Second Draft: July, 2010.

Sentence Types and the Japanese Right Periphery*
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University and University of Connecticut

1. Introduction
In this paper, I examine the complementizer system of Japanese and present a preliminary
hypothesis on the structure of the Japanese right periphery. I discuss three complementizers, to, ka,
and no. Examples of their occurrences are shown in (1).
(1) a.

Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga Ziroo-ni atta to] omotteiru
T.-TOP
H.-NOM Z.-DAT met to think‘Taroo thinks that Hanako met Ziroo’b.

Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga dare-ni
atta ka] tazuneta
T.-TOP
H.-NOM who-DAT met ka inquired‘Taroo asked who Hanako met’c.

Taroo-wa [CP Ziroo-ni atta no]-okookaisiteiru
T.-TOP
Z.-DAT met no-ACC regret‘Taroo regrets that he met Ziroo’

To is often considered the complementizer for embedded propositions as it appears in the CP
complements of verbs such as omou ‘think’ and yuu ‘say’. However, I first show that it is employedfor ‘paraphrases of quotes’ in the sense of Plann (1982) or ‘reports of direct discourse’ in the senseof Lahiri (1991). Given this, I reexamine no and argue that it instead is the complementizer for
embedded propositions. The analysis to be proposed is summarized in (2).1(2) a.
b.
c.

To is the complementizer for ‘paraphrases’ or ‘reports’ of direct discourse.
Ka is the complementizer for questions.
No is the complementizer for propositions.

A well-known peculiar property of to is that it can follow questions as in (3).

*This paper was presented at the International Conference on Sentence Types: Ten Years After, held at the
University of Frankfurt on June 26-28, 2009. I would like to thank the audiences, especially Nicholas Asher,
Adriana Belletti, Günther Grewendorf, Paul Portner, and Peter Sells, for helpful comments.
1

This is an extension of the analysis proposed in Kuno (1973, 1988). It becomes clear in the following
pages where I depart from his analysis.

2(3)

Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP dare-ga
kare-no ie-ni
kuru ka to] tazuneta
T.-TOP Z.-DAT
who-NOM he-GEN house-to come ka to inquired‘Lit. Taroo asked Ziroo that who is coming to his house’

A similar phenomenon is observed in Spanish, as discussed in Plann (1982).2 In (4a) que heads a
propositional CP but it precedes embedded questions in (4b-c).
(4) a.

Sabía
que corría
knew(3sg.) que run(3sg.)‘He knew that he was running’b.

Te preguntan que para qué quieres
el préstamo
you ask(3pl.) que for what want(2sg.) the loan
‘They ask you what you want the loan for’

c.

Pensó
que cuáles
seríanadecuados
thought(3sg.) que which ones would be appropriate‘He wondered which ones would be appropriate’

Examining examples of this kind in detail, Plann proposes that que is ambiguous between
complementizers for propositions and for ‘paraphrases’ of quotes. According to her analysis,
Spanish has three distinct complementizers as in (5).
(5) a.
b.
c.

que for ‘paraphrases’ of quotes
Null [+Q] C for questions
que for propositions

What I propose in this paper is that Japanese has an identical complementizer system. Japanese infact provides explicit evidence for Plann’s analysis as the three complementizers have distinct
phonetic realizations in this language: To corresponds to que in (5a), ka is the [+Q] C, and no is thecounterpart of que in (5c).
In the second part of the paper, I examine the co-occurrence restrictions on the threecomplementizers, to, ka and no. In addition to the ka-to sequence observed in (3), there areexamples with all three complementizers, as shown in (6).
(6)

Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita (no) ka (to)] minna-ni tazuneta
T.-TOP
he-GEN sister-NOM there-in was no ka to all-DAT inquired‘Taroo asked everyone if his sister was there’

The three complementizers always appear in the order no-ka-to, and this suggests the recursive CP
structure in (7).

2

Thanks are due to Kensuke Takita for pointing out the relevance of Plann (1982) and the parallelism
between the Japanese to and the Spanish que.

3(7)

[CP [CP [CP [TP …] no] ka] to]Then, I consider the distribution of thematic topics and present evidence that they can appear in CPs
headed by to or ka, but not in CPs headed by no. This leads to the hypothesis that there is a Topichead that hosts thematic topics in its Spec and located between no and ka as in (8).
(8)[CP [CP [CP [CP [TP … ] no] e[+TOPIC]] ka] to]

The similarity between (8) and the structure of the Italian left periphery proposed in Rizzi (1997) isevident. His proposal is shown in (9).
(9)[Force [(Topic*) [(Focus) [(Topic*) [Finite [TP … ]]]]]]

If ka is Force and no is Finite, Japanese is identical to Italian except for the presence of to and theabsence of Focus.3 I suggest then that the Japanese right periphery is comparable to Italian with theaddition of the highest C, to, that is equivalent to the Spanish que as a marker of ‘paraphrases’ or‘reports’ of direct discourse. This conclusion, if correct, provides additional evidence for theuniversality of the structure of the left/right periphery.
In the following section, I discuss the parallelism between to and the Spanish que in some detail.
As noted above, they can both take question CPs as complements. Rivero (1994) presents examples
where imperatives follow que in support of Plann’s (1982) analysis. Kuno (1988) notes similar facts
in Japanese and argues that the complements of to can be a “blended discourse,” which starts out asa regular embedded sentence and ends with a verb that expresses a request. I reexamine those facts
and show that they too provide supporting evidence for Plann’s analysis. In Section 3, I turn to no.
Kuno (1973) argues that the CPs headed by this complementizer typically carry factive
presuppositions in the sense of Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970). I first show that the distribution of
no is much wider than his analysis implies. Then, I argue that it should be considered thecomplementizer for propositional complements. Section 4 concerns the structure of the Japaneseright periphery. I discuss the co-occurrence restrictions on the three complementizers, to, ka and no,
and also the distribution of thematic topics. This leads to the hypothesis on the structure of theJapanese right periphery alluded to above. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. To as a Complementizer for Paraphrases of Direct Discourse
In this section, I examine cases where to takes questions and expressions of request ascomplements and argue that it is a complementizer for ‘paraphrase’ or ‘report’ of direct discourse
just like que in Spanish. Section 2.1 concerns examples in which to follows questions and Section
2.2 deals with those in which it follows expressions of request.

3

The C heads in Japanese appear in the mirror image of Italian because of the head-parameter. As discussed
below in Section 4, it is argued in Kuroda (1988) and Saito (2007) that Japanese allows multiple thematic
topics. The basic pattern of focusing in Japanese is like English: Any phrase with stress is interpreted as
focus in situ.

4
2.1. The Parallelism of to and que with respect to Question Complements
Another well-known property of to is that it is employed for direct discourse as well as indirect
discourse. It follows a direct quotation in (10a), while it marks an indirect discourse in (10b).
(10) a.

Hanako-ga, “Watasi-wa tensai da,” to itta/omotta (koto)
H.-NOM
I-TOP
genius is to said/thought fact‘(the fact that) Hanako said/thought, “I’m a genius.” ’b.

Hanako-ga [CP zibun-ga tensai da to] itta/omotta (koto)
H.-NOM
self-NOM genius is to said/thought fact‘(the fact that) Hanako said/thought that she is an genius’

A CP complement as in (10b) is usually considered to represent a proposition. This is because toheads the CP complements of typical bridge verbs, as noted above. On the other hand, a different
complementizer ka is required for CP complements when the matrix verbs select questions. This is
illustrated in (11).
(11) a.

Taroo-wa [CP [TP Hanako-ga kare-no ie-nikuru] to/*ka] omotteiru
T.-TOP
H.-NOM he-GEN house-to come to ka think‘Taroo thinks that Hanako is coming to his house’b.

Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP [TP Hanako-ga kare-no ie-nikuru] *to/ka] tazuneta
T.-TOP Z.-DAT
H.-NOM he-GEN house-to come to ka inquired‘Taroo asked Ziroo if Hanako is coming to his house’c.

Taroo-wa [CP [TP Hanako-ga kare-no ie-nikuru] *to/ka] siritagatteiru
T.-TOP
H.-NOM he-GEN house-to come to ka want to know
‘Taroo wants to know if Hanako is coming to his house’

The matrix verbs, tazuneru ‘inquire’ and siritagatteiru ‘want to know’, in (11b-c) select questions,and their CP complements must contain ka. It then looks like to is a [-Q] C while ka is a [+Q] C.
However, as noted above, the [+Q] C ka can be followed by to in some cases. To follows ayes/no question in (12a) and a wh-question in (12b).
(12) a.

Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP [CP [TP Hanako-ga kare-no ie-nikuru] ka] to] tazuneta
T.-TOP Z.-DAT
H.-NOM he-GEN house-to come ka to inquired‘Lit. Taroo asked Ziroo that if Hanako is coming to his house’b.

Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP [CP [TP dare-ga
kare-no ie-nikuru] ka] to] tazuneta
T.-TOP Z.-DAT
who-NOM he-GEN house-to come ka to inquired‘Lit. Taroo asked Ziroo that who is coming to his house’

As the matrix verb tazuneru ‘inquire’ selects for a question CP as shown in (11b), it appears that theverb and the question complementizer ka enter into selectional relation across to in (12). It is then5
tempting to hypothesize that to is unspecified with respect to [±Q] and is transparent for the purposeof selection. But this cannot be the correct analysis because not all verbs that select questions allow
the ka-to sequence. (13a-b) show that (12a-b) become ungrammatical when siritagatteiru ‘want toknow’ is substituted for tazuneta ‘inquired’.
(13) a. * Taroo-wa [CP [CP [TP Hanako-ga kare-no ie-nikuru] ka] to] siritagatteiru
T.-TOP
H.-NOM he-GEN house-to come ka to want to know
‘Lit. Taroo wants to know that if Hanako is coming to his house’b. * Taroo-wa [CP [CP [TP dare-ga
kare-no ie-nikuru] ka] to] siritagatteiru
T.-TOP
who-NOM he-GEN house-to come ka to want to know
‘Lit. Taroo wants to know that who is coming to his house’
It is then necessary to examine which matrix verbs allow the ka-to sequence to find out what isgoing on in examples such as (12).
At this point, Plann’s (1982) analysis of Spanish que mentioned above becomes quite relevant.
The examples in (4b-c), where que takes a question CP complement, are repeated below as (14a-b).
(14) a.

b.

Te preguntan que para qué quieres
el préstamo
you ask(3pl.) que for what want(2sg.) the loan
‘They ask you what you want the loan for’Pensó
que cuáles
seríanadecuados
thought(3sg.) que which ones would be appropriate‘He wondered which ones would be appropriate’

Plann notes that only a subset of those verbs that select for question CPs allow the presence of que.
(15) shows some cases where que cannot occur.
(15)

Yasupieron/entendieron/recordaron(*qui) por qué lo habías
hechoalready found out(3pl.)/understood(3pl.)/remember(3pl.) que why
it had(2sg.) done
‘They already found out/understood/remembered why you had done it’Examining more relevant examples, she draws the generalization that que can take a question CP as
a complement only when the matrix verb is a verb of saying or thinking, that is, a verb that iscompatible with direct quotation. Based on this, she goes on to propose that the que-headed CPs
express paraphrases of direct discourse in this case.
Plann’s generalization and analysis are directly applicable to Japanese. A partial list of thematrix predicates that allow the ka-to sequence, that is, a to-headed CP with a question complement,
is given in (16a). On the other hand, the predicates in (16b) are incompatible with the ka-to
sequence.
(16) a.

ka-to: kiku ‘ask’, situmonsuru ‘question’, yuu ‘say’, sakebu ‘scream’, omou ‘think’6b. *ka-to: tyoosasuru ‘investigate’, hakkensuru ‘discover’, rikaisuru ‘understand,siranai ‘don’t know’
The predicates in (16a) are verbs of saying and thinking, and those in (16b) are not. The former canoccur with direct quotes, and the latter cannot, as illustrated in (17).
(17) a.

Taroo-wa, “Boku-ga soko-ni ikimasyoo ka” to itta
T.-TOP
I-NOM there-to shall go ka to said
‘Taroo said, “Shall I go there?” ’b. * Taroo-wa, “Dare-ga
soko-ni ikimasu ka” to siranai
T.-TOP
who-NOM there-to goka to not know
‘Lit. Taroo doesn’t know, “Who is going there?” ’Thus, to can take a question CP as a complement in exactly the same context as que. Then, it too
should be analyzed as a complementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse.4 In the following
subsection, I examine another peculiar property of to discussed in Kuno (1988). I show that itprovides further evidence for this analysis of to, and also for the parallelism between to and que.
2.2. Kuno (1988) on Blended and Quasi-Direct Discourse
Kuno (1988) examines examples such as (18a), and argues that a to-headed CP complement canrepresent a “blended discourse,” which starts out as indirect and shifts to direct.
(18) a.

Taroo-wa zibun-no uti-ni
kite kure to Ziroo-ni itta
T.-TOP
self-GEN home-to come for me to Z.-DAT said
‘Lit. Taroo said to Ziroo that come to self’s house’b.

Taroo-wa, “Boku-no uti-ni
kite kure,” to Ziroo-ni itta
T.-TOP
I-GEN home-to come for me to Z.-DAT said
‘Taroo said to Ziroo, “Come to my house.” ’Kuno assumes that the predicate of the embedded clause of (18a) represents a direct discourse as it
expresses a request. On the other hand, the initial part of the clause must be indirect because zibun‘self’ takes the matrix subject Taroo as its antecedent. If it were a direct quotation of Taroo’sutterance, the first person pronoun boku ‘I’ should occur instead of zibun as shown in (18b). In thissubsection, I argue that Kuno’s “blended discourse” is indirect discourse, and that thegrammaticality of examples such as (18a) is indeed predicted by the analysis of to as acomplementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse.
Although Kuno analyzes the embedded clause of (18a) as “blended discourse,” he also points
out that the direct part cannot be a direct quotation of Taroo’s utterance. Note first that expressions

4

It seems that complementizers of this kind are quite widespread. See, for example, Jayaseelan (2008) for
relevant discussion on Malayalam, and Grewendorf and Poletto (2009) for a similar phenomenon in
Cimbrian, a German dialect spoken in northeastern Italy.

7of request vary in form in accordance with the degree of “politeness,” as illustrated in (19).
(19) a. # Taroo-wa, “Boku-no uti-ni
kite kure,” to Ito-sensei-ni itta
T.-TOP
I-GEN home-to come for me to I.-Prof.-DAT said
‘Taroo said to Prof. Ito, “Come to my house.” ’b.

Taroo-wa, “Watasi-no uti-ni oide itadakemasu ka” to Ito-sensei-ni itta
T.-TOP
I-GEN
home-to come for me (polite) ka to I.-Prof.-DAT said
‘Taroo said to Prof. Ito, “Could you to come to my house?” ’(19a) is not an appropriate utterance of Taroo, a student, to his teacher, Prof. Ito, because kite kure‘come for me’ is a non-polite, neutral expression. (19b) shows what Taroo would actually say in thiscontext. What Kuno observes is that the judgments, interestingly, are reversed when direct discourse
is turned into “blended discourse.” (20) confirms this observation.
(20) a.

Taroo-wa zibun-no uti-ni kite kure to Ito-sensei-ni itta
T.-TOP
self-GEN home-to come for me to I.-Prof.-DAT said
‘Lit. Taroo said to Prof. Ito that come to self’s house’b. * Taroo-wa zibun-no uti-ni oide itadakemasu ka to Ito-sensei-ni itta
T.-TOP
self-GEN home-to come for me (polite) ka to I.-Prof.-DAT said
‘Lit. Taroo said to Prof. Ito that could you to come to my house?’(20a) contains the non-polite, neutral form, kite kure ‘come for me’, and is perfectly grammatical.
On the other hand, (20b) with the polite form is not. Kuno concludes then that the direct part of“blended discourse” is not precisely direct but only “quasi-direct.”
Kuno goes on to discuss why polite expressions are not allowed in “blended discourse.” His
answer is that this is because polite forms of verbs do not appear in embedded clauses, as shown in(21).
(21) a. * Watasi-wa [NP [kinoo
kaimasita]hon]-oyomimasita
I-TOP
yesterday bought (polite) book-ACC read (polite)‘I read the book I bought yesterday’b.

Watasi-wa [NP [kinoo
katta]hon]-oyomimasita
I-TOP
yesterday bought (neutral) book-ACC read (polite)‘I read the book I bought yesterday’

The sentences in (20) are polite expressions as the matrix verb is in the polite form. Yet, the verb in
the relative clause must be in the neutral form as the contrast between (21a) and (21b) indicates.
Kuno’s analysis is that the polite form of the expression of request in (20b) is excluded for the same
reason.
This analysis, interestingly, suggests that “blended discourse” is after all indirect discourse. Thisis so because it patterns with embedded clauses while direct discourse is known to have matrix

8
properties. Then, the remaining question is why to can embed a sentence expressing a request. Thisis mysterious if a CP headed by to stands for a proposition. The following English example istotally out:(22) *John said to Mary that (please) come to his house
However, the answer is straightforward given the analysis of to proposed in the preceding
subsection. To, unlike that, is a complementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse. The direct
discourse that is paraphrased can be an expression of request as well as a question. Hence, theanalysis predicts correctly that an expression of request can appear as the complement of to just likea question can.
It was argued in the preceding subsection that to is just like que in Spanish. Then, it is predictedthat “blended discourse” is observed in Spanish as well. This prediction is indeed borne out. Rivero(1994) presents examples in which que takes imperative complements in support of Plann’s (1982)
analysis. One of her examples is shown in (23a), together with its direct discourse counterpart in(23b).
(23) a.

b.

Dijo
que a no molestarlesaid (3sg.) que to not bother-him‘He said not to bother him’
Dijo,
“A no molestarme!”
said (3sg.) to not bother-me‘He said, “Don’t bother me!” ’In (23a), the embedded object clitic can corefer with the matrix subject, and in this case, theembedded clause must represent indirect discourse despite the fact that it is an imperative. Rivero’s
conclusion is in fact identical to the one drawn above for “blended discourse” in Japanese. As que
can be a complementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse, it is not at all surprising that it can take
imperatives as well as questions as complements. Thus, the comparison of Kuno (1988) and Rivero(1994) leads to another parallelism between to and que.

3. No as a Complementizer for Propositions
It was shown above that to can be a complementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse exactly
like que. According to Plann (1982), que is ambiguous between a complementizer for paraphrases
and a complementzer for propositions. In this section, I argue that to is specialized for the former
function. More precisely, I argue that there is a division of labor between to and anothercomplementizer no: to is for paraphrases and no is for propositions.
3.1. Clausal Complements Designating States, Events, and Actions
An example of que with an embedded proposition was shown in (4a), repeated below as (24).

9
(24)

Sabía
que corría
knew(3sg.) que run(3sg.)‘He knew that he was running’

In a parallel context, the complementizer no is employed in Japanese, as shown in (25).5(25)

Taroo-wa [CP [TP Hanako-ga soko-ni iru no]-o sitteita
T.-TOP
H.-NOM there-in is no-ACC knew
‘Taroo knew that Hanako was there’

This raises the possibility that to, unlike que, is unambiguously a complementizer for paraphrases of
direct discourse, and that no is the complementizer for propositions. In this section, I argue that thisis indeed the case.
Discussing the distributions of to and no, Kuno (1973) presents a rough generalization that no isassociated with a factive presupposition in the sense of Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) while this isnever the case with to.6 However, the distribution of no is much wider than this suggests. Partial
lists of the predicates that take to-headed CP complements and those that appear with no-headed
CPs are shown in (26).
(26) a. predicates that take to-headed CP complementsomou ‘think’, kangaeru ‘consider’, sinziru ‘believe’, yuu ‘say’, sakebu ‘scream’,syutyoosuru ‘claim, insist’, tazuneru ‘inquire’, kitaisuru ‘expect’, kanziru ‘feel’
b. predicates that take no-headed CP complements
wasureru ‘forget’, kookaisuru ‘regret’, miru ‘see’, matu ‘wait’, tamerau ‘hesitate’,kyohisuru ‘refuse’, ukeireru ‘accept’, kitaisuru ‘expect’, kanziru ‘feel’
predicates that take no-headed CP subjects
akiraka ‘clear’, kanoo ‘possible’, kantan ‘easy’, muzukasii ‘difficult’, taihen ‘big deal’
Typical factive verbs such as wasureru ‘forget’ and kookaisuru ‘regret’ take CP complements
headed by no. But they are clearly a minority in (26b).
Then, what would be the proper characterization of the distributions of to and no? First, thepredicates in (26a) are all verbs of saying and thinking. They are indeed all compatible with direct
quotation. A couple of examples are given in (27).

5

No is nominal in nature and requires a Case marker when it heads a CP in an argument position. I present
Murasugi’s (1991) argument in the following subsection that it should still be considered a complementizer
rather than a noun.
6

He also considers koto, which has a similar but not identical distribution as no. I do not discuss it here as it
is fairly clear that it is a noun.

10(27) a.

b.

Taroo-wa, “Boku-no uti-ni atumatte kure,” to sakenda
T.-TOP
I-GEN house-at gather for me to screamed‘Taroo screamed, “Gather at my house!” ’Hanako-wa, “Watasi-ga Taroo-ni au,” to syutyoosita
H.-TOP
I-NOM T.-DAT meet to insisted‘Hanako insisted, “I will go see Taroo.” ’It seems then that to always serves as a complementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse when it
heads a complement CP.
The no-headed CPs that appear with the predicates in (26b), on the other hand, all seem torepresent events, states, or actions. For example, one regrets a past event or a present state, sees apresent event or state, waits for a future event or state, and hesitates to perform an action. The samecan be said of those no-headed CPs in the subject position. What can be clear is the existence (ornon-existence) of an event or state in the past, present, or future. Similarly, what can be easy ordifficult is to perform a certain action. In short, those CPs headed by no seem to always represent
propositions. This is consistent with Kuno’s observation that factive verbs take no-headed CPs andnever to-headed CPs as complements. Only sentences that express propositions can be presupposed
to be true. Hence, those verbs are compatible only with no-headed CPs.
Then, there is a division of labor between to and no: to is the complementizer for paraphrases of
direct discourse while no is the complementizer for propositions. An additional piece of evidence
for this can be found in data from child language. As discussed extensively in the acquisition
literature, the overgeneration of no in relative clauses is widely observed with 2-4 year olds. The
following examples are from Murasugi (1991):(28) a.

[ohana motteru *no] wanwa (2;6)
flower haveno doggie‘the doggie that is holding flowers’b.

[buta-san tataiteru *no] taiko (2;11)
Mr. Pig is hitting no drum
‘the drum that the pig is playing’

These examples are ungrammatical in adult Japanese with no. Murasugi examines the properties ofthe overgenerated no in detail, and argues that it is a complemetizer. According to her analysis,
relative clauses are TPs in adult Japanese. However, children at one point hypothesize that they are
CPs, just like English relative clauses, and hence, place no in their head positions. They only later
discover that there is no position for a complementizer in Japanese relatives and cease to
overgenerate no.
One question that arises with this analysis is why no, and not to, is overgenerated in the head
positions of relative clauses. Murasugi (2009) addresses this question, referring to Schachter’s(1973) observation that many languages employ the same complementizer in relative clauses and11clefts. No appears in Japanese clefts as shown in (29).
(29)[CP Nimotu-ga
todoita no]-wa Nagoya-kara dapackage-NOM arrived no-TOP N.-fromis‘It is from Nagoya that a package arrived’Then, given Schachter’s generalization, it is not surprising that children overgenerate no. But one
may ask further why it is that no, and not to, is employed in clefts and children’s relative clauses.
And for this, the analysis of to as a complementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse provides aclear answer. The subject CP of a cleft sentence expresses a proposition and is not a paraphrase of
direct discourse. Hence, no must be employed. There is simply no way for to to appear in thiscontext. Similarly, a relative clause does not paraphrase a direct discourse. Then, children could not
overgenerate to in relative clauses. This account holds if to is never a complementizer for
propositions and is employed exclusively as a complementizer for paraphrases of direct discourse,
as argued here.
3.2. The Nominal Nature of no and its Complementizer Status
I argued above that no is the complementizer for propositions in Japanese. A CP headed by norequires Case when it is in an argument position as noted in Footnote 5, and it is often called a‘nominalizer’ in part for this reason. Although whether no is a complementizer or a noun does notaffect the overall discussion in this paper, I would like to briefly comment on its complementizer
status in this subsection.
The Case property of no just mentioned clearly indicates that no is nominal in nature.7 However,it does not provide decisive evidence that it is a noun. First, it is known that complementizers varywith respect to their Case properties. For example, as discussed in detail in Stowell (1981), English
CPs headed by that do not appear in typical Case positions like the object position of a preposition,
but there is no such restriction with question CPs. Relevant examples are shown in (30).
(30) a. *They talked about [CP that Mary is a genius]b. They talked about [CP whether Mary is a genius]Thus, Stowell concludes that that-headed CPs cannot be Case marked while question CPs can be.
Note that question CPs only allow Case and do not require Case. The following examples are
perfectly grammatical though the embedded CPs are not in Case positions:(31) a.
b.

They wonder [CP whether Mary is a genius] (cf. *They wonder it)
It was debated [CP whether Mary is a genius] (cf. *It was debated it)

A parallel observation can be made with to-headed CPs and question CPs in Japanese. Thus, theformer cannot appear in the object position of a postposition but the latter can, as shown in (32).

7Another relevant fact is that the predicates that take no-headed CP complements correspond roughly tothose in English that take gerunds as complements. See Rosenbaum (1967) for detailed discussion on thelatter.

12(32) a. * Karera-wa [CP Hanako-ga soko-ni iku to]-nituite kangaeta
they-TOP
H.-NOM there-to go to-about considered‘They thought about Hanako going there’b.

Karera-wa [CP Hanako-ga soko-ni iku beki ka]-nituite kangaeta
they-TOP
H.-NOM there-to go should ka-about considered‘They thought about whether Hanako should go there’

However, no adds to the paradigm in the case of Japanese. That is, to resists Case, ka allows Case,and no requires Case, as shown in (33).8(33) a.

Karera-wa [CP Hanako-ga soko-ni iku to](*-o) omotta
they-TOP
H.-NOM there-to go to-ACC thought‘They thought that Hanako was going there’b.

Karera-wa [CP Hanako-ga doko-ni iku beki ka](-o) kentoosita
they-TOP
H.-NOM where-to go should ka-ACC discussed‘They discussed where Hanako should go’c.

Karera-wa [CP Hanako-ga soko-ni iru no]*(-o) kanzita
they-TOP
H.-NOM there-in is no-ACC felt
‘They felt that Hanako was there’

Thus, the three-way distinction in (34) obtains.
(34) To cannot appear in a Case position.
Ka can appear in a Case position.
No must appear in a Case position.
It seems difficult to account for this based on the categorial difference between a complementizer
and a noun. The whole paradigm instead seems to reflect the lexical properties of the specific items.
Stronger arguments for the complementizer status of no are presented in Murasugi (1991). Oneof them is based on children’s overgeneration of no, discussed above. The relevant examples in (28)are repeated below in (35).
(35) a.

[ohana motteru *no] wanwa (2;6)
flower haveno doggie‘the doggie that is holding flowers’b.

[buta-san tataiteru *no] taiko (2;11)
Mr. Pig is hitting no drum
‘the drum that the pig is playing’8

The accusative -o is often omitted in colloquial style. But the contrast between (33b) and (33c) is quite
clear. The former is grammatical without -o in any register.

13
In order to examine the category of the overgenerated no, Murasugi considers three possibilities; thegenitive Case marker, a pronoun, and a complementizer, which are all homophonous and realized as
no. The genitive no appears after any NP or PP within a nominal projection, as illustrated in (36).
(36) a.

Taroo-no hon
T.-GEN book
‘Taroo’s book’b.

Hanako-no yooroppa-e-no ryokoo
H.-GEN Europe-to-GEN trip
‘Hanako’s trip to Europe’c.

midori-iro-no
kurumagreen-color-GEN car‘a green car’

The pronoun no, which roughly corresponds in meaning to one in English, is observed in examples
like (37a-b).
(37) a.

b.

mizukasii nodifficult one‘a difficult one’[Taroo-ga katta] no
T.-NOM bought one‘the one that Taroo bought’Murasugi first excludes the genitive no by observing the overgeneration pattern in Toyama
Dialect, where the genitive is no as in most other dialects but the pronoun and the complementizer
are realized as ga. As the Toyama Dialect speaking children overgenerate ga as in (38), the no in(35) cannot be the genitive Case marker.
(38)[anpanman tuitoru *ga] koppu (2;11)(a character) attach ga cup‘a cup that is pictured with “anpanman” ’Then, she presents an argument that it is not a pronoun either. Note first that if the “relative clauses”
in (35) and (38) are headed by the pronoun no/ga, they must be NPs. This means that the genitive
no is required between those “relatives” and the head noun. Murasugi shows through anexperimental study that those children who overgenerate no/ga in relative clauses never fail to insert
the genitive no after an NP modifying an N. Then, if the “relative clauses” are indeed NPs, thechildren must insert the genitive no after those “relatives,” but they never do. She concludes thenthat the overgenerated no/ga cannot be a pronoun and hence must be a complementizer.
This argument against the analysis of the overgenerated no/ga as a pronoun suggests
simultaneously that the “complementizer no/ga” cannot be a noun. Suppose that the children

14
overgenerate the “complementizer no/ga” in relative clauses as Murasugi argued. If the“complementizer no/ga” is a noun, then the “relative clauses” must be NPs. Then, again, thechildren must insert the genitive no after those “relative clauses.” Since they do not, it is clear thatthe children do not consider the “complementizer no/ga” a noun. What the children overgeneratemust be no/ga of the category complementizer. This presents indirect but strong evidence that theno/ga in question is a complementizer in adult grammar as well.

4. Preliminary Notes on the Japanese Right Periphery
It was argued in the preceding sections that Japanese has the three complementizers in (39).
(39) a.
b.
c.

To is the complementzer for paraphrases of direct discourse in the sense of Plann (1982).
Ka is the complementizer for CPs that represent questions.
No is a complementizer for CPs that represent propositions.

In Section 4.1, I consider the hierarchical relation among those complementizers and suggest thatno is the Finite head. Then, in Section 4.2, I argue that there is a Topic head above the Finite no andbelow ka, which I consider to be a Force head. This leads to the conclusion that the Japanese right
periphery is remarkably similar in structure to the Italian left periphery proposed in Rizzi (1997).
4.1. CP Recursion at the Right Periphery
As noted above, an embedded CP in Japanese can contain a sequence of the complementizers,
ka and to. Another example is shown in (40).
(40)

Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita ka (to)] minna-ni tazuneta
T.-TOP
he-GEN sister-NOM there-in was ka to all-DAT inquired‘Taroo asked everyone if his sister was there’

The number of complementizers in a single CP is not limited to two. There are in fact cases where
all three complementizers appear. (40), for example, can have no preceding ka, as in (41).
(41)

Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita (no) ka (to)] minna-ni tazuneta
T.-TOP
he-GEN sister-NOM there-in was no ka to all-DAT inquired‘Taroo asked everyone if his sister was there’

This example instantiates three kinds of complementzer sequences, no-ka, ka-to, and no-ka-to.
Whenever there are multiple complementizers, their order is fixed in this way. This suggests thatJapanese CPs can have the recursive structure in (42).
(42)[CP [CP [CP … no] ka] to]

The structure in (42) undoubtedly has a semantic basis. Ka can select a CP headed by no as aquestion can be formed on a proposition. To, in turn, can select a CP headed by ka as to embeds aparaphrase of a direct discourse and the direct discourse can be a question, as discussed in detail in

15
Section 2. One case that (42) allows but is missing is the no-to sequence. (43) is ungrammaticalwith no.
(43)

Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita (*no) to] omotta
T.-TOP
he-GEN sister-NOM there-in was no to thought‘Taroo thought that his sister was there’

This too is expected because a no-headed CP represents a proposition while to embeds a paraphraseof direct discourse. Other orderings of complementizers are plausibly excluded in similar ways. For
example, the ka-no sequence is illicit as the content of a proposition cannot be a question.
Given the hierarchy in (42), it is tempting to compare it with the structure of the Italian left
periphery proposed in Rizzi (1997). As noted at the outset of the paper, he proposes the structure in
(44).
(44)

[Force [(Topic*) [(Focus) [(Topic*) [Finite [TP … ]]]]]]

Ka, being the question marker, is plausibly a Force head. To occupies a higher C position that does
not appear in (44). Let us call this C ‘Report’, following Lahiri (1991). Finally, no is analyzed as
Finite in Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002). As it occupies the lowest C position in (42), this fits thehierarchy in (44) well.9 Further, the children’s overgeneration of no in relative clauses discussed
above receives a straightforward interpretation under this analysis. Although it is a bit unclear what
force relative clauses have, it is not surprising if children produce relative clauses as FiniteP. Then,they would overgenerate no in the head position. In the remainder of this subsection, I introduce
another piece of suggestive evidence from Matsumoto (2010) for this anaysis of no.
Matsumoto examines the types of sentential complements no can take and shows that they are
more limited when compared with ka and to. In particular, she argues that the complement of nomust be headed by a morphologically overt T. She first notes that there are modal-like words that do
not inflect for tense. Daroo ‘it is probably the case that’ in (45) is one such element.
(45) a.

Taroo-wa soko-ni iru daroo
T.-TOP there-at is daroo‘Taroo probably is there’b.

Taroo-wa soko-ni ita daroo
T.-TOP there-at was daroo‘Taroo probably was there’

The complement of daroo can be in present or past, but daroo itself does not carry tense. And
interestingly, sentences headed by daroo can be embedded under ka or to, but not under no. This isshown in (46).

9Thanks to Adriana Belletti for pointing out the relevance of Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002) in this context. I
do not discuss their argument here because it is based on an attractive and yet controversial analysis ofJapanese clefts.

16(46) a.

Taroo-wa [CP ame-ga
huru (daroo) ka] kangaeta
T.-NOMrain-NOM fall daroo ka considered‘Taroo considered whether it would rain’b.

Taroo-wa [CP ame-ga
huru (daroo) to] omotta
T.-TOPrain-NOM fall daroo to thought‘Taroo thought that it would rain’c.

Taroo-wa [CP ame-ga
huru (*daroo) no]-okitaisita
T.-TOPrain-NOM falldaroo no-ACC expected‘Taroo hoped that it would rain’

The ungrammaticality of (46c) with daroo is likely to be due to the incompatibility of it and no.
The example is fine without daroo. Further, as Matsumoto points out, it becomes grammatical also
when the formal noun koto is substituted for no as in (47).
(47)

Taroo-wa [ame-ga
huru (daroo) koto]-o kitaisita
T.-TOPrain-NOM fall daroo N-ACC expected‘Taroo hoped that it would rain’

Although koto literally means ‘matter’, ‘state’ or ‘fact’, it has little semantic content in thiscontext.10 Thus, there is basically no difference in meaning between (46c) and (47). It seems thenthat (46c) is out because no, specifically, cannot take a clausal complement headed by daroo.
On the basis of observations like this, Matsumoto concludes that no can only take clausal
complements that are headed by Tense. This is expected if no is Finite, because Finite is bydefinition the C that is closely related with T. Matsumoto’s discussion thus provides suggestive
evidence that no is in fact the Finite head.
4.2. The Position of Topic in the CP Structure
The hypothesis arrived at so far on the Japanese right periphery is shown in (48).
(48)[… [… [… Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]In this subsection, I consider how Topic fits into this structure. More specifically, I argue that Topicheads can be generated above Finite and below Force as in (49).
(49)[… [… [… [… Finite (no)] (Topic*)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]A classical analysis of topic and focus in Japanese is found in Kuno (1973). Any stressed phrase
receives focus interpretation in situ in this language. But Kuno discusses one case where focus
interpretation seems to arise in a specific position in the sentence. Let us consider the examples in(50) for illustration.
10

Kuno (1973) considers it a complementizer, as noted in Footnote 6.

17(50) a.

b.

Hanako-ga sono hon-oyonde ita
H.-NOM that book-ACC reading was‘Hanako was reading that book’
Hanako-ga sono hon-ga
suki daH.-NOM that book-NOM like
‘It is Hanako that likes that book’(50a) can be a neutral description of a past progressive event. On the other hand, (50b) only has theinterpretation with focus on the subject Hanako.11 Examining examples of this kind extensively,
Kuno proposes the generalization that matrix-initial nominative phrase receives focus when thepredicate is stative. The generalization is on matrix clauses and it does not apply to embedded
clauses. Thus, Hanako need not be interpreted as focus when (50b) is embedded as in (51).
(51)

Taroo-ga [NP [Hanako-ga suki na] hon]-okatta (koto)
T.-NOM
H.-NOM likebook-ACC bought fact‘(the fact that) Taroo bought a book that Hanako likes’

Kuno (1973) also discusses topics that are marked by the particle -wa, and notes that they canreceive two distinct interpretations. Taroo in (52a), for example, can be interpreted as a thematic
topic or as a contrastive topic.
(52) a.

b.

Taroo-wa sono hon-oyonda
T.-TOP that book-ACC read
A. ‘As for Taroo, he read that book’ (thematic topic)
B. ‘Taroo read that book, but I don’t know about the other people’ (contrastive topic)
Taroo-ga sono hon-wa
yonda
T.-NOM that book-TOP read
‘Taroo read that book, but I don’t know about the other books’ (contrastive topic)

However, he observes at the same time that while the contrastive topic interpretation is always
available, only a sentence-initial wa-phrase can be construed as a thematic topic. The object ismarked by -wa in (52b), and it can only be a contrastive topic. It must be placed at thesentence-initial position as in (53) to receive the thematic topic interpretation.
(53)

Sono hon-wa
Taroo-ga yondathat book-TOP T.-NOM read
A. ‘As for that book, Taroo read it’ (thematic topic)
B. ‘Taroo read that book, but I don’t know about the other books’ (contrastive topic)

Kuno notes that here also, sentence-initial means matrix-initial. The topic in the initial position of
the relative clause in (54) cannot be construed as a thematic topic.

11

Kuno (1973) refers to this kind of focus as ‘exhaustive-listing focus’.

18
(54)

Taroo-ga [NP [Hanako-wa suki na] hon]-okatta (koto)
T.-NOM
H.-TOP
likebook-ACC bought fact
‘Taroo bought a book that Hanako, though probably not the others, like’ (contrastive topic)

Building on Kuno’s observations, Heycock (1994) argues that there is no sentence-initial focus
position in Japanese and proposes to analyze the focus interpretation discussed above in the
mapping from syntax to information structure. This analysis is extended to thematic topics in
Heycock (2008). The strongest piece of evidence for this approach is that those focus and thematic
topic interpretations are matrix phenomena. If there were focus and topic positions in Japanese, thenthey would be expected to occur in embedded clauses as well as matrix clauses. This is indeed thecase in Italian, as the following example from Rizzi (1997) shows:(55)

Credo che a Gianni, QUESTO, domani, gli dovremmo dire
I believe that to Gianni thistomorrow we shouldsay‘I believe that we should say this to Gianni tomorrow’

In this example, a Gianni and domani are topics and questo is a focus in the complement CP. On
the other hand, if foci and thematic topics are represented in the information structure, it is not
surprising that they occur only in matrix clauses.
Heycock’s argument is well taken for the obligatory focus interpretation of sentence-initialnominative phrases as it is indeed observed only in matrix clauses. It was shown in (51) that it is notobserved in a relative clause. Other types of embedded clauses exhibit the same pattern as shown in(56).
(56) a.

b.

Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga sono hon-ga
suki na no]-o wasureteita koto
T.-NOM
H.-NOM that book-NOM likeno-ACC forgot
fact‘the fact that Taroo forgot that Hanako likes that book’
Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga sono hon-ga
suki da to] sinziteiru koto
T.-NOM
H.-NOM that book-NOM liketo believe fact‘the fact that Taroo believes that Hanako likes that book’

In these examples, focus interpretation is not forced on the embedded subject Hanako. However, it
has been known that there are cases where thematic topics occur in embedded clauses. Typicalexamples are shown in (57).
(57) a.

Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-wa zibun-no uti-ni
kuru to] sinziteiru koto
T.-NOM
H.-TOP
self-GEN home-to come to believe fact
A. ‘the fact that Taroo believes that as for Hanako, she is coming to his house’(thematic topic)
B. ‘the fact that Taroo believes that Hanako, though probably not the others, is coming tohis house’ (contrastive topic)

19b.

Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-wa zibun-no uti-ni ita to] itta koto
T.-NOM
H.-TOP
self-GEN home-at was to said fact
A. ‘the fact that Taroo said that as for Hanako, she was at his house’ (thematic topic)
B. ‘the fact that Taroo said that Hanako, though probably not the others, was at his house’(contrastive topic)

In both of these examples, Hanako can easily be construed as a thematic topic although it isembedded within a to-headed CP. Examples like these are often just mentioned in footnotes as
exceptions. But they seem to provide an important clue for the analysis of thematic topics. First, theembedded CPs in (57) clearly represent indirect discourse as the reflexive zibun ‘self’ refers to thematrix subject. Hence, the interpretive property of these examples cannot be attributed to the factthat to can be a marker of direct quotation. Secondly, these examples are after all very similar to the
Italian (55), which shows that embedded CPs can contain positions for foci and in particular
topics.12
The contrast between (54) and (57) indeed suggests that there are specific positions for thematic
topics. (54) shows that thematic topics cannot occur in relative clauses, which I assume are TPs.
(57), on the other hand, suggest that they can be located within CPs headed by to, which are thelargest CPs according to the recursive CP structure in (48). Then, if thematic topics occupy the Spec
position of a Topic head, the following structure accommodates the data discussed so far:13(58)[… [TopicP Thematic Topic [Topic’ [TP …] Topic]] Report (to)]The position for thematic topics is outside TP, and hence they cannot occur in relative clauses. But
they can be present in CPs headed by to because the position is contained within to-headed CPs.
Given this kind of reasoning, it should be possible to pinpoint the location of the Topic head byexamining whether thematic topics are possible in other types of CPs. Although the relevant datarequire subtle judgment in some cases, they indicate that the Topic head is located just above Finite
and just below Force.
First, examples such as those in (59) show that thematic topics cannot be licensed within
no-headed CPs.
(59) a.

Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-wa zibun-no uti-ni
kuru no]-owasureteita koto
T.-NOM
H.-TOP
self-GEN home-to come no-ACC forgot
fact‘the fact that Taroo had forgotten that Hanako, though probably not the others, wascoming to his house’ (contrastive topic)

12

Heycock (2008), for example, does take this kind of exceptions seriously and suggests that detailed
comparison with embedded verb-second in German may prove fruitful.
13

S.-Y. Kuroda assumed over the years that thematic topics are located in CP Spec. Thus, the proposal madehere is a refinement of his analysis. See in particular Kuroda (1988) for relevant discussion.

20b.

Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-wa zibun-no uti-ni
hairu no]-o mita koto
T.-NOM
H.-TOP
self-GEN house-to enter no-ACC saw fact‘the fact that Taroo saw Hanako, though not the others, enter his house’(contrastive topic)

In both (59a) and (59b), the contrastive topic interpretation is forced on the embedded subject
Hanako. This indicates that the Topic head is not contained within a CP headed by no, or morestraightforwardly, a FiniteP.
On the other hand, the following examples suggest that the thematic interpretation of topics is
possible within ka-headed CPs:
(60) a.

b.

Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-wa zibun-no hon-okatta ka] tazuneta koto
T.-NOM
H.-TOP
self-GEN book-ACC bought ka inquired fact
A. ‘the fact that Taroo asked if as for Hanako, she bought his book’ (thematic topic)
B. ‘the fact that Taroo asked if Hanako, though probably not the others, bought his book’(contrastive topic)
Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-wa zibun-no uti-ni
kuru no ka] siritagatteiru koto
T.-NOM
H.-TOP
self-GEN home-to come no ka want-to-know fact
A. ‘the fact that Taroo wants to know if as for Hanako, she is coming to his house’(thematic topic)
B. ‘the fact that Taroo wants to know if Hanako, though probably not the others, iscoming to his house’ (contrastive topic)

It seems then that the position for thematic topics, and hence, the Topic head are located within aka-headed CP. This leads the more refined CP structure in (61).
(61)[CP … [CP … [CP thematic topic [C’ [CP [TP …] Finite (no)] Topic]] Force (ka)] Report (to)](61) predicts correctly that thematic topics can occur in CPs headed by to or ka, but not in CPs
headed by no or TPs.
Further, there is evidence that the Topic projection is recursive just as in Italian. As noted above,
Kuno (1973) proposed a generalization that only a sentence-initial wa-phrase can be construed as athematic topic. This is consistent with (62), where only the subject can receive thematicinterpretation.
(62)

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

Teruabibu-e ‘to Tel Aviv’ is not sentence-initial, and it can only be a contrastive topic. However,21
Kuroda (1988) points out that multiple thematic topics are possible when the second topic is
preposed over the first. (63) confirms this observation.
(63)

Teruabibu-e-wai [Hanako-wa (kyonen) ti itta]
Tel Aviv-to-TOP H.-TOP
last year went
A. ‘As for Tel Aviv, Hanako went there, but I don’t know about the other people’(Tel Aviv-thematic, Hanako-contrastive)
B. ‘As for Hanako, she went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about the other places’(Tel Aviv-contrastive, Hanako-thematic)
C. ‘As for Tel Aviv and as for Hanako, she went there’(Tel Aviv-thematic, Hanako-thematic)
D. ‘Hanako went to Tel Aviv, but I don’t know about the other places and the other people’(Tel Aviv-contrastive, Hanako-contrastive)(63) is four-ways ambiguous as indicated: each of the two topics can receive thematic or contrastive
interpretation. The interpretation that is important here is the one in C, where both Teruabibu-e ‘toTel Aviv’ and Hanako are construed as thematic topics. This shows that multiple thematic topics
can occur in a single clause contrary to Kuno’s generalization. Given the analysis presented above,it implies that the Topic projection can be recursive.14
The discussion above indicates that the CP system of Japanese is remarkably similar to that in
Italian. Rizzi’s (1997) proposal in (44) for Italian is repeated below in (64).
(64)[ … Force [ … (Topic*) [ … (Focus) [ … (Topic*) [ … Finite [TP … ] ] ] ] ] ]The structure for Japanese in a parallel format is as in (65).
(65)[ … [ … [ … [ … [TP … ] Finite] (Topic*)] Force] Report]

There are only two differences aside from the linear order. One is the presence of the Report head inJapanese, as discussed in detail in Section 2. It seems clear that there is a parameter here. Spanish
and Japanese have it, but Italian and English do not. The other concerns the absence of the Focus
head in Japanese. For this also, there is likely to be a parameter. That is, languages may vary withrespect the presence/absence of the Focus head within the C system. It would be much too hasty topropose a concrete hypothesis on the possible variations in the left/right periphery just on this basis.
Nevertheless, the preliminary investigation in this paper suggests that the CP structure is fairly rigid
across languages with the locus of variation in Report, Focus, and possibly Topic.

14

See Saito (2007) for detailed discussion of examples like (63). It is suggested there that thematic topics
are licensed clause-initially, and the interpretation in B obtains when the contrastive topic is scrambled overthe clause-initial thematic topic. One question that remains is why the two wa-phrases in (62) cannot both bein Spec positions of Top heads and be construed as thematic topics. Although I do not have a clear accountfor this, I suspect that some sort of crossing constraint is at work, preventing the subject topic from moving
to the higher TopicP spec.

22
5. Conclusion
In this paper, I have examined the complementizer system of Japanese and presented apreliminary hypothesis on the structure of the Japanese right periphery. I first proposed that to is not
a complementizer for embedded propositions as widely assumed, but is a complementizer for‘paraphrases’ or ‘reports’ of direct discourse just like que in Spanish. I showed that Plann’s (1982)
analysis of que is directly applicable to this complementizer. I then argued that no, which Kuno
(1973) associates with factivity, has a wide distribution and should be considered the normal
complementizer for embedded propositions. As noted above, these descriptive results provide
explicit evidence for Plann’s (1982) proposal on Spanish. She proposes that Spanish has threecomplementizers; que for paraphrases, null C for questions, and que for propositions. Those three
are not only present but have distinct phonetic realizations, to, ka and no, in Japanese.
In the second part of the paper, I first considered examples where to, ka and no co-occur, andsuggested the three complementizers are hierarchically organized as in (48), repeated below in (66).
(66)[… [… [… Finite (no)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]I then reexamined the distribution of thematic topics, and showed that they are not limited to thematrix-initial position as widely believed. I argued that they occur not only in to-headed CPs as
sometimes observed but also in ka-headed CPs. This led to the hypothesis that there is a Topic
projecion located above FiniteP and below ForceP. Based on Kuroda’s (1988) observation thatmultiple thematic topics are possible, I proposed finally that the Japanese right periphery has the
structure in (67).
(67)[ … [ … [ … [ … Finite (no)] (Topic*)] Force (ka)] Report (to)]As repeatedly noted, this is quite similar to the structure of the Italian left periphery proposed in
Rizzi (1997). Further work is required to discover the precise structure of the Japanese right
periphery. But this paper has demonstrated that it is quite rich, much more so than has been
assumed, and that it is comparable to Spanish and Italian. Then, it seems fairly clear that its
investigation can contribute fruitfully to the research project initiated by Rizzi (1997) on theuniversal properties and possible variations in the left/right periphery.

References
Grewendorf, G. and C. Poletto (2009) “The Hybrid Complementizer System of Cimbrian,” in V. Moscati and
E. Servidio (eds.), Studies in Linguistics Vol.3: Proceedings XXXV Incontro di Grammatica Generativa,
Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Cognitivi sul Linguaggio, Universitá di Siena, 181-194.
Heycock, C. (1994) “Focus Projection in Japanese,” in M. Gonzàlez (ed.), Proceedings of the North East
Linguistic Society 24, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 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.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing and ‘no da’ Construction in Japanese,” inT. Ionin, H. Ko and A. Nevins (eds.), The Proceedings of Humit 2001: MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics #43, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, 35-54.

23
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2008) “Topic, Focus and Adverb Positions in Clause Structure,” Nanzan Linguistics 4:43-68, Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky (1970) “Fact,” in M. Bierswisch and K. E. Heldolph (eds.), Progress in
Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton, 143-173.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kuno, S. (1988) “Blended Quasi-Direct Discourse in Japanese,” in W. Poser (ed.), Papers from the Second
International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 75-102.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47.
Lahiri, U. (1991) Embedded Interrogatives and Predicates that Embed Them, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Matsumoto, E. (2010) Quotation Expressions and Sentential Complementation in Japanese, B.A. thesis,
Nanzan University.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, and Acquisition,
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. (2009) “What Japanese-Speaking Children’s Errors Tell us about Syntax,” Presented at GLOWin Asia VII, EFL University, Hyderabad.
Plann, S. (1982) “Indirect Questions in Spanish,” Linguistic Inquiry 13: 297-312.
Rivero, M.-L. (1994) “On Indirect Questions, Commands, and Spanish Quotative Que,” Linguistic Inquiry
25: 547-554.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery,” in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 281-337.
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967) The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions, Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Saito, M. (2007) “Semantic and Discourse Interpretation of the Japanese Left Periphery,” Presented at theSound Patterns of Syntax Workshop, Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva.
Schachter, P. (1973) “Focus and Relativization,” Language 49: 19-46.
Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.