Nanzan Linguistics 15: 25-44. (2020)
ON THE CAUSATIVE PARADOXES: DERIVATIONS AND TRANSFER DOMAINS*
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
Japanese causative sentences look on the surface like simple sentences without embedding.
For example, the predicate of (1) is the compound verb, tabe-sase ‘eat-cause’.
(1)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni wani-otabe-sase-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT alligator-ACC eat-cause-Past‘Hanako made Taroo eat alligator meat.’

However, it is assumed since Kuroda (1965) that the causative morpheme -sase- takes a clausal
complement in syntactic structure. Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), for example, update thisanalysis and propose that it takes a small clause vP complement as in (2).
(2)

TP
HanakoTPv*PTv*P -ta

VP
Taroo

v*
VP

v*P

V
v*P -sase-

VP
wani

v*
V
tabe-

*

The material in this paper was presented in seminars at Keio University and the University ofConnecticut. I would like to thank the audiences there and Noam Chomsky for valuable comments. The
research leading to the completion of this paper was supported in part by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (C) #16K02647 and the Nanzan University Pache Research Subsidy I-A-2 (2019).

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

If this is correct, (1) has exactly the same structure as its English counterpart in (3), aside fromlinear order.
(3)

Mary made John eat alligator meat

Many pieces of evidence have been presented in the literature in support of the analysis ofJapanese causatives with complex structure. At the same time, there are phenomena in which
causative sentences pattern with simple sentences without embedding. One of them has to dowith Case. Kuno (1973) observes that causative sentences can have only one accusativeargument. The causee can accompany accusative Case only if the embedded verb does not takean accusative argument, as shown in (4).
(4) a.

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni/-oodor-ase-ta(koto)
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT/-ACC dance-cause-Past fact
‘Hanako made Taroo dance.’b.

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni/*-owani-otabe-sase-ta (koto)
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT/-ACC alligator-ACC eat-cause-Past fact
‘Hanako made Taroo eat alligator meat.’

This is surprising if Japanese causatives have the structure in (2). English causatives indeed canhave both the causee and the embedded object in accusative, as shown in (5).
(5)

Mary made them recommend him

Kato (2016) points out that causative sentences pattern with simple sentences with respect
to anaphor binding as well. As observed in Nakamura (1986), zibun-zisin ‘self-self’ is ananaphor that requires a local antecedent. Thus, only Hanako can be its antecedent in (6a).
(6) a.

Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga
zibun-zisin-o suisensi-tato] omot-te i-ru
Taroo-NOM Hanako-NOM self-self-ACC nominate-Past that think-Pres.
(koto)
fact‘Lit. Taroo thinks that Hanako nominated self.’ (zibun-zisin = Hanako)b.

Taroo-ga
Hanako-ni zibun-zisin-o suisens-ase-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM Hanako-DAT self-self-ACC nominate-make-Past fact
‘Lit. Taroo made Hanako nominate self.’ (zibun-zisin = Taroo or Hanako)

On the other hand, in the causative (6b), both Taroo and Hanako qualify as the antecedent ofzibun-zisin. This too is puzzling. In the English counterpart of (6b) in (7), Bill is the only
possible antecedent of himself.

On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)(7)

John made Bill nominate himself(himself = Bill)

The purpose of this paper is to suggest an analysis for (4b) and (6b) on the assumption that(2) is basically the correct structure of Japanese causatives. For the single accusative effectinstantiated by (4b), I rely on the proposal in Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2016) and Nomura(2018) that pair-marge of two heads can apply as in <H1, H2> before they enter into a larger
structure. More specifically, I suggest that the causative -sase- combines with the embeddedv(*) and enter the larger derivation as <cause, v(*)>. Put differently, <cause, v(*)> assigns thecausee role and the external q-role to a single argument and is lexicalized as -sase-. I show thatthe single accusative effect follows as a consequence of this analysis. For the apparent extensionof the binding domain in (6b), I argue that it follows from Quicoli’s (2008) account for
Condition A effects in terms of phases when it is combined with the proposal in Saito (2017)that phases are defined differently depending on the presence/absence of f-feature agreement.
Before I present the analysis, I briefly go over the evidence for the structure in (2) in thefollowing section. In Section 3, I discuss the locality of anaphor binding in (6) in comparison
with the locality of NP-movement, and suggest a phase-based analysis along the lines of Quicoli(2008). In Section 4, I introduce Epstein, Kitahara and Seely’s (2016) argument for head-headpair-merge and present an analysis for the single accusative effect in Japanese causatives.
Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Evidence for Complex Structure
As noted above, many pieces of evidence have been presented in the literature for thecomplex structure of Japanese causative sentences. I go over the arguments based on theinterpretation of zibun, the locality of NP-movement, the interpretation of adverbs, andCondition B effects in this section.
The best-known evidence, discussed in Kuno (1973), for the complex structure is that thecausee in causative sentences can be the antecedent of the subject-oriented reflexive, zibun. (8)shows that the antecedent of zibun need not be local but must be a subject.
(8)

Hanako-ga [CP Taroo-ga
Ziroo-ni zibun-no syasin-omise-ta to]
Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM Ziroo-DAT self-GEN picture-ACC show-Past thatit-ta
(koto)
say-Past fact
‘Lit. Hanako said that Taroo showed Ziroo self’s picture.’ (zibun = Hanako or Taroo)

The dative argument Ziroo locally c-commands zibun but cannot be its antecedent in thisexample. However, the dative causee argument in causative sentences qualifies as theantecedent of zibun, as shown in (9).

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019(9)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni zibun-no syasin-o
sute-sase-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT self-GEN picture-ACC discard-cause-Past‘Lit. Hanako made Taroo discard self’s picture.’ (zibun = Hanako or Taroo)

This is accounted for if Taroo in (9) originates in the embedded v*P Spec, as in (2), and thisposition counts as a subject position.
Another piece of evidence is presented in Shibatani (1976). He demonstrates that there isambiguity with adverb interpretation in causative sentences, which is not observed in simple
sentences. There is a clear contrast between the following two examples:(10) a.

Hanako-ga
Taroo-oisoiderondon-ni hakensi-ta (koto)
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC in.a.hurry London-to dispatch-Past fact
‘Hanako dispatched Taroo to London in a hurry.’b.

Hanako-ga
Taroo-oisoiderondon-ni mukaw-ase-ta (koto)
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC in.a.hurry London-to head-cause-Past fact
‘Hanako made Taroo head to London in a hurry.’ (ambiguous)

In (10a), isoide ‘in a hurry’ modifies Hanako’s action. On the other hand, (10b) is ambiguous.
The adverb can modify Hanako’s action as in (10a) but it can also modify Taroo’s action ofheading to London. This is predicted by the structure in (2) with two v*Ps.
The third piece of evidence is due to Inoue (1976). She points out that causative sentences
exhibit different patterns from regular ditransitive sentences with respect to passive. As shownin (11), the accusative object in a ditransitive sentence can raise to the subject position in its
passive counterpart.
(11) a .

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni sono hon-owatasi-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT that book-ACC hand-Past‘Hanako handed the book to Taroo.’b.

Sono hon-ga
Hanako-niyotte Taroo-ni_ watas-are-tathat book-NOM Hanako-by
Taroo-DAT hand-Passive-Past‘The book was handed to Taroo by Hanako.’

On the other hand, the passive counterpart of (1) does not allow the accusative object to moveto the subject position. (12) is completely ungrammatical.
(12) *Wani-ga
Hanako-niyotte Taroo-ni_ tabe-sase-rare-ta
alligator-NOM Hanako-by
Taroo-DAT
eat-make-Passive-Past‘Lit. Alligator meat is such that Hanako made Taroo eat it.’On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)

As discussed in more detail below, this is expected if (1) has the structure in (2) with anembedded v*P.
Finally, Oshima (1979) shows that causative sentences differ from regular ditransitive
sentences with respect to Condition B effects as well. The following pair illustrates thedifference.
(13) a.

Taroo-gakare-o suisensi-ta (koto)
Taroo-NOM he-ACC nominate-Past fact

(Taroo ≠ kare)‘Taroo nominated him.’b.

Taroo-ga
Hanako-ni kare-o suisens-ase-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM Hanako-DAT he-ACC nominate-cause-Past fact

(Taroo = kare, ok)‘Taroo made Hanako nominate him.’
In (13a), Taroo and kare are disjoint in reference, a typical Condition B effect. On the other
hand, kare can refer to Taroo in (13b). As Oshima points out, this is expected if Japanesecausative sentences have complex structure.
It was shown in this section that Japanese causative sentences have complex structure as in(2). This makes the single accusative effect in (4) and the binding fact in (6) all the moremysterious. I take up these in the subsequent sections, starting with the latter.
3. Phases and Transfer Domains in Causative Sentences
Anaphor binding and NP-movement exhibit different locality in causative sentences. The
relevant examples, (6b) and (12) are repeated below in (14a) and (14b) respectively.
(14) a.

Taroo-ga
Hanako-ni zibun-zisin-o suisens-ase-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM Hanako-DAT self-self-ACC nominate-make-Past fact
‘Lit. Taroo made Hanako nominate self.’ (zibun-zisin = Taroo or Hanako)

b. *Wani-ga
Hanako-niyotte Taroo-ni_ tabe-sase-rare-ta
alligator-NOM Hanako-by
Taroo-DAT eat-make-Passive-Past‘Lit. Alligator meat is such that Hanako made Taroo eat it.’In (14a), the matrix subject qualifies as the antecedent of the local anaphor in the embedded
object position. (14b) shows that a noun phrase cannot move from the embedded object position
to the matrix subject position. As the theory of phase and transfer is designed to exaplain
locality requirements, I briefly go over its developments in Section 3.1. I first introduce
Chomsky’s (2000, 2008) standard theory and its application to anaphor binding by Quicoli(2008). Then, I discuss the modification of the theory proposed in Saito (2017). In Section 3.2,

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

I show how the contrast in (14) is explained by the theory.
3.1.

On the Theory of Phase and Transfer

Chomsky (2000) proposes that derivation proceeds phase by phase, where CP and v*Pconstitute phases, and that the complement of a phase head is transferred to the interpretive
components upon the completion of the phase. This accounts for the locality of NP-movement,
as the following example of super-raising illustrates:(15)* John seems [CP that [TP it is likely [TP _ to win the race]]]

When the embedded CP is constructed, the shaded TP, containing John, is transferred to theinterpretive components. Hence, John is unable to move out of this TP to the matrix subject
position.
This theory also explains why Wh-movement takes place successive-cyclically. As
discussed in Chomsky (1986), Wh-movement proceeds through the edges of CP and v*P, as
illustrated in (16).
(16)[CP What [CP do [TP you [v*P _ [v*P think [CP _ [CP that [TP John [v*P _ [v*P bought _ ]]]]]]]]]]

The first step of the movement, for example, is necessary because the embedded VP istransferred to the interfaces upon the completion of the embedded v*P and hence, the Whphrase must move out of the VP before this transfer applies.
Quicoli (2008), among others, has proposed to explain the locality of anaphor binding on
the basis of this theory of phase and transfer. His proposal is shown in (17).
(17)

Information on the reference of an anaphor is sent to the C-I interface together with thetransfer domain containing the anaphor.

I illustrate this proposal with the examples in (18).
(18) a. John recommended himself
b. *John thinks that Mary recommended himself
When the v*P of (18a) is formed as in (19), the complement VP containing himself is transferredto the C-I interface.
(19)[v*P John [v* [VP recommend himself]]]

Since John is already in the structure and c-commands himself, the information that himself =John can also be sent to the interface and the anaphor can be properly interpreted. On the other
hand, the embedded v*P of (18b) is formed as in (20).

On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)(20)[v*P Mary [v* [VP recommend himself]]]

In this case, the information on the reference of himself cannot be sent to the interface alongwith the shaded VP because there is no proper antecedent in the structure. Thus, the anaphor
fails to be interpreted.
Quicoli’s proposal has a wide empirical coverage. However, there are also potentiallyproblematic cases as I discussed in Saito (2017). One of them concerns the absence of the NIC
effect in languages without f-feature agreement. Quicoli’s theory corretly rules out (21), which
is a typical example of this effect.
(21)*John thinks [CP that [TP himself will be nominated]]

When the embedded CP is completed, its complement TP is transferred to the C-I interface. The
reference of himself cannot be determined at this point, and consequently, the reflexive fails toreceive an interpretation. However, as Huang (1982) and Yang (1983) point out, thecounterparts of (21) in languages without f-feature agreement are grammatical. The following
Japanese examples illustrate this:(22) a.

Taroo-wa [CP [TP zibun-zisin-ga suisens-are-ru]
to] omot-te i-ru
Taroo-TOP
self-self-NOM nominate-Passive-Pres. that think-Pres.
‘Taroo thinks that he himself will be nominated.’b.

Hanako-wa[CP [TP zibun-zisin-ga sore-o mi-ta] to] syutyoosi-ta
Hanako-NOM
self-self-NOM it-ACC see-Past that claim-Past‘Hanako claimed that she herself saw it.’Given Chomsky’s (2000) definition of phases and transfer domains, Quicoli’s theory incorrectly
rules out these examples in the same way as (21).
It is already observed in Chomsky (1981) that in English too, an anaphor in the embedded
subject position can have an antecedent in the matrix clause when the embedded clause lacks
f-feature agreement. Some examples are shown in (23).
(23) a.
b.

John prefers [CP for [TP himself to be nominated]
They want very much [CP for [TP each other to succeed]]

It seems then that what is transferred at the completion of CP without f-feature agreement is
not TP but v*P in the exclusion of the subject. This will allow (22b), for example, as illustratedin (24).
(24) a.
b.

[CP [TP zibun-zisin-ga [v*P sore-o mita]] to][v*P Hanako [VP [CP [TP zibun-zisin-ga [v*P …]] to] syutyoosi]]Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

When the embedded CP is completed as in (24a), the shaded v*P is transferred. The embedded
subject is transferred later upon the completion of the matrix v*P, shown in (24b). Hanako is in
the structure at this point, and hence, the information, zibun-zisin = Hanako, can be sent to theC-I interface.
Saito (2017), with this consideration, proposes (25), building on Chomsky’s (2008) ideathat T and V inherit f-features from C and v* respectively.1(25) a.
b.

T/V inherits phasehood from C/v* together with f-features.
A phase HP is transferred upon the completion of the next phase up.

(25) makes the same predictions as Chomsky’s (2000) standard theory when there is f-featureagreement. For example, when T inherits f-features from C, TP becomes a phase and istransferred upon the completion of CP, as shown in (26a).
(26) a.

CP
C

b.
TP

DP

C
TP

T
[f]

CP
TP
DP

vP

TP
T

vP

But (25) yields a different result from Chomsky (2000) when there is no f-feature agreement
between T and the subject, as shown in (26b). T does not inherit f-features from C, and hence
TP is not a phase. Then, what is transferred upon the completion of CP is not TP but v*P.
(25) has various consequences as discussed in Saito (2017). Here, I introduce one of themand refer the reader to Saito (2017) for the rest. Chomsky (2000, 2008) maintains that CP andv*P are phases because of their interpretive properties. v*P is a unit that represents a complete
predicate-argument structure and CP is a larger complete unit with Tense and force. Given this,Legate (2003) and Bošković (2016) point out that one would expect unaccusative vP to be aphase as well. It represents a complete predicate-argument structure just like v*P. However,Chomsky does not assume vP to be a phase because of examples like (27).
(27) a.
b.

The boat sank
[TP The boat [TP T [vP v [VP sink _ ]]]]

If vP is a phase, its complement VP would be transferred to the interpretive components. But
1(25b) states that what is transferred is not a phase complement but a phase itself. This is alreadysuggested on independent grounds in Chomsky (2000) and Bošković (2016) although their definitionsof phase differ from the one entertained here.

On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)

this would make it impossible for the boat to move to TP Spec, as can be seen in (27b).
Legates (2003) maintains that vP is a phase and proposes that the movement in (27b)proceeds through the edge of vP. However, if (25) is assumed, the movement in (27b) is simply
possible and need not be successive-cyclic even if vP is a phase. An unaccusative v lacks ffeatures by definition, and hence, an unaccusative V does not inherit f-features. Then, VP in(27b) is not a phase and is not transferred upon the completion of vP. vP, being a phase, istransferred when CP is completed. But the movement takes place prior to this. Thus, if (25) isassumed, there is no reason at all to assume that vP is not a phase.
3.2.

Locality of Movement and Binding in Causative Sentence

In this section, I present an analysis of the locality of movement and binding in causative
sentences. The analysis provides further evidence for (25).
Let us first consider the anaphor binding example (6b), repeated below as (28).
(28)

Taroo-ga
Hanako-ni zibun-zisin-o suisens-ase-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM Hanako-DAT self-self-ACC nominate-make-Past fact
‘Lit. Taroo made Hanako nominate self.’ (zibun-zisin = Taroo or Hanako)

Recall that the matrix subject Taroo is a possible antecedent of zibun-zisin ‘self-self’ in thisexample. (28) contrasts with the English (7), repeated in (29).
(29)

John made Bill nominate himself(himself = Bill)

In (29), John cannot be the antecedent of himself.
The structure of the matrix v*P of (28) is shown in (30).
(30)

v*P
Taroo

v*P
VP

v*

Hanako

VP
v*P

V

v*P
VP
zibun-zisin-sasev*V
suisens-Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

According to (25), the embedded v*P phase, which contains zibun-zisin, is transferred to theinterpretive components upon the completion of the matrix v*P phase. And Taroo is in the
structure, c-commanding zibun-zisin, at this point. Hence, it is correctly predicted that Taroo
can be the antecedent of the anaphor. Note that the standard theory does not yield the desired
result. As it states that the complement of a phase head is transferred upon the completion of
the phase, the embedded VP is transferred when the embedded v*P is completed. Thus, it
predicts incorrectly that only Hanako can be the antedent of zibun-zisin.
(25) makes the correct prediction also for the English (29). The structure of the embedded
v*P of this example is shown in (31).
(31)

v*P
Bill

v*P
v*
[f]

VP
V
[f]

himself

nominate

As English is a f-feature agreement language, the verb, nominate, inherits f-features andphasehood from v*. Then, the VP phase is transferred upon the completion of the embedded
v*P, as illustrated in (31). The information, himself = Bill, can be sent to the C-I interface, but
John, which is yet to enter the structure, is not a possible antecedent for the reflexive. Thus, theinterpretation of (29) is accounted for.
Although the interpretation of the reflexive in (28) is as if Japanese causative sentences had
simple structures, the passive sentence in (14b), repeated below in (32), is ungrammatical.
(32) *Wani-ga
Hanako-niyotte Taroo-ni_ tabe-sase-rare-ta
alligator-NOM Hanako-by
Taroo-DAT eat-make-Passive-Past‘Lit. Alligator meat is such that Hanako made Taroo eat it.’This is expected given the structure in (30). The basic idea is that the embedded object has tomove to the matrix TP Spec but this is impossible because the embedded v*P is transferred
upon the completion of the matrix v*P. The precise account depends on the analysis of Japanesepassive, which is controversial. But let us tentatively assume for the purpose of illustration thatthe passive morpheme, -rare-, is a verb that selects a VP complement. Then, the structure of(32) is as in (33).

On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)

(33)

TP
TP
vP
VP

v

VP
(Hanako-by)

T
-ta

V

VP

Taroo

-rareVP

v*P

V
v*P

VP
sono hon-sasev*V
sute-

There are two phases, vP and v*P in this structure. When the former is completed, the latter,
which contains sono hon, is transferred. The noun phrase, therefore, cannot raise to TP Spec.2
In this section, I argued that the apparent inconsistency in the locality of binding andmovement in Japanese causative sentences is explained by the theory of phase and transfer. It
was crucial in the analysis that phases, and not complements of phase heads, are transferred.
Causatives in Japanese and English exhibit different patterns with the locality of anaphor
binding though their structures are basically identical. I argued that this also follows if f-feature
inheritance makes TPs and VPs phases. Overall then, the facts discussed in this section
constitute evidence for the proposal in (25) on phases and transfer domains.
4. The Single Accusative Effect
The example of the single accusative effect, (4b), is repeated in (34) with its structure in
(35).
(34)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni/*-owani-otabe-sase-ta (koto)
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT/-ACC alligator-ACC eat-cause-Past fact
‘Hanako made Taroo eat alligator meat.’2This analysis implies that the NP-movement cannot proceed through the edge of vP. I tentatively
assume here that this is because the edge of vP/v*P counts as an A’-position unless it is a q-position.

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

(35)

TP
HanakoTPv*PTv*P -ta

VP
Taroo

v*
VP

v*P

V
v*P -sase-

VP
wani

v*
V
tabe-

It is generally assumed that v* values accusative Case. Then, given the structure in (35), thehigher v* should be able to value accusative on Taroo and the lower v* that on wani ‘alligator’,yielding (34) with an accusative causee.
An insightful discussion on this problem is found in Takahashi (2010). He argues that -saseabsorbs the Case of the lower v*. As the result, only the higher v* retains the ability to value
accusative Case and hence, only one argument can appear in accusative. The remaining
question, then, is why this Case absorption takes place. I suggest in this section that this isbecause the causative morpheme pair-merges with the embedded v* before they enter into thelarger structure. The account employs the mechanism proposed in Epstein, Kitahara and Seely’s(2016) analysis of examples with unergative verbs that take CP complements. In Section 4.1, I
briefly go over Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) proposals on labeling, which form the background of
their discussion. Then, in Section 4.2, I introduce Epstein, Kitahara and Seely’s (2016) analysis
and present an account of the single accusative effect.
4.1.

Weak Heads in Labeling

Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2016) develop Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) labeling theory. I goover the initial proposals on labeling in Chomsky (2013) first, and then, its extension to explain
the EPP in Chomsky (2015).
Phrase structure is formed by the operation Merge, which takes two elements, a and b, andforms the constituent g = {a, b}. Chomsky (2013) proposes a labeling algorithm that determines
the nature of g on the premise that the interpretive components require this information. For
example, if a is verbal and b is nominal, the C-I interface needs to know whether g is a VP oran NP. The three cases of Merge are shown in (36).

On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)(36) a.
b.
c.

g = {H, XP}
g = {XP, YP}
g = {H1, H2}

A head and a phrase are merged in (36a), two phrases in (36b), and two heads in (36c). (36a) is
the straightforward case. As search into g finds a unique head H, it can be assumed that H
determines the label (nature) of g. Merge of V and NP, for example, yields a VP. On the other
hand, it is impossible to specify a unique label provider in the cases of (36b) and (36c). These
structures, then, should be illicit.
However, Chomsky (2013) notes that the configuration in (36b) occurs in simple sentences.
Let us consider the derivation of a sentence with a transitive verb in (37).
YP (<f, f>)

(37)
NP
[f]

TP
T
[f]

XP (v*P)
NP
[f]

v*P
v*

VP
V

NP

Merge forms the structure from the bottom as {V, NP} = VP, {v*, VP} = v*P. These are
instances of (36a) and no problem arises with labeling. Then, the external argument is mergedwith v*P, and {NP, v*P} = XP fails to be labeled. However, NP moves out of this constituent
after T is introduced into the structure as {T, XP}. Chomsky (2013) hypothesizes that v*P is the
only element that XP fully contains at this point and hence, qualifies to provide the label for XP.
The moved NP merges with TP at the top of the structure, and creates the configuration in (36b)again. For this, Chomsky proposes that search into {NP, TP} yields two heads N and T thatshare the same f-features, f, because of agreement, and this makes it possible to label {NP, TP}
as <f, f>.
This labeling theory places heavy constraints on phrase structure. The basic form that isallowed is {H, XP}. The {XP, YP} structure is allowed in two exceptional contexts. One iswhen XP moves out of the constituent and the other is when X and Y share a significant feature.
This provides an explanation for why phrase structure fits the X’ schema. The labeling theory
also explains other generalizations, including those on the distribution of noun phrases and thelast resort nature of movement.
Chomsky (2015) tries to extend the range of phenomena further that the labeling theory
covers. For example, he takes up is the EPP, which requires that the specifier position of TP befilled. (38a) is ungrammatical though the unaccusative sink does not take an external argument.

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019(38) a. *Sank two ships
b. Affondarono due navisanktwo shipsc. Two ships sank _Interestingly, the Italian counterpart of (38a), shown in (38b), is grammatical. Further, (38a)becomes grammatical if the internal argument moves to TP Spec, as in (38c). This suggests that
the TP Spec position needs to be filled in English but not in Italian. That is, Italian but not
English allows the clausal structure in (39a).
g (= TP)(39) a.
Td (= <f, f>)

b.

vP

g

NP

T
[weak]vP

The structure in (39a) is g = {T, vP}, and there should not be a problem with labeling. But as it
is illicit in English, Chomsky proposes that T in English is a weak head, that is, a head that is
unable to provide a label. Then, how are tensed clauses labeled in English? Once an NP thatagrees with T is raised to TP Spec, the clause is labeled as <f, f>, as illustrated in (39b). This
explains why an element in TP Spec is required in English. Chomsky assumes that the f-feature
sharing between N and T makes the latter a strong head, and g is labeled by T in (39b). But theimportant point is that f-feature sharing makes labeling of the tensed clause, d, possible.
In (39b), an NP raises to the specifier position of the head that agrees with it and values its
Case. Chomsky (2015) generalizes this to transitive verbs and their objects on the premise thatthe relation of V and the object is parallel to that of T and the subject.3 In the remainder of thissection, I briefly go over his analysis. (40) is the proposed structure of v*P.
(40)

XP
NP

RP
d (<f, f>)

R
R v*

NP
[f]

g
R
[f]

NP

R is the root to be categorized as a verb by v*.

3

There is clear evidence for the movement of the ECM subject to the specifier position of the matrix
verb, as discussed, for example, in Lasnik and Saito (1991). Chomsky’s motivation is also to generalize
this movement to thematic objects.

On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)

The assumption here is that R is a weak head just like T. Because of this, g initially cannot belabeled. The object raises to the specifier position of R, and then d is labeled <f, f> as R and
the NP share f-features. R raises to v* and creates a structure where v* is pair-merged (adjoined)
to R. This makes R categorized as V and <R, v*> a strong head.
4.2.

Pair-Merge of Heads in Derivation

Chomsky’s (2015) analysis in terms of weak heads is not fully worked out, and it requires
refinements. Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2016) consider examples with unergavive verbs thattake CP complements as in (41).
(41) a.
b.

John thinks that Mary is the most qualified candidate
It seems that Mary is the most qualified candidate

The structure of the matrix v*P of (41a), for example, is as in (42).
(42)

XP
NP

RP
g

R
R v*

R
[f]

CP

There are a couple of problems with this structure. First, the f-features of R cannot be valued
as R does not enter into agreement relation with any NP. Secondly, there is a labeling issue withg = {R, CP}. R, being a weak head, cannot provide the label. Further, movement of CP to theSpec position of R does not help because R and C do not share f-features.
In order to solve these problems, Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (2016) propose that the pairmerge of R and v* takes place before these heads enter the larger structure. (42) is revised as
(43).
(43)

XP
NP

RP
R

CP

R v*
[f]
First, <R, v*> is formed, and then, it merges with CP as {<R, v*>, CP}. Epstein, Kitahara andSeely (2016) follow Chomsky (2008) and assume that the f-features originate in the phase headv* and is inherited by the complement R. Their proposal is that the f-features are retained byv* as there is no configuration of feature-inheritance, and is suppressed because v* is pair-Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

merged with (adjoined to) R. They assume at the same time that v* can assign a q-role to theexternal argument from the pair-merged (adjoined) position. There is no issue with labeling in(43). R is combined with v* and is categorized as V. It is therefore a strong head.
Further work would be necessary to properly evaluate Chomsky’s analysis of verbal roots
as weak heads and Epstein, Kitahara and Seely’s analysis of unergatives. But the proposals on
the nature of a pair-marge structure of two heads, <X, Y>, seem promising. Specifically, they
propose that the f-features of Y is suppressed and Y does not value Case, and yet, Y is still able
to assign a q-role from the pair-merged (adjoined) position. For this, similar ideas have beenentertained in the literature. One example is the analysis of sentences like (44) in Hoshi (1995)
and Saito and Hoshi (2000).
(44)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni [NP toti-no
zyooto]-osi-ta/kokoromi-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-to
land-GEN transfer-ACC do-Past/attempt-Past‘Hanako transferred/attempted to transfer a piece of land to Taroo.’

As discussed in detail in Grimshaw and Mester (1988), examples of this kind exhibit a syntaxsemantics mismatch. Taroo-ni ‘Taroo-DAT’ is assigned the goal q-role by the head noun of theobject NP, zyooto ‘transfer’, but appears outside the NP as a clausal argument. In order toaccount for this and other properties of the construction, Saito and Hoshi (2000) proposed thatzyooto covertly moves and adjoins to the main verb. (45) is the structure of v*P with the control
verb kokoromi ‘attempt’.
(45)

v*P
Hanakov*PVP

Taroo-niv*
VPNP
toti-noVNzyootoV
kokoromi-

The verb kokoromi ‘attempt’ assigns the theme role to its object NP. The noun zyooto ’transfer’
assigns the theme role to toti ‘land’ within the NP. It then covertly pair-merges (adjoins) to V
and assigns the goal role to Taroo from the landing site. This analysis implies that a head canassign a q-role from the pair-merged (adjoined) position. Further, it implies that it is inert at thelanding site for Case valuation. The goal argument appears in dative and not in genitive.
Once it is assumed that heads can be pair-merged before they enter into a larger structure,On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)

a slightly different structure for Japanese causative sentences can be entertained. 4 Let us
consider again the example in (1) and its structure in (2), repeated below in (46) and (47)respectively.
(46)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni wani-otabe-sase-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT alligator-ACC eat-cause-Past‘Hanako made Taroo eat alligator meat.’

(47)

TP
HanakoTPv*PTv*P -ta

VP
Taroo

v*
VP

v*P

V
v*P -sase-

VP
wani

v*
V
tabe-

In (47), Taroo receives the agent role from tabe- ‘eat’ and then moves to receive the causeerole from -sase- ‘cause’. The movement is redundant if the structure is slightly revised as in (48).
(48)

TP
HanakoTPv*PTv*P -ta

VP
Taroo

v*
VP

VP
wani

V
V

tabe4

v*

V
cause

An analysis of Japanese causatives that adopts Epstein, Kitahara and Seely’s pair-merge of two heads
is proposed in Nomura (2018). The analysis to be proposed here differs from his but was inspired by it.

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

Here, the embedded v* is pair-merged with (adjoined to) the matrix V directly. As it can assign
the agent role to Taroo from this position, the NP can receive this q-role and the causee role
without movement. The structure has another advantage. That is, the embedded v* is inert for
Case valuation because it is adjoined to another head, just like the N in (45). Thus, there is only
one v* that can value accusative Case and the single accusative effect follows.
The remaining question is what prevents the structure in (47), which allows two accusative
phrases, and forces that in (48), which does not. Here, I tentatively suggest that the morpheme-sase- is a phonetic realization of <cause, v(*)>. Suppose the Vs and v*s in (47) form acompound verb tabe-sase- through head-movement (incorporation). Then, first, tabe- raises tov*, and then, the head complex raises to cause. The resulting structure is as in (49).
(49)<v*, <cause, <v*, tabe-, v*>>>
v*
cause
v*
tabe-

v*

cause
v*

In this structure, there is no unit that exclusively contains the embedded v* and cause, and canbe lexicalized as -sase-. Then, (47) is excluded as the structure for a causative sentence. The
only way to form the required unit is to directly merge the embedded v* and cause. This forces
the structure in (48), and as a result, imposes the restriction that there can be only one accusativeargument.
5. Conclusion
There is overwhelming evidence that Japanese causative sentences have complex structurewith clausal embedding. On the other hand, there are phenomena in which they pattern withsimple sentences without embedding. One has to do with the locality of lexical anaphor binding
and the other is that those sentences can have at most one accusative argument. I presented ananalysis for the former with Quicoli’s (2008) phase-based approach to the locality of anaphor
binding, incorporating the proposals in Saito (2017) on phases and transfer domains. Then, I
suggested an analysis for the latter that is based on Epstein, Kitahara and Seely’s (2016) ideathat two heads can be directly pair-merged before they enter into a larger structure.
It is challenging to explain the two phenomena considered in this paper with the limited
apparatus of the minimalist program. If the approach pursued in this paper is tenable, thephenomena provide important data on the definition of phases and transfer domains, and also
on how derivations proceed.

On the Causative Paradoxes (M. Saito)

References
Bošković, Ž. (2016) “What is sent to Spell-out is Phases, not Phasal Complements,” Linguistica 56, 2556.
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries,” in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by
Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89155.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phases,” in R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational
Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essay in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
133-166.
Chomsky, N. (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, N. (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” in E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann and S.
Matteini, eds., Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, 3-16.
Epstein, S., H. Kitahara and D. Seely (2016) “Phase Cancellation by External Pair-Merge of Heads,”
The Linguistic Review 33, 87-102.
Grimshaw, J. and A. Mester (1988) “Light Verbs and q-Marking,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 205-232.
Hoshi, H. (1995) Passive Verbs and Light Verbs: A Study on Theta Role Assignment, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese andv the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Inoue, K. (1976) Grammatical Rules in Japanese, Taishukan, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Kato, S. (2016) “Condition (A) and Complex Predicates,” Nanzan Linguistics 11, 15-34.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) “Causative Forms in Japanese,” Foundations of Language 1, 30-50.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1991) “On the Subject of Infinitives,” Proceedings of the Chicago LinguisticSociety 27, 324-343.
Legate, J. (2003) “Some Interface Properties of the Phase,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 506-516.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) “Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame,”
Nanzan Linguistics 1, 1-19.
Nakamura, M. (1986) Binding Relations, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Nomura, Masashi (2018) “Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads,” presented at 50 years of Linguistics atUConn, Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut.
Oshima, S. (1979) “Conditions on Rules: Anaphora in Japanese,” in G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M.
Muraki, eds., Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue, Kenkyusha, Tokyo,423-448.
Quicoli, C. (2008) “Anaphora by Phase,” Syntax 11, 299-329.
Saito, M. (2017) “Notes on the Locality of Anaphor Binding and A-movement,” English Linguistics 34,
1-33.
Saito, M. and H. Hoshi (2000) “The Japanese Light Verb Construction and the Minimalist Program,” in
R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor
of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 261-295.

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019Shibatani, M. (1976) “Causativization,” in M. Shibatani, ed., Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese
Generative Grammar, Academic Press, New York, 239-294.
Takahashi, M. (2010) “Case, Phases, and Nominative/Accusative Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 19, 319-355.
Yang, D.-W. (1983) “The Extended Binding Theory of Anaphors,” Language Research 19, 169-192.