1

The Residue of NIC and Super-Raising: An Examination of Japanese A-Movement

Jun Abe

Tohoku Gakuin University

URL: http://www.tscc.tohoku-gakuin.ac.jp/~sacl/Abe-CV.htm

2010 6 12

SACL

1. Introduction

(1) a. John seems [TP t’ to be [t honest]]

b. Mary believes John [TP t’ to be [t honest]]

-> NP trace is subject to the SSC and NIC.

(2) a. John is easy to please.

b. *John is easy [TP PRO to please t] -> SSC violation

(3) *John seems (that) [TP t’ is [t honest]] -> NIC violation

- A typical instance of super-raising:

(4) *John seems that it was told t that ... (Chomsky 1995, p. 295)

-> (4) and (2b) involve a violation of minimality.

-> (3) and (2b) involve a violation of the last resort principle on movement.

- The residue of NIC: Japanese does not show NIC effects regarding anaphors.

(5) *John and Mary thought that themselves/each other would leave.

(6) [ ]

(Q) How about Japanese counterparts of super-raising of the sort illustrated in (3)?

#Ga-no conversion:

(7) a.

b.

#Subject-to-subject raising: (Uchibori 2000, 2001)

(8) i [ti ]

#Subject-to-object raising: (Tanaka 2002)

(9) a.

b.

<Aim> (i) To seek a mechanism that makes these three constructions possible.

(ii) To examine the properties of the A-chains involved wrt pronunciation and

LF interpretation.

2

2. Proposal

- Abe (2005):

(10) a. [John], Mary likes very much.

b. [The man you're talking about], Mary likes very much.

c. John met yesterday [the woman you had been talking about].

(11) The feature [Focus] can be assigned to a syntactic object during the derivation.

According to the last resort principle on movement, assignment of [Focus] must take

place before the movement of its bearer.

In Japanese, however, [Focus] can be assigned to a given syntactic object after the

latter undergoes scrambling.

(12) [Focus] is not attracted in Japanese.

<Hypothesis I> No functional head is able to probe in Japanese.

All instances of movement are those of scrambling, hence immune to such economy

conditions as the last resort principle and a minimality condition.

<Hypothesis II> Case checking is conducted via the Spec/head relation.

- Ga-No conversion:

(13) a. [DP [TP < > [vP < > ]] ]

(scrambling)

b. [DP < > [TP e [vP < > ]] ]

(scrambling)

-Subject-to-subject raising:

(14) [TP < > [CP [TP e [vP < > ]] ] ]

(scrambling)

- Subject-to-object raising:

(15) [VP < > [CP [TP e [vP < > ]] ]

(scrambling)

3

- Locality: (cf. Hiraiwa 2000, 2001)

(16) a.

b.

c. * (Hiraiwa 2001, p. 73)

(17) a. #

b. (ibid., p. 75)

Such a minimality effect will be captured by a chain condition on representations

rather than an economy condition on derivations. (cf. Abe 1993)

Abe (2005) derives the superiority effect on wh-movement in Japanese observed by

Takahashi (1993) in terms of such a chain condition.

(18) a. [ ]

b.?? [ t ]

(19) a.

b.

c.

d. (cf. Miyagawa 1993)

No intervention effect is observed here. (cf. Hiraiwa 2000 on Multiple Agree)

- Complementizer blocking effect: (cf. Hiraiwa 2000)

(20) a.

b. * (cf. Inoue 1976)

(21) * (Watanabe 1996, p. 390)

(22) a.(*) [ ] (Ochi 2001, note 17)

b.(*) [ ] (ibid., p. 263)

Probably instances of o/no-conversion?

(i) This approach is not compatible with such an Agree-approach to a

genitive-marked subject as Hiraiwa (2000).

(ii) It has been taken for granted that scrambling is an instance of overt movement,

but given the Copy+Merge+Delete approach, recently advocated by Hornstein

(2009), a new possibility arises in analyzing the properties of the chain involved

in a genitive-marked subject.

4

3. Pronunciation and LF Interpretation of A-Chains: Cases of Ga-No Conversion

(Q1) Which copy is pronounced in (13b)?

At least, the bottom copy can be pronounced.

(23) a.

b. [DP < > [TP e [vP ]] ]

- Abe and Hornstein (2010): Overt string-vacuous movement is prohibited.

(24) The head of a chain created by Move cannot be pronounced unless it has an effect

on PF output. (cf. Chomsky 1995)

(25) [DP < > [TP e [vP ]] ]

(Q2) Doesn’t the movement involved in (13b) cause a relative clause island violation?

- Abe and Hornstein (2010):

(26) Given a chain C = ( , …, ), C is immune to locality conditions if is

pronounced.

It is then predicted that in the ga-no alternation configuration, the chain of a

no-phrase always has its bottom copy pronounced.

(27) a. [ ]

b. [ ]

b. * [t ] (Terada 1987)

- Ochi (2001):

Ochi claims that while relative clauses resisit overt raising of a genitive subject,

gapless clauses do allow such overt raising.

(28) (only agent+possessor reading)

(29) a.

b. * i ti

5

(30) a.

b. i ti

To me, (30b) is bad, probably as bad as (29b).

(31) a. *

b.

Although Ochi claims that (31b) is a piece of evidence for overt movement of a

genitive subject, it may be taken as a case in which a genitive subject is

base-generated. (a case of what Hiraiwa (2000) calls ‘psudo-NGC’)

(32)?*

This involves backward anaphora.

(33) a. * *

b. (Hiraiwa 2000, p. 118)

3.1. The Role of the Top Copy for Semantic Interpretation

- Miyagawa (1993): covert movement analysis

(34) a. (every >< reason)

b. (*every > reason)

(35) a. (every >< reason)

b. (?*every > reason)

(36) a. (every >< some)

b. (*every > some) (Sakai 1994, p. 186)

(37) a. (every >< some)

b. (?*every > some)

- Abe (2010):

(38) a. The semantic feature [SF] indicates that its carrier can participate in LF

interpretation.

b. The phonetic feature [PF] indicates that its carrier must be pronounced.

<Hypothesis III> [SF] and [PF] must be carried by the same member of an A-chain.

6

(39) [DP < > [TP e [vP ]] ]

[PF][SF]

(40) a. [DP < > [TP e [vP ]] ]

[PF][SF]

b. [DP < > [TP e [vP ]] ]

[SF][PF] [PF]

(41) Given a chain C = ( 1, … n), if any pair of ( i, j) in which i carries [PF] has no

effect on PF output (i.e. the string linear properties of the output), then adjust this

pair as follows: make j carry [PF].

(42) a. (every > reason)

b. (*every > reason)

c. (?every > reason) (cf. Miyagawa 1993)

(43) [DP < > < >[TP e [vP ]] ]

Indeterminate

(44) [DP[DP < >< >][TP e [vP[DP < >] ]] ]

oblique movement

[SF][PF] [PF]

(45) a. (?every > reason)

b. (?*every > reason)

(46) a. [[ ] ]

(some > every)

b. [[ ] ]

(some > every)

7

c. [[ ] ]

(some > every)

d. [[ ] ]

(some >< every)

The fact that daremo-no in (46c) does not take scope over dareka-ga indicates

that it cannot move to the higher Spec-DP even though it would involve

string-vacuous movement.

(47) [DP < > [TP [DP e [TP e [vP ]] ] ] ]…

3.2. ECM in English

(48) John believes [TP Mary to be t honest].

(49) In the case of an A-chain, any member (except the tail) can be the target for

pronunciation.

(50) a. v+believe [VP Mary tbelieve [TP Mary to be t honest]]

b. v+believe [VP Mary tbelieve [TP Mary to be t honest]]

(51) a. *John believes [TP to be Mary honest].

b. *John believes sincerely [TP Mary to be t honest].

(52) John seems [TP t to be t honest].

(53) a. The EPP requires that Spec-TP must be occupied by an overt phrase.

b. Only the Spec of tensed T is subject to the EPP.

(54) a. v+make [VP Mary tmake+out [TP Mary to be t honest]]

b. v+make [VP Mary tmake+out [TP Mary to be t honest]]

(55) In the case of (50), both members of Mary can participate in LF interpretation, as

shown in (56)-(59). In the case of (54), there is a division of labor: only the

pronounced member of Mary is active in LF interpretation, as shown in (60)-(61).

8

#Lasnik and Saito (1991), Lasnik (1999):

(56) a. ?The DA proved [the defendants to be guilty] during each other’s trials.

b.?*The DA proved [that the defendants were guilty] during each other’s trials.

(57) a. ?The DA proved [none of the defendants to be guilty] during any of the trials.

b.?*The DA proved [that none of the defendants were guilty] during any of the

trials.

(58) a. Joan believes hei is a genius even more fervently than Bobi does.

b. *Joan believes himi to be a genius even more fervently than Bobi does.

(59) I proved every Mersenne number not to be prime. (every >< not)

->This shows that the bottom copy is active.

(60) a. The mathematician made every even number out not to be the sum of two

primes. (every >not)

b. The mathematician made out every even number not to be the sum of two

primes. (every >< not)

(61) a. The DA made the defendants out to be guilty during each other’s trials.

b.?*The DA made out the defendants to be guilty during each other’s trials.

(62) v+believe [VP Mary tbelieve [TP Mary to be t honest]]

[SF][PF] [PF]

4. Subject-to-Subject Raising

- Uchibori (2000, 2001):

(63) i [ti ]

(64) * i [ti ]

(65) a.

b. *

(66) [CP [TP [vP < > ]] ]

(67)

9

(68) a. [CP [TP < > [vP ]] ]

b. < > [CP [TP [vP ]] ]

- Abe (2009):

(69) a. [pro ]

b. [< > ]

(70) [pro ]

[ ]

(71) [ [pro ] ]

[ [ ] ]

(72) [pro ]

[ ]

(73) [ [pro ]

]

[ [ ]

]

(74) [pro ]

[ ]

(75) [pro ]

(76) a. [pro ]

b. [pro ]

Movement into -position is sensitive to locality conditions, irrespective of whether

it is string-vacuous or not.

It is predicted that the bottom copy of such an A-chain as in (69b) should be

pronouceable.

10

- Backward Control:

(77) [ ]

= Mary said that [she would go to the university tomorrow].

(78) [ ]

= Mary dreamed that she was proposed to by the man she was dating with.

(79) [ ]

Mary tore up and threw away a letter that she received from John.

(80) [ ]

John bought a ring before he proposed to Mary.

(81) [ ]

Mary didn’t know how she should go to the station tomorrow.

- LF interpretation:

(82) [ ]

= Everyone thought that [he was smart at that time].

(83) [ ]

= Everyone told his teacher that [he would go to the university tomorrow].

(84) [ ]

= Someone said that he kissed everyone.

In an A-chain C, [SF] must be carried by a member of C that is upper to those

occupying –position.

5. Subject-to-Object Raising

- Kobayashi and Maki (2002):

(i) Against the overt A-movement analysis (Kuno 1976, Sakai 1998):

(85)

(86) a.?*

b.

(87) (Sells 1990)

(88) (Sakai 1998, p. 489)

11

(89) *

(90) *

(91) [ ] (not > every)

(92) [ ] (not >< every)

(93) a. < >[ ]

[SF][PF]

b. < >[ ]

[SF] [PF]

(94) (not < every)

(ii) The optional Raising Analysis (Hiraiwa 2001)

(95) [ ]

(96) a.

b.

c. *

(Hiraiwa 2001, p. 72)

- Passivization:

(97)

(98) *

(99) * (Kobayashi and Maki 2002, p. 230)

(100) a. (every >< not)

b. (every > not)

(101) [ ]

If the anaphor binding involved in this sentence is possible, then it indicates that

subject-to-object raising can be movement through -position.

12

(102) [ ]

(not >< every)

This sentence shows the same point if the wide scope reading of everyone is

possible.

(103) a.

(not >< every)

b. [ ]

(not > every)

- Passivization I (Yamashita 2005):

(104) a. [ ]

b. [ ]

(105) a. [ ]

b. [ ]

(106) a. [ ]

b. [ ]

The acceptability of these sentences suggests that the A-chains involved are

produced by movement through -position.

- Passivization II (Hiraiwa 2000, p. 103~):

(107) a. *

b.

(108) a.

b.

An apparent violation of the complementizer blocking effect

This is a case of backward control.

(109) a. (not >< every)

b. (not < every)

(110) (only agent+possessor reading)

(111) (*agent+possessor reading)

(cf. Ochi 2001, p. 269)

13

The impossibility of the agent+possessor reading for (111) follows since the

A-movement involved in this construction cannot be movement through -position

due to the relative clause island.

- the case where no A-chain is involved: (cf. Oka 1988)

(112)

(113) *

The relevant A-movement would violate a minimality condition.

(114)(*)

The unacceptability of this sentence suggests that null operator movement is

involved in this construction.

References

Abe, Jun (1993) Binding Conditions and Scrambling without A/A’ Distinction,

Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Abe, Jun (2005) "Scrambling and Operator Movement," ms., Tohoku Gakuin

University.

Abe, Jun (2009) “Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese,” ms., Tohoku Gakuin

University.

Abe, Jun (2010) “String-Vacuity and LF Interpretation in A-Chains: Cases of ECM and

Nominative-Genitive Conversion,” ms., Tohoku Gakuin University.

Abe, Jun and Norbert Hornstein (2010) “‘Lasnik-Effects and String-Vacuous ATB

Movement,” ms., Tohoku Gakuin University and University of Maryland.

Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hiraiwa, Ken (2000) “On Nominative-Genitive Conversion,” In Ora Matsushansky and

Elena Guerzoni (eds.), A Few from Building E-39, MIT Working Papers in

Linguistics 39, 66-123, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in

Japanese,” In Ora Matsushansky et al. (eds.), The Proceedings of the MIT-Harvard

Joint Conference (HUMIT 2000), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 67-80,

Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

Hornstein, Norbert (2009) A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal

Grammar, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Inoue, Kazuko (1976) Henkei Bumpoo to Nihongo [Transformational Grammar and

Japanese], Taishuukan, Tokyo.

Kobayashi, Keiichiro and Hideki Maki (2002) “A Non-Exceptional Approach to

14

Exceptional Case-Marking in Japanese,” English Linguistics 19, 211-238.

Kuno, Susumu (1976) “Subject Raising,” Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative

Grammar, 17-49, Academic Press, New York.

Lasnik, Howard (1999) “Chains of Arguments,” In Working Minimalism, ed. S.D.

Epstein & N. Hornstein, 189-215. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1991) “On the Subject of Infinitives,” In Papers

from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. L.M. Dobrin,

L. Nichols, and R.M. Rodriguez, 324-343. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “LF Case-Checking and Minimal Link Condition,” In Case

and Agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 213-254. Department of

Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Ochi, Masao (2001) “Move F and GA/NO Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East

Asian Linguistics 10, 247-286.

Oka, Toshifusa (1988) “Abstract Case and Empty Positions,” Tsukuba English Studies

7, 187-227, University of Tsukuba.

Sakai, Hiromu (1994) “Complex NP Constraint and Case-Conversions in Japanese,” In

Current Topics in English and Japanese, ed. by Masaru Nakamura, 179-203.

Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

Sakai, Hiromu (1998) “Raising Asymmetry and Improper Movement,”

Japanese/Korean Linguistics 7, 481-497.

Sells, Peter (1990) “Is There Subject-to-Object Raising in Japanese?” Grammatical

Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective, ed. by Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick

Farrel and Errapel Mejias-Bikandi, 445-457, CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Uchibori, Asako (2000) The Syntax of Subjunctive Complements: Evidence from

Japanese, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Uchibori, Asako (2001) “Raising out of CP and C-T Relations,” Proceedings of Formal

Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3.

Takahashi, Daiko (1993) “Movement of Wh-Phrases in Japanese," Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 11, 655-678.

Tanaka, Hidekazu (2002) “Raising to Object out of CP,” Linguistic Inquiry 33, 637-652.

Terada, Michiko (1987) “Unaccusativity in Japanese,” Proceedings of NELS 17,

619-640.

Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive Conversion and Agreement in Japanese:

A Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 373-410.

Yamashita, Hideaki (2005) “A Probe-Goal Analysis of Binding Relations in Japanese,”

ms., Yokohama National University.