysis
of scrambling we arrived at incorporates the insights of both the uniform and the non-uniform
approaches.

4. Discourse Effects of Scrambling
In this section, I will extend the analysis proposed above to the “first-position effects” inJapanese. It has been known since Kuroda (1965) and Kuno (1973) that matrix-initial phrases
receive unique interpretations. For example, a matrix-initial nominative phrase is interpreted as an“exhaustive listing focus” when the predicate is individual level. Further, only a matrix-initial topic,
Kuno argues, can be construed as a “thematic topic,” as opposed to a “contrastive topic.” In Section
4.1, I will present an analysis of these facts in terms of the Pred projection and discuss the effects ofscrambling on the thematic interpretation of topic. Then, in Section 4.2, I will examine thepredictions that the feature-based chain interpretation mechanism makes and show that they areindeed borne out.

9

In addition, this derivation is arguably ruled out as an instance of Chomsky’s (2000) defective intervention
effect, since the scrambled object intervenes between the Pred head and the subject.

174.1. The First Position Effects: Exhaustive Listing Focus and Thematic Topic
As discussed in detail in Kuno (1973) and Heycock (1994, 2008), Japanese exhibits“first-position effects.”10 First, a matrix-initial nominative phrase is interpreted obligatorily as an“exhaustive listing focus” when the predicate is individual level in the sense of Carlson (1977).
Thus, while (44a) can be a neutral description of an event, (44b) must be interpreted with focus on
Hanako.11(44) a.

Hanako-ga
kooen-oaruiteita-NOM park -ACC walking-was‘Hanako was walking in the park’b.

Hanako-ga
heburaigo-ga
hanaseru-NOM Hebrew -NOM speak-can‘It is Hanako that can speak Hebrew’

It is only the sentence-initial nominative phrase that obligatorily receives focus. (45a) means thatmonkeys are the creatures that are smart.
(45) a.

b.

Saru -gakasikoimonkey-NOM smart‘It is monkeys that are smart’
Nihon-gasaru-gakasikoiJapan -NOM monkey-NOM smart‘It is Japan where monkeys are smart’(45b), on the other hand, means that Japan is the place where monkeys are smart, with focus on
Japan but not necessarily on monkeys. In other words, it is interpreted as ‘It is Japan wheremonkeys are smart’ but not necessarily as ‘It is Japan where it is monkeys that are smart’. It does
not exclude the possibility that creatures other than monkeys are smart in Japan. The phenomenon
10

Kuno (1973) presents the basic facts while Heycock (1994, 2008) proposes that the effects arise in the
mapping from syntax to information structure. As far as I can see, the discussion that follows is consistent
with Heycock’s proposal.
11

What is important here is the fact that Hanako in (44b) must be construed as focus. Any phrase can befocused, for example, with stress. A “neutral” way to express the propositional content of (44b) would bewith the topic marker -wa on Hanako. The sentence would then mean ‘speaking of Hanako, she can speak
Hebrew’ or ‘Hanako can speak Hebrew’ without focus on Hanako.

18
is restricted to the matrix clause. Thus, when (44b) is embedded as in (46), Hanako need not beinterpreted with focus.
(46) Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
heburaigo-ga
hanaseru to] omotteiru-TOP-NOM Hebrew -NOM speak-can that think‘Taroo thinks that Hanako can speak Hebrew’
The Pred projection proposed in the preceding section provides a means to represent
exhaustive listing focus in structural terms. As the Pred head attracts [arg], the sentence-initialnominative phrase must be in its Spec position. The structure of (45a), for example, should be as in(47).
(47) [PredP saru-ga{arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP saru-ga{arg, phon} [T’ … ]] Pred]]Then, the generalization can be stated as in (48).
(48) A nominative phrase in matrix PredP Spec is obligatorily interpreted as focus when thepredicate of the sentence is individual level.
Similarly, Kuno (1973) argues that a phrase marked by -wa can be interpreted as a thematic
topic only when it is matrix-initial. The particle -wa can attach to any phrase and induce acontrastive topic interpretation. But the thematic topic interpretation seems possible only when thewa-phrase is in the initial position of a matrix clause, as the examples in (49) illustrate.12(49) a.

b.

Taroo-wa (kyonen) sono hon -okatta-TOP last year that book-ACC bought
A. ‘Spaking of Taroo, he bought that book’ (thematic)
B. ‘Taroo bought that book, but I don’t know about other people’ (contrastive)
Taroo-ga(kyonen) sono hon -wa katta-NOM last year that book-TOP bought‘Taroo bought that book, but I don’t know about other books’ (contrastive)

What counts as “matrix” is less clear in this case. For example, a sentence-initial wa-phrase in a CP
complement of a verb can be construed as a thematic topic as in (i), in contrast to (49c), where a wa-phrase
appears within a relative clause.
12(i)Taroo-ga[Hanago-wa sono hon -ga
sukida to] omotteiru (koto)-NOM-TOP that book-NOM like that thinkfact‘Taroo thinks that speaking of Hanako, she likes that book’19c.

Taroo-ga [NP [TP Hanako-wa sukina] hon] -o
katta
-NOM
-TOP likebook-ACC bought‘Taroo bought a book that Hanako likes, but I don’t know if other people like the book’(contrastive)

In all of these examples, the wa-phrase can receive contrastive topic interpretation. But Taroo-wa in(49a) can in addition be construed as a thematic topic because it is in the initial position of a matrix
clause.
The Pred projection accommodates this generalization as well. The matrix-initial topic in(49a) is in the Spec of PredP as the structure in (50) shows.
(50) [PredP Taroo-wa{top, arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP Taroo-wa{top, arg, phon} [T’ … ]] Pred]]Thus, Kuno’s generalization can be restated as in (51).13(51) Only those topics in matrix PredP Spec can receive thematic interpretation.
In (50), I assumed that a topic carries the feature [top], and that this feature is retained andinterpreted at PredP Spec when the topic receives thematic interpretation. I will discuss this in moredetail in the following subsection.
The thematic interpretation of topics is particularly interesting because it interacts with the“free word-order phenomenon” in an intricate way. Sono hon-wa ‘that book-TOP’ in (49b) cannot
be a thematic topic, but it can be when it is placed at the sentence-initial position as in (52).
(52) Sono hon -wa Taroo-ga(kyonen) katta
that book-TOP-NOM last year bought
A. ‘Speaking of that book, Taroo bought it’ (thematic)
B. ‘Taroo bought that book, but I don’t know about other books’ (contrastive)
The same is true for PP topics, as shown in (53).
(53) a.

13

Taroo-ga(kyonen) Teruabibu-e -wa itta
-NOM last year Tel Aviv -to-TOP went
‘Taroo went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about other places’ (contrastive)

It has been proposed in the literature that thematic topics occupy the Spec position of a functional head.
For example, Kuroda (1988) argues that wa-phrases are interpreted thematically when they are in CP Spec.

20b.

Teruabibu-e -wa Taroo-ga(kyonen) itta
Tel Aviv -to-TOP-NOM last year went
A. ‘Speaking of Tel Aviv, Taroo went there’ (thematic)
B. ‘Taroo went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about other places’ (contrastive)

In the remainder of this subsection, I will argue that the thematic interpretation of the PP topic in(53b) is made possible by scrambling.
First, it has been shown convincingly that sentence-initial NP topics can be generated directlyat that position. One piece of evidence comes from examples such as the following, discussed firstalso by Kuno (1973):14(54) Sono ei-wa Taroo-ga [NP [TP ei kaita] hito] -o(yoku) sitteiru
that painting-TOP-NOM
drew person-ACC well know
‘Speaking of that painting, Taroo knows the person who drew it’
In this example, the sentence-initial topic relates to a gap inside a complex NP. Hence, the example
should be a Subjacency violation if it is derived by movement. Yet, it is perfectly grammatical.
Kuno concludes then that the topic can be licensed by some sort of “aboutness relation” at thesentence-initial position and can be generated there directly. Perlmutter (1972) completes thisanalysis based on the fact that Japanese allows pro in any argument position. More specifically, hepoints out that the gap need not be produced by movement because it can be pro. Then, (54) is anequivalent not of topicalization as in (55a) but of left-dislocation as in (55b).
(55) a. ?*That paintingi, John knows [NP the person [CP who owns ti]]b. That paintingi, John knows [NP the person [CP who owns iti]]
The analysis is confirmed by the fact that (54) remains grammatical when an overt pronoun appears
in the position of the gap as in (56).
(56) Sono ei-wa Taroo-ga [NP [TP sorei-okaita] hito] -o(yoku) sitteiru
that painting-TOP-NOM
it -ACC drew person-ACC well know
‘Speaking of that painting, Taroo knows the person who drew it’This analysis of sentence-initial NP topics implies that they need not move to PredP Spec but
can be merged directly at that position. However, I argued in Saito (1985) that the situation is

14

The NP topics in (54) and (56) below can be construed contrastively as well. This is not indicated in thetranslations just because it is not important for the discussion here.

21
different with PP topics. First, PP topics, in distinction with NP topics, cannot correspond to a
position within a complex NP, as (57) shows.
(57)?*Osuro-dei-wa Taroo-ga [NP [TP (yonenkan) ei benkyoosita] hito] -ositteiru
Oslo -in -TOP
-NOM
for four years studied
person-ACC know
‘Speaking of Oslo, Taroo knows a person who studied there’
The contrast between this example and (58a-b), which contain no islands, already suggests that a PP
topic cannot be generated directly at the sentence-initial position but must be moved to that
position.
(58) a.

b.

Osuro-dei-wa [TP Taroo-ga(yonenkan) ei benkyoosita]
Oslo -in -TOP
-NOM for four years studied‘Speaking of Oslo, Taroo studied there’
Osuro-dei-wa Hanako-ga [CP Taroo-ga(yonenkan) ei benkyoosita to] itteita
Oslo -in -TOP
-NOM
-NOM for four years studied
that said‘Speaking of Oslo, Hanako said that Taroo studied there’

Secondly, PP topics, as opposed to NP topics, do not allow overt resumptive pronouns. For example,(59) contrasts sharply with (56).
(59) *Osuro-dei-wa Taroo-ga [NP [TP (yonenkan) soko -dei benkyoosita] hito] -ositteiru
Oslo -in -TOP
-NOM
for four years there-in studied
person-ACC know
‘Speaking of Oslo, Taroo knows a person who studied there’
This indicates that the “gap” in PP topic sentences cannot be pro. This is so because if it can be pro,
we would expect an overt pronoun to be also possible. (59), then, confirms that examples withsentence-initial PP topics must be derived by movement, and that (57), in particular, must bederived by movement of the PP topic from within the complex NP.15

It is speculated in Saito (1985) that (59) is ungrammatical and (57) must involve movement because a PP
topic, as opposed to an NP topic, cannot be licensed at the sentence-initial position by the “aboutness”
relation with the rest of the sentence. (59) is in fact much improved if an NP topic is substituted for the PP
topic, as (i) shows.
15(i)

Osuroi-wa Taroo-ga[NP [TP (yonenkan) (sokoi-de) benkyoosita] hito] -ositteiru
Oslo -TOP-NOM
for four years there -in studied
person-ACC know
‘Speaking of Oslo, Taroo knows a person who studied there (for four years)’22This analysis implies that scrambling of PP topics can affect interpretation in an interesting
way. Let us consider the examples in (60).
(60) a.

b.

Kanemoti -ga
Nyuuyooku-e kaimono -ni iku
rich people-NOM New York -to shopping-for go‘It is rich people that go to New York for shopping’
Nyuuyooku-e -wa kanemoti -ga
kaimono -ni iku
New York -to-TOP rich people-NOM shopping-for go
A. ‘Speaking of New York, rich people go there for shopping’ (thematic)
B. ‘Rich people go to New York for shopping, but I don’t know about other places’(contrastive)(60a) is actually ambiguous. It can be a description of some rich people heading toward New Yorkfor shopping. In this case, the predicate is stage level. But it can also express a property of richpeople with the construal of the predicate as individual level. It is this interpretation that is
important for the purpose here. Since the predicate is individual level, the sentence-initial
kanemoti-ga ‘rich people-NOM’ is interpreted obligatorily with exhaustive listing focus. This is
expected as this sentence-initial phrase must be in PredP Spec.
In (60b), the PP Nyuuyooku-e ‘New York-to’ is turned into a topic and placed at thesentence-initial position. The topic can receive thematic interpretation, which indicates that it can bein PredP Spec. And interestingly, kanamoti-ga ‘rich people-NOM’ no longer needs to be construed
as an exhaustive listing focus. This in turn shows that it need not be in PredP Spec because theposition is occupied by the PP topic. Then, (61) is a possible representation for (60b).
(61) [PredP Nyuuyooku-e-wa{top, arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP kanemoti-ga{arg, phon} [T’ … ]] Pred]]This situation is a familiar one. In the preceding section, a case was discussed where a scrambled
object moves into PredP Spec, allowing the subject to stay at TP Spec. It was noted then that thismovement of the object is possible only when it is mediated by scrambling. The Pred head attracts
the closest [arg] feature, which should be that of the subject. But when the object is scrambled overthe subject, Pred can attract its [arg] feature and it can move into PredP Spec. In (61) as well, thePred head cannot ignore the subject and attract the PP topic from within T’. This implies that the PP
topic can move to PredP Spec only if it first undergoes scrambling to the edge of TP as in (62).
(62) [PredP PP-wa{top, arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP PP-wa{top, arg, phon} [subject{arg, phon} [T’ …
Again, scrambling is semantically vacuous as all features are deleted from its landing site. But it23
enables the scrambled PP topic to move into PredP Spec and be interpreted thematically.
Two phenomena have been analyzed so far. First, scrambling makes it possible for the object
to move into PredP Spec, and as a result, allows the subject to stay in TP Spec and take narrow
scope with respect to sentential negation. Secondly, it allows PP topics to move into PredP Specand receive thematic interpretation. Although these two phenomena look quite different, theanalysis is basically the same. Scrambling can have semantic and discourse effects because it makes
it possible for non-subjects to be attracted by the Pred head. The instances of scrambling that were
important in this discussion all had the edge of TP as the landing site. However, it was noted at theend of the preceding section that scrambling can also move a phrase to the edge of PredP. In thefollowing subsection, I will consider the discourse effects of this kind of scrambling.
4.2. Scrambling as Topicalization
In this subsection, I will examine how scrambling to the edge of PredP affects the thematicinterpretation of topics. The crucial examples to be discussed are those presented in Kuroda (1988)
as exceptions to Kuno’s (1973) generalization that only sentence-initial wa-phrases can beinterpreted thematically. The first part concerns cases where an object is scrambled over a thematic
topic. In the second part, I will discuss cases that are more involved and interesting, that is, those inwhich a topic is scrambled to the edge of PredP. In both parts, I will argue that the analysis
developed in the preceding sections makes the correct predictions.
A brief discussion on the [top] feature is in order before I start examining examples withscrambling to the edge of PredP. It was assumed above, for example in (62), that topics carry thisfeature and that this feature can end up in PredP Spec. When the feature is in PredP Spec, the topic
can be construed as a thematic topic. At the same time, as noted above, topics can appear in any
position and receive contrastive interpretation. In (49b), for example, the topic is in the object
position. It seems then that the [top] feature can be licensed at any position and yield the contrastive
interpretation. Given this, it should be possible to retain the [top] feature at any position of the chain
when a topic is moved. This is illustrated in (63).
(63) a.
b.

XP{top, …} [ …. XP{top, …} …]
XP{top, …} [ …. XP{top, …} …]

Again, the contrastive interpretation is always possible, and the thematic interpretation obtains only
when the feature is retained at PredP Spec.
Let us now consider cases of scrambling to the PredP edge. It was argued in the preceding
section that scrambling can place an object to the edge of PredP after the subject moves into PredP

24
Spec. The relevant structure in (43) is repeated in (64).16(64) [PredP Object{(arg), phon} [ Subject{arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP Subject{arg, phon} [T’ …
In the examples discussed there, the subject was in nominative. But what if it is a topic marked by-wa? Kuno’s (1973) generalization predicts that it cannot receive thematic interpretation because it
is not sentence-initial. On the other hand, the analysis presented above predicts that it can because it
is in PredP Spec. And the latter prediction is borne out by examples of the following kind from
Kuroda (1988):(65) Sono hon -oi
Taroo-wa (kyonen) ti katta
that book-ACC-TOP last yearboughtA. ‘Spaking of Taroo, he bought that book’ (thematic)
B. ‘Taroo bought that book, but I don’t know about other people’ (contrastive)
In this example, the subject Taroo-wa can be interpreted either as a thematic topic or as acontrastive topic. In the former case, the representation is as in (66).
(66) [PredP Object{arg, phon} [ Subject{top, arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP Subject{top, arg, phon} [T’ …
First, the subject is attracted to PredP Spec and its [top] feature is interpreted thematically. Then,the object is scrambled to the edge of PredP. As the [arg] feature is deleted at the landing site, thismovement is semantically vacuous. This demonstrates that the distribution of thematic topics
cannot be characterized in purely linear terms but must be explained in terms of a structural positionin the sentence.
The second case to be examined is scrambling of PP topics to the edge of PredP. For this, let
us directly consider the relevant examples in (67).
(67) a.

16

Hanako-wa (kyonen) Teruabibu-e -wa itta
-TOP last year Tel Aviv -to-TOP went
A. ‘Speaking of Hanako, she went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about other places’(Hanako-thematic, Tel Aviv-contrastive)
B. ‘Hanako went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about other people and other places’(Hanako-contrastive, Tel Aviv-contrastive)

The [arg] feature is copied and deleted at the landing site if the scrambling is clause-internal. Otherwise, it
is not copied at all, as discussed above.

25b.

Teruabibu-e -wai [ Hanako-wa (kyonen) ti itta]
Tel Aviv -to-TOP-TOP last year went
A. ‘Speaking of Tel Aviv, Hanako went there, but I don’t know about other people’(Tel Aviv-thematic, Hanako-contrastive)
B. ‘Speaking of Hanako, she went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about other places’(Tel Aviv-contrastive, Hanako-thematic)
C. ‘Speaking of Tel Aviv and speaking of Hanako, she went there’(Tel Aviv-thematic, Hanako-thematic)
D. ‘Hanako went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about other places and other people’(Tel Aviv-contrastive, Hanako-contrastive)

In these examples, both the subject Hanako and the PP Teruabibu-e ‘Tel Aviv-to’ accompany the
topic marker -wa. The possible interpretations for (67a) are as expected. Only the sentence-initialsubject can receive thematic interpretation. In (67b), the PP topic Teruabibu-e-wa ‘Tel
Aviv-to-TOP’ is placed at the sentence-initial position and interestingly, the sentence is four-ways
ambiguous, as indicated. The most striking is the interpretation in C: As pointed out in Kuroda(1988), when a PP topic precedes a wa-marked subject, both can receive thematic interpretation.17
Let us examine the interpretation in B first and then this case.
The interpretation in B obtains when the PP topic is scrambled to the edge of PredP as in(68).
(68) [PredP PP-wa{top, arg, phon} [ NP-wa{top, arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP [NP-wa{top, arg, phon} [T’ …
The subject Hanako-wa is attracted to PredP Spec and receives thematic interpretation. Then, thePP topic is scrambled to the edge of PredP. This interpretation provides further evidence forscrambling to the edge of PredP. (68) is in fact identical to (66) except that a PP topic is scrambled
instead of an object. There is another slightly different representation that also yields theinterpretation in B. In (68), the [top] feature of the scrambled PP topic is deleted at the landing site.
But as noted above, the [top] feature can be retained at any position of a chain. Thus, it should bepossible to retain the feature at the landing site as in (69).
(69) [PredP PP-wa{top, arg, phon} [ NP-wa{top, arg, phon} [Pred’ [TP [NP-wa{top, arg, phon} [T’ …
This representation also leads to the interpretation in B because the [top] feature of the PP topic canstill be interpreted contrastively.
17

It is, unfortunately, difficult to provide a precise definition for “thematic topic.” What is clear is that (67b)
has an interpretation in which neither topic is contrastive. I assume with Kuroda (1988) that this means thatboth topics can be thematic at the same time.

26
And interestingly, (69) yields the interpretation in C as well. The [top] feature of the PP topic
is at the edge, that is, at the outer Spec of PredP. Hence, if a [top] feature can be interpreted
thematically when it is in a Spec position of PredP, it should be possible to interpret both the PP
topic and the NP topic as thematic topics on the basis of (69). Thus, the interpretation in C iscorrectly predicted by the analysis proposed in this paper. This is another case in which a
non-sentence-initial topic receives thematic interpretation, and provides further evidence for the
analysis of thematic topics in terms of hierarchical structure over that in terms of linear order.18
It was shown above that the effects of clause-internal scrambling on the thematicinterpretation of topics can be captured properly with the analysis of scrambling proposed in thepreceding section. The analysis for the scrambling of topics to the edge of PredP, in particular,
makes interesting predictions for long scrambling out of CP. I will examine these in the remainderof this section.
Recall that only clause-internal scrambling has effects on anaphor binding and the scopeinteraction between the subject and sentential negation. This was so because the relevant feature
was [arg]. Clause-internal scrambling takes place as in (70) while long scrambling proceeds as in(71).
(70) [TP α{arg, phon} [ …α{arg, phon}… ]](71) a.
b.

[CP α{arg, phon} [C’ …α{arg, phon}… ]][TP α{phon} [ … [CP α{arg, phon} [C’ … ]] … ]]In (70), the [arg] feature of the scrambled phrase is copied at the landing site. This makes it possiblefor α to bind an anaphor and to be attracted to PredP Spec. The feature is deleted at the landing site
prior to interpretation because it is licensed only at the initial site. In the case of long scrambling,
the initial step of movement is to the embedded CP Spec, and the resulting chain is interpreted withthe deletion of features as in (71a). In the matrix clause, only [phon] is copied at the landing site asin (71b). Thus, α can neither serve as the binder of an anaphor nor be attracted to PredP Spec.
But the situation is different with the [top] feature: The hypothesis that was entertained aboveis that [top] can be licensed and retained at any position of a chain. Then, long scrambling of a topic
out of a CP can proceed as in (72).

18

As was noted in Footnote 13, Kuroda (1988) indeed presents an analysis in structural terms. For him,
wa-phrases receive thematic interpretation when they are in CP Spec. He argues that the interpretation C of(67b) is in accord with his hypothesis that Japanese is not a forced 1-1 agreement language, because multiple
topics occupy the CP Spec position without agreeing with the C head.

27(72) a.
b.

[CP α{top, arg, phon} [C’ …α{top, arg, phon}… ]][ α{top, phon} [ … [CP α{top, arg, phon} [C’ … ]] … ]]The [top] feature of the scrambled topic is retained at the embedded CP Spec after the initial
movement in (72a). Then it is copied and retained at the matrix-initial position in (72b). Thispredicts that a topic preposed to the matrix-initial position by long scrambling can be interpreted
thematically. The prediction is indeed borne out by (73).
(73) Teruabibu-e -wai [TP Hanako-ga [CP Taroo-ga(kyonen) ti itta to] itteita]
Tel Aviv -to-TOP-TOP-NOM last year went that saying-was
A. ‘Speaking of Tel Aviv, Hanako was saying that Taroo went there’ (thematic)
B. ‘Hanako was saying that Taroo went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about other places’(contrastive)
As indicated, the preposed PP Teruabibu-e-wa ‘Tel Aviv-to-TOP’ can be construed as a thematic
topic. The relevant derivation is shown in (74).
(74) a.
b.

[CP PP-wa{top, arg, phon} [C’ …PP-wa{top, arg, phon}… ]][PredP PP-wa{top, phon} [NP-ga{arg, phon} [Pred’…[CP PP-wa{top, arg, phon}…] … Pred]]]The PP topic first scrambles to the edge of the embedded CP as in (74a). The [top] feature isretained and the [arg] feature is deleted at the landing site. In the matrix clause, the Pred headattracts the subject Hanako-ga to its Spec position as in (74b). Note that the PP topic cannot be
attracted to this position as its [arg] feature is deleted at the embedded CP Spec. Finally, the PP
topic scrambles to the edge of PredP and its [top] feature is interpreted thematically at the landing
site.
(73) shows that it is not just clause-internal scrambling that can affect interpretation. It is thennot correct to say that there are two kinds of scrambling, one with effects on interpretation and one
without, and that only the latter can take place long-distance. Scrambling is scrambling, and how it
affects interpretation depends on how the features of the scrambled phrase are interpreted in thescrambling chain. This analysis is confirmed when it is examined whether long scrambling of a PP
topic affects the scope of the matrix subject. Recall Miyagawa’s (2001, 2003) observation that longscrambling out of a CP does not allow the matrix subject to take narrow scope with respect tonegation. A relevant example is shown in (75).
(75) Teruabibu-ei zen’in-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti iku to] omow-ana-katta (yo)Tel Aviv -to all -NOM
-NOM go that think -not -Past Part
‘To Tel Avivi, all did not think that Hanako would go ti’ (All > Not, *Not > All)

28
The proposed analysis was that long scrambling does not carry the [arg] feature of Teruabibu-e ‘Tel
Aviv-to’ into the matrix clause, and consequently, the matrix Pred attracts the subject zen’in-ga‘all-NOM’ to its Spec position.
The situation remains the same when a PP topic is scrambled, but at the same time, thescrambled PP topic can be interpreted thematically. This is shown in (76).
(76) Teruabibu-e -wai zen’in-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti iku to] omow-ana-katta (yo)Tel Aviv -to-TOP all -NOM
-NOM go that think -not -Past Part
A. ‘Speaking of Tel Avivi, all did not think that Hanako would go there’(thematic, All > Not, *Not > All)
B. ‘All did not think that Hanako would go to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about otherplaces’(contrastive, All > Not, *Not > All)
This is exactly what is expected under the proposed analysis. The [arg] feature of the scrambled PP
topic is deleted at the embedded CP Spec. Thus, the matrix Pred head attracts the subject zen’in-ga
to its Spec exactly as in (75). As a result, the subject takes scope over negation. Then, the PP topic
is scrambled to the edge of the matrix PredP. Its [top] feature can be retained at this final landing
site, and if it is, it can be interpreted thematically as indicated by the reading in A. This example
shows clearly that [top] and [arg] can function independently, and hence, provides further support
for the feature-based interpretation of movement chains.

5. Conclusion and Further Issues
It was argued in this paper that the semantic and discourse effects of scrambling can be
accounted for by the interpretive mechanism for movement chains. Scrambling itself issemantically vacuous in the sense that no substantial feature needs to be interpreted at the landingsite. However, because scrambling, like any other movement, copies all features of the moved itemat the landing site, it interacts with higher functional heads, in particular, Pred, and affectinterpretation in intricate ways. Further, since [top], which can be licensed at any position, can takea “free ride” on scrambling, a topic scrambled to the matrix-initial position can be interpreted
thematically. The functional head, Pred, plays an important role also in this analysis of the
distribution of thematic topics. Before concluding this paper, I would like to raise some issues
regarding the precise nature of this functional head and make a few speculative remarks.
The main properties of Pred are summarized in (77).

29(77) a.
b.
c.
d.

It is always present above a finite TP, and attracts [arg] to its Spec.
The phrase in PredP Spec takes scope over everything in the complement TP, including
sentential negation.
A nominative phrase in matrix PredP Spec is interpreted obligatorily as an exhaustive
lising focus when the predicate of the sentence is individual level.
A topic can be interpreted thematically when its [top] feature is in matrix PredP Spec.

I have entertained the hypothesis that there is a single Pred projection above TP, and it plays a rolein all the phenomena in (77b-d). There is in fact suggestive evidence that PredP is not recursive. Let
us consider (78), for example.
(78) a.

Nihon-gasaru -gakasikoiJapan -NOM monkey-NOM smart‘It is Japan where monkeys are smart’b.

Nihon-wa saru -ga
kasikoiJapan -TOP monkey-NOM smart
A. ‘Speaking of Japan, monkeys are smart there’ (thematic)
B. ‘Monkeys are smart in Japan, but I don’t know about other places’ (contrastive)c.

Nihon-gasaru -wa kasikoi
Japan -NOM monkey-TOP smart‘It is Japan where I know monkeys are smart but don’t know about other creatures’(contrastive)(78a-b) show that only the sentence-initial nominative phrase is interpreted obligatorily as
exhaustive listing focus. (78b), in particular, indicates that a nominative phrase need not have thisinterpretation when it is preceded by a topic. In this case, the nominative phrase need not be in
PredP Spec because the position can be occupied by the topic. Finally, in (78c), the sentence-initialnominative phrase must be an exhaustive listing focus, and the topic must be interpreted
contrastively. The latter fact suggests that PredP cannot occur recursively as in (79).
(79) [PredP Focus [Pred’ [PredP Topic [Pred’ [TP … ] Pred]] Pred]]If (79) were possible, the topic in (78c) should be able to receive thematic interpretation as it is in
PredP Spec.
(78c) suggests further that a Pred head cannot have multiple Specs occupied by a focus and a
topic as in (80).

30(80) [PredP Focus [ Topic [Pred’ [TP … ] Pred]]]This is particularly interesting because it was shown above that Pred can host multiple Specs when
they are all topics. A relevant example in (67b) is repeated below in (81).
(81) Teruabibu-e -wai [ Hanako-wa (kyonen) ti itta]
Tel Aviv -to-TOP-TOP last year went
C. ‘Speaking of Tel Aviv and speaking of Hanako, she went there’(Tel Aviv-thematic, Hanako-thematic)
Although I do not have an explanation for why (80) is impossible, I suspect that it receives anaccount in terms of the analysis based on the mapping from syntax to information structure as
developed in Heycock (1994, 2008). Loosely speaking, a sentence with a thematic topic isconstrued as representing a topic and an assertion. In this case, PredP Spec is mapped to topic andthe complement TP to assertion. Focus, then, must be contained in the TP so that it can be part of
the assertion. When PredP Spec contains an exhaustive listing focus, it is mapped to focus and thecomplement TP to presupposition. As a thematic topic cannot be part of focus, it cannot be in PredP
Spec in this case. A refinement along this line may shed some light on the precise nature ofthematic topic and exhaustive listing focus.
A question that is more directly relevant to comparative syntax concerns the identity of Pred.
Since it hosts thematic topics and exhaustive listing focus, it is tempting to relate it to the Topic andFocus heads that Rizzi (1997) postulates in the left periphery of CP. More precisely, he proposes tosplit the C-system as in (82).
(82) Force - (Topic)* - (Focus) - (Topic)* - Finite
As topics and focused phrases move into the Spec positions of the relevant heads, this system
accounts for Italian examples such as (83), where questo ‘this’ is in focus, and a Gianni ‘to Gianni’and domani ‘tomorrow’ are topics.
(83) a.

Credo che a Gianni, QUESTO, domani, gli dovremmo direI-believe that to Gianni thistomorrow we shouldsay‘I believe that we should say this to Gianni tomorrow’b. Credochea Gianni, domani, QUESTO,

gli dovremmo direc. Credoche

QUESTO, a Gianni, domani,

gli dovremmo dire

31

There are, however, clear differences between the Topic/Focus heads in Italian and what I called thePred head in Japanese. The former is optional and recursive, which is not the case with the latter.
The former attracts [top] and [focus], while the latter attracts [arg]. The Topic and Focus
projections in Italian can occur in embedded clauses, as (83) shows. On the other hand, only thosephrases in matrix PredP Spec are interpreted as thematic topics and obligatorily as exhaustive
listing focus. This last fact suggests that topic and focus interpretation in Japanese is accomplishedultimately in the mapping to information structure, as Heycock argues. Yet, a close comparison
between the two systems may uncover the possible forms of variation in the left periphery.
Another tempting comparison is between Pred and the head that hosts the sentence-initialverb in Celtic languages. Bobaljik and Carnie (1996) present the Irish example in (84) to show thatthe sentence-initial verb is located lower than C.
(84) Ceapaim [gobhfacasé an madra]

I-think that saw-Dep he the dog‘I think that he saw the dog’
The verb bhfaca clearly follows the complementizer in this example. They also argue that the
subject is raised to the Spec position of a functional head and the verb is raised to a still higher
position. McCloskey (1996) argues for the same conclusion, providing examples such as (85) as
evidence.
(85) Tá sé críochnaithe againnn
is it finishedby-us‘That has been finished by us’
Since this example is passive, the subject is raised from the object position to a position preceding
the verb críochnaithe. The landing site of this movement is plausibly a Spec position of a functional
head, and the example suggests that subjects in general are licensed at this position. The
sentence-initial tá precedes this position, which indicates that it is in a fairly high position. Bobaljik
and Carnie then hypothesize that the subject is in TP Spec while the verb raises to AGR. (See also
Roberts (2005) for detailed discussion on this analysis.) The Japanese Pred is probably not AGR as
the language lacks agreement altogether. However, if it is an equivalent of AGR in Celtic, aninteresting variation can be observed. The relevant head in Celtic attracts a verbal head while that inJapanese attracts an [arg] feature to its Spec.
The discussion above on the crosslinguistic comparison is merely speculative. But it suggeststhat the postulation of Pred in Japanese opens up a way to compare the Japanese left periphery with32
other languages. The main purpose of this paper was to provide a precise analysis for the semanticand discourse effects of scrambling. But I hope it also serves to stimulate research leading tocontributions from Japanese on the nature of the left periphery.

References
Belletti, A., and Rizzi, L. (1988) ‘Psych-verbs and θ-theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 6: 291-352.
Bobaljik, J., and Carnie, A. (1996) ‘A Minimalist Approach to Some Problems of Irish Word
Order’, in R. Borsley and I. Roberts (eds.), The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A Comparative
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223-240.
Bowers, J. (1993) ‘The Syntax of Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591-656.
Carlson, G. (1977) Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Chomsky, N. (1993) ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser(eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000) ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’, in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J.
Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 89-155.
Harada, K. (1972) ‘Constraints on Wh-Q Binding’, Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 5: 180-206.
Heycock, C. (1994) ‘Focus Projection in Japanese’, Proceedings of the North East LinguisticSociety 24: 157-171.
Heycock, C. (2008) ‘Japanese -wa, -ga, and Information Structure’, in S. Miyagawa and M. Saito(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press,
54-83.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation,MIT.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) ‘Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese’,
Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47.
Lebeaux, D. (1988) Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Mahajan, A. (1990) The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
McCloskey, J. (1996) ‘On the Scope of Verb-movement in Irish’, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 14: 47-104.

33
Miyagawa, S. (2001) ‘The EPP, Scrambling, and Wh-in-situ’, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A
Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 293-338.
Miyagawa, S. (2003) ‘A-movement Scrambling and Options without Optionality’, in S. Karimi(ed.), Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell, 177-200.
Nemoto, N. (1993) Chains and Case Positions: A Study from Scrambling in Japanese. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nishigauchi, T. (1990) Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Springer.
Perlmutter, D. (1972) ‘Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French Relativization’, in Paul Peranteau,
et al. (eds.), The Chicago Which Hunt. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago,73-105.
Riemsdijk, H. van, and Williams, E. (1981) ‘NP-structure’, The Linguistic Review 1: 171-217.
Rizzi, L. (1997) ‘The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements ofGrammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer, 281-337.
Roberts, I. (2005) Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications. 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. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
182-200.
Saito, M. (2003) ‘A Derivational Approach to the Interpretation of Scrambling Chains’, Lingua
113: 481-518.
Saito, M. (2005) ‘Further Notes on the Interpretation of Scrambling Chains’, in J. Sabel and M.
Saito (eds.), The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, 335-376.
Tada, H. (1993) A/A-bar partition in derivation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.