SYNTACTIC STATUS OF IDIOMATIC SUBJECTS IN JAPANESE*
Hideki Kishimoto
Kobe University

1.

Introduction

Kishimoto (2009) argues that in Japanese, subjects undergo overt subject raising to TP,
which is motivated by the specifier requirement of TP—i.e. the EEP requirement. At thesame time, it is observed in Kishimoto that idioms constitute one class of exceptions to thegeneralization on subject raising: that is, idiomatic arguments that can be construed as
subjects do not undergo raising to TP. This is a general pattern of subject idioms in Japanese,
since we can find plenty of idioms possessing this property, such as keti-ga tuku (meannessNom attach) ‘criticize’ and me-ga muku (eye-Nom turn) ‘attract attention’.
The fact raises the question of why idiomatic subjects behave differently from ordinary
subjects, in not undergoing raising to TP. Kishimoto claims that the specifier requirement is
not imposed on T when the subject is included in a sequence that is interpreted noncompositionally. On the other hand, given that idioms are often taken to constitute complex
predicates semantically (cf. Chomsky 1981), we could argue that idiomatic subjects do notundergo raising to TP, because they should form part of complex predicates.
If subject idioms serve as complex predicates as the whole, there would be no reason
why the subjects should undergo subject raising. This analysis might look like a plausible
alternative at first sight, but by looking at the facts of nominalizations, it will be argued that
idiomatic subjects stand as elements independent of the verb (even though they might besemantically interpreted as complex predicates of some sort). The data provide evidence
supporting the view that idiomatic subjects forming part of idiom sequences do not undergo
subject raising in Japanese by virtue of their non-compositional nature, but not due to theformation of complex predicates.
2.

Subjects in Idioms

With the advent of the VP-internal Subject Hypothesis (Sportiche 1988, Koopman andSportiche 1991, Kitagawa 1986, McCloseky 1997), a theoretical issue has arisen as to*Part of the material in this paper was presented in the First Workshop of the International Research
Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition (held at Nanzan University in November,2008). I would like to express my thanks for comments and suggestions by Hiroshi Aoyagi, Masashi
Nomura, Seiki Ayano, Koji Sugisaki, Miho Mano, Kiyoko Eguchi, Yoshie Yamamori and theaudience of the workshop.
Nanzan Linguistics 5, 41-60©2009 Hideki Kishimoto

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

whether or not subjects are raised to TP in Japanese. Broadly speaking, two different views
are available in the linguistic literature on Japanese. Miyagawa (1989) and Kishimoto (2001)
maintain that in Japanese, just like English, a specifier requirement is imposed on TP—i.e.
the EEP requirement, and hence subjects are located in Spec of TP.1 On the other hand,
Fukui (1986, 1995) claims that in Japanese, unlike English, subjects remain VP-internally(see also Kuroda 1988).
Recently, Kishimoto (2009) has provided an array of new data in support of the former
view that in Japanese, just like English, subjects should undergo overt raising to TP by virtueof the specifier requirement of TP. Kishimoto argues for the overt subject-raising view, in thelight of the focus interpretations available for a bakari-sentence like (1).
(1)

Kodomo-ga manga-o
yon-de-bakari i-ru.
child-Nom comic-Acc read-Ptcp-only be-Pres‘The child is only reading comics.’ (only comics, *only the child)

As indicated in (1), bakari ‘only’ attached to the te-form of the main verb can be associatedwith the object, but not the subject. Thus, (1) can have an interpretation equivalent to one
available for (2b), but not for (2a).
(2)

a.

Kodomo-bakari-ga manga-o
yon-dei-ru.
child-only-Nom
comic-Acc read-Ptcp be-Pres‘Only the child is reading comics.’b.

Kodomo-ga manga-bakari-o yon-de
i-ru.
child-Nom comic-only-Acc read-Ptcp be-Pres‘The child is reading only comics.’

As is well-observed (see Rooth 1985, and many others), a focus element acquires a syntactic
focusing domain, which is determined configurationally with reference to its syntactic
position. As discussed by Kuroda (1992), Aoyagi (1999), among others, a focus particle(denoting exclusiveness) positioned to the immediate right of the verb extends its scope overthe verb phrase. This suggests that the focus particle bakari ‘only’ attached to the verb takes
scope over vP.
Since bakari can be associated with the object, but not the subject in (1), Kishimoto(2009) claims that, as a consequence of overt subject raising, the subject in (1) comes to
1

In Miyagawa’s more recent work, such as Miyagawa (2001, 2005), it is claimed what can be
attracted to Spec of TP is not limited to subjects, on the basis of the scope interaction of a quantifier
zen’in ‘all’ and negation. Saito (2006) argues, however, that the phenomena have to do withsomething that takes place in a higher domain than the position of subjects. Saito’s argument raises aninteresting question of whether the scope interaction of quantifiers and negation should take place, but
in this paper, we will not go into this discussion.

-42-

Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)occupy Spec of TP, as depicted in (3).
(3)

[TP Kodomo-ga [vP Kodomo-ga manga-o

yon-de-bakari

i-ru ]]

One of the main claims advanced by Kishimoto in the light of the focus interpretations
available for the bakari-constructions is that ordinary nominative subjects undergo subject
raising to TP. 2 As observed by Kishimoto, however, one class of exceptions to thegeneralization is found in idiomatic expressions.
(4)a.

Doodemoii koto-ni
trivialthing-Datme-ga
eye-Nom

i-ku.
go-Pres‘Trivial things attract attention.’b.

Mata, ano-hito-ni
tuki-gaagain that-person-to attach-Nom

mawat-ta.
turn-Past‘That person got lucky again.’
In (4), the idiomatic arguments are marked with nominative case.3 The verbs iku ‘go’ andmawaru ‘turn’ take a nominative subject when used non-idiomatically. We can easily
ascertain that the verb iku takes a nominative subject, by looking at the facts of subject
honorification and reflexivization, both of which have subject orientation.
(5)a.

Ito-sensei-ga
soko-niIto-teacher-Nom there-too-iki-ni-nat-ta.
Hon-go-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito went there.’b.

Maryi-gazibuni-no
Mary-Nom self-Gen

heya-niroom-toit-ta.
go-Past‘Mary went to her room.’
As seen in (5), the nominative phrase can be the target of subject honorification, and also
serves as the antecedent of the reflexive zibun ‘self’. The data show that the nominative
phrase is the subject of the clause.
In the case of the idioms in (4), due to the nature of idiomatic arguments, it is notpossible to apply the subject tests to the nominative expressions in order to confirm their2

We will not discuss non-canonical subjects as well as dative subjects, which do not fall under thescope of the present paper. For the details of the discussion on the non-canonical subjects, see
Kishimoto (2009).
3

Most typically, the idiomatic arguments are body-part expressions, but sometimes include othertypes of expressions such as those given in (4).

-43-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009syntactic status. However, given that the subjects of these verbs (in non-idiomatic uses) aremarked with nominative case, we can hypothesize that the nominative phrases are identified
as the subjects of the idiomatic clauses.
As argued by Kishimoto (2009), there is good reason to believe that the nominativemarked idiomatic expressions are not raised to Spec of TP. In both idioms in (4), when thefocus particle bakari is attached to the te-form of the verb, it can be associated with the dative
phrase, as seen in (6).4(6)

a.

Doodemoii koto-ni
me-ga
it-te-bakari i-ru.
trivialthing-Dat eye-Nom go-Ptcp-only be-Pres‘Only trivial things are attracting attention.’b.

Ano-hito-ni
tuki-ga
mawat-te-bakari i-ru.
that-person-to attach-Nom turn-Ptcp-onlybe-Pres‘Only that person’s is getting lucky.’This fact suggests that the dative phrase is located within vP. Furthermore, the examples in(7) indicate that the nominative phrases cannot be moved across the dative phrases via
scrambling.
(7)

a. ?*Me-gai
doodemoii koto-ni
ti ik-u.
eye-Nom trivial
thing-Datgo-Pres‘Trivial things attract attention.’b. ?*Mata, tuki-gai
ano-hito-ni
ti mawat-ta.
again attach-Nom that-person-Dat turn-Past‘That person got lucky again.’In the idioms at issue, then, the nominative phrase—which constitutes part of the idiomaticsequence—must occur to the right of the dative phrase residing in vP. The data suggest thatthe nominative-marked expressions in (4) serve as subjects, while remaining in vP-internal
position (without subject raising to TP).
(8)a.

[TP [vP Doodemoii

koto-nime-ga ik ] -u ]b. [TP [vP Ano-hito-ni

uki-gamawar] -u ]Since iku ‘go’ and mawaru ‘turn’ are unaccusative verbs whose sole argument is generated in4

Ni-marking could be either a case marker or a postposition (see Sadakane and Koizumi 1995,
Kishimoto 2001). The distinction is not relevant here, and for ease of reference, we will assume thatni-marking represents ‘dative case’.

-44-

Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)object position, there is a sense in which the subject that does not undergo raising to TP
occurs to the right of a dative argument, as in illustrated in (8).5
The nominative phrases (i.e. the idiomatic arguments) occurring to the right of dative
phrases in (4) should be counted as subjects syntactically. We can adduce more evidence infavor of the present view from other types of idioms. Even though the idioms in (4) do nothave transitive counterparts, we can easily find idioms that can participate in transitivity
alternation, while preserving their idiomatic meaning, as shown in (9).
(9)

a.

Kono-ryoori-ni keti-ga
tui-ta.
that-dish-Dat
meanness-Nom attach-Past‘This dish was criticized.’b.

Kare-ga kono-ryoori-ni keti-otuke-ta.
he-Nom this-dish-Dat
meanness-Acc attach-Past‘He criticized this dish.’In (9b), the idiomatic expression keti ‘meanness’, which occurs to the right of the dative
phrase, is marked in the accusative case, suggesting that it resides in direct object position. In(9a), the same expression is marked in the nominative case, and must also appear to the rightof the dative phrase.
The accusative arguments of transitive idioms can often undergo passivization, andwhen passivization applies, they come to be marked with nominative case, as shown in (10).
(10)

Gakusei-ni
student-Dat

keti-gameanness-Nom

tuke-rare-ta.
attach-Pass-Past‘The student was criticized.’
The fact that the passive subject is marked with nominative case indicates that the accusative
expression of the transitive idiom serves as an argument that may be promoted to subject via
passivization.
The constituent position of the idiomatic arguments is fixed. Just as the accusative
phrases cannot be scrambled across the dative phrases, so the nominative phrases cannot be
moved over the dative phrases via scrambling, as seen in (11).
(11)

a. ?*Keti-gai
kono-ryoori-nimeanness-Nom that-dish-Dat

ti

tui-ta.
attach-Past‘This dish was criticized.’
5This generalization does not hold in English, however, because idiomatic subjects in English idioms
are placed in Spec of TP.

-45-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

b. *Kare-ga
he-Nomketi-oikono-ryoori-nimeanness-Acc this-dish-Dattituke-ta.
attach-Past‘He criticized this dish.’
Furthermore, the examples in (12) show that the focus particle bakari attached to the verb can
be associated with the dative phrases.
(12)

a.

Kare-ga
he-Nomryoori-ni
dish-Dat

keti-omeanness-Acc‘He only criticize the dishes.’b.

Kono-ryoori-ni
this-dish-Dat

tuke-te-bakari i-ru.
attach-Ptcp-only be-Pres(only the dishes)keti-gatui-te-bakari
meanness-Nom attach-Ptcp-only‘This dish was only criticized.’

i-ru.
be-Pres(only this dish)The availability of the intended interpretations in (12) shows that the dative phrases arelocated within vP. Furthermore, since the nominative phrases must follow the dative phrases,
the nominative phrases should also be located within vP.
The intransitive idioms at issue take a dative-nominative case pattern. Since some stative
predicates displaying this type of case marking pattern take dative subjects, one might suspectthat the dative phrase in (9a) should serve as subject. The fact of the matter is that it does not(i.e. the idiomatic predicates, which are non-stative, do not take dative subjects).6 We canfurther confirm that the dative phrases do not function as subjects, by looking at the examples
in (13).
(13)

a. *Ito-sensei-ni
keti-gao-tuki-ni-nat-ta.
Ito-teacher-Dat meaness-Nom Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito was criticized.’b. *Gakusei-ga Ito-sensei-ni
keti-oo-tuke-ni-nat-ta.
student-Nom Ito-teacher-Dat meanness-Acc Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘The student criticized Prof. Ito.’

The unacceptability of the sentences in (13) indicates that the dative phrases of the idioms
keti-ga tuku ‘be criticized’ and keti-o tukeru ‘criticize’ cannot be targeted by subject
honorification. This is what we would expect if the dative phrases do not function as subjects.
On the other hand, the nominative phrase of the idiom keti-o tukeru, which serves as an

6

For the discussion of some exceptions to this generalization, see Kishimoto (2005).

-46-

Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)ordinary subject, can be the legitimate target of subject honorification.7(14)

Ito-sensei-ga
gakusei-ni keti-oo-tuke-ni-nat-ta.
Ito-teacher-Nom student-Dat meanness-Acc Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito criticized the student.’

Exactly the same patterns are observed with regard to subject honorification when the verb isused non-idiomatically, as shown in (15).
(15)

a. *Ito-sensei-ni
penki-ga
Ito-teacher-Dat paint-Nom

o-tuki-ni-nat-ta.
Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito got a paint.’
b. *Gakusei-ga Ito-sensei-ni
student-Nom Ito-teacher-Dat

penki-opaint-Acco-tuke-ni-nat-ta.
Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘The student smeared paint on Prof. Ito.’c.

Ito-sensei-ga
gakusei-ni
Ito-teacher-Nom student-Dat

penki-oo-tuke-ni-nat-ta.
paint-Acc Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito smeared paint on the student.’
The examples in (15a-b) show that the dative phrases do not count as the legitimate target of
subject honorification. In fact, (15c) suggests that with the transitive idiom keti-o tukeru, thenominative phrase should serve as the subject. Needless to say, when the intransitive verb
tuku ‘attach’ takes a human subject (in the non-idiomatic use), subject honorification cantarget the nominative phrase.
(16)

Ito-sensei-ga
mae-noIto-teacher-Nom front-Gen

hito-niman-Dato-tuki-ni-nat-ta.
Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito got very close to the man in the front.’
Since the intransitive idiom keti-ga tuku displays the morphological pattern that obtains for an
intransitive verb tuku ‘attach’ used in the non-idiomatic sense, we can maintain that theidiomatic argument in (9a)—marked in the nominative case—should count as a syntactic
subject.
In Japanese, a fairly large number of intransitive idioms place nominative-marked
idiomatic arguments to the right of ni-marked phrases. Some of such idioms are listed in (17).

7Some idioms (e.g. kuti-o tataku (mouth-Acc beat) ‘talk’) are not consonant with subject
honorification due to their derogatory meanings.

-47-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009(17)

te-ga todoku (hand-Nom reach) ‘within a reach’ohati-ga mawaru (bowl-Nom turn) ‘take a turn’
ki-ga muku (mind-Nom turn) ‘get interested’
mi-ga hairu (body-Nom enter) ‘get involved’
koe-ga kakaru (voice-Nom hang) ‘be invited’
tyatya-ga hairu (teac-Nom enter) ‘be interrupted’Some idioms in (17) are used only intransitively, but others have transitive counterparts. It
can be easily verified (by the bakari-test) that the dative phrases occurring to the right of thenominative phrases reside in vP-internal position. If the nominative phrases serve as subject
arguments syntactically, it follows that the subjects included in the idiomatic sequences do
not undergo raising to TP, as argued by Kishimoto (2009).
If we merely look at the morphological patterns of the idioms, however, we cannot
entirely exclude the possibility that the idiomatic arguments form complex predicates with theverbs, rather than serve as arguments. As an alternative to this analysis, then, it might bepossible to claim that the idiomatic subject does not undergo raising to TP owing to theformation of a complex predicate, as illustrated in (18).
(18)[TP [vP Doodemoii

koto-nime-ga ik ]-u ]complex predicate
As discussed by Baker (1988) and others, languages often have the syntactic process in whicharguments standing in object position are incorporated into the verb via head movement togive a complex predicate. Moreover, the idiomatic argument of me-ga iku does not allow
modifications by adjectives or other expressions.
(19) * Doodemoii koto-ni
akai me-ga
trivialthing-Dat red eye-Nom

it-ta.
go-Past‘The red eye went to trivial things.’
As seen in (19), the idiomatic meaning is not preserved when the idiomatic argument is
modified. Since a phrasal element does not participate in head movement, it seems plausible
to hypothesize here that the idiomatic argument is incorporated via head movement to derivea complex predicate, as illustrated in (20).
(20)[TP [vP Doodemoii

koto-nime-ga [ me-ga ik ] ]-u ]Given the structure in (20), the nominative-marked expression can be seen as functioning aspart of a lexical predicate syntactically.8 If the idiomatic argument is included in the complex
8

As we will discuss in the next section, this type of incorporation takes place while retaining the casemarking associated with the idiomatic argument.

-48-

Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)predicate, it does not stand in argument position syntactically. If so, we could plausibly saythat the argument does not undergo subject raising to TP.
The complex predicate analysis at first blush might look feasible, especially in view ofthe fact that an idiomatic sequence is often claimed to form a complex predicate (see e.g.
Chomsky 1981). However, a closer look at the idiom data reveals that the idiomaticarguments are not incorporated into the verbs. Empirical evidence in support of this view canbe derived from the nominalization facts of idioms. We will turn to this discussion in the next
section.
3.

Kata-nominalizations

In this section, we will show that kata-nominalizations provide evidence that idiomaticarguments contained in the idiom sequences are counted as syntactic arguments, rather thanform part of complex predicates—i.e. they are located in argument position. It is also shownthat some idioms contain an idiomatic argument incorporated into the verb. We argue that theidiomatic arguments of such idioms behave differently from the idiomatic subjects which
Kishimoto (2009) claims should stay in the base position without raising to TP.
To begin with, as often discussed in the Japanese literature (e.g. Kishimoto 2006,
Sugioka 1992), when a verb is nominalized with the addition of the suffix kata ‘way’, itsarguments are marked in the genitive case, as illustrated in (21).
(21)

a.

Sensei-ga
teacher-Nom

gakusei-ohome-ta.
student-Acc praise-Past‘The teacher praised the students.’b.

sensei-no
teacher-Gen

gakusei-no home-katastudent-Gen praise-way‘the way of the teacher’s praising the students’
In kata-nominalization, it is generally the case that verbal case—nominative or accusative
case—is changed to (nominal) genitive case. Thus, if any argument of the verb homeru
appears in the verbal case, the nominalized expression turns out to be illicit.
(22)

a. *sensei-ga
gakusei-no
teacher-Nom student-Gen

home-katapraise-way‘the way of the teacher’s praising the students’b. *sensei-no
gakusei-oteacher-Gen student-Acc

home-katapraise-way‘the way of the teacher’s praising the students’-49-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

The examples in (22) illustrate that ordinary arguments consistently receive nominal case (i.e.
genitive case) inside kata-nominals.
Even though this pattern of case marking is fairy pervasive in Japanese, we can still findcases where verbal marking is assigned to nominal elements by kata-nominalization. First,(23) illustrates that the nominal gakusei ‘student’ retains its verbal marking ni even when it isembedded in a kata-nominal (see Martin 1975).
(23)

Mary-no gakusei-ni nari-kata
Mary-Gen student-Dat become-way‘the way of Mary’s becoming a student’Nominals embedded under naru ‘become’ are verbally marked even if they appear in katanominals, by virtue of the fact that they serve as nominal predicates syntactically, rather thanarguments.9
Second, as discussed by Kishimoto (2008), Japanese has some idiomatic expressions
such as te-ni ireru ‘obtain’, where a dative expression occurs to the right of an accusative
phrase. When this type of idiomatic expression is nominalized, the verbal case of theidiomatic argument is retained.
(24)

a.

Mary-gakuruma-oMary-Nom car-Acc

te-ni
ire-ta.
hand-Dat enter-Past‘Mary got a car.’b. Mary-no
Mary-Gen

kuruma-no
car-Accte-ni/*-e-no
ire-kata
hand-Dat/-to-Gen enter-way‘the way of Mary’s getting a car’
As seen in (24) an (idiomatic) argument standing to the right of an accusative argument
receives verbal dative case rather than genitive case. In the light of this fact, Kishimoto(2008) claims that Japanese nominalizations (such as kata-nominalizations) include twodifferent case-marking domains, as depicted in (25).10

9

Naru ‘become’ selects a predicate as its complement. This can be verified by the fact that thecomplement position can be filled by an adjective.
(i)

Kodomo-ga
child-Nomkawaikucutenat-ta.
become-Past‘The child became cute.’
10

Kishimoto (2008) mainly deals with nominalization formed with the addition of the suffix -sa,which derives a nominal from an adjective, but it has also been shown that the same generalization-50-

Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)(25)[ DP-genDP-genDP-gen [ DP-ni

Nominal marking domain

V-kata ]]Verbal marking domain

In kata-nominalizations, the expressions occurring in the nominal marking domain receive
nominal marking. On the other hand, those elements including idiomatic datives andpredicates, which occur to the right of accusative phrases, are assigned verbal marking.
Importantly, accusative objects stand in a position where nominal marking is allocated in
kata-nominalizations.
With this generalization in mind, let us proceed to consider the idiom cases. If theidiomatic arguments included in idioms such as me-ga in me-ga iku and tuki-ga in tuki-ga
mawaru were incorporated into the verbs to form complex predicates syntactically, we expectthat they should receive verbal marking even under kata-nominalization. If, on the other
hand, the idiomatic phrases reside in an ordinary argument position, they should be assigned
nominal marking. The fact of the matter is that such idiomatic expressions receive nominal
marking by kata-nominalization.
(26)

a.

doodemoii koto-e-no
me-no/*-ga
iki-kata
trivialmatter-to-Gen eye-Gen/-Nom go-way‘the way of getting attracted by trivial matters.’b.

ano-hito-e-nothat-man-to-Gen

tuki-no/*-ga
mawari-kataattach-Gen/-Nom turn-way‘the way of that man’s getting lucky’
As seen in (26), it is not possible to assign verbal marking to the idiomatic arguments in thekata-nominals. This suggests that the idiomatic arguments stand in an ordinary argument
position—hence they are not incorporated into the verbs.
As far as I can see, most idioms comprise arguments that appear in argument position(without forming complex predicates with the verbs syntactically), and the arguments marked
with either nominative or accusative case receive genitive case if the idioms are nominalizedwith kata ‘way’. This does not mean, however, that idiomatic arguments always stand in asyntactic position separate from the host verbs. In fact, we can find some idioms where theidiomatic arguments form complex predicates (via incorporation). One such example is foundin (27).

applies to kata-nominalization. In Kishimoto’s analysis, arguments c-commanded by the verbal headreceive verbal marking.

-51-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009(27)

Kodomo-wa
child-Topsore-oit-Accki-ni
it-ta.
mind-Dat enter-Past‘The child liked it.’On the surface, dative-marked expression ki-ni in ki-ni iru ‘like’ appears in the surface
position as the argument te ‘hand’ contained in an idiom like te-ni ire-ru ‘obtain’. However,there are a number of reasons why the idiom ki-ni iru, unlike te-ni ireru, should be analyzed
as forming a single predicate with the verb.
First, the idiom ki-ni iru can have both intransitive and transitive uses. This idiom
follows a regular alternation pattern, in that the accusative phrase of the transitive version
corresponds to the nominative phrase of its intransitive counterpart. Nevertheless, the verb
form is invariant.
(28)

Kodomo-wa
child-Topsore-ga
it-Nomki-ni
mind-Dat

it-ta.
enter-Past‘The child liked it.’
The regular morphological forms for the predicates meaning ‘enter’ are hairu (for an
intransitive verb) and ireru (for a transitive verb). The intransitive verb hairu is a suppletive
form originated from a complex verb hai-iru (crawl-enter).11 Note that other paired idioms
such as te-ni ireru ‘obtain’ and te-ni hairu ‘be obtained’ have regular verb forms.
(29)

a.

Mary-gaMary-Nomhon-obook-Accte-ni
hand-Dat

ire-ta.
enter-Past‘Mary obtained the book.’b.

Hon-gate-ni
book-Nom hand-Dat

hait-ta.
enter-Past‘The book was obtained.’
The morphology of the theme argument in the two sentences in (27) and (28) signals that
there is an intransitive-transitive alternation. In the idioms (27) and (28), the archaic form ofiru ‘enter’—which is not used in ordinary context—appears as the predicate, which suggeststhat the idiom should have become frozen, and reanalyzed as a single lexical item, with theloss of its compositionality. If so, the entire idiomatic sequence should count as a single
predicate.
Second, the fact that the idiom ki-ni iru serves as a complex predicate is justified by thefact that a particle cannot intervene between the nominative/accusative argument and theverb, as illustrated in (30).
11

Yo Matsumoto (p.c.) has drawn my attention to this fact.

-52-

Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)(30) *Kodomo-wa
child-Topsore-ga/-oit-Nom/-ACC

ki-ni-wamind-Dat-Top

it-ta.
enter-Past‘The child liked it.’As discussed by Kishimoto (2005, 2008), a focus particle is generally allowed to intervene
between lexical items if they are syntactically separate. (31) shows that with an idiom like teni ireru ‘obtain’, there is such a syntactic break between the dative phrase and the verb.
(31)

Kodomo-wa
child-Topsore-oit-Accte-ni-wa
hand-Dat-Top

ire-ta.
enter-Past‘The child got it.’
The unacceptability of particle insertion in (30) suggests in turn that in the case of the idiom
ki-ni iru, the dative-marked argument is incorporated into the verb to derive a complex
predicate. This property of ki-ni iru crucially differs from what we observe for the idiom te-ni
ireru, which has a regular form of the verb.
The idiomatic sequences of ki-ni iru and te-ni ireru differ in the degree of tightness, but
the difference in the status of the dative phrases we observe for the two idioms is not reflectedin the morphological marking on the idiomatic expressions under kata-nominalization.
(32)

a.

kodomo-no
child-Gen

sore-noit-Genki-nimind-Dat

iri-kata
enter-way‘the way of child liking it.’b.

kodomo-no
child-Gen

sore-noit-Gente-nihand-Dat

ire-kata
enter-way‘the way of child’s getting it.’As seen in (32), the idiomatic arguments of both idioms receive dative marking in the katanominals. This is due to the fact that the dative-marked expressions located to the right ofaccusative phrases appear in the verbal-marking domain irrespective of whether they stand in
an argument position or are incorporated into the verb.
In contradistinction, if idiomatic arguments are marked with either nominative or
accusative case, different case marking patterns should emerge under kata-nominalization. If
nominative and accusative phrases appear in argument position, they are located in thenominal-marking domain. On the other hand, if these arguments are rendered as part ofcomplex predicates (via incorporation), they should reside in the verbal-marking domain.
Thus, the relevant idiomatic expressions should be assigned different case markings
according to whether they constitute part of complex predicates or not. A case in point isfound in the idioms in (33).

-53-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

(33)

a.

John-gasono-koto-ni
John-Nom that-matter-Dat

ki-o
mind-Acc

tuke-ta.
attach-Past‘John paid attention to that matter.’b.

John-ga
John-Nomsono-koto-ni
that-matter-Dat

ki-ga
tui-ta.
mind-Nom attach-Past‘John noticed that matter.’
The transitive idiom (33a) can be altered to an intransitive one, while preserving its idiomatic
meaning, as in (33b). Interestingly, when the idioms are nominalized with the addition of kata‘way’, we observe the following patterns.
(34)

a.

kare-nohe-Gensono-koto-e-nothat-matter-to-Gen

ki-no/-ga
mind-Gen/-Nomtuki-kataattach-way‘the way of his noticing that matter’b.

kare-nohe-Gensono-koto-e-nothat-matter-to-Gen

ki-no/-otuke-katamind-Gen/-Acc attach-way‘the way of his paying attention to that matter’
The notable fact is that the idioms ki-o tukeru and ki-ga tuku allow both verbal case (i.e.
nominative or accusative case) and nominal case (i.e. genitive case) to appear on theidiomatic argument ki ‘mind’.
Under the view held here, the dual possibility of case marking should come from adifference in structural position: that is, the idiomatic arguments in these idioms are allowed
to be located in either the nominal-marking or the verbal-marking domain. This means thatthe idiomatic arguments of ki-o tukeru and ki-ga tuku can stand as elements syntacticallyseparate from the verb or can be incorporated into the verb, as illustrated in (35).
(35)

a.
b.

[ ki-o [V tuke ]-ru][ ki-o [V ki-o tuke ]-ru]

Note in passing that in Japanese, nominative case may be changed to genitive case via‘nominative-genitive’ conversion, which can operate on arguments embedded under relativeand noun-complement clauses (see Harada 1971, Watanabe 1996 and many others).
(36)

a. [ John-ga/-no
kai-ta]hon
John-Nom/-Gen write-Past book‘the book which John wrote’-54-Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)b.

[hon-o/*-nobook-Acc/-Gen

kai-ta]hito
write-Past person‘the person who wrote the book’
As shown in (36), nominative-genitive conversion can apply to a nominative argument, but
not an accusative argument. In (34), both nominative and accusative arguments have theoption of having genitive case marking. Thus, we can postulate that the genitive marking in(34) is not derived via the rule of nominative-genitive conversion.
With the idioms ki-ga tuku and ki-o tukeru, the nominal expressions may appear inargument position, which is separate from the verb syntactically, because a particle is allowed
to attach to the right of it, as seen in (37).
(37)

a.

John-wa sono-koto-ni ki-wa
tuke-teJohn-Top that-fact-Dat mind-Top attach-Ptcp

i-ta
be-Past(tumori da).
intention Cop‘John intended to pay attention to that fact.’b.

Kare-wa
he-Topsono-koto-ni
that-fact-Dat

ki-wa
tui-ta(yooda).
mind-Top attach-Past seem‘He seems to have noticed that fact.’
At the same time, we can find empirical evidence supporting the view that the accusativemarked argument of ki-o tukeru may be incorporated into the verb. Note here that with thetransitive idiom ki-o tukeru, the prefix part of the verbal honorific can be attached to theaccusative argument, as well as the verb.12
12

The transitive idiom ki-o tukeru allows the option of attaching the honorific prefix to the verb, but
the acceptability of this form seems to be subject to speaker variation: while some speakers accept
them, others find it marginal. By contrast, the honorific form where the prefix is attached to theaccusative expression is an unmarked form, and acceptable for all speakers I have consulted. Somespeakers who accept both forms detect a slight, but clear, difference in meaning between the twoforms. On the other hand, this honorific prefix does not attach to the nominative argument of theintransitive idiom of ki-ga tuku, as seen in (i)(i) a.??? Ito-sensei-ga
Ito-teacher-Nom

sono-koto-ni
that-matter-Dat

o-ki-gatuki-ni-nat-ta.
Hon-mind-Nom attach-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito noticed that matter.’b.

Ito-sensei-ga
Ito-teacher-Nom

sono-koto-ni
that-matter-Dat

ki-ga
mind-Nomo-tuki-ni-nat-ta.
Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito noticed that matter.’In the case of ki-ga tuku, the only option available is to attach the prefix to the verb. Note that this
idiom allows the idiomatic argument to retain its verbal nominative marking, which indicates that theargument can form a complex predicate with the verb. If so, it is reasonable to state that the-55-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

(38)

a.

Ito-sensei-ga
sono-koto-ni
Ito-teacher-Nom that-matter-Dat

totemomuch

o-ki-oHon-mind-Acc

tuke-ni-nat-ta.
stand-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito paid much attention to that matter.’b. ?Ito-sensei-ga
sono-koto-ni
Ito-teacher-Nom that-matter-Dat

totemomuch

ki-omind-Acco-tuke-ni-nat-ta.
Hon-attach-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito paid much attention to that matter.’
The honorific maker o …. -ni-naru has a structural restriction such that the initial part o- canonly be associated with a verbal element. Thus, as shown in (39), the idiomatic expression
kuti ‘mouth’ appearing in the idiom kuti-ni dasu does not permit the addition of o- even if it isan argument that must appear to the right of the accusative phrase.
(39)

a.

Ito-sensei-ga
Ito-teacher-Nom

gakusei-no koto-ostudent-Gen matter-Acc

kuti-nio-dasi-ni-nat-ta.
mouth-Dat Hon-put.out-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito cut in on the student’s matter.’b. *Ito-sensei-ga
Ito-teacher-Nom

gakusei-no koto-oo-kuti-ni
dasi-ni-nat-ta.
student-Gen matter-Acc Hon-mouth-Dat put.out-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito cut in on the student’s matter.’This is the morphological pattern we observe for most transitive idioms. On the other hand,
the idiom ki-ni iru, which forms a single predicate by virtue of incorporating the idiomaticargument, shows that o- can only be attached to the left of ki ‘mind’, as seen in (40).
(40)

a.

Ito-sensei-ga
Ito-teacher-Nom

gakusei-ostudent-Acc

o-ki-ni
Hon-mind-Dat

iri-ni-nat-ta.
enter-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito liked the student.’b. *Ito-sensei-ga
Ito-teacher-Nom

gakusei-ostudent-Accki-nio-iri-ni-nat-ta.
mind-Dat Hon-enter-Hon-Past‘Prof. Ito liked the student.’
Importantly, the accusative argument of ki-o tukeru, just like the dative arugment of ki-ni iru,
tolerates the addition of the honorific prefix o-. This would not be possible if the accusative
nominal acts as an argument syntactically independent of the verb. Thus, the acceptability of(38a) suggests that the idiomatic accusative should constitute part of a complex predicate.
Given the fact that the idiomatic arguments of ki-o tukeru and ki-ga tuku may be marked
attachment of the honorific prefix to the nominative argument of ki-ga tuku in (ia) is ruled out bysome independent restriction.

-56-

Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)with either verbal or nominal case under kata-nominalization, as seen in (34), we canconclude that the idioms have two options of placing their idiomatic arguments in constituent
structure: the idiomatic arguments may stand in argument position, as in (35a), or may beincorporated into the verb, as in (35b).
The fact that ki-o tukeru forms a single predicate is reflected in the availability of a
derived nominal as well. As seen in (41), just as ki-ni iru may be used as a derived nominal
when the verb takes the adverbial form, so the adverbial form of ki-o tukeru can occur as a
derived nominal.
(41)

a.

kodomo-no
child-Geno-ki-ni-iri
Hon-mind-Dat-enter‘the children’s favorite’b.

Soko-de ki-o-tuke-othere-in mind-Acc-attachsi-nasai!
do-Imp‘Do ‘attention!’ there.’
Importantly, in the derived nominals (o-)ki-ni-iri ‘favorite’ and ki-o-tuke ‘attention’, theverbal marking that appears on the idiomatic argument is retained.
(42) a.

b.

ki-ni
mind-Dat

iru
enter

>

ki-ni-irimind-Dat-enteringki-otukerumind-Acc attach>ki-o-tuke
mind-Acc-attachingThis does not happen if an idiomatic argument constitutes an element separate from the verb.
If such an idiomatic expression appears in a derived nominal (while retaining an idiomatic
meaning), it appears in the bare form—i.e. without case marking.
(43) a.

b

kuti-odasu>
mouth-Acc extend

kuti-dasi
mouth-extending‘cut in’‘cutting in’

kokoro-ni
heart-Dat

kakeruhang>‘keep … in mind’
c.

te-ga
hand-Nomkirerucut‘be through with’kokoro-gakeheart-hanging‘keeping in mind’>

te-girehand-cutting‘being through with’-57-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

As exemplified in (43), verbal case marking—regardless of its type—is not retained if theargument appears in a derived nominal. This state of affairs is expected, because there is noverbal head licensing this kind of marking in the derived nominals. Nevertheless, verbal
marking is retained in the derived nominals in (40). This suggests that the entire idiom
sequences of ki-ni iru and ki-o tukeru are rendered as single predicates—viz. the idiomaticargument becomes reanalyzed as forming part of a complex predicate by way of getting
incorpoated into the verb.
With ki-o tukeru and ki-ga tuku, the entire idiomatic sequence may serve as a single
predicate. The present analysis leads to the prediction that when the idiomatic argument of kio tukeru is incorporated into the verb, the honorific prefix o- will be attached to the argument.
In this case, we would expect that the argument can be assigned only verbal marking underkata-nominalization. This is expectation is in fact correct.
(44)

Ito-sensei-no
Ito-teacher-Gen

o-ki-o/*-no
Hon-mind-Acc/-Gentuke-ni-nari-kataattach-Hon-way‘the way of Prof. Ito’s paying attention’
Example (44) shows that in the case of an idiomatic argument that forms part of a complex
predicate, its verbal marking must be retained under kata-nominalization, even though it is acase marker that is normally changed to genitive case.
Recall now that in the idioms we saw in the previous section, the nominative-marked
expressions are placed to the right of the dative phases, but the nominative arguments
consistently receive nominal marking under kata-nominalization, as confirmed by theadditional examples given in (45).
(45)

a.

Ito-sensei-e-no
Ito-teacher-to-Gen

keti-no/*-gameanness-Acc/-Nomtuki-kataattach-way‘the way of criticizing Prof. Ito.’b.

Ano-hito-e-nothat-person-to-Gen

tuki-no/*-ga
attach-Gen/-Nom

mawari-kataturn-way‘the way of that man’s getting lucky’
It is should be clear now that the idiomatic arguments in (45), on the basis of which
Kishimoto argues for the absence of subject-raising for idiomatic subjects, reside in thenominal-marking domain. Importantly, the nominalization data show that the arguments are
not incorporated into the predicates. This suggests that the nominative-marked idiomaticarguments of ki-ga tuku and tuki-ga mawaru are located in the structural position where theinternal arguments of unaccusative verbs are base-generated: that is, the idiomatic
expressions counting as subjects remain in their base-generated direct object position without
subject raising to Spec of TP, as suggested by Kishimoto (2009).

-58-

Syntactic Status of Idiomatic Subjects in Japanese (H. Kishimoto)4.

Conclusion

In Japanese, subjects included in idiomatic sequences do not undergo raising to Spec of
TP. Kishimoto (2009) claims that when an idiomatic subject—which is interpreted noncompositionally—appears in a clause, the EPP requirement of TP is voided. As a possible
alternative, it might be argued that the absence of subject raising should come from its
constituting part of a complex predicate, but we have seen that this cannot be the case. On thebasis of kata-nominalizations, it has been argued that idiomatic subjects which Kishimotoclaims to show the absence of subject-raising are not incorporated into the verbs syntactically.
The data provide evidence that idiomatic subjects remain vP internally, even if they arelocated in argument position without forming complex predicates.

References
Aoyagi, H. (1999) “On Association of Quantifier-like Particles with Focus in Japanese,” in M. Muraki
and E. Iwamoto eds., Linguistics: In Search of the Human Mind - A Festschrift for Kazuko
Inoue, Kenkyusha, Tokyo, 24-56.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Fukui, N. (1986) A Theory of Category Projection and Its Application, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Fukui, N. (1995) Theory of Projection in Syntax, CSLI and Kurosio, Stanford and Tokyo.
Harada, S.-I. (1971) “Ga-no Conversion and Ideolectal Variations in Japanese,” Gengo Kenkyu 60,
25-38.
Harada, S.-I. (1976) “Honorifics,” in M. Shibatani ed., Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative
Grammar, Academic Press, New York, 499-561.
Kishimoto, H. (2001) “The Role of Lexical Meanings in Argument Encoding: Double Object Verbs inJapanese,” Gengo Kenkyu 120, 35-65.
Kishimoto, H. (2005) Toogokoozoo-to Bunpookankei, Kurosio, Tokyo.
Kishimoto, H. (2006) “Japanese Syntactic Nominalization and VP-internal Syntax,” Lingua 116, 771810.
Kishimoto, H. (2008) “Ditransitive Idioms and Argument Structure,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 17, 141-179.
Kishimoto, H. (2009) “Subject Raising in Japanese,” Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Altaic
Formal Linguistics, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58, 225-240.
Kitagawa, Y. (1986) Subjects in Japanese and English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”
in W. Poser ed., Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, CSLI,
Stanford, Calif., 103-43.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1992) Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Koopman, H. and D. Sprotiche (1991) “The Position of Subjects,” Lingua 85, 211-258.
Martin, S. (1975) A Reference Grammar of Japanese, Yale University Press, New Haven.

-59-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

McCloseky, J. (1997) “Subjecthood and Subject Positions,” in L. Haegeman ed., Handbook ofGenerative Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 197-235.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) “Structure and Case Marking in Japanese,” Syntax and Semantics 22, Academic
Press, San Diego, Calif.
Miyagawa, S. (2001) “The EPP, Scrambling and Wh-in-situ,” in M. Kenstowicz ed. Ken Hale: A life
in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 293-338.
Miyagawa, S. (2005) “On the EPP,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 201-235.
Rooth, M. (1985) Association with Focus, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sadakane, K. and M. Koizumi (1995) “On the Nature of the “dative” Particle ni in Japanese,”
Linguistics 33, 5-33.
Saito, M. (2006) “Optional A-scrambling,” paper presented at the 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics,
Kyoto University.
Sportiche, D. (1988) “A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure,”
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 429-449.
Sugioka, Y. (1992) “On the Role of Argument Structure in Nominalization,” Language, Culture andCommunication 10, 53-80.
Watanabe, A. (1996) “Nominative-genitive Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A Crosslinguistic perspective,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 373-410.

-60-