International Symposium on Non-Nominative Subjects
Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
December 18-21, 2001

GENITIVE SUBJECTS IN JAPANESE: IMPLICATIONSFOR THE THEORY OF NULL OBJECTS*

Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
This paper concerns the so called ga/no conversion phenomenon in Japanese. As shownin (1), the nominative Case marker ga can be “converted” to the genitive Case marker no in aprenominal sentential modifier.
(1)

Taroo-ga /-no it -ta
tokoroTaroo-NOM/-GEN go-PAST place‘the place where Taroo went’

The phenomenon is apparently restricted to prenominal sentential modifiers. Thus, a genitive
subject is not allowed in a matrix declarative sentence.
(2)

Taroo-ga /*-no soko -e it -ta.
Taroo-NOM/-GEN there-to go-PAST‘Taro went there.’

Many important works have appeared recently on the general properties of thisalternation between ga and no. Among them are Miyagawa (1993), Watanabe (1996), Ochi
(2001) and Hiraiwa (2000). In this paper, I will focus on a specific restriction observed withthe distribution of genitive subjects. As (3) shows, a genitive subject is impossible when an
object NP is present.

2

(3)

Taroo-ga /*-no hon -o
kat -tamise
Taroo-NOM/ -GEN book-ACC buy-PAST shop‘the shop where Taroo bought a book’

I will suggest that the examination of this intervention effect leads to supporting evidence for
Kim's (1999) hypothesis that some cases of null objects in East Asian languages should beanalyzed as instances of ellipsis rather than involving phonologically empty pronouns.
In the following section, I will briefly present the analysis of the genitive subjects thatwill be assumed in this paper. It is a simplified (and somewhat distorted) version of Hiraiwa's(2000) analysis, but it should suffice for the purpose here. There, I will also discuss theintervention effect and show that null objects do not induce this effect. In Section 3, I will
introduce Kim's hypothesis on null objects, and argue that the “invisibility” of the null objects
in the genitive subject construction provides supporting evidence for his theory. Section 4
concludes the paper.

2. A Brief Analysis of the Genitive Subjects
In this section, I will present a simplified version of Hiraiwa's (2000) analysis of the
ga/no alternation and describe the intervention effect mentioned above.
2.1. The Source of the Genitive Subject
For some time, a movement analysis was widely assumed for the genitive subjects inexamples like (1). The basic idea is that the genitive subject moves out of the prenominal
sentential modifier to a position within the projection of the head noun, and as a result, thegenitive Case is licensed. This analysis straightforwardly explains the fact that genitive
subjects are possible in pronominal sentential modifiers but not in matrix declarative
sentences, since it is the nominal head that licenses the genitive Case on the subject. Thisapproach is pursued, for example, in Miyagawa (1993) and Ochi (2001).
The movement in question can be covert, as Miyagawa points out, because the genitive
subject can be preceded by an adverb that is clearly contained within the sentential modifier.
This is shown in (4).
(4)

kinoo
Taroo-ga /-no it -ta
tokoroyesterday Taroo-NOM/-GEN go-PAST place‘the place where Taroo went yesterday’

3

Further, we have examples such as (5).
(5)

Taroo-ga /-no purin -ga /-no suki-na koto
Taroo-NOM/-GEN pudding-NOM/-GEN likefact‘the fact that Taro likes pudding’As shown in (6), stative predicates in Japanese take nominative objects.
(6)

Taroo-gapurin -gasuki-daTaroo-NOM pudding-NOM like‘Taro likes pudding.’(5) indicates that when (6) appears as a prenominal sentential modifier, both the subject andthe object can optionally be marked by the genitive no. Thus, four patterns, ga-ga, ga-no, noga and no-no, are possible. In the ga-no pattern, the subject is apparently not moved out of thesentence as it appears in nominative. If so, the genitive object must be contained within thesentence as well. Thus, the ga-no pattern constitutes evidence that the proposed movement ofgenitive subjects need not be overt.
However, the movement analysis is rejected in Watanabe (1996) and Hiraiwa (2000).
Among their arguments is that the required movement involves extraction out of an adjunct in
most, if not all, cases, which is known to be illicit on independent grounds. For example, thesentential modifier in (1) is a relative clause and is clearly an adjunct. Hiraiwa (2000), then,proposes that genitive subjects (and objects) are licensed sentence-internally by the adnominal
verbal inflection. The regular declarative form and the adnominal form of predicates weredistinguished clearly in classical Japanese. However, the two forms merged in most casesaround the 13th century. Hiraiwa's claim is that the declarative/adnominal distinction is stillpresent in modern Japanese although it is obscured on the surface.
As Hiraiwa points out, the distinction is overtly manifested with a certain class of
predicates, called nominal adjectives, even in the present-day Japanese. Thus, the predicate issuki-da in (6), whereas it is suki-na in (5). Capitalizing on this fact, he presents evidence thata genitive subject is licensed even when there is no nominal head around as long as thepredicate is in the adnominal form. One of his examples is shown in (7).
(7)

John-wa ame-ga /-no yam-u
made kenkyuusitu-ni i -ta.
John -TOP rain-NOM/-GEN stop -PRES until office-in be-PAST‘John was in his office until the rain stopped.’4

In this example, genitive Case is possible on the embedded subject despite the fact that theembedded clause is apparently not a prenominal sentential modifier but is in the complement
position of the postposition made 'until'. Further, there is evidence that the predicate of theembedded clause is in the adnominal form rather than the regular declarative form. That is, anominal adjective appears in the adnominal form in this position, as can be observed in (8).
(8)

John-wa izyoo-na made-ni sinkeisitu-da.
John -TOP abnormal up to -in nervous‘John is extraordinarily nervous.’In this example, the nominal adjective can assume the adnominal form izyoo-na but not thedeclarative form izyoo-da. Hiraiwa takes this as confirming evidence that the genitive Case islicensed sentence-internally by the adnominal inflection.
Hiraiwa's actual analysis is rather involved in details, but I will assume a simplified
version in the discussion here. More specifically, I will assume that the verbal inflection inquestion lies in T, and that the declarative T checks nominative Case while the adnominal T
checks either nominative or genitive as illustrated in (9).1(9)

TP     ／  ＼              T’
       ／  ＼vP
T [NOM/GEN]         ／  ＼NPv’
 ／  ＼VP
v [ACC]／  ＼
NP
V
This accounts for the free variation between nominative and genitive on the subject of aprenominal sentential modifier. Given Koizumi's (1995) proposal that T is responsible also for
the Case of nominative objects, it extends to examples like (5) as well.
Then, how can the intervention effect in (3) be analyzed? One way to interpret thephenomenon is that the presence of an accusative Case prevents the adnominal T fromchecking genitive Case. Assuming that v checks accusative Case, Hiraiwa proposes (10).25(10) Spell-out of morphological accusative case by v triggers nominative Case checking on T
in the next strong phase.
Without going into the details of this proposal, I will adopt a slightly modified version shownin (11).
(11) When an adnominal T checks genitive, it absorbs the Case-feature of v.
When the subject is marked by genitive in (3), (10) prevents the Case-checking of theaccusative Case. Hence, the genitive-accusative pattern is excluded.
It seems that the adnominal T affects v in other ways as well. For example, Abe (1992)
points out that the external argument is optional (with an appropriate semantic/pragmatic
context) in prenominal sentential modifiers. The contrast between (12) and (13) illustrates thisgeneralization.
(12) komakaku kizan-dadaikonthinlyslice -PAST radish‘the thinly sliced radish’(13) komakaku kizan-dahito
thinlyslice -PAST person‘the person who thinly sliced (it)’(13) is an incomplete expression with the object missing. The missing object receives adefinite interpretation like a pronoun, and hence, the example means ‘the person who thinly
sliced it’. On the other hand, (12) is syntactically complete despite the fact that the subject ismissing. The subject is interpreted as an indefinite ‘someone’ as in ‘the radish that someone
thinly sliced’. This indicates, as Abe argues, that the subject q-role is absent in (12). Note that
this phenomenon is observed in prenominal sentential modifiers but not in matrix declarative
sentences. Thus, the missing subject in (14) can only have a definite interpretation.
(14) Daikon-okomakaku kizan-da.
radish -ACC thinly
slice -PAST‘She/he/they thinly sliced the radish.’
It seems then that the adnominal T can absorb not only v’s Case but also its q-role.3

6

2.2. A Closer Look at the Intervention Effect
In this section, I will discuss the intervention effect in more detail. The discussion isbased on the detailed descriptive studies in Watanabe (1996), Hiraiwa (2000), and Miyazawa(2001).
First, (11) predicts that only object NPs induce the intervention effect on genitive
subjects. This prediction is in fact borne out. (15), for example, shows that an adverb canoccur between the genitive subject and the verb.
(15) Taroo-ga /-no kinoo
it -tatokoroTaroo-NOM/-GEN yesterday go-PAST place‘the place where Taroo went yesterday’
An NP trace does not induce the effect either, as it need not be checked for Case by v.
(16) Taroo-ga /-no t taihos-are -ta
tokoroTaroo-NOM/-GENarrest -PASS-PAST place‘the place where Taro was arrested’
On the other hand, the trace of scrambling, which requires Case checking, does induce theeffect, as correctly predicted.
(17) hon -oTaroo-ga /*-no t kat -ta
mise
book-ACC Taroo-NOM/ -GEN buy-PAST shop‘the shop where Taroo bought a book’
But there are also cases that (11) does not account for straightforwardly. For example, asHarada (1971) initially observed, a relative gap seems to have no effect on the genitive
subject. (18) is a representative example.
(18) Taroo-ga /-no e kat -ta
hon
Taroo-NOM/-GEN
buy-PAST book‘the book that Taroo bought’Further, Hiraiwa (2000) points out that null objects do not exhibit the intervention effect.
As Miyazawa (2001) confirms this generalization in detail, let us consider one of her

7

examples here. (20)-(22) are all appropriate as an utterance to follow (19) in a discourse.
(19) Ziroo-ga
hazimete
Nagoya-ni ku -ru -node, minna-ga
iroiro-na
Ziroo-NOM for the first time Nagoya-to come-PRES-since all-NOM various
basyo-ni tureteik-u
yotei-desu.
place -to take -PRES plan -is‘Since Ziroo is coming to Nagoya for the first time, the plan is for everyone to take him
to various places.’(20) Hanako-ga /*-no Ziroo-otureteik-u
tokoro-wa Nagoya-zyoo -desu.
Hanako-NOM/ -GEN Ziroo-ACC take -PRES place -TOP Nagoya Castle-is‘The place that Hanako is taking Ziroo is the Nagoya Castle.’(21) Ziroo-o
Hanako-ga /*-no t tureteik-u
tokoro-wa Nagoya-zyoo -desu.
Ziroo-ACC Hanako-NOM/ -GEN take -PRES place -TOP Nagoya Castle-is‘The place that Hanako is taking Ziroo is the Nagoya Castle.’(22) Hanako-ga /-no e tureteik-u
tokoro-wa Nagoya-zyoo -desu.
Hanako-NOM/ -GENtake -PRES place -TOP Nagoya Castle-is‘The place that Hanako is taking (him) is the Nagoya Castle.’(20) is an example of the standard intervention effect by an object NP. (21) confirms thatscrambling of the object does not help. And finally, (22) indicates that a null object can freely
intervene between the genitive subject and the verb.
A clear generalization seems to emerge from (18) and (22). It has been standardly
assumed, since Kuroda (1965), that the null object in examples like (22) is a pronoun withoutphonetic content (an empty pronoun). It was also argued persuasively by Perlmutter (1972)
that the gap in a Japanese relative clause can be an empty pronoun. This hypothesis explains,among other things, the fact that Japanese relative clauses do not exhibit Subjacency effects.
The following example is from Kuno (1973):(23) [ e kitei -ru
yoohuku]-ga
yogoretei-ru
sinsi
wearing-PRES suit
-NOM dirty-PRES gentleman‘the gentleman who the suit that he is wearing is dirty’8Then, the intervention effect is not observed with the null objects that have been consideredempty pronouns.4
But this is quite puzzling. If those null objects are indeed empty pronouns, we would
expect them to require Case-checking and hence, to exhibit the intervention effect. It is thennecessary to look more closely into the nature of those null objects. In the following section, I
will argue that Kim's (1999) analysis of null objects as NP-ellipsis provides an elegant
account for the facts observed above.

3. Empty Pronouns as Ellipsis
As noted above, it has been widely assumed since Kuroda (1965) that null objects inJapanese are literally pronouns without phonetic content. However, this standard hypothesis
clearly faces a problem with the absence of the intervention effect in (22). A pronoun should
require Case, and hence, should block genitive subjects. On the other hand, Kim (1999) has
proposed that null objects in Japanese/Korean can result from NP-ellipsis. In this section, I
will consider how this theory can capture the facts discussed in the preceding section. In
Section 3.1, I will briefly go over Kim's arguments for NP-ellipsis. Then, in Section 3.2, I will
suggest an analysis for the absence of the intervention effect with null objects. To the extent
that the analysis is tenable, it provides supporting evidence for Kim's theory.
3.1. Kim's (1999) Arguments
A deletion analysis of null objects in East Asian languages was first suggested in Huang(1987). Relevant Mandarin examples are shown in (24) and (25).
(24) Zhangsan da le e.
Zhangsan hit Perfa. *'Zhangsan hit himself.'
b. 'Zhangsan hit someone else.'(25) Meigeren piping le ziji ma?
everyone criticize Perf self Q

Bu, John mei piping le e.
no John not criticize Perf

‘Did everyone criticize himself? No, John did not criticize himself.’
As discussed in Huang (1984) in detail, examples like (24) indicate that a null object usuallycannot corefer with the subject of its clause. However, Xu (1986) presents examples such as(25) and points out that this coreference is allowed in an appropriate context.5

9Huang (1987) suggests that the peculiar interpretive property of (25) receives astraightforward explanation if the example is analyzed as an instance of VP-deletion. The idea
is that V raises overtly to T in Chinese and hence, the VP contains only the object NP when
VP-deletion applies. Thus, null objects can be created with VP-deletion in an appropriate
context. According to this analysis, (25) is analyzed exactly as the English (26).
(26) Did everyone [VP criticize himself]? No, John didn’t [VP criticize himself].
The deletion analysis cannot apply to (24) because there is no appropriate antecedent VP ofthe form ‘[VP tV ziji]’ in this case. The contrast between (24) and (25) is thus explained.
Otani and Whitman (1991) argue that Huang’s VP-deletion analysis of null objects
applies directly to Japanese. Their main evidence is that null objects in Japanese allow sloppy
interpretation. One of their examples is shown in (27).
(27) John-wa zibun-no tegami-osute -ta;
Mary-mo e sute -ta.
John-TOP self -GEN letter -ACC discard-PAST Mary-also
discard-PAST'John threw out his letters, and Mary did too.'a. Mary threw out his (John's) letters, too. (the strict interpretation)b. Mary threw out her (Mary's) letters, too. (the sloppy interpretation)
As shown in (28)-(29), a sloppy reading is not possible with a pronoun, but it is with VPellipsis.
(28) Peter likes his picture, and Joan likes it too.
a. Joan likes his (Peter's) picture, too. (the strict reading)b. *Joan likes her (Joan's) picture, too. (the sloppy reading)(29) Peter likes his picture, and Joan does too.
a. Joan likes his (Peter's) picture, too. (the strict reading)b. Joan likes her (Joan's) picture, too. (the sloppy reading)Hence, Otani and Whitman conclude that the null object construction in Japanese caninvolve VP-ellipsis. More specifically, they follow Huang (1987) and propose that theconstruction can be derived by raising the verb to T and then deleting the remnant VP that
contains only the object. The proposed derivation of the second conjunct of (27) is shown in
(30).

10

(30)
TP
           ／ 
＼
NP
T’
｜
／  ＼
Mary-mo
VP
V+T／  ＼    ｜ ｜NP
tV sute-ta／    ＼／         ＼zibun-no tegami-oExamining Otani and Whitman's analysis in detail, Kim (1999) first points out that there
are cases where sloppy reading is available and yet the VP-deletion analysis cannot be
maintained.6 One of them involves the double-accusative construction in Korean, shown in(31a).
(31) a.

Mike-nun James-lul
tali-lul ketechassta.
Mike-TOP James-ACC leg-ACC kicked‘Mike kicked James on the leg.’b.

*Mike-nun tali-lul
James-lulketechassta.
Mike-TOP leg-ACC James-ACC kicked

In this construction, the order between the two accusative NPs, the inalienable possessor andpossessee, is fixed. Thus, (31b) is ungrammatical. Yet, sloppy interpretation is possible when
the first accusative NP is null, as the example in (32b) shows.
(32) a.

Jerry-nun caki-uy ai -lulphal-ulttayliessta.
Jerry-TOP self -GEN child-ACC arm -ACC hit‘Jerry hit his child on the arm.’b.

Kulena Sally-nun e tali-lul
ttayliessta.
but
Sally-TOPleg -ACC hit
a. But Sally hit his (Jerry's) child on the leg. (the strict reading)b. But Sally hit her (Sally's) child on the leg. (the sloppy reading)If the null object in (32b) is produced by verb movement and VP-deletion, the second
accusative NP, tali-lul ‘leg-acc’, must also be deleted, as illustrated in (33).

11

(33)
TP
           ／ 
＼
NP
T’
｜
／   ＼Sally-nun VP
V+T／  ＼       ｜ ｜NP
V’ttayliessta／  ＼ ／＼／      ＼  NP tV
caki-uy ai-lul ｜tali-lul
Hence, Otani and Whitman's analysis does not extend to this example.
Although (32b) is clearly problematic for Otani and Whitman's VP-deletion analysis, it
provides further evidence that the analysis of null objects in Japanese/Korean as pronouns
cannot be maintained for all cases. Kim concludes then that they involve NP ellipsis. This
proposal covers the Japanese and Korean examples discussed above, and also extends to theChinese examples introduced at the outset of this section. The relevant examples (24) and (25)are repeated below in (34) and (35).
(34) Zhangsan da le e.
Zhangsan hit Perfa. *'Zhangsan hit himself.'
b. 'Zhangsan hit someone else.'(35) Meigeren piping le ziji ma?
everyone criticize Perf self Q

Bu, John mei piping le e.
no John not criticize Perf

‘Did everyone criticize himself? No, John did not criticize himself.’
The elided NP in (35) can be construed as ziji ‘self’ because there is a linguistic antecedent in
the discourse. This is impossible in the case of (34). As Zhangsan is the only possible
antecedent, there is no way to interpret the elided object as an anaphor.
3.2. The Absence of Intervention Effect with Empty Objects
Let us now return to our main concern, i.e., the fact that null objects do not block
genitive subjects. Miyazawa's (2001) examples in (19), (20) and (22) are repeated below in(36)-(38).

12(36) Ziroo-ga
hazimete
Nagoya-ni ku -ru -node, minna-ga
iroiro-na
Ziroo-NOM for the first time Nagoya-to come-PRES-since all-NOM various
basyo-ni tureteik-u
yotei-desu.
place -to take -PRES plan -is‘Since Ziroo is coming to Nagoya for the first time, the plan is for everyone to take him
to various places.’(37) Hanako-ga /*-no Ziroo-otureteik-u
tokoro-wa Nagoya-zyoo -desu.
Hanako-NOM/ -GEN Ziroo-ACC take -PRES place -TOP Nagoya Castle-is‘The place that Hanako is taking Ziroo is the Nagoya Castle.’(38) Hanako-ga /-no e tureteik-u
tokoro-wa Nagoya-zyoo -desu.
Hanako-NOM/ -GENtake -PRES place -TOP Nagoya Castle-is‘The place that Hanako is taking (him) is the Nagoya Castle.’
In Section 2, I assumed, following Hiraiwa (2000), that the genitive subject is licensed by theadnominal T, and suggested that the adnominal T absorbs the Case of v. This accounts for (37).
When the subject is in genitive, the accusative Case of the object fails to be checked. The factthat (38) allows a genitive subject implies then that null objects need not be checked for Case.
This is surprising if null objects are empty pronouns, as noted above. But it is not if they
involve NP ellipsis as Kim (1999) has argued. In fact, the situation is similar to the casediscussed in Lasnik (1995), where ellipsis saves a potential violation. Let me, then, briefly goover his analysis first.
Adapting Jayaseelan’s (1990) analysis, Lasnik (1995) proposes that pseudogapping
results from object shift and VP-ellipsis. Thus, the second conjunct in (39) is derived by
movement of his leading campaign contributor to AGRO Spec and deletion of the remnant VP,
as illustrated in (40).
(39) John will select the CEO of a multinational Corporation and Bill will [V e] his leading
campaign contributor.

13

(40)

TP
／  ＼NPi
T’／  ＼
T
vP
／ ＼
ti
v’
／  ＼v
AGROP／  ＼NPj
AGRO’／  ＼
AGRO VP／ ＼Vtj

This analysis is based on Koizumi’s (1995) theory, where the object moves overtly out of the
VP to AGRO Spec and has its Case checked there. This, in turn, implies that the verb also
moves overtly to a head position preceding the AGRO Spec, for otherwise the English wordorder should be SOV instead of SVO. But then, an interesting problem arises. The verb
movement clearly does not apply in the second conjunct of (39). If it does, the verb cannot be
elided with VP-ellipsis. It follows then that the verb need not move out of the VP when andonly when VP-deletion applies.
Assuming that VP-ellipsis is derived by PF deletion, Lasnik explains this curious stateof affairs as follows. Suppose that a verb has a feature that blocks PF interpretation, and that
this feature is checked and deleted when the verb moves to the higher head position. Then, theverb movement is obligatory in regular sentences. But in the case of VP-ellipsis, the feature of
the verb can be deleted without the movement. Since the whole VP is deleted, so is the featureof the verb. Hence, VP-deletion allows the verb to stay in its original position.
This analysis can be applied directly to NP-ellipsis.7 Suppose that the Case feature of an
object NP needs to be checked and deleted so that the NP can be interpreted properly in the
PF component. Then, Case-checking by v is required in the normal cases. Thus, theungrammaticality of the genitive subject in (3), repeated below (41), is explained as illustrated
in (42).
(41) Taroo-ga /*-no hon -o
kat -tamise
Taroo-NOM/ -GEN book-ACC buy-PAST shop‘the shop where Taroo bought a book’14(42) a.

TP／  ＼NPi
T’[NOM]／  ＼
  vP
T [NOM]／  ＼tiv’／  ＼VP
v [ACC]／  ＼
NP
V
[ACC]

b.

TP
   ／  ＼NPiT’    [GEN]／  ＼vP
T [GEN]／  ＼tiv’／  ＼
VPv／  ＼*NP
V[ACC]

When the subject is in nominative, v carries the [ACC] feature and checks the [ACC] of theobject NP as shown in (42a). On the other hand, when T checks the genitive Case, it absorbs
the [ACC] feature of v by hypothesis. Hence the [ACC] feature of the object fails to bechecked and deleted, and the NP cannot be properly interpreted at PF. This case is illustrated
in (42b).
But the situation is different when the object NP is elided. Since the object NP is deleted,
its Case feature disappears with it as shown in (43).
(43)

TP／  ＼
NPi
[GEN]

T’
／  ＼
  vP
T [GEN]／  ＼tiv’／  ＼
VPv／  ＼NP
V[ACC]

Hence, Case-checking by v is not required in this particular case. The absence of theintervention effect with null objects thus follows.
Note that this analysis readily extends to the relative clause example in (18), repeatedbelow in (44).

15(44) Taroo-ga /-no e kat -ta
hon
Taroo-NOM/-GEN
buy-PAST book‘the book that Taroo bought’If the relative head can serve as the antecedent for the deletion of the object NP, then the[ACC] feature of this NP need not be checked by v. Hence, a genitive subject is possible also
in this case.
It has been controversial whether ellipsis involves PF deletion, as Lasnik assumes, or LF
copying. Sag (1976) has argued for the former and Williams (1977) for the latter, and as far as
I can see, the issue is not completely settled. It is then probably worth mentioning that theanalysis proposed above is consistent also with the LF copying analysis of ellipsis. Supposethat the null object in (38) is interpreted by copying Ziroo-ga ‘Ziroo-NOM’ in (36) in its
position at LF. The copied NP must already be checked for Case, and hence, it need not have
its Case checked again at the copied site. Hence, the analysis can be maintained under the LF
copy theory as well.

4. Conclusion and Further Issues
In this paper, I examined the intervention effect observed with the genitive subject
construction in Japanese. I assumed, following Hiraiwa (2000), that the genitive Case islicensed by the adnominal T, and suggested that this T absorbs the Case feature of v. Thisaccounts for the fact that an accusative object cannot occur in the genitive subject
construction. Then, I considered why this intervention effect is not observed with null objects.
The analysis of the genitive subjects implies that null objects need not be checked for Case,and based on this, I argued that the fact constitutes supporting evidence for Kim's (1999)
hypothesis that null objects can result from NP-ellipsis.
The conclusion of this paper, if correct, raises a number of issues. First, the NP-ellipsis
analysis of null objects must be made more precise. The discussion in this paper makes thistask even more challenging, since it requires the analysis to extend to the gaps in relative
clauses. A more general issue is why NP-ellipsis is allowed in East Asian languages but not in,say, English. This issue is particularly interesting because it has been proposed in Saito andMurasugi (1990) and Takahashi (1994) that N’-deletion and sluicing in Japanese are subject tothe same licensing conditions as their English counterparts. If ellipsis is subject to Universal
Principles, as it should be, then the presence/absence of NP-ellipsis is likely to be due to afundamental parametric difference.
Given the conclusion in this paper, it also becomes necessary to reexamine those16

phenomena that have been explained on the assumption that null objects are empty pronouns.
A notable case is the ‘double-o’ effect observed in examples like (45b).
(45) a.

Hanako-ga Taroo-ni /-oNagoya-ni
ik -ase -ta.
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT/-ACC Nagoya-DAT go-make-PAST‘Hanako made Taroo go to Nagoya.’b.

Hanako-ga Taroo-ni /*-obiiru-onom -ase -ta.
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT/ -ACC beer -ACC drink-make-PAST‘Hanako made Taroo drink beer.’

As can be seen in (45a), the causee in the causative construction can be marked either by thedative -ni or by the accusative -o. But (45b) shows that when the embedded verb takes anaccusative object, the dative -ni is the only option for the causee. It has been standard to
exclude the double-accusative pattern in (45b) on the assumption that v can license only one
instance of the accusative -o. Under this account, one of the accusatives in (45b) is leftunchecked.
Interestingly, Harada (1973) and Shibatani (1973) point out that the ‘double-o’ effect isobserved even when one of the accusative NPs is a null object, as shown in (46).
(46) Ziroo-ga
kusuri -omotteki-ta -node, Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni /*-oe
Ziroo-NOM medicine-ACC bring -PAST-since Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT/ -ACC
nom -ase -ta.
drink-make-PAST‘Since Ziroo brought a medicine, Hanako made Taroo drink it.’This is expected if the null object is an empty pronoun and needs to have its Case checked.
However, an alternative account for the ‘double-o’ effect is required if null objects caninvolve NP-ellipsis as argued in this paper. I will have to leave the discussion of these issues
for another occasion, hoping that their exploration will lead to further understanding of theJapanese Case system and the mechanism of Case checking in general.

17

Notes
*
This is a slightly revised version of the paper presented at the International Symposiumon Non-Nominative Subjects held in Tokyo on December 18-21, 2001. I would like to thankYoshio Endo, Ken Hiraiwa, Howard Lasnik and Keiko Murasugi for comments on the initial
version.
1.

See also Watanabe (1996) for a similar proposal.

2.
It will become clear in Section 2.2 why Hiraiwa considers the ‘spell-out’ ofmorphological accusative Case to be relevant here.
3.
The peculiar properties of pronominal sentential modifiers illustrated here suggest thatthey are ‘nominal’ in some sense. The external argument is optional in NPs. Further, evenwhen it is present in an NP, the object cannot bear accusative Case. But I have to leave theprecise account for this parallelism for future research.
4.
Miyazawa (2001), in fact, takes the parallelism between (18) and (22) as evidence for
Perlmutter's analysis of Japanese relatives. See Murasugi (2000) for a detailed, general
discussion on the nature of Japanese relative clauses.
It should be mentioned here that Watanabe (1996) and Hiraiwa (2000) draw different
generalizations. Watanabe argues that the absence of the intervention effect is observed not
only with the gaps in relative clauses but also with those in clefts. A relevant example isshown in (i).
(i)

Taroo-ga /-no e kat -ta
no -wa kono hon-o -da.
Taroo-NOM/-GEN
buy-PAST comp-TOP this book-ACC-is'It is this book that Taro bought.'

As it is argued in Hoji (1989) and Murasugi (1991) that Japanese clefts involve empty
operator movement, he draws the generalization that the intervention effect is lifted when theobject is dislocated by operator movement. Hiraiwa, on the other hand, points out that
Watanabe's generalization does not cover cases like (22). Then, he assumes instead that theeffect does not obtain when the accusative Case assigned by v is not phonetically realized.
(Hence, the formulation of (10).)Their generalizations may turn out to be correct. However, I will not follow them here
because (I) I think it has been shown quite convincingly that Japanese relative clauses need
not involve operator movement, (II) there is much variation in the judgments for examples

18

like (i), and (III) as far as I can see, further research is needed for the precise analysis ofJapanese clefts.
5.
Xu (1986) concludes, based on examples such as (25), that Chinese has a "free empty
category," an empty category that can have any binding property.
6.

See also Hoji (1998) for much relevant discussion.

7.
Lasnik (2001) proposes a slightly revised analysis based on feature-movement. This
analysis, too, can be readily applied to NP-ellipsis, but I will not go into the details here as theanalysis is technically more involved.

References
Abe, Y. 1992. “Tense, conditionals and arbitrary PRO interpretation in Japanese.”Proceedingsof the Sophia Linuistic Society 6: 33-58.
Harada, S.-I. 1971. “Ga-no conversion and idiolectal variations in Japanese.” Gengo Kenkyu
60: 23-38.
Harada, S.-I. 1973. “Counter equi NP deletion.” Annual Bulletin 7: 113-147. ResearchInstitute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo.
Hiraiwa, K. 2000. “On nominative-genitive conversion.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
39: 66-124.
Hoji, H. 1989. Theories of anaphora and aspects of Japanese syntax. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Southern California.
Hoji, H. 1998. “Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese.” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 127-152.
Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. “On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.” Linguistic
Inquiry 15: 531-574.
Huang C.-T. J. 1987. “Remarks on empty categories in Chinese.” Linguistic Inquiry 18: 321337.
Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. “Incomplete VP deletion and gapping.” Linguistic Analysis 20: 64-81.
Kim, S.-W. 1999. “Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis.” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 8: 255-284.
Koizumi, M. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,MIT.
Kuno, S. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, MIT.
Lasnik, H. 1995. “A note on pseudogapping.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27: 143-

19

163.
Lasnik, H. 2001. “When can you save a structure by destroying it?” Proceedings of the North
East Linguistic Society 31: 301-320.
Miyagawa, S. 1993. “LF Case-checking and minimal link condition.” MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 19: 213-254.
Miyazawa, T. 2001. Case conversions in Japanese. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Nanzan
University.
Murasugi, K. 1991. Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study on syntax, learnability
and acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. 2000. “Japanese complex noun phrases and the antisymmetry theory.” In Stepby step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D.
Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.), 211-234. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Ochi, M. 2001. “Move F and ga/no conversion in Japanese.” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 10: 247-286.
Otani, K. and Whitman J. 1991. “V-raising and VP-ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 345-358.
Perlmutter, D. 1972. “Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization.” In Chicago
which hunt, P. M. Peranteau, et al. (eds.), 73-105. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saito M. and Murasugi, K. 1990. “N’-deletion in Japanese: A preliminary study.” InJapanese/Korean Linguistics, H. Hoji (ed.), 285-301. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Shibatani, M. 1973. “Semantics of Japanese causativization.” Foundations of Language 9:327-373.
Takahashi, D. 1994. “Sluicing in Japanese.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 265-300.
Watanabe, A. 1996. “Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A crosslinguistic perspective.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 373-410.
Williams, E. 1977. “Discourse and logical form.” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101-139.
Xu, L. 1986. “Free empty category.” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 75-93.

Department of Anthropology and Philosophy
Nanzan University
18 Yamazato-cho, Showa-ku
Nagoya 466-8673 Japansaito@nanzan-u.ac.jp