A Labeling-based Account of Japanese Imperatives*

Formal Approaches toJapanese Linguistics 8

Jason Ginsburg1

Mie University: Tsu, Mie Japan
February 18, 2016

1. Introduction
1.
Introduction• Problems of Projection (POP) (Chomsky 2013, 2015)• Core syntactic operations are connected with the need for
Syntactic Objects (SOs) to be labeled.
• We explain how a POP-based computer model constructs thederivations of basic imperative sentences in Japanese.
• We examine a real-world application of this model.
• Can a model of syntax have applications for disasterwarnings?

Chomsky (2013, 2015):• The phase heads v* and C have uninterpretable phifeatures uPhi.
• uPhi are inherited by T from C.
• uPhi are inherited by a verbal root V from v*.
3. Derivations• A Labeling Algorithm
determines the label of a syntactic
object (SO) by finding prominent features that arecapable of labeling (e.g., phi-features).

(c) No label• An SO can be labeled via strengthening.
• Strengthening refers to when an SO that is initially
too weak to be labeled obtains prominent featuresthat are capable of labeling.
• X inherits featuresthat are capable oflabeling• Strengthened Xlabels*This work is supported by a Japan Society for thePromotion of Science Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research: Classification and Linguistic Analysis of
Natural Disaster Evacuation Calls ( #26370490)• X and Y are weak
• uPhi of v* are passed fromv* to X
• uPhi are passed from X to Y
• uPhi on v*, X, and Y areunified• If any instance of uPhi ischecked, all unified
instances of uPhi arechecked(b) X is too weak to label(d) Shared prominent features label• XP and YP have identical Phi-features

Figure 3: Feature transfer and unification

Figure 1: Labeling• Given an unlabeled {XP, YP} structure, if XP moves out,
then the label of YP becomes the label.
(a) unlabeled {XP, YP}
structure(b) labeled by ‘read+v*’ because‘Tom’ has moved•

Figure 2: Labeling via strengthening
Proposals (cf. Ginsburg To Appear):(1) Uninterpretable features are passed onto acomplement that is too weak to label (based on
Chomsky 2013, 2015).
(2) Feature inheritance (cf. Fong, 2014) leads tounified instances of a feature on multiple
Syntactic Objects.

2. Core assumptions(a) X is strong enough tolabel

Naomi Ogasawara2
2University of Aizu

1Osaka Kyoiku University

Figure 4: Labeling due to movement• In languages such as English, T and a verbal root mustbe labeled via Phi-features shared with a remerged SO.
• Must be labeled via
shared Phi-features

Figure 5: Shared Phi-features are necessary forlabeling projections of T and verbal root
Proposal:(3) in Japanese, T and verbal roots are labeled via
strengthening.
• Strengthening does not require phi-features that areshared with a remerged SO.

• The uPhi features on v* Agree with the nominal hinan ‘evacuation’. • Agree(C_Top,minna-san)• uPhi on v* are checked by the valued phi-features of hinan• The subject remerges with C_Top, in accord with (6).
‘evacuation’.
• Movement creates a structure that can be labeled• hinan ‘evacuation’ obtains Case.
by a shared Topic feature.
• unified uPhi on V_kuda and V_shite are checked.
• The subject has a Top feature that checks a uTop(4) Minna-san-wa hinan-shite kudasai• V_kuda and V_shite are strengthened.
feature on C_Top.
Everyone-Top evacuate-do please• The Labeling Algorithm finds the checked phi-features on the• The subject obtains Case from C_Top.
Everyone, please evacuate.
strengthened V_kuda and V_shite.
• Top surfaces as the topic particle wa ‘Top’.
(Adapted from a Nemuro, Hokkaido evacuation call)• V_kuda and V_shite label.
• The unified uPhi on T_sai are checked.
(5) Proposals about (4):• The Labeling Algorithm labels the strengthened T_sai.
• shite kudasai ‘please do’ contains a V-V serial verb
• The lower v* projection is labeled by v* because theconstruction (cf. Nishiyama 1998) consisting of two
subject has moved out.
verbal roots that Merge with a single v*.
• The subject and C_Top are labeled via shared Top• -te is part of the verbal projection (cf. Sugitafeatures.
2009).
• v* assigns a subject theta-role
4. Cost• Both verbal roots, shite and kuda, essentiallyhave a single subject.
• This computer model automatically computes the cost of

3. Target Derivation

Figure 6: v*P of (4) before labeling• n Merges with the root hinan ‘evacuation’ and n labels.
• n is strong enough to label.
• Verbal root V_shite (shite ‘do’) is Merged.
• Verbal root V_kuda (kuda + sai = ‘please’) is Merged.
• verbal roots are too weak to label• The phase head v* is Merged.
• uPhi of v* are passed to V_kuda.
• uPhi are passed from V_kuda to V_shite.
• v*, V_kuda, V_shite contain unified uPhi.

• Strengthened
V_kuda labels• Strengthened
V_shite labelscore operations in a derivation.
(7) Cost:• Merge Cost: add 1 for Merge of X and Y.
• Feature Inheritance Cost: add 1 for inheritance offeatures from X by Y, regardless of the number offeatures involved.
Figure 8: CP of (4) before labeling• Feature Checking Cost: add 1 for checking offeatures on X by features of Y, regardless of the• The subject minna-san ‘everyone’ is Merged with the v*
number of features involved.
projection.
• Costs calculated for the derivation of (4)• unlabeled {XP, YP} structure• Merge Cost: 11; Feature Inheritance Cost: 3; Feature• Merge T_sai.
Checking Cost: 5• –sai in kudasai ‘please’ is a T head.
• Computing the cost of more complex constructions can be• T_sai is too weak to label.
done instantaneously and accurately by a computer.
• C_Top is Merged.
• If the computational cost of a sentence can be connected• C_Top is a C phase head with a Topicalization feature Top.
with the actual cognitive burden of processing a sentence,• uPhi from C_Top are inherited by T_sai.
then this type of model could be useful for determining
Proposal:
optimal expressions for disaster situations, etc.
(6) Movement of an SO occurs to create a structure that canbe labeled for semantic reasons.

5. Conclusions,• Strengthened T_sai labels• v* labels because subject has
moved
Figure 9: CP of (4) after labeling

Figure 7: v*P of (4) after labeling

References:
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projections: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by E. D. Domenico et al, pp. 1-16 pp. 1-16.
Fong, Sandiway. 2014. Unification and efficient computation in the Minimalist Program. In Lowenthal, F. & L. Lefebvre (eds.), Language and recursion, 129-138. New York: Springer.
Ginsburg, Jason. To appear. Modeling of Problems of Projection: A non-countercyclic approach. Glossa.
Nishiyama, K. 1998. V-V compounds as serialization. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8:183-222.
Sugita, M. 2009. Japanese –te iru and –te aru: The aspectual implications of the stage-level and individual level distinction. CUNY Phd thesis.

• We’ve shown how:• this model automatically generates a Japaneseimperative construction.
• this model calculates cost of a derivation.
• Research questions for future work:• Can this model automatically generate a wider
variety of imperative constructions in Japanese?
• What is the most accurate way to calculate cost ofa derivation?
• How best can information about cost be used?
• Can cost can be linked to cognitive processing
load, as measured in psycholinguistics
experiments?
• There may be real-world applications for this type ofmodel, especially if cost can be linked to cognitive
processing load.