POSSESSOR RAISING AND TWO TYPES OF HONORIFICATION*
Hideki Kishimoto
Kobe University

1.

Introduction

In Japanese, certain idiomatic predicates, including kuti-ni awa-nai ‘not like’ and te-ni
oe-nai ‘cannot control’, may appear in two distinct syntactic forms, which can be
distinguished by the morphological marking of the possessor argument. In (1a), the possessor
is marked with dative case and is located in the clause, but in (1b), the possessor marked withgenitive case appears in the possessum nominal.
(1)a.

John-niJohn-Datsono-ryoori-ga kuti-ni
awa-na-i.
that-dish-Nom mouth-Dat fit-Neg-Pres‘John does not like that dish.’b.

Sono-ryoori-ga John-no kuti-ni
awa-na-i.
that-dish-Nom John-Gen mouth-Dat fit-Neg-Pres‘John does not like that dish.’

The two sentences in (1) carry the same meaning. Here, we can assume that the dative
possessor argument of kuti-ni awa-nai ‘not like’ in (1a) appears first inside the possessum
nominal constituting part of the idiom (by base-generation), as in (1b), and then undergoes
overt raising. Notably in a possessor-raising construction like (1a), two types ofhonorification are possible, as seen in (2).
(2)

a.

Sensei-ni
sono-ryoori-ga o-kuti-ni
awa-na-i.
teacher-Dat that-dish-Nom Hon-mouth-Dat fit-Neg-Pres‘The teacher does not like that dish.’b.

Sensei-ni
sono-ryoori-ga kuti-ni
at-teteacher-Dat that-dish-Nom mouth-Dat fit-Ptcp

irassyara-na-i.
be.Hon-Neg-Pres‘The teacher does not like that dish.’
As discussed by Harada (1976), Japanese has at least two types of honorification, one whichis termed as ‘possessive honorification’, and the other ‘subject honorification’. These two*

I would like to express my thanks to Etsuro Shima, Daiko Takahashi, Jun Abe, Yoshiki Ogawa,
Miho Mano, and Yoshie Yamamori for their comments on this material.
Nanzan Linguistics 6, 1-11
©2010 Hideki Kishimoto

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

types of honorification are distinguishable morphologically. In (2a), which involves
possessive honorification, the nominal honorific marker o- is attached to a body-part noun.
(2b) represents a case involving subject honorification, where the honorific marker -te
irassyaru is added to the verb.1 In both sentences, the possessor argument sensei ‘teacher’—
which counts as an individual worthy of respect—is the target of honorification.
At first blush, it looks as though the target to which deference is directed is determinedon the same structural condition in both types of honorification. Contrary to appearances, thetwo types of honorification fix their targets under different structural conditions. Japanese has
two types of idiomatic expressions that display distinct syntactic properties in regard topossessor raising: one type involves the raising of the possessor to the clause subject position,and the other does not. On the basis of these idiomatic expressions, it will be shown that thetwo types of honorification target arguments located in distinct structural positions.
2.

Dative possessors and their syntactic status

In Japanese, idiomatic expressions comprised of a body-part noun plus a verb areabundant, and many of them allow two variants to be formed, depending on whether thepossessor is assigned either dative or genitive case, as seen in (3).
(3)

a.

John-niJohn-Datsono-gakusei-ga
that-student-Nom

te-ni
hand-Datoe-na-i.
carry-Neg-Pres‘John cannot control that student.’b.

Sono-gakusei-ga
that-student-Nom

John-noJohn-Gente-ni
hand-Datoe-na-i.
carry-Neg-Pres‘John cannot control that student.’
Since (3a) and (3b) express the same logical meaning, we can assume that in (3a), the dative
possessor occurs in the clausal constituency by virtue of undergoing overt extraction out ofthe possessum nominal, where the genitive possessor appears in (3b). More specifically,
when the possessor is marked with genitive case, as in (3b), it appears inside the hostpossessum nominal. On the other hand, the dative possessor in (3a) appears in the clauserather than in the nominal, owing to its overt possessor raising, even though it is basegenerated in the possessum nominal.
In Japanese, we can find a number of idiomatic expressions displaying the same
syntactic behavior as the idiom te-ni oe-nai ‘cannot control’. Some of such idioms are listed
below.

1

Japanese has several different markers for subject honorification. In this paper, we will make use of-te irassyaru, for it can be attached to idioms while preserving their idiomatic meanings.

-2-

Possessor Raising and Two Types of Honorification (H. Kishimoto)

(4)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.

ki-ni sawaru (mind-Dat touch) ‘hurt one’s feeling’kioku-ni aru (memory-Dat be) ‘remember’insyoo-ni nokot-te iru (impression-Dat remain-Ptcp be) ‘have an impression’kuti-ni au (mouth-Dat fit) ‘favor’
te-ni au (hand-Dat fit) ‘can handle’
ki-ni mesa-nai (mind-Dat call-Neg) ‘not like’
ki-ni kuwa-nai (mind-Dat eat-Neg) ‘not like’
te-ni oe-nai (hand-Dat carry-Neg) ‘cannot control’
seikaku-ni at-te iru (character-Dat fit-Ptcp be) ‘suit’

These idioms take possessor and theme arguments, alongside a body-part noun.2 When thepossessor appearing in these idioms is marked with dative case, it acts as a syntactic subject.
This can be confirmed by looking at whether or not it counts as the antecedent of the subjectoriented reflexive zibun. For example, with te-ni oe-nai ‘cannot control’, the dative possessor
can be the antecedent of the reflexive zibun ‘self’.
(5)Johni-niJohn-Dat

zibuni-no
self-Gen

gakusei-ga
student-Nom

te-ni
hand-Datoe-na-i.
carry-Neg-Pres‘John cannot control his student.’
It is true that many idioms show this syntactic pattern, but there are a few idioms (yaku-ni
tatu ‘of use, of help’ sewa-ni naru ‘get help’, etc.) where the dative-marked possessor, whichis extracted out of its host possessum nominal, does not acquire subject status syntactically. I
will illustrate this point, making use of the idiom yaku-ni tatu ‘of use, of help’.
(6)a.

John-niJohn-Datsono-kenkyuu-ga
that-research-Nom

yaku-niuse-Dattat-ta.
stand-Past‘That research was of use to John.’b.

Sono-kenkyuu-ga
that-research-Nom

John-noJohn-Genyaku-niuse-Dattat-ta.
stand-Past‘That research was of use to John.’
Superficially, the idiom yaku-ni tatu behaves in the same way as te-ni oe-nai, since thepossessor argument may be marked with either dative or genitive case, as seen in (6). The factthat the possessor appears inside the possessum if it bears genitive case marking, as indicatedin (6b), suggests that, just like other idioms in the same form, the dative possessor should beoriginated from within the possessum nominal.
It is worth noting, however, that the idiom yaku-ni tatu stands in contrast with te-ni oe2

These are idioms in ‘dative-V’ forms. See Kishimoto (2008) and Miyagawa and Tsujioka (2004) on
the discussion of their syntactic structures.

-3-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

nai, in that the dative possessor fails to antecede the reflexive zibun.
(7) ?*Johni-ni
John-Dat

zibuni-no
self-Genkenkyuu-ga
research-Nom

yaku-niuse-Dattat-tei-ru.
stand-Ptcp be-Pres(Lit.) ‘Self’s research is being of use to John.’
The fact that the dative possessor does not serve as the antecedent of the subject-oriented
reflexive zibun suggests that it does not function as a subject.
In effect, the idiom yaku-ni tatu is distinguished from te-ni oe-nai, in that the nominative
rather than the dative phrase counts as a syntactic subject.3 The following example, whichcontains the subject-oriented zibun, confirms this point.
(8)

Johni-ga
John-Nomzibuni-no sensei-ni
yaku-niself-Gen teacher-Dat use-Dat

tat-tei-ru.
stand-Ptcp be-Pres‘John is being of help to his teacher.’Since zibun has subject orientation, the acceptability of (8) shows that the nominative phraseof the idiom yaku-ni tatu should be construed as a syntactic subject.4
The difference in the syntactic function of the nominative phrase between the two
idioms can also be confirmed by checking whether the formal noun koto ‘fact’—which does
not carry any substantial lexical meaning—can be inserted to the nominative phrase.

3

The transitive counterpart of yaku-ni tatu is yaku-ni tateru. When the idiom yaku-ni tateru is used inlieu of yaku-ni tatu, as in (i), the theme argument is assigned accusative case, in stead of nominative
case.
(i)

John-wa
John-Topsono-kenkyuu-o yaku-ni
that-research-Acc use-Dat

tate-ta.
stand-Past‘John made use of that research.’
This is a typical pattern of causative alternation where a nominative subject is rendered into an
accusative object. Thus, on the basis of the morphological pattern obtained for the pair of idioms
yaku-ni tatu and yaku-ni tateru, we can reasonably state that the nominative phrase of yaku-ni tatu
should serve as a syntactic subject.
4

Since linear order is not relevant for the reflexive binding, the grammatical status does not changeeven if the dative phrase is moved to the sentence front, as in (i).
(i)

Zibuni-no
self-Gensensei-ni
Johni-gateacher-Dat John-Nom

yaku-ni tat-te
use-Dat stand-Ptcp‘John is being of help to his teacher.’

-4-

i-ru.
be-PresPossessor Raising and Two Types of Honorification (H. Kishimoto)

(9)

a.

John-ni sono-kodomo(-no-koto)-ga te-ni
oe-na-i.
John-Dat that-child-Gen-fact-Nom
hand-Dat carry-Neg-Pres‘John cannot control that child.’b.

John-ni sono-kodomo(*-no-koto)-ga yaku-ni tat-ta.
John-Dat that-child-Gen-fact-Nom
use-Dat stand-Past‘That child was of help to John.’

As discussed by Kuno (1976), Sasaguri (1999), Kishimoto (2004, 2005), Takubo (2007), andothers, the formal noun koto can be inserted into a nominal functioning as an object. Thissyntactic operation is possible with the nominative phrase of te-ni oe-nai, but not yaku-ni
tatu. In particular, the unacceptability of (9b) on the intended interpretation where koto iscounted as a formal noun would be expected if the nominative phrase of yaku-ni tatufunctions as a syntactic subject.
On the basis of the two kinds of idiomatic expressions, i.e. yaku-ni tatu and te-ni oe-nai,
it can be shown that the targets of possessive and subject honorification are fixed under
distinct syntactic conditions. First, as can be seen in (10), the dative phrase Ito-sensei of theidiom te-ni oe-nai can be targeted by both possessive and subject honorification.
(10) a.

Ito-sensei-ni
sono-kodomo-ga o-te-ni
oe-na-i.
Ito-teacher-Dat that-child-Nom Hon-hand-Dat carry-Neg-Pres‘Prof. Ito cannot control that child.’b.

Ito-sensei-ni
sono-kodomo-ga te-ni
oe-nai-de
Ito-teacher-Dat that-child-Nom
hand-Dat carry-Neg-Ptcp

irassyar-u.
be.Hon-Pres‘Prof. Ito cannot control that child.’On the other hand, for the idiom yaku-ni tatu, the following contrast in acceptability isobserved between the two types of honorification.
(11) a.

Ito-sensei-ni
watasi-ga o-yaku-ni
tat-ta.
Ito-teacher-Dat I-Nom
Hon-use-Dat stand-Past‘I was of help to Prof. Ito.’b. * Ito-sensei-ni
watasi-ga yaku-ni
Ito-teacher-Dat I-Nom
use-Dattat-teirassyar-u.
stand-Ptcp be.Hon-Pres‘I am being of help to Prof. Ito.’(11b) involves subject honorification, and this example is deviant on the intended
interpretation where the dative possessor Ito-sensei is counted as the target of subject
honorification. By contrast, (11a), which involves possessive honorification, is acceptable in-5-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010just the same way as (12), where the possessor—the target of possessive honorification—
appears inside the idiomatic expression.
(12) Watasi-ga Ito-sensei-noo-yaku-ni
tat-ta.
I-Nom
Ito-teacher-Gen Hon-use-Dat stand-Past‘I was of help to Prof. Ito.’
Possessive honorification is also licit when the possessor of the idiom te-ni oe-nai occurs
inside the host possessum nominal.
(13) Sono-kodomo-ga Ito-sensei-noo-te-nioe-na-i.
that-child-Nom Ito-teacher-Gen Hon-hand-Dat carry-Neg-Pres‘Prof. Ito cannot control that child.’
Furthermore, when the possessor Ito-sensei is marked with genitive case, it cannot be thetarget of subject honorification. This holds true for both yaku-ni tatu and te-ni oe-nai, as
illustrated in (14).
(14) a. * Sono-kodomo-ga Ito-sensei-note-ni
oe-nai-dethat-child-Nom
Ito-teacher-Gen hand-Dat carry-Neg-Ptcp

irassyar-u.
be.Hon-Pres‘Prof. Ito cannot control that child.’
b. * Watasi-ga Ito-sensei-no
yaku-ni
I-Nom
Ito-teacher-Gen use-Dat

tat-testand-Ptcp

irassyar-u.
be.Hon-Pres‘I am being of help to Prof. Ito.’
Note that with the idiom yaku-ni tatu, the nominative phrase can be taken as the target of
subject honorification. Thus, the nominative argument Ito-sensei in (15) can be interpreted as
the individual to which deference is directed.
(15) Sono-keikaku-ni Ito-sensei-ga
yaku-ni tat-te
irassyar-u.
that-project-Dat Ito-teacher-Nom use-Dat stand-Ptcp be.Hon-Pres‘Prof. Ito is of help to that project.’Since the subject-oriented reflexive zibun can be anchored to the nominative phrase of yakuni tatu, as we saw above, we can state that the target of honorification in (15) is the subject of
the clause. The data regarding the idiom yaku-ni tatu indicate that the distribution of the two
types of honorification—possessive and subject honorification—differs crucially.
Notably, from the data, we can easily see that there is a fairly tight correlation between
reflexivization and subject honorification: when a nominal fails to antecede the reflexive
zibun, it cannot be targeted by subject honorification as well. If so, we can say that only when
the possessor is raised to Spec, TP is subject honorification targeting this nominal made-6-

Possessor Raising and Two Types of Honorification (H. Kishimoto)

available.
In the case of the idiom te-ni oe-nai, it is the dative possessor, but not the genitive
possessor, that counts as the target of subject honorification. The reason why this difference
arises can be easily discerned if we look at where the argument is located on the surface, as
schematically illustrated in (16).5(16) a.

[TP Possessor-Dat [ Theme-Nom [ Possessor-Dat N ]-ni V-te ] irassyar-u ]b. * [TP[ Theme-Nom [ Possessor-Gen N ]-ni V-te ] irassyar-u ]XWith the idiom te-ni oe-nai, the possessor marked with dative case is located in the subject
position, while the genitive possessor stays within its possessum nominal. Thus, the dative
possessor, but not the genitive possessor, can be the legitimate target of subject
honorification.6
Note that when the possessor of te-ni oe-nai bears genitive case marking, the subject
position is not filled by any argument, as illustrated in (16b). In fact, the examples in (17)suggest that the nominative-marked theme argument is not raised to the subject position even
if the possessor appears inside the host nominal.
(17) a.

John-ni sono-kodomo(-no-koto)-ga te-ni
oe-na-i.
John-Dat that-child-Gen-fact-Nom
hand-Dat carry-Neg-Pres‘John cannot control that child.’b.

Sono-kodomo(-no-koto)-ga John-note-ni
oe-na-i.
that-child-Gen-fact-Nom
John-Gen hand-Dat carry-Neg-Pres‘John cannot control that child.’

5

In the representations that follow, I will use an arrow to indicate a structural licensing relation
between the honorific marker and its target.
6

One interesting fact is that a resumptive reflexive can sometimes appear in the position from which
the dative possessor is raised.
(i)

Johni-niJohn-Datsono-kenkyuu-ga
that-research-Nom

zibuni-no
self-Genyaku-niuse-Dattat-ta.
stand-Past‘That research was of help to John himself.’
We can assume that the reflexive zibun ‘self’ here is an overt realization of a copy (or trace) left
behind by movement, and differs from an ordinary reflexive pronoun zibun. This assumption isreasonable, in view of the fact that the reflexive zibun in (i), unlike the ordinary subject-oriented zibun,
can only be bound by the dative possessor without subject orientation.

-7-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

As noted earlier, the formal noun koto can be inserted if the host noun functions as a direct
object syntactically. Crucially, the possibility of koto-insertion does not change regardless ofwhether the possessor is marked with dative or genitive case. Since the formal noun can be
added in (17b) just in the same way as (17a), the theme argument should function as an object
even if the possessor appears inside the host possessum nominal. Therefore, in the light of(17b), we can confirm that the genitive-possessor variant of the clause headed by te-ni oe-nai
gives rise to the configuration (16b), where the subject position is not filled.
If we look closely at the idiom yaku-ni tatu, we find that the nominative rather than thedative phrase counts as the target of subject honorification. This suggests that the dative
possessor is not raised to Spec, TP even if it is extracted from within the host nominal. In
fact, we can ascertain that the dative possessor remains within vP rather than in Spec,TP, inlight of the fact that the focus particle bakari can be associated with it in a sentence like (18).
(18) Sono-hon-ga
Ito-sensei-ni
yaku-nithat-book-Nom Ito-teacher-Dat use-Dat

tat-te-bakari
i-ru.
stand-Ptcp-only be-Pres‘That book was only of use to Prof. Ito.’
As discussed by Kishimoto (2009, 2010), the focus domain of the particle bakari extends
over vP (but not beyond), so bakari can only be associated with an element inside vP. In (18),the particle bakari attached to the verb can be associated with the dative possessor; hence, we
can have the interpretation that the book was useful only for Prof. Ito. This fact suggests thatthe dative possessor of the idiom yaku-ni tatu should reside in a vP-internal position.
In the case of the idiom yaku-ni tatu, the dative possessor appears in the clause, but it is
not raised to Spec, TP.7 With this idiom, it is the nominative-marked theme argument that israised to Spec, TP, so the clause containing the predicate yaku-ni tatu should have thesyntactic configuration (19).
(19) a.

[TP Theme-Nom [ Possessor-Dat [ Possessor-Dat N ]-ni V-te ] irassyar-u ]b. * [TP Theme-Nom [ Possessor-Dat [ Possessor-Dat N ]-ni V-te ] irassyar-u ]X

7In this case, the nominative phrase is expected to fall outside the focus domain of bakari. This is infact true, as can be seen in (i).
(i)

Ito-sensei-ni-wa
Ito-teacher-Dat-Top

sono-hon-ga
that-book-Nom

yaku-ni tat-te-bakari
i-ru.
use-Dat stand-Ptcp-only be-Pres‘That book is only of use to Prof. Ito.’
Example (i) does not have an interpretation where the nominative phrase counts as the focus of bakari,showing that it is located outside vP.

-8-

Possessor Raising and Two Types of Honorification (H. Kishimoto)In this case, the theme argument, which is marked with nominative case, appears in thesubject position, so we would naturally expect that the nominative theme should be thelegitimate target of subject honorification.
Turning to possessive honorification, the dative possessor of the idiom te-ni oe-nai starts
out from the position where the genitive possessor resides on the surface. Now, given that thedative possessor first appears inside the possessum nominal, it is easy to see that possessive
honorification is licit regardless of whether the possessor appears in the subject position orwithin the body-part noun.
(20) a.

b.

[TP Possessor-Dat [ Theme-Nom [ Possessor-Dat o-N ]-ni V ] ][TP[ Theme-Nom [ Possessor-Gen o-N ]-ni V ] ]In both configurations (20), possessive honorification can target the possessor, because it islicensed by virtue of its base-generation in the specifier position of the host possessum
nominal.
In the same vein, possessive honorification is possible with the dative possessor of theidiom yaku-ni tatu, since it starts out from the position which is occupied by the genitive
possessor, as shown in (21).
(21) a.

b.

[TP Theme-Nom [ Possessor-Dat [ Possessor-Dat o-N ]-ni V ] ][TP Theme-Nom [[ Possessor-Gen o-N ]-ni V ] ]Possessive honorification is licit regardless of whether or not the possessor is overtly
extracted from within the possessum nominal. We observe no difference in the possibility ofpossessive honorification between yaku-ni tatu and te-ni oe-nai, because the possessor isbase-generated within the possessum noun in both idioms.
In essence, the data considered in this section show that the two types of honorification
are licensed in distinct structural conditions. On the one hand, the legitimacy of subject
honorification is determined according to whether or not a target nominal is located in thesubject position, i.e. Spec, TP. Possessive honorification, on the other hand, targets a nominal
located in the specifier of the host nominal to which the possessive honorific marker o- is
attached. If the dative possessor appears in the subject position via extraction out of thepossessum nominal, two types of honorification—possessive and subject honorification—are
possible.

-9-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

With an idiom like te-ni oe-nai, the possessor is overtly raised to Spec, TP via overt
extraction out of the host nominal when it is marked with dative case. In this case, thepossessor can be the legitimate target of subject honorification. When marked with genitivecase, the possessor remains inside the possessum nominal, in which case subject
honorification is not possible. Since the possessor is base-generated inside the possessum
nominal, it can be the target of possessive honorification. The facts of possessive
honorification remain constant regardless of whether the possessor is marked with either
dative or genitive case.
In the case of yaku-ni tatu, the nominative theme rather than the possessor is counted as
the target of subject honorification, since the former is realized as a syntactic subject. On theother hand, both the dative-marked and the genitive-marked possessors can be the target ofpossessive honorification, on the basis that they are base-generated in the specifier position of
the host possessum nominal.
3.

Conclusion

In Japanese, there are two types of idiomatic expressions that differ in the nature ofpossessor raising: one type of idiom (te-ni oe-nai ‘cannot control’) raises the possessor to theclause subject position, and the other (yaku-ni tatu ‘of use, of help’) does not. These twokinds of idiomatic expressions show distinct behavior with respect to subject and possessive
honorification. On the basis of these idiomatic expressions, it has been shown that the twokinds of honorification determine their targets under different structural positions: subject
honorification targets an argument located in Spec, TP, while possessive honorification takes
as its target the specifier of the possessum nominal to which the nominal honorific marker is
attached.

References
Harada, S.-I. (1976) “Honorifics,” in M. Shibatani, ed., Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative
Grammar, Academic Press, New York, 499-561.
Kishimoto, H. (2004) “Transitivity of ergative case-marking predicates in Japanese,” Studies in
Language 28, 105-136.
Kishimoto, H. (2005) Toogo Koozoo-to Bunpoo Kankei, Kurosio, Tokyo.
Kishimoto, H. (2008) “Ditransitive idioms and argument structure,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics
17, 141-179.
Kishimoto, H. (2009) “Subject raising in Japanese,” Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Altaic
Formal Linguistics, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58, 225-240.
Kishimoto, H. (2010) “Subjects and constituent structure in Japanese,” Linguistics 48, 629-670.
Kuno, S. (1976) “Subject raising,” in M. Shibatani, ed., Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative
Grammar, Academic Press, 17-49.
Miyagawa, S. and T. Tsujioka. (2004) “Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13, 1-38.

-10-

Possessor Raising and Two Types of Honorification (H. Kishimoto)

Sasaguri, J. (1999) “Meisiku-no Modaritii-tosite-no Koto,” in Y. Sasaki, ed., Gengogaku-to Nihongo
Kyooiku, Kurosio, Tokyo, 161-176.
Takubo, Y. (2007) “An overt marker of individual sublimation in Japanese,” in B. Frellesvig, M.
Shibatani, and J. C. Smith, ed., Current Issues in the History and the Structure of Japanese,
Kurosio, Tokyo, 135-151.

-11-