NP MOVEMENT INTO THETA-POSITIONS AND UNEXPECTED BEHAVIOR OF
BEHAVIOR OF NUMERAL QUANTIFIER STRANDING*
Atsushi Ito
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

Whether an NP moves into theta position or not has been controversial. Chomsky (1986,
1995) claims that such a movement is disallowed. While Pesetsky (1992) and Bošković(1997) argue that such a movement is possible in ECM construction. Saito (2001), analyzing
resultative constructions of English, claims that such a controversy is settled under a larger
generalization; that an NP moves into an internal theta position, but not into an external one.
In this paper, I will give further supporting evidence for Bošković (1997), and I will argue
that in Japanese, an NP can move into an external theta position as well as an internal one.
One piece of evidence for this claim comes from a numeral quantifier stranding insecondary resultative construction in Japanese. The other evidence is found in unexpectedbehaviour of numeral quatifier stranding in a sentence with a manner of motion verb withattained goal phrase. It has been pointed out in previous literatures (Miyagawa 1989,
Tsujimura 1994, 1997, Takezawa 1993) that goal phrases play important roles both inresultative constructions and in a sentence with a manner of motion verb. In resultative
construction, as Takezawa (1993) observes, when goal phrases appear between numeral
quantifier and its NP host, they exhibit interference effect on numeral quantifier stranding.
One small question emerges. Why goal phrases affect numeral quantifier stranding inresultatives? Further evidence comes from unexpected behaviour of numeral quantifier
stranding in a sentence with a manner of motion verb. As Miyagawa (1989) observes, in a
sentence with a manner of motion verb, the presence of goal phrases leads to a diagnostic
mismatch. Since Miyagawa (1989), numeral quantifier stranding has been used as a diagnosis
to detect unaccusativity, but the diagnosis singles out different class of verbs, unergative,
when a manner of motion verb appears with a goal phrase. Two different kinds of questions
arise. The first question is why numeral quantifier is construed with its NP host only in thepresence of goal phrase. The second question is why the diagnosis wrongly selects unergative
verbs. As to these two questions, Tsujimura (1994) demonstrates that a manner of motion
verbs with attained goal phrase undergo classificational change from unergative into
unaccusative, suggesting that there is no unaccusative diagnostic mismatch from the
beginning. I will provide new evidence that cannot be explained by Tsujimura’s (1994)
hypothesis. Furthermore, I will argue that seeming unaccusativity that the diagnosis exhibits*

The original idea of this paper was presented at University of Siena-National Tsing Hua
University-Nanzan University Joint Workshop on February 2008. I would like to thank the following
people, Mamoru Saito, Shigeru Miyagawa, Koji Sugisaki, Tomohiro Fujii, Masatake Arimoto,Kensuke Takita, and Chisato Fuji for their valuable comments and sophisticated judgments.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5, 79-93© 2008 Atsushi ItoNanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

in two different kinds of constructions is due to NP movements into another theta positions
from goal phrases.
This paper is organized in the following way. In section 2, I will give supporting
evidence for Bošković (1997) and Saito (2001). I will argue that logical subjects of secondary
resultatives in Japanese are moved from resultative goal phrases into internal theta position. In
section 2.1, I will look at Bošković (1997) and Saito (2001), and section 2.2 is concerned withnumeral quantifier stranding in resultatives. In section 2.3, I will give an analysis of the fact.
In section 3, I will claim that in Japanese an NP moves into an external theta position under aspecial circumstance. In section 3.1, I will review the basic discussion for unaccusative
diagnosis. Section 3.2 is concerned with unexpected behaviour of numeral quantifier
stranding, a diagnosis mismatch. In section 3.3, I will take a quick look at Tsujimura’s (1994)
account of the fact. In section 3.4, I will re-examine the fact by using two different kinds ofadverbs, and demonstrate that the phenomenon cannot be explained by Tsujimura’s
hypothesis. Section 3.5 provides an alternative analysis. Section 4 is a conclusion.
2.

NP-Movement and Resultatives

2.1. Does Theta-Criterion Hold?
NP movement into A-position is highly controversial. Chomsky (1986, 1995) prohibits
such a movement. Consider the example sentences in (1).
(1)

a. *Johni HIT ti. (=John hit himself.)b. *Johni BELIEVES ti to be smart. (=John believes himself to be smart.)(Chomsky 1986, 1995)

Chomsky observes that there are no capital HIT nor capital BELIEVE, which allow NP
movements into another theta positions. The sentences in (1) are no good under the intended
meanings. In (1), the NPs, John cannot move from their trace positions into their surface
positions. Chomsky claims that there is a strict restriction on theta role assignment, which isstated as theta-criterion in (2).
(2)

Theta-criterion: Each theta role must be assigned to one argument, and each argument
must receive one theta role.
(Chomsky 1981)

On the other hand, Bošković (1997) argues that such a movement is possible (see also
Hornstein 2001). Bošković’s argument is based on the following paradigm, which is shown in(3) and (4). Consider the sentences in (3) and (4).
(3)

a. Sue estimated Bill's weight.
b. *Sue estimated Bill.

-80-

NP Movement into Theta-positions (A. Ito)(4)a. Sue estimated Bill's weight to be 150.
b. *Sue estimated Bill to be 150.
(Bošković 1997)

The example sentences in (3) are simple sentences with transitive verbs. The example
sentence in (3b) is no good due to selectional property of the verb, estimate. The example
sentences in (4) are instances of ECM sentences. If (4b) is a simple ECM sentence, it is notclear why it should be ruled out in spite of the fact that the sentence in (4a) is good. But if we
assume that the embedded subject, Bill, in (4b) is theta-marked also by the matrix verb, thecontrast between (4a) and (4b), like (3), is accounted for in terms of selectional property ofthe matrix verb, estimate. According to Bošković claim, in (4b) an NP receives one theta rolein the embedded clause, and then it moves into internal theta position to receive another thetarole from the matrix verb. In this way, an NP in ECM receives multiple theta roles by Merge.
Saito (2001) argues that in a resultative construction of English an NP receives multiple
theta roles from two distinct predicates by Merge. Look at the contrast between (5a) and (5b).
(5)

a. *John ran tired.
b. John hammered the metal flat.

Unergative intransitive verb in (5a) cannot take resultative phrase, so that the predicate, tired,
is not predicated of the subject, John, as the example sentence in (5a) shows. On the other
hand, in (5b), the NP, metal, functions not only as subject of the secondary predicate, flat, butalso the direct object of the verb, hammer. Saito accounts for why such a contrast occurs.
Consider how the NP, metal, is assigned two theta roles from the distinct predicates. There are
two possible ways; head movement or NP movement. As the sentence in (6) shows,secondary predicate is clefted.
(6)

How flat did John hammer the metal?

Based on this observation, Saito concludes that there is only one possibility left; NP
movement. Look at the derivation of the sentence in (5b), which is shown in (7).
(7)[TP Johni [vP ti hammered the metalj[AP tj flat]]]

In (7), the NP, metal, is first merged with the predicate, flat, and then it moves to internal
theta position, where it receives another theta role from the predicate, hammer. Next consider
the ill-formed derivation of (5b), which is shown in (8).
(8) *[TP Johni [vP ti ran [AP ti tired]]]In (8), the NP, John, cannot move to the Spec of vP and then next to the surface position.
Saito (2001) claims that the contrast between (7) and (8) ceases to be a problem, whencompared with the crucial sentences in (4b) and (1), and that a larger generalization emerges,-81-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

which is shown in (9).
(9) Saito’s (2001) generalization: An NP moves into internal theta position, but not into
external theta position.
In the next subsection, I will give supporting evidence for Bošković (1997) and Saito (2001),
and argue that subjects of secondary resultatives are moved from prepositional phrases.
2.2. NP Movement in Resultatives in Japanese
2.2.1. Resultatives in Japanese
It has been observed in previous literatures (Kageyama 1993, Hasegawa 1999) that
resultative phrases are predicated of internal arguments, not external arguments.
(10)a. * Taro-ga
T-Nom

kutakutani
tired

hasit-ta (koto)run-Past‘Taro ran tired.’ (intended meaning, ‘Taro ran himself tired.’)b.

Taro-ga
T-Nom

kuruma-ocar-Accmakkanired

nut-tapaint-Past(koto)‘Taro painted the car red.’c.

Taro-gaT-Nom

kodomo-o rippani(dairiigaa-ni)
sodate-ta
child
independent (major player-as) raise-Past(koto)‘Taro raised a child to be independent (major player).’
In (10a), unergative intransitive verb, hasiru “run”, cannot take resultative phrase, so that thesentence does not mean that Taro ran himself tired. In (10b) and (10c), accusative casemarked NPs, kuruma “car” and kodomo “child” are subjects of secondary predicates, makkani“red”, and rippani “independent”, respectively. How are these NPs assigned multiple thetaroles? In Japanese, like English, resultative predicates are clefted, as the sentences in (11)shows.
(11)a.

Taro-ga
T-Nom

kuruma-ocar-Accnut-tano-wa makkani dapaint-Past Gen-Top redbe‘It is red that Taro painted the car.’b.

Taro-gaT-Nom

kodomo-ochild-Acc

sodate-ta no-wa
rippaniraise-Past Gen-Top independent‘It is independent that Taro raised child.’

-82-

da
be

NP Movement into Theta-positions (A. Ito)c.

Taro-gaT-Nom

kodomo-ochild-Acc

sodate-ta no-wa dairiigaa-ni daraise-Past Gen-Top major player be‘It is major player that Taro raised his child.’
It is safe to conclude that in resultatives in Japanese, like those of English, an NP movement
is involved in theta role assignments. The assumed structure of (10a) and (10c) are shown in(12a) and (12b), respectively.
(12)a. * [TP Taroi-ga [vP ti [PP tj [PP kutakuta-ni ]] hasit-ta]]T-Nom
tired-torun-Past‘Taro ran himself tired.’b.

[TP Taroi-ga [vP ti kodomoj-o [PP tj [PP dairiigaa-ni]]sodate-ta]]
T-Nomchild-Acc
major player-as raise-Past‘Taro raised his child to be independent.’

In (12a), the NP, Taro, cannot move to external theta position. Hence derivation crashes. On
the other hand, in (12b), the NP, kodomo “children” is first merged with the predicate,dairiigaa-ni “major player-as”, and then it moves to internal theta position to receive another.
In the next subsection, I will give two pieces of evidence for this claim that subjects ofresultatives are moved from prepositional phrases.
2.2.2. Numeral Quantifier Stranding in Resultative
Takezawa (1993) observes that numeral quantifier cannot be construed with its NP hostwhen the resultative predicate intervenes between numeral quantifier and its NP host. First,
look at the following sentence in (13).
(13)

Taro-gaT-Nom

san-nin-no kodomo-orippani sodate-ta
3-CL-Gen children-Acc perfectly raise-Past(koto)‘Taro raised three children perfectly.’‘Taro raised three children to be independent.’
The sentence in (13) is ambiguous between the following readings, ‘Taro raised three children
perfectly’ and ‘Taro raised three children to be independent.’ Consider the contrast in (14).
(14)

a. * Taro-ga
T-Nom

kodomo-ochild-Acc

dairiigaa-ni
san-ninmajor player-as 3-CL

‘Taro raised three children to be major players.’-83-

sodate-ta
raise-Past(koto)

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5b. *Taro-ga
T-Nom

kodomo-o rippa-ni
child-Acc independent

san-nin3-CL

sodate-ta
raise-Past(koto)‘Taro raised three children to be independent.’c.

Taro-ga kodomo-orippani
T-Nom children-Acc perfectly

san-nin
3-CL(Takezawa 1993)
sodate-ta
raise-Past(koto)‘Taro raised three children perfectly.’
In (14a) an (14b), numeral quantifiers cannot be construed with their NPs. On the other hand,when the sentence means that Taro raised three children perfectly, the quantifier can beconstrued with its NP host, even when the predicate intervenes. Takezawa (1993) just
attributes the ungrammaticality of these sentences in (14a) and (14b) to the fact that the goalphrases, dairiigaa-ni and rippa-ni are base generated in the lowest position of the structure, as
schematized in (15).
(15)

Subject > Direct Object > Secondary Goal Predicate(Takezawa 1993)

But why numeral quantifier cannot be construed with its host NP when the predicate
intervenes them? Further evidence for the claim that subject of secondary resultative moves
from goal phrase comes from the following paradigm.
(16)

a. *Taro-ga
T-Nom

dairiigaa-ni
san-ninmajor player-as 3-CL

kodomo-o sodate-ta
child-Acc raise-Past(koto)‘Taro raised three children to be major players.’b.

Taro-gaT-Nom

rippaniperfectly

san-nin3-CLkodomo-o sodate-ta
child-Acc raise-Past(koto)‘Taro raised three children perfectly.’
In (16a), the secondary predicate, dairiigaa-ni is predicated of the NP, kodomo “children”. As
the example sentence in (16a) shows, numeral quantifier cannot be construed with the NP,
kodomo “children”. On the other hand, when the sentence contains a simple adverb, rippani“perfectly”, denoting manner of the verb, numeral quantifier can be construed with the NP,
kodomo “children”. Why such a contrast occurs between (16a) and (16b)? In the next
subsection, I will give an analysis and claim that subject of resultative, which is traditionallyconsidered to be a direct object, merges with secondary resultative predicate.
2.3. Analysis
Given the hierarchy in (15) is correct, the structure of the sentence in (14b) and (14c) are
the followings in (17a) and (17b), respectively.

-84-

NP Movement into Theta-positions (A. Ito)(17)a. * [vP Taro-ga [VP kodomo-oi [PP [NP rippa][P ni]j [PP ti san-nin
T-Nom
children-Acc
independent
3-CLsodate-ta]]]raise-Past‘Taro raised three children to be independent.’b.

[vP Taro-ga [VP kodomo-oi [VP [Adv rippani] [VP ti san-nin
T-Nom
children-Acc
perfectly
3-CL

sodate-ta]]]]raise-Past‘Taro raised three children perfectly.’
In (17a), the NP, kodomo “children” is base generated in prepositional phrase, and then it
moves into internal theta position. When the secondary predicate, rippa-ni “independent” isscrambled over the prepositional phrase, such a movement is an adjunction to the same
category. Hence the derivation in (17a) should be ruled out. While, in (17b), adverbial phrase,rippani “perfectly” adjoins to VP, and the NP, kodomo “children” is scrambled over the VP,
and the NP, kodomo “children” and numeral quantifier mutually c-command in the lowest VP.
Hence the association between them is recognizable in (17b). Next look at the derivation of
the sentences in (16), which are shown in (18). The structures of (16a) and (16b) are thefollowings in (18a) and (18b), respectively.
(18)

a. * [vP Taro-ga [VP [PPT-Nom
sodate-ta]
raise-Pasttisan-nin [PP [NP rippa ][P ni]]]j [VP kodomo-oi [PP t]j ]]3-CLindependent
children-Acc‘Taro raised three children to be independent.’b.

[vP Taro-ga [VP san-nini [VP[adv rippani] [VP ti kodomo-osodate-ta]]]]
T-Nom
3-CL
perfectly
children-Acc raise-Past‘Taro raised three children perfectly.’

In (18a), the NP, kodomo, “children”, first merges with the secondary resultative predicate,
and then it moves into internal theta position. And then the remnant PP is scrambled over VP.
While in (18b), numeral quantifier and its NP host, kodomo “children” mutually c-commandin the lowest VP, and the numeral quantifier is scrambled over VP. The derivation of (18a)leads to the violation of the Proper Binding Condition, which is stated in (19). The ill-formed
sentence in (18a) is excluded by the Proper Binding Condition, while permitting thederivation of (18b).
(19)

Proper Binding Condition: Traces must be bound.

If this analysis is correct, subject of secondary resultative is merged with goal phrase and thenit moves to internal theta position. In the next section, I will re-examine a certain diagnosis
mismatch and give further supporting evidence for Bošković (1997).

-85-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

3.

Unaccusative Diagnostic Mismatch in JapaneseIn this section, we look at a certain diagnostic mismatch, where the diagnosis exhibits an
unexpected behaviour of numeral quantifier stranding under a certain circumstance. The
diagnosis is based on the fact that numeral quantifier and its host NP must meet a strict
locality. Hence, a numeral quantifier stranding has been used to test the relative position of
the NP and its numeral quantifier. (see Haig 1980, Kuroda 1983, Saito 1985, Miyagawa 1989
for original discussion on quantifier stranding). Since Miyagawa (1989), numeral quantifier
stranding has been considered to be a syntactic diagnosis by which we distinguish an externalargument from an internal argument.
3.1. Numeral Quantifier Stranding and Unaccusativity
Since Harada (1969), it is observed that in Japanese, numeral quantifier can strand off
its NP host, as is shown in (20).
(20)

a.

San-nin-no
3-CL-Gen

Nihonjin-ga
Japanese-Nom

Indo-ni tui-ta(koto)
India-to arrive-Past‘Three Japanese arrived at India.’b. Nihonjin-ga
Indo-ni san-nin
Japanese-Nom India-to 3-CL

tui-ta(koto)
arrive-Past

Under a traditional assumption, the sentence in (20b) is transformed from the sentence in(20a) by a quantifier stranding rule. But, such a transformational rule does not explain why
the fact is such. Miyagawa (1989), making extensive observations on quantifer strandings,
concludes that a quantifier and its NP host must observe strict locality, which provides
strong evidence for the existence of NP-trace. Consider the contrast between (21a) and (21b).
(21)a. *[TP Gakuseii-ga [vP ti [VP Hakone Marathon-ostudents-Nom
Hakone Marathon-Acc

san-nin3-CLhasi-ta]]]run-Past(koto)‘Five students ran Hakone marathon race.’b. [TP Nihonjini-ga [VP Indo-ni tiJapanese-Nom
India-togo-nin5-CL

tui-ta]](koto)
arrive-Past‘Five Japanese arrived at India.’(Miyagawa 1989 lexically altered)
The sentences in (21a) and (21b) are instances of unergative verb and unaccusative verb,
respectively. In (21a), numeral quantifier cannot be construed with the subject NP. While, in(21b), numeral quantifier can be construed with the subject NP. Miyagawa (1989), contrasting(21a) with (21b), claims that the NP and its associated numeral quantifier must meet a locality
requirement, which is stated as a structural requirement in (22).

-86-NP Movement into Theta-positions (A. Ito)(22)

The Numeral Quantifier and its NP host or the trace of the NP must mutuallyc-command each other.

It is widely acknowledged that the subject of unergative verb is an external argument. In(21a), the NP, gakusei “student” is base generated in the Spec of vP, and it is moved to theSpec of TP. There is nowhere throughout the derivation in (21a) that the NP, gakusei“student” and the numeral quantifier, san-nin, mutually c-command. Hence there is no
association between the subject and the numeral quantifier in (21a). On the other hand, in(21b), there is an association between the subject, nihonjin “Japanese” and the numeral
quantifier, go-nin, although they are too far away. It is widely acknowledged that the subjectof unaccusative verb is an internal argument. The subject NP, nihonjin “Japanese” in (21b) isbase generated in the trace position and then it is moved to the Spec of TP for case reason. If
this assumption is correct, there is a point that the NP and the numeral quantifier can mutuallyc-command. Hence, the numeral quantifier can be construed with the subject NP, gakusei“student” in (21b). The contrast between (21a) and (21b) demonstrates that the numeral
quantifier stranding is useful diagnosis in distinguishing unaccusative verb from the otherkinds of verbs, transitive and unergative. I shall call this diagnosis unaccusative diagnosis.
In the next subsection, let us look at the fact that this diagnosis singles out different classof verb under a special circumstance, causing a diagnosis mismatch.
3.2. Unaccusative Diagnostic Mismatch in Japanese
Miyagawa (1989) observes that numeral quantifier stranding exhibits an unexpectedbehavior when a manner of motion verb is accompanied by a goal phrase. Consider thecontrast between (23a) and (23b).
(23)a. * Kodomo-ga
inu-toawatete san-nin
children-Nom dog-with hurriedly 3-CL

hasit-ta (koto)run-Past‘Three children ran with a dog hurriedly.’b. Kodomo-ga
inu-toawatete kooen-made san-nin
children-Nom dog-with hurriedly park-as far as 3-CL

hasi-ta (koto)run-Past‘Three children ran hurriedly as far as to the park with a dog.’(Miyagawa 1989)
The sentences in (23) are examples with manner of motion verbs, which are unergative. As
we have already seen in the previous section, in a sentence with unergative verb, it is expectedthat the surface subject cannot be construed with its numeral quantifier which is embedded inthe VP because the unergative verb does not have an internal argument. In (23a), theassociation between the NP, kodomo “children” and its numeral quantifier is impossible, as
we expect. On the other hand, in (23b), when the sentence contains a goal phrase, kooen made“as far as to the park”, the association between the NP, kodomo “children” and its numeral-87-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

quantifier suddenly becomes recognizable, even though the numeral quantifier and its NP host
are too far away. Every reader acknowledges the clear difference in judgment of theirassociations between (23a) and (23b). As we have seen in the previous section, numeral
quantifier is construed only with an internal argument of unaccusative verb thanks to thepresence of its trace. But in (23b), even though the verb is unergative, the sentence isgrammatical. This suggests that the subject NP must have moved from a certain position
within VP, where it left a trace behind. The contrast between (23a) and (23b) means that, thegoal phrase, made “as far as to” plays a crucial role in the association between numeral
quantifier and its NP host. The sentence in (23b) shows that Japanese exhibit unaccusative
diagnosis mismatch. Why such a mismatch occurs only when the sentence contains a goalphrase? To solve this puzzle, Tsujimura (1994) hypothesizes that a manner of motion verb,
when a goal phrase is added, undergoes classificational change into unaccusative, claimingthat there is no unaccusative diagnostic mismatch in (23b). Next, let’s take a quick look at
Tsujimura’s account.
3.3. Classificational Alternation Hypothesis
To solve this diagnostic mismatch puzzle, Tsujimura (1994), based on Miyagawa’s(1989) suggestion, proposes that unergative verb, when it appears with a goal phrase,
undergoes classificational change into unaccusative verb (see Takezawa 1993 for relevant
discussion on English unergative verbs with goal phrase). Tsujimura hypothesizes thatunergative verb, kooen made hasiru, “run as far as to the park” undergoes classificationalchange into unaccusative verb. She concludes that subject NP, kodomo “children” is moved
from direct object position to the surface position. According to Tsujimura (1994), theassumed structure of (23b) is something like (24).
(24)[TP Kodomoi-ga [VP inu-to
awatete ti san-nin
children-Nom
dog-with hurriedly 3-CLkooen-made hasit-ta]] (koto)
park-as far as run-Past‘Three children ran as far as to the house with a dog.’(Tsujimura 1994)
In (24), the NP, kodomo “children” is base generated as an internal argument of the VP, kooen
made hasi-ru, and then it moves into the Spec of TP. The surface subject, kodomo “children”
is mutually c-commanded with its numeral quantifier, san-nin, because of the presence of the
NP trace. Tsujimura’s main claim is that the unergative verb in (24) changes into unaccusative
verb when the verb occurs with a goal phrase, suggesting that there is no unaccusative
diagnosis mismatch from the beginning. According to Tsujimura, the NP, kodomo “children”
in (24) is not an external argument, but an internal argument of the verb. In the next
subsection, I’ll give a piece of evidence against this classificational change hypothesis, and I
will give an alternative analysis.

-88-NP Movement into Theta-positions (A. Ito)

3.4. Against the Classificational Alternation Hypothesis
In this subsection, I will apply a diagnosis to the sentence in (23b), using two different
kinds of adverbs which are sensitive to the verb classes; unaccusativity or unergativity. In
section 3.4.1, I will show that there are two kinds of adverbs, one of which occur with thesentence with unergative verbs, while the other unaccusative. In 3.4.2, I will show that theverb phrase, kooen-made hasiru “run as far as to the park”, does not undergo classificationalchange into unaccusative, but that Japanese does exhibit unaccusative diagnosis mismatch.
3.4.1. Basic Observation
Consider the example sentences in (25). The verbs, hamaru “fall into” in (25), areconsidered to be unaccusative verbs.
(25)

a.

Taro-gaT-Nom

ukkariwana-niabstractedly trap-in

hamat-ta (koto)
fall-Past‘Taro fell into the trap carelessly.’
b. *Taro-ga isyookenmeini
T-Nom earnestly

wana-ni hamat-ta (koto)trap-in fall-Past‘Taro fell into the trap hard.’
As the example sentence in (25a) shows, the adverb, ukkari “carelessly”, harmonizes withunaccusative verb. While, as the example sentence in (25b) shows, the adverb, isyookenmeini“earnestly”, does clashes with unaccusative verb. Next consider the contrast in (26). The
verbs, hasiru ‘run’ in (26), are considered to be unergative verbs.
(26)

a.

Taro-gaT-Nom

isyookenmeini
earnestly

Hakone Marathon-ohasit-ta (koto)
Hakone Marathon-Acc run-Past‘Taro ran Hakone marathon race reluctantly.’b. * Taro-ga ukkari
T-Nom abstractedly

Hakone Marathon-oHakone Marathon-Acc

hasit-ta (koto)run-Past‘Taro ran Hakone Marathon race abstractedly.’As the example sentence in (26a) shows, the adverb, isyookenmeini “earnestly”, harmonizes
with unergative verb. While, as the example sentence in (26b) shows, the adverb, ukkari“abstractedly”, does clash with unergative verb. These contrasts between (25a) and (26a) , and(25b) and (26b) show that the adverb, isyookenmeini “earnestly”, is an unergative adverb,
while the adverb, ukkari “abstractedly”, is an unaccusative adverb. With this in mind, let us
consider the numeral quantifier stranding in a sentence with attained goal phrase that we haveseen in the previous section. In the next subsection, I will use these two kinds of adverbs as adiagnosis to show that unaccusative diagnostic mismatch is still exhibited in the example-89-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5

sentence in (23b), contra to Tsujimura (1994).
3.4.2. Unaccusative Diagnosis Mismatch in New Evidence
The sentence in (23b) is repeated in (27), but this time each sentence in (27) contains
either unergative or unaccusative adverbs.
(27)

a.

Gakusei-ga isyookenmeini inu-to
student-Nom earnestly
dogs-withkooen-made san-nin
park-as far as 3-CL

hasit-ta (koto)run-Past‘Three students run as far as to the park with dogs earnestly.’b. *Gakusei-ga
student-Nom

ukkariabstractedly

inu-to kooen-made san-ni hasit-ta
dogs park-as far as 3-CL run-Past(koto)‘Three students ran as far as to the park with dogs abstractedly.’
In (27), the associations between numeral quantifiers and their NP hosts are recognizable. But
there is a contrast between (27a) and (27b) in the judgments of the occurrences of adverbs inthe sentences. In (27a), the unergative adverb, isyookenmeini “earnestly”, harmonizes with themanner of motion verb with a goal phrase. On the other hand, as the sentence in (27b) shows,there is a clash between the unaccusative adverb, ukkari “abstractedly”, and the manner ofmotion verb with a goal phrase. This means that the manner of motion verb, kooen madehasiru “run” is still unergative, suggesting that the surface subject, gakusei “students”, is anexternal arguement, an agent. In (27a), the NP, gakusei “students”, should be as close as to thenumeral quantifier, san-nin, so that they mutually c-command. And at the same time, it is anexternal argument. This fact cannot be accounted for by Tsujimura’s hypothesis. Why
unaccusative diagnosis mismatch is exhibited in a sentence with a manner of motion verb
with attained goal phrase, made “as far as to”? Before proceeding to the analysis, I will try toshow that numeral quantifier can be construed with external argument only when a manner ofmotion verb takes the goal phrase, made “as far as to”, not the other PP phrase, de “in”.
3.4.3. “Made” Phrase as a Predicate
Consider the contrast between (28a) and (28b). The sentence in (27a) is repeated in (28b).
(28)a. *Gakusei-ga isyookenmeini
student-Nom earnestly

inu-tokooen-desan-nindog-with park-as far as 3-CL

hasit-ta (koto)run-Past‘Three students ran earnestly as far as to the park with dogs.’
b. Gakusei-ga isyookenmeini
student-Nom earnestly

inu-to kooen-made san-nin
dog-with park-as far as 3-CL

hasit-ta (koto)run-Past‘Three students ran hurriedly as far as to the park with a dog.’
As the sentence in (28a) shows, the numeral quantifier, san-nin cannot be construed with the-90-NP Movement into Theta-positions (A. Ito)

NP, gakusei “student”, when the verb, hasi-ru “run” appear with a locative PP, kooen de “inthe park”. On the other hand, the numeral quantifier can be construed with the NP, when asentence has a goal phrase, made “as far as”, as is shown in (28b). This contrast between(28a) and (28b) shows that the unaccusative diagnostic mismatch occurs only when theattained goal phrase, made, “as far as to” appears in a sentence, suggesting that the phrase,
made “as far as to” is a predicate, not an adjunct. In the next subsection, I will give analternative analysis to Tsujimura (1994).
3.5. Alternative Analysis
The assumed structures of (28a) and (28b) are shown in (29a) and (29b), respectively.
(29)

a. *[TP Gakuseii-ga [vP ti isyookenmeini [VP kooen-de
student-Nom
earnestlypark-inhasit-ta]]] (koto)run-Past

inu-tosan-nindogs-with 3-CL

‘Three students ran earnestly with dogs in park.’b. [TP Gakuseii-ga [vP ti [vP’ isyookenmeini
student-Nom
earnestly[SC ti san-nin tj ]]hasit-ta]]]]（koto）
3-CL
run-Past[VP inu-to[[SC
dogs-withkooen-made]j
as far as park

‘Three students run as far as to the park earnestly with dogs.’
In (29a), the NP, gakusei “student”, is base generated in Spec of TP and the numeral
quantifier, san-nin, is embedded within VP. They are too far away to be mutually ccommanded. Hence, the association between the two phrases is impossible in (29a). While, in(29b), the NP, gakusei “student” is subject of small clause, and at the same time, it is subjectof matrix verb, hasiru “run”. The NP, gakusei “student”, is merged with the numeral
quantifier, san-nin within a small clause headed by the predicate, made “as far as to”, where
they mutually c-command. Hence the association between the two is realized within a small
clause. As we have seen in the previous subsection, the NP, gakusei “student”, is also an
external argument of the verb, isyookenmeini hasi-ru “run earnestly”. The NP further moves
to the Spec of small vP, as is shown in (29b). In the derivation of (29b), the goal phrase,kooen made “as far as to the park” is scrambled over small clause from the remnant, and thisderivation so far decides the word order, ‘Gakusei-ga inu-to isyookenmei kooen-made san-nin
hasit-ta (koto).’ In (29a), kooen-de “in the park” is an adjunction, while in (29b), kooen-made“as far as to the park” functions as a head of small clause. Given this, we can explain why weobserve unaccusative diagnostic mismatch when unergative verb appears with an attained
goal phrase. Under this NP movement analysis, the NP, gakusei receives multiple theta roles
from the two different kinds of predicates. If this analysis is correct, a new generalization
emerges, which is stated in (30).

-91-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5(30)

Generalization on an NP Movement: An NP moves into external theta position as wellas internal theta position.

Here, one interesting problem emerges. This generalization is inconsistent with Saito’s (2001).
Why an NP moves into external theta position in Japanese? It is widely assumed that English
is a language of agreement, while Japanese is non-agreement language. I assume that thisdifference affects an NP movement. Furthermore, one problem remains to be solved as toresultative construction in Japanese. As we have seen in the previous section, why can’t wehave the sentence, ‘Taro-ga kutakuta-ni hasit-ta (koto) (Taro ran himself tired.),’ inJapanese? There is no intransitive verb, which allow resultative construction in Japanese, inwhich resultative phrase is predicated of an external argument.
4.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have provided two pieces of evidence for Bošković (1997) and Saito(2001). In section 1, I have argued that in resultative construction in Japanese, subject of
secondary resultative receive multiple theta roles by Merge. In section 2, I have re-examined
the unaccusative diagnosis mismatch in the new evidence and have given alternative analysis
to Tsujimura (1994). I have shown that subject of a manner of motion verb with attained goalphrase is external argument, not internal argument. I have proposed that a manner of motion
verb selects small clause, which is headed by the goal phrase, made “as far as to”. The
external argument of unergartive verb is first merged with attained goal phrase, and then it
moves into its surface position. This movement analysis gives a solution to unaccusative
diagnosis mismatch in Japanese.
Under Minimalist Program, the linguistic level are taken to be only the conceputuallynecessary, PF and LF, meaning that there are no intermediate level of D-Structure or SStructure. Without the level of D-Structure, there seems to be no upper limits of theta roleassignments to an NP. If we don’t assume D-Structure, we can provide an adequate account of
resultatives and unaccusative diagnosis mismatch in Japanese.

References
Bošković, Ž. (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinte Complementation: An Economy Approach, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Bošković, Ž. and D. Takahashi (1998) “Scrambling and Last Resort,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347-366.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, NY.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
Dubinsky, S. and S. Hamano (2002) “Case Checking by AspP: The Syntax and Semantics of
Predicative Postpositions,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12, Stanford CSLI, Stanford
University, 231-242.

-92-

NP Movement into Theta-positions (A. Ito)

Harada. S. (1976) “Quantifier Float as a Relational Rule,” in Metropolitan Linguistics, Vol.1.1, Tokyo
Metropolitan University, 44-49.
Hasegawa, N. (1999) Introduction to Generative Japanese Grammar, Taisyukan, Tokyo.
Hoji, H. (1985) Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structure in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington.
Hornstein, N. (2001) Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hornstein, N. (2005) Understanding Minimalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kayne, R. (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.
Kageyama, T. (1993) Grammar and Word Formation, Hitsuji Shobo, Tokyo.
Kuno, S. and K. Takami (2004) Functional Constraints in Grammar On the Unergative -Unaccusative
Distinction, J.B Publishing Company.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport-Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Academic Press, New York.
Miyagawa, S. (1994) “Scrambling as an Obligatory Movement,” Proceedings of the Nanzan
University International Symposium on Japanese Language Education and Japanese
Language Studies, Nanzan University, 81-92.
Miyagawa, S. (1997) “Against Optional Scrambling,” Linguistic Inquiry 28, 1-25.
Miyagawa, S. and T. Tsujioka (2004) “Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13, 1-38.
Pesetsky, D. (1992) Zero Syntax, vol.2. MIT Press, Oxford, MA .
Saito, M. (2001) “Movement and Theta-Roles: A Case Study with Resultatives,” in Y. Otsu, ed., The
Proceedings of the Second Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Hitsuji Shobo, Tokyo,
35-60.
Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Takezawa, K. (1993) “Secondary Predication and Locative/Goal Phrases” in N. Hasegawa, ed.,Japanese Syntax in Comparative Grammar, Kuroshio Publishers, Tokyo, 45-77.
Tsujimura, N. (1994) “Unaccusative Mismatches and Resultavives in Japanese,” MIT Working Papers
in Linguistics 24, 45-77.
Tsujimura, N. (1999) “Lexical Semantics,” in N. Tsujimura, ed., The Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 349-377.
Washio, R. (1997) “Resultatives, Compositionality and Language Variation,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 6, 1-49.

-93-