Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases*

Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

Abstract
Saito (2017a, b, 2020) proposes a new theory of transfer domains within the Phasal
Spell-Out Model. Saito argues that the theory correctly captures the agreementsensitive distribution of subject anaphors in English and Japanese. In this remark,we first point out that the availability of vP-internal kara ‘from’-marked subject
anaphors poses an apparent challenge to Saito’s theory. We then propose amodification to Saito’s system to accommodate the vP-internal binding
configuration based on a relativized definition of vP phasehood independently
proposed by Takahashi (2010) and Bošković (2012). We demonstrate how thiscontextual approach to vP phasehood ensures that the kara-marked subject
anaphor may seek an antecedent in the higher CP domain.

Keywords: transfer domain, kara ‘from’-subject, anaphor, relativized vP phase,
inherent case1.

Introduction
Building on the Phasal Spell-Out Model (Chomsky (2000); Bošković (2016)),

Saito (2017a, b, 2020) develops a new theory of transfer domains in Japanese vis-àvis English capitalizing on the presence vs. absence of φ-feature agreement. Saito
assumes that C-to-T φ-feature inheritance transmits phasehood from CP to TP andthat a phase is transferred once the next higher phase up is completed. Given these
Explorations in English Linguistics, Number 37, March 31, 2024
Department of English Linguistics, Tohoku University
71-99

72
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

assumptions, upon the completion of a CP phase, TP forms a transfer domain in
English, but not in Japanese, where the vP phase is transferred instead.
Saito argues that this difference in the size of transfer domains provides aprincipled account of Yang’s (1983) generalization that the Nominative Island
Condition (NIC) – the inability of a nominative anaphor to be free in CP – obtains
only in the presence of subject agreement. Saito adopts a phase-based theory ofCondition (A) outlined in Quicoli (2008), whereby anaphor binding applies on thebasis of information available at the end of each transfer domain. Then, a subject
anaphor in the embedded [Spec, TP] with the φ-agreement configuration is blocked
in English because the TP domain containing the anaphor is transferred without any
information about its antecedent, in violation of the derivational version of Condition(A). The relevant structure is allowed in Japanese, however, because when theembedded vP phase is transferred upon the completion of the embedded CP phase,the subject anaphor in the embedded [Spec, TP] remains accessible to further
computations and hence can take a subject argument in the matrix [Spec, vP] as its
antecedent before the embedded CP is transferred.
Saito’s theory, then, predicts that binding of an anaphor should result in
ungrammaticality when it remains in [Spec, vP]; at the point when the embedded vPis transferred, the information about its antecedent should be unavailable. We will
demonstrate that this prediction is falsified by the grammaticality of subject anaphors
in kara-marked constructions, which have been argued to have their subjects in [Spec,vP] (Ueda (2003); Kishimoto (2010, 2012, 2013, 2017, 2018)). We will propose atechnical modification to Saito’s system drawing on a relativized definition of vP
phases independently argued for by Takahashi (2010) and Bošković (2012). Morespecifically, we will present evidence showing that those verbal heads assigninginherent cases including kara ‘from’ to their arguments do not constitute vP phases.
We will then show that this relativized approach to vP phasehood correctly ensuresthat the vP-internal subject anaphor in the kara-marked construction can locate its

73Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

antecedent in a higher transfer domain.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we will go over Saito’s (2017a,b, 2020) theory of transfer domains and anaphor binding in English and Japanese. In
section 3, we will point out one potential problem with Saito’s theory based on our
novel observation that a subject anaphor in [Spec, vP] can be bound by an argumentin the matrix [Spec, vP] in the kara-marked construction, a configuration whichshould be ruled out in violation of Condition (A) under his theory. In section 4, we
will review Takahashi’s (2010)/Bošković’s (2012) contextual theory of vP phases
and show how it accommodates the grammaticality of the relevant binding
configuration in accord with Saito’s original system. Section 5 presents theconclusion.

2.

Saito’s (2017a, b, 2020) Theory of Transfer Domains and Anaphor Binding
As stated in section 1, Saito (2017a, b, 2020) adopts the Phasal Spell-Out Model,

where transfer applies to the entire phase instead of the complement of a phase head(either v or C) and assumes that a phase is transferred upon the completion of thenext higher phase up. He further proposes that when T inherits unvalued φ-featuresfrom C (Chomsky (2008)), T also inherits phasehood from C. These assumptions
yield different transfer domains depending on the presence vs. absence of φ-featureagreement in a particular language. To illustrate, consider a schematic derivation in(1), where the CP phase is completed.

74
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada(1)

CP = phaseC[φ]→ Transfer(with φ-feature agreement)

TP
NP

T′
T[φ]

→ Transfer(without φ-feature agreement)

vP
NP

v′
v

VP

In languages with φ-feature subject agreement, as in English, the CP phase triggers
the transfer of the derived TP phase. By contrast, in languages without suchagreement, such as Japanese, it is the vP phase which constitutes a transfer domain
upon the completion of the CP phase.
This theory, Saito argues, offers an illuminating account of the generalizationthat subject anaphors are blocked in English, but permitted in Japanese (Chomsky(1981); Yang (1983)). Saito adopts Quicoli’s (2008) phase-based theory of anaphor
binding, according to which information on the antecedent of an anaphor is shippedto the C-I interface along with the transfer domain that contains the anaphor.
Consider (2a, b). In (2a, b), the shaded domains indicate the transfer domains in
Saito’s system.
(2) a. *John said [CP that [TP himself won]].
b. John-ga [CP [TP zibunzisin-gai [vP ti katta-to]]]John-Nom

self-Nom

it-ta.

win.Pst-Comp say-Pst‘lit. John said that himself won.’(2a) is ungrammatical because the antecedent of himself cannot be specified when75
Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

the embedded TP is transferred, in violation of the derivational version of Condition(A). Conversely, (2b) is grammatical because the vP constitutes a transfer domain.
Consequently, it is when the matrix vP phase is completed that the anaphor istransferred within the embedded CP phase. Since John is already introduced into thesyntactic workspace as the specifier of the matrix vP when the embedded CP istransferred, the information that the anaphor takes John as its antecedent can be sent
to the C-I interface.

3.

One Potential Problem with Saito’s (2017a, b, 2020) Theory
Kishimoto (2010, 2012, 2013, 2017, 2018) argues that the position of subjects

varies in Japanese according to whether T contains the nominative Case feature or
not: in the former case, a nominative subject undergoes overt movement to [Spec,TP] whereas in the latter case, a non-nominative subject remains within vP. We areconcerned here with a non-nominative subject marked with the ablative marker kara‘from’, which is argued by Ueda (2003) and Kishimoto (2010, 2012, 2013, 2017,2018) to remain in [Spec, vP].1

3.1. Kara-Marked Subjects are vP-Internal Subjects.
In Japanese, subjects otherwise regularly marked with the nominative caseparticle -ga can be marked instead with the ablative marker -kara ‘from’, as shownin (3), as long as the NP to which the marker is attached can be construed as somekind of source. In (3), John can be identified as a source argument in that the call for
donations came from him. Other than the verb yobikakeru ‘to call for’ used in (3),verbs like hanasu ‘to tell’, iu ‘to say’, tanomu ‘to ask’, meiziru ‘to order’, and kaku
‘to write’ can participate in the kara-marked subject construction.

76
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada(3) Kon-kai-wa{John-ga/John-kara}

kihu-oyobikake-ta.

this-time-Top John-Nom/John-from donation-Acc call.for-Pst‘John called for a donation this time.’(Kishimoto (2012: 8))

Two pieces of evidence show that the kara-marked NP in (3) is a bona-fide
subject, like a nominative subject, instead of a locative adjunct (as implied by its
oblique marking). Firstly, zibun ‘self’ is a subject-oriented anaphor. (4b) shows thatzibun can take Ken-kara-mo ‘also from Ken’ as its antecedent in the same way thatit can take the ga-marked NP subject John-ga ‘John-Nom’ in (4a).
(4) a. Johni-ga

Mary-nizibuni-no himitu-ohanasi-ta.

John-Nom Mary-Dat self-Gen secret-Acc tell-Pst‘John told Mary his own secrets.’
b. Keni-kara-mo Mary-ni
Ken-from-also Mary-Dat

zibuni-no himitu-ohanasi-ta.

self-Gen secret-Acc tell-Pst‘Ken also told Mary his own secrets.’(ibid.: 9)Secondly, the kara-marked NP can trigger subject honorification, just as thenominative NP can, as illustrated in (5), where the relevant NP is a socially superior
person worthy of respect.
(5) {Ito-sensei-ga/Ito-sensei-kara}

John-nisono-koto-oIto-teacher-Nom/Ito-teacher-from John-Dat that-fact-Acc
o-hanasi-ni-nat-ta.
Hon-tell-Obl-Lv-Pst‘Prof. Ito told John about that fact.’(ibid.: 11)

The kara-marked NPs in (4) and (5) then behave as a grammatical subject. Note that

77
Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phasessuch NPs must be treated differently from other cases of kara-marked expressions,such as the one in (6), which plays a role instead as an internal source argument. The
latter type of kara-marked NPs can neither antecede zibun nor trigger subject
honorification, as seen in (7) and (8), respectively.
(6) John-wa

Mary-kara hon-okari-ta.

John-Top Mary-from book-Acc borrow-Pst‘John borrowed a book from Mary.’(7) *John-wa

Maryi-kara zibuni-no hon-o(ibid.: 9)kari-ta.

John-Top Mary-from self-Gen book-Acc borrow-Pst
Intended: ‘John borrowed heri book from Maryi.’(8) *John-wa

Ito-sensei-karahon-o(ibid.: 10)

o-kari-ni-nat-ta.

John-Top Ito-teacher-from book-Acc Hon-borrow-Obl-Lv-Pst
Intended: ‘John borrowed a book from Prof. Ito.’(ibid.: 12)

What is crucial for our present purposes is Ueda’s (2003)/Kishimoto’s (2010,2012, 2013, 2017, 2018) observation that the kara-marked subject NP stays in [Spec,vP]. This observation is supported by two pieces of evidence, one concerning
indeterminate pronoun binding by mo (Kishimoto) and the other concerning
syntactic causative sentences (Ueda) (see also section 2.3 for Kishimoto’s (2017,2018) argument based on the distribution of the negative polarity item (NPI) amari
ooku-no ‘very many-Gen’ for the position that the oblique subject stays in [Spec,vP]). Firstly, indeterminate pronouns such as dare ‘anyone’ and nani ‘anything’ canbe used as NPIs when they occur adjacent to the quantificational particle mo, asshown in (9a). However, the particle is not required to occur this way; it may be
attached to a verb instead, as shown in (9b), without causing any appreciableinterpretive difference from (9a).

78
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada(9) a. Taroo-wa nani-mo

kawa-nakat-ta.

Taro-Top anything-Q buy-Neg-Pst‘Taro didn’t buy anything.’b. Taroo-wa nani-okai-mo si-nakat-ta.

Taro-Top anything-Acc buy-Q do-Neg-Pst‘Taro didn’t buy anything.’(Kishimoto (2001: 598, 599))

Kishimoto (2001) points out that when mo appears right next to a verb in a
simple clause, vP-internal arguments can be bound by the particle, but vP-externalarguments cannot. This observation is illustrated by the contrast in grammaticality
between (10a, b) and (10c).
(10) a. Taroo-wa nani-okai-mo si-nakat-ta.

(= (9b))Taro-Top anything-Acc buy-Q do-Neg-Pst‘Taro did not buy anything.’b. Taroo-wa dare-ni

omiyage-oage-mo si-nakat-ta.

Taro-Top anyone-Dat souvenir-Acc give-Q do-Neg-Pst‘Taro did not give anyone a souvenir.’c. *Dare-ga

Hanako-ohome-mo si-nakat-ta.

anyone-Nom Hanako-Acc admire-Q do-Neg-Pst
Intended: ‘No one admired Hanako.’(ibid.: 599, 600)

Kishimoto (2001) assumes that the verb marked with mo resides in vP and takes thisdomain as its scope, and proposes that an indeterminate pronoun can be bound by
mo if it falls within vP. Consequently, both direct and indirect objects, being vPinternal, can be used as an NPI, as shown in (10a, b), whereas nominative subjects,
being vP-external, cannot be so used, as shown in (10c).
Keeping Kishimoto’s observation above in mind, consider now (11).

79Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases(11) Kon-kai-wa {*dare-ga/dare-kara}
this-time-Top

kihu-oyobikake-mo

who-Nom/who-from donation-Acc call.for-Q

si-nakat-ta.
do-Neg-Pst‘No one called for a donation this time.’(Kishimoto (2012: 11))Here, the ga-marked subject cannot be bound by mo, which is attached to the mainverb, whereas the kara-marked subject can. This contrast indicates, then, that theformer is in [Spec, TP], but the latter is in [Spec, vP] (see section 3.2, where we
review Kishimoto’s (2017, 2018) observation that such a subject may undergo
raising to [Spec, TP] when the clause contains a nominative argument elsewhere).
Secondly, it is by now standardly assumed in Japanese generative syntax thatthe clausal complement of the syntactic causative verb -(s)ase is vP (see Harley(2008) for an overview of the major evidence for this assumption). Given thisassumption, it is not surprising that such a clause cannot host a ga-marked subject,which, by hypothesis, must be licensed by (finite) T: see (12a). Crucially, however,Ueda (2003) points out that such a clause can host a kara-marked subject instead, as
witnessed by the grammaticality of (12b).
(12) a. *Taroo-wa [vP watasi-ga Mary-ni
Taro-Topbyoozyoo-oI-Nom

kanozyo-no

Mary-Dat her-Gen
setumeis]-ase-ta.

medical.condition-Acc explain-Caus-Pst‘Taro made me explain her medical condition to Mary.’

80
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

b. Taroo-wa [vP watasi-kara Mary-ni
Taro-TopI-frombyoozyoo-okanozyo-no

Mary-Dat her-Gen
setumeis]-ase-ta.

medical.condition-Acc explain-Caus-Pst‘Taro made me explain her medical condition to Mary.’(Ueda (2003: 140))
The contrast here, therefore, suggests that kara-subjects stay in [Spec, vP] instead ofundergoing movement to the derived subject position in [Spec, TP].

3.2. An Alternative Analysis of Kara-Marked Subjects
In the previous subsection, we have presented evidence, based on a) the subjectoriented anaphor zibun ‘self’, b) subject honorification, c) the distribution ofindeterminate pronouns used as NPIs vis-à-vis the quantificational particle mo(Kishimoto (2001, 2012)) and d) the availability of a kara-marked causee in thesyntactic causative construction, to show that certain instances of the kara-marked
NPs as illustrated in (3), (4b), (5), (11) and (12b), are vP-internal subjects. In thissection, we compare our subject analysis of the kara-marked NP with an alternative
adjunct analysis and present two arguments to defend our original analysis against
this alternative.
One may suggest that a kara-NP enters the syntactic derivation as an adjunct toeither VP or vP. The suggestion seems reasonable given that the kara-marked PP can
co-occur with a nominative subject either preceding or following it, as shown in (13).
(13) (Zibun-kara) Ken-ga
self-from(zibun-kara) kihu-o

Ken-Nom self-fromyobikake-ta.

donation-Acc call.for-Pst‘Ken called for a donation on his own.’

81Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

Recall that kara-marked NPs may serve as licit antecedents for the subjectoriented anaphor zibun ‘self’ and trigger subject honorification, as shown in (4b) and(5), respectively. However, one can account for these properties if the derivation of
the kara-marked construction involves an unpronounced pronominal which occupies
the real subject position in [Spec, vP].
This pro-analysis has been independently proposed by Mu et al. (2019). Mu et
al. conducted an experiment on processing of sentences with subjects marked either
by -ga or -kara, and showed that nominative subject sentences exhibited a significant
difference in processing speed between their canonical S-gaOV and scrambled OSgaV orders, but no such scrambling effect was observed between the S-karaOV andOS-karaV of the kara-marked sentences. Given the independent experimental
finding that VP-adverbs have two canonical positions, one before the object position(i.e., AdvOV) and the other after that position (i.e., OAdvV) (Koizumi and Tamaoka(2006)), Mu et al. conclude that a kara-marked NP is a VP-adjunct. To accommodate
the data suggestive of the subjecthood of the kara-marked NP, they posit that theconstruction involves a pro in [Spec, vP], associated with the PP headed by kara‘from’, as depicted in (14).
(14)

vP
proi

vP
PPi

NP

P VP
kara

v′
v

Mu et al. suggest, based on the distribution of floating quantifiers, that the silent
pronoun is PP rather than NP. It is well-known that an NP with a case marker can,but an NP with a postposition cannot, host a floating quantifier, as illustrated by thecontrast between (15a) and (15b) (Miyagawa (1989)). The example in (16) shows

82
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

that the kara-marked NP cannot license an adjacent floating quantifier. The
ungrammaticality of this example, then, indicates that the category of the null subject
in a kara-marked sentence is not an NP, but a PP.
(15) a. [NP Sensei-ga ]san-nin syorui-owatasi-ta.

teacher-Nom san-Cl document-Acc hand.over-Pst‘Three teachers handed over documents.’
b. *John-ga[PP [NP sensei] kara] 3-nin purezento-o morat-ta.

John-Nomteacher from 3-Cl present-Acc receive-Pst‘John received presents from three teachers.’(16)*Sensei-kara

3-nin syorui-o(Mu et al. (2019: 170))

watasi-ta.

teacher-from 3-Cl document-Acc hand.over-Pst‘Three teachers handed over documents.’(ibid.: 171)

We have two arguments for our subject analysis of a kara-marked NP over the
adjunct analysis. One argument is concerned with Condition (C). In (14), pro sits in[Spec, vP], which is structurally superior to the adjunct position into which the karamarked NP is base-generated. As such, the adjunct analysis predicts that such aconfiguration should incur a Condition (C) violation, as in (17), but thegrammaticality of (3), repeated here as (18a), shows that this prediction is not borne
out. The relevant part of the vP structure for (18a) is shown in (18b).
(17)*Karei-ga

Johni-oseme-ta.

He-Nom John-Acc criticize-Pst‘Hei criticized Johni.’(18) a. Kon-kai-wa

John-kara

this-time-Top John-fromkihu-oyobikake-ta.

donation-Acc call.for-Pst‘John called for a donation this time.’(Kishimoto (2012: 8))

83
Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phasesb. [vP proi [vP [PP John-kara]i [v′ [VP kihu-o yobikake] v]]]
Proponents of the adjunct analysis might counter that the kara-marked DP is an
adjunct so that the point at which it is introduced in the syntactic derivation does nothave to be restricted to any designated position so as to incur a Condition (C)violation. What we think they have in mind is the late adjunction/late merger theoryof adjuncts (Lebeaux (1988, 1991); Stepanov (2001)), supported by the argumentadjunct asymmetry with respect to Condition (C), which, in turn, is illustrated by thecontrast in grammaticality between (19a) and (19b).
(19) a. *Whose claim [that Johni likes Mary] did hei deny?
b. Which claim [that Johni made] did hei later deny?
(Lebeaux (1991: 211))
The that-clause in (19a) is an argument. Given the standard assumption thatarguments cannot be introduced countercyclically, the whole nominal complex
whose claim that John likes Mary must be introduced as the direct object of the verb
deny, thereby resulting in a Condition (C) violation. The that-clause in (19b), by
contrast, is a relative clause adjunct. Lebeaux (1988, 1991) hypothesizes thatadjuncts can be introduced countercyclically so that the relative clause is mergedwith the wh-phrase which claim only after the latter has moved to [Spec, CP]. It
follows, then, that John can avoid a Condition (C) violation in (19b).
We find the attempt to explain away the lack of a Condition (C) violation under
the adjunct analysis of the kara-marked NP described above rather difficult to sustain.
Given that pro is the unpronounced counterpart of an overt pronoun, the adjunctanalysis of the kara-marked construction predicts that (20) should be grammatical
where the overt nominative pronoun kare-ga ‘he-Nom’ is coindexed with John
contained within the PP; the latter could, in principle, be inserted countercyclically84
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

in some vP-internal adjunct position that is not c-commanded by the former, thereby
evading the violation of a Condition (C) effect. Recall from (13) that the kara-PP
may occur either before or after the nominative subject. The point here, of course, isthat (20) is ungrammatical under the reading where the pronoun is coreferential with
the R-expression.
(20) *Kon-kai-wa

karei-ga Johni-kara kihu-oyobikake-ta.

this-time-Top he-Nom John-from donation-Acc call.for-Pst
Intended: ‘John called for a donation on his own this time.’
The ungrammaticality of (20) is consistent with our analysis of the kara-marked NP,
on the other hand, because kare-ga ‘he-Nom’ binds John in [Spec, vP], in violationof Condition (C).2
Our second argument in favor of the subject analysis of the kara-marked NP
against the pro-based alternative comes from Kishimoto’s (2017) finding regarding
a subject-object asymmetry with respect to the licensing of the ‘argument modifier’
type of NPIs exemplified by amari ooku-no ‘very many-Gen’ (see also Kishimoto(2018: 26–29) for a parallel argument based on another NPI sika ‘only’). Kishimoto(2017) first observes that there is a subject-object asymmetry with respect to thelicensing of this NPI in the variant of the aspectual construction where the negative
morpheme nai precedes the aspectual verb iru ‘be’. This asymmetry is illustrated in
the contrast in grammaticality between (21a) and (21b).
(21) a. *Saikin

amari ooku-no

hito-garonbun-o kaka-nai-derecently very many-Gen man-Nom paper-Acc write-Neg-Ger
i-ru.
be-Pres‘Recently, very many people have not been writing papers.’

85Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phasesb. Saikin Ken-wa amari ooku-no

ronbun-o kaka-nai-derecently Ken-Top very many-Gen paper-Acc write-Neg-Ger
i-ru.
be-Pres‘Recently, Ken has not been writing so many papers.’(Kishimoto (2017: 134))
Kishimoto proposes that Neg-head raising raises the negative morpheme nai to thefiniteness head projected over its local TP to extend the negative scope over thisconstituent. Given this proposal, the ungrammaticality of (21a) shows that the NPI
subject amari ooku-no hito-ga ‘not very many-Gen people’ undergoes raising fromits base-generated position in the embedded [Spec, vP] to the matrix [Spec, TP] andends up being outside the scope of negation (the embedded TP). (21b) is grammatical,
by contrast, because the NPI object stays within the scope of negation. Kishimoto
then observes that no such positional asymmetry is observed when the same NPI
modifies the kara-marked subject and object. Examples (22a, b) prove this point.
(22) a. Saikin amari ooku-no
recently very
si-nai-de

hito-kara

kare-ni hanasi-o

many-Gen people-from he-to

talk-acc

i-ru.

do-Neg-Ger be-Pres‘Recently, not very many people have been talking to him.’b. Saikin watasi-kara kare-ni amari ooku-no
recently I-fromsi-nai-de

he-to

very

hanasi-omany-Gen talk-Acc

i-ru.

do-Neg-Ger be-Pres‘Recently, I have not been taking to him very much.’(ibid.: 136)

86
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

The grammaticality of (22a) indicates that the kara-marked subject does not undergo
movement into the matrix [Spec, TP], but stays in the embedded [Spec, vP], a
conclusion that is in accord with our subject analysis of the kara-marked subject
construction in section 3.1.
Note that the kara-marked construction in (22a) does not involve any
nominative NP. Significantly, Kishimoto shows that the kara-marked NP may
exceptionally undergo raising to the matrix [Spec, TP] in a kara-marked sentence if
it involves a nominative argument in the same sentence. In other words, the karamarked subject modified by the relevant NPI gives rise to ungrammaticality, as
shown in (23a), in contrast with the grammatical example in (22a) with the NPImarked kara-subject without any nominative argument elsewhere.
(23) a. *Saikin

amari ooku-no

hito-kara kare-ni hanasi-ga

recently very many-Gen man-from he-to
deki-nai-de

talk-Nom

i-ru.

can.do-Neg-Ger be-Pres‘Recently, not very many people have been talking to him.’b. Saikin watasi-kara kare-ni amari ooku-no
recently I-fromdeki-nai-dehe-to

hanasi-ga

very many-Gen talk-Nom

i-ru.

can.do-Neg-Ger be-Pres‘Recently, I have not been talking to him very much.’(ibid.: 139)

As Kishimoto (2017: 140) points out, the ungrammaticality of (23a) provesproblematic for the pro-based analysis of the kara-marked subject. According to thisanalysis, the real subject of the kara-marked construction is the silent pronoun in[Spec, vP] with the kara-argument position in an adjunct position to the vP/VP, so it
is the pronoun that should undergo movement into the matrix [Spec, TP] in the87Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

aspectual construction under investigation; the kara-subject will never undergo
movement but instead remain in its base-generated position within the embedded vP.
The analysis then wrongly predicts that the NPI within the kara-subject should belicensed by the raised negation in (23a), contrary to facts. Our subject analysis, on
the other hand, correctly predicts the ungrammaticality of (23a) if we assume thatthe kara-NP undergoes movement into the matrix subject position and hence falls
outside the scope of negation.

3.3. Saito’s (2017a, b, 2020) Theory and Subject Anaphors in KaraMarked Constructions
Having established that the kara-marked subject construction involves theablative subject PP in [Spec, vP], let us now return to Saito’s (2017a, b, 2020) theoryof transfer domains and anaphor binding in Japanese. Recall that Saito’s theory
predicts that the subject anaphor zibunzisin ‘self’ in [Spec, vP] should cause theviolation of Condition (A) because its antecedent is not available at the point whenthe embedded vP phase containing the anaphor is transferred to the C-I interface
upon the completion of the higher CP phase. Significantly, the kara-marked subject
anaphor in (24) and (25) can take the matrix subject in [Spec, vP] as its antecedent.
In these examples, we included subject honorification to make sure that the karamarked subject is a genuine subject in the embedded [Spec, vP] instead of a mere
locative adjunct (recall (6–8)).
(24) Tanaka-sensei-wa [CP kotosi-wa
Tanaka-teacher-Top
kihu-o… [TP … [vP zibunzisin-karathis.year-Topo-yobikake-ni-nat] ta] toself-fromo-sshatteiru.

donation-Acc Hon-call.for-Obl-Lv Pst Comp Hon-say‘Prof. Tanaka says that she called for a donation this year.’88
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada(25) Suzuki-sensei-wa [CP kinoo… [TP … [vP zibunzisin-kara

Suzuki-teacher-Top

yesterday

self-fromzemi-see-ni

sono kanasii sirase-oseminar-student-Dat that sadta] too-hanasi-ni-nat]news-Acc Hon-tell-Obl-Lvo-sshatteiru.

Pst Comp Hon-say‘Prof. Suzuki says that he told his seminar students about that sad news
yesterday.’
One may counter here that all what we have shown so far is that kara-subjects
can take either one of the two structural positions, [Spec, vP] or [Spec, TP]. As such,
if we took the latter option, zibunzisin ‘self’ in (24) and (25) could be bound by its
antecedent as both the antecedent and the reflexive would be in the same transfer
domain without adding any modification to Saito’s original proposal. The question
arises, then, whether there is any evidence to show that kara-subjects must stay in[Spec, vP]. Recall that, as discussed in section 3.1, a syntactic causative sentencehelps us construct a relevant configuration where a kara-subject is forced to occupy[Spec, vP]. The binding relation holds in this controlled environment, as shown in
(26).
(26)

Tarooi-wa [vP zibunzisini-no gakusei-kara kaer]-ase-ta.
Tatoo-Top

self-Gen

student-from leave-Caus-Pst‘Taroo make his students leave.’This example then provides supporting evidence for our position that an anaphor
binding is possible across the vP domain.
To summarize, we have presented a challenge for Saito’s (2017a, b, 2020)
recent theory of anaphor binding in Japanese. The challenge comes from our89Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

observation that vP-internal subjects marked by kara ‘from’ can take an argument in
the matrix [Spec, vP] as their antecedent, a configuration which should be ruled out
in violation of Condition (A) under his theory.

4.

Relativized vP Phases and the Inherent Case Kara
The data presented so far show that there are two empirical boundary conditions

that any account of anaphor binding must satisfy. One condition is that such an
account must be able to capture the difference between English and Japanese withrespect to the availability of nominative anaphors, a pattern which Saito (2017a, b,2020) has argued to be derived as a consequence of the different transfer domains(TP vs. vP) in the two languages. The other condition is that the transfer domain foranaphor binding must not be categorically stipulated as vP (and CP) in Japanese,
since such a rigid specification would wrongly exclude grammatical cases ofanaphor binding across a CP phase in the kara-marked subject construction. What
we need now instead is a more nuanced, relativized definition of phases/transfer
domains whereby the otherwise default locality-defining domains for an anaphor
imposed by purely mechanical phase-theoretic computation may somehow be
voided under a restricted range of environments so that the anaphor can look beyond
its default transfer domain for its grammatical antecedent. In this section, we willpropose one technical modification to Saito’s original phase-theoretic system tocorrectly accommodate the new binding pattern discovered in the previous sectionthat draws its insight from a contextual definition of vP phases developed by
Takahashi (2010) and Boškovič (2012).

4.1. Relativized vP Phases and the Structural vs. Inherent Case Distinction
Takahashi (2010) argues for a contextual definition of vP phases based on his
study of different scope patterns in the nominative/accusative conversion in Japanese.
Adopting the independently motivated view that Quantifier Raising (QR) is phase-

90
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

bound, Takahashi hypothesizes that a vP constitutes a phase only when the phasehead participates in Case-valuation. To illustrate how this proposal works, consider(27a, b); see Sano (1985), Tada (1992, 1993), Koizumi (1994, 1995, 2008), Nomura(2003, 2005), and many other works cited in Takahashi (2010: 320) for discussions
on scope facts on the nominative vs. accusative objects with respect to potential
verbs and negation.
(27) a. John-ga

migime-dake-otumur-e-ru. [?*only>can; can>only]

John-Nom right.eye-only-Acc close-can-Pres‘John can close only his right eye.’b. John-ga

migime-dake-ga

tumur-e-ru.

[only>can; can>only]

John-Nom right.eye-only-Nom close-can-Pres‘John can close only his right eye.’(Takahashi (2010: 336))

In (27a), the accusative object must take scope under the potential affix whereas in(27b), the nominative object may take scope above the potential affix. Takahashi
assumes, following Ura (1996, 1999, 2000), that the potential affix optionallyabsorbs the accusative Case-feature of v. In (27a), the potential affix does not absorb
the accusative Case feature of v. The v head assigns the accusative Case to the direct
object. Per hypothesis, this means that the embedded vP constitutes a phase todemarcate the domain for QR of the dake-marked object. It follows that the object
cannot QR beyond this vP domain to take scope over the potential affix. In (27b), by
contrast, the potential affix absorbs the accusative Case feature of v so that thenominative object has its Case valued instead by T. The v head then does not create
a vP phase. Consequently, the nominative object may undergo QR across the vP
domain to TP to take wide scope over the potential affix.
Boškovič (2012) develops Takahashi’s hypothesis a step further and proposesthat those v heads assigning an inherent case do not form vP phases since “with91Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

inherent case there is no regular process of case valuation of the kind Chomsky(2000) proposed for structural case” (p. 361). This proposal is supported by hisobservation that inherently case-marked PPs pattern with nominative objects, but notwith accusative objects, in that they may take scope over the potential affix, as shownin (28).
(28) Taroo-wa daitooryoo-ni suutu-dake-de a-e-ru.

[only>can; can>only]

Tato-Top president-Dat suit-only-with meet-can-Pres‘Taro can meet with the president only in a suit.’ (Boškovič (2012: 364))
The wide scope interpretation of the inherently case-marked PP suutu-dake-de ‘only
in a suit’ in (27) falls into place if inherent case does not involve Case-valuation in
Takahashi’s (2010) sense, so that the v here does not head a vP phase and hence does
not block QR of the dake-phrase to the TP.3

4.2. Explaining the Anaphor Binding Pattern in the Kara-Marked
Subject Construction
We are now ready to present our account for the rather exceptional anaphor
binding configuration illustrated in (24) and (25). Recall that Saito’s (2017a, b, 2020)
theory predicts these examples to be ungrammatical. The kara-subject in [Spec, vP]
should not be able to take an argument in the matrix [Spec, vP] as its antecedent in
his theory. The lower vP must have already been transferred to the C-I interface upon
the completion of the embedded CP phase before the antecedent is introduced in thematrix [Spec, vP], in violation of the derivational version of Condition (A). The
relevant state of affairs is depicted in the schematic derivation in (29).

92
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada(29)

vP (=phase)
NP

v′
VP

v

CP (=phase) V
TP

C
T′

vP (=phase) T
PP
NP

P

We propose that the v head does not head the vP phase because the head assigns
the inherent ablative case kara ‘from’ to the PP argument in its specifier, which isthematically identified as a source as well as an agent (Chomsky (1986)). Indeed,(30) shows that the PP may take scope over the potential affix, thus patterning with
the nominative object ((27b)) and the inherently case-marked manner PP ((28)), notwith the accusative object ((27a)). This scope fact thus lends independent support toour view that the ablative assigning v does not create a vP phase.
(30) Kono koozyoo-de-wa mutenka-no
thisfactory-in-Topkome toadditive.free-Gen sweet.sake-Acc ricekomekoozi -dake-kara tukur-e-masu.
rice.malt-only-fromamazake-oand[only>can; can>only]

produce-can-Pol‘In this factory, they can produce additive-free sweet sake only from rice
and rice malts.’

93
Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

Since the lower vP does not count as a phase, the embedded CP phase is the firstdomain to be transferred to the C-I interface when the higher vP phase is completed.
Thus, the kara-marked anaphor zibunzisin-kara ‘from self’ in (24) and (25) may lookbeyond the vP domain to find its antecedent within the embedded CP domain before
the completion of the matrix vP domain.4

5.

Conclusion
In this paper, we have presented novel examples concerning anaphor binding in

the kara-marked subject construction in Japanese, which appear problematic for
Saito’s (2017a, b, 2020) recent theory of transfer domains and anaphor binding.
Saito’s theory predicts that the subject in a vP phase should not be able to find its
antecedent in the immediately higher CP phase, but we have shown that this anaphor
binding pattern manifests itself in the relevant construction. This problem is only
apparent, however. We have suggested that a minor adjustment to Saito’s theory
correctly accounts for the relevant facts. More precisely, we have adopted
Takahashi’s (2010)/Boškovič’s (2012) contextual approach to phasehood whereby
only those v heads participating in Case-valuation head vP phases. We havedemonstrated how this approach allows the vP-internal anaphor to bypass the vP
domain to seek for its potential antecedent in the matrix argument while maintaining
Saito’s original system. The overall results in this paper not only vindicate Saito’s
theory but also lend further credence to the contextual definition of phasehood.

*We thank two anonymous reviewers from English Linguistics for invaluablecomments on an earlier draft. We also benefited a lot from helpful discussions with
Hideki Kishimoto and Mamoru Saito in developing this paper. Special thanks go to
Etsuro Shima for his valuable comments and questions. Sato’s research is supportedby the Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund Tier 1 (Project #:94
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

R-103-000-152-115) and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP19K00560. Kitada’s
research is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22K00617.

Notes

1)

Kishimoto (2010, 2012, 2013, 2017, 2018) claims that non-nominative subjects

marked with the instrumental particle -de ‘with’ also stay in [Spec, vP]. In this paper, we
will concentrate on the kara-marked subject construction, merely noting here that we canreplicate the same argument against Saito’s theory using the de-marked subject
construction.

2)

The grammaticality of (i) with respect to Condition (A) is also consistent with ouranalysis.

(i)

Kon-kai-wa Johni-ga

zibunzisini-kara kihu-o

thi-time-Top John-Nom

self-fromyobikake-ya.

donation-Acc call.for-Pst

Intended: ‘John called for a donation on his own this time.’

Here, John occupies [Spec, TP] and binds zibunzisin-kara ‘from oneself’ in [Spec, vP].

3)

One may wonder why the vP in (24) and (25) does not constitute a phase under

Takahashi’s (2010) assumption that v is a phase head when it assigns accusative Case.
Recall that we adopt the version by Boškovič (2012), where v does not form a phasewhen it assigns inherent case, leading us to say that vP in (24) and (25) is not a phase.

4)

Etsuro Shima (personal communication) points out that our analysis predicts that a95Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

direct object as well as a kara-marked subject in the relevant vP domain should remain
accessible until a higher phase is introduced to trigger transfer. Thus, the direct object inthe embedded vP might be able to be bound by the subject occupying the matrix [Spec,vP]. However, this prediction is difficult to test because binding of zibunzisin causes a
locality violation. In (i), for example, Taroo cannot be the antecedent of zibunzisin ‘self’
as a potential antecedent Hanako intervenes between them. Note that this locality
restriction is independent of the kara-subject construction. (ii) shows that the reflexive
cannot be bound by Taroo, the potential antecedent in the matrix clause, because there isa closer potential antecedent for the reflexive in the embedded clause, i.e., Hanako.

(i) * Tarooi-wa[Hanako-kara zibunzisini-no hi-oTaroo-Nom Hanako-from self-Gen

mitome-ta to]mistake admit-Pst Compit-ta.
say-Pst‘Tarooi said that Hanakoj admitted {his*i/herj} own mistake.’(ii) Tarooi-wa
Taro-Nom[Hanakoj-ga

zibunzisin{*i/j} -no hi-o

Hanako-Nom self-Gen

mitome-ta

mistake-Acc admit-Pst

to] it-ta.
C say-Pst‘Tarooi said that Hanako admitted {his*i/herj} own mistake.’

References

Bošković, Željko (2012) “Phases in NPs and DPs,” Phases: Developing the Framework,
ed. by Ángel Gallego, 343–383, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.
Bošković, Željko (2016) “What is Sent to Spell-Out Is Phases, Not Phasal Complements,”
Linguistica 56, 25–66.

96
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger,
New York.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” Step by Step: Essayson Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David
Michaels and Juan Uriageraka, 89–155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Fundamental Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essaysin Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria
Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Harley, Heidi (2008) “On the Causative Construction,” The Oxford Handbook ofJapanese Linguistics, ed. by Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 20–53, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2001) “Binding of Indeterminate Pronouns and Clause Structure in
Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 597–633.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2010) “Subjects and Constituent Structure in Japanese,” Linguistics
48, 629–670.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2012) “Subject Honorification and the Position of Subjects inJapanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21, 1–41.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2013) “Case, Tense, and Subject Raising in Japanese,” Nanzan
Linguistics 9, 21–50.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2017) “Negative Polarity, A-Movement, and Clause Architecture in
Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 26, 109–161.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2018) “Projection of Negative Scope in Japanese,” Gengo Kenkyu
153, 5–39.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (1994) “Nominative Objects: The Role of TP in Japanese,” MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 24 (Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1:
Proceedings of FAJL1), ed. by Masatoshi Koizumi and Hiroyuki Ura, 211–230.
Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

97
Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Doctoral dissertation,
MIT.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2008) “Nominative Object,” The Oxford Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics, ed. by Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 141–164, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Koizumi, Masatoshi and Katsuo Tamaoka (2006) “Bun Kaiseki Zikken niyoru Nihongo
Hukusirui no Kihon Gozyun no Hantei (The Canonical Positions of Adjuncts in theProcessing of Japanese Sentences),” Cognitive Studies 13, 392–403.
Lebeaux, David (1988) Language Acquisition and the Form of Grammar, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lebeaux, David (1991) “Relative Clauses, Licensing and the Nature of Derivations,”
Phrase Structure, Heads and Licensing, Syntax and Semantics 25, ed. by Susan
Rothstein and Margaret Speas, 209–239, Academic Press, New York.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989) Structure and Case Marking in Japanese: Syntax and
Semantics 22, Academic Press, New York.
Mu, Xin, Masatoshi Koizumi and Katsuo Tamaoka (2019) “Differentiating Subjects
from VP-Adjuncts: A Psycholinguistic Case Study of Kara-Marked XPs,” Gengo
Kenkyu 155, 159–172.
Nomura, Masashi (2003) “The Nature of Nominative Objects in Japanese,” Proceedingsof Penn Linguistic Colloquium 26, ed. by Elsi Kaiser and Sudha Arunachalam, 169–
183, Penn Linguistics Club, Philadelphia, PA.
Nomura, Masashi (2005) Nominative Case and AGREE(ment), Doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Quicoli, A. Carlos (2008) “Anaphora by Phase,” Syntax 11, 299–329.
Saito, Mamoru (2017a) “A Note on Transfer Domains,” Nanzan Linguistics 12, 61–69.
Saito, Mamoru (2017b) “Notes on the Locality of Anaphor Binding and A-Movement,”
English Linguistics 34, 1–33.

98
Yosuke Sato and Shin-Ichi Kitada

Saito, Mamoru (2020) “On the Causative Paradoxes: Derivations and Transfer Domains,”
Nanzan Linguistics 15, 25–44.
Sano, Masaki (1985) “LF Movement in Japanese,” Descriptive and Applied Linguistics
18, 245–259.
Stepanov, Arthur (2001) “Late Adjunction and Minimalist Phrase Structure,” Syntax 4,
94–125.
Tada, Hiroaki (1992) “Nominative Objects in Japanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics
14, 91–108.
Tada, Hiroaki (1993) A/A-Bar Partition in Derivation, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Takahashi, Masahiko (2010) “Case, Phases, and Nominative/Accusative Conversion in
Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 319–355.
Ueda, Yukiko (2003) “Subject Positions and Derivational Scope Calculation in
Minimalist Syntax: A Phase-Based Approach,” Scientific Approaches to Language
2, 189–215, Center for Language Sciences, Kanda University of International
Studies, Chiba.
Ura, Hiroyuki (1996) Multiple Feature-Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function
Splitting, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Ura, Hiroyuki (1999) “Checking theory and dative subject constructions in Japanese andKorean,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 223–254.
Ura, Hiroyuki (2000) Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal
Grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Yang, Dong-Whee (1983) “The Extended Binding Theory of Anaphors,” Language
Research 19, 169–192.

99
Transfer Domains in Japanese and Relativized vP Phases

Department of English,
College of Liberal Arts,
Tsuda University
2-1-1 Tsuda-machi, Kodaira-shi,
Tokyo, JAPAN 187-8577
E-mail: yosukes@tsuda.ac.jp

Faculty of Humanities,
Niigata University
8050, Ikarashi 2-no-cho, Nishi-ku,
Niigata, JAPAN 950-2181
E-mail: kitada@human.niigata-u.ac.jp