GA-NO CONVERSION AND OVERT OBJECT SHIFT IN JAPANESE
Masao Ochi
Osaka University

1.

Introduction

This paper pursues the idea that Japanese has obligatory overt object shift. By this Imean that the direct object in Japanese always shifts to the outer specifier of vP. Thus, astructure like the one in (1b) is assigned to the sentence (1a).
(1) a.

Taro-gahon-oyonda.
Taro-NOM book-ACC read
‘Taro read a book.’b.

[TP Taroi-NOM [vP bookj-ACC ti [VP tj V ]]]The idea that Japanese employs overt object shift is by no means new. Japanese has
scrambling, which can be (and has been) classified into several types based on how far the
movement in question takes place. And it has been observed that “short scrambling” (seeTada (1993) and Nemoto (1993) among others) holds resemblance to object shift in Germanic
languages. My proposal is different from most of the previous proposals in that overt object
shift is obligatory. Also, there are authors like Watanabe (1996) who explicitly reject theexistence of overt object shift in Japanese. I will take up this issue at the end of the paper.
This short paper cannot deal with many important issues related to this hypothesis,
including the question of what forces overt object shift in this language. It may as well bethat Japanese v (or direct object) has whatever properties that trigger overt movement (i.e.,strong feature, EPP-feature etc.), or one could entertain Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetric viewof word order in natural languages and suppose that a surface SOV order is derived from theunderlying SVO order via movement of the object across a verb. Also, I will be silent about
the surface position of a verb. It may stay in VP or it may move out of VP in overt syntax. I
think the choice among them will not affect the thrust of my argument. I will also limit thediscussion to transitives, setting aside ditransitives (see Ura (1996) and Takano (1998)).
2.

Ga-No Conversion

In the sections to come, I shall demonstrate how the overt object shift hypothesis helps
us to explain a restriction observed in a case alternation phenomenon in Japanese. As
originally discussed by Harada (1971), Japanese allows nominative-genitive alternation in the

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

prenominal clause (2), which is known as Ga-No Conversion (GNC) (see Bedell (1972),
Shibatani (1975), Nakai (1980), Saito (1983), Miyagawa (1993), Watanabe (1996), Hiraiwa(2000), and Ochi (2001), to name a few).
(2) a.

Taro-ganaita riyuu
Taro-NOM cried reason‘the reason that Taro cried’b.

Taro-no naita riyuu
Taro-GEN cried reason‘the reason that Taro cried’Following works of Harada, Watanabe (1996) highlights one intriguing property of thisconstruction. Object cannot be present when the subject is genitive, as shown in (3b).
(3) a.

Taro-ga
hon-okatta mise
Taro-NOM book-ACC bought store‘the store where Taro bought a book’

b. *Taro-no hon-o
Taro-GEN book-ACC

katta misebought store‘the store where Taro bought a book’
This transitivity restriction on GNC is known to be lifted when the object is phonologically
empty, as shown below:(4) a.

Taro-ga[e] katta hon
Taro-NOM bought book‘the book that Taro bought’b.

Taro-no [e] katta hon
Taro-GENbought book‘the book that Taro bought’

As Watanabe (1996) points out, the saving effect observed in (4b) should not be framed interms of an adjacency requirement imposed on genitive subject and a predicate of the
prenominal clause, since preposing of a direct object does not lead to improvement, as shownin (5b).
(5) a.

*Taro-no hon-okatta mise
Taro-GEN book-ACC bought store‘the store where Taro bought a book’− 62 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)b.

3.

*Hon-oTaro-nokatta misebook-ACC Taro-GEN bought store

Previous Analyses on GNC

There have been several approaches to GNC in the literature. One dominant analysis of
GNC capitalizes on the fact that GNC occurs in clauses inside a nominal. For instance,
analyses in Bedell (1972) and Saito (1983) are crucially based on the generalization that inJapanese, an element immediately dominated by a projection of a nominal bears -no.
(6) a.

Taro*(-no) hon
Taro-GEN book
‘Taro’s book’b.

Tokyo-kara*(-no) densha
Tokyo-from-GEN train‘a train from Tokyo’

These authors attempt to assimilate GNC to the generalization in (6) by arguing that the
subject of a sentential modifier of a nominal, when marked with -no, is in fact located in aposition immediately dominated by a projection of a nominal, such as the spec of NP.
(7) [NP Taroi-no [ti naita]
Taro-GEN criedriyuu ]
reasonMiyagawa (1993) offers the most comprehensive analysis along this line. Adopting theDP hypothesis, he proposes that genitive Case is licensed by D. His claim is motivated byscope facts. Let us consider (8) (taken from Ochi (2001)). Of importance is the fact that (8b)has an additional reading absent in (8a).
(8) a.

[[[Rubii-ka shinju]-ga yasuku-naru] kanousei]-ga
50% izyoo da.
ruby-or pearl-NOM cheap-become probability-NOM 50% over isi. ‘The probability that rubies or pearls become cheap is over 50%.’
ii. *‘The probability that rubies become cheap or the probability that pearls
become cheap is over 50%.’b.

[[[Rubii-ka shinju]-no yasuku-naru] kanousei]-ga
50% izyoo da.
ruby-or pearl-GEN cheap-become probability-NOM 50% over isi. ‘The probability that rubies or pearls become cheap is over 50%.’ii. ‘The probability that rubies become cheap or the probability that pearls
become cheap is over 50%.’− 63 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

For Miyagawa (1993), (8a) is unambiguous because the nominative subject is licensed by T
within the prenominal clause, which is why it always falls within the scope of the head noun.
(8b), with the genitive subject, exhibits scope ambiguity because the genitive subject moves
into the spec of DP and, therefore, it is located higher than the head noun.1 Developing
Miyagawa’s analysis further, Ochi (2001) argues that the behavior of the genitive phrase is
not uniform: it sometimes moves to the spec of DP in overt syntax and it is sometimes
licensed in-situ (i.e., licensed via feature movement or AGREE).
Watanabe (1996) presents an alternative hypothesis. For him, genitive Case in GNC has
nothing to do with a nominal head such as D. Taking the transitivity restriction as the central
issue, Watanabe claims that genitive Case in GNC is an indication that the subject stays in a
θ-position in overt syntax, which is allowed in fairly limited contexts: wh-clauses and some
subjunctive clauses.
More recently, Hiraiwa (2000) has presented yet another hypothesis. Like Watanabe(1996), Hiraiwa rejects the idea that a nominal head like D is responsible for genitive in GNC.
Instead, he proposes that C (or the C-T-V amalgamate) assigns/checks genitive Case.
It is not my intention to review these alternatives by placing them under careful scrutiny.
I will leave this important task to another occasion. My immediate goal in the sections tofollow is to provide a principled account of the transitive restriction on GNC. Consider the
analyses in Miyagawa (1993) and Watanabe (1996). Although they disagree on a number of
aspects of their analyses, they converge on one point. It is the idea that the transitivity
restriction should be captured as Minimality effects.2 Simply put, presence of object causes a
problem with respect to the licensing of genitive subject. In this paper, I will follow theirfootsteps and explore how their idea can be executed in the current version of the minimalist
program and, more importantly, what theoretical conclusions can be drawn from it.
4.

Proposal

My central proposal is as follows. The transitivity restriction on GNC arises as theshifted object blocks AGREE involving the subject when it is genitive, but not when it isnominative. (9) below lists some of the crucial ingredients for my proposal.
(9) a.
b.
c.

Nominative Case is licensed by T, while Genitive Case is licensed by D (seeMiyagawa (1993) and Ochi (2001)).
Japanese relative clauses are TPs (Murasugi (1991)).
DP (like vP and CP) is a phase. TP is not a phase.

1

A consequence of this analysis is that there is no QR or if QR is at work, it cannot move thenominative QP very far (i.e., out of the prenominal clause): otherwise, we would expect scope
ambiguity in (8a) as well.
2

Hiraiwa (2000) briefly discusses this issue but does not offer an analysis.

− 64 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)d.

Japanese involves overt object shift.

Among the alternative approaches touched upon in the previous section, I have adopted theapproach to GNC in which D, a head external to the prenominal clause, is responsible for
genitive Case. I hope the reason for this choice will become clear as the analysis unfolds (itis related to (9c)).
Let us see how data like (2), repeated below as (10), are analyzed in this analysis.
(10) a.

Taro-ganaita riyuu
Taro-NOM cried reason‘the reason that Taro cried’b.

Taro-no naita riyuu
Taro-GEN cried reason‘the reason that Taro cried’

AGREE holds of T and the nominative subject in (10a) in a trivial manner.
(11) [DP D [NP reason [TP T [vP Taro-NOM [ v [VP cried]]]]]]|______↑
As for (10b), AGREE holds of D and Taro-no ‘Taro-GEN’, as illustrated below:3(12) [DP D [NP reason [TP [vP Taro-GEN [ v [VP cried]]]]]|________________↑
Assuming with Murasugi (1991) that Japanese prenominal clauses are TPs, the DP shown in(12) includes two phases, vP and DP. The genitive subject, sitting in the spec of vP, isaccessible from D on a par with AGREE holding in wh-movement constructions shown
below, where a wh-phrase at the edge of vP is accessible from C.4

3

For the moment I will ignore the EPP property of Japanese. I will discuss it in section 5.2.

4

One question is why the head N riyuu ‘reason’ does not block an AGREE relation between D
and the genitive subject in (12). I can think of two possible reasons. First, the head N may undergo
overt raising to D. Given that only the head of a chain acts as an intervener (see Chomsky 2001),
riyuu does not intervene. Alternatively, we may capitalize on the fact that riyuu is a bare noun (it is apredicate). If we assume that features relevant for φ-agreement reside in the D head of the DPargument, it is quite plausible that D in (12) has access to the closest DP (the genitive subject),
bypassing riyuu.

− 65 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

(13) a. (I wonder) what you cooked.
b. [CP C [TP youj [vP whati [vP tj [VP cooked ti ]]]]]|___________↑
Before examining the transitivity restriction imposed on the GNC, I shall discuss one
more theoretical issue: locality concerning multiple specifiers:(14) [ZP Z …. [HP SPEC1 [HP SPEC2 [ H YP]]]]
Chomsky (2000) formulates the Equidistance Principle, given in (15), thereby allowing probe
Z to reach the inner specifier (SPEC2) across the outer specifier (SPEC1).
(15) Terms of the minimal domain of H are equidistant from probe Z.
Chomsky (2001), on the other hand, proposes that Z’s access be limited, in principle, to thehighest specifier. This proposal is summarized below.
(16) Only the phonological edge of HP (i.e., an edge element with no phonological content
c-commanding it within HP) is accessible to Z.
I would like to propose a hybrid theory of locality for multiple specifiers by
incorporating both (15) and (16). My proposal is that (15) holds during one phase level, and(16) holds thereafter. That is, Equidistance holds during a phase level PH1 in which theminimal domain in question is established, and once the derivation has completed PH1 andreached the next phase PH2, terms of the minimal domain of H (including multiple specifiersof H) are assigned rigid, asymmetric hierarchical relations.5 It should be noted here that the
proposed hypothesis is fully in line with the viewpoint that English employs overt object shift(see Johnson (1991), Koizumi (1995), and Lasnik (1999a, b)).6

5

The last point is shared by the Phase Impenetrability Condition, which introduces an asymmetry
among terms of the minimal domain of H when the derivation reaches the next higher phase ZP: thespecifier (i.e., edge) of H is still accessible to Z while the complement of H is not, with H as well as Z
being a phase head.
6

My proposal about the local application of Equidistance has some implication for ECM
constructions (i).
(i)

I believe Tom to like French.

If English always employs overt object shift (but see Lasnik (1999a)), it leads us to the conclusion thatthe infinitival clause in English has EPP, contrary to the proposals in Grohmann et al. (2000) andBošković (2002). If the infinitival clause lacks the EPP, the higher v, which is a phase head, cannot
access the embedded subject.
(ii) [ v ….. [TP T [vP Frenchi [vP Tom [ v [VP V ti ]]]]]]|_____________*______↑− 66 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)

With this much in mind, let us examine the contrast in (3), repeated as (17).
(17) a.

Taro-ga
hon-okatta mise
Taro-NOM book-ACC bought store‘the store where Taro bought a book’

b. *Taro-no hon-okatta mise
Taro-GEN book-ACC bought store‘the store where Taro bought a book’
The data here are relative clauses. Let us for the moment ignore the relative gap(corresponding to mise ‘store’) and focus on how the subject is licensed. Nominative subjectin (17a) is licensed at the level of TP, as shown in (18). Thus, (15) is at work and AGREE
successfully holds of T and SU.
(18) [TP T … [vP OB [vP SU [ v [VP … tOB ..]]]]]|____________↑On the other hand, genitive subject in (17b) is licensed at the level of DP, which is thenext higher phase. Therefore, (16) comes into play and only OB is accessible to the probe D.
The example is ruled out for this reason.
(19) [D [TP T … [vP OB [vP SU [ v [VP … tOB ..]]]]]]|_________*_______↑
One crucial point in our discussion is that AGREE operating in GNC is φ-sensitive.
That is, the probe D searches for an element with φ-features to mach them against its own φfeatures. On the other hand, the probe C seeks a wh-feature in (13), repeated below as (20),which is why the subject located in the spec of TP is irrelevant.
(20) a.
b.

(I wonder) what you cooked.
[CP C [TP youj [vP whati [vP tj [VP cooked ti ]]]]]|___________↑

There is good reason to think that D serves as a φ-sensitive probe, like T and unlike C. It
has been noted in the literature (see Huang (1982), Chomsky (1986), and Culicover andRochemont (1992)) that a nominal phrase allows extraction of a nominal wh-phrase (21) but
disallows extraction of a non-nominal wh-phrase (22b).
(21) Who did you like a picture of t?
(22) a.
b.

*[Which table] did you like [DP a book [PP on t]]?
*[On which table] did you like [DP a book t]?

− 67 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

Although (22a) is excluded as a violation of the Adjunct Condition, as it involves extraction
out of the PP adjunct within the object NP, it is not clear what excludes (22b).7 In Chomsky
and Lasnik's (1993) terms, for instance, the movement of the PP on which table crosses nobarrier. Thus, a descriptive generalization is that a DP is a barrier for movement of a nonnominal element. As discussed in Ochi (2000), this generalization receives an account if (i)D is a phase head and (ii) it agrees with an element with φ-features. Then examples (21) and(22) have three phase domains, DP, vP, and CP. Accordingly, an element inside DP isinvisible for the higher phase head v (and eventually for C), unless the former moves to theedge of DP. In (21), AGREE holds of D and the nominal wh-phrase who, moving the latter tothe spec of DP. On the other hand, the PP on which table in (22b) cannot resort to thisoption. The nominal vs. non-nominal asymmetry falls out.
In this connection, it is worth pointing out that GNC applies to ga-marked DPs but not toga-marked PPs, as shown in (23). As is well-known, -no is required for a PP modifier of anoun, as shown in (24).
(23) Yokohama eki
kara-ga/*-nototemo chikai kooen
Yokohama Station from-NOM/-GEN very close park
‘the park that it is Yokohama Station that is very close from (it)’(24) Yokohama Eki
kara-no michi
Yokohama Station from-GEN road‘a road from Yokohama Station’Let us follow Kuroda (1988, 1992) and distinguish contextual Case marking and abstract
Case marking (see also Fukui (1995), Saito (1985), and Murasugi (1991)). Under theassumption that -no is (a) contextually inserted (i.e., attached to a prenominal DP or PP), (b) arealization of the abstract genitive Case, or (c) both, (23) and (24) show that -no attached to
PP belongs to the first category (i.e., it is due to the no-insertion rule (Murasugi 1991: chapter2)). PP in (23) cannot be marked with -no because the context of this rule is not met (i.e., it is
not immediately dominated by a projection of a noun), nor does it have Case properties.8 On
the basis of this consideration, I propose that DPs can, but non-DPs cannot, enter into an
AGREE relation with D. This in turn supports the hypothesis that the genitive subject in
GNC is licensed by the abstract genitive Case.

7

Culicover and Rochemont (1992) resort to the head-government requirement of the ECP.

8

Following the observation of Stowell (1981), it has sometimes been suggested that PP can check
Case features (see Takano (1998)). However, Bresnan (1991) and Conway (1996) show that whatlooks like a PP subject is a NP/DP in disguise.
(i)[DP (place) under the bed] seems to be a nice place for the cat to sleep.

− 68 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)

Let us return to the contrast in (17) and recap. The crucial difference between
nominative subject and genitive subject is that while the former is licensed within the phasein which the multiple specifiers are created and equidistant, the latter must wait until the next
phase in order to be licensed, at which point equidistance no longer plays a role.
This analysis correctly predicts that (5b), repeated as (25b), is degraded.
(25) a.

*Taro-nohon-okatta mise
Taro-GEN book-ACC bought store‘the store where Taro bought a book’b.

*hon-obook-ACC

Taro-no katta mise
Taro-GEN bought store‘the store where Taro bought a book’(25b), in which the object is preposed, is no better than (25a). Suppose that the scrambled
object is located at a TP internal position, which is lower than D.9 This point is confirmed by
the fact that unlike genitive subject, a scrambled object does not take scope over the headnoun, as noted by Miyagawa (1993).
(26) [[[Rubii-ka shinju]-oruby-or pearl-ACC

Taro-gakau] kanousei]-ga
Taro-NOM buy probability-NOM

50% izyoo da.
50% over isi. ‘The probability that Taro buys rubies or pearls is over 50%.’
ii. *‘The probability that Taro buys rubies or the probability that Taro buys pearls isover 50%.’
It follows that the head of the OB chain formed by scrambling necessarily intervenes between
the probe D and the goal SU in a derivation for (25b), as shown below.10(27) [D [TP OB [T … [vP tOB [vP SU [ v [VP tOB …....]]]]]]|_____*_______________↑

9

OB may be adjoined to TP or, if Miyagawa (2001) is correct, it may be in the spec of TP (but see
the discussion below).
10

It is well-known that scrambling can be undone. Thus, OB scrambling may be undone but theresult of this process cannot place OB in a position lower than the (outer) specifier of vP, sincescrambling starts from the spec of vP.

− 69 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

Let us now turn to (4), repeated as (28):(28) a.

Taro-ga[e] katta hon
Taro-NOM bought book‘the book that Taro bought’b.

Taro-no [e] katta hon
Taro-GENbought book‘the book that Taro bought’Well-formedness of (28b) is consistent with the statement in (16). With the object lacking
phonological content, the phonological edge of vP in (28b) is the genitive subject, which istherefore accessible to D.
(29) [D [TP T … [vP e [vP SU [ v [VP …....]]]]]]|_______________↑Let us be more precise. Chomsky (2001) proposes that (16) need not be stipulated as aprinciple, its effects being derivable from other considerations. He suggests that a trace does
not induce intervention effects, which are restricted to the head of a chain (or the wholechain). If this line of thinking is adopted for our discussion here, then it follows thatmovement involved in Japanese relativization must target a position which is at least as highas the specifier of DP, as illustrated below:(30) [DP OPi [D [NP book [TP [vP ti [vP Taro-GEN [ v [VP bought ti ]]]]]]]]]↑_________________|
Once the relative operator sits in the spec of DP, SU becomes accessible from D.
But I know of no language in which the relative operator moves so high. It will
accordingly give us a problem with the semantics of relative clauses because we would
require a language-specific rule, in addition to Predication Abstraction rule of Heim andKratzer (1998), to convert Japanese relative clauses into predicates.
Let us therefore pursue an alternative possibility. Perlmutter (1972) (see also Kuno
(1973)) claims that the gap in Japanese relatives can be pro, which is why no Subjacency
effects are detected in this construction. The following example illustrates this point.
(31) [ [ei] [ej] kiteiru fukuj]-ga
kawaiiwearing clothes-NOM cutekodomoichild‘the child who the clothes (he/she) is wearing is cute’− 70 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)

And examples like (32) below confirm that pro does not induce intervention effects in
GNC:11(32) Yamada-ga
hokkaidou-o otozureta shuu-wa yuki
Yamada-NOM Hokkaido-ACC visited week-top snow

da-ttabe-pastga ….
but‘The week when Yamada visited Hokkaido was snowy, but ...’a.

Satou-ga
Sato-NOM

soko-ootozureta shuu-wa
there-ACC visited
week-top

hare datta.
sunny was‘The week when Sato visited there was sunny.’b.

Satou-ga [e] otozureta shuu-wa hare datta.
Sato-NOM
visited week-top sunny was‘The week when Sato visited [e] was sunny.’c.

*Satou-no soko-o otozureta shuu-wa hare datta.
Sato-GEN there-acc visited week-top sunny was‘The week when Sato visited there was sunny.’d.

Satou-no [e] otozureta shuu-wa
Sato-GENvisitedweek-top

hare datta.
sunny was‘The week when Sato visited [e] was sunny.’(32b), which is similar to (32a) except that the object is pro, is grammatical. (32c) has
genitive subject and the sentence is degraded due to the transitivity restriction. Of our interestis (32d), which contains genitive subject and the object pro. Unlike (32c), this sentence isgrammatical.
But why doesn’t pro induce intervention effects? Takahashi’s (2001) analysis offers astraightforward answer. Takahashi shows that empty categories in general do not undergo
movement (but are licensed in-situ via AGREE). Thus, no intervention effects arise inexamples like (28b) and (32d) because, unlike a lexical DP, the object pro remains inside VP
and does not undergo move to the spec of vP. Our analysis of GNC is thus quite consistent
with the pro hypothesis for Japanese relativization.12

11

See more discussion of null arguments and GNC in section 5.1. Note that the data here involves
two gaps, one in the object position and another in an adjunct position (for relativization). Of ourinterest is, of course, the former.
12This is one crucial respect in which our account differs from Watanabe (1996), who argues that
GNC is a manifestation of wh-agreement.

− 71 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

Let me end this section with a remark on (9a). Following Miyagawa (1993) and Ochi
(1999), I have maintained throughout that D, a head external to the relative clause, is
responsible for genitive Case. But my proposal can be reframed in an analysis in whichsomething other than D assigns/checks off genitive Case. Take C, for instance. Since C also
introduces a new phase domain, the hypothesis that C is responsible for genitive Case (while
T is responsible for nominative Case) would give us more or less the same result. Thus,
depending on how exactly Hiraiwa’s (2000) “C-T-V amalgamation” is worked out, anddepending on precisely how genitive Case licensing differs from nominative Case licensing in
his analysis, his C-based analysis of GNC may or may not be made compatible with myproposal.
5.

Some Consequences

5.1. Null Argument and Strict/Sloppy Identity Readings
It was proposed in the last section that pro does not undergo overt object shift and hence
does not act as an intervener. This subsection shows that there are in fact cases in which anull object induces intervention effects. This point is demonstrated by the fact that a null
object in GNC affects possible interpretations.
Let us first consider the following examples.
(33) Hanako-ga
jibun-no seetaa-oaratta.
Hanako-NOM self-GEN sweater-ACC washedTaro-mo [e] aratta.
Taro-also
washed‘Hanako washed her sweater. Taro washed [e] also.’
As discussed by Otani and Whitman (1991), a null object construction yields a strict identity
reading and a sloppy identity reading. That is, this example has a reading in which Tarowashed Hanako’s sweater (strict identity reading) and another reading in which Taro washed
his own sweater (sloppy identity reading).
With this in mind, let us examine the following data. (34a) has nominative subject and(34b) genitive subject.
(34) Hanako-ga
jibun-no seetaa-oarattaHanako-NOM self-GEN sweater-ACC washedtoki-wa chijimanakatta ga, …
time-TOP shrink-not-past but‘The time when Hanako washed her sweater, (it) didn’t shrink but ….
a.

… Taro-ga [e] aratta-NOM
washedtoki-wa chijinda.
time-TOP shrink-past‘… the time when Taro washed [e], (it) got shrunk.’− 72 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)b.

… Taro-no [e] aratta toki-wa
chijinda.
Taro-GEN
washed time-TOP shrink-past‘… the time when Taro washed [e], (it) got shrunk.’

While strict and sloppy interpretations are equally available for (34a), the dominant readingof (34b) is a strict identity reading. It is very hard, if not impossible, to get a sloppy identity
reading in this example. What accounts for this fact?
I think the argument deletion hypothesis of Kim (1999) and Oku (1998) for
Korean/Japanese provides us with a clue. These authors argue that a sloppy identity reading
is derived via argument ellipsis, an operation available in Japanese and Korean but not inlanguages like English. According to this hypothesis, the example (33) on its sloppy identity
reading is analyzed as involving PF deletion of the object in the second clause under identity,
as shown below:13(35) Hanako-ga
jibun-no seetaa-oaratta.
Hanako-NOM self-GEN sweater-ACC washedTaro-mo jibun-no seetaa-oaratta.
Taro-also self-GEN sweater-ACC washed‘Hanako washed her sweater. Taro also washed his sweater.’Let us further assume that when pro occupies the object position, the example receives thestrict identity interpretation on a par with (36) below, which has the pronoun sore ‘it’ in thesecond sentence.
(36) Hanako-ga
jibun-no seetaa-oaratta.
Hanako-NOM self-GEN sweater-ACC washedTaro-mo sore-o aratta.
Taro-also it-ACC washed‘Hanako washed her sweater. Taro also washed it.’
Let us now return to (34). The fact that (34a) allows both readings indicates that it canbe analyzed as in (37a) or as in (37b).
(37) a.

… Taro-ga
pro aratta toki-wa chijinda.
Taro-NOM
washed time-TOP shrink-past

b. … Taro-ga
jibun-no seetaa-oarattaTaro-NOM self-GEN sweater-ACC washedtoki-wa chijinda.
time-TOP shrink-past(37a) yields the strict identity reading and (37b) the sloppy identity reading. Turning to (34b),
the fact that it lacks the sloppy identity reading implies that (38b) is illicit.

13

To be precise, Oku’s (1998) original analysis is based on LF copying of missing arguments.

− 73 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004(38) a.

… Taro-no pro aratta toki-wa chijinda.
Taro-GEN
washed time-TOP shrink-past

b. *… Taro-no jibun-no seetaa-oarattatoki-wa chijinda.
Taro-GEN self-GEN sweater-ACC washed time-TOP shrink-past
Since pro does not undergo object shift, (38a) is legitimate, yielding the strict identity reading.
On the other hand, the object in (38b), though deleted at PF, undergoes overt object shift insyntax, thereby inducing an intervention effect.14
5.2. EPP in Japanese
The analysis presented so far rests crucially on the supposition that Japanese has overt
object shift (9d). This point has implications for the nature of the EPP Japanese. Let usreconsider (5), repeated as (39).
(39) a.

Taro-gahon-okatta
Taro-NOM book-ACC bought

mise
store

‘the store where Taro bought a book’
b. *Taro-no hon-okatta
Taro-GEN book-ACC bought

mise
store

‘the store where Taro bought a book’
Recall that (39b) is illicit because of a Minimality violation as shown in (19) (repeated as (40)
below for convenience):(40) [D [TP T … [vP OB [vP SU [ v [VP … tOB ..]]]]]]|_________*_______↑
But if T could attract SU (the genitive subject) to its specifier for an EPP satisfaction, moving
it over OB, then SU should be accessible to D, and the derivation should converge, contrary
to fact.
(41) [D [TP SU-GEN [vP OB [vP t SU [ v [VP … tOB ..]]]]]]|_____↑The discussion here leaves us with two possibilities regarding the EPP in Japanese.15 One isthat the EPP holds in Japanese, and it is tied with nominative Case checking. Thus,

14

What would go wrong if the object in (38b) remains in-situ in syntax and gets deleted at PF? If
this were a possible derivation, then there should be no intervention effects and we would expect(34b) to be ambiguous. I will leave this question open.

− 74 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)

nominative subject must move to the spec of TP in overt syntax, whereas genitive subject
cannot. The latter may stay vP internally (see Miyagawa (1993) and Watanabe (1996)) as
shown in (42a) and is licensed by AGREE, or it may move to the spec of DP in overt syntax(42b) (see Ochi 2001).
(42) a.

b.

[DP D [TP T [vP SU-GEN [ v [VP …..]]]]]]|_________↑[DP SU-GEN [ D [TP [vP tSU [ v [VP …..]]]]]]↑______________|An alternative possibility is that the EPP is absent in Japanese. If this proves to be correct,
the basic word order of Japanese is actually OSV (derived by overt object shift), and SVOorder is derived by an optional movement such as scrambling. I will tentatively adopt thefirst hypothesis and assume that Japanese (nominative) subject is located in the spec of TP in
overt syntax.
5.3. Object Shift and Floating Numeral Quantifiers
Finally, let us turn to an argument offered in the literature that goes against overt object
shift in Japanese. It involves floating numeral quantifiers (FNQ).
(43) a.

Kodomo-ga san-nin mikan-otabeta.
children-NOM three-CL orange-ACC ate‘Three children ate an orange/oranges.’b. Taro-ga
Taro-NOM

mikan-osan-ko tabeta.
orange-ACC three-CL ate‘Taro ate three oranges.’
The syntax of FNQ has received a great amount of attention in the generative literature, andmost of the works assume in one form or another that there is a tight locality condition
governing the FNQ and its associate DP argument. Miyagawa (1989), for instance,
characterizes the relevant locality requirement in terms of a mutual c-command condition.
Other scholars such as Kamio (1983) and Kawashima (1998) propose that the FNQ and its
15

The following discussion assumes that genitive phrase cannot undergo scrambling (see Saito
1985). Note the ungrammaticality of (ib) below:(i)a.

Taro-no eigo-nohon
Taro-GEN English-GEN book
‘Taro’s book of English’

b. *Eigo-no
Taro-no hon
English-GEN Taro-GEN book− 75 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

associate start out as a single constituent. Let us provisionally adopt the single constituent
hypothesis.
Of our concern is the fact, due originally to Haig (1980) and Kuroda (1980), that the
subject cannot be separated from the subject FNQ by the direct object, as shown in (44b).
(44) a.

Kodomo-ga (kinoo) san-nin hon-okatta.
children-NOM yesterday three-CL book-ACC bought‘Three children bought a book/books.’b.

*Kodomo-ga hon-osan-nin katta.
children-NOM book-ACC three-CL bought‘Three children bought a book/books.’

c.

Hon-o
book-ACC

Taro-ga
Taro-NOM

san-satsu katta.
three-CL bought‘Taro bought three books.’
As shown in (44c), the object and the object FNQ do not have this limitation, as they can beseparated from each other by the subject. In short, there is a subject-object asymmetry inJapanese with respect to the distribution of FNQs.
Let us look at the paradigm more carefully. Grammaticality of (44c) shows that the
locality requirement of the object FNQ can take advantage of the object trace.
(45) Honi-oTaro-ga
ti san-satsu katta.
book-ACC Taro-NOM three-CL bought
A question then arises as to why (44b) cannot resort to structures of the following sort:(46) [TP childreni-NOM [vP bookj-ACC [vP ti three-CL [ v [VP tj read ]]]]]In (46), the object shifts to the spec of vP, and the subject moves out of vP. If this is apossible structure, the locality requirement of the FNQ should be satisfied by the subject trace
and the sentence should be ruled in. Consideration of this point led authors like Ura (1996)
and Watanabe (1996) to conclude that Japanese does not have overt object shift (i.e., overt
movement of direct object to a Case position). Therefore, proponents of the overt object shift
in Japanese, including me, must say something about this issue.
I think that the theory of floating quantifiers (FQ) developed by Bošković (2004) offers
an answer. Elaborating on Sportiche’s (1988) analysis of FQs in English and French,
Bošković (2004) argues that a FQ cannot be stranded in a θ-position. According to Bošković,− 76 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)

this prohibition is responsible for the ungrammaticality of examples like (47b), which has
been an outstanding problem for Sportiche’s (1988) theory.
(47) a.
The childreni have ti all been scolded ti.
b. *The childreni have ti been scolded ti all.
As briefly discussed in Bošković (2004), the same logic should apply to (46). In thisstructure, the FNQ is stranded in a θ-position, which is the source of ungrammaticality. By
contrast, (44a) has the FNQ preceding the shifted object. It is plausible to suppose that there
are intermediate (non-θ) positions through which the subject moves, stranding the FQ, as
illustrated below.
(48) [TP childreni-NOM [XP ti three-CL [vP bookj-ACC ti [VP tj read ]]]]
Thus, once the analysis in Bošković (2004) is adopted, traditional paradigms like that in (44)cease to be a problem for the overt object shift hypothesis for Japanese, and in fact become
quite consistent with it.
Let us end this subsection with a comment about an issue that arises from the foregoing
discussion. Bošković’s (2004) analysis seems to be at odds with Hasegawa’s (1993) proposalthat the FNQ forces its associate DP to reconstruct. Consider the following data (taken from
Ueda (2004)):(49) a.

San-nin-no gakusei-odono sensei-mo sidooshiteiru.
3-CL-GEN student-ACC every teacher
supervise‘There are three students who are supervised by every teacher.’‘Each of the teachers supervises three students.’

b. Gakusei-osan-ninstudent-ACC 3-CL

dono sensei-mo sidooshiteiru.
every teacher supervise‘*There are three students who are supervised by every teacher.’‘Each of the teachers supervises three students.’(49a) has a non-floating version of the NQ inside the scrambled object. Not surprisingly, thesentence is ambiguous. (49b) shows that the scrambled FNQ presents a different picture. In
this case, the sentence does not have the reading in which the scrambled object takes wider
scope although the object FNQ and the object are preposed. Based on paradigms like this andothers, Hasegawa (1993) proposes that the FNQ + its associate DP takes scope at a θ-positionof the associate DP. Scopewise, then, (49b) is on a par with its non-scrambled version shownin (50), which is also unambiguous.

− 77 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

(50) Dono sensei-mo gakusei-osan-nin sidooshiteiru.
every teacher
student-ACC 3-CL supervise‘*There are three students who are supervised by every teacher.’‘Each of the teachers supervises three students.’
We can now see that there is a potential conflict. Hasegawa shows that the FNQ forces
reconstruction of its associate DP. Bošković argues that the F(N)Q cannot be associated with
(or, more precisely, stranded at) the base position of the associate DP.
This may bring us to the conclusion that the FNQ forces reconstruction but thisreconstruction targets only an intermediate position of the chain of the associate DP. This isquite consistent with the proposal made by Johnson and Tomioka (1997), who argue that
scope reconstruction of an argument DP cannot target a θ-position but only an intermediate
position of the argument chain.
6.

Conclusion

To conclude, I have argued in this paper that the overt object shift hypothesis forJapanese offers a simple and coherent explanation for the transitivity restriction imposed on
GNC. Simply put, the object cannot be present with the genitive subject because of the(defective) intervention effect created by the shifted object. A lot more needs to be said anddone to evaluate this hypothesis properly but let me stress that success of the proposed
analysis would entail non-trivial theoretical consequences for Japanese syntax as well as forthe theory of UG. For instance, the fact that the object in Japanese always shifts to the specof vP, a canonical accusative Case checking position, strongly indicates that accusative Casein Japanese is a structural Case, contrary to the proposals of Takahashi (1993) and Takano(1998). My analysis also leads to the views that DP is a phase, and that equidistance is partof the UG, but calculation of this principle is confined to a very local domain of a syntactic
derivation.

7.

References

Bedell, G. (1972) “On no,” UCLA Papers in Syntax 3: Studies in East Asian Syntax, 1-20.
Bošković, Ž. (2002) “A-movement and the EPP,” Syntax 5, 167-218.
Bošković, Ž. (2004) “Be Careful Where You Float Your Quantifiers,” Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 22, 681-742.
Bresnan, J. (1991) “Locative Case vs. Locative Gender,” in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual
Meeting of BLS, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, California, 53-68.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework,” in R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step By Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 89-155.

− 78 −

Ga-No Conversion and Overt Object Shift in Japanese (M. Ochi)

Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” in M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1-52.
Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik (1993) “Principles and Parameters Theory,” in J. Jacob, A. von Stechow,
W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann, eds., Syntax: An International Handbook ofContemporary Research, de Grutyer, Berlin.
Conway, L. (1996) “NPs in Disguise,” unpublished ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Culicover, P. and M. Rochemont (1992) “Adjunct Extraction from NP and the ECP,” Linguistic
Inquiry 23, 496-501.
Fukui, N. (1995) Theory of Projection in Syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.
Grohmann, K. K., J. Drury, and J. C. Castillo (2000) “No more EPP,” in WCCFL 19: Proceedings ofthe 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA,
153-166.
Haig, J., H. (1980) “Some Observations on Quantifier Floating in Japanese,” Linguistics 18, 10651083.
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell.
Harada, S.-I. (1971) “Ga-No Conversion and Ideolectal Variations in Japanese,” Gengo Kenkyuu 60,
25-38.
Hasegawa, N. (1993) “Floating Quantifiers and Bare NP Expressions,” in N. Hasegawa, ed., Japanese
Syntax in Comparative Grammar, Kuroshio Publishers, Japan, 115-145.
Hiraiwa, K. (2000) “On Nominative-Genitive Conversion,” in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39,
MITWPL, 66-123.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Johnson, K. (1991) “Object Positions,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9, 577-636.
Johnson, K. and S. Tomioka (1997) “Lowering and Mid-Size Clauses,” in Proceedings of the
Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction, Universität Tübingen, 177-198.
Kamio, A. (1983) “Meishiku-no Koozoo [The Structure of Noun Phrases],” in K. Inoue, ed., Nihongono Kihonkoozoo [The Basic Structure of Japanese], Sanseido, Tokyo.
Kawashima, R. (1998) “The Structure of Extended Nominal Phrases: The Scrambling of Numerals,
Approximate Numerals, and Quantifiers in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7,
1-26.
Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kim, S.-W. (1999) “Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 255-284.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1980) “Bun Kouzou no Hikaku [The Ccmparison of Sentence Structures],” in T,
Kunihiro, ed., Niti-Eigo Hikaku Kouza 2: Bunpou [Lectures on Japanese-English
Comparative Studies 2: Grammar], Taisyukan, Tokyo, 23-61.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Study of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1992) Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lasnik, H. (1999a) “Chains of Arguments,” in S. Epstein and N. Hornstein, eds., Working Minimalism,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 189-216.
Lasnik, H. (1999b) “On Feature Strength: Three Minimalist Approaches to Overt Movement,”
Linguistic Inquiry 30, 197-218.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) Syntax and Semantics 22: Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Academic
Press, San Diego.

− 79 −

Nanzan Linguistics 2: Research Results and Activities 2004

Miyagawa, S. (1993) “Case-Checking and Minimal Link Condition,” in Collin Phillips, ed., MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 19, MITWPL, 213-254.
Miyagawa, S. (1999) “EPP, Scrambling, and Wh-in-situ,” in M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life inLanguage, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 293-338.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and
Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Nakai, S. (1980) “A Reconsideration of Ga-No Conversion in Japanese,” Papers in Linguistics 13,279-320.
Nemoto, N. (1993) Chains and Case Positions: A Study from Scrambling in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs
Ochi, M. (2000) “Adjunct Wh-in-situ and the Nominal Island,” in Proceedings of the North East
Linguistic Society 30, GSLA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 557-568.
Ochi, M. (2001) “Move F and Ga/No Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10:3,
247-286.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Otani, K. and J. Whitman (1991) “V-raising and VP-Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345-358.
Perlmutter (1972) “Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French Relativization,” in P.M. Peranteau et al.,eds., The Chicago Which Hunt, Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, 73-105.
Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Saito, M. (1983) “Case and Government in Japanese,” in Proceedings of the Second West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI, Stanford, 247-259.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Shibatani, M. (1975) “Perceptual Strategies and the Phenomena of Particle Conversion in Japanese,”
in Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic Circle.
Sportiche, D. (1988) “A theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure,”
Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449.
Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Tada, H. (1993) A/A’ Partition in Derivation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Takano, Y. (1998) “Object Shift and Scrambling,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 817889.
Takahashi, D. (1993) “On Antecedent Contained Deletion,” unpublished ms., University ofConnecticut, Storrs.
Takahashi, D. (2001) “Scrambling and Empty Categories,” in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41,
MITWPL, 47-58.
Ueda, Y. (2004) “FQ Subjects and Scope in Minimalist Syntax,” in Scientific Approaches toLanguage 3, Center for Language Sciences, Kanda University of International Studies.
Ura, H. (1996) Multiple Feature Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Watanabe, A. (1996) “Nominative-Genitive Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A CrossLinguistic Perspective,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 373-410.

− 80 −