West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

Feature Inheritance and Nominative-Genitive Conversion in Japanese Ochi, Masao 2020-03-06

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


73804-Ochi_M_Inheritance_conversion_WCCFL38_2020_handout.pdf [ 141.65kB ]
JSON: 73804-1.0389865.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389865-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389865-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389865-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389865-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389865-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389865-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

WCCFL38  March 6, 2020 Feature Inheritance and  Nominative-Genitive Conversion in Japanese Masao Ochi  Osaka University  1. Introduction Ø Nominative-Genitive Conversion (NGC) takes place in the adnominal clause (but see also section 3) (1) a.  Boku-wa Taro-{ga/*no}   warat-ta  to   omotta.     I-TOP   Taro-NOM/*GEN laugh-PAST that thought     ‘I thought that Taro laughed.’   b.  Taro-{ga/no}   warat-ta   riyuu     Taro-NOM/GEN laugh-PAST  reason     ‘the reason that Taro laughed’  (2) Proposal  Optional character of Feature Inheritance (FI) (Ouali 2008, Miyagawa 2017) is behind this Case alternation phenomenon.  2. Case Conversion and Feature Inheritance  (3) Feature Inheritance (FI) (Chomsky 2008)  Grammatical features originate on a phase head (= C, v, and D) and get passed down to a non-phase head (such as T and V).  2.1. Ouali (2008): Three strategies in FI  (4) a. DONATE    [CP C [TP ... T  [vP ... XP ... ]]]      [φ]    [φ]    b. KEEP    [CP C [TP ... T [vP ... XP ... ]]]     [φ]    2   c. SHARE    [CP C [TP ... T  [vP ... XP ... ]]]      [φ]    [φ]                      (Ouali 2008)  Ø Anti-agreement in Tamazight Berber (5) a.  th-eʕla         thamttut  araw.  (VSO)     3SG.FEM-see.PERF  woman   boys     ‘The woman saw the boys.’   b.  thamttut thʕla        araw.  (SVO)     woman  3SG.FEM.see.PERF  boy                        (Ouali 2008:164)  (6)  [CP C [TP T  [vP woman saw boy ]]]      [φ]  [φ]                [DONATE]   (7) Anti-Agreement    a.  mani thamttut ag   ʕlan       araw      which woman  COMP see.PERF.Part  boy      ‘Which woman saw the boys?’    b.  *mani  thamttut ag   thʕla        araw       which woman  COMP 3SG.FEM.see.PERF boy      ‘Which woman saw the boys?’  (8)  C probes and T is not activated.    a.  [CP C   [TP T [vP [which woman] saw boy ]]]         [Q, φ]                 [KEEP]     b.  [CP which woman  C  [TP T [vP <which woman> saw boy ]]]              [Q, φ]  2.2 Japanese adnominal clauses  (9) Adnominal clauses in Japanese are TPs, lacking C.                             (Murasugi 1991 etc.)  (10) Taro-{ga/no}   warat-ta  (*no) riyuu   Taro-NOM/GEN laugh-PAST  C  reason   ‘the reason that Taro laughed’  3 (11)  Case alternation and Feature Inheritance (see also Ochi 2017)  a. -ga and -no in the adnominal domain are two distinct manifestations of the same Case (see also Watanabe (1996)), which originates on D.   b. The phonetic realization of this Case is determined by how Feature Inheritance is executed (see (12)).  (12) ‘D-T’ association hypothesis   a.  DONATE: T probes     [DP [NP [TP [vP DP ... ]  T  ] N]  D]                     [Case]    [Case]                                  (→ -ga)     b.  KEEP : D probes     [DP [NP [TP [vP DP ... ] T ] N] D ]                 [Case]  (→ -no)    c.  SHARE: both D and T probe (see (32) and (33) below)     [DP [NP [TP [vP DPsubj ...DPobj ]  T  ] N]  D]                         [Case]   [Case] (-ga & -no)    c’. Probing by both D and T following SHARE     [DP [NP [TP [vP DPsubj ...DPobj ]  T  ] N]  D]                         [Case]   [Case] (-ga & -no)   2.3 Diachronic evidence  (13) According to the D-T association hypothesis, -ga in the adnominal clause comes from D, not from C. Any evidence?  Ø In Pre-Modern Japanese, both -ga and -no served as possessive markers in noun phrases and subject markers of nominalized clauses.  (14)  Uchibori, Maki, and Jin (2010)   a.  -ga: anti-honorific      b.  -no: honorific   4 (15) a.  kimi-ga  yo     b.  kimi-no  mi-yo     you-GEN reign      you-GEN HONNORIFIC-reign     ‘your reign        ‘your reign’                  (Uchibori, Maki, and Jin 2010)  (16)  Yanagida and Whitman (2009) (also Aldridge 2018) a. -ga:  for a noun which is higher on the nominal hierarchy  b. -no:  for a noun which is lower on the nominal hierarchy    (17)  The Nominal Hierarchy (Silverstein 1976)   pronouns     > proper nouns > common nouns   1st > 2nd > 3rd         humans > animate > inanimate  Ø Whatever the account, the division between -ga and -no crosscuts nominal (i.e., ga/no as possessive markers) and clausal (i.e., ga/no as subject markers) domains.  (18)  Possessor   a.  wa-ga  ko       b.  hito-no   ko     I-GEN child        person-GEN child     ‘my child’          ‘the person’s child’                     (Uchibori, Maki, and Jin 2010)  (19)  Subject of a nominalized clause   a.  tada wa-ga   tatetaru         koto     just  I-NOM  paid due respect.ADN  fact        ‘the fact that I paid due respect (to him)’   b.  imijiku   hito-no    shiritaru   gen  nare  domo     very well person-NOM know.ADN word  be   although     ‘although (it is) the word which people know very well’                 (Uchibori, Maki, and Jin 2010)  (20)  Possessor (see (18))    a.  [DP [NP I-ga child] D ]     b.  [DP [NP person-no child] D ]    5 (21)  Subject of a nominalized clause (see (19))    a.  [DP [NP [TP ... I-ga .........] fact ] D ]      a.  [DP [NP [TP ... person-no .........] word ] D ]   2.4 Nominative-Genitive Conversion (NGC) and scope  (22) Scope difference (Miyagawa 1993, Ochi 2001 etc.)   a.  zen’in-ga    kuru kanousei     everyone-NOM come probability     ‘the probability that everyone will come’          (unambiguous: *" > probability; probability > ")   b.  zen’in-no    kuru kanousei     everyone-GEN  come probability     ‘the probability that everyone will come’          (ambiguous: " > probability; probability > ")  (23) A goal DP may move to the domain of a probe (but no further).  (24) DONATE activates T, which probes and attracts the subject to the spec of TP (and Case is realized as -ga)   a.  DONATE     [DP [NP [TP [vP .. everyone ... ]  T  ] probability ]  D]                    [Case]      [Case]                                      b.  T probes     [DP [NP [TP [vP .. everyone ... ]  T  ] probability ]  D]                    [Case]       [Case]           c.  ga-subject moves to Spec, TP (but no further)     [DP [NP [TP everyonei [vP ..ti ... ]  T  ] probability ]  D]         [→ unambiguous: probability > "; *" > probability]       6 (25) KEEP: D probes the subject (whose Case is realized as -no), which is attracted to the spec of DP (optionally: see (26)).   a.  KEEP     [DP [NP [TP [vP .. everyone ... ]  T  ] probability ]  D]                            [Case]   b.  D probes     [DP [NP [TP [vP .. everyone ... ]  T  ] probability ]  D]                               [Case]         c.  Genitive subject may move to Spec, DP (Miyagawa 1993 etc.)     [DP everyonei [NP [TP [vP ..ti ... ]  T  ] probability ]  D]           [→ ambiguous: probability > "; " > probability]  2.5 The no-subject is not T-licensed  (26) a. kinoo   kyooshitsu-de oozei kodomo-tachi-{ga/no}      yesterday classroom-at  many children-NOM/GEN     sawaida  koto     clamored fact  ‘the fact that many children-{ga/no} clamored in the classroom yesterday’    b. kinoo   kodomo-tachi-{ga/??no} oozei kyooshitsu-de     yesterday children-NOM/??GEN many classroom-at     sawaida   koto     clamored  fact  ‘the fact that many children-{ga/??no} clamored in the classroom yesterday’    c. kodomo-tachi-{ga/(?)no} kinoo   oozei kyooshitsu-de     children-NOM/GEN   yesterday many classroom-at     sawaida   koto     clamored  fact  ‘the fact that many children-{ga/(?)no} clamored in the classroom yesterday’  (27) a.  [DP [NP [TP yesterday [vP many children-no clamored ]] fact ] D ]  b.  ??[DP [NP [TP yesterday children-noi [vP many ti ... ]] fact ] D ]  7  c.  (?)[DP children-noi [NP [TP yesterday [vP many ti ... ]] fact ] D ]  (28) a. The no-subject stays in its base-generated position (Watanabe 1996, Miyagawa 2017 etc.) or may move to the spec of DP.   b. The no-subject is fairly degraded when it appears sandwiched between adjuncts (26b), suggesting that the it does not move to the domain of T → T is not activated.  2.6 No intervention effects: SHARE  (29) a. -ga on the object, which is possible with a stative predicate, is licensed due to the T head (see Koizumi 1998, Nomura 2005, Takahashi 2010 among many others)  b. This type of -ga alternates with -no in the adnominal clause.  (30) Hanako-{ga/no}   Furansugo-{ga/no} hanas-eru  koto   Hanako-NOM/GEN French-NOM/GEN speak-can  fact   ‘the fact that Hanako can speak French’  (31) No intervention effects arise here because -ga and -no are two distinct manifestations of the same Case.  (32) SHARE + probing (pattern 1)   Hanako-no  Furansugo-ga hanas-eru  koto   Hanako-GEN French-NOM speak-can  fact   ‘the fact that Hanako can speak French’    [DP [NP [TP [vP Hanako [VP French speak-can ]] T  ] N]  D]                          [Case]   [Case]    (33) SHARE + probing (pattern 2)   Hanako-ga  Furansugo-no hanas-eru  koto   Hanako-NOM French-GEN speak-can  fact   ‘the fact that Hanako can speak French’    [DP [NP [TP [vP Hanako [VP French speak-can ]] T  ] N]  D]                          [Case]   [Case]     8 (34) Japanese exhibits intervention effects (Hiraiwa 2005)   a.  Taro-ga   Hanako-o   me-ga   kirei-da  to      Taro-NOM Hanako-ACC eye-NOM beautiful C      omot-ta.     think-PAST     ‘Taro thought Hanako’s eyes to be beautiful.’   b.  *Taro-ga   Hanako-ga  me-o   kirei-da  to       Taro-NOM  Hanako-NOM eye-ACC beautiful C      omot-ta.     think-PAST     ‘Taro thought Hanako’s eyes to be beautiful.’  3. Extension: C-T Association (Hichiku Japanese)  Ø Can our ‘D-T association’ hypothesis be extended to the more familiar C-T association?  (35) a. In Hichiku Japanese (HJ), which is spoken in parts of Kyushu Island (located southwest of the main island), NGC occurs much more extensively: in embedded clauses and main clauses.  b. This means that HJ allows genitive (= -no) subject in the absence of the D head.  c. Proposal: this particular instance of genitive is licensed by C, explaining its distribution in the matrix clause (see also Saruwatari 2016 and Ochi and Saruwatari 2018).  (36) NGC (generalized)    [XP [TP …. DP-{ga/no} ...... ] X ]  where X is D or C   a.  DONATE:  -ga   b.  KEEP:   -no   (c. SHARE:   -ga & -no)    Note: Below I will focus on unergative predicates, setting aside unaccusative predicates (see footnote 1 and Saruwatari 2016 etc. for more on this).    9 3.1. Embedded clause  (37) Complement clause [Note: {-ga/*-no} in SJ]  a.  Taroo-{ga/no}   100 metoru  oyoida  to-ni(-wa)     Taroo-NOM/GEN  100 meter   swam  COMP-DAT(-TOP)     bikkurisita.    was surprised    ‘I was surprised that Taro-{ga/no} swam 100 meters.’                        (Nishioka 2018)   b. Hanako-{ga/no}   odoru ka wakara-n.    Hanako-NOM/GEN  dance Q  know-Neg    ‘I don’t know whether Hanako-{ga/no} will dance.’  3.2. Matrix clause  Ø Here we see an asymmetry between the ga-subject and the no-subject. The latter requires an overt complementizer (Saruwatari 2016).1 (38) a. Hanako-ga   hashi-tta  (bai/yo).         Hanako-NOM  run-PAST  C              ‘(Listen,) Hanako ran.’    b. Hanako-no   hashi-tta  *(bai/yo).     Hanako-GEN  run-PAST     C     ‘(Listen,) Hanako ran.’   (39) Unlike phonetically overt Cs in Hichiku Japanese, Cnull in HJ (as well in SJ) must resort to DONATE (cf. Chomsky’s (2015) discussion of Cnull)  a. Covert in HJ:  ✓DONATE  ✓KEEP  ✓SHARE  b. Cnull:    ✓DONATE  *KEEP  *SHARE                                          1  When the predicate is unaccusative, the no-subject is possible even in the absence of an overt complementizer. See Ochi and Saruwatari (2018). (i)  Basu-{ga/no}  kita  (bai/yo).     [Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]   bus-NOM-GEN came  C   ‘The bus has come’   10 (40)    [DP [TP [vP DP ... ] T ]  Cnull ]     (→ ga)            Agree  DONATE  3.3 Discussion  (41) What distinguishes HJ from other varieties of Japanese? In the latter, the no-subject is confined to adnominal domains. (42) Specification of C with respect to Feature Inheritance options  a. Covert in HJ:       ✓DONATE  ✓KEEP  ✓SHARE  b. Cnull :         ✓DONATE  *KEEP  *SHARE  c. Covert in other dialects: ✓DONATE  *KEEP  *SHARE  (43) Ouali (2008): DONATE is the most preferred option.  (44) Are there any motivations for treating NGC in HJ on a par with the more familiar NGC in adnominal domains?  Point 1: In both Standard Japanese (adnominal clauses) and Hichiku Japanese (adnominal clauses and beyond), the no-subject is incompatible with focus  (45)  Adnominal domain (both HJ and SJ)    Taro-dake-{ga/*no}   itta   kuni    Taro-only-NOM/*GEN went  country    ‘the country that only Taro went’                     (See Akaso and Haraguchi 2010 etc.)  (46)  Hichiku Japanese (see Hatsushima 1998; Kato 2007)    Kon-naka-jaa  Taro-dake-{ga/*no}   gaikoku-ni    these-among-in Taro only-NOM/*GEN foreign.country-to     itta  to bai.    went  C  ‘Among these people, only Taro has been to a foreign country.’    Point 2: ga/no in HJ shows traits of Old Japanese (section 2.3): Personal pronominal subjects in HJ require -ga (although this restriction is limited to the matrix clause).    11 (47)  a.  An  byooin-de  watasi/aata-{ga/*no} umareta tai.      That hospital-in I/you-NOM/*GEN  was.born PRT      ‘I/You was/were born in that hospital.’    b.  An  byooin-de  Taroo-{ga/no}   umareta tai.      That hospital-in Taro-NOM/GEN  was.born PRT      ‘Taro was born in that hospital.’                  (see Nishioka 2018, Sakai 2018)  4. Conclusion (48) a.  The choice between -ga and -no in Japanese is conditioned by the way in which Feature Inheritance is executed.   b.  We can now envision a unified analysis of NGC in Hichiku Japanese and NGC in other varieties of Japanese.   References Akaso, Naoyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi (2010) “Japanese relative clauses: Larger than TP,” Poster presented at GLOW in Asia VIII, Beijing Language and Culture University, 12-14 August. Aldridge, Edith (2018) “C-T Inheritance and the Left Periphery in Old Japanese,” Glossa 3(1):26, 1-22. Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and  Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” in Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honor of Adriana Belletti, ed. by E. D. Domenico, C. Hamann and S. Matteini, 3-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  Hatsushima, Yasuko (1998) “Sagahōgen no Kenkyū: Syukaku no Joshi ‘no’ to ‘ga’ no Tsukaiwake ni Tsuite [A research on Saga dialect: The Proper Use of Nominative Case ‘no’ and ‘ga’],” Studies in Language and Culture 7, 51-64, Tokyo Women’s Christian University. Hiraiwa, Ken (2005) Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Kato, Sachiko (2007) “Scrambling and the EPP in Japanese: From the Viewpoint of the Kumamoto dialect in Japanese,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55, 113-124. Koizumi, Masatoshi (1998) “Remarks on Nominative Objects,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 16, 39–66. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “LF Case-checking and minimal link condition,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 213-254. Miyagawa, Shigeru (2017) Agreement Beyond Phi, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in  12 Syntax, Learnability, and Acquisition, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Nishioka, Nobuaki (2014) “On the Positions of Nominative Subject in Japanese: Evidence from Kumamoto Dialect,” Proceedings of WAFL10, MITWPL.. Nomura, Masashi (2005) Nominative Case and AGREE(ment), Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Ochi, Masao (2001) “Move F and Ga/No Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10, 247-286.  Ochi, Masao (2017) “Ga/No Conversion,” Handbook of Japanese Syntax, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda, 663-700, Mouton de Gruyter, Boston. Ochi, Masao and Asuka Saruwatari (2018) “Nominative Genitive Conversion in (In)Dependent Clauses in Japanese,” Proceedings of WAFL10, 191-202, MITWPL. Ouali, Hamid (2008) “On C-to-T Phi-feature Transfer: The Nature of Agreement and Anti-Agreement in Berber,” Agreement Restrictions, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 159-180, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Sakai, Mika (2018) “Kyuushu Hoogen ni okeru Shugo Hyooji no Tsukaiwake to Doosasyusei [Distinct Subject Marking in Kyushu Japanese and Agentivity],” Paper presented at the 156th Meeting of Linguistic Society of Japan. Saruwatari, Asuka (2016) Nominative and Genitive Cases in Japanese: From Dialectal and Cross-linguistic Perspectives, Doctoral dissertation, Osaka University. Silverstein, Michael (1976) “Hierarchy of features and ergativity,” in Grammatical Categories in Australian languages, ed. R.M.W. Dixon, 112–171, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Takahashi, Masahiko (2010) “Case, Phases, and Nominative/Accusative Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 319-355. Uchibori, Asako, Hideki Maki, and Yin-Ji Jin (2010) “The Origin of the Ga/No Conversion in the History of the Japanese Language,” Paper presented at the 141st Meeting of Linguistic Society of Japan. Yanagida, Yuko and John Whitman (2009) “Alignment and Word Order in Old Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18, 101-144. Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative-Genitive Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 373-410.  Masao Ochi Graduate School of Language and Culture Osaka University ochi@lang.osaka-u.ac.jp 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items