LABELING AND PAIR-MERGE OF HEADS*
Masashi Nomura
Chukyo University

1. Introduction
In the recent minimalist theory, Chomsky (2013, 2015b) argues that Merge applies freely
and it does not encode a label as illustrated in (1).
(1) Merge (α, β) = {α, β}As in (1), Merge forms a two membered set {α, β} and there is no labeled categorial node
above α and β. Labeling is, however, necessary for syntactic objects SO to be interpreted.
Thus, Chomsky (2013) assumes that there is a fixed labeling algorithm LA that liceses SO.
He argues that labeling is required at CI and for the process of externalization and therefore it
must take place at the phase level, as part of the Transfer operation. The type of Merge in (1)can be called set-Merge. In addition to set-Merge, Chomsky (2015b) proposes another kind of
Merge: pair-Merge that takes α and β and forms the ordered pair <α, β> as illustrated in (2).
(2) Pair-Merge (α, β) = <α, β>Chomsky (2015b) argues that pair-Merge of root (R) to v* forms an amalgam [R-v*] and thatthe host, which is v*, should be affixed to the raised element R in head-raising with theassumption that v* is rendered invisible to LA by pair-Merge and it loses its phase property.
Now let us consider how a sentence like (3) can be accounted for. The derivation and theorder of rules for (3) are given in (4).
(3) They expected John to win(4) The derivation and the order of rules for (4):a.
[β R [α DPφ …]] Form R-α by EMb.
[γ DPφ [β R [α tDP …]]] Form DP-β by IM:c. [δv*uφ [γ DPφ [β R [α tDP …]]]] Form v*-γ by EM, reaching the phase leveld. [δv*[γ DPφ [β Ruφ [α tDP …]]]] Inheritance from v* to Re.
Labeling; γ is labeled <φ, φ>,β is labeled R
f. [δ <R, v*> [γ DPφ [β tR [α tDP …]]]] R raises to v* forming R with v* affixedg.
Transfer of α

* This research is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18K00592.

-1-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

In (4a), set-Merge externally forms {R, α}, which is of the form {H, XP} and in (4b) setMerge internally merges DP to the Spec of R, forming {DP, β}, which is of the form {XP,YP}. In (4c), set-Merge externally form {v*, γ}, reaching the phase level so that Inheritanceof uφ from v* to R takes place as in (4d) and then γ is labeled <φ, φ> under minimal search.
By paired labeling, R is strengthened so that β is labeled R. Finally, in (4f), pair-Mergeinternally forms <R, v*>, yielding an amalgam with v* adjoined to R and hence v* becomes
invisible so that it loses its phase property. Chomsky (2015b) assumes that phasehood is
activated on the copy of R and thus its complement, which is α, is transferred. DP (which canbe a wh-phrase) remains in situ at the Spec of R and is therefore accessible to extraction at thenext phase.
Thus, under the system proposed by Chomsky (2015b), the core structure building
operations will be as follows:(5) The core structure building operations:a. (Set-)Merge (α, β) = {α, β}b. Pair-Merge (α, β) = <α, β>In this paper, I will attempt to pursue this proposed system and show that in addition to
set-Merge, pair-Merge is in fact a necessary operation for structure building. I will firstextend Chomsky’s (2015b) form of argument to pair-Merge, then discuss Japanese complex
predicate constructions, and argue that pair-Merge can give a straightforward account todifferenciate three types of Japanese passives such as ni yotte passives, ni direct passives, andni indirect passives. This analysis can also extend to causative constructions in Japanese.
What is interesting is that although Japanese passive morphemes are morphologically thesame in three types of passives, their argument structures are different. Therefore we need toinvestigate how we can derive these differences without simply saying that they aresyntactically different but morphologically the same.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, I will extend Chomsky’s(2015b) form of argument to pair-Merge, arguing that like set-Merge, pair-Merge can alsointernally/externally form <X, Y> and that operations ought to apply freely so that pairMerge can take place at anytime in the derivation. Then I will argue that so-called external
pair-Merge of heads explain the structure of unaccusative verbs while internal pair-Merge ofheads prior to Inheritance works for the structure of bridge verbs and unergative verbs. In
Section 3, following Hoshi (1999), I will assume that there are three kinds of passive
constructions in Japanese and show that these constructions are succinctly generated under
the proposed theory of pair-Merge of heads. In Section 4, I will discuss Case marking inJapanese causative constructions. Section 5 discusses remaining issues and Section 6
concludes the paper.

-2-

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)

2. Pair-Merge of Heads
2.1. Extension of Chomsky’s (2015b) Form of Argument to Pair-Merge
Chomsky (2015b) suggests that if the order of rules is optional, that may provide a way to
explain bridge-verb constructions.
(6) What do you think that Ken read?
a.
[Ken read what ]b.
C [Ken read what ]c.
[α what C [Ken read twhat ]]d.
[β R [α what C [Ken read twhat ]]] Form R-α by EMe. [ v*uφ[β R [α what C [Ken read twhat ]]]] Form v*-β by EM,reaching the phase levelf. [ v*[β Ruφ [α what C [Ken read twhat ]]]] Inheritance from v* to Rg.
Labelingh. [<Ruφ, v*> [β tR [α what C [Ken read twhat ]]]] R raises to v* forming R with v*
affixedi.
Transfer of α
As we have seen in (4), the object of the verb should raise to SPEC of R, with R then raising
to v*. Notice, however, that in (6), the object of think is that-clause complement so that if itraised, then the raised object would lack the relevant features; labeling failure. Chomsky
argues that this problem would not arise if the object remains in situ. Suppose that α does notraise to SPEC of R and that when R raises to v*. In (6h), there is a copy of R in β. In order toavoid labeling failure, the copy of R must be invisible to LA. Thus, Chomsky assumes thatthe copy of R is invisible in β, which will be labeled by α.
Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2016) point out that there is a paradox in Chomsky’s(2015b) analysis: “within Chomsky’s (2015b) analysis, it is (implicitly) presumed that R left
by internal pair-Merge both is and is not visible, specifically it is visible in [(4)], crucially toallow the copy of R to serve as the “derived” phrase head, and it is invisible in [(6)] cruciallyto avoid label failure.”
In order to resolve this paradox, Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2016) keep Chomsky’s(2015b) analysis of (4) and provide an alternative analysis of bridge verb constructions. They
claim that like set-Merge, pair-Merge can form <X, Y> internally/externally:(7) External pair-Merge of R to v* (Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely 2016)
R and v* can be each taken directly from the lexicon and externally pair-Merged together.
Assuming that Merge applies freely, Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2016) claim that pairMerge of R to v* can take place even when v* bears its uφ so that the phase-head status of v*
is cancelled because pair-Merge of R to v* makes v* (including its uφ) invisible. External
pair-Merge of R to v* is such a case. They propose that phase-cancellation by pair-Merge of-3-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019heads is possible only when there is no need to transmit uφ to the head of the phase-headcomplement for purposes of subsequent Case-valuation. Given this, they assume that thebridge verb constructions should have the following structure:(8) [EA [α <R, v*> [β C…]]](John thinks that he will win)

In (8), R and v* are taken directly from the lexicon and externally pair-Merged together andthe amalgam [R-v*] takes β as its complement. Assuming with Chomsky (2015b) that“although R cannot label, the amalgam [R-v*] can” and given that v* is rendered invisible to
LA by pair-Merge of R to v*, (8) will not be faced with neither labeling failure nor valuation
failure.
Nomura (2014, 2015, 2017) points out another problem under Chomsky’s (2015b)
analysis; uφ of R will remain unvalued. When Inheritance from v* to R takes place, uφ will
be on R. Then when pair-Merge of R to v* takes place, v* becomes invisible but R (including
its uφ) is visible.
Assuming that the order of the rules is optional, Nomura (2014, 2015, 2017) argues thatinternal pair-Merge can take place prior to Inheritance so that pair-Merge of R to v* makes v*(including its uφ) invisible:(9) Internal pair-Merge of R to v* prior to Inheritance (Nomura 2014, 2015, 2017)
Internal pair-Merge of R to v* can take place prior to Inheritance of uφ from v* to R.
Nomura (2014, 2015, 2017) claims that internal pair-Merge of R to v* prior to Inheritance isthe solution to the problems under Chomsky’s (2015b) analysis. Let us consider (10).
(10) What do you think that Ken read?
a.
[Ken read what ]b.
C [Ken read what ]c.
[α what C [Ken read twhat ]]d.
[β R [α what C [Ken read twhat ]]] Form R-α by EMe. [ v*uφ[β R [α what C [Ken read twhat ]]]] Form v*-β by EM,reaching the phase levelf. [<R, v*uφ> [β tR [α what C [Ken read twhat ]]]] R raises to v* forming R with v*
affixedg.
Labelingh.
Transfer of α
If raising-to-object is optional, α remains in situ. As we have seen in (6), the object (thatclause complement) lacks the relevant features. If the order of the rules is optional, then it is
not surprising that internal pair-Merge of R to v* takes place prior to Inheritance. Suppose
this is the case. As in (10), when Internal pair-Merge of R to v* takes place prior toInheritance, it makes v* (together with uφ) invisible. Thus, we do not encounter the valuation-4-

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)failure problem. Now we need to solve the paradox in Chomsky’s (2015b) analysis. Chomsky(2015b:14) assumes that Inheritance precedes labeling, which, in turn, precedes pair-Merge of
R to v*, as in (4). Therefore, in (4) when labeling takes place, R has not raised to v* yet sothat it should be R that phasehood is activated on. In other words, phasehood is activated on
R via Inheritance but not because v* loses its phase property with pair-Merge making v*
invisible. In (10), on the other hand, when Labeling takes place, there is a copy of R in β but
as Chomsky assumes, it must be invisible to LA. Thus, there is no paradox with respect to the
copy of R in Chomsky’s analysis. Cotra Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2016), we conclude
that copies are invisible to LA and internal pair-Merge of R to v* prior to Inheritance explains
bridge-verb constructions.
In the following subsections, I argue that external pair-Merge proposed by Epstein,
Kitahara, and Seely (2016) takes place in verbal phrases with unaccusative verbs, whileinternal pair-Merge prior to Inheritance does in verbal phrases with unergative verbs.
2.2. Unaccusative Verbs by External Pair-Merge
Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2016) assume that the theta relation between v* and an
external argument (EA) is met in (8). Notice however that if external pair-Merge of R to v*
applies, v* is rendered invisible to LA from the very beginning. Thus, the amalgam [R-v*] in(8) is very much like R rather than v*. I assume that in order for v* to be in a theta relation
with EA, it must be introduced on its own even if it becomes the amalgam [R-v*] in thesubsequent derivation. Therefore, for the bridge verb constructions, I adopt Nomura’s (2014,2015, 2017) analysis; internal pair-Merge prior to Inheritance.
As Epstein, Kitahara, and Seely (2016) predict, however, I claim that external pair-Mergeof R to v* should take place in verbal phrases with unaccusative verbs. Let us consider thesentence in (11).
(11) The tree fell.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
[δ DPφf. [Cuφ [δ DPφ
g. [C[δ DPφ[β DPφ[γ T [β DPφ[γ T [β tDP[γ T [β tDP[γ Tuφ [β tDP][α <R, v*uφ>[α <R, v*uφ> DPφ][α <R, v*uφ> tDP ]][α <R, v*uφ> tDP ]]][α <R, v*uφ> tDP ]]]]
[α <R, v*uφ> tDP ]]]]][α <R, v*uφ> tDP ]]]]]

In (11a), pair-Merge externally forms <R, v*>, losing the phase property of v* and uφ of v*
is invisible from the beginning. In (11b), set-Merge externally forms {<R, v*>, DP}. I
assume that an argument which is set-Merged with R or <R, v*> is considered as an internalargument IA. Then set-Merge internally forms {DP, α} as in (11c). In (11d), set-Merge
externally forms {T, β} and then in (11e) set-Merge internally forms {DP, γ}. Finally, in

-5-



1DQ]DQ/LQJXLVWLFV5HVHDUFK5HVXOWVDQG$FWLYLWLHV

IJ VHW0HUJHH[WHUQDOO\IRUP^&į`UHDFKLQJWKHSKDVHOHYHODQG,QKHULWDQFHIURP&WR
7WDNHVSODFHįLVODEHOHGĳĳ!DQGĮLVODEHOHG5Y !E\DVVXPSWLRQ7KXVLIZHDGRSWH[WHUQDOSDLU0HUJHWKHQZHFDQVXFFHVVIXOO\JHQHUDWHDVHQWHQFHZLWKDQXQDFFXVDWLYHYHUE8QHUJDWLYH9HUEVE\,QWHUQDO3DLU0HUJH,WLVZHOONQRZQLQWKHOLWHUDWXUHWKDWXQHUJDWLYHYHUEVGRQRWQRUPDOO\WDNHDGLUHFWREMHFWEXWVRPHWLPHVFDQZKHQWKHREMHFWLVDFRJQDWHREMHFWDVVKRZQLQ  DQG    D 7KHER\VPLOHG DWWKHJLUO    E 7KHER\VPLOHGWKHJLUO   F 7KHER\VPLOHGDUXHIXOVPLOH FRJQDWHREMHFWV   D :HODXJKHG DWKLVMRNHV    E :HODXJKHGKLVMRNHV   F :HODXJKHGDORXGODXJK FRJQDWHREMHFWV 
7KLVPHDQVWKDWXQHUJDWLYHYHUEFRQVWUXFWLRQVFDQOLFHQVHDQREMHFWZKHQFHUWDLQFRQGLWLRQVDUHPHW7KXVLWLVVWDQGDUGO\DVVXPHGWKDWXQHUJDWLYHVFRQWDLQY ZKLFKWDNHVDQH[WHUQDODUJXPHQWDQGEHDUVXĳWKDWOLFHQVHDQREMHFW7KHTXHVWLRQLVKRZWKH\GLVFKDUJHXĳZKHQ
WKH\GRQRWWDNHDGLUHFWREMHFWDVLQ D DQG D /HWXVQRZFRQVLGHUWKHGHULYDWLRQRID DQG D ,WLVLOOXVWUDWHGLQ    D    >ȖY Xĳ  >ȕ5 Į @@  )RUPY ȕE\(0ȖLVRIWKHIRUP^+;3` E >į'3>Ȗ Y Xĳ  >ȕ5 Į @@@ )RUP'3ȖE\(0įLVRIWKHIRUP^;3<3`   F >į'3>Ȗ5Y Xĳ >ȕW5 Į @@@ 5UDLVHVWRY IRUPLQJ5ZLWKY DIIL[HGD  IRUPV ^Y  ȕ` E\ (0 ,I LQKHULWDQFH WRRN SODFH 5 ZRXOG LQKHULW XQLQWHUSUHWDEOH ĳ
IHDWXUHVIURPY ȕKRZHYHUFRQWDLQVQRPDWFKLQJV\QWDFWLFREMHFW 62 7KLVLVH[DFWO\WKH
VDPH VLWXDWLRQ DV EULGJH YHUE FRQVWUXFWLRQV ,Q E  '3 ZKLFK LV ($ LV H[WHUQDOO\ VHW0HUJHG ZLWK Ȗ 7KHQ DV LQ F  SDLU0HUJH RI 5 WR Y  SULRU WR ,QKHULWDQFH WDNHV SODFHPDNLQJY LQYLVLEOH WRJHWKHUZLWKXĳ 7KXVZHFDQDYRLGYDOXDWLRQIDLOXUH,QWKLVVHFWLRQZHKDYHH[WHQGHG&KRPVN\¶V E  IRUP RIDUJXPHQWWRSDLU0HUJH
3DLU0HUJHWKDW&KRPVN\ E SURSRVHVLVWKHLQWHUQDORQHWKDWWDNHVSODFHDIWHU/DEHOLQJ
(SVWHLQ .LWDKDUD DQG 6HHO\   SURSRVHV WKDW SDLU0HUJH FDQ DOVR WDNH SODFH GLUHFWO\
IURPWKHOH[LFRQ+HUHZHSURSRVHWKDWSDLU0HUJHDSSOLHVIUHHO\7KXVWKHUHLVQRQHHGWR
VSHFLI\ZKHQLWDSSOLHVLQWHUQDOO\H[WHUQDOO\'LIIHUHQWW\SHRIYHUEVLVJHQHUDWHGGHSHQGLQJRQZKHQSDLU0HUJHDSSOLHVLQWKHV\QWD[+HUHLVWKHVXPPDU\RIYHUEDOVWUXFWXUHVEDVHGRQRXUSURSRVDO  D 7UDQVLWLYHV  VHOHFWDQH[WHUQDODUJXPHQWDQGOLFHQVHDFFXVDWLYH&DVH           ZKHQSDLU0HUJHWDNHVSODFHDIWHUODEHOLQJ




-6-

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)b. Unaccusatives: neither select an external argument nor license accusative Case
when pair-Merge takes place directly from the lexiconc. Unergatives:
select an external argument and license accusative Case only whencertain conditions are met
when pair-Merge takes place prior to Inheritanced. Bridge verbs: select an external argument and license accusative Case only whencertain conditions are met
when pair-Merge takes place prior to InheritanceIn the next section, I will show that the proposed theory of pair-Merge of heads neatly
explains how the morphologically same passive morpheme rare generates syntacticallydifferent kinds of passive constructions in Japanese.
3. Passives in Japanese
3.1. Three Kinds of Passives
It has been controversial in the literature on Japanese how many types of passives exist
and what kind of structure each type of passive construction has (Kuno 1973, Inoue 1976,
Kuroda 1979, Kitagawa and Kuroda 1992, Miyagawa 1989, Hoshi 1994, 1999, Goro 2006,
Ishizuka 2012; among others). Hoshi (1999) shows that there are three kinds of passive
constructions in Japanese: ni yotte passive, ni direct passive, and ni indirect passive, as givenin (16), (17), and (18) respectively.
(16) ni yotte passive
Sora-ga (Haru-ni yotte) nagur-are-ta
S.-nom (H.-to owing) hit-pass-pst1‘Sora was hit (by Haru).’Cf.

Haru-ga Sora-o nagur-ta
H.-nom S.-acc hit-pst‘Haru hit Sora.’(17) ni direct passive
Sora-ga (Haru-ni)
S.-nom (H.-by)nagur-are-ta
hit-pass-pst‘Sorai was affected by Haru’s hitting himi.’

1

Abbreviations: acc = accusative, caus = causative, dat = dative, dec = declarative, gen = genitive,
nom = nominative, pass = passive, pst = past.

-7-



1DQ]DQ/LQJXLVWLFV5HVHDUFK5HVXOWVDQG$FWLYLWLHV  QLLQGLUHFWSDVVLYH   D 7UDQVLWLYH     7RPRJD +DUXQL 6RUDR  QDJXUDUHWD     7QRP  +GDW  6DFF  KLWSDVVSVW     µ7RPRZDVDIIHFWHGE\+DUX¶VKLWWLQJ6RUD¶    E ,QWUDQVLWLYH XQHUJDWLYH      8HKDUDJD ,FKLURQL  KDVLUDUHWD     8QRP  ,GDW    UXQSDVVSVW     µ8HKDUDZDVDIIHFWHGE\,FKLUR¶VUXQQLQJ¶   F ,QWUDQVLWLYH XQDFFXVDWLYH      0DLJD  7RN\RGH   DPHQL  IXUDUHWD     0QRP 7RN\RLQ  UDLQGDW IDOOSDVVSVW     µ0DLZDVDIIHFWHGE\UDLQLQJ LQ7RN\R ¶µ0DLZDVFDXJKWLQWKHUDLQ LQ7RN\R ¶)ROORZLQJ +RVKL   , DVVXPH WKDW WKHUH DUH WKUHH W\SHV RI SDVVLYH FRQVWUXFWLRQV LQ
-DSDQHVHDQGVKRZWKDWKLVILQGLQJVFDQEHUHFDSWXUHGXQGHUWKHFXUUHQWPLQLPDOLVWDSSURDFKZLWKWKHSURSRVHGWKHRU\RISDLU0HUJHRIKHDGV1RZOHWXVILUVWH[DPLQHWKHSURSHUWLHVRIWKHVHWKUHHW\SHVRISDVVLYHV,QRXH   DQG .XURGD   REVHUYHV WKH IROORZLQJ FRQWUDVW EHWZHHQ QL GLUHFWSDVVLYHDQGQL\RWWHSDVVLYH  D .DLNDLJD  JLW\RRQL    VHQJHQVDUHWD     2SHQLQJQRPFKDLUSHUVRQE\ DQQRXQFHSDVVSVW     µ7KHRSHQLQJRIWKHPHHWLQJLZDVDIIHFWHGE\WKHFKDLUSHUVRQ¶VDQQRXQFLQJLWL¶   E .DLNDLJD  JLW\RRQL   \RWWH  VHQJHQVDUHWD     2SHQLQJQRPFKDLUSHUVRQWR RZLQJ DQQRXQFHSDVVSVW     µ7KHRSHQLQJRIWKHPHHWLQJZDVDQQRXQFHGE\WKHFKDLUSHUVRQ¶  D )HUPDWQR WHLULJD    -RKQQL  V\RRPHLVDUHWD     )HUPDWJHQ WKHRUHPQRP -RKQE\ SURYHSDVVSVW     µ)HUPDW¶VWKHRUHPLZDVDIIHFWHGE\-RKQ¶VSURYLQJLWL¶   E )HUPDWQR WHLULJD    -RKQQL  \RWWH  V\RRPHLVDUHWD     )HUPDWJHQ WKHRUHPQRP -RKQWR  RZLQJ SURYHSDVVSVW     µ)HUPDW¶VWKHRUHPZDVSURYHGE\-RKQ¶.XURGD  DUJXHVWKDWWKHVXEMHFWRIWKHQLGLUHFWSDVVLYHLVUHTXLUHGWREHDQDIIHFWHHE\

-8-



/DEHOLQJDQG3DLU0HUJHRI+HDGV 01RPXUD 

WKH SDVVLYH YRLFH UDUH ZKLOH WKH VXEMHFW RI WKH QL \RWWH SDVVLYH FDQQRW EH DQ DIIHFWHH $Q
DEVWUDFW13NDLNDLµRSHQLQJ¶LQ  DQGDQLPPXWDEOH13)HUPDWQRWHLULµ)HUPDW¶VWKHRUHP¶
LQ  FDQQRWEHLQWHUSUHWHGDVDIIHFWHHVVRWKDWWKH\FDQQRWEHDVXEMHFWRIQLGLUHFWSDVVLYH

1RZOHWXVFRQVLGHUWKHH[DPSOHVLQ    D QLGLUHFWSDVVLYH   -RKQLJD 0DU\MQL ]LEXQL MQR XWLGH  NRURVDUHWD     -RKQQRP0DU\E\ VHOIJHQ  KRXVHLQ NLOOSDVVSVW     µ-RKQLZDVDIIHFWHGE\0DU\M¶VNLOOLQJKLPLQVHOIL M¶VKRXVH¶  .XQR    E QL\RWWHSDVVLYH     -RKQLJD 0DU\MQL \RWWH  ]LEXQL MQR XWLGH   NRURVDUHWD     -RKQQRP0DU\WR RZLQJ VHOIJHQ  KRXVHLQ  NLOOSDVVSVW     µ-RKQLZDVNLOOHGE\0DU\MLQVHOIL M¶VKRXVH¶          +RVKL    F QLLQGLUHFWSDVVLYH     -RKQLJD 0DU\MQL  ]LEXQLMQR NRWRR   ]LPDQVDUHWD     -RKQQRP0DU\GDW  VHOIJHQ  PDWWHUDFF ERDVWSDVVSVW     µ-RKQLZDVDIIHFWHGE\0DU\M¶VEUDJJLQJDERXWVHOILM¶VPDWWHU¶  .XQR ,Q WKH QL GLUHFW SDVVLYH DQG WKH QL \RWWH SDVVLYH -RKQ FDQ EH WKH DQWHFHGHQW RI D VXEMHFWRULHQWHGORQJGLVWDQFHDQDSKRU]LEXQ³VHOI´EXW0DU\FDQQRWZKLOHLQWKHQLLQGLUHFWSDVVLYH
ERWK-RKQDQG0DU\FDQEHWKHDQWHFHGHQWRI]LEXQ7KHVHREVHUYDWLRQVLQGLFDWHWKDW0DU\LQ
WKHQLLQGLUHFWSDVVLYHLVFRQVLGHUHGDVWKHVXEMHFWRIWKHFRPSOHPHQWFODXVHZKLOH0DU\LQDE LVQRW+HUHLVWKHVXPPDU\RIWKHSURSHUWLHVRIQL\RWWHSDVVLYHQLGLUHFWSDVVLYHDQGQLLQGLUHFWSDVVLYH  7KHSURSHUWLHVRIQL\RWWHSDVVLYHQLGLUHFWSDVVLYHDQGQLLQGLUHFWSDVVLYH
WKHWDVXEMHFWVXEMHFWRIWKH
FRPSOHPHQWFODXVHQL\RWWHSDVVLYH
QR

QLGLUHFWSDVVLYH
\HVQLLQGLUHFWSDVVLYH
<HV

QR

QR

<HV


6WUXFWXUHVRIWKHWKUHHNLQGVRISDVVLYHVWKDW+RVKL  SURSRVHVDUHLOOXVWUDWHGLQ    D QLLQGLUHFWSDVVLYH   VHQVHLJD   JDNXVHLQL NXUDVXGH  QDNDUHWD     WHDFKHUQRP VWXGHQWGDW FODVVURRPLQ FU\SDVVSVW     µ7KHWHDFKHUZDVDIIHFWHGE\KLVVWXGHQW¶VFU\LQJLQWKHFODVVURRP¶-9-Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019

S1
sensei-ga

VP
V
are-taS2
gakusei-ni

VPkurasu-deVnakb. ni direct passive:
sensei-ga(gakusei-ni)
teacher-nom (student-by)

hihans-are-ta
criticize-pass-pst‘The teacheri was affected by his student’s criticizing himi.’
S1
senseii-ga

VP
S2

PROi

V
are-taVP(gakusei-ni)tiVhihansc. ni yotte passive:
sensei-ga(gakusei-ni yotte)teacher-nom (student-to owing)hihans-are-ta
criticize-pass-pst‘The teacher was criticized by his student.’
S
senseii-ga

VP(gakusei-ni yotte)tiVhihans-are-ta

In the next subsection, I will present how these differences are recaptured under the current
minimalist approach with the proposed theory of pair-Merge of heads.

-10-Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)

3.2. Analysis
Following Ishizuka (2012) and Fujita (2016), I adopt the passive voice system inJapanese and propose the following:(24) The passive morpheme -rare instantiates the voice projection (vpass), which selects v,
has a complete set of uφ (dative agreement), and selects external argument(Affectee/Experiencer).
Recapturing Hoshi’s passive strctures under the proposed theory, three kinds of passives will
be as follows:2,3(25) a. ni indirect passive: vpass
vpassP
DP(Affectee)
vpass<R, v*>P
DPdat<R, v*>

RP

DPacc



tR

tDP


b. ni direct passive: <vpass, v*><R, <vpass, v*>>P
DP(Affectee)<R, <vpass, v*>>


RP

PRO4
tR

2

tPRO


Although Japanese is a head final language, I use head initial word order for expository purposes.

3

Throughout this paper, I will ignore adjuncts, ni/ni yotte phrases, in ni direct passive and ni yotte
passive when we examine their structures.
4

Although Hoshi (1999) assumes that the matrix subject controls the complement object PRO, there
is another possibility that the DP moves from the complement object position to the matrix subject
position if we adopt the analysis that allows movement into theta position. See Hornstein (1999) forthe movement theory of control.

-11-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019c. ni yotte passive:<R, <vpass, v*>>

<R, <vpass, v*>>PDP<R, <vpass, v*>>tDP

As for ni indirect passive in (25a), there have to be an affectee subject, an embedded subject(dative), and the theme object. Therefore, external pair-Merge of heads, which somehow‘absorbs’ one argument position as we have seen in Section 2.2, does not takes place. As forni direct passive in (25b), since the subject of the ni direct passive is required to be an affecteeby the passive voice rare, vpass needs to be introduced as an active head in order to be able toassign the affectee role, while there is no subject in the complement clause. Therefore, I
assume that pair-Merge externally forms <vpass, v*> so that the affectee role is assigned in theSPEC of <vpass, v*> because in this amalgam vpass is visible while v* is invisible so that vpass
can function as an assigner of an external argument. Notice however that there should be no
Inheritance from the amalgam <vpass, v*> to R in (25b). Here I simply assume that Inheritancecan take place only from the non-amalgamated phase head. In the case of ni yotte passive,
there is neither theta subject nor the subject of the complement clause. This is illustrated in(25c). First, pair-Merge externally forms <vpass, v*> and then again pair-Merge externallyforms <R, <vpass, v*>>. The amalgam <R, <vpass, v*>> is set-Merged with DP, which is IA,with DP then raising to SPEC of <R, <vpass, v*>>.
Now let us see, step by step, how the derivation of ni indirect passive of (18a) goes:(26) Indirect Passive: Transitivea.
{R, DPφ}b.
{DPφ, {R, tDP }}
c.
{
v*uφ,
{DPφ, {R, tDP }}…
d.
{DPφ, {v*uφ,
{DPφ, {R, tDP }}…
e.
{DPφ, {v*,
{DPφ, {Ruφ, tDP }}…
f.
{DPφ, {v*,
{DPacc, {Ruφ, tDP }}…
g.
{DPφ, {<Ruφ, v*>, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
h.
{vpassuφ, {DPφ, {<Ruφ, v*>, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
i.
{DPφ, {vpassuφ, {DPφ, {<Ruφ, v*>, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
j.
{DPφ, {vpass, {DPφ, {<Ruφ, v*>uφ, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
k.
{DPφ, {vpass, {DPdat, {<Ruφ, v*>uφ, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
l.
{T, {DPφ, {vpass, {DPdat, {<Ruφ, v*>uφ, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
m.
{DPφ, {T, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<Ruφ, v*>uφ, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
n. {Cuφ, {DPφ, {T, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<Ruφ, v*>uφ, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
o. {C, {DPφ, {Tuφ, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<Ruφ, v*>uφ, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
p. {C, {DPnom, {Tuφ, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<Ruφ, v*>uφ, {DPacc, {tR, tDP }}…
q. [C [Tomo-nom [T [tDP [vpass [Haru-dat [<R, v*> [Sora-acc [tR [tDP]]]]]]]]]-12-

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)

What is special about this derivation is dative agreement. By assumption, vpass has a complete
set of uφ and as v* licenses accusative agreement, vpass licenses dative agreement. As in (26j),
Inheritance of uφ from vpass to <R, v*> takes place and the complement of vpass is labeled <φ,φ> and then the DP is valued with dative Case under minimal search.5 Accusative Case andnominative Case in (26) are valued in a normal fashion.
Now let us consider the derivation of ni indirect passive of (18b), where the verb isunergative:(27) Indirect Passive: Intransitive (Unergative)R}a.
{ v*uφ,R}}b.
{DPφ, { v*uφ,c.
{DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}d.
{vpassuφ, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}e.
{DPφ, {vpassuφ, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}f.
{DPφ, {vpass, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tR}}}}g.
{DPφ, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tR}}}}h.
{T, {DPφ, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tR}}}}}i.
{DPφ, {T, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tR}}}}}}
j. {Cuφ, {DPφ, {T, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tR}}}}}}}
k. {C, {DPφ, {Tuφ, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tR}}}}}}}
l. {C, {DPnom, {Tuφ, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tR}}}}}}}
m. [C [Uehara-nom [T [tDP [vpass [Ichiro-dat [<R, v*> tR ]]]]]]]As in (27a), when R does not take any argument, set-Merge externally forms {v*, R}.6 In(27b) set-Merge externally merges DP, which is an EA, to {v*, R}. In (27c), since there is noneed to transmit uφ to the head of the phase-head-complement for purposes of subsequent
Case-valuation, Inheritance does not take place and pair-Merge of R to v* takes place,making v* invisible (together with uφ). In (27f), as we have seen in (26), Inheritance of uφfrom vpass to <R, v*> takes place and the complement of vpass is labeled <φ, φ> and then the
DP is valued with dative Case under minimal search. Thus, the proposed mechanism
correctly derives ni indirect passive even when the embedded verb is unergative.
Now consider the derivation of ni indirect passive of (18c), where the verb is
unaccusative:

5

In this paper, I simply assume that Case valuation takes place under minimal search, although it iscommonly assumed that the valuation takes place under an operation Agree and that Agree shouldtake place between T and DP in SPEC-v*. Notice, however, that for instance, under the system ofChomsky (2015b), EA has already been in SPEC-T when Inheritance from C to T takes place.
Therefore, the operation Agree needs to be modified under the current theory.
6

Although v* and R are both heads, I assume that when R does not merge with IA, set-Merge takes
place between v* and R, with internal pair-Merge later taking place between R and v* as in (27c).

-13-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019(28) Indirect Passive: Intransitive (Unaccusative)a.
<R, v*uφ>b.
{<R, v*uφ>, DPφ}c.
{DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tDP }}d.
{vpassuφ, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}e.
{DPφ, {vpassuφ, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}}f.
{DPφ, {vpass, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tDP }}}}g.
{DPφ, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tDP }}}}h.
{T, {DPφ, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tDP }}}}}i.
{DPφ, {T, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tDP }}}}}}
j. {Cuφ, {DPφ, {T, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tDP }}}}}}}
k. {C, {DPφ, {Tuφ, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tDP }}}}}}}
l. {C, {DPnom, {Tuφ, {tDP, {vpass, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ> uφ, tDP }}}}}}}
m. [C [Mai-nom [T [tDP [vpass [ame-dat [<R, v*> tDP ]]]]]]]In (28a), pair-Merge externally forms <R, v*uφ>, making v* invisible (together with uφ). In(28b), set-Merge externally forms {<R, v*uφ>, DPφ}, where DP is an IA. As in (28f-g),
Inheritance from vpass to <R, v*> takes place and the complement of vpass is labeled <φ, φ>and then the DP is valued with dative Case under minimal search. The rest of the derivation
goes in the same way as in (26) and (27).
As we have seen in Section 3.1., there is a contrast between ni direct passive and ni yotte
passive. The ni direct passive requires the subject to be an affectee, while the ni yotte passive
does not. Assuming the structures proposed in (25b) and (25c), we can capture this difference.
Let us take a look at these derivations:(29) Ni Direct Passivea.
{R, PRO }b.
{PRO, {R, tPRO }}c.
{<vpassuφ, v*uφ>, {PRO, {R, tPRO }}}d.
{DPφ, {
<vpassuφ, v*uφ>, {PRO, {R, tPRO }}}}e.
{DPφ, {<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, {PRO, {tR, tPRO }}}}f.
{DPφ, {<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, {PRO, {tR, tPRO }}}}g.
{T, {DPφ, {<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, {PRO, {tR, tPRO }}}}}h.
{DPφ, {T, {tDP, {<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, {PRO, {tR, tPRO }}}}}}
i. {Cuφ, {DPφ, {T, {tDP, {<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, {PRO, {tR, tPRO }}}}}}}
j. {C, {DPφ, {Tuφ, {tDP, {<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, {PRO, {tR, tPRO }}}}}}}
k. {C, {DPnom, {Tuφ, {tDP, {<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, {PRO, {tR, tPRO }}}}}}}
l. [Sora-nom [T [tDP [<R, <vpass, v*>> [PRO [tR [tPRO]]]]]]]
As you can see in (29c), pair-Merge externally forms <vpassuφ, v*uφ> and it is set-Merged with
{PRO, {R, tPRO}}. The external pair-Merge of vpassuφ to v*uφ makes v*uφ invisible but theamalgam <vpassuφ, v*uφ> has an ability to select external argument (affectee) because vpass is-14-

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)visible. Therefore, the subject of ni direct passive can be interpreted as an affectee. Assumingthat Inheritance can take place only from the non-amalgamated phase head, no Inheritance of
uφ of vpass to R takes place. Thus, R raises to <vpassuφ, v*uφ> by internal pair-Merge, forming<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>> and making <vpassuφ, v*uφ> invisible to LA. Again, the rest of thederivation goes in the same way as in (26), (27), and (28).
(30) Ni yotte Passivea.
<vpassuφ, v*uφ>b.
<R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>c.
{ <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, DPφ}d.
{DPφ, { <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, tDP }}e.
{T, {DPφ, { <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, tDP }}}f.
{DPφ, {T, {tDP, { <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, tDP }}}}
g. {Cuφ, {DPφ, {T, {tDP, { <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, tDP }}}}}
h. {C, {DPφ, {Tuφ, {tDP, { <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, tDP }}}}}
i. {C, {DPnom, {Tuφ, {tDP, { <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, tDP }}}}}
j. [Sora-nom [T [tDP [<R, <vpass, v*>> [tDP]]]]]
Now let us consider ni yotte passive in (30). The subject of ni yotte passive cannot beinterpreted as an affectee. In (30a), pair-Merge externally forms <vpassuφ, v*uφ>, making v*
invisible so that this amalgam cannot take an agentive external argument. In (30b), pairMerge externally forms <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>>, making <vpassuφ, v*uφ> invisible. Therefore,
what is visible is only R in the amalgam <R, <vpassuφ, v*uφ>> so that it can only take an IA.
Hence, it cannot take an affectee argument.
In this subsection, we have seen how the proposed theory of pair-Merge can deal withthree kinds of passives given in (16), (17), and (18). In the next section, I will show that this
proposed mechanism can easily extend to causatives in Japanese.
4. Causatives in Japanese
It has been observed in the literature on Japanese (Kuroda 1965, Harada 1973, Kuno
1973, Shibatani 1978, Terada 1990, Miyagawa 1999, Miyamoto 1999; among others) that (i)the causee can be marked with either -o or -ni in the unergative causative, (ii) it can only bemarked with -o in the unaccusative causative, and (iii) it can only be marked with -ni in thetransitive causative. These are illustrated in (31).
(31) a. Unergative causative
Kantoku-ga
Ichiro-ni/o hasir-ase-ta
manager.-nom I.-dat/acc run-caus-pst‘The manager let/made Ichiro run.’

-15-



1DQ]DQ/LQJXLVWLFV5HVHDUFK5HVXOWVDQG$FWLYLWLHV   E 8QDFFXVDWLYHFDXVDWLYH     $PHRWRNRJD  DPH QLR IXUDVHWD     UDLQPDQQRP UDLQGDWDFFIDOOFDXVSVW     µ7KHUDLQPDQPDGHLWUDLQ¶   F 7UDQVLWLYHFDXVDWLYH     0DVDJD +DUXQL R 6RUDR QDJXUDVHWD      0QRP +GDWDFF 6DFF KLWFDXVSVW  µ0DVDPDGHOHW+DUXKLW6RUD¶,QWKLVVHFWLRQ,ZLOOVKRZWKDWWKHSURSRVHGWKHRU\RISDLU0HUJHSURYLGHVDVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGDFFRXQW IRU WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ XQHUJDWLYH FDXVDWLYH DQG XQDFFXVDWLYH FDXVDWLYH
FRQVWUXFWLRQV)XUWKHU,DUJXHWKDWWKHXQJUDPPDWLFDOLW\ZLWK±RLQWKHWUDQVLWLYHFDXVDWLYHLV
VLPSO\GXHWRDODQJXDJHSDUWLFXODUFRQVWUDLQWLQ-DSDQHVH7KH6XEMHFWRIWKH(PEHGGHG&ODXVHRIWKH&DXVDWLYH&RQVWUXFWLRQ,WLVZHOONQRZQVLQFH.XURGD  WKDW-DSDQHVHFDXVDWLYHFRQVWUXFWLRQVDUHELFODXVDOGHVSLWH WKHLU DSSHDUDQFH WKDW GRHV H[KLELW PRQRFODXVDO SURSHUWLHV 7KH ELFODXVDOLW\ RI WKHVH
FRQVWUXFWLRQVLVVXSSRUWHGE\WKHH[DPSOHLQ    7RPRLJD 6RUDMQL ]LEXQLMQR VHQVHLR  KLKDQVDVHWD
7QRP  6GDW  VHOIJHQ  WHDFKHUDFF FULWLFL]HFDXVSVW






µ7RPRPDGH6RUDFULWLFL]HKHUKLVWHDFKHU¶  D 7RPRLJD  6RUDMQL ]LEXQL MQR VHQVHLR  V\RRNDLVLWD  7QRP   6GDW  VHOIJHQ  WHDFKHUDFF LQWURGXFHSVW     µ7RPRLQWURGXFHGKHUWHDFKHUWR6RUD¶
E 7RPRLJD  6RUDMR  ]LEXQL MQR VHQVHLQL  V\RRNDLVLWD     7QRP   6DFF  VHOIJHQ  WHDFKHUGDW LQWURGXFHSVW     µ7RPRLQWURGXFHG6RUDWRKHUWHDFKHU¶,Q   WKH FDXVHH 6RUD FDQ EH WKH DQWHFHGHQW RI ]LEXQ DV ZHOO DV WKH FDXVHU 7RPR 7KLVPHDQV WKDW 6RUD LV WKH HPEHGGHG VXEMHFW VLQFH WKH UHIOH[LYH ]LEXQ LV VXEMHFWRULHQWHG 7KHH[DPSOHV LQ   VKRZ WKDW QHLWKHU ±R PDUNHG REMHFW QRU ±QL PDUNHG REMHFW FDQ EH WKHDQWHFHGHQWRI]LEXQ&RQVLGHU  ZKHUHWKHH[DPSOHLQYROYHVFODXVDOHPEHGGLQJ  7RPRLJD +DUXMQL 6RUDNJD ]LEXQL MNQRVHQVHLR  KLKDQVLWD WR  LWWD   7QRP  +GDW  6QRP  VHOIJHQ  WHDFKHUDFF FULWLFL]HSVWFRPSVD\SVW   µ7RPRVDLGWR+DUXWKDW6RUDFULWLFL]HGKHUKLVWHDFKHU¶

-16-

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)

The possible antecedents of zibun in (34) are both the matrix subject Tomo and the embedded
subject Sora, but not the indirect object Haru. Hence only the subject can be the antecedent ofzibun. Thus, despite its appearance, the causee Sora is the subject of the embedded clause of
the causative construction in (32).
4.2. Analysis
Following Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004) and Saito (2011), I assume that the structureof (31c) is roughly as in (35).
(35)

v*P
agent
RP

v*

v*P

R
sase

RP

v*

agent

theme

R
nagur

Adopting Woolford’s proposal that v heads license inherent dative Case of an externalargument, I propose that Inherent Case is licensed in SPEC-v*.
(36) Little/light v heads license inherent Case (dative Case) on an external argument. (cf.
Woolford 2006:113)
Assuming the structure of causative construction is as in (35) and adpoting (36), I will now
show the difference between unergative causative and unaccusative causative constructions.
As we have seen in (31a), the causee can be marked with either -o or -ni in the unergative
causative. Let us first take a look at the derivation of ni unergative causatives.
(37) Ni unergative causativea.
{ v*uφ, R}b.
{DPφ, { v*uφ, R}}c.
{DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}d.
{R, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}e.
{ v*uφ, {R, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}
f. {DPφ, { v*uφ, {R, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}
g. {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, {tR, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}
h. {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, {tR, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}-17-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019i.

[Kantoku-nom[T [tDP [<R, v*> [tR [Ichiro-dat [<R, v*> [tR]]]]]]]]In (37b), a DP is externally set-Merged with {v*uφ, R} and hence it is an EA. In (37c), there
is no DP in {v*uφ, R} so that there is no need to transmit uφ from v* to R for purposes ofsubsequent Case-valuation and thus internal pair-Merge of R to v*uφ takes place prior toInheritance, making v*uφ invisible. As in (37e), DP may not raise to the SPEC of R if
operations apply freely and thus v* can be externally set-Merged with {R, {DPφ, {<R,v*uφ>,tR}}}. If this is the case, then Inheritance from v* to R does not take place because there is no
DP in the SPEC of R. Thus, pair-Merge of R to v* takes place as in (37g). In this derivation, aDP in the SPEC of the embedded v*, which is an external argument, remains in situ so that
Inherent dative Case is licensed on it by assumption in (36).
Now let us consider the derivation of o unergative causatives.
(38) O unergative causativea.
{ v*uφ, R}b.
{DPφ, { v*uφ, R}}c.
{DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}d.
{R, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}e.
{DPφ, {R, {tDP, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}f.
{ v*uφ, {DPφ, {R, {tDP, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}
g. {DPφ, { v*uφ, {DPφ, {R, {tDP, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}}{DPφ, {Ruφ, {tDP, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}}
h. {DPφ, { v*,i. {DPφ, { v*,{DPacc, {Ruφ, {tDP, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}}
j. {DPφ, {<Ruφ, v*>, {DPacc, {tR, {tDP, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}}
k. [Kantoku-nom[T [tDP [<R, v*> [Ichiro-acc [tR [tDP [<R, v*> [tR]]]]]]]]]In (38e), a DP raises to the SPEC of R. Then v* is externally set-Merged with {DPφ, {R, {tDP,{<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}. As in (38h-i), Inheritance of uφ from v* to R takes place and then thecomplement of v* is labeled <φ, φ> and then the DP is valued with accusative Case underminimal search.
Now the ungrammaticality of ni unaccusative causatives in (31b) can be easily accountedfor. In (31b), ame is not an EA but an IA. Based on the assumption that inherent Case is only
licensed on an external argument, there is no chance for an DP ame to be marked with dative
Case. Therefore, the only possible Case that the DP ame can receive is accusative Case as
shown in (39).
(39) Unaccusative causativea.
b.
c.
{ DPφ,d.
{ R, { DPφ,e.
{ DPφ, { R, { tDP,

-18-

<R, v*uφ>{ <R, v*uφ>, DPφ}
{ <R, v*uφ>, tDP }}{ <R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}{ <R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}}

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)

f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.

{ v*uφ, { DPφ, { R, { tDP, { <R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}}}{DPφ, { v*uφ, { DPφ, { R, { tDP, { <R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}}}{DPφ, { v*,{ DPφ, { Ruφ, { tDP, { <R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}}}{DPφ, { v*,{ DPacc, { Ruφ, { tDP, { <R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}}}{DPφ, {<Ruφ, v*>, { DPacc, { tR, { tDP, { <R, v*uφ>, tDP }}}}}[Ameotoko-nom [T [tDP [<R, v*> [ame-acc/*dat [tR [tDP [<R, v*> [tR]]]]]]]]]As in (39e), a DP raises to the SPEC of R. Then v* is externally set-Merged with {DPφ, {R,{tDP, {<R, v*uφ>, tDP}}}}. As in (39h-i), Inheritance of uφ from v* to R takes place and thenthe complement of v* is labeled <φ, φ> and then the DP is valued with accusative Case underminimal search. This is exactly the same way that accusative Case is valued in O unergative
causative.
Finally, as for the transitive causatives, I argue that the ungrammaticality with the causee
marked with –o is simply due to a language particular constraint in Japanese. As in (35), there
are two v*s, which can value accusative Case in causative constructions. Therefore, thecausee should be able to be marked with –o in (31c), contrary to fact. Interestingly, as Jungand Miyagawa (2004) show, unlike Japanese, Korean does allow the causee to be marked
with accusative Case. This is illustrated in (40) and (41).
(40) John-i
Mary-eykey/lul pica-lul mek-i-ess-ta.
John-nom Mary-dat/acc pizza-acc eat-caus-pst-dec(Korean)‘John caused Mary to eat pizza.’(41) John-ga Mary-ni/*oJohn-nom Mary-dat/acc

piza-otabe-sase-ta.
pizza-acc eat-caus-pst(Japanese)‘John caused Mary to eat pizza.’
Given the fact that the causee can be marked with accusative Case in Korean, I claim thatsyntax allows the causee to be marked with accusative Case in causative constructions. Thus
the ungrammaticality with the causee marked with –o in (31c) must be due to a language
partricular constraint in Japanese. In fact, Korean allows two objects to be marked withaccusative Case in double object constructions, while double accusative is not allowed intheir Japanese counterparts.
(42) a. Mary-ka
John-eykey
Mary-nom John-dat

chayk-ul
book-acc

cwu-ess-ta.
give-pst-dec‘Mary gave a book to John.’b. Mary-ka
John-ulMary-nom John-acc

chayk-ul
book-acc

cwu-ess-ta.
give-pst-dec‘Mary gave John a book.’

-19-



1DQ]DQ/LQJXLVWLFV5HVHDUFK5HVXOWVDQG$FWLYLWLHV  D 0DU\JD  -RKQQL   KRQR   DJHWD     0DU\QRP -RKQGDW  ERRNDFF  JLYHSVW     µ0DU\JDYHDERRNWR-RKQ¶   E 0DU\JD  -RKQR   KRQR   DJHWD     0DU\QRP -RKQDFF  ERRNDFF  JLYHSVW     µ0DU\JDYH-RKQDERRN¶  D 0DU\ND  KDNVD\QJWXOH\NH\ \HQJHOXO  NDOXFKLHVVWD     0DU\QRP VWXGHQWVGDW    (QJOLVKDFFWHDFKSVWGHF     µ0DU\WDXJKW(QJOLVKWRWKHVWXGHQWV¶   E 0DU\ND  KDNVD\QJWXOXO \HQJHOXO NDOXFKLHVVWD     0DU\QRP VWXGHQWVDFF  (QJOLVKDFFWHDFKSVWGHF     µ0DU\WDXJKWWKHVWXGHQWV(QJOLVK¶  D 0DU\JD  JDNXVHLQL  HLJRR   RVLHWD     0DU\QRP VWXGHQWVGDW (QJOLVKDFFWHDFKSVW     µ0DU\WDXJKW(QJOLVKWRWKHVWXGHQWV¶   E 0DU\JD  JDNXVHLR  HLJRR   RVLHWD     0DU\QRP VWXGHQWVDFF (QJOLVKDFFWHDFKSVW     µ0DU\WDXJKWWKHVWXGHQWV(QJOLVK¶*LYHQWKHVHIDFWVIROORZLQJ6DLWR  ,DVVXPHGRXEOHRFRQVWUDLQWLQ-DSDQHVH  'RXEOHRFRQVWUDLQW 6DLWR    $YHUEFDQDVVLJQDFFXVDWLYH RUREMHFWLYH FDVHWRDWPRVWRQH13

7R VXP XS , KDYH VKRZQ WKDW WKH SURSRVHG WKHRU\ RI SDLU0HUJH SURYLGHV D
VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG DFFRXQW IRU WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ XQHUJDWLYH FDXVDWLYH DQG XQDFFXVDWLYH
FDXVDWLYH FRQVWUXFWLRQV LQ -DSDQHVH 6LQFH .RUHDQ DOORZV WKH FDXVHH WR EH PDUNHG ZLWKDFFXVDWLYH&DVH,KDYHDUJXHGWKDWWKHXQJUDPPDWLFDOLW\ZLWK±RLQWKHWUDQVLWLYHFDXVDWLYHLQ
-DSDQHVHLVVLPSO\GXHWRDODQJXDJHSDUWLFXODUFRQVWUDLQW5HPDLQLQJ,VVXHV6HYHUDO LVVXHV UHPDLQ WR EH DGGUHVVHG )LUVW WKH FRPSOHPHQW RI 5 LQ QL XQHUJDWLYH
FDXVDWLYHV LQ   VHHPV QRW WR EH ODEHOHG WKH GHULYDWLRQ RI QL XQHUJDWLYH FDXVDWLYHV LV
UHSHDWHGKHUHLQ  

-20-

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)(47) Ni unergative causativea.
{ v*uφ, R}b.
{DPφ, { v*uφ, R}}c.
{DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}d.
{R, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}e.
{ v*uφ, {R, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}
f. {DPφ, { v*uφ, {R, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}
g. {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, {tR, {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}
h. {DPφ, {<R, v*uφ>, {tR, {DPdat, {<R, v*uφ>, tR}}}}}
i. [Kantoku-nom[T [tDP [<R, v*> [tR [Ichiro-dat [<R, v*> [tR]]]]]]]]In (47d), the complement of R is of the form {XP, YP} because the DP stays in situ in theSPEC of v*. Under Chomsky’s (2015b) system, the head of XP must share the same featureswith the head of YP, for instance, labeling <φ, φ> but that is not the case in (47). Sinceaccording to Chomsky (2015a:102), “every syntactic object transferred to the interface has tobe labeled, optimally by a minimal search algorithm (like Agree),” the complement of R mustbe labeled. Notice that the DP is marked with inherent Case (dative Case) by assumption.
One might argue that θ-relation is established between XP and YP and the complement of R
is labeled <θ, θ> under minimal search.
Another issue is that Under Chomsky’s (2015b) framework, it is not certain how adjuncts
can be dealt with. Especially, we do not know how we can label the adjunct structures.
Therefore, although we have seen that three kinds of passives in Japanese are recaptured
under Chomsky’s (2015b) new framework, we are not able to show where the by-phrases (niand ni yotte phrases) adjoin. Pair-Merge of heads is a new theory of the adjunction of X andY but pair-Merge of phrases has not been established yet under Chomsky’s new framework.
We eagerly await further research.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, I have attempted to pursue the theory of syntax where the core structurebuilding operations is as follows:(48) The core structure building operations:a. (Set-)Merge (α, β) = {α, β}b. Pair-Merge (α, β) = <α, β>I have shown that in addition to set-Merge, pair-Merge is in fact a necessary operation forstructure building. In Japanese, there are at least three kinds of passive constructions: ni yotte
passive, ni direct passive, and ni indirect passive. Once we adopt the idea that pair-Merge canapply freely, we can succinctly derive these three passives from the single passive morpheme,
without stipulating morphologically same but syntactically different passive morphemes. As
we have seen, there are a lot of issues that remain to be addressed since this proposed theory-21-

Nanzan Linguistics 15: Research Results and Activities 2019of pair-Merge is still under development but if this is on the right track, then most of (ormaybe all of) the optionality in verbal structures might be explained by the free application ofpair-Merge. Therefore, Japanese complex predicates provide an important testing ground toevaluate the theory of pair-Merge, especially regarding the optionality in grammar.

References
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015a. Some core contested concepts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44: 91104.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015b. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona
Matteini, 3-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Epstein, Samuel David, Kitahara, Hisatsugu, and Seely, T. Daniel. 2016. Phase cancellation by
external pair-merge of heads. The Linguistic Review 33: 87-102.
Fujita, Koji. 2016. Jyudou doushi no nichiei hikaku [A Comparison of Japanese and English Passive
Verbs]. In Bunpoo to goi eno tougouteki apuroochi [A Unified Approach to Syntax and
Lexicon], ed. by Koji Fujita and Yoshiki Nishimura, 116-142. Tokyo: Kaitakusya.
Goro, Takuya. 2006. A minimalist analysis of Japanese passives. In Minimalist Essays, ed. by CedricBoeckx, 232-248. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Harada, Shin-Ichi. 1973. Counter Equi NP deletion. In Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute of
Logopedics and Phoiatrics 7, 113-147. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30 :69-96.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1994. Theta-role assignment, passivization, and excorporation. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 3: 147-178.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1999. Passives. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. by Natsuko Tsujimura,
191-235. Oxford: Blackwell.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei-Bunpoo to Nihongo [Transformational Grammar and Japanese].
Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2012. The passive in Japanese: A cartographic minimalist approach.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jung, Yeun-Jin, and Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2004. Decomposing Ditransitive Verbs. In Proceedings of
SICGG, Summer 2004, 101-120.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, and Kuroda, S. -Y. 1992. Passives in Japanese. Ms., Indiana University and UC
San Diego
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese langauge. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. On Japanese passives. In Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko
Inoue, ed. by Bedell George, Eichi Kobayashi and Masatake Muraki, 305-347. Tokyo:
Kenkyusha.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1999. Causatives. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. by Natsuko
Tsujimura, 236-268. Oxford: Blackwell.

-22-

Labeling and Pair-Merge of Heads (M. Nomura)

Miyamoto, Tadao. 1999. The light verb construction in Japanese: The role of the verbal noun.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Murasugi, Keiko, and Hashimoto, Tomoko. 2004. Three pieces of acquisition evidence for the v-VP
frame. Nanzan Linguistics 1: 1-19.
Nomura, Masashi. 2014. Unvalued features and phase domains. Paper presented at the 32nd
Conference of The English Linguistic Society of Japan, Gakushuin University, Tokyo.
Nomura, Masashi. 2015. Pair-Merge and its consequences. Paper presented at the 87th General
Meeting of The English Literary Society of Japan, Rissho University, Tokyo.
Nomura, Masashi. 2017. Pair-Merge and Feature-Valuation via Minimal Search: Evidence from
Icelandic. In Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by
Aaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda K. McCarvel and Edward J. Rubin, 395-403. Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Saito, Mamoru. 1982. Case marking in Japanese: A preliminary study. Ms., MIT.
Saito, Mamoru. 2011. Two notes on feature inheritance. Nanzan Linguistics 7: 43-61.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo-no Bunseki [Analyses of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Terada, Michiko. 1990. Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37:
111-130.

-23-