UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The postposing construction in Japanese Rosen, Eric Robert 1995

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1996-0595.pdf [ 6.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087263.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087263-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087263-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087263-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087263-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087263-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087263-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087263-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087263.ris

Full Text

T H E POSTPOSING CONSTRUCTION IN JAPANESE  by  ERIC ROBERT ROSEN  B.G.S. Simon Fraser University, 1975  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF ARTS  in  T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department of Linguistics  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A  October 1996 © Eric Robert Rosen, 1996  In  presenting  degree at the  this  thesis in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  for  an advanced  Library shall make it  freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying  of  department  this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department  of  LjY\Ql {/) $>j\C 4  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  -6 (2/88)  11 Abstract  T h i s work examines t h e s y n t a c t i c n a t u r e o f t h e p o s t p o s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n  in  J a p a n e s e , w h i c h i s a c o n s t r u c t i o n commonly h e a r d i n c a s u a l c o n v e r s a t i o n , i n w h i c h a constituent its  of the sentence occurs to the r i g h t of the matrix verb,  canonical position.  This c o n s t r u c t i o n appears to v i o l a t e  i n Japanese on t h e l i n e a r o r d e r i n g of c o n s t i t u e n t s  a  outside of  strict•condition  w i t h i n a p h r a s e : namely,  that  a l l c o n s t i t u e n t s o f a m a x i m a l p r o j e c t i o n must p r e c e d e t h e h e a d o f t h e p r o j e c t i o n .  The q u e s t i o n s  I  seek t o answer about  the postposing  construction  a r e as  with the rest  of the  follows:  1.  Does a p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e h a v e a s y n t a c t i c  sentence or i s i t 2.  a mere  "afterthought"  Does t h e p o s t p o s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n  relationship  to the sentence.  obey s y n t a c t i c  constraints?  3. I f p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s a r e a s y n t a c t i c p h e n o m e n o n , a r e t h e y d e r i v e d b y movement or by b a s e - g e n e r a t i o n ? 4 . Why d o e s t h e p o s t p o s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n nature  the  "left-attaching"  of Japanese l i n e a r precedence?  The f r a m e w o r k the  appear t o v i o l a t e  1980's  o f my a n a l y s i s i s " c l a s s i c a l "  and e a r l y  1990's; of  I  Chomsky  also  draw  (1995).  o n some  Minimalist  programme  judgements  of postposed Japanese sentences.  The m a i n c o n c l u s i o n s  I  come t o a b o u t  government-binding  The d a t a  of I  theory  the approaches use are  the postposing  of  of the  native-speaker  construction  a r e as  follows:  1. T h e r e a r e s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s o n p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s t o t h e e x t e n t  t h a t we c a n  o n l y e x p l a i n p o s t p o s i n g a s a s y n t a c t i c phenomenon r a t h e r t h a n a s a n a f t e r t h o u g h t : for  example:  Ill  (a) Postposed phrases show evidence t h a t they a r e s u b j e c t t o subjacencylike  effects.  (b) licensing  Traces  o f postposed  phrases  show  evidence  of  a  head-government  requirement.  2. Postposed  phrases  show C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  e a s i l y e x p l a i n e d by movement o f the postposed  effects  which  a r e most  phrase.  3. The unique n a t u r e of postposed phrases as s o l e e x c e p t i o n t o the s t r i c t  left-  a t t a c h i n g n a t u r e o f Japanese can be e x p l a i n e d by the uniqueness o f the p o s i t i o n t h a t they o c c u r i n : I post t h a t they a r e r i g h t - a d j o i n e d t o the r o o t node of the sentence. Under the m i n i m a l i s t framework of Chomsky(1995), a p o s i t i o n a d j o i n e d to  the r o o t  head.  node i s the o n l y p o s i t i o n  that  i s not i n the minimal  domain of a  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  T a b l e of Contents  iv  Acknowledgement  0.  vii  Introduction  1  0.1  Assumptions and  framework  3  0.2  Japanese as a s t r i c t l y  0.3  P o s t p o s i n g as a s y n t a c t i c phenomenon  0.4  A comparison of p o s t p o s i n g ,  "left-attaching"  language  11  scrambling,  and t o p i c a l i z a t i o n .  1. Evidence  7  16  f o r movement of postposed  phrases.  24  1.1  Postposing  from m a t r i x c l a u s e s  35  1.2  Postposing  from embedded c l a u s e s  50  1.3  Summary  2. L o c a l i t y  61  c o n s t r a i n t s on postposed  phrases  I  s u b j e c t / o b j e c t asymmetries  63  2.1  P o s t p o s i n g a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a non-matrix CP  64  2.2  P o s t p o s i n g a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a w h - i s l a n d  68  2.3  P o s t p o s i n g a g e n i t i v e out of a inside  DP  an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e :  72  2.4  P o s t p o s i n g a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e  74  2.5  P o s t p o s i n g a d a t i v e out of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  75  2.6  P o s t p o s i n g a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  76  2.7  P o s t p o s i n g out of koto  clauses  t h a t are s u b j e c t s of t r a n s i t i v e verbs  80  V 2.8 P o s t p o s i n g a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a m a t r i x s u b j e c t  82  2.9 Summary  83  3. L o c a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s on postposed  phrases I I --  i s l a n d e f f e c t s that are r e l a t i v i z e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o a [+N] f e a t u r e  88  3.1 P o s t p o s i n g out o f a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e : worse deviance when a DP i s postposed than when another  c a t e g o r y i s postposed  91  3.2 P o s t p o s i n g out o f o t h e r c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e w i t h no [+N] head: no [+N] domain e f f e c t s when DP's a r e postposed  105  3.3 C o n c l u s i o n s 3.4 A r e l a t i v e c l a u s e as a weaker  107 island  than o t h e r k i n d s of a d j u n c t s  108  4. P o s t p o s i n g out o f wa-marked phrases  115  4.1 Are t o p i c s i s l a n d s f o r e x t r a c t i o n ?  119  4.2 D i s c r i m i n a t i n g between d i f f e r e n t  125  types o f a d j u n c t s  4.3 P o s t p o s i n g out of VP t o p i c s  135  4.4 P o s t p o s i n g out of non-case-marked CP t o p i c s  137  4.5 wa-marked purpose c l a u s e s  140  4.6 Do CP t o p i c s p a t t e r n w i t h DP t o p i c s with respect to Saito's diagnostics?  146  4.7 L e x i c a l government of s u b j e c t s i n Japanese  147  4.8 Summary and r e l a t e d i s s u e s  148  vi  5. P o s t p o s i n g  as a r o o t c l a u s e phenomenon:  an e x p l a n a t i o n  i n terms o f Minimal Domains  160  5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n  160  5.2 A member o f the domain o f no c a t e g o r y  161  5.3 The head parameter i n a l e f t - a t t a c h i n g  language  170  5.4 Proposed c o n d i t i o n s on l i n e a r o r d e r i n g  174  5.5 Summary  183  6. N o n - s y n t a c t i c  factors i n postposing  184  6.1 Postposed phrases l i k e t o be "heavy" 6.2 A n a l y s i s o f p o s t p o s e d s u b j e c t . w i t h  185  object  in canonical p o s i t i o n  186  7. Summary  Appendix A: E a r l y Analyses  191  o f the P o s t p o s i n g  Appendix B: No-marked phrases  Construction  193  195  Vll  Acknowledgement I wish possible.  t o thank  a number of p e o p l e  whose support  made t h i s  research  My s u p e r v i s o r , M i c h a e l Rochemont, was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n l e a d i n g me t o and g u i d i n g me t h r o u g h t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h t o p i c . When, f o u r y e a r s ago, I took on t h e r a t h e r dubious e n t e r p r i s e of t r y i n g t o r e - e n t e r t h e academic w o r l d a f t e r a h i a t u s of s e v e r a l decades, i t was l a r g e l y through h i s encouragement and support t h a t I managed t o p r o g r e s s t h i s f a r . The o t h e r two members of my committee, Rose-Marie Dechaine and H i s a t s u g u K i t a h a r a were a l s o e x t r e m e l y generous w i t h t h e i r h e l p and encouragement. RoseM a r i e p r o v i d e d a w e a l t h of s u g g e s t i o n s about the e x p o s i t i o n and a r g u m e n t a t i o n of the m a n u s c r i p t as w e l l as making me aware of a n a l y s e s of s y n t a c t i c phenomena t h a t r e l a t e d t o my r e s e a r c h t h a t I had not been aware o f . H i s a ' s i n s i g h t i n t o Japanese s y n t a x and f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the most c u r r e n t models of s y n t a x such as the M i n i m a l i s t programme were e x t r e m e l y v a l u a b l e . Tomio H i r o s e and A k i h i k o U e c h i spent c o u n t l e s s hours i n a s s i s t i n g me w i t h judgements of s e n t e n c e s . Without t h e i r h e l p , t h i s r e s e a r c h would have been impossible. E a r l i e r s t a g e s of t h i s r e s e a r c h b e n e f i t t e d g r e a t l y from c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h Henry D a v i s , J i l a Ghomeshi and W i l l Thompson. I a l s o w i s h t o thank the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s and Humanities Research C o u n c i l of Canada, g r a n t #410-92-1379 "The Syntax and Phonology of Focus" f o r t h e i r s u p p o r t d u r i n g the e a r l y s t a g e s of t h i s r e s e a r c h . F i n a l l y , I w i s h t o thank a l l the members of the Department of L i n g u i s t i c s at t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia -- b o t h f a c u l t y and g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s -f o r p r o v i d i n g a v e r y f r i e n d l y and s u p p o r t i v e w o r k i n g atmosphere.  1  Introduction  The p o s t p o s i n g  c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Japanese has been d i s c u s s e d by a number  of a u t h o r s (see b e l o w ) ; most r e c e n t l y by Endo (1989) and Whitman (1991b). The c o n s t r u c t i o n i s an apparent v i o l a t i o n o f an o t h e r w i s e s t r i c t c o n d i t i o n t h a t a l l p h r a s e s i n the .language a r e h e a d - f i n a l . structure  i n which  predicate," informal  one o r more  Endo (1989) d e s c r i b e s p o s t p o s i n g  constituents  appear  following  as "the  the matrix  and comments t h a t i t o c c u r s f r e q u e n t l y i n b o t h c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and  speech and i n c e r t a i n forms o f w r i t i n g such as poems, c a r t o o n s and  advertisements.  Endo's d a t a  show t h a t  a wide v a r i e t y o f elements  can be  p o s t p o s e d t o t h e r i g h t o f t h e m a t r i x v e r b i n Japanese s e n t e n c e s : f o r example, n o m i n a t i v e , a c c u s a t i v e , d a t i v e , and g e n i t i v e DP's; PP's and o b l i q u e s ; a l l types of embedded c l a u s e s of  a l l types,  predicates).  ( i n c l u d i n g r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s ) ; complex DP's, a d j u n c t  topic  phrases,  She d i s c u s s e s  "non-movement" a n a l y s e s "movement" a n a l y s e s  AP's when  previous  they  analyses  modify  (but n o t  of the construction,  i n Inoue (1978), Kuno (1978a&b), and S a i t o  i n H a r a g u c h i (1973) and Kuroda (1980).  argues t h a t p o s t p o s i n g  a noun  phrases AP  namely  (1985) and  I n h e r a n a l y s i s , she  i s a r e s u l t o f s y n t a c t i c r i g h t w a r d movement because i t  shows s u b j a c e n c y e f f e c t s .  A study o f t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f s y n t a c t i c movement i n Japanese because, a p a r t from t h e w e l l - s t u d i e d phenomenon o f s c r a m b l i n g , 1  Japanese does n o t show as much e v i d e n c e o f s y n t a c t i c  movement as languages l i k e E n g l i s h , because o f i t s w h - i n - s i t u and b a s e - g e n e r a t e d t o p i c s . S c r a m b l i n g appears t o be r e s t r i c t e d t o a l i m i t e d range o f p h r a s e - t y p e s 2  e.g.  CP's and a c c u s a t i v e  and d a t i v e DP's, and does n o t p e r m i t movement o f  'See Abe (1993), Nemoto (1993), Saito (1985(, (1986), (1989), (1992), (1994a), Yoshimura (1992) for analyses of scrambling in Japanese. See Saito (1986).  2  2 genitives,  relative  clauses,  Because t h e p o s t p o s i n g than scrambling,  or subjects ,  a l l o f which  3  can be postposed.  o p e r a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e f o r a wider v a r i e t y o f phrase types  i t has the p o t e n t i a l t o shed some l i g h t  on c e r t a i n s y n t a c t i c  phenomena o f Japanese t h a t a r e d i f f i c u l t t o examine i n the context  o f scrambling.  A l t h o u g h i t seems l i k e l y t h a t d i s c o u r s e and o t h e r n o n - s y n t a c t i c r e l e v a n t i n e x p l a i n i n g the phenomenon o f p o s t p o s i n g , attention  t o the s y n t a c t i c  classical  generative  properties  f a c t o r s are  i n t h i s paper I s h a l l  of the postposing  p r i n c i p l e s . In a number o f p l a c e s  limit  construction  i n my a n a l y s i s  using I draw  f r e e l y from m i n i m a l i s t p r i n c i p l e s o f Chomsky (1995) -- i n p a r t i c u l a r , the concept of a minimal domain -- but I have not adopted the e n t i r e M i n i m a l i s t programme as the  framework i n which I am examining  The  following  postposing  i s a summary  postposing.  of the conclusions  I come  t o about the  construction:  3333 1. The p o s t p o s i n g  construction  shows c l e a r  phenomenon r a t h e r than an " a f t e r t h o u g h t " a  set of  asymmetries conditions [+V]  head.  locality  constraint  (ii) relativization  that  i t i s a syntactic  c o n s t r u c t i o n . Postposed phrases e x h i b i t  patterns with  evidence  which  respect  include  to a  ( i ) subject/object  [+N] f e a t u r e ,  and  (iii)  on t r a c e s o f p o s t p o s e d phrases t h a t r e q u i r e government by a l e x i c a l 4  2. Postposed phrases show evidence t h a t they a r e d e r i v e d by movement r a t h e r than base-generation.  The evidence  f o r movement  i s based  mainly  on C o n d i t i o n  See Saito (1985) sec. 3.2 for evidence that long-distance scrambling of a subject is not possible. Saito also argues that short-distance scrambling of subjects is not possible, and explains the subject/object asymmetry with respect to scrambling in Japanese by a difference in case-assignment. He proposes that subjects, unlike objects, are inherently case-marked in Japanese. 3  (See Cinque (1990) and Chung (1994) for similar proposals.)  4  C  3 r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and a n t i - r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s t h a t are observed when a name i s embedded i n a p o s t p o s e d phrase whose c a n o n i c a l  p o s i t i o n i s c-commanded by  an  element c o r e f e r e n t w i t h the name. A movement h y p o t h e s i s i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h subject-object  asymmetries and r e l a t i v i z e d - m i n i m a l i t y - l i k e phenomena, which are  more e a s i l y e x p l a i n e d  3. P o s t p o s i n g S h i f t and  4. The  through a movement a n a l y s i s .  shows a h e a v i n e s s e f f e c t t h a t i s r e m i n i s c e n t  r e l a t i v e clause  of r i g h t w a r d  extraposition in English.  concept of minimal domains i n Chomsky (1995) e x p l a i n s the f a c t s t h ^ t  right  adjunction  adjunction  can  only  occur  to  the  root  appears to be p o s s i b l e to any  B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g these p o i n t s postposing  is  sentence.  Then,  syntactic as  and  not  background,  i n Japanese  and  postposing  0.1  and  I first  give  - binding  "afterthought" summary  of  the  tacked  onto  the  similarities  and  the  ECP  theory.  theory  based  from the p o i n t of view of  In p a r t i c u l a r , I assume the  (e.g. J a c k e n d o f f  (Lasnik & S a i t o  scrambling,  framework  (Chomsky  on  a  "classical"  following:  (1977))  (1981))  - p r i n c i p l e s of head-government -  left  g i v e some examples t h a t show that  an a  In t h i s a n a l y s i s I look at p o s t p o s i n g  theory  a  topicalization.  Assumptions and  generative  (b)  ()  p r o j e c t i o n except the r o o t node.  merely I  node  d i f f e r e n c e s between the t h r e e main types of d i s l o c a t i o n i n Japanese:  - X'  Heavy NP  head  (Chomsky  government  (1981)) and  antecedent  government  requirement  (1984))  - extended p r o j e c t i o n , a f t e r Grimshaw (1991): s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t IP and CP are i n  4 the extended projection of V and NP, DP and PP are i n the extended projection of N - s p e c i f i e r positions only occur on the l e f t ,  regardless of the order of head-  complement or head-adjunct I also draw some p r i n c i p l e s from the more recent minimalist programme of Chomsky (1993 - 1995)  - - s p e c i f i c a l l y , the concept of the domain of a head - - but  my account i s not s t r i c t l y minimalist.  0.1.1  Reconstruction  For convenience I s h a l l follow the analysis of reconstruction of Chomsky (1995), using the "copy theory" of movement. In the Condition C reconstruction examples  that  I  shall  present  in  chapter  1,  I  shall  assume  that  the  reconstruction of a postposed phrase i s explained by the fact that a copy of the phrase i s l e f t behind i n s i t u and survives u n t i l LF, even though i t i s deleted somewhere on the path of the derivation that leads to the phonetic component of the grammar. In the same chapter, effects  I s h a l l assume that the "anti-reconstruction"  that I s h a l l present are explained by the fact that certain types of  adjuncts such as r e l a t i v e clauses behave as i f they adjoin to the DP they modify after  that  DP has  undergone  movement.  5  In  a  copy  theory  model,  such an  assumption w i l l explain why elements within such a r e l a t i v e clause do not appear to  suffer Condition  reconstruction"  C reconstruction  to describe this  effects.  I  s h a l l use  the  term  lack of Condition C reconstruction  "antieffects  t y p i c a l l y seen i n names that are embedded i n a r e l a t i v e clause that modifies a phrase that undergoes reconstruction.  I use the term "certain types of adjuncts" above i n r e f e r r i n g to r e l a t i v e  In a D-structure model, the idea that phrases such as relative clauses attach to the projection they modify after that phrase has undergone movement will mean that such a relative clause will not exist at D-structure. This creates a problem in that under such an analysis, with a D-structure model, the Projection Principle cannot hold at D-structure. 5  5 c l a u s e s because  g e n i t i v e m o d i f i e r s o f a DP, w h i c h , I am a s s u m i n g  i n my  analysis  t o be a d j u n c t s , do show C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s .  I s h a l l not attempt  to  and  explain  this  diverging  respect to reconstruction.  behaviour  of r e l a t i v e  In other respects,  clauses  genitives  with  i n t h e examples I p r e s e n t i n t h i s  paper, g e n i t i v e s and r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s p a t t e r n s i m i l a r l y .  F o r example,  t h e y show  s i m i l a r behaviour with respect to t h e i r postposability i n various  environments,  which  like  makes  i t natural  t o assume  that  genitives  are adjuncts,  relative  c l a u s e s . The o n l y e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s a s s u m p t i o n i s t h e c a s e o f g e n i t i v e s t h a t a r e arguments o f nouns such as "study" i n p h r a s e s t h a t a r e a n a l o g o u s  t o "the study  o f E n g l i s h " i n E n g l i s h . We s h a l l a l s o s e e t h a t g e n i t i v e s , u n l i k e s u b j e c t s , do n o t show SC e f f e c t s , specifier  which  suggests that g e n i t i v e s  than  position.  If postposed phrases sec.  a r e i n an a d j o i n e d r a t h e r  1.1.2.2)  (and a l s o A ' - s c r a m b l e d p h r a s e s , w h i c h a r e r e l e v a n t i n  a r e d e r i v e d by t h e copy  t h e o r y o f movement o f Chomsky  (1995:202-  210) , t h e n t h e r e must be a n o p e r a t o r - v a r i a b l e r e l a t i o n a t L F b e t w e e n some e l e m e n t in  the p o s i t i o n  postposed  of  phrase.  the postposed  In order  phrase  for this  and  the canonical  to occur,  t h e r e must  position be  of the  "complementary  d e l e t i o n " a t LF o f e v e r y t h i n g e x c e p t an o p e r a t o r p h r a s e i n t h e o p e r a t o r p o s i t i o n ; in  the trace  position,  " t h e copy  o f what  remains  d e l e t e s . " I n t h e e x a m p l e s d i s c u s s e d i n Chomsky  i n the operator  (1995:202-210),  position  t h e r e i s an o v e r t  w h - o p e r a t o r . T h e r e i s no s u c h o v e r t o p e r a t o r i n a p o s t p o s e d o r s c r a m b l e d p h r a s e . In t h e examples I s h a l l some o f t h e m a t e r i a l deleted there  present, i t w i l l  be n e c e s s a r y t o assume t h a t a t  of the postposed phrase  a t L F . One way  i n which  i n the variable  s u c h an LF c o n f i g u r a t i o n  position  might  least i s not  occur i s that  i s a n empty o p e r a t o r a t L F i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e a n d a  v a r i a b l e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e t h a t o c c u r s i n t h e in s i t u p o s i t i o n at LF. I s h a l l with  assume t h a t some k i n d o f c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h i s t y p e o c c u r s a t L F  postposed phrases  structure illustrates  of  the  but I s h a l l  empty  operator  not t r y t o determine or  the  variable.  The  the exact nature or following  diagram  roughly the proposed c o n f i g u r a t i o n , w i t h u n d e r l i n e d elements being  d e l e t e d at  or by L F . XP r e p r e s e n t s  the postposed p h r a s e ,  Op an empty  operator,  and x a v a r i a b l e .  (1) CP /  \  CP /  Op[XP] \  /  \ x [XP]  0.1.2  C-command  In o r d e r to argue t h a t t h e r e i s a c-command r e l a t i o n between a postposed phrase  and the  conditions position  is  for  empty c a t e g o r y  in its  c-command  be  one  that  is  can  canonical  vacuously  adjoined  to  the  position  satisfied  root  node.  I  shall  when  the  Consider  assume  that  c-commanding the  following  structure:  (2)  XP /  \  XP  /  YP  \ ZP  We want  to  be  able  to  say  that  YP c-commands  ZP,  where  dominates XP. The c-command c o n d i t i o n says t h a t YP c-commands  (a)  YP does not dominate ZP  (b)  every p r o j e c t i o n t h a t dominates YP dominates ZP  no  ZP i f f :  category  7 Condition vacuously:  I  (a)  above  no p r o j e c t i o n  is  dominates  s h a l l a l s o make t h e  assumptions are not  2.  G e n i t i v e s and r e l a t i v e  3.  VP-internal  4.  no h e a d movement  5.  Clause  in  [Spec,  (b)  above  holds  Some o f  these  contains YP.  Japanese.  a r e made f o r  ease of  exposition.  CP]. clauses are adjoined  to  a projection  of  D.  subject  level  of V to  adjuncts  I  such as  projection  of  6.  a complementizer  is  Condition  assumptions about  c r u c i a l t o my a n a l y s i s b u t  Topics are  koto  satisfied.  YP s i n c e XP o n l y  following  1.  7. nominative  concessive  clauses  are  adjoined  to  a  I. that  introduces  case-marked clauses  a r g u m e n t s o f u n a c c u s a t i v e v e r b s s u c h a s nigeta  are underlyingly  0.2  clearly  in object  Japanese as a s t r i c t l y  position  "left-attaching"  T h e f o l l o w i n g d a t a show t h a t i n J a p a n e s e , complements and a d j u n c t s  obligatorily  0.2.1  C o m p l e m e n t s must p r e c e d e h e a d s  NP:  (3a)  [benkyooj ]  English-gen "the  study  of  language  f o r a l l types of c a t e g o r i e s ,  precede the head of  in.  [eigo-no  " t o r u n away"  study English"  the phrase they  both occur  8 (3b)  * [ [benkyoo ]  eigo-no]  N  study  'the  NP  NP  English-gen  |  study of E n g l i s h "  N'  /  \  N  PP:  (4a)  XP  [Nihon-[kara ] ] p k i t a . P  P  Japan-from  came  " H e / s h e / I came from J a p a n . " * (4b)  * [ [ k a r a ] Nihon] P  from  Japan  "He/she/I  PP  PP  kita  |  came  P'  came from J a p a n . "  /  \  P  VP:  (5a)  [e-o  [kaki ] ] -wa s i n a i . v  VP  [ p i c t u r e - a c c draw]-top  !5b)  XP  do-neg •k  "As f o r drawing a p i c t u r e ,  I d o n ' t do i t " .  *[[kaki ]  e-o] -wa  sinai  V  picture-acc]-top  do-neg  /  v  [draw  VP  "As f o r drawing a p i c t u r e ,  I d o n ' t do i t " .  V  VP  \ XP  9 0.2.2  A d j u n c t s must precede  NP:  (6a)  [Taroo-ga/no  heads  kaita  [e ]] -ga N  Taro-nom/gen drew "I  NP  suki.  picture-nom l i k e a b l e  l i k e the p i c t u r e  t h a t Taro d r e w . " *  (6b)  *[[e ]  Taroo-ga/no  N  [picture "I  VP:  (7a)  /  -nom/gen drew]-nom l i k e a b l e  l i k e the p i c t u r e  [zyoozu-ni  kaita]-ga suki.  NP  NP  e-o  [kaki ] ] -wa s i n a i . v  I d o n ' t do  VP  draw]-top  "As f o r drawing a p i c t u r e  do-neg  skillfully,  it". *  *[e-o  [kaki ] v  [picture-acc  XP  t h a t Taro d r e w . "  [ s k i l l f u l l y picture-acc  (7b)  \  draw  zyoozu-ni] -wa VP  s k i l l f u l l y ] - t o p do-neg  "As f o r drawing a p i c t u r e I d o n ' t do  sinai  it".  skillfully,  VP  /  \  VP XP  10 IP:  (8a)  Taroo-wa to]  C P  [[[kuruma-ga  kowareta  kara]  korarenakat-[taj ]  P P  I P  itta.  Taroo-top  car-nom  broke  because  couldn't-come  C  said "Taro s a i d t h a t he c o u l d n ' t come because h i s c a r broke down."  (8b)  *Taroo-wa to]  C P  [[korarenakat-[ta ] z  [kuruma-ga  kowareta k a r a ]  P P  IP  ]  itta.  Taroo-top  car-nom  broke  because  couldn't-come  C  said "Taro s a i d t h a t he c o u l d n ' t come because h i s c a r broke down."  *  IP  / IP  \ XP  0.2.3 P o s t p o s i n g as a s o l e e x c e p t i o n t o l e f t - a t t a c h m e n t  Postposing  is a  striking  exception  t o the l e f t - a t t a c h i n g  Japanese. When a phrase i s postposed, i t s o c c u r r e n c e t o the r i g h t node  seems  to violate  the s t r i c t  head-final  constraint  on  (From Endo(1989:85))  IP /  [  loc.  koko-ni  subj.  exist  "There i s a c a t here."  I  / \  neko-ga i r u  h e r e - l o c cat-nom  \  VP  V]I]  PP  V / DP  o f the r o o t  linear  phrases.  ( 9 a ) ( c a n o n i c a l sentence)  nature of  \ V  o r d e r of  11 (9b)(postposed  sentence) IP  [  loc.  V I]  subj.  /  koko-ni i r u , neko-ga. here-loc exist  IP  cat-nom  /  ( I t ) ' s here - - the c a t .  \ I  \  PP  V /  \  V  ei  E v i d e n c e t h a t p o s t p o s i n g i s a s y n t a c t i c phenomenon  Because respect to  DPj  VP /  0.3.  \  p o s t p o s i n g appears  to  be such an anomaly i n the  to the i s s u e of l i n e a r o r d e r of c o n s t i t u e n t s ,  view i t  as  a  non-syntactic  phenomenon,  language  with  t h e r e has been a tendency  explainable  as  an  "afterthought"  c o n s t r u c t i o n . In t h i s s e c t i o n I s h a l l p r e s e n t evidence t h a t p o s t p o s i n g i s s u b j e c t to  syntactic  that  constraints.  contains  I shall  show t h a t  sentences  a name show C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  pronoun c o r e f e r e n t i a l  w i t h a p o s t p o s e d phrase effects  w i t h the name i n the main sentence  when t h e r e  that  is  c-commands  a  the  c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n of the p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e . T h i s evidence f o r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the p o s t p o s e d phrase  suggests  that  there  is  a syntactic  p o s t p o s e d phrase and the r e s t of the s e n t e n c e .  Consider  the  same  non-postposing version  and  (11)  is  the  r e l a t i o n between (10)  and (11).  sentence  with  (10)  the is  an  element  seme-ta ] - k o t o / n o - g a ]  akiraka  postposed.  (10)  [ [ [kare.  i/:i  -ga  da ] . IP  evident copula  [TaroOi-no t o m o d a t i - o ]  him -nom It  [T . - g e n  k  friends-acc]  IP  CP  blamed-  i s e v i d e n t t h a t hei blamed [ T a r o *  i/:j  's  COMP-nom friends] . k  12 (11) [ [ [kare,  i/:i  -ga  e  k  [TaroOi-no  seme-ta ]-koto/no-ga ] a k i r a k a da ] , IP  CP  IP  tomodati-  o] . k  hiirii-nom  blamed-  COMP-nom  I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t he  t  evident copula  blamed them  k  [TarOi's  --  T^-gen  friends-acc  friends] . k  In (11), p o s t p o s i n g can o c c u r o n l y i f the pronoun s u b j e c t of t h e embedded c l a u s e i s not c o i n d e x e d  w i t h the name c o n t a i n e d  i n the p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e .  This  f a c t suggests t h a t t h e r e i s some s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n between the p o s t p o s e d phrase and the main sentence and t h a t some k i n d of b i n d i n g v i o l a t i o n o c c u r s when t h e r e is  coreference.  should  be  no  I f postposing  were a mere " a f t e r t h o u g h t "  syntactic relation  between the  postposed  c o n s t r u c t i o n , there phrase  and  the  main  sentence and no b i n d i n g v i o l a t i o n s h o u l d be o c c u r r i n g h e r e . In c h a p t e r 1 I s h a l l make a  d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of  these  kinds  e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of  0.3.1  sentences  and  shall  propose  an  coreference.  Other a n a l y s e s of p o s t p o s i n g as a s y n t a c t i c phenomenon  Whitman (1991b) d e s c r i b e s p o s t p o s i n g main  of  verb"  and  cites  examples  (W(20,21))  p o s t p o s i n g i s s u b j e c t t o subjacency. that postposing  as  " a d j u n c t i o n t o the r i g h t of  from  Kuno  (1978)  These examples a l s o support  i s a s y n t a c t i c phenomenon r a t h e r than  an  that the  show  the that  hypothesis  afterthought  to  the  sentence.  Endo syntactic  (1989)  proposes  movement t o  that  the  postposed  a p o s i t i o n adjoined  to  the  phrase matrix  undergoes S'  node  rightward (CP  in  my  a n a l y s i s . ) She s u p p o r t s t h i s a n a l y s i s w i t h examples t h a t suggest t h a t p o s t p o s i n g shows subjacency  e f f e c t s such as the a d j u n c t  c o n d i t i o n : f o r example she  shows  t h a t a p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e cannot be e x t r a c t e d out of an a d j u n c t such as a r e l a t i v e  13 clause  (12), o r a d v e r b i a l  6  clause  (13). Examples  (12)-(8)  below  and t h e i r  judgements a r e from Endo (1989) .  (12)  * [ [ , m a r i ga e NP  [E77b]  katta] mise]-ni  t  s  Mari-NOM  itta  bought s t o r e LOC went  no,  dress-Oi.  COMP dress-ACC  I went t o t h e s t o r e where Mari bought -- a d r e s s . (Object o f r e l a t i v e c l a u s e cannot be postposed.)  (13)  *[  [E130a]  P P  ej mita saw  ato-de] piano-o after  piano-ACC p r a c t i s e - d o  I ' l l p r a c t i s e piano (Object o f temporal a d j u n c t  (14)  [  PP  c l a u s e cannot be postposed.)  ±  saw  EMPH TV-ACC  a f t e r I have watched -- TV.  t e r e b i - o mita ato-de] e  [E130b] TV-ACC  terebi-Oi-  rensyuu-suru yo,  after  rensyuu-suru yo, practise-do  piano-o  EMPH piano-ACC  I ' l l p r a c t i s e a f t e r I watch TV -- piano.  (Object o f m a t r i x  (15)  koko-ni  [E13a] here-LOC  [  c l a u s e can be postposed.)  NP  e  ±  wine-ga  aru  yo, [ . kinoo  wine-NOM e x i s t EMPH  Here i s the wine -- t h a t I bought  s  yesterday  katta]  £  bought  yesterday.  Some of the examples that I s h a l l present w i l l show that postposing out of an adjunct i s l a n d such as a r e l a t i v e clause can be grammatical. In the f o l l o w i n g example, which i s d i s c u s s e d i n sec. 1.2.3.1, postposing of the g e n i t i v e v i o l a t e s any v e r s i o n of Subjacency. 6  (i)  [Hanako-ni [e omotya-o] w a t a s i t a kodomo-ga] n i g e t a , TaroOj-no. H.-dat toy-acc handed-over child-nom fled T.-gen The c h i l d who handed over the toy to Hanako ran away -- Taro's (toy) i  I s h a l l argue that postposing shows s u b j a c e n c y - l i k e e f f e c t s but l o c a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s on postposing, although they w i l l be shown to e x i s t , do not e x a c t l y f o l l o w any c o n s t r a i n t model that I know o f .  14 (Relative  clause  (16)  e  * [  NP  wine]-wa  t  [El3b] As  (Relative  for  the  clause  However, leaves  a  Japanese  is  permitted  postposed  matrix taken  (17)  again  [E6a]  In severe  (18)  go  ±  go  8  EMPH  is  --  which  then  I  the  yesterday.  is no  it  the  right  that  type can,  only  of  an  see  footnote  postposed  fact  other  can  (But  the  an element but  bought  postposed.  One is  katta]i  bought  r i g h t - a d j o i n s  clause,  no]  g o - i n f l  below,  when  bus  7  yesterday  be  why  to  postposed .)  kinoo  s  that  cannot  adjoin  iku  bus  if  phrase  to  CP,  p o s t p o s i t i o n  of  rightward  under  c e r t a i n  occur  to  embedded  5))  the  in  adjunction conditions,  right  clause.  8  of  the  (17)  is  i s  the  C P  COMP a  lot  mendo-kusai  desyoo?  a t t i - k o t t i i .  l o t - o f - t r o u b l e - i n f 1  copula-ASP  there-here  of  trouble  same p h r a s e  is  i s n ' t  i t ?  --  r i g h t - a d j o i n e d  here  to  a  and  there.  non-root  node,  r e s u l t s .  notte  iku]  ride-INFL  r i d i n g  a  bus  g a - m a r k e d DP i n t h i s that it is d i f f i c u l t  Multiple Endo (1989) for in chapter 5.  exist it  [,  be  (1989).  a  deviance  (a)*[[[e  The suggests  Endo  r i d i n g  bus  2  cannot  ride-INFL  (18)  To  embedded  notte  bus To  it  from  [ei b u s  yo,  language? For example, an  can  aru  unexplained.  adjunction,  from  clause:  facts  subject  topic  a n a l y s i s ,  of  the  here  modifying  r i g h t  in  here-LOC  wine,  her  number  matrix  koko-ni  wine-TOP *  be  modifying  I  P  g o - i n f l --  here  a t t i - k o t t i j  I P  there-here and  there  --  no  ]  mendo-kusai  COMP is  a  lot  trouble-ASP of  trouble,  e x a m p l e may b e a n u n a c c u s a t i v e . E v i d e n c e i n to p o s t p o s e out of an u n e r g a t i v e subject.  desyoo? copula-ASP i s n ' t  i t ?  chapter  r i g h t a d j u n c t i o n s to the m a t r i x c l a u s e do appear to be p o s s i b l e . See examples of m u l t i p l e right adjunctions. I discuss this phenomenon  15 ( 1 8 ) ( b ) * [ [ e i b u s notte bus To go  ride-INFL  riding  -- here and  (18)  there  --  C P  mendo-kusai  i s a l o t of t r o u b l e ,  CP  1  I  \  I I  CP / CP /  \  \  [post'd p h r . ] i  2  IP /  C  /  -no  I' \  riding  \  \  IP  /  \  C  2  a  bus]  /.  desyoo?  trouble-ASP  (a)  *  [e; t o go  atti-kottij  C P  g o - i n f l COMP t h e r e - h e r e  a bus  ( 1 8 ) ( c ) s t r u c t u r e of  no]  iku  \ \  [lot-of-trouble-copula]  copula-ASP isn't it?  16 (18)  (d) s t r u c t u r e of (18) (b)  / /  \ \  /  CP  \ C  2  /  \  IP  C /  \  IP  /  c  /  /  -no  \  \  [lot-of-trouble-copula]  I' / I' /  \ [post'd p h r . ] i  \  [ej t o go r i d i n g a bus]  I propose a s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem i n c h a p t e r 5.  In summary,  the p o s t p o s i n g  c o n s t r u c t i o n shows good evidence  o f being a  s y n t a c t i c phenomenon. I t a l s o e x h i b i t s p r o p e r t i e s t h a t a r e d i f f e r e n t o t h e r types of d i s l o c a t i o n i n the language -- s c r a m b l i n g  from two  and t o p i c a l i z a t i o n .  0.4. A comparison o f t h r e e types o f d i s l o c a t i o n i n Japanese  The  f o l l o w i n g i s a summary o f the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between the t h r e e  phenomena  of  "dislocation"  scrambling, below  as  topicalization, an  umbrella  term  and  postposing.  f o r a l l types  dependencies i n c l u d i n g both movement and b a s e - g e n e r a t i o n .  I of  use  the  term  discontinuous  17 Scrambling  -left  dislocation  from an argument p o s i t i o n  - a n a l y s e d as movement -case-marking  o c c u r s as f o r phrases i n s i t u  -case-marker-drop  not p o s s i b l e f o r scrambled  - o n l y argument DP's,  PP's  and CP's may  be  -clause-bound s c r a m b l i n g can be A-movement  objects  scrambled (See S a i t o  (1994a:74))  Topicalization  -left  d i s l o c a t i o n from c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n of phrase  -can be d e r i v e d by e i t h e r movement or b a s e - g e n e r a t i o n (see S a i t o for  PP t o p i c s which cannot be  (1985)) except  base-generated  - o b l i g a t o r i l y the l e f t m o s t element  of the s e n t e n c e  -marked by p a r t i c l e wa r a t h e r than by  9  case-marker  - t o p i c a l i z e d PP's and phrases headed by p a r t i c l e ni are t o p i c a l i z e d i n the form XP-ni-wa or XP-P-wa -DP's  o t h e r than g e n i t i v e s  (see (19) below), adverbs, o b l i q u e s , and CP's can be  topicalized. V P - t o p i c a l i z a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e w i t h l i g h t v e r b suru  (See  (13) below.)  The f o l l o w i n g example shows t h a t a VP can be t o p i c a l i z e d i f a l i g h t v e r b o c c u r s a f t e r the t o p i c a l i z e d VP  (19)[hon-o yomi ]-wa VP  read-top  i n o r d e r t o support the  inflection:  si-na-i do-neg-infl  As f o r r e a d i n g books,  I don't/he-she  doesn't.  "Contrastive" wa-marked phrases, which are not obligatorily the leftmost element of the sentence, are to be distinguished from true topics.  18 Postposing  -always the r i g h t m o s t  element i n  sentence  -marked w i t h case-marker o r p a r t i c l e t h a t o c c u r s c a n o n i c a l l y - a l l DP's -A'  i n c l u d i n g g e n i t i v e s , adverbs,  movement  The First,  CP's,  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s can be  postposed  (see below)  f o l l o w i n g examples  c o n s i d e r the  suggest  that  postposing  f o l l o w i n g examples from S a i t o  cannot  be  A-movement.  10  (1994b:74) t h a t show t h a t a  c l a u s e - i n t e r n a l l y - s c r a m b l e d pronoun can A - b i n d a r e c i p r o c a l :  (20) a.  ?*otagai -no i  sensei-ga  karerai-o h i h a n s i t a  each-other-gen teacher-nom they-acc Each o t h e r ' S i t e a c h e r s c r i t i c i z e d  b.  Pkareraj-o o t a g a i i ~ n o they-acc  ?*Masao-ga -nom  criticized  hihansita  (koto)  each-other-gen teacher-nom c r i t i c i z e d  (fact)  x  otagaii~no  theirs.  sensei-ni  k a r e r a i - o s y o o k a i - s i t a (koto)  each-other-gen teacher-nom them-acc  Masao i n t r o d u c e d them to each o t h e r ' s  d.  (fact)  their^.  sensei-ga t  Each o t h e r ' S i t e a c h e r s c r i t i c i z e d  c.  (koto)  introduced  teachers.  k a r e r a i - o Masao-ga  otagaii-no  them-acc  each-other-gen teacher-nom i n t r o d u c e d  -nom  sensei-ni  Masao i n t r o d u c e d them to each o t h e r ' s  s y o o k a i - s i t a (koto) (fact)  teachers.  In (a) above, the r e c i p r o c a l i s not bound, which accounts  °These examples were pointed out by Hisatsugu Kitahara (p.c).  (fact)  f o r the deviance.  19 In  (b) the improved  grammaticality  "them",  that  can be  explained  c-commands  i f we  the r e c i p r o c a l ,  posit  that  the  scrambled  pronoun  can A - b i n d i t .  Similarly,  i n (c) the r e c i p r o c a l i s not bound but i n (d), the scrambled pronoun  appears t o A - b i n d the r e c i p r o c a l which i t c-commands from i t s scrambled p o s i t i o n .  The f o l l o w i n g sentences a r e i d e n t i c a l t o the f o u r above except t h a t r a t h e r than s c r a m b l i n g the pronoun, we have p o s t p o s e d results  when the pronoun  i s postposed.  it.  We f i n d t h a t no improvement  I f we assume t h a t  f i g u r e i n b i n d i n g , we can e x p l a i n t h i s f a c t  precedence  does not  i f the p o s t p o s e d pronoun i n (b) and  (d) above i s not i n an A - p o s i t i o n , u n l i k e the scrambled phrase  i n the p r e v i o u s  s e t o f examples.  (21) a.  ?*otagaii-no  s e n s e i ga  kareraj-o h i h a n s i t a  (koto)  each-other-gen t e a c h e r nom they-acc c r i t i c i z e d Each o t h e r ' S i t e a c h e r s c r i t i c i z e d  b.  ?*otagaii-no  then^.  s e n s e i ga t i h i h a n s i t a  each-other-gen t e a c h e r nom c r i t i c i z e d Each o t h e r ' S i t e a c h e r s c r i t i c i z e d  c.  ?*Masao-ga  otagaii-no  sensei-ni  (fact)  -- k a r e r a i - o . -- t h e y - a c c .  -- theirs.  karerai-o s y o o k a i - s i t a  -nom each-other-gen teacher-nom them-acc  introduced  (koto)  (fact)  Masao i n t r o d u c e d them t o each o t h e r ' s t e a c h e r s .  d.  ?*Masao-ga  otagaii-no  sensei-ni  syookai-sita  -nom each-other-gen teacher-nom i n t r o d u c e d  -- k a r e r a i - o . -- them-acc .  Masao i n t r o d u c e d t o each o t h e r ' s t e a c h e r s -- them.  These data a l s o suggest then p o s t p o s e  it.  that  i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o scramble  I f i t were, we ought t o be a b l e t o f i r s t  scramble  a phrase and the pronoun  20 in  (c) and  (d) above t o an A - p o s i t i o n from which i t can b i n d the r e c i p r o c a l ,  then p o s t p o s e  and  i t t o a c h i e v e the s u r f a c e o r d e r .  Comparison  A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between p o s t p o s i n g and the o t h e r two common types of  dislocation  scrambled  i s that  a wider  or t o p i c a l i z e d .  types t h a t  can  range  I shall  or cannot  be  of phrase  not g i v e a f u l l  topicalized  types  can  be  postposed  i n v e n t o r y of a l l the  or scrambled,  but  I shall  below t h a t g e n i t i v e s and r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , both of which a r e phrase  than  phrase  illustrate types  that  are important i n my a n a l y s i s , can be p o s t p o s e d but not scrambled or t o p i c a l i z e d :  (22) (a) t o p i c a l i z e d g e n i t i v e  is  •TaroOi-no-wa, Hanako-ga T.-gen-top As  ungrammatical  [ei hon-o ] yonda. NP  H.-nom  book-acc  f o r T a r o ' s , Hanako r e a d  (b) scrambled  *Taroo-nOj T.-gen  genitive i s  Hanako-ga H.-nom  *Taro's, Hanako r e a d  read  ( h i s ) book.  ungrammatical  [ej hon-o ] yonda. NP  book-acc ( h i s ) book.  read 11  This sentence can only receive the interpretation where the genitive modifies the subject, in which case it has not been scrambled.  21  (c) postposed genitive is grammatical Hanako-ga Oi hon-o ] yonda, Taroo-nOi. NP  H.-nom  book-acc read T.-gen  Hanako read (his) book -- Taro's. If we drop the genitive case-marker in (12), the sentence is s t i l l ungrammatical (23) *Taroo -wa, Hanako-ga [ei hon-o ] yonda. i  T.-top  NP  H.-nom  book-acc read  As for Taro's, Hanako read (his) book. (24) (a) topicalized relative clause is ungrammatical: * [ Taroo-no-katta] i-wa, Hanako-ga [ei hon-o ] yonda. CP  NP  T.-gen-bought-top  H.-nom  book-acc read  *As for Taro bought , Hanako read (such a) book. (b) scrambled relative clause is ungrammatical * [ Taroo-no-katta] i Hanako-ga [ei hon-o ] yonda. CP  T.-gen-bought  NP  H.-nom  12  book-acc read  *Taro bought , Hanako read (such a) book.  l2  This sentence can only have the interpretation where the relative clause modifies the subject:  "Hanako, whom Taro bought, read a book."  22 (c) p o s t p o s e d r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s grammatical:  Hanako-ga  [e hon-o ] yonda, £  H.-nom  [ Taroo-no-katta]  NP  book-acc  CP  read  L  T.-gen-bought  Hanako r e a d a book -- t h a t Taro  0.4.1  bought.  A comparison between p o s t p o s i n g and o t h e r types of movement o r d i s l o c a t i o n  (a) L i k e t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , p o s t p o s i n g seems t o : 1. o c c u r o n l y i n an A' 2. have o n l y one  (b)  Whitman  (1991b)  i n f o r m a t i o n but information.  (c)  Postposing  available  argues  doesn't  This  qualifications.  site  position  that  specify  claim  seems  a  postposed  phrase  may  not  whether he means discourse-new to  be  generally  true  but  contain  new  or hearer-new there  may  be  1 3  differs  from  scrambling  and  topicalization  i n that  relative  c l a u s e s and g e n i t i v e s can be p o s t p o s e d but not scrambled o r t o p i c a l i z e d .  (d) L i k e scrambled phrases, p o s t p o s e d phrases must be case marked as they would be i n t h e i r c a n o n i c a l  (e)  Wa-marked  topics  position.  including  topicalized  VP's  (See  (25)  below.)  can  postposed.  For example, ga-marked phrases can be l e g i t i m a t e l y postposed ((47) i n sec. 1.1.2.2 i s grammatical.) I f a ga-marked phrase i s focused, then such sentences may be counterexamples to Whitman's c l a i m that exhaustive l i s t i n g focused phrases cannot be postposed. I s h a l l not t r y to deal here with the q u e s t i o n of whether a l l gamarked phrases are focused.  be  23 25)si-nai, do-neg  [hon-o yomi ]-wa VP  read-top  He/she doesn't -- as f a r as r e a d i n g books i s concerned  24 1. E v i d e n c e f o r a movement a n a l y s i s o f p o s t p o s e d  In  this  chapter  reconstruction explained  I  show  that  phrases  postposed  and a n t i - r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  effects.  These  show  Condition  phenomena  are easily  s e c t i o n 1.1 i n w h i c h I e x a m i n e  p o s t p o s i n g when t h e g a p p e d p o s i t i o n i s c o n t a i n e d 1.2, i n w h i c h t h e g a p p e d p o s i t i o n i s c o n t a i n e d two s e c t i o n s  I will  i n a matrix  clause,  i n a n embedded c l a u s e .  f o l l o w t h e same s t r a t e g y :  t o look  and s e c . I n each o f  a t p o s t p o s i n g from a  v a r i e t y o f p o s i t i o n s : complement p o s i t i o n , s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , t o p i c p o s i t i o n relevant  C  i f p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s u n d e r g o s y n t a c t i c movement. T h e d a t a I e x a m i n e i n  t h i s c h a p t e r a r e d i v i d e d i n t o two m a i n s e c t i o n s :  the  phrases  f o r matrix  clauses),  and from  datives  and oblique  (only  positions.  The  f o l l o w i n g d i a g r a m shows t h e p o s t p o s i n g e n v i r o n m e n t s I s h a l l b e l o o k i n g a t . (26) CP /  \  TOPIC  /  \  IP  C \ /  \  VP /  SUBJECT  I \  \ /  \  DATIVE/OBLIQUE  \ /  \  COMPLEMENT  V  1.0.1 A l e f t w a r d movement a c c o u n t o f p o s t p o s i n g  If  postposing  i s syntactic  movement,  then  i t i s always  movement  that  25 r e s u l t s i n r i g h t w a r d p o s i t i o n i n g o f the p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e . A number o f d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e d e r i v a t i o n s , c o u l d l e a d t o such a r e s u l t : r i g h t w a r d movement i s not the o n l y p o s s i b l e o p t i o n . F o r example, the p o s t p o s e d phrase c o u l d be l e f t w a r d moved t o a p r o j e c t i o n h i g h i n the s t r u c t u r e of the sentence and then t h e r e s t o f the sentence  could  be moved l e f t  t o an even h i g h e r p o s i t i o n above the postposed  p h r a s e . The f o l l o w i n g diagram i l l u s t r a t e s how such a d e r i v a t i o n might work w i t h l e f t w a r d movement t o s p e c i f i e r p o s i t i o n s :  26 (27)  (a) FP  n  Fi'  FP,  IP /  \  /  \ XP  (b) I Fi'  I FP  /  2  I  IP / /  \ \  27 (c)  /  /  I  \  FP  ti  2  / | XPi F ' 2  I  The phrase XP ends up to the right of IP, the rest of the sentence, result  of two steps  of  leftward movement to the  s p e c i f i e r s of FP  2  as a  and F P i .  Although such a derivation should not, i n p r i n c i p l e , be ruled out, I s h a l l assume the simpler derivation of rightward movement, after giving evidence i n favour of syntactic movement of postposed phrases. 1.0.2  The nature of the gap  When a phrase i s postposed, i t i s construed with a gapped p o s i t i o n i n the main sentence. In the following examples, I s h a l l try to determine the nature of this gap. I s h a l l show i n the examples below that t h i s gap cannot be a pro. If i t were, we would not be able to explain the condition C reconstruction effects that  are  observed,  specifically  since  it  is  structure  inside  a name embedded i n the phrase - -  the  postposed phrase  that experiences  --  the observed  binding v i o l a t i o n s . If the gap i s a pro, we have no way of representing the structure inside the element that that pro represents. The relevant structure i s as follows:  28 (28) IP /  \  IP  YP(postposed  /  \  VP  Y'  /  \  pronoun;  / V  /  \  name;  \  Y'  /  \  V  e j  The gap  phrase)j  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s e^. N e i t h e r of the p r o n o u n  nor the name; can c-command the o t h e r .  I f ej i s pro,  e s t a b l i s h a s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n between pronoun  then t h e r e  and  ;  i s no way  we  naraej t o e x p l a i n why  can they  cannot be coindexed. I f . on the other hand, ej i s a t r a c e of movement, a copy of YP  survives  till  Pronoun; does  LF  in  c-command  the  position  name; w i t h i n  of  e  this  under  s  copy,  a  reconstruction  which  explains  account.  the  binding  violation.  The present  foregoing for  the  i s the essence of the k i n d of r e c o n s t r u c t i o n account I s h a l l  examples  conclude t h a t the gap  that  will  follow.  Those  i s a t r a c e of movement, not  a  examples  will  lead  The  I f we  assume t h a t p o s t p o s e d phrases are not d e r i v e d by s u c c e s s i v e and  to  pro.  1.0.3  movement,  me  n a t u r e of the p o s t p o s e d p o s i t i o n  that  specifier  p o s t p o s e d phrase must be  positions  cannot  i n e i t h e r an a d j o i n e d  occur  on  the  right,  leftward then  the  or a complement p o s i t i o n . I f i t  i s i n a complement p o s i t i o n then the main sentence, which I s h a l l assume i s a CP, must be i n the s p e c i f i e r p o s i t i o n of a h i g h f u n c t i o n a l p r o j e c t i o n t h a t h o s t s the p o s t p o s e d phrase as  i t s complement, as we  see  i n the  s t r u c t u r e below.  29 (29)  XP /  \  /  X'  /  /  CP  \  X  YP(postposed  phrase)  /_\ main sentence  This  will  mean  that  there  can  be  no  c-command  relation  between  the  p o s t p o s e d phrase and the gap w i t h which i t i s c o n s t r u e d i n the main c l a u s e : o n l y m-command. A l t h o u g h I do not see any way  t h a t the above c o n f i g u r a t i o n s h o u l d be  r u l e d out, I s h a l l i n s t e a d adopt the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s i n a  position  right-adjoined  to  the  highest  projection  i l l u s t r a t e d below. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s w i l l make i t p o s s i b l e command  relation  between  the  postposed  c o n s t r u e d . In a d d i t i o n , because  phrase  and  the  of  the  sentence,  as  f o r t h e r e t o be a cgap  w i t h which  i t is  i t i s the gap and not the p o s t p o s e d phrase t h a t  has a l o c a l semantic r e l a t i o n w i t h some head, and because  I know of' no evidence  i n o t h e r languages of a d i s l o c a t e d element b e i n g found i n a complement p o s i t i o n , it  seems  more  plausible  that  the  postposed  phrase  i s not  in a  complement  position.  (30)  XP /  \  XP  /  p o s t p o s e d phrase  \  main sentence  The p o s t p o s e d phrase always a t t a c h e s t o the r i g h t of the r i g h t m o s t element i n the main sentence. A c c o r d i n g l y , I s h a l l assume t h a t i t a t t a c h e s t o the h i g h e s t  30 projection  f o r which  we have  evidence  o f an o v e r t  head:  either  IP o r CP,  depending on t h e sentence.  1.0.4 A r e c o n s t r u c t i o n a n a l y s i s o f b i n d i n g v i o l a t i o n s w i t h p o s t p o s i n g  I s h a l l f i r s t p r e s e n t one example of an apparent that  occurs  with  a postposed  phrase  b i n d i n g theory v i o l a t i o n  and show how i t can be e x p l a i n e d as a  C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t i f we assume movement o f the postposed Then  I shall  show how t h e same approach  p o s t p o s i n g t o argue f o r a movement  C o n s i d e r again,  can be used  with  other  phrase.  examples of  analysis.  (11), r e p e a t e d here as  (31):  (31) (a) p o s t p o s e d o b j e c t c o n t a i n s a name t h a t i s coindexed w i t h a pronoun i n the main s e n t e n c e :  [ [ [kare,  i/:j  -ga e  him. -nom i/d  IP  CP  blamed-  [[ PRONOUN-NOMi e It  semeta ] -koto-ga ] a k i r a k a da ] ,  k  k  V  COMP-nom  I  C] -nom CP  IP  evident copula A  I  IP  i s e v i d e n t t h a t he blamed them -- TarOi's A  ]  [Tarooj-no Ti.-gen [NAME-GEN  friends.  tomodati-o] . k  friends-acc DP]  k  31 (b)  (structure of  Ola) IP  /  \  IP /  DP \ I'  I  / \ AP  / \  phrase)  \  CP  C  (postposed  K  D'  I \ I  GENi  D'  cop.  C  IP  VP /  \  PRONOUN-NOMi  V' / \ e  t  V  I n t h i s e x a m p l e , we n e e d t o e x p l a i n why d e v i a n c e r e s u l t s when t h e p r o n o u n subject  o f t h e embedded  postposed  clause  i s coindexed  with  t h e name  embedded  i n  the  phrase.  Consider  the following facts:  1. T h e g e n i t i v e m o d i f i e r GENi o f t h e p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e c a n n o t c-command PRONOUNNOMi  o  u  t  o f DP . T h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e  cannot b i n d  k  a phrase outside  (32) shows t h a t  o f t h e DP i t o c c u r s  i n Japanese, a g e n i t i v e  i n . I n (32), t h e s u b j e c t c -  commands t h e name, b u t t h e g e n i t i v e embedded i n t h e s u b j e c t d o e s n o t c-command t h e name o u t o f i t s p h r a s e , a s we c a n s e e b y t h e l a c k o f C o n d i t i o n C v i o l a t i o n  32 t h a t o c c u r s when the g e n i t i v e and name are c o i n d e x e d .  (32)  k a r e ^ n o t o m o d a t i - g a T a r o o j - o semeta hin^-gen f r i e n d ( s ) - n o m HiSi f r i e n d ( s )  2.  r  a c c blamed  blamed T a r O i .  PRONOUN-NOMi cannot  c-command the postposed phrase DP o r a n y t h i n g i n s i d e i t k  s i n c e i t i s embedded i n s i d e the CP m a t r i x  subject.  I s h a l l assume t h a t PRONOUN-  NOM cannot have scrambled o u t s i d e of the embedded c l a u s e might  c-command the p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e ,  long-distance  3.  If e  occur  k  s c r a m b l i n g of a s u b j e c t  i s a pronominal r a t h e r  as a r e s u l t  following  t o a p o s i t i o n where i t  evidence  i n Saito  that  i n Japanese i s r u l e d o u t .  than a t r a c e ,  no b i n d i n g t h e o r y v i o l a t i o n s h o u l d  of a r e l a t i o n between PRONOUN-NOM and e i  a) the two elements  (1985)  k  since:  a r e not coindexed  b) a pronominal cannot r e p r e s e n t  structure  that occurs  " i n s i d e i t " . s u c h as  GENi  Thus we cannot f i n d any r e l a t i o n between the p o s i t i o n s of the two coindexed phrases:  the g e n i t i v e  subject,  t h a t c o u l d e x p l a i n the apparent  We need, moved and t h a t  then,  violation.  Chomsky  (1995),  it  explain  of t h i s  phrase  The f o l l o w i n g  phrase  and the embedded pronoun  binding v i o l a t i o n that  is  diagram  left  and t h a t  ungrammaticality  Condition C reconstruction.  the copy of  (31)  at  LF t h a t  undergoes  how, i f we assume, is left  survives when  occurs.  the p o s t p o s e d phrase has  behind  shows  t h a t a copy of the moved phrase  originated, the  the postposed  t o c o n s i d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t  a copy  binding  where  within  following  b e h i n d i n the p o s i t i o n  i n the LF component,  coindexing  a  occurs  as  a  we can case  of  33 (33)  IP /  \  IP /  DP  k  \  \  I ' GEN; D'  CP  / \  C  AP  I copula  / \  C  IP  I'  VP /  \  PRONOUN-NOM;  V / DP  \ V  k  | \ GEN;  D'  DP , t h e p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e , i s shown above i n i t s c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n , i n s i d e k  embedded  VP. I f , when  i t i s postposed,  a  copy  i s left  behind  (as i n  Chomsky(1995)'s copy t h e o r y o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n ) , PRONOUN-NOM; w i l l c-command t h e c o i n d e x e d name GEN;, c a u s i n g a v i o l a t i o n o f C o n d i t i o n C o f t h e c l a s s i c a l theory.  As below:  binding  (A name must be f r e e everywhere.)  further  evidence,  consider  the anti-reconstruction . '  effect  observed  34 (34)(a) [ [ [kare him, It  (b)  ?i/:i  1/:j  -ga  s e m e t a ] - k o t o - g a ] a k i r a k a da ] , IP  -nom  blamed-  i s evident  CP  [ T a r o o - o yonda  IP  COMP-nom  evident  copula  Tj.-acc  t h a t he; blamed them - - the f r i e n d s  ( s t r u c t u r e of  tomodati-o] j .  ;  called  that c a l l e d  friends-acc  Taro;.  (34)(a) IP /  \  IP /  \ \  CPi  \  I'  I  \  / \  C  AP  |  \ I  \  copula  \  IP  \  I  DP  k  I'  \  I VP /  / \  PRONOUN-NOMi  DP  the  example,  canonical  k  / \  2  reconstruction" the f a c t t h a t  2  D'  \  /_\  NAME;  c l a u s e m o d i f y i n g DP i s a d j o i n e d t o k  i t has been p o s t p o s e d ,  DP and no C o n d i t i o n C v i o l a t i o n k  \  V  i f C P , the r e l a t i v e  s t r u c t u r e of DP a f t e r k  CP  V /  In t h i s  '  D  will  e f f e c t t h a t occurs w i t h r e l a t i v e  CP w i l l 2  occur.  not be p a r t This  typical  c l a u s e embedding, w i l l  of the "antiexplain  (34) i s o n l y m a r g i n a l l y d e v i a n t when the name i n s i d e the postposed  phrase i s coindexed w i t h the pronoun s u b j e c t of the embedded  clause.  35 We  shall  see i n s e c t i o n  (1.1.1.1) below t h a t  when t h e p o s t p o s e d  phrase  c o n t a i n s a complement c l a u s e r a t h e r than a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e t h a t a name embedded i n such a c l a u s e i s s u b j e c t t o C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , as we would p r e d i c t .  1.1 P o s t p o s i n g from m a t r i x c l a u s e s  I shall  now examine s i m i l a r  cases o f apparent  t h a t o c c u r when a name i n s i d e a postposed phrase the non-postposed the p o s t p o s e d  binding theory  violations  i s c o i n d e x e d w i t h a phrase i n  p a r t o f the sentence t h a t c-commands the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n of  phrase.  1.1.1 P o s t p o s i n g m a t r i x DP complements  When an o b j e c t i s p o s t p o s e d from a m a t r i x c l a u s e , a name c o n t a i n e d i n it  cannot  c o r e f e r w i t h the m a t r i x s u b j e c t :  (35) kare.  i/;j  -ga  semeta, Taroo -no  he. -nom  blamed  i/;j  He.  i/:j  blamed  ;  tomodati-o.  Ti-gen  friends-acc  (them) -- T a r O i ' s f r i e n d s .  The d e v i a n c e t h a t o c c u r s when t h e r e i s c o r e f e r e n c e i n t h i s sentence can be e x p l a i n e d i n a s i m i l a r manner t o our account o f (31) above. We can r u l e out a l l possibilities possibility, be  of d i r e c t  binding  between  by  the  matrix  subject.  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n a more l i k e l y p o s s i b i l i t y . clause,  coreference,  elements  except  f o r the  here, that the p o s t p o s e d phrase o c c u r s i n a p o s i t i o n low enough t o  c-commanded  relative  coindexed  the sentence  suffers  as we see i n (36) below:  However,  other  evidence  makes  When we embed the name i n (35) i n a  only  marginal  deviance  when  there i s  36 (36)  ?karei-ga  semeta,  hei-nom blamed  [TaroOi-o yonda [T. -acc  c a l l e d students]-acc  ;  He; blamed (them)^--  [the s t u d e n t s who c a l l e d T a r o ^ .  The m a r g i n a l g r a m m a t i c a l i t y when t h e r e effect  i s coreference  i n exactly  postposed  phrase  g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of  gakusei]-o.  i n (31)  i n (36) v e r s u s the severe  can be e x p l a i n e d as an a n t i - r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  the manner we d i d f o r (34) occurs,  then  ungrammaticality  we  have  above.  no  If direct  explanation  b i n d i n g of the  for  the  improved  (36).  1 . 1 . 1 . 1 P o s t p o s i n g m a t r i x CP complements  In  (37)  below,  a name c o r e f e r e n t  embedded i n a complement r a t h e r  (37)  than a r e l a t i v e  [TaroOi-ga o k u r e t a  koto]-o.  hei-nom  T.—nom  C-acc  denied  d e n i e d (it.,)  was judged  to  --  was-late  is  clause.  *karei-ga h i t e i - s i t a ,  he;  (37)  w i t h a pronoun i n the main sentence  [the f a c t t h a t T a r o ; was l a t e ] . , .  be worse  than  (36).  This  is  what  we might  expect  if  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s o c c u r r i n g s i n c e embedding i n a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e w i l l t y p i c a l l y produce a n t i - r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s whereas embedding i n a complement c l a u s e w i l l not.  This contrast  (1995) . structure  In shall  i s e x p l a i n a b l e by the a n a l y s i s of r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of Chomsky  A complement after  not b e i n g  an a d j u n c t ,  cannot  be added t o the  a phrase i t has o c c u r r e d i n has moved.  the next  see a g a i n  clause,  example, that  a CP headed by complementizer  apparent  binding  theory  violations  to i s p o s t p o s e d . We occur  that  can be  37 e x p l a i n e d by C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .  (38)  *Sanae wa, k a r e ^ n i e, i t t a , Sanae TOP him^ DAT  1  [Yootyani ga r i p p a  said  da t o ] j .  Yochani-nom handsome  i s COMP  Sanae s a i d t o hirr^ - - t h a t Yochani i s handsome - - .  If  the c l a u s e  i s p o s t p o s e d by movement, ' i t w i l l  be r e c o n s t r u c t e d  p o s i t i o n where i t i s c-commanded by the coindexed pronoun, which w i l l Condition  C violation.  base-generated, phrase  is  On the  other  hand,  if  the  postposed  attached  occurs  cause a  phrase  is  we can o n l y e x p l a i n the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of (38) i f the postposed lower  than  the  indirect  object  "him-dative".  c o n f i g u r a t i o n might be p o s s i b l e under the f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . "say"  to a  in a shell  o r i g i n a t i n g as s i s t e r  structure  t o the v e r b ,  15  as  shown below,  the i n d i r e c t o b j e c t  and an empty v e r b t a k i n g t h a t VP as i t s complement,  with  its  CP complement  i n s p e c i f i e r of t h a t VP,  then i f head movement of the of the  object.  The complementizer to introduces clausal complements of certain verbs in Japanese -- for example "to say", "to think" or "to hear". Clauses headed by to differ from complement clauses headed by koto or no in several ways: for example, long-distance scrambling can freely occur out of to clauses but marginally out of koto or no clauses. (See Saito (1994) for examples of scrambling out of koto clauses.) (ii) to clauses are never case-marked but koto and no clauses are always case-marked. The difference between the two types of clauses will be significant in chapters 2, 3 and 5r, where we shall see that they exhibit slightly different locality constraints with respect to postposing. 'See Larson (1988), Hale and Keyser (1993), Chomsky (1993).  a  I f the v e r b  v e r b " s a y " i s d e l a y e d u n t i l L F , the p o s t p o s e d phrase c o u l d a d j o i n t o V lower VP and be c-commanded by the i n d i r e c t  Such  38 (39)  VP  V /  \  VP  /  V  I  i.o.  e  V  I \ V  postposed phrase  / \ CP  V say  We c o u l d f o r c e t h e p o s t p o s e d phrase t o a d j o i n i n a h i g h e r  p o s i t i o n by  embedding t h e m a t r i x c l a u s e i n a no-da c o n s t r u c t i o n , w h i c h would appear t o have the s t r u c t u r e i n ( 4 0 ) . I n t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e m a t r i x c l a u s e i s f o l l o w e d by complementizer no, w h i c h i s , i n t u r n , f o l l o w e d by t h e c o p u l a .  (See s e c . 1.2.1.2  f o r f u r t h e r examples of t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n . )  (40)  V I  \  CP  V  I  da(copula)  C / \ IP /_\  C no  matrix c l .  If  we  test  (38) embedded t h i s  way,  we  still  g e t an apparent  Condition  C  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t . Here, t h e e f f e c t cannot be due t o d i r e c t b i n d i n g o f t h e  39 postposed  phrase,  since  the  coindexed  dative  pronoun  cannot  c-command  the  postposed phrase.  (41)  *Sanae wa,  k a r e ^ n i e., i t t a - n - d a ,  Sanae TOP hin^-dat The  (42)  fact  said-C-V  [Yootyani-ga ;  Sanae TOP  ±  k a r e j - n i koo  d  h i n ^ DAT this-wayj  da to]-.  Yochan -nom handsome i s comp  i s t h a t Sanae s a i d t o hirr^ t h a t he  *Sanae wa,  rippa  itta, said  Yocharii.  i s handsome  [Yootyani ga  rippa  da  to] . 6  i s COMP  Yochani-nom handsome  Sanae s a i d t o hiir^ -- t h a t Yochanj i s handsome --  In  (42) a resumptive pro-form f o r the p o s t p o s e d CP i s i n s e r t e d i n p l a c e of the  gap where the p o s t p o s e d c l a u s e s h o u l d be.  (42) i s grammatical when t h e r e i s no  c o r e f e r e n c e . The f a c t t h a t a C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t seems t o occur i n (42) suggests t h a t the resumptive pronoun " t h i s way" in  an A'  a c t s l i k e a v a r i a b l e and i s  r e l a t i o n w i t h the postposed phrase, w i t h the p o s t p o s e d phrase b e i n g  r e c o n s t r u c t e d i n t o the p l a c e of the v a r i a b l e at LF. T h i s example i s important i n the  l i g h t of the g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n about the nature of the gap i n a sentence from  which a phrase i s postposed. We have needed t o c o n s i d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h i s gap  i s pronominal  shows t h a t when we  element  rather  make the gap  than a t r a c e of movement. The an o v e r t  pronominal  element,  example above  i t shows an  A'-  r a t h e r than an A - r e l a t i o n w i t h the postposed phrase.  1.1.2  In  Postposing matrix subjects  t h i s s e c t i o n I s h a l l examine the e f f e c t s t h a t o c c u r on a name embedded  i n a p o s t p o s e d phrase when the p o s t p o s i n g o c c u r s i n two d i f f e r e n t  environments:  1. when the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n of the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s c-commanded by a topic  phrase  40 2. when the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n o f the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s c-commanded by a scrambled  object  1.1.2.1 T o p i c as c-commander  S i n c e v/a-marked t o p i c s o b l i g a t o r i l y occur as the l e f t m o s t element sentence  they must  c-command  the r e s t  o f the sentence. Consequently,  of the a topic  c o r e f e r e n t w i t h a name embedded i n a p o s t p o s e d s u b j e c t can be used t o t e s t f o r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the s u b j e c t :  (43) *karei-wa, s u k i hej-top *As  In  na  no, T a r o O i - n o  l i k e a b l e cop comp  f o r him  i(  he l i k e s  tomodati-ga.  -gen f r i e n d ( s ) - n o m  (them) -- Taro;'s  friend(s)  (43) , the presence of the complementizer  no i n the m a t r i x c l a u s e s h o u l d  f o r c e the p o s t p o s e d phrase t o a d j o i n t o a p r o j e c t i o n a t l e a s t as h i g h as CP. I f the  topic  i s base-generated  i n [ s p e c , CP], the q u e s t i o n o f whether  i t will  c-command an element a d j o i n e d t o CP w i l l depend on one's d e f i n i t i o n of c-command.  (44)  CP / \  CP  p o s t p o s e d phrase  / \ topic  C / \ C \  no  If,  f o r X t o c-command Y, i t i s r e q u i r e d t h a t every p r o j e c t i o n t h a t dominates X  dominates Y, then i n the above case, the t o p i c does not c-command the postposed  41 phrase, s i n c e CP dominates the t o p i c but o n l y one segment o f CP, not the whole p r o j e c t i o n , dominates the p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e . Under such an assumption, the t o p i c i n (43) w i l l not b i n d the p o s t p o s e d phrase d i r e c t l y and the C o n d i t i o n C v i o l a t i o n must be e x p l a i n e d by r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e .  Once  again,  grammaticality  embedding  the  name  in a  relative  o f the sentence, s u g g e s t i n g the o c c u r r e n c e  16  clause  improves  the  of a n t i - r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  effects.  (45) ?*karei-wa, s u k i he^-top *As  na  no, T a r o O i - o  l i k e a b l e cop comp  f o r hirr^, he l i k e s  yonda  tomodati-ga.  -acc c a l l e d f r i e n d ( s )  (them) -- the f r i e n d s who c a l l e d  TarOi.  1.1.2.2 Scrambled o b j e c t as c-commander  Another way of t e s t i n g the b i n d i n g of a r e c o n s t r u c t e d s u b j e c t might be t o use  a scrambled o b j e c t as a c-commander f o r the r e c o n s t r u c t e d  f l o a t e d q u a n t i f i e r marking t h e s i t e o f the p o s t p o s e d s u b j e c t . is  a problem w i t h  i n t e r n a l scrambling  ie  this test  i f we assume, f o l l o w i n g S a i t o  subject, with a 1 7  However, there  (1992) t h a t  clause-  can be A' movement.  There is still the possibility that the topic has its own functional projection that is above CP: TopP / \ topic CP / \ CP postposed phrase  If this is the case, then the topic will directly bind the postposed phrase. However, the anti-reconstruction effects we see in the next example cannot be explained by the above structure. See Saito (1985:212) for evidence that quantifiers such as "three people" cannot be moved themselves from their canonical position in the sentence but can mark the position of the trace of a moved DP with which they are associated.  42 F i r s t , n o t i c e t h a t i n a c a n o n i c a l sentence, a q u a n t i f i e r c o n s t r u e d w i t h a s u b j e c t can be s t r a n d e d when the s u b j e c t  i s postposed:  (46)  [TaroOi-no  [e san-nin] k  kare  i/:J  three-people  he  -acc blamed  i/:i  -o semeta,  The t h r e e (of them ) blamed him k  We a l s o  f i n d that  scrambled t o the l e f t  (47)  Three  k  i-gen friends-nom -- [TarO;'s f r i e n d s ]  k  the s u b j e c t can s t i l l  be p o s t p o s e d when the o b j e c t i s  o f .the s u b j e c t - q u a n t i f i e r .  karei-o e., s a n - n i n hei-acc  i/;j  tomodati-ga] .  semeta,  [Hanako-no tomodati-ga]j  t h r e e - p e o p l e blamed  -gen friends-nom  (of themj) blamed h i n ^ -- Hanako's  (three) f r i e n d s  I f the scrambled o b j e c t i s i n an A - p o s i t i o n , then we s h o u l d expect t o f i n d a Condition C reconstruction violation pronoun and the name. We f i n d ,  when t h e r e i s c o r e f e r e n c e between the  however, t h a t  f o r some speakers, the f o l l o w i n g  sentence i s not bad.  (48) ??karei-o hei-acc Three  s a n - n i n t i semeta,  [TaroOi-no t o m o d a t i - g a ]  t h r e e - p e o p l e blamed  d  -gen friends-nom  (of their^) blamed himi -- TarOi's (three) f r i e n d s  T h i s f a c t c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i f we adopt S a i t o (1992)'s h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the scrambled presumed  pronoun can be i n an A' p o s i t i o n . LF s t r u c t u r e  The f o l l o w i n g  diagram shows the  of (48) when c o p i e s o f the p o s t p o s e d phrase  scrambled pronoun a r e l e f t  behind.  and of the  43 (49) CP /  \  CP  Opj[ DP]  /  IP /  \  OPi  I' /  \  VP /  I \  DP  /  \  \  [Taro'Si  \  friends x ]  V  d  \  /  [him  If  Xi]  the scrambled pronoun  violation will deviance  that  violation. name T a r o  ;  result, this  "him" i s i n an A' p o s i t i o n ,  no C o n d i t i o n  C  s i n c e a name must be A - f r e e by C o n d i t i o n C. The s l i g h t  structure creates  The pronoun  V  could  be e x p l a i n e d  as a weak  crossover  "him" A'-binds two p o s i t i o n s t h a t can be A' bound: the  and the v a r i a b l e x  i #  n e i t h e r o f which c-commands the o t h e r .  We get a s i m i l a r e f f e c t when the p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e i s i n s i t u , as we see i n (50) below.  (50)??karei-o T a r o o - n o hin^-acc Him  1(  tomodati-ga  semeta.  i g e n f r i e n d (s)-nom blamed _  Taro's f r i e n d s blamed.  44 A  weak  completely  crossover  e x p l a n a t i o n of the s l i g h t  straightforward  deviance  s i n c e a number o f assumptions  would have t o be made t o e x p l a i n  the r e s u l t s .  of  about  (48) i s not  weak c r o s s o v e r  I s weak c r o s s o v e r s o l e l y  an LF  phenomenon? Does i t o c c u r d e r i v a t i o n a l l y o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l l y ? Answers t o these questions  will  bear  addition,  the fact  on a weak c r o s s o v e r a n a l y s i s  o f examples  like  (48) . In  t h a t examples l i k e these a r e o n l y s l i g h t l y d e v i a n t f o r some  speakers makes i t p o s s i b l e t h a t some o t h e r phenomenon i s c a u s i n g the d e v i a n c e .  I f we s u b s t i t u t e f o r the q u a n t i f i e r san-nin as san-nin-de, fact  that  the sentence becomes grammatical.  a quantified  differently  than  a  DP/PP such  bare  a case-marked q u a n t i f i e r  T h i s would be e x p l a i n e d by the  as " t h r e e - p e o p l e - i n s t "  quantifier  like  "three-people"  i n (51) below and cannot  is  i t cannot  grammatical  because  "anchor"  the s u b j e c t  acts  undergo  q u a n t i f i e r f l o a t , b e i n g a s e p a r a t e DP o r PP. S i n c e i t cannot undergo Q - f l o a t "three-people",  such  like  the p o s i t i o n o f an a s s o c i a t e d DP. Thus (51) could  have o r i g i n a t e d  t o the l e f t  o f the  object.  (51) k a r e ^ o  san-nin-de  he^acc Three  semeta,  t h r e e - p e o p l e - i n s t blamed (of  therOj)  [TaroOi-no  tomodati-ga]j  -gen f r i e n d s - n o m  blamed hin^ -- T a r O i ' s  (three) f r i e n d s  1.1.3 P o s t p o s i n g m a t r i x t o p i c s  Data i n Endo (1989) show t h a t t o p i c s a r e commonly postposed i n Japanese -- i n f a c t It  they a r e one o f the most common types o f elements  i s difficult  to test  f o r movement o f a p o s t p o s e d  topic  t o be postposed. by b i n d i n g  of a  r e c o n s t r u c t e d phrase s i n c e a wa-marked t o p i c when i t i s i n c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n i s obligatorily nothing  the l e f t m o s t  (and t h e r e f o r e  highest)  element  i n the sentence:  i n the main sentence can c-command the s i t e o f a p o s t p o s e d  topic.  45 Suppose t h a t we were t o postpose  a t o p i c p h r a s e . Any o t h e r phrase  that  remains i n the non-postposed p a r t of the sentence w i l l occur t o the r i g h t o f the empty c a t e g o r y t h a t w i l l  (52)  e  only  postposed-topiCi  XP V I  L  The  o c c u r i n the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n o f the t o p i c :  way  XP  can c-command  ei i s i f XP o c c u r s  t o the r i g h t  of a  p r o j e c t i o n t h a t dominates e i :  (53) YP • /  \  CP /  XP \  ei  C /  \  /  But itself  the o n l y  time  \  this  configuration  occurs  i n Japanese  i s when XP i s  t h e p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e . Thus the o n l y o t h e r p o s s i b l e c o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r an  XP i n the sentence t h a t i s t o the r i g h t o f the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n o f a postposed t o p i c i s as f o l l o w s :  46 (54) CP /  \  CP /  postposed  topiCi  \  C /  \  /  \  XP  In t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n XP c l e a r l y does not c-command ei so we a r e unable t o use our r e c o n s t r u c t i o n d i a g n o s t i c .  1.1.4 P o s t p o s i n g m a t r i x d a t i v e s and o b l i q u e s  These elements c a n o n i c a l l y occur t o the r i g h t o f the s u b j e c t . When they a r e postposed, postposed  they  can be t e s t e d f o r movement  i n the same way t h a t we d i d w i t h  o b j e c t s i n s e c . 1.1.1 above. When a name i s embedded i n a postposed  d a t i v e o r o b l i q u e we f i n d t h a t the name cannot  be c o i n d e x e d  w i t h the s u b j e c t ,  s u g g e s t i n g a C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t . The (a) sentences below g i v e the c a n o n i c a l o r d e r o f elements i n the same sentence w i t h no p o s t p o s i n g .  (55) (a) karei-ga  [Taroo„  he-nom Hei gave a p r e s e n t  (55) (b) karei-ga e he-nom  k  -no  t o m o d a t i - n i ] puresento-o  -gen  f r i e n d ( s ) - d a t p r e s e n t - a c c gave  i/;j  k  t o TarOi' s f r i e n d ( s ) .  puresento-o  ageta,  [Taroo. -no  p r e s e n t - a c c gave  hei gave a p r e s e n t  ageta.  -- t o TarOi's  i/3  tomodati-ni]  k  -gen f r i e n d ( s ) - d a t friend(s).  47 (56) (a) k a r e ^ g a he-nom he  A  zutto  [Taroo„  i/;i  all-the-way  -no  ie-made]  aruite-kita.  -gen h o u s e - a s - f a r - a s  walk-went  walked a l l the way as f a r as TarOi's house.  (56)(b)kare^-ga he-nom  zutto  aruite-kita,  Taroo.  a l l - t h e - w a y walk-went  i/:i  -no  ie-made.  -gen h o u s e - a s - f a r - a s  hei walked a l l the way -- as f a r as T a r o ^ s  house.  1.1.5 P o s t p o s i n g m a t r i x g e n i t i v e s  In t h i s s e c t i o n I w i l l t e s t p o s t p o s i n g o f a g e n i t i v e no-marked phrase s u b j e c t and o b j e c t environments, as shown i n the f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e : (57) . . . [ p o s t p o s e d phrase]  CP  I IP  I VP /  \  (subject)DP  \  |  \  D' / GENITIVE  \  '\  V D'  /  \  (object)DP  I D' / GENITIVE  \ D'  V  from  48  In (58) a g e n i t i v e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an o b j e c t i s postposed. The sentence i s good without c o r e f e r e n c e and bad w i t h c o r e f e r e n c e .  (58) *karei-ga tomodati-o hej-nom  semeta,  f r i e n d s - a c c blamed  TaroOj-no T. gen r  He blamed h i s f r i e n d s -- Taro's  Once  a g a i n we  must  determine  (friends)  whether  the sentence  i s bad because of  b i n d i n g of the p o s t p o s e d phrase, i n t h i s case, by the s u b j e c t . Compare  direct (58) t o  a sentence i n which the name i s more d e e p l y embedded i n s i d e the g e n i t i v e : i . e . inside a relative  (59) k a r e ^ g a hei-nom  clause.  tomodati-o semeta, TaroOi-o yonda  gakusei-no  f r i e n d s - a c c blamed T. -acc  students-gen  hei blamed  called  (  (their.,) f r i e n d s  --  [the s t u d e n t s who  called  TaroJ/s  (friends)  Example  (59) was  grammatical.  judged  The  t o be much b e t t e r  contrast  between  the  than  two  (58), i n f a c t ,  examples  again  almost  fully  suggests  anti-  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , s u p p o r t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e i s movement of the g e n i t i v e phrase.  In  (60)  (60)  below, the p o s t p o s e d g e n i t i v e i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the s u b j e c t .  tomodati-ga karei-o semeta, Taroo -no ;  friends-nom hei-acc blamed  T.—gen  H i s f r i e n d s blamed him -- Taro's  (60)  was  judged  grammatical  (friends)  f o r speakers  who  associate  a postposed  genitive  49 hierarchically ,  that i s , with  1 8  the h i g h e s t  which the g e n i t i v e c o u l d be a m o d i f i e r . i s not a t t a c h e d  p o s s i b l e phrase i n t h e sentence of  I t suggests t h a t the p o s t p o s e d phrase  low enough t o be c-commanded by the o b j e c t .  1.1.6 P o s t p o s i n g  matrix  adjuncts  Because the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n o f an a d j u n c t t h a t i t can c o n t a i n a name can be d i f f i c u l t it  is difficult  matrix  to test  t h a t has c l a u s a l m a t e r i a l so  t o determine i n a m a t r i x  sentence,  f o r Condition C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s with  postposed  adjuncts. Accordingly,  i n t h i s chapter,  I s h a l l o n l y look a t p o s t p o s i n g  of embedded a d j u n c t s . I f an adjunct  i s embedded i n a complement CP, i t s p o s i t i o n  will  subject  be c-commanded  by a pronoun  o f the m a t r i x  clause  and p o s s i b l e  C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s can be t e s t e d i n the same manner as we d i d i n earlier  subsections.  See s e c . 1.2.4  f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of postposing  embedded  adjuncts.  1.1.7 Summary o f r e s u l t s o f p o s t p o s i n g  In  environments where we  are able  to t e s t  i n matrix  environments  p o s t p o s e d phrases. i n m a t r i x  environments f o r C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s , we f i n d t h a t these occur.  In some cases  i t is difficult  to t e l l  whether these  effects  e f f e c t s a r e due t o  d i r e c t b i n d i n g o f a name embedded i n the p o s t p o s e d phrase by a c o i n d e x e d element in  the main p a r t  postposing direct  of the sentence.  In the next  section,  i n which  I look a t  i n embedded environments, i t w i l l be e a s i e r t o make sure t h a t no such  binding  can occur,  since  the p o t e n t i a l antecedent  o f the name i n the  p o s t p o s e d phrase can be embedded i n a p o s i t i o n from which i t cannot c-command the p o s t p o s e d phrase.  For speakers who associate a postposed genitive hierarchically, only the highest available DP in the sentence can host the trace of the postposed phrase; other speakers seem to associate a genitive linearly: for them, only the rightmost DP in the sentence can be associated with the genitive. For these speakers, this example is bad.  50  1.2 P o s t p o s i n g from embedded c l a u s e s 0 s.  When we examined phrases p o s t p o s e d out of m a t r i x c l a u s e s i n t h e p r e v i o u s section,  we  faced  t h e problem  o f d e t e r m i n i n g whether  apparent  Condition C  v i o l a t i o n s were a r e s u l t o f d i r e c t b i n d i n g of a l o w - a t t a c h e d p o s t p o s e d phrase o r by r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the p o s t p o s e d phrase. When t h e p o s t p o s e d phrase o r i g i n a t e s in  an embedded c l a u s e ,  antecedent embedded  direct  binding  i s no l o n g e r p o s s i b l e  c l a u s e where  i t will  of the p o s t p o s e d phrase by a coindexed  since  we  c-command  the s i t e  c o n s t r u e d w i t h but not t h e p o s t p o s e d phrase this  subsection that  Condition C effects  can p l a c e  t h e antecedent  the postposed  in  the  phrase i s  (see diagram below). We s h a l l see i n also  occur  i n embedded  structures,  s u g g e s t i n g movement. I f movement o c c u r s i n these sentences then movement s h o u l d a l s o be p o s s i b l e i n m a t r i x sentences. (61) CP /  \ p o s t p o s e d phrasei  CP  /  /  VP  I  \  __\ DP(name)  i  V / \ CP  /  V  -no c-command  \  DPj and pronoun..  \ / \  pronoun-j /  t<  r e l a t i o n between  \  51 In t h i s s u b s e c t i o n I look at the e f f e c t s of p o s t p o s i n g d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of elements out of d i f f e r e n t being considered,  kinds of i s l a n d s . For each type of postposed  I have chosen types of embedding t h a t most e a s i l y a l l o w the  o c c u r r e n c e of a pronoun t h a t i n the p o s t p o s e d phrase; phrase;  and  (c) o c c u r s  (a) can be coindexed w i t h a name t h a t i s embedded  (b) c-commands the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n of the  postposed  low enough i n the s t r u c t u r e t h a t i t c o u l d not  directly  b i n d the postposed phrase.  In o r d e r t h a t these c o n d i t i o n s can be met,  p o s s i b l e type of i s l a n d has been c o n s i d e r e d f o r each type of postposed For a more thorough c h a p t e r 3,  e l a b o r a t i o n and t e s t i n g of d i f f e r e n t  "Locality  1.2.1  element  not  every  element.  types of i s l a n d s ,  see  Effects."  Postposed  embedded DP  complements  1.2.1.1 P o s t p o s i n g out of koto  or no c l a u s e s  With the e x c e p t i o n of CP's headed by non-case-marked complementizer to (see subsection  1.1.5) complement  marked complementizers elements t o be C s postposed  koto  i/:  or no.  r a t h e r than N's.  out of a koto  (62) [ [ [kare. j-ga  c l a u s e s i n Japanese are u s u a l l y  e  k  headed by  case-  I f o l l o w Whitman (1991a) i n c o n s i d e r i n g these The  f o l l o w i n g examples i n which a phrase i s  or no c l a u s e , are r e p e a t e d from sec.  seme-ta ]-koto/no-ga ] IP  CP  akiraka  0.1:  da ] , IP  [TaroOi-no  tomodati-o] . k  hirrii-nom  blamed-  COMP-nom  evident  friends-acc I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t h e i blamed them -- T a r O i ' s f r i e n d s .  copula  Ti.-gen  52 (63) [ [ [ k a r e  ?i/j  -ga  e-j seme-ta ] -koto/no-ga ] IP  CP  akiraka  da ] , IP  [Taroo -o  yonda  £  tomodati-o] j . hirrii-nom  blamed-  COMP-nom  evident copula Ti.-acc  called  friends-acc It  i s e v i d e n t t h a t he blamed them -- the f r i e n d s t h a t c a l l e d TarOi. t  R e c a l l the d i s c u s s i o n o f these examples i n sec. 0.1, which showed t h a t the i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o r e f e r e n c e i n (62) and the m a r g i n a l i t y o f c o r e f e r e n c e i n (63) are  e x p l a i n a b l e as C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and a n t i - r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s  respectively.  1.2.1.2 p o s t p o s i n g out o f no-da  clauses  In t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n , which i s v e r y common, a m a t r i x c l a u s e i s embedded i n a CP headed by complementizer no, and the CP i n t u r n i s embedded i n an IP w i t h i n f l e c t i o n p r o v i d e d by the c o p u l a .  (64)  *[[[karei-ga  seme-ta ]-n ,,]-da ] , IP  hirt^-acc. The  (65)  fact  blamed-  hei-nom e fact  IP  COMP  -copula  [ T a r o O i - n o tomodati-o] j . T .-gen  s  IP  blamed-  i s t h a t he  t  ] - n ] - d a ] , [Taroo -o CP  IP  COMP  blamed  -copula  (them)^--  friends-nom  t  i s t h a t they blamed him; -- Taro's  T f t t k a r e — g a e^ semeta  The  c  ;  friends.  yonda  [T.i-acc  g a k u s e i ] -o^.  called  students]-acCj  [the s t u d e n t s who c a l l e d TarOjJj.  S i n c e the p o s t p o s e d phrase i n (64) and (65) i s a d j o i n e d t o the r i g h t o f the comp-copula c o n s t r u c t i o n i n which the c l a u s e i n which i t c a n o n i c a l l y occurs i s embedded, i t cannot be a d j o i n e d lower than the s u b j e c t kare  u n l e s s kare  some r e a s o n been r a i s e d t o s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n of the h i g h e s t c l a u s e .  has f o r  (See diagram  below.) Again, c o r e f e r e n c e i s i m p o s s i b l e when t h e name i s s h a l l o w l y embedded and marginal  when i t i s deeply  embedded i n the postposed  phrase.  53  CP /  \  CP  DPi (postposed)  I  /  IP  \  /  \  |  DP  VP  Taro  s  V /  \  CP  -pronoun kare cannot  V da  (copula)  c-command  the name Taro u n l e s s the pronoun has r a i s e d , c o n t r a r y  C  to evidence i n S a i t o C no  \  V /  \ V  (1985)  against r a i s i n g of subjects  54 1.2.2 P o s t p o s i n g embedded s u b j e c t s  (67)  *Sanae wa, karei n i [e^ r i p p a Sanae TOP h i n ^ DAT  handsome  da to] i t t a ,  Yootyani ga.  i s COMP s a i d , Yochani NOM  Sanae s a i d t o h i n ^ t h a t hej i s handsome -- Yochani.  In (67), the pronoun kare w i l l o n l y d i r e c t l y b i n d the p o s t p o s e d phrase i f the l a t t e r i s a d j o i n e d low i n the sentence -- f o r example t o m a t r i x V , as shown in  (68) below : In such a case, t h e r e i s a p o s s i b i l i t y o f d i r e c t b i n d i n g o f the 19  pronoun by the p o s t p o s e d phrase.  CP /  \  .. DP  IP  Sanae-wa  |  (topic)  VP  V /  \  VP /  DP \  DP  Yootyan-gai (postposed phrase)  V  kare-nii  /\  (dat.)  CP V /  /  \ \  The VP shell in the sructure below follows Larson (1988), Hale and Keyser (1993) and Chomsky (1993).  55 To c o n t r o l f o r any s t r u c t u r a l ambiguity i n (68) above, i n (69) the sentence is  embedded i n a no-da  p o s t p o s e d phrase u n l e s s contrary  (69)  construction.  Here,  the pronoun  cannot  i t r a i s e s out o f t h e embedded c l a u s e ,  t o evidence o f scrambling o f s u b j e c t s  *Sanae wa, karej n i [ei r i p p a Sanae TOP hirr^ DAT  handsome  i n Saito  c-command the which would be  (1985) .  da to] i t t a - n - d a ,  2 0  Yootyani ga.  i s COMP said-comp-copula, Yochani NOM  Sanae s a i d t o himi t h a t hei i s handsome -- Yochani-  There is still the possibility that subjects cannot raise overtly (in accord with Saito (1985)) but can raise at LF; however, there is no evidence of anything that would motivate covert raising of a subject out of an embedded clause. 20  56 s t r u c t u r e of  (69)  CP /  \  CP  DPi  |  (postposed)  Yootyan-gai  IP  I VP  I V /  \  CP  V  I  da  (copula)  C /  \  c  IP  I VP  I V /  \  kare-nij  V /  \  CP /  V \  /  \ ti  In t h i s example we get a C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t the p o s t p o s e d phrase has moved from p o s i t i o n t  ±  above.  e f f e c t , suggesting  57 1.2.3  P o s t p o s i n g embedded g e n i t i v e s  1.2.3.1 G e n i t i v e postposed out of r e l a t i v e c l a u s e or a  koto  clause  Example  (70)  shows t h a t  a genitive  can  be  postposed  out  of a  relative  clause:  (70)  [Hanako-ni  [ e i omotya-o] w a t a s i t a  H.-dat  toy-acc  The c h i l d who  kodomo-ga]  nigeta,  Tarooj-no.  fled  T.-gen  handed-over child-nom  handed over the toy t o Hanako r a n away -- Taro's  (toy)  In (71) a g e n i t i v e i s postposed out of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e and i t s c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n i n s i d e the c l a u s e i s c-commanded by a pronoun i n s i d e the c l a u s e -- i n this  case a d a t i v e .  impossibility  of c o r e f e r e n c e between the name i n the  p o s t p o s e d g e n i t i v e and the pronoun "him  ( d a t i v e ) " suggests a C o n d i t i o n C e f f e c t .  Note t h a t  The  the pronoun,  because  i t i s embedded i n the r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e , cannot  d i r e c t l y b i n d the postposed phrase. In (72) when the name i n the p o s t p o s e d phrase is  embedded  more  reconstruction  (71)  "deeply"  in  a  relative  clause,  we  get  typical  anti-  effects.  *[karei~ni  [ej omotya-o] w a t a s i t a  onna-no-ko-ga] n i g e t a ,  hirtii-dat  toy-acc  handed-over g i r l - n o m  The g i r l who  handed him the toy ran away -- Taro's  fled (toy)  TaroOi-no T.-gen  58 (72)  [karei-ni  [e  omotya-o]  d  watasita  onna-no-ko-ga]  nigeta,  [TaroOi-ga  t u r e t e - k i t a inu-no].j hin^-dat  toy-acc  handed-over g i r l - n o m  fled  T.i-nora  brought  dog-gen The  girl  brought]'s  who  handed  the  toy  ran  away  --  the  [dog  that  TarOi  (toy).  Examples (73) and phrase  hiir^  canonically  (74) a r e s i m i l a r t o (70) - (72) except t h a t the postposed  occurs  inside  a koto  c l a u s e i n s t e a d of a r e l a t i v e  clause.  Again, we see the same c o n t r a s t : u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y when the name i s coindexed w i t h a pronoun t h a t c-commands the s i t e of the postposed  phrase  when the name i s embedded more deeply w i t h i n the postposed  (73) *Hanako-wa  [kare^ga  H.-top  he-nom  [ej omotya-o] kowasita toy-acc  broke  koto-o]  and  grammaticality  phrase.  sitte-iru,  comp-acc knows  Taroo-no . ;  T.-gen  Hanako knows t h a t hei broke the toy -- TaroOi's.  (74) Hanako-wa [karei-ga [e^ omotya-o] kowasita koto-o]  sitte-iru,  [TaroOi-o k a r a k a t t a  kodomo-no] . d  H.-top  he-nom  toy-acc  broke  c h i l d ( r e n ) - g e n Hanako knows t h a t he  A  comp-acc knows  T.-acc  teased  broke the toy -- the c h i l d ( r e n ) who  teased  TaroOi' s.  These c o n t r a s t s suggest  that a c o n d i t i o n C v i o l a t i o n occurs  i n (71)  and  (73) by r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the postposed g e n i t i v e back t o the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . The improvement another  i n grammaticality  relative  clause again  in  (72),  i n which  i s evidence  the  f o r the  name i s embedded w i t h i n  reconstruction hypothesis.  N o t i c e a l s o t h a t we cannot e x p l a i n the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of (71) by d i r e c t b i n d i n g of  the postposed  embedded  inside  g e n i t i v e by the coindexed the  relative  clause  from  pronoun, s i n c e the pronoun A:are i s which  i t cannot  c-command  anything  59 outside the clause.  The  fact  given the fact be  t h a t g e n i t i v e s can be postposed  at a l l i s somewhat  surprising,  t h a t they cannot be moved l e f t w a r d s under s c r a m b l i n g and cannot  topicalized  (See examples  i n chapter  0.) G e n i t i v e  phrases  are discussed  f u r t h e r i n Appendix B: The nature of no-marked p h r a s e s .  1.2.4 P o s t p o s i n g embedded a d j u n c t s  Endo (1989) has many examples of p o s t p o s i n g a d j u n c t s out o f m a t r i x c l a u s e s t h a t were taken from taped c o n v e r s a t i o n s and were judged t o be grammatical. In the f o l l o w i n g examples, the e x t r a c t i o n s i t e of a p o s t p o s e d a d j u n c t i s embedded. We see t h a t  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o postpose  s u b j e c t CP  (76), an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e (77), l e x i c a l DP (78), v o l i t i o n a l c l a u s e  (79),  21  and a c o n c e s s i v e c l a u s e  an a d j u n c t out o f an o b j e c t CP (75),  (80). In (80) the sentence  i s m a r g i n a l but not  c o m p l e t e l y bad.  (75) [[sono hoo-ga e that  £  (comparative)-nom  I forgot that  tikai]  koto-o]  I P  near  wasureta,  C P  fact  think  [ k o t t i kara i k u y o r i ] i here  from go  i t ' s c l o s e r -- than going from here.  (76) [[sono hoo-ga that  iki-yasui]  (compar.)-nom go-easy  I P  koto-ga]  CP  fact-nom  a r u , k o t t i kara i k u y o r i . be  a  here from go  than  There a r e times when i t ' s e a s i e r t o go -- than g o i n g from here  In this sentence the verb of existence of which nominative case-marked complementizer koto is the subject, is likely unaccusative. See sec. 2.7. "Postposing out of koto clauses that are the subject of a transitive verb" for examples of island effects that do appear when complementizer koto is subject of a transitive verb.  than  60 (77) [[sono hoo-ga e i that  tikai]  (comparative)-nom  no-ni] ,  I P  near  *Even though i t ' s c l o s e r ,  ikanakatta,  C P  comp  I d i d n ' t go  went-neg.  [ k o t t i kara i k u y o r i l j here  from go  than  than g o i n g from here.  (78) [ [ [ [ s o n o hoo-ga e  tikai]  ±  I P  to]  C P  yuu]  I P  hanasi-o] , s i t e - i t a  [ k o t t i kara i k u  NP  yorih that go  (compar. ) -nom  near  comp  say  story-acc  did  here  from  than He s a i d  (79)  ( t o l d a story) that  [ e i mondai-o  i t ' s closer,  tokoo  to]  problem-acc s o l v e - v o l i t . C  C P  -- than g o i n g from h e r e .  omotta,  [Taroo-no  thought  yarikata-de]  ±  -gen do-way-inst.  I t r i e d t o s o l v e the problem -- i n Taro's way.  (80) ??karei-wa mondai-o TaroOj-no  tokoo  to s i t a  no-ni  dame  datta,  yarikata-de  he-top  problem-acc  solve-volit. C  did  i n - s p i t e - o f no-good was,  -gen do-way-inst. In s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t hei t r i e d t o s o l v e the problem e.,, i t d i d n ' t work --  [ i n Taroj's w a y ] j .  In the f o l l o w i n g sentences, a manner a d j u n c t c o n t a i n i n g a name i s p o s t p o s e d out o f a v o l i t i o n a l  clause  (81) and a c o n c e s s i v e c l a u s e  (82). We f i n d t h a t the  name cannot be coindexed w i t h a pronoun i n the m a t r i x c l a u s e t h a t c-commands the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n o f the a d j u n c t phrase. T h i s a g a i n suggests r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e r e f o r e movement o f the p o s t p o s e d a d j u n c t .  61 (81) *karei-wa/ga  [ej mondai-o  tokoo  to]  C P  omotta,  [TaroOi-no  yarikata-de]j he-top/nom  problem-acc  solve-volit.  C  thought  -gen  do-way-inst. Hej t r i e d t o s o l v e the problem  -- i n T a r o ^ s  way.  (82) * karei-wa/ga Tarooj-no  tokoo  to s i t a  no-ni  dame  datta,  yarikata-de  he-top/nom -gen  mondai-o  problem-acc  solve-volit.  C  did  i n - s p i t e - o f no-good was,  do-way-inst.  In s p i t e o f the f a c t  t h a t he  £  t r i e d t o s o l v e the problem  e,, i t d i d n ' t work --  [ i n TarOj's w a y ] j .  1.2.5 Summary of r e s u l t s of p o s t p o s i n g i n embedded  environments  In summary, t o the extent t h a t we a r e a b l e t o t e s t p o s t p o s e d phrases f o r C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s , we see evidence f o r movement o f a l l types o f p o s t p o s e d phrases  1.3  from a l l types o f environments.  Summary  Although  the evidence  i n favour  of movement  o f postposed  phrases i n  Japanese i s not c o n c l u s i v e , the f a c t that r e c o n s t r u c t i o n and a n t i - r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s a r e observed whenever i t i s p o s s i b l e t o t e s t f o r them makes movement the most n a t u r a l h y p o t h e s i s f o r e x p l a i n i n g these e f f e c t s . A movement h y p o t h e s i s i s further  s t r e n g t h e n e d by the evidence  f o r s u b j e c t / o b j e c t asymmetries  (subject  i s l a n d s a r e worse b a r r i e r s f o r p o s t p o s i n g than o b j e c t i s l a n d s ) t h a t we s h a l l see i n the next c h a p t e r . These e f f e c t s a r e a l s o most e a s i l y e x p l a i n e d by a movement account. There i s a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t p o s t p o s i n g may be d e r i v e d by e i t h e r  62 movement o r b a s e - g e n e r a t i o n , depending on the type and c a t e g o r y of the postposed element. Although such a h y p o t h e s i s i s not r u l e d out by the d a t a I p r e s e n t here, I s h a l l adopt,  f o r now, the s i m p l e r h y p o t h e s i s of movement i n a l l cases, i n the  absence o f evidence  that requires a base-generation  hypothesis.  63 2. L o c a l i t y C o n s t r a i n t P a t t e r n s  In t h i s chapter that  are  evident  I -- S u b j e c t - o b j e c t  I examine the f i r s t  i n data  on  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n with respect  of a subject,  object  -- i n f a c t  greater  subject-object  asymmetries,  and  t o a [+N] f e a t u r e .  below show t h a t when a phrase i s postposed  deviance r e s u l t s than i f i t i s p o s t p o s e d out of an  a subject  appears t o be a more severe i s l a n d  than w h - i s l a n d s , a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e s , i s postposing  of two l o c a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t phenomena  postposing:  The examples t h a t a r e p r e s e n t e d out  asymmetries  for extraction  and r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s . We s h a l l  see that i t  out of a s u b j e c t t h a t induces a s t r o n g v i o l a t i o n ; p o s t p o s i n g  s u b j e c t does not induce a s u b s t a n t i a l l y s t r o n g e r v i o l a t i o n than p o s t p o s i n g  of. a of an  o b j e c t . These r e s u l t s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t i n l i g h t o f the f a c t t h a t L a s n i k and S a i t o (1992) f i n d t h a t Japanese does not show evidence o f the S u b j e c t  In t h e f o l l o w i n g examples, I w i l l examine how p o s t p o s i n g as  relative  phrase  clauses  or g e n i t i v e s d i s p l a y s  subject/object  i s p o s t p o s e d out of e i t h e r a s u b j e c t  o r an o b j e c t  Condition.  DP a d j u n c t s  such  asymmetries. When a i n e i t h e r case some  d e v i a n c e r e s u l t s ; however, the degree of v i o l a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t l y worse f o r a subject  island.  In each s e c t i o n below, a phrase i s p o s t p o s e d out o f a s u b j e c t that  i s embedded  concessive  clause,  i n a weak  island  such  or w h - i s l a n d . We s h a l l  as a Jcoto  clause,  or o b j e c t  relative  clause,  see t h a t o n l y m i l d d e v i a n c e r e s u l t s  when a phrase i s p o s t p o s e d from these kinds o f i s l a n d s . A s u b j e c t , on the o t h e r hand w i l l be seen t o be a more severe i s l a n d f o r p o s t p o s i n g .  The  f o l l o w i n g i s a summary of the k i n d s o f environments I s h a l l be l o o k i n g  at:  2.1 P o s t p o s i n g  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out o f a non-matrix CP  64 2.2 P o s t p o s i n g  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out o f a  wh-island:  2.3 P o s t p o s i n g  a g e n i t i v e out of a DP i n s i d e  2.4 P o s t p o s i n g  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out o f an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e :  2.5 P o s t p o s i n g  a d a t i v e out o f a r e l a t i v e  2.6 P o s t p o s i n g  a relative  2.7 P o s t p o s i n g  out of koto  2.8 P o s t p o s i n g  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a m a t r i x  an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e :  clause:  c l a u s e out of a r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e s that a r e s u b j e c t s o f t r a n s i t i v e  contrast a  i n grammaticality  subject  stranded  s t r a n d i n g the nominal head t h a t  o r an o b j e c t .  verbs  subject  In each o f the above environments, a r e l a t i v e postposed,  clause:  c l a u s e o r g e n i t i v e w i l l be  i t modifies.  There i s a c o n s i s t e n t  t h a t depends on whether the s t r a n d e d nominal head i s In a l l cases  we w i l l  find  greater  deviance  when the  nominal head i s a s u b j e c t .  2.1 P o s t p o s i n g  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a non-matrix CP  In the f o l l o w i n g examples, a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s postposed, s t r a n d i n g i t s nominal head, which i s i t s e l f embedded i n a koto we  postpose  position object  a relative  clause  c l a u s e . We s h a l l see t h a t when  out of a DP, p o s t p o s i n g  of the DP i n i t s VP: whether i t i s a s u b j e c t (complement p o s i t i o n ) .  object-headed  relatives;  in  i s sensitive  t o the  ( s p e c i f i e r p o s i t i o n ) or  In sec. 2.1.1 I s h a l l examine t h e p o s t p o s i n g of s e c . 2.1.2  the p o s t p o s i n g  of  subject-headed  clause  i s nominative;  relatives.  In some o f the examples i n t h i s however,  i n a l l cases,  the v e r b  s e c t i o n , the koto  of which  i n t r a n s i t i v e and i s a r g u a b l y an u n a c c u s a t i v e g i v e evidence  t h a t nominative koto  subject of a - t r a n s i t i v e to  isolate  the e f f e c t s  the c l a u s e  i s the s u b j e c t  is  c o n s t r u c t i o n . In s e c t i o n 2.7 I w i l l  c l a u s e s show SC e f f e c t s when they occur as a  v e r b . S i m i l a r examples a l s o occur i n sec. 5.8.2. In o r d e r o f the s u b j e c t - v s . object-headedness o f the r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e t h a t the postposed phrase i s being e x t r a c t e d from, I do not i n t r o d u c e i n  65 this  subsection  examples w i t h  koto  clauses  f o l l o w i n g diagram i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l e v a n t  that  are  structure.  transitive  subjects.  The  66  (83) CPi /  \  CPi  CP ( r e l a t i v e 2  I  IP I  VP  V / (koto c l a u s e ) C P  \ V  3  I C  I \ IP  c  I  koto  VP / (subject)  \  DP  \  I  \  D' / ( t r a c e of r e l a t i v e ) t  2  \ \  \  D'  V  /_\  ,/  \  (object) DP  I D' /  (trace of r e l a t i v e )  t  2  \  D' /_\  clause)  67 2.1.1 o b j e c t - h e a d e d r e l a t i v e  2.1.1.1 nominative koto  postposed  c l a u s e as a b a r r i e r : ( p o s s i b l e u n a c c u s a t i v e  construction)  (84) Masao-ga, okane-o -nom money-acc  nusunda koto-ga stole  a k i r a k a da,  comp-nom c l e a r  copula  I t ' s c l e a r t h a t Masao s t o l e the money -- that  2.1.1.2 nominative koto barrier,  clause  (possible unaccusative  (85) Masao-ga, okane-o  nusunda koto-ga  -nom money-acc  stole  (86) Masao-ga,  okane-o  -nom money-acc  2.1.2  yesterday  I-nom  w i t h koto-qa  aru,  yesterday.  aru c o n s t r u c t i o n  boku-no  comp-nom e x i s t I-gen  koto  received  as a  construction)  kakusita. hid  I hid.  c l a u s e as a b a r r i e r  nusunda koto-o  sitte-iru,  kinoo  boku-ga moratta.  stole  know  yesterday  I-nom  comp-acc  I know t h a t Masao s t o l e the money -- t h a t (or) Masao knows t h a t  boku-ga moratta.  I received  Masao has (on o c c a s i o n ) s t o l e n money -- t h a t  2.1.1.3 a c c u s a t i v e  kinoo  I received  (they) s t o l e the money -- t h a t  2.1.2.1 nominative koto  yesterday,  I/he r e c e i v e d  subject-headed r e l a t i v e postposed:  c l a u s e as a b a r r i e r :  received  yesterday.  68 (87) *akatyan-ga n a i t e - i r u koto-ga baby-nom  a k i r a k a da,  c r y i n g - i s comp-nom c l e a r  tonari-ni  sunde-iru.  copula n e x t - d o o r - l o c  lives  I t i s c l e a r t h a t the baby i s c r y i n g -- (the one) t h a t l i v e s next door.  2.1.2.2 nominative koto-qa  (88) *akatyan-ga n a i t a koto-ga baby-nom  am  yoku aru,  c o n s t r u c t i o n as a b a r r i e r :  tonari-ni  sunde-iru.  c r i e d comp-nom much e x i s t n e x t - d o o r - l o c  lives  There have o f t e n been times when the baby c r i e d -- (the one) t h a t  lives  next door.  2.1.2.3 a c c u s a t i v e koto  (89) *akatyan-ga n a i t e - i r u koto-o baby-nom  c l a u s e as a b a r r i e r :  sitte-iru,  c r y i n g - i s comp-acc know  tonari-ni  sunde-iru.  next-door-loc  lives  I know t h a t the baby i s c r y i n g -- (the one) t h a t l i v e s next door.  In the above examples we see t h a t  (a) the koto c l a u s e does not appear t o  be a b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n o f the p o s t p o s e d phrase; a barrier  (b) a s u b j e c t  ((87)-(89) i s  f o r e x t r a c t i o n o f the postposed phrase whereas an o b j e c t  ((84)-(86))  i s not.  2.2 P o s t p o s i n g  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out o f a  wh-island:  In the f o l l o w i n g examples, a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s a g a i n postposed, s t r a n d i n g i t s nominal head, which t h i s time i s embedded i n a w h - i s l a n d . see t h a t g r e a t e r deviance  Once a g a i n we s h a l l  r e s u l t s when the DP t h a t the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  i s i n a s u b j e c t r a t h e r than an o b j e c t p o s i t i o n .  modifies  69  CP! /  \  CPj  CP ( r e l a t i v e 2  I IP I VP  I V /  (+wh)CP /  \  V  3  \  /  \ DP  I D' / t  2  \ D'  clause)  70 2.2.1 object-headed r e l a t i v e  postposed:  2.2.1.1 s i n g l e w h - i s l a n d  barrier:  sono okane-o  ka-doo-ka wakaranai,  (91) ?*Masao-ga,  nusunda  kinoo  boku-ga  moratta. -nom  that  money-acc  stole  comp  not-clear  yesterday  I-nom  received I t ' s not c l e a r  i f Masao s t o l e the money -- t h a t  2.2.1.2 double w h - i s l a n d  I/he r e c e i v e d y e s t e r d a y .  barrier:  (92) ?*Masao-ga,  sono okane-o  -nom t h a t money-acc  nusunda ka-doo-ka wakaru stole  comp  2.2.2.1 s i n g l e w h - i s l a n d  boku-no k a k u s i t a ?  i s - c l e a r comp I-gen  Do you know i f Masao s t o l e the money -- that  2.2.2 s u b j e c t - h e a d e d r e l a t i v e  no,  hid  I hid?  postposed:  barrier:  (93) **sono akatyan-ga t h a t baby-nom  n a i t e - i r u ka (doo ka) wakaranai,  tonari-ni  i s - c r y i n g comp  next-door-loc l i v e  not-clear  I t ' s not c l e a r whether the baby i s c r y i n g  -- (the one) t h a t  sunde-iru.  l i v e s next  door.  71 2.2.2.2 double w h - i s l a n d b a r r i e r :  (94) **sono akatyan-ga t h a t baby-nom  n a i t e - i r u ka  wakaru no,  i s - c r y i n g comp c l e a r  tonari-ni  sunde-iru?  comp n e x t - d o o r - l o c l i v e  Do you know i f the baby i s c r y i n g -- (the one) t h a t l i v e s next  The  door?  f o l l o w i n g sentence suggests t h a t the d e m o n s t r a t i v e a d j e c t i v e sono i n  (91) - (94) i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a c t i n g as a resumptive f o r the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e -that  i s , i t does not r u l e out movement of the r e l a t i v e  o c c u r s w i t h the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , we s t i l l  c l a u s e . When sono co-  get what appears t o be a C o n d i t i o n C  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t when the name Masao i s c-commanded by the pronoun  (95) k a r e . . . . j - g a  sono  i/?  kuruma-o  utta  ka-doo-ka  wakaranai,  kinoo  "he".  22  Masaoj-ga  nusunda he-nom  that car-acc  s o l d comp  not-clear  yesterday  -nom  stole  I don't know whether he s o l d that c a r -- t h a t Masao s t o l e y e s t e r d a y .  With no c o r e f e r e n c e between the pronoun have  similar  grammaticality  reconstruction effect  to  (92); w i t h  and the name, coreference  (95) i s judged t o  i t ' s worse;  thus  a  seems t o occur here.  In the f o r e g o i n g s e t of examples the w h - i s l a n d ( s ) appears t o a c t as a weak b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n o f the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , inasmuch as a l l t h e examples a r e not c o m p l e t e l y grammatical. What i s i n t e r e s t i n g ,  though,  i s t h a t the degree of  d e v i a n c e i s more s h a r p l y a f f e c t e d by whether the head of the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of which t h e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s e x t r a c t e d i s a s u b j e c t o r an o b j e c t than by the number o f w h - i s l a n d s i n which the c l a u s e i s embedded.  2 2  Notice  canonical  that  the  demonstrative  adjective  sono  can  coexist  with  a  relative  sentence:  (i)kare-ga, [sono [ k i n o o Masao-ga, n u s u n d a ] ,,, k u r u m a - o ] he-nom that yesterday -nom s t o l e car-acc I d o n ' t know w h e t h e r h e ! s o l d t h a t c a r t h a t M a s a o stole 2  utta ka-doo-ka s o l d comp yesterday.  wakaranai, not-clear  clause  in  a  72 2.3 P o s t p o s i n g a g e n i t i v e out of a DP i n s i d e an a d v e r b i a l  Diagram  (96) i l l u s t r a t e s  the r e l e v a n t  structure.  clause:  The a d v e r b i a l  clause  appears t o c o n s t i t u t e a weak b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n o f the g e n i t i v e i n (98). But in  (97) the s u b j e c t  " c a r " out of which the g e n i t i v e  b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n than the o b j e c t  (96) CP,  \  CPj  DP ( g e n i t i v e ) 2  I  IP  I I' /  \  (adverbial)PP  I'  I  \  CP /  VP  4  \  /_\  /  \ DP  3  D' /  t  \  D'  2  /  \  i s a worse  "money" i n (98) o r the c o n c e s s i v e  i n both.  I  i s postposed  clause  73 2.3.1 s u b j e c t DP b a r r i e r :  (97) * kuruma-ga boku-o h i i t a  no-ni,  kega-wa  car-nom  although  injury-top(contrast) not-exist  me-acc ran-over  nakatta,  In s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t a c a r r a n over me,  2.3.2  (98) ??Masao-wa,  okane-o  object  -gen  I'm not i n j u r e d - - Taro's  although  sikararenakatta, scold-pass.-neg-past  Taroo-no. -gen  In s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money, he wasn't s c o l d e d - (money)  (car).  DP  nusunda n o - n i ,  -top money-acc s t o l e  Taroo-no.  Taro's  74 2.4  Postposing a relative  clause  In the f o l l o w i n g examples, n o m i n a l head,  which  is itself  o u t o f an a d v e r b i a l  a relative  clause  i s postposed,  embedded i n an a d v e r b i a l  clause.  (99) CP! /  \  CP  CP ( r e l a t i v e  1  2  C  I IP  I I' /  \  (adverbial)PP  I'  I  \  CP /  VP  4  \  /_\  /  \ DP  3  D' / t  2  \ D'  /_\  clause:  clause)  stranding i t s  75 2.4.1  (100)  object-headed r e l a t i v e postposed:  ( b e t t e r than (98)  ?Masao-wa, okane-o  nusunda n o - n i ,  sikararenakatta,  boku-no  kinoo  moratta. -top money-acc s t o l e  a l t h o u g h s c o l d - p a s s . - n e g . - p a s t I-gen(subj) y e s t e r d a y  received In s p i t e o f the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money, he wasn't s c o l d e d I received  -- (money) t h a t  yesterday.  2.4.2 subject-headed r e l a t i v e  postposed  (101) *akatyan-ga n a i t e - i r u n o - n i , baby-nom  miyoo-ni  sizuka datta,  i s - c r y i n g although strangely quiet  In s p i t e  was  tonari-ni  sunde-iru.  next-door  live  o f the f a c t t h a t the baby i s c r y i n g , i t ' s s t r a n g e l y q u i e t  (baby) t h a t  l i v e s next door.  In the above examples we see the same s u b j e c t - o b j e c t did  -- the  asymmetry as we  i n s e c t i o n 2.3.  2.5 P o s t p o s i n g  In  a d a t i v e out o f a r e l a t i v e  the f o l l o w i n g  postposed.  Again,  examples,  a subject  a dative  (102)  23  clause:  argument  of a r e l a t i v e  i s a more severe  island  than  clause i s an  object  (103) .  The matrix verb in this sentence may be unaccusative; nevertheless, we see an apparent SC effect, unlike what we saw for nominative koto clauses that were subjects of unaccusative verbs in sec. 2.1.1.1.1 cannot explain why a SC effect seems to occur here but not in sec. 2.1.1.1. 23  76 2.5.1  (102)**puresento-o  ageta h i t o - g a  p r e s e n t - a c c gave The p e r s o n who  ?*puresento-o  -dat  object-headed r e l a t i v e as a b a r r i e r :  ageta h i t o - o  bad but b e t t e r than  yonda,  person-acc c a l l e d  I c a l l e d the person who  In  i r u , Hanako-ni.  gave a p r e s e n t i s here -- t o Hanako.  p r e s e n t - a c c gave  2.6  koko-ni  person-nom h e r e - l o c e x i s t  2.5.2  (103)  subject-headed r e l a t i v e as a b a r r i e r :  Hanako-ni. -dat  gave a p r e s e n t -- t o Hanako.  (102)  P o s t p o s i n g a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e :  the  following  examples,  a relative  c l a u s e m o d i f i e s an argument of a  h i g h e r r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . The most deeply embedded r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s postposed, s t r a n d i n g i t s nominal  head.  77 (104)  CP /  CPi I  IP I  VP  I V /  \  I D' /  ( r e l a t i v e clause)CP  \  D'  3  /  \  /  /_\  \ DP  5  I D' /  \ E  /_\  a  \  CP ( r e l a t i v e 2  clause)  78 2.6.1  object-headed  subject-headed  relative  postposed:  higher  clause  is  (but w i t h p o s s i b l e u n a c c u s a t i v e v e r b i n m a t r i x  clause)  (105) ? p u r i n - o t a b e t a otoko-no-ko-ga n i g e t a , pudding  ate  The boy who  (106) ?kodomo-o  boy-nom  ran away --  kuruma-ga k i e t a ,  c h i l d - a c c ran-over car-nom The  (the pudding) t h a t I made.  asoko-de  asonde-ita.  disappeared o v e r - t h e r e - l o c was-playing  c a r t h a t r a n over the c h i l d d i s a p p e a r e d --  playing  tukutta.  ran-away I-gen(subj.) made  ate the pudding  hiita  boku-no  (the c h i l d ) who  was  over t h e r e .  2.6.2  subject-headed  subject-headed  (107) *kodomo-ga k a i t a e-ga child-nom drew  relative  postposed;  higher  clause i s  (but w i t h p o s s i b l e u n a c c u s a t i v e m a t r i x verb)  kieta,  tonari-ni  sunde-iru.  picture-nom d i s a p p e a r e d n e x t - d o o r - l o c l i v e  The p i c t u r e t h a t the c h i l d drew d i s a p p e a r e d --  (the c h i l d ) who  l i v e s next  door.  (108) *kodomo-ga k a i t a e-ga child-nom drew  kieta,  gakkoo-ni  picture-nom d i s a p p e a r e d s c h o o l - l o c took  The p i c t u r e t h a t t h e . c h i l d drew d i s a p p e a r e d -school.  (105),  turete-kita.  (106) are b e t t e r than  (107),  (108)  (animate  (the c h i l d ) who  obj.)  I took t o  79 2.6.3  object-headed  relative  postposed;  higher  clause  is  object-headed:  (109) ? p u r i n - o  t a b e t a otoko-no-ko-o s i k a t t a ,  pudding-acc  ate  boy-acc  I s c o l d e d the boy who  (110) ?kodomo-o  hiita  scolded  ate the pudding  kuruma-o  c h i l d - a c c ran-over c a r - a c c  boku-no t u k u t t a . I-gen  --  made  (the pudding) t h a t I made.  t u b u s i t a , asoko-de smashed  asonde-ita.  o v e r - t h e r e - l o c was-playing  I smashed the c a r t h a t ran over the c h i l d  --  (the one)  t h a t was  playing  over t h e r e .  (109),  (110)  same as  (105),  2.6.4  (106)  subject-headed  postposed;  higher  clause  is  object  headed:  (111) *kodomo-ga k a i t a e-o child-nom drew  suteta,  tonari-ni  sunde-iru.  p i c t u r e - a c c threw-away n e x t - d o o r - l o c l i v e  I threw away the p i c t u r e the c h i l d drew -- (the c h i l d ) who  (109),  (110) b e t t e r than  When we  l i v e s next door.  (111)  r e p l a c e the m a t r i x v e r b i n (105) w i t h one  that  i s u n e r g a t i v e , we  get worse g r a m m a t i c a l i t y :  (112) ?*purin-o t a b e t a otoko-no-ko-ga n a i t e - i r u , pudding  ate  The boy who  boy-nom ate the pudding  is-crying i s c r y i n g --  boku-no  tukutta.  I-gen(subj.) made (the pudding) t h a t  I made.  T h i s f a c t suggests t h a t the nominal head of the o u t e r r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s showing  80 Subject  Condition effects  To  as w e l l .  summarize the r e s u l t s  postposed,  stranding  i n this  i t s nominal  subsection,  head, which  when a r e l a t i v e  is itself  embedded  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , t h e presence o f a s u b j e c t as head of e i t h e r relative  clause  relative  c l a u s e s a r e object-headed.  2.7  will  Postposing  When a c l a u s e  result  i n greater  deviance  than  clause i s  in a  higher  the inner or outer  i f both  heads  of t h e  out o f koto c l a u s e s t h a t a r e s u b j e c t s o f t r a n s i t i v e  headed by complementizer  koto  i s used  verbs  i n a sentence, i t  u s u a l l y i s not an argument of a t r a n s i t i v e verb, as was t h e case f o r t h e examples given  above w i t h  occur  as s u b j e c t  underlying  koto  clauses.  In the f o l l o w i n g examples,  of a t r a n s i t i v e  subject.  verb,  thus  assuring  a koto  that  clause  i t will  does  be an  81 (113)  CPi /  \  CPi  DP  2  IP  I'  VP /  {koto c l a u s e ) C P /  \  V  3  \  / \  /  \  DP  V  DP  D' / t  \  I D'  2  /  (114)?*Taroo-wa,  [ei n o m i s u g i t a  -top The f a c t  (115)?Taroo-wa, -top  \  drank-too-much  that, Taro drank  [e  t  koto-ga]  kare-o  korosita,  comp-nom  him-acc k i l l e d  uisukii-Oi. whisky-acc  ( i t j t o o much k i l l e d him --, whisky;.  nomisugita  koto-o] h i t e i - s i t a ,  uisukii-Oi.  drank-too-much  C-acc  whisky-acc  Taro d e n i e d t h a t he drank  denied  ( i t j t o o much -- whisky . A  82 When the koto c l a u s e i s nominative and o c c u r s as s u b j e c t o f t r a n s i t i v e v e r b "killed"  i n (114),  postposing  out o f i t i s much worse than i n (115),  where the  same c l a u s e i s a c c u s a t i v e and i s o b j e c t o f the v e r b . We can assume, then,  that  the koto c l a u s e i s u n d e r l y i n g l y a s u b j e c t i n (114). In the examples we looked a t in  s e c t i o n 2.1, t h e f a c t  n o m i n a t i v e koto  t h a t we d i d not see SC e f f e c t s  c l a u s e s may have been due t o the f a c t  i n postposing  t h a t these  s u r f a c e s u b j e c t s i n what a r e p o s s i b l y r a i s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s that"  ) o r unaccusative  constructions  baby-nom The  cry  (e.g. " i t i s c l e a r  subject  In the f o l l o w i n g examples, we see that p o s t p o s i n g  (116) ?*akatyan-ga n a i t e - i r u ,  c l a u s e s were  (e.g. v e r b o f e x i s t e n c e . )  2.8 R e l a t i v e c l a u s e postposed out o f a m a t r i x  a s u b j e c t i s worse than p o s t p o s i n g  out o f  out o f an o b j e c t .  tonari-ni next-door-loc  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out o f  2 4  sunde-iru. lives  baby i s c r y i n g -- (the one) who l i v e s next door  (117) ??akatyan-o mita, baby-acc  saw  tonari-ni  sunde-iru.  next-door-loc  lives  I saw the baby -- (the one) who l i v e s next door.  Endo (1989:113,#80c) gives the following example of a relative clause postposed out of a matrix subject which she judges as good: (89) kaki-ga oisikatta yo, Hirosima-de tabeta. oysters-nom delicious-past emph -loc ate The oysters were delicious — (the ones) I ate in Hiroshima. The grammaticality of this sentence, however, might be explained by the possibility that the inflected adjective "delicious", is a psychological predicate for which "oysters" is not underlyingly in subject position.  83 2.9 Summary  The  f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n emerges from the examples we have l o o k e d a t i n t h i s  c h a p t e r . A s u b j e c t DP o r a nominative-case-marked Jcoto-clause t h a t i s s u b j e c t o f a t r a n s i t i v e v e r b appears t o be a worse b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n than a wh-island, an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e , o r a r e l a t i v e  In c o n c l u s i o n , subjects  the postposing  i n Japanese  islands or at least  These considered  are strong  some types  results not  clause.  2 5  c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Japanese i s evidence  i s l a n d s f o r e x t r a c t i o n -- s t r o n g e r  o f adjunct  are s i g n i f i c a n t ,  than wh-  phrases.  given  the f a c t  that  Japanese  has been  t o show s u b j e c t - o b j e c t asymmetries. C l a s s i c a l - t y p e ECP analyses  of l e x i c a l government i n Japanese have concluded  t h a t s u b j e c t s i n Japanese a r e  l e x i c a l l y governed , f o r example as a r e s u l t o f t h e s u b j e c t remaining 26  by  that  r a i s i n g o f V t o I, e i t h e r o f which would a l l o w t h e s u b j e c t  i n VP o r  t o be l e x i c a l l y  governed by V. In p o s t p o s i n g i n Japanese we do not see s u b j e c t / o b j e c t asymmetries w i t h r e s p e c t t o the p o s t p o s a b i l i t y o f s u b j e c t s and o b j e c t s . F o r example, baseg e n e r a t e d t o p i c s marked by wa appear t o be i s l a n d s f o r e x t r a c t i o n o f a postposed phrase i n cases where the t r a c e o f the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s not i n the domain o f a  lexical  [+V] head.  27  Yet we f i n d  that  subjects pattern with  they can be p o s t p o s e d out o f a t o p i c . In the f i r s t p o s t p o s e d out o f a t o p i c . In the second, s l i g h t decrease i n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y  a subject  objects  i n that  sentence below an o b j e c t i s i s postposed  i n s t e a d . The  we see i n the second sentence i s nowhere near  "One type of structure that I have not yet considered is a matrix subject modified by a genitive. For some speakers, postposing a genitive out of a matrix subject is bad, but not so for others. In example (60) we saw evidence of a sentence that was judged grammatical in which a genitive was postposed out of a subject, but not all speakers judge such sentences as grammatical. I leave the problem of the islandhood of subjects with respect to genitives unsolved here. 26  See, for example, Huang (1982), Koopman and Sportiche (1985), Whitman (1991).  27  This idea is discussed in detail in chapter 4: "Postposing out of topics." The examples below are repeated later in that section.  84 the degree we  expect to see w i t h an ECP  l e x i c a l l y governed.  (119)  CP  (See chapter  [dareka-ga  ei  effect  t h a t occurs  i f s u b j e c t s are  not  4 for further discussion.)  tabetesimatta  koto]-wa,  tasika  da  ,  [ano  that  sweet-acc  wagasi-o] . ±  someone-nom  ate-up  comp-top  I t ' s c e r t a i n t h a t someone ate  (120)  ? p[ei Wagasi-o t a b e t e s i m a t t a  I t ' s c e r t a i n that  A  possible  above) and  explanation  other  order  postposing  out  of  fact  -nom  Taro.  that  subject/object  asymmetries  (as i n the case of the SC e f f e c t s on p o s t p o s i n g (as we  rest  of the  licit  see  for postposing modified  sentence.  28  out by  a CP,  something  to an A' p o s i t i o n i n  Suppose t h a t  subjects  the case i n a l l the examples we  clauses  --  in  i n VP or by r a i s i n g of V to  see above i n (120). But i f a s u b j e c t i s made heavy by  subject  we  of t o p i c s ) i s  s t a t u s of t r a c e s of s u b j e c t s p o s t p o s e d out  a d d i t i o n of c l a u s a l m a t e r i a l , as was in  the sweet--  the  Taroo-gai  certain-cop.  L-marked, e i t h e r by remaining  I. T h i s would e x p l a i n the weak i s l a n d s such as we  sweety  s t r u c t u r e r e q u i r e s them to r a i s e  scope over the  Japanese are n o r m a l l y  that  "heavy" by v i r t u e of b e i n g  information  t o take  for  times do not  t h a t when subjects, are about t h e i r  comp-top  (he) ate up  sometimes appear i n Japanese saw  ( i t i ) up  koto]-wa, t a s i k a - d a ,  C  sweet-acc ate-up  c e r t a i n copula  f o r example out  of  a  looked  of the at  subject-headed  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e -- i f i t i s f o r c e d to r a i s e i n such a case to an A' p o s i t i o n , i t would become an  island for extraction.  2 9  Could a phrase be p o s t p o s e d out of such a s u b j e c t b e f o r e d i d and  i f the p o s t p o s e d phrase a d j o i n e d h i g h e r  This idea was  i t raises? If i t  than the r a i s e d s u b j e c t then  suggested by Michael Rochemont ( p . c ) .  'This raising could even occur at LF if the adjunct condition was representational rather than derivational.  we  85 would v i o l a t e s t r i c t c y c l i c i t y , to r a i s e  the s u b j e c t , (see  s i n c e we would need t o go back t o a lower c y c l e  (121)  below) I f the r a i s e d  subject attached higher  than the p o s t p o s e d phrase then the t r a c e of the p o s t p o s e d phrase would not be ccommanded by the postposed phrase, v i o l a t i n g the Proper B i n d i n g C o n d i t i o n . (See (122) below.) Thus r a i s i n g of the s u b j e c t would r u l e out p o s t p o s i n g out of i t .  (121) CP /  \  CP  postposed phrasej  IP /  \  landing s i t e  I'  of s u b j e c t  \ VP /  \  DP /  V \  86  (122) XP /  \  landing s i t e of s u b j e c t  CP /  \  CP  p o s t p o s e d phrase;  I IP \  I' \  VP /  \  DP  /  V  \ ti  Under our h y p o t h e s i s , c o u l d a heavy s u b j e c t be p o s t p o s e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y ? I t c o u l d i f movement t o a p o s t p o s e d p o s i t i o n i s i n i t s e l f s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y whatever requirement t h e r e might be f o r the heavy s u b j e c t t o take scope. In f a c t , we s h a l l see i n sec. 6.1 t h a t p o s t p o s e d phrases " l i k e t o be heavy". T h i s does not imply t h e converse -- t h a t heavy phrases l i k e t o be p o s t p o s e d . But i f p o s t p o s e d phrases a r e f r e q u e n t l y heavy, i t suggests that i n o r d e r t o be r e a d i l y postposed, heavy phrases need not f i r s t some requirement  If correct,  this  move l e f t w a r d t o some h i g h A' p o s i t i o n t o s a t i s f y  f o r heavy phrases and then move t o a p o s t p o s e d p o s i t i o n .  h y p o t h e s i s about  raising  of s u b j e c t s w i t h  clausal  material i s  then what we have been s e e i n g i n the examples i n t h i s c h a p t e r i s not  r e a l l y a S u b j e c t C o n d i t i o n phenomenon but r a t h e r a k i n d of A' p o s i t i o n c o n d i t i o n : i . e . t h a t c e r t a i n A' p o s i t i o n s a r e s t r o n g i s l a n d s f o r e x t r a c t i o n . I t i s n e c e s s a r y  87 to  say  position  "certain" such  as  A'  positions  topics  and  e f f e c t s as heavy s u b j e c t s ,  since  other  adverbial  as we  phrases t h a t  phrases  s h a l l see  do  not  are  arguably  show as  i n the next two  i n an  strong  chapters.  A'  island  88 3.  Locality  respect  Constraints  I I : Island effects  that  are r e l a t i v i z e d  with  c o n s t r a i n t phenomenon  that  t o a [+N] f e a t u r e  In t h i s appears  -- Part  chapter  i n data  I examine a second  on p o s t p o s i n g .  locality  When a c o n s t i t u e n t  p r o j e c t i o n such as a s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t ,  i s postposed  out of a DP  the d e v i a n c e i s worse i f the postposed  element i s i t s e l f a DP such as a s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t than i f i t i s an element w i t h a  [+N] f e a t u r e such as a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . Thus i n t h e s t r u c t u r e below, i n which  a DP m o d i f i e d by a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s embedded i n a h i g h e r r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , worse deviance r e s u l t s the  i f the embedded o b j e c t DP  lower r e l a t i v e  1  c l a u s e CP  X  i s postposed.  i s p o s t p o s e d than i f i t s m o d i f i e r ,  89 (123)  .  I  P /  \  IP  l a n d i n g s i t e of p o s t p o s e d phrase  I  VP  I V / DP  \  V  2  I D'  / CP  \ D'  2  I  /_\  IP  I  VP \  / DPj  V  I D' /  \  D'  CPi  /_\  These k i n d s of e f f e c t s a r e not e x p l a i n e d by l o c a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t models such as  the Chomsky  Minimality."  (1986)  "Barriers"  model  o r by  Rizzi  (1990)'s " R e l a t i v i z e d  In the s t r u c t u r e above, DP a c t s l i k e a b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n of 2  DPj even though, by the Chomsky (1986) model, DP i s l e x i c a l l y governed by m a t r i x 2  90 V  and t h e r e f o r e L-marked.  phenomenon t h a t I s h a l l relative  CP , 2  being  an a d j u n c t ,  i l l u s t r a t e from  clause: i n fact,  i s not L-marked,  but the  the data below i s not i s l a n d h o o d of a  we s h a l l see t h a t a r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e i n Japanese a c t s  l i k e o n l y a v e r y weak i s l a n d f o r p o s t p o s i n g . What we s h a l l see i s t h a t DP b l o c k s 2  extraction  (by p o s t p o s i n g ) of a c a t e g o r y w i t h i n i t o n l y i n a r e l a t i v i z e d way: i t  does not permit  e x t r a c t i o n of another  DP t h a t shares  i t s [+N] f e a t u r e , but i t  does m a r g i n a l l y permit e x t r a c t i o n of an element t h a t i s not [+N], such as a CP.  These f a c t s a l s o d i f f e r from those t h a t a r e accounted f o r by R i z z i ' s model,  which  does  not d e a l  with  relativization  with  respect  to  (1990)  categorial  f e a t u r e s such as [+N] . I t a l s o d e a l s w i t h the e f f e c t s o f i n t e r v e n i n g heads r a t h e r than  maximal p r o j e c t i o n s .  crossing Consider,  of a  [+N] head  In the data by another  on p o s t p o s i n g , [+N] element  we do not see t h a t the  i s what  induces  the f o l l o w i n g e a r l i e r example, r e p e a t e d here as (124).  deviance.  91 (124)  (a) karej-ga semeta, hej-nom  blamed  He, blamed  [TaroOi-no  tomodati-o] .  [T—gen  friends-acc]  k  -- [ T a r O i ' s  (them ) k  (b)  k  friends] . k  IP /  \  IP  DP  k  I VP /  \  DP,  V  I  /  \  D' ./  \  DP;  D' / NP  \ D  When o b j e c t DP , which has a [+N] f e a t u r e , i s postposed i t c r o s s e s the head k  D and N of the extended p r o j e c t i o n DP, the m a t r i x s u b j e c t , which w i l l  contain a  [+N] head. Yet the head of DP, does not b l o c k the p o s t p o s i n g of the o b j e c t . Thus in  the data  dominating of  we  shall  see below,  i t i s not i n t e r v e n i n g heads,  XP t h a t has a [+N] f e a t u r e t h a t w i l l  but r a t h e r a  appear t o b l o c k t h e e x t r a c t i o n  a YP w i t h a [+N] f e a t u r e , where XP c o n t a i n s YP.  3.1 P o s t p o s i n g out o f a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e : worse d e v i a n c e when a DP i s postposed than when another  c a t e g o r y i s postposed  The f o l l o w i n g two examples i l l u s t r a t e  the s t r u c t u r e i n (123) above. We saw  i n t h e p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r t h a t a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e can be m a r g i n a l l y postposed out  92 of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e when the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e t h a t when we result  i s object-headed.  We  30  see  below  postpose a s u b j e c t or o b j e c t out of the same r e l a t i v e c l a u s e ,  i s worse than i f j u s t  the r e l a t i v e  i s postposed,  stranding  the  i t s nominal  head.  (125)  ? [ [ ei p u r i n - o  j t a b e t a otoko-no-ko-ga] n i g e t a ,  pudding ate The  boy  who  (126) * [ e i tabeta] ate The  boy  The  fact  t h a t we  boy-nom  who  otoko-no-ko-ga] n i g e t a ,  ate  CP  ran-away I-gen  31  ate the pudding ran away --  boy-nom  [ boku-no t u k u t t a ] i . made  (the pudding) t h a t I made.  [ boku-no t u k u t t a DP  ran-away I-gen  purin-o]i.  made pudding.  ( i t ) ran away -- the pudding t h a t I made.  t h a t p o s t p o s e d phrases p r e f e r to be heavy  cannot e x p l a i n the worse g r a m m a t i c a l i t y  p o s t p o s e d phrase i n t h i s sentence c o n t a i n s  of  (126)  (see c h a p t e r  6) means  by  that  the  fact  the  more m a t e r i a l than i n (125) .  In a d d i t i o n to r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , g e n i t i v e s a l s o induce weaker d e v i a n c e when they  are  postposed  p o s t p o s e d . In  (127)  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , and  out  of  an  argument  DP  than  when a  subject  below the postposed g e n i t i v e must c r o s s the m a t r i x  subject  the  "baby" whereas i n (128),  or  object  DP  "toy",  (127)  i s judged as b e t t e r than  In o r d e r to e x p l a i n why subject [+N]  30  clause;  DP's  g e n i t i v e s group w i t h r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s r a t h e r than  i n t h i s way,  f e a t u r e . In Appendix B,  matrix  (128).  we  need to assume t h a t they do  not  have a  I d i s c u s s g e n i t i v e s i n more d e t a i l .  E n d o (1989:114,#81c) c l a i m s t h a t a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e cannot be p o s t p o s e d out of however, i n the example t h a t she uses one of the c l a u s e s i s s u b j e c t - h e a d e d .  We likely 31  is  or o b j e c t  the  the p o s t p o s e d  o b j e c t of the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e must c r o s s o n l y the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e and the subject; yet,  is  do not see a SC e f f e c t here d e s p i t e the n o m i n a t i v e case of the an u n a c c u s a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n .  "koto" c l a u s e ,  a  relative  since  this  93 • (127)(a) [ [e£ omotya-o] kowasita akatyan-ga] n i g e t a , toy-acc The baby who  broke  baby-nom  [ano-ko-no] .  ran-away  L  that-child-gen  broke the toy r a n away -- t h a t c h i l d ' s  (toy).  94 (127) (b) ( s t r u c t u r e of (127) (a) b e f o r e p o s t p o s i n g  IP /  \  IP  l a n d i n g s i t e of p o s t p o s e d phrase  I  VP  I V / DP  \ V  3  |  ran-away  D' / CP  \  •  D'  2  I  /_\  IP  baby  I  VP / DP  \ V  2  |  broke  D' / DP  X  that c h i l d ' s  \ D' / toy  \  DPi i s p o s t p o s e d  95  (128) ( a ) ? * [ e  4  kowasita] akatyan-ga baby-nom  broke  The baby who broke  (itj  nigeta,  [omotya-o]j.  ran-away t o y - a c c r a n away -- the toy;.  (128)(b) s t r u c t u r e of (128) a) b e f o r e p o s t p o s i n g IP /  \  IP  l a n d i n g s i t e of p o s t p o s e d phrase  VP  V / DP  \ V  3  ran-away D' / CP  \ D'  2  I  /_\  IP  baby  VP /  DP  2  \  V broke  D'  /_\ toy  DP  2  i s postposed  96 Yet we f i n d t h a t when we look a t p o s t p o s i n g out o f o t h e r i s l a n d s such as a wh-island or concessive clause,  the r e v e r s e i s t r u e . That  g e n i t i v e p o s t p o s e d out o f a w h - i s l a n d (see sec. 3 . 2 . 1 ) 3.2.2)  sec.  The different  different  o r a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e (see  i s worse than p o s t p o s i n g a s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t .  following  data  show  t h e range  of i s l a n d  effects  that  k i n d s o f c o n s t i t u e n t s a r e p o s t p o s e d out o f a r e l a t i v e  3.1.1  In  i s , a r e l a t i v e or  this  occur  when  clause.  Survey o f elements postposed out o f a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  section  I s h a l l compare the degree  o f d e v i a n c e t h a t o c c u r s when  c a t e g o r i e s o f phrases a r e postposed from a r e l a t i v e  3 . 1 . 1 . 1 Postposed ni-marked  clause.  phrase  In t h i s s u b s e c t i o n , a phrase marked by p a r t i c l e ni, which t o be a d a t i v e o r l o c a t i v e  I s h a l l assume  DP, i s postposed. In a l l cases the r e s u l t  i s fairly  ungrammatical.  (129) ni -marked 32  DP ( d a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n )  *?puresento-o ageta h i t o - o p r e s e n t - a c c gave  (out o f o b j e c t - h e a d e d  yonda,  Hanako-ni.  person-acc c a l l e d  -dat  clause):  I c a l l e d the p e r s o n who gave a p r e s e n t -- t o Hanako.  3 2  ni  The p a r t i c l e  behaves  more  like  ni  marks e i t h e r  a case-marker  a dative than  a P.  or locative  DP. In Appendix  B I show t h a t  the  particle  97 (130)  ( L o c a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) (postposed out of s u b j e c t - h e a d e d  *buzitodo'ita  hune-ga  s a f e l y - a r r i v e d s h i p -nom The  Kanada-kara da,  minato-ni.  Canada-from copula  port-loc  s h i p t h a t a r r i v e d s a f e l y i s from Canada --  (131)  .  *buzitodoita  s a f e l y - a r r i v e d ship-acc I saw  the  We  (arrived) i n port.  (postposed out  hune-o  clause:)  of o b j e c t - h e a d e d  clause:)  mita, m i n a t o - n i . saw  port-loc  ship that s a f e l y a r r i v e d  i n port.  see t h a t " d a t i v e " ni-marked phrases are s l i g h t l y e a s i e r to postpose out  of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e than s u b j e c t s or o b j e c t s but the e x t r a c t i o n i s s t i l l bad. or  fairly  L o c a t i v e ni-marked phrases cannot be p o s t p o s e d out of e i t h e r o b j e c t - h e a d e d subject-headed  feature,  relative  clauses.  a  [+N]  of  the  a PP i s postposed out of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . Again,  the  then they i l l u s t r a t e the  r e l a t i v e clause  seems to b l o c k  these  elements  f a c t t h a t the  [+N]  e x t r a c t i o n of another  3.1.1.2 Postposed  In t h i s s u b s e c t i o n ,  If  are  DP's,  f e a t u r e of head DP [+N]  element.  PP  examples are a l l ungrammatical.  (132)  (postposed out  *buzituita  of subject-headed  hune-ga  m i n a t o - n i aru,  s a f e l y - a r r i v e d ship-nom p o r t - l o c The  with  clause:)  [Kanada-kara] . PP  e x i s t Canada-from  ship that s a f e l y a r r i v e d i s i n port  --  ( a r r i v e d ) from Canada.  98 (133)  (postposed out of object-headed  *buzituita  hune-o  mita,  [Kanada-kara] . PP  s a f e l y - a r r i v e d s h i p - a c c saw I saw  clause:)  Canada-from  the s h i p t h a t s a f e l y a r r i v e d -- from Canada.  I f we assume t h a t PP's have a [+N]  f e a t u r e because they are i n the  extended  p r o j e c t i o n of N i n Grimshaw (1991) 's model, these d a t a a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h our generalization  about  the b l o c k i n g of e x t r a c t i o n of a  [+N]  category  by  a  [+N]  maximal p r o j e c t i o n t h a t c o n t a i n s i t -- again, the head DP of the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e .  3.1.1.3 Adverb  In sentence  this  example,  an  adverb  i s postposed  from  a  relative  i s m a r g i n a l , but much b e t t e r than the examples i n s e c t i o n s  above. T h i s c o n t r a s t f u r t h e r supports our g e n e r a l i z a t i o n : adverb i s not  i f we  [+N], we do not see the b l o c k i n g e f f e c t of the  (134) ? ? p u r i n - o  t a b e t a otoko-no-ko-ga asoko  pudding-acc  ate  The boy who  ate the pudding  boy-nom  to c l a u s e : (non-case-marked (135) ? T a r o o - n i  itta  da,  i s over t h e r e --  [+N]  postponed] . i  said  head DP  "boy".  adv  ravenously  ravenously.  elements  CP)  sensei-ga  who  immediately  assume t h a t an  kaetta,  [siken-ga e n k i - s a r e t a t o ] . C P  -dat s a i d teacher-nom went-home exam-nom postponed teacher  The  [musyamusya] .  over-there copula  3.1.1.6 c l a u s a l  The  clause.  (itjj  to  Taro  went  home  --  [that  comp the  exam  is  99 koto c l a u s e : (136)  (case-marked  s i t t e - i r u hito-ga know The  si-ni (137)  CP)  3 3  sukunai,  [siken-ga  person-nom few  p e o p l e who  know are  purpose c l a u s e  iku hito-ga  exam-nom postponed few  -- t h a t the exam has  (case-marked bare  sukunai,  enki-sareta  koto-o] . CP  comp-acc been postponed.  VP):  eiga-o  mi-ni.  film-acc  see-loc  go  person-nom few  The  p e o p l e who  All  t h r e e of the above i l l u s t r a t e d c a t e g o r i e s are s u c c e s s f u l l y postposed  are going  are  from a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . T h i s r e s u l t assume t h a t they a l l l a c k a  [+N]  few  -- t o see a f i l m .  i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h our g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i f we  feature.  3.1.1.6 Argument  DP  obj e c t :  (128)  repeated  here as  (138):  ?*kowasita akatyan-ga n i g e t a , omotya-o. broke The  baby-nom  baby who  broke  ran-away  toy-acc  ( i t ; ) ran away -- the  toy;.  subject:  (139)  *kowasita omotya-o boku-ga n a o s i t a , broke I fixed  toy-acc  I-nom  fixed  akatyan-ga. baby-nom  the toy t h a t e; broke -- the baby;.  These two  above examples c o n t r a s t s h a r p l y w i t h the examples of  postposing  In this construction the clause consists of the bare uninflecled form of the verb which is marked by particle  100 CP's  adverbs, and VP's.  feature supports  The f a c t t h a t a s u b j e c t and o b j e c t a r g u a b l y have a [+N]  our g e n e r a l i z a t i o n .  3.1.1.7 H i e r a r c h y o f p o s t p o s a b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s  Based on the e v i d e n c e above, the f o l l o w i n g i s a h i e r a r c h i c a l l i s t o f phrase t y p e s i n t h e o r d e r o f the d e v i a n c e t h a t r e s u l t s when they are p o s t p o s e d out o f a relative  clause.  3 4  LEAST DEVIANT si-ni koto  purpose c l a u s e clause  to clause adverb, o b j e c t - h e a d e d r e l a t i v e  clause  dative oblique obj e c t subject MOST DEVIANT  These r e s u l t s a r e s u r p r i s i n g i n t h a t we would n o r m a l l y  expect arguments,  e s p e c i a l l y o b j e c t s , t o be e a s i e r t o e x t r a c t than adverbs o r r e l a t i v e  clauses.  From the h i e r a r c h y above, one can make t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n : The last  f o u r members o f t h e h i e r a r c h y  p o s t p o s e out o f a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  -- those t h a t  a r e t h e most d i f f i c u l t t o  -- can a l l be argued t o be i n t h e extended  p r o j e c t i o n ( i n the sense o f Grimshaw (1991)) N - D - P: s u b j e c t s and o b j e c t s a r e DP's  and o b l i q u e s d a t i v e s a r e e i t h e r DP's o r PP's,  depending on t h e s t a t u s o f  " I have omitted genitives from this list because of the fact that genitives are somewhat problematic for this account. We need to assume that they do not have a [+N] feature, even though in some ways they appear to be DP's. I shall postpone the discussion of genitives until a later point in this subsection.  101 t h e i r p a r t i c l e . The f i r s t  f o u r members on the o t h e r hand c o u l d be argued not t o  be i n the N - D - P p r o j e c t i o n : adverbs a r e u s u a l l y not c o n s i d e r e d t o have a [+N] f e a t u r e , r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s i n Japanese have a s u r f a c e form i d e n t i c a l t o IP's, w i t h no complementizer o r case-marking, t o c l a u s e s a r e not case-marked,  s u g g e s t i n g no  nominal f e a t u r e , and purpose c l a u s e s a r e p r o j e c t i o n s o f V, t a k i n g the form such as :  [XP-o  The  only  V]-ni  -acc  -loc  elements  among  (see, f o r example,  the f i r s t  (137) above)  f o u r whose s t a t u s as l a c k i n g  [+N] i s  q u e s t i o n a b l e a r e koto c l a u s e s . These elements resemble complex DP's i n t h a t they are o b l i g a t o r i l y case-marked. Whitman (1991a), however, argues t h a t A:oto c l a u s e s (as  well  as no  differently  clauses  from complex  I f we accept  which  have  a  similar  grammatical  function)  DP's, f o r example by not a l l o w i n g ga-no  pattern  conversion . 35  Whitman's argument t h a t koto c l a u s e s a r e CP's, not DP's then koto  c l a u s e s w i l l group w i t h purpose c l a u s e s ,  t o - c l a u s e s , and adverbs i n l a c k i n g a  [+N] f e a t u r e i n t h e i r extended p r o j e c t i o n .  I can o n l y g i v e a d e s c r i p t i v e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the phenomena we a r e s e e i n g h e r e : I am unable t o g i v e an e x p l a n a t o r i l y adequate account o f these d a t a . The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s as f o l l o w s :  In  the f o l l o w i n g  structure,  XPif+N]  cannot  bind  a  trace  t  A  i f YP[+N]  dominates, t^:  Ga/no conversion refers to the phenomenon of converting the nominative case-particle ga to the genitive caseparticle no to mark the subject of a relative clause. Subjects of relative clauses are more commonly marked with the genitive than the nominative case-particle. 35  102 XPJ+N] ...  {YP[+N] ... t i ... }  36  We would assume t h a t a s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t w i l l have t h i s head N, which w i l l m a n i f e s t percolation  [+N] f e a t u r e on i t s  i t s e l f i n the whole DP o f the phrase, f o r example by  o f the [+N] f e a t u r e  t o the top o f i t s extended p r o j e c t i o n o r by  s e l e c t i o n o f a DP w i t h a [+N] D head by an NP. Thus when a DP such as a s u b j e c t or o b j e c t i s p o s t p o s e d out of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , i t must c r o s s ' t h e p r o j e c t i o n of the head N of the DP p r o j e c t i o n t h a t the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e m o d i f i e s ,  which a l s o  must have a [+N] f e a t u r e . Such c r o s s i n g of a p r o j e c t i o n w i t h a [+N] f e a t u r e by another p r o j e c t i o n w i t h a [+N] f e a t u r e appears t o be what causes deviance  i n the  examples we have looked a t above. On the o t h e r hand, when a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s postposed, we c o u l d argue t h a t the CP r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s an extended p r o j e c t i o n of the V o f the c l a u s e , and w i l l not have a [+N] f e a t u r e . Thus no severe occurs  when  the r e l a t i v e  clause  crosses  the DP  the h i g h e r  relative  deviance clause  m o d i f i e s . We see t h i s c o n t r a s t i n the f o l l o w i n g two examples:  (128),  (138) r e p e a t e d  a g a i n as  (140):  ?*{ei kowasita akatyan-ga[+N]} n i g e t a , omotya-Oi [ +N] . broke The  baby-nom  baby who broke  ran-away  toy-acc  ( i t j r a n away -- the t o y i .  " Although the structure here is expressed in left-to-right order of c-command, it is assumed that precedence does not figure in binding of a trace by a postposed phrase in Japanese.  103 (125)  (repeated  ?{{€;  as  (141))  p u r i n - o [+N] }  tabeta  otoko-no-ko-ga [ +N] }  nigeta,  { _ { _ boku-no IP[  N)  VP[  N]  tuku}tta}ipudding The  ate  boy  who  boy-nom  ate the pudding ran away --  In the case of PP's, N-D  a l s o has  as, u n t i l " ,  a  [+N]  (h)e  the p r o p e r t y  ran-away  we  made  I made.  as an extended p r o j e c t i o n of  f e a t u r e . P - l i k e elements such as kara  "from", made "as  far  " i n the d i r e c t i o n of, towards" share w i t h E n g l i s h p r e p o s i t i o n s  B on no-marked phrases f o r examples) and such as ni  Datives  (the pudding) t h a t  might argue t h a t P,  t h a t the phrases they head can  by p a r t i c l e s  I-gen  serve  as p r e d i c a t e s ,  ( l o c a t i v e marker, d a t i v e )  here of why  Appendix  can modify nouns, whereas those headed cannot.  seem to postpose more r e a d i l y than s u b j e c t s and  o f f e r any e x p l a n a t i o n  (See  o b j e c t s . I cannot  t h i s might be so. As f a r as the remaining items  i n the l i s t are concerned -- adverbs and v a r i o u s c l a u s a l elements, we might argue t h a t they a l l l a c k the the  [+N]  [+N]  f e a t u r e and thus w i l l not be b l o c k e d when they c r o s s  head of the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . We  headed by A:oto and no are CP's N's,  need to c r u c i a l l y assume t h a t  and not DP's  and t h a t "koto" and  "no"  clauses  are C s ,  not  as Whitman (1991a) suggests, even though they are case-marked l i k e nominal  elements.  The  only  p h r a s e s . We clauses.  other  saw  in  k i n d of element that (127)  [+N]  f e a t u r e and  nominative or a c c u s a t i v e to  such  t h a t g e n i t i v e s can  I f g e n i t i v e s are DP's  t o have a  expectations,  p o s t p o s e d out  we  remains to be  l i k e subjects  to encounter the  DP's  a l s o be and  discussed  p o s t p o s e d out  o b j e c t s , we  in  same k i n d of e f f e c t  examples  other  for  contrary  genitives  can  be  domain  [+N]  and  But  saw  Thus g e n i t i v e s appear to be mysterious i n that they do not t r i g g e r a [+N] would expect them to be  (143)  that  as we  (144).  even though we  (142), DP's  below  relative  genitives  effect,  of r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s  the  of  would expect them  when they are p o s t p o s e d out of a DP.  find  i s genitive  categories.  104 (127)  r e p e a t e d as  (142)  t [ei omotya-o] kowasita akatyan-ga] toy-acc  broke  The baby who  (143)  inu-ga  broke  baby-nom  c a t - a c c chased  otooto-no]  In  in  B  I  (cat).  ate  show  Japanese  complementizer  cousin-gen  and  that  also  -- my  the  serves  other  (brother's).  no,  particle  which  functions:  f u n c t i o n a l head t h a t  and i s as a r e s u l t unmarked f o r a [+N] f o r the  cousin's  marks for  as a form of the c o p u l a . I t i s p o s s i b l e  s e r v e s as a k i n d of d e f a u l t  account  (toy).  me-gen  ( h i s ) b r o t h e r ' s pudding  Appendix  genitives  that-child-gen  purin-o tabeta, itoko-nOi  b r o t h e r - g e n pudding I ate  ran-away  ±  the toy r a n away -- t h a t c h i l d ' s  The dog chased the c a t --my  L  [ano-ko-no] .  [ei neko-o] o i k a k e t a , w a t a s i - n O i  dog-nom  (144) [e  nigeta,  fact  p o s t p o s e d out of a  that  [+N]  or [-N]  what  we  example  that  this  call as  a  particle  s e r v e s a v a r i e t y of f u n c t i o n s  f e a t u r e . Such a p o s s i b i l i t y would  g e n i t i v e s group w i t h r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e s when they  are  XP.  I f no-marked phrases do not have a [+N]  feature,  then we  s h o u l d expect t o  f i n d o n l y m a r g i n a l d e v i a n c e when we postpose a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a no-marked phrase, j u s t as we  found when a no-marked phrase was  p o s t p o s e d out of a r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e i n (127) . Yet i n the f o l l o w i n g sentences, g r e a t e r d e v i a n c e i s encountered than we  ?*(145)  might  expect.  [ei Taroo]-no -gen I regret  that  hon-o  nakusite-simatta, [tonari-ni  book-acc l o s t - a u x . I l o s t Taro's book --  next-door-loc (Taro) who  sunde-iru] . t  live  l i v e s next  door.  105 Are  we  s e e i n g a SC e f f e c t  here  f o r the g e n i t i v e ,  which may  act l i k e  a  s u b j e c t o f the DP "book"? Such a h y p o t h e s i s i s c o n t r a d i c t e d by the f a c t t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o postpose I l e a v e t h i s problem  a g e n i t i v e out o f a g e n i t i v e ,  as we saw above i n (144).  unsolved.  3.2 P o s t p o s i n g out o f o t h e r c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e w i t h no T+N1 head: no [+N] domain e f f e c t s when DP's a r e p o s t p o s e d  In the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n we saw t h a t severe d e v i a n c e o c c u r s when a c a t e g o r y that  we c o u l d p o s i t  category.  t o have a  In the examples  [+N] f e a t u r e i s p o s t p o s e d  that  follow i n this  section,  out o f another I shall  look  [+N]  a t what  happens when we postpose v a r i o u s types of c o n s t i t u e n t s out o f a c a t e g o r y t h a t i s a r g u a b l y not [ + N ] . As we might p r e d i c t , we f i n d t h a t the [+N] domain e f f e c t does not o c c u r . In the absence of the e f f e c t we observed shall do:  f i n d t h a t arguments postpose  f o r example, when the i s l a n d  seem t o postpose  out of n o n - [ + N ] - i s l a n d s  b e t t e r than  i s a concessive clause or wh-island,  objects  o f [+N] c a t e g o r i e s on o t h e r  s i n c e arguments g e n e r a l l y a r e more e x t r a c t a b l e than  I shall  adjuncts  b e t t e r than r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s . T h i s i s what we would p r e d i c t t o  happen i n the absence o f the b l o c k i n g e f f e c t categories,  i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , we  [+N]  adjuncts.  c o n s i d e r p o s t p o s i n g from two types of i s l a n d s :  s e c . 3.2.1 P o s t p o s i n g out of a w h - i s l a n d s e c . 3.2.2 P o s t p o s i n g out of a c o n c e s s i v e c l a u s e  3.2.1 P o s t p o s i n g out o f a w h - i s l a n d  In  this  s u b s e c t i o n we  see t h a t  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a w h - i s l a n d :  an o b j e c t  will  postpose  b e t t e r than  a  106 3.2.1.1 r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  (146) ?*Masao-ga,  ano  okane-o  postposed  nusunda ka-doo-ka wakaranai, boku-ga  kinoo  moratta. -nom  t h a t money-acc  stole  comp  not-clear  I-nom  yesterday  received I t ' s not c l e a r  i f Masao s t o l e t h a t money -- t h a t  3.2.1.2 heavy o b j e c t  (147) ??Masao-ga,  I received  yesterday.  postposed  nusunda ka-doo-ka wakaranai,  ano  stole  that  boku-ga  kinoo  moratta  okane-o -nom  comp  not-clear  I-nom  yesterday  received  money-acc I t ' s not c l e a r i f Masao s t o l e ( i t ) -- t h a t money t h a t I r e c e i v e d  3.2.2  Postposing  out of a c o n c e s s i v e  yesterday.  clause  S i m i l a r l y when we c o n s t r u c t a sentence i n which an element i s p o s t p o s e d out of a c o n c e s s i v e  c l a u s e , which as an adjunct  has an i s l a n d e f f e c t ,  t h a t an o b j e c t w i l l postpose b e t t e r than a r e l a t i v e  3.2.2.1 r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  (148) ?*Masao-wa, okane-o  nusunda n o - n i ,  we f i n d again  clause:  postposed  sikararenakatta,  boku-ga  kinoo  moratta. -top money-acc  stole  although  wasn't-scolded  I-nom  yesterday  received In s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money, i t ' s a l l r i g h t -- (money) t h a t I  received  yesterday.  107 3.2.2.2 o b j e c t  (149) ??Masao-wa, nusunda n o - n i ,  postposed  sikararenakatta,  boku-ga kinoo  moratta  okane-o. -top s t o l e  a l t h o u g h s c o l d - p a s s - n e g - p a s t I-nom  yesterday  received  money-acc In s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e ( i t ) , he wasn't s c o l d e d  --  (money)  that I received  yesterday.  3.2.2.3 s u b j e c t  It  i s not c l e a r t h a t  o b j e c t s . Endo  (150) * a s i t a  postposed  subjects  will  postpose out of i s l a n d s as w e l l  as  (1989:142) judges the f o l l o w i n g sentence t o be bad.  aru  no-ni,  Ken-wa  tomorrow e x i s t a l t h o u g h In s p i t e of the f a c t  that  asonde-iru  -top p l a y  yo,  siken-ga.  emph exam-nom  i t ; i s tomorrow, Ken i s p l a y i n g around -- the  exanij.  It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r t o the d e v i a n c e of t h i s sentence is  the f a c t  that  the postposed phrase  i s not "heavy" . Heavy p h r a s e s  postpose b e t t e r than bare DP's w i t h no c l a u s a l m o d i f i c a t i o n .  seem t o  (See c h a p t e r 5 f o r  f u r t h e r examples.)  3.3' C o n c l u s i o n s  The f a c t t h a t i t i s e a s i e r t o postpose an o b j e c t than a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of an i s l a n d such as a c o n c e s s i v e  c l a u s e o r a w h - i s l a n d i s what we would expect  s i n c e a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e has one f u r t h e r bounding node t o pass through -- the DP that i t modifies.  In the absence of a b l o c k i n g of [+N] by  [+N] e f f e c t i n these  108 examples we  expect t h a t an o b j e c t  should be  e a s i e r t o e x t r a c t than a  relative  clause that modifies i t .  Notice  that  the  effects  subjacency e f f e c t s than ECP  we  are  seeing  in  this  chapter  are  more  like  e f f e c t s . In the cases where i t i s e a s i e r to postpose  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e than an o b j e c t , the c o n t r a s t cannot have a n y t h i n g  to do  with  whether the t r a c e of the postposed element i s p r o p e r l y governed, s i n c e the t r a c e of an o b j e c t must be l e x i c a l l y  governed by V. Furthermore, when a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  i s p o s t p o s e d and o n l y m i l d deviance some way  r e s u l t s , we must assume t h a t i t s t r a c e i s i n  p r o p e r l y governed. In chapter  5 I will  show evidence  t h a t the t r a c e of  a p o s t p o s e d r e l a t i v e c l a u s e or g e n i t i v e a c t s as i f i t i s governed by the V t h a t a l s o governs the DP  that the g e n i t i v e or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  Another n o t a b l e  f a c t about the data  i n t h i s chapter  modifies.  i s t h a t i s l a n d s such  as r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e s are o n l y weak i s l a n d s f o r p o s t p o s i n g : i t i s s t i l l p o s s i b l e , under the r i g h t circumstances,  to postpose elements out of  them. The  deviance  fact  t h a t we  see  gradations  of  marginal  examples suggests subjacency r a t h e r than ECP will  compare the  3.4  island  s t r e n g t h of d i f f e r e n t  effects.  i n many of  In the next s u b s e c t i o n I  types of c l a u s a l  elements.  A r e l a t i v e c l a u s e as a weaker i s l a n d than o t h e r k i n d s of  When we  factor  out  particular  locality  c o n d i t i o n and b l o c k i n g of e x t r a c t i o n of [+N]  by  c o n s t r a i n t s such as [+N],  adjuncts  the  In  the  subject  some elements w i l l postpose  more e a s i l y out of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e than out of o t h e r types of a d j u n c t  3.4.1  these  clauses.  adverbs postposed:  f o l l o w i n g examples  adverb out of e i t h e r  I will  compare  the  effects  of  postposing  a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e or a complement c l a u s e headed by koto.  an We  109 shall  see  that  grammatical  the  former  case r e s u l t s  in mild  deviance  purin-o  t a b e t a otoko-no-ko-ga asoko da,  in a  musyamusya t o .  over-there  boy-nom  ate  The  ate the pudding i s over t h e r e --  boy  Taroo-ga -nom It  latter  clause  pudding-acc who  3.4.1.2 adverb out  (152)  the  sentence.  3.4.1.1 adverb out of r e l a t i v e  (151)  and  kuru come  i s clear  koto-ga  of koto  akiraka  comp-nom c l e a r  t h a t Taro w i l l  copula  ravenously  ravenously.  clause  da,  moo  copula  sugu.  already  come -- i n a l i t t l e  soon while,  (judgement: not bad but worse than to c l a u s e or koto c l a u s e out of koto c l a u s e )  3.4.2  t o - c l a u s e postposed  In t h i s s u b s e c t i o n CP  out  of  a  relative  I compare the e f f e c t s  clause,  a  wh-island,  a  of p o s t p o s i n g temporal  a non-case-marked  adverb  clause,  complement case-marked CP. Once a g a i n we s h a l l see t h a t the complement CP grammatical deviance:  postposing  and  s l i g h t l y less  that  the  relative  than a w h - i s l a n d  and  clause  island  causes  d i s t i n c t l y less  and  permits  only  than a  (153)  ?Taroo-ni -dat The  itta  sensei-ga  kaetta,  siken-ga  clause  enki-sareta to.  s a i d teacher-nom went-home exam-nom postponed  t e a c h e r who  postponed];.  said  ( i t ; ) to Taro went home --  [that  mild  temporal  adverb c l a u s e .  3.4.2.1 to c l a u s e out of r e l a t i v e  a  comp  the exam i s  110 3.4.2.2 to c l a u s e out of w h - i s l a n d  (154)  ?Taroo-ga  itta  ka-doo-ka wakaranai,  -nom s a i d I t ' s not c l e a r  (155)  ??Taroo-ga  comp  not-clear  i f Taro s a i d  itta  asita  ( i t ) -- t h a t he wouldn't  clear  Do you know i f Taro s a i d  to.  tomorrow not-come comp  ka-doo-ka wakaru no,  -nom s a i d comp  konai  asita  come.  konai  to?  comp tomorrow not-come comp  ( i t ) -- t h a t he wouldn't  come?  3.4.2.3 t o c l a u s e out of temporal c l a u s e  (156) *? Taroo-ga  itte-kara,  totuzen  nigedasita, asita  -nom s a y - a f t e r suddenly r a n - o f f After come  Taro s a i d  konai  to.  tomorrow come-not comp  ( i t j , he suddenly r a n o f f -- [that  he wouldn't  tomorrow]i.  3.4.2.4 to c l a u s e out of koto c l a u s e  (157) Taroo-ga  itta  koto-ga a k i r a k a da, a s i t a konai t o .  -nom s a i d comp-nom c l e a r c o p u l a tomorrow comp What Taro s a i d  i s clear  -- that he w i l l  come tomorrow.  h i e r a r c h y o f i s l a n d s t r e n g t h when a to c l a u s e i s postposed:  The  following  chart  summarizes  induces by each type of p o t e n t i a l  the r e l a t i v e  strength  of i s l a n d  i s l a n d we l o o k e d a t i n the above  effects  examples.  Ill GREATER DEVIANCE temporal c l a u s e > r e l a t i v e clause, wh-island koto  >  clause  LESS DEVIANCE  3.4.3  Jcoto-clause p o s t p o s e d  In t h i s s u b s e c t i o n , out  of  again,  a relative  I look at the e f f e c t s  clause,  reason  clause,  of p o s t p o s i n g  wh-island,  the complement CP shows no i s l a n d e f f e c t s ,  and  a case-marked  complement  but n e i t h e r does the  CP.  CP  Once  relative  c l a u s e . The w h - i s l a n d  shows s t r o n g e r i s l a n d e f f e c t s , and the reason c l a u s e shows  still  effects.  greater island  3.4.3.1 koto  (158)  know  sukunai,  siken-ga  person-nom few  p e o p l e who  know are few  ? * s i t t e - i r u kara, know  enki-sareta  koto-o.  exam-nom postponed  been postponed.  c l a u s e out of reason  kyoo-wa asobanai,  because today  Because I know ( i t ; ) ,  comp-acc  -- that the exam has  3.4.3.2 koto  (159)  clause  judgement:"almost p e r f e c t "  s i t t e - i r u hito-ga  The  c l a u s e out of r e l a t i v e  play-neg  I'm  clause  asita  siken-ga  aru  tomorrow exam-nom e x i s t  not p l a y i n g around today --  koto-o comp-acc  [that t h e r e ' s  exam tomorrow] . t  (160) ?* h i m i t u da-kara,  sinpai  s e c r e t copula-because worry Because i t j ' s a s e c r e t , I'm  sinai,  Taroo-ga  do-not  -nom  not w o r r i e d  --  sitte-iru  koto-ga.  know  comp-nom  [the f a c t Taro knows];.  an  112 3.4.3.3 koto c l a u s e out of w h - i s l a n d than e x t r a c t i n g a t o c l a u s e a relative  clause  (161)??Taroo-ga uso-o-tuita  (judgement: a b i t worse  out of w h - i s l a n d but s t i l l  better  than e x t r a c t i n g  out of an o b j e c t )  e; s i t t e - i r u  koto-ga  himitu  ka-doo-ka wakaranai,  [Masao-ga  koto-o];. -nom  lie-acc-told  know  comp-nom s e c r e t  comp  not-clear  -nom  comp-acc  I t ' s not c l e a r whether the f a c t knows that) Masao t o l d  (162)??Taroo-ga uso-o-tuita  t h a t Taro knows i s a s e c r e t  -- (that he  lies.  e; s i t t e - i r u  koto-ga  himitu  ka-doo-ka  wakaru  no,  [Masao-ga  comp  -nom  koto-o];?. -nom  lie-acc-told  know  comp-nom s e c r e t comp  clear  comp-acc  Do you know whether the f a c t t h a t Taro knows i s a s e c r e t -- (that he knows that) Masao t o l d  lies?  3.4.3.4 koto c l a u s e out of koto  clause  (163)Taroo-ga s i t t e - i r u koto-ga a k i r a k a da, Masao-ga u s o - o - t u i t a -nom know It  of i s l a n d  GREATER DEVIANCE reason clause > clause >  wh-island > koto  -nom l i e - a c c - t o l d  i s c l e a r t h a t Taro knows -- that Masao was t e l l i n g  hierarchy  relative  comp-nom c l e a r copula  clause  LESS DEVIANCE  s t r e n g t h when a koto c l a u s e  lies.  i s postposed:  koto-o. comp-acc  113  3.4.4 s i - n i purpose c l a u s e postposed  In  this  subsection,  a  case-marked  bare  VP  that  expresses  purpose i s  p o s t p o s e d out o f the same types of p o t e n t i a l i s l a n d s as we saw i n the immediately preceding no i s l a n d  s u b s e c t i o n . Once again, the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e and the complement CP show effects;  effects i n this  the w h - i s l a n d  and the reason  clause  show v e r y  iku hito-ga  sukunai,  eiga-o  go  person-nom few  The  p e o p l e who a r e going  Taroo-ga  clause  mi-ni.  film-acc see-loc a r e few -- t o see a f i l m .  3.4.4.2 s i - n i purpose c l a u s e out of koto  (165)  island  case.  3.4.4.1 s i - n i purpose c l a u s e out o f r e l a t i v e  (164)  mild  i t t a koto-o  sitte-iru,  -nom went comp-acc know  eiga-o  clause  mi-ni.  film-acc see-loc  I know t h a t Taro went -- t o see a f i l m .  3.4.4.3  s i - n i purpose c l a u s e out o f reason  clause  (166) ?Hanako-ga  i t t e - k i t e kara,  -nom went  bangohan-o r y o o r i - s u r u , y a s a i - o  because supper-acc cook  Because Hanako went e  i (  I ' l l cook d i n n e r  vegetables-acc  -- [to buy v e g e t a b l e s ] ^  kai-ni. buy-loc  114 3.4.4.4 si-ni  (167)  ?Taroo-ga  itta  ka-doo-ka wakaranai, eiga-o  -nom went  comp  I t ' s not c l e a r  (168)  Taroo-ga  itta  purpose c l a u s e out o f w h - i s l a n d  not-clear  mi-ni.  film-acc see-loc  i f Taro went -- t o see a f i l m .  ka-doo-ka wakaru no,  -nom went comp  clear  eiga-o  mi-ni?  comp f i l m - a c c s e e - l o c  Do you know i f Taro went -- t o see a f i l m ?  hierarchy of i s l a n d  reason  strength f o r postposing  clause, wh-island  a si-ni  purpose c l a u s e :  >  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , koto c l a u s e  3.4.5  Summary o f comparison of i s l a n d  effects  A l t h o u g h the p a t t e r n s of r e l a t i v e g r a m m a t i c a l i t y  d i f f e r s l i g h t l y - f o r each  type o f element t h a t i s b e i n g postposed, i n g e n e r a l a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e appears t o be  a weaker  island  than a reason  clause  i s l a n d than a koto c l a u s e . T h i s evidence that  even  different  i f relative  clauses  types of a d j u n c t s .  and i n some cases  i s no s t r o n g e r an  r e q u i r e s us t o c o n s i d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y  are adjuncts,  we need  t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between  I t would be u s e f u l t o t e s t o t h e r p o s s i b l e types of  a d j u n c t s as w e l l : f o r example V P - l e v e l a d j u n c t s v e r s u s  sentence-level  adjuncts.  How might we e x p l a i n the apparent weakness of r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s i n Japanese as a i s l a n d with respect to postposing?  One p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s a r e  a d j o i n e d t o N' o r D' r a t h e r than t o DP o r NP; Under the m i n i m a l i s t  framework of  Chomsky (1995), t h i s would mean t h a t r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s a r e i n the minimal domain of the head t o which they a r e r e l a t e d ,  whereas elements t h a t a r e a d j o i n e d t o an  XP a r e not i n the minimal domain of head X. Another f a c t o r t h a t may determine the r e l a t i v e i s l a n d s t r e n g t h of a d j u n c t s  i s whether the p r o j e c t i o n t o which they a r e  115 a d j o i n e d i s l e x i c a l . I f r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s a r e a d j o i n e d t o N' r a t h e r than D', they are i n t h e minimal of  these  types  domain of a l e x i c a l head. The v a r i o u s p o s s i b l e  of p o s s i b i l i t i e s  suggest  a complex  array  combinations  of h i e r a r c h i e s o f  i s l a n d h o o d . F o r example, a complement o f a l e x i c a l head i s u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d not t o be a b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n . But we might want t o p o s i t t h a t a phrase i n the minimal  domain o f a l e x i c a l  head  i s a weaker b a r r i e r  than one i n the minimal  domain o f a f u n c t i o n a l head, which might be the case f o r a sentence l e v e l  adverb  phrase.  One  p i e c e of evidence  that  relative  c l a u s e s a r e a t t a c h e d lower  than a  adjoined-to-DP p o s i t i o n i s the f a c t that they can f o l l o w d e t e r m i n e r - l i k e elements such as ano,  kono,  and  (169)ano Masao-ga  sono.  kinoo  -nom  yonda hon  yesterday read  book  t h a t book t h a t Masao read y e s t e r d a y  Another  possible  e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the weakness  of r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e s as  i s l a n d s f o r e x t r a c t i o n i s t h a t a l t h o u g h they a r e a d j u n c t s , they can be l i c e n s e d i n a way s i m i l a r t o L-marking  by a l e x i c a l  [+V] head i f they a r e i n i t s domain  and i f no [+V] b a r r i e r i n t e r v e n e s . T h i s i d e a i s proposed  i n c h a p t e r 5.  4. P o s t p o s i n g out of wa-marked phrases  In t h i s  c h a p t e r I look a t the e f f e c t s  of p o s t p o s i n g out of t o p i c a l i z e d  phrases marked by the t o p i c - m a r k e r wa and some r e l a t e d result  of t h i s  analysis.  In g e n e r a l ,  postposing  i s s u e s t h a t a r i s e as a  out of iva-marked  clausal  c o n s t i t u e n t s (e.g. CP's) i s l i c i t whereas p o s t p o s i n g out o f wa-marked n o n - c l a u s a l constituents pattern.  (such as DP's) i s bad, a l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e some e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s  I attempt  to explain  these d i f f e r e n c e s  by p o s i t i n g  that  there i s a  n e c e s s a r y s y n t a c t i c d i s t i n c t i o n between d i f f e r e n t types o f a d j u n c t s -- those t h a t  116 are  i n the domain of a l e x i c a l head, and  those t h a t are  not.  I s h a l l propose that there i s the f o l l o w i n g l i c e n s i n g c o n d i t i o n on  traces  of p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s :  1. A t r a c e t must be 2.  l i c e n s e d i n Max(x) where x i s  [+V].  t i s l i c e n s e d by x i f f x i s l e x i c a l  In the  first  subsection  phrase i s p o s t p o s e d out  of a l e x i c a l  d i s t i n g u i s h two  s e t s of d a t a i n which a  of a wa-marked t o p i c : a d e v i a n t  of the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s not or l e s s d e v i a n t  I shall  set i n which the  trace  i n the domain of a l e x i c a l head and a grammatical  set i n which the t r a c e of the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s i n the domain  head.  In Chapter 1 I argued t h a t where i t i s p o s s i b l e t o t e s t f o r C o n d i t i o n  C  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s on a name embedded i n a postposed phrase, these e f f e c t s occur  and  are  best  movement h y p o t h e s i s  explained i s further  r e l a t i v i z e d minimality 2 and  3.  by  positing  strengthened  in  a  subject-condition  phrases. effects  A and  for  (1985)'s h y p o t h e s i s t h a t , w i t h  form XP-ni-wa,  of t o p i c a l i z e d l o c a t i v e s of the  generated  postposed  c o n t i n u e to pursue a movement h y p o t h e s i s  p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s . I s h a l l a l s o adopt S a i t o  be base-generated  by  of  e f f e c t s on postposed phrases t h a t were seen i n c h a p t e r s  In t h i s c h a p t e r I s h a l l  exception  movement  which he  the  shows cannot  ( d i s c u s s e d i n Appendix B) t o p i c s i n Japanese are e i t h e r base-  high  functional  projection  or  moved  to  that  position  by  A'  movement. For the purposes of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n I s h a l l assume t h a t t h i s p o s i t i o n is  [Spec,  CP].  This  terms: t h e r e f o r e , test  f o r the  islands  and  means t h a t  they should  islandhood in  other  topics  not  "L-marked"  i n Chomsky  be p o t e n t i a l i s l a n d s f o r e x t r a c t i o n . Yet  of t o p i c s , we cases  are  they  do  f i n d that not,  as  (1986) when  we  i n some cases t o p i c s behave as the  examples  that  follow  will  117 illustrate.  I adjoined  See s e c . 4.5. f o r a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of S a i t o ' s a n a l y s i s .  am  assuming  f o r the d i s c u s s i o n  i n this  chapter  t o some p r o j e c t i o n o f D. For the f o l l o w i n g reasons,  e i t h e r o f the hypotheses  that  that  3 7  3 8  g e n i t i v e s are  I have not adopted  (a) g e n i t i v e s a r e complements of N o r t h a t  (b) they  are i n [ S p e c , DP]. Except an  argument  i n cases where N i s a noun such as "study", (see s e c . 4.2.1 below),  p o s i t i o n with (170)  a relative  clause  a genitive  modifying  t h a t can c l e a r l y  modifying  take  a DP can exchange  the same DP, as we see i n examples  and (171) .  (170) Taroo-no -gen  [Masao-ga  kinoo  yonda] hon  -nom y e s t e r d a y read  book  Taro's book t h a t Masao read y e s t e r d a y  (171) [Masao-ga  kinoo  yonda] Taroo-no  -nom y e s t e r d a y read  hon  -gen book  Taro's book t h a t Masao read y e s t e r d a y .  This  f a c t would not be e x p l a i n a b l e  i f g e n i t i v e s were arguments o f N.  The h y p o t h e s i s t h a t g e n i t i v e s a r e i n a s p e c i f i e r p o s i t i o n i s not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the f a c t t h a t g e n i t i v e s do not show SC e f f e c t s when an element i s e x t r a c t e d from  them, as we saw above i n example  (144) i n s e c . 3.1.1.7, r e p e a t e d here as  (172) :  37 Saito (1985) a r g u e s that base-generated t o p i c s do n o t b e h a v e as i f t h e y a r e d e r i v e d by movement when t h e c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n w i t h w h i c h t h e t o p i c i s a s s o c i a t e d i s w i t h i n a n i s l a n d : i.e. t h a t i s l a n d d o e s n o t show i s l a n d e f f e c t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t o p i c . F o r e x a m p l e he a r g u e s t h a t a t o p i c c a n be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p o s i t i o n i n s i d e a s u b j e c t - h e a d e d r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . By c o n t r a s t , we s a w in chapter 2 that a subject-headed r e l a t i v e clause is a strong b a r r i e r for postposing. This contrast between t o p i c a l i z a t i o n and p o s t p o s i n g i n J a p a n e s e c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i f t o p i c s a r e base-generated ( a s a r g u e d i n S a i t o (1985)) a n d p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s a r e d e r i v e d b y m o v e m e n t .  38 Some of the following examples are modelled after examples in Endo (1989).  118 (172) [e; otooto-no]  purin-o tabeta,  itoko-no;  b r o t h e r - g e n pudding a t e I ate (his) brother's  Accordingly, the  cousin-gen  pudding -- my c o u s i n ' s  (brother's).  I s h a l l assume, u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e noted, t h a t the g e n i t i v e s i n  examples i n t h i s chapter have the f o l l o w i n g  (173)  structure.  DP I D' /  \  gen.  D' /  I am assuming a d j u n c t i o n  \  t o an i n t e r m e d i a t e  p r o j e c t i o n of D r a t h e r than t o  DP s i n c e i f the c o n f i g u r a t i o n of the t r a c e of a p o s t p o s e d g e n i t i v e m o d i f y i n g a DP t o p i c were as f o l l o w s , p o s t p o s i n g of the g e n i t i v e w i l l not c r o s s any maximal projections, below,  since  postposing  DP  does not dominate the t r a c e .  a genitive  g e n i t i v e were i n s t e a d a d j o i n e d  in this  configuration  In examples we  shall  see  i s ungrammatical. I f the  t o D' as i n the s t r u c t u r e above, DP w i l l be a non-  L-marked b a r r i e r t o e x t r a c t i o n of the g e n i t i v e under the model of Chomsky (1986) since  (a) i t dominates the t r a c e but not i t s antecedent and (b) i t i s not t h e t a -  marked by a l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y . T h i s i s the k i n d of e x p l a n a t i o n i n o r d e r t o account  we need t o m a i n t a i n  f o r the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of sentences l i k e  (176) below.  119 (174) CP /  \  CP  genitivei  /  \  (topic)DP /  C \  \ DP  IP  For convenience, i n the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n , are  construed with a subject  p o s i t i o n as  c o n s t r u e d w i t h an o b j e c t p o s i t i o n as  4.1  Are  As an  topics islands for  the  adjunct  I s h a l l r e f e r t o t o p i c s that  "subject  "object  t o p i c s " , and  those t h a t  topics."  extraction?  f o l l o w i n g examples show, severe d e v i a n c e r e s u l t s when we modifier  of  a  DP  wa-marked  topic.  The  postposed  head noun of  the  postposed version.)  t o p i c DP. The  (The  ( i i ) variant  postpose  element  examples below i s e i t h e r a no-marked phrase or a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e the  are  that  in  modifies  of each sentence i s the  f o l l o w i n g diagram shows the r e l e v a n t  the  structure.  non-  120 (175)  CP /  \  XP ( r e l a t i v e c l a u s e o r g e n i t i v e )  CP /  i  \  C  (topic)DP  I  \  IP  D' /  \  ti  /_\ D'  /  (176) (i)  \  * [e kuruma-wa] boku-o h i i t a , L  car-top  Taroo-no  me-acc ran-over  ;  -gen  As f o r the c a r , i t r a n over me, Taro's (car)  (ii)  [Taroo-no  kuruma-wa] boku-o h i i t a .  -gen c a r - t o p  me-acc  ran-over  As f o r Taro's c a r , i t r a n over me.  (177)  ( i ) * [ e i purin-wa] pudding-top  tabeta, ate  As f o r the pudding,  (ii)  [Taroo-no  Taroo-no^  purin-wa]  -gen I a t e i t -- Taro's  (pudding).  tabeta.  -gen pudding-top a t e As f o r Taro's pudding,  (178)  ( i ) * [ e i kookyuusya-wa] luxury-car-top Luxury  I ate i t .  taihen takai, very  C[  ,[Nihon-de  expensive  tukutta] . A  J a p a n - l o c made  c a r s a r e v e r y expensive -- (ones t h a t are) made i n Japan.  121 (ii)[  CP  [Nihon-de  t u k u t t a ] kookyuusya-wa]  J a p a n - l o c made  luxury-car-top  taihen takai very  yo.  e x p e n s i v e emph  Luxury c a r s t h a t are made i n Japan are v e r y e x p e n s i v e .  Yet when a c o n s t i t u e n t of a CP t o p i c ,  such as a phrase headed by  koto-wa  or no-wa i s postposed, the sentence i s grammatical, or m a r g i n a l at worst as i n the case of  (181) .  (179) [dareka-ga e;  t a b e t e s i m a t t a koto]-wa,  C P  someone-nom  ate-up  tasika  comp-top  da  CP  [dareka-ga e  i  someone-nom The  (181)  aketa  to  iu  no]-wa,  ? [ d a r e k a - g a e; aketa cp  someone-nom As f o r the f a c t saf e<.  koto]-wa  opened comp-top  wagasi-o. sweet-acc  sweet;.  hontoo-rasii,  opened comp say comp-top  f a c t t h a t someone opened  ano  c e r t a i n copula that  I t ' s c e r t a i n t h a t someone a t e . ( i t ; ) up -- t h a t  (180)  ,  true-modal  [ano kinko-o];. safe-acc  (it;) seems t o be t r u e -- the safe;.  keisatu-ni tutaeta, police-dat  that someone opened  (it;),  told  [ano that  kinko-o];. safe-acc  I t o l d the p o l i c e  -- the  122 (182)structure of  (179)-(181)  CPi /  CP  XPi (postposed phrase)  X  / (topic)CP  \  \ C  2  /  \  IP,  IPi  /  \  VP  V /  \ V  ti  Examples  (179) and (180) suggest that the t o p i c p o s i t i o n i t s e l f  i s not an  a b s o l u t e b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n of a postposed phrase. N o t i c e t h a t i n (178) the topic  i s an o b j e c t  topic,  as i s a l s o  d e v i a n t than (178). Because,  the case  i n (181) , which  i s much  less  i n (178), p o s t p o s i n g out of an o b j e c t t o p i c r e s u l t s  i n severe d e v i a n c e , the deviance of (176) and (177) i s not n e c e s s a r i l y due t o the f a c t t h a t t h e r e the t o p i c i s a s u b j e c t  There  are other  differences  topic.  between  (176)-(178)  and  (179)-(181)  that  suggest a p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the c o n t r a s t i n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y between the two s e t s . One i s t h a t the p o s t p o s e d phrases i n the d e v i a n t s e t a r e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s or  no-marked phrases  -- l i k e l y  a d j u n c t s , whereas the p o s t p o s e d phrases  i n the  non-deviant s e t a r e arguments. Another d i f f e r e n c e i s t h a t the .phrases t h a t a r e t o p i c a l i z e d i n the d e v i a n t s e t a r e headed by l e x i c a l non-deviant  s e t a r e headed  complementizers.  by  koto  or no  The f o l l o w i n g examples,  which  nouns whereas those i n the are arguably  non-lexical  however, r u l e out both the q u e s t i o n o f  123 whether the t o p i c a l i z e d phrase i s l e x i c a l and the adjunct-argument s t a t u s of the p o s t p o s e d phrase as p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s t h a t account f o r the c o n t r a s t  i n deviance  between the two above s e t s of examples.  F i r s t of a l l , the f o l l o w i n g three sentences show t h a t p o s t p o s i n g clause  out of a phrase headed by koto  (183) Masao-wa, okane-o  It's  (184)  i s grammatical.  nusunda koto-ga  -top money-acc  stole  akiraka  comp-nom c l e a r  c l e a r t h a t Masao s t o l e the money  Masao-wa, okane-o  nusunda koto-o  -top money-acc  stole  that  (185)  kinoo  moratta.  copula  yesterday  received  I received  comp-acc know  nusunda koto-ga  -top money-acc  stole  aru,  moratta.  yesterday  received  yesterday,  I/he r e c e i v e d  boku-no  comp-nom e x i s t I-gen  (on o c c a s i o n ) s t o l e n money -- t h a t  yesterday.  kinoo  I received  (they) s t o l e the money -- t h a t  Masao-wa, okane-o  Masao has  da,  sitte-iru,  I know t h a t Masao s t o l e the money -- t h a t (or) Masao knows t h a t  a relative  yesterday.  kakusita. hid  I hid.  When we wa-mark the complementizer A:oto i n (183) we  f i n d the sentence i s s t i l l  m a r g i n a l at worst:  (186) ?Masao-ga, -nom It's  [e  t  okane-o]  DP  money-acc  nusunda koto-wa stole  akiraka  comp-top c l e a r  da,  [kinoo  cop. y e s t e r d a y  c l e a r t h a t Masao s t o l e the money -- t h a t I r e c e i v e d  moratta];. received  yesterday.  When we postpose a g e n i t i v e i n s t e a d of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e out of a iva-marked koto  clause  the r e s u l t i s s t i l l  grammatical:  124 (187) dareka-ga  [e  kinko-o]  i  someone-nom It's  DP  safe-acc  aketa  koto-wa, t a s i k a  da,  [ano  opened comp-top c e r t a i n cop.  ginkoo-no];.  t h a t bank-gen  c e r t a i n t h a t someone opened the s a f e -- t h a t bank's ( s a f e ) .  Thus we clause  find  that  i n (186) and  (187) p o s t p o s i n g  a g e n i t i v e or r e l a t i v e  out o f a wa-marked phrase i s much b e t t e r than i t i s i n (176) o r (179).  In  (188) a c l a u s e s i m i l a r t o the one. i n (187) i s headed by a l e x i c a l noun  r a t h e r than koto  o r no,  and the sentence i s s t i l l  grammatical:  (188) 0P  [dareka-ga e someone-nom The  A  aketa  t o yuu uwasa]-wa,  opened C  rumour t h a t  say rumour-top  someone opened  an argument DP out o f a t o p i c  m a r g i n a l , but s t i l l  true  [ano kinko-o];.  copula-past  ( i t ; ) i s t r u e -- the safe;,  If we postpose a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e of  hontoo d a t t a ,  that  safe-acc  (good)  39  (189) o r a no-marked phrase (190) i n s t e a d  headed by a l e x i c a l  noun, the sentence i s  much b e t t e r than any o f (176)-(178).  (189) ??Masao-ga, kinoo  nusunda t o yuu  uwasa-wa  hontoo da,  [boku-ga  true  I-nom  moratta] . L  -nom yesterday The  [e; okane-o]  money-acc s t o l e  C  say rumour-top  copula  received  rumour t h a t Masao s t o l e the money i s t r u e -- (the money) t h a t  I received  yesterday.  ' The fact that this sentence is judged as good seems to contradict data in Chapter 3 on relativized minimality effects. We should expect this sentence to suffer a relativized minimality violation as a result of the DP being postposed out of the lexical DP topic. I cannot explain the lack of relativized minimality effect in this sentence.  125 (190) ??dareka-ga  [ei k i n k o - o ]  D P  aketa  to  yuu  uwasa-wa,  hontoo  da,  [ano  ginkoo-no] . L  someone-nom  safe-acc  opened C  say rumour-top t r u e  cop.  I t ' s c e r t a i n t h a t someone opened the s a f e -- t h a t bank's  Thus the deviance of that  i n those examples,  phrase  4.2  (17 6) - (178)  (safe).  does not appear t o be due  (a) the t o p i c i s a l e x i c a l noun, and  t o the  (b) the  fact  postposed  i s a g e n i t i v e or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e .  D i s c r i m i n a t i n g between d i f f e r e n t  In the examples t h a t we (176)-(178), that  t h a t bank-gen  they  examples postposed,  types of a d j u n c t s  looked at i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n we  when a g e n i t i v e or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e was  modified,  the  (179)-(190),  result  when  a  was  severe  constituent  deviance. of  a  no deviance or o n l y m a r g i n a l deviance  I shall  now  postposed On  clause  saw  that i n  out of a DP  the  other  within  a  topic  hand, topic  in was  resulted.  propose a d i f f e r e n c e between the two  s e t s t h a t accounts  for  t h e i r c o n t r a s t i n d e v i a n c e . N o t i c e t h a t the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e or no-marked phrase t h a t i s postposed  i n (176)-(178) i s a r g u a b l y an a d j u n c t of the wa-marked phrase  whereas i n a l l the examples i n the second marked phrase i s postposed, the  lower  clause.  (186), (187),  The  (189),  the postposed element i s an adjunct of the o b j e c t of  contrast  (190)  set i n which a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e or no-  in  suggests  grammaticality  between  (176)-(178)  t h a t a d j u n c t s of arguments and  non-arguments behave d i f f e r e n t l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r  and  a d j u n c t s of  extractability.  I cannot g i v e a p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n of how we might c h a r a c t e r i z e these k i n d s of  differences.  tradition  has  adjuncts:  we  A  l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of  been do  not  concerned have  with  the  syntactic behaviour  a well-developed  theory  research of of  i n the  arguments adjuncts.  generative rather  However,  than one  126 p o s s i b l e way o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g deviant  s e t from t h e non-  s e t i s as f o l l o w s .  In  the deviant  postposed  phrase,  (191) b e l o w .  I have below,  thestructures of the deviant  examples  (176)-(178),  i s n o t i n t h e domain  the canonical position  of a lexical  head,  I u s e t h e t e r m domain i n t h e s e n s e o f Chomsky  been  assuming  that genitives areadjoined  I show t h a t a s l o n g a s t h e g e n i t i v e i s a t t a c h e d  adjoined-to-NP  position,  i twill  be o u t s i d e  o f XP,  a s we s e e i n d i a g r a m (1995).  4 0  t o D'. I n t h e d i a g r a m s at least  t h e domain  as h i g h as an  of l e x i c a l  N. The  f o l l o w i n g t w o d i a g r a m s show t h e e x t r e m e s o f t h e p o s s i b l e r a n g e o f a t t a c h m e n t of the g e n i t i v e that w i l l  the  be i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e h y p o t h e s i s  site  that i t i s noti n the  d o m a i n o f N. A s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , I am a s s u m i n g i t i s n o t a d j o i n e d t o DP i n o r d e r to  e x p l a i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be a b a r r i e r t o a n t e c e d e n t  o f t h e t r a c e i f we f o l l o w t h e m o d e l  (191)(a)  (1986).  CP  (lowest p o s s i b l e attachment  o f Chomsky  /  \  (topic)DPj  C  I  site)  /  NP /  XP  \  IP C  I  I  NP  VP  I  /  pro  i  \  V  or t i  See chapter 5 for an elaboration of the basic principles of Chomsky (I995)'s concept of domains.  government  127 (191)(b)  CP  (highest p o s s i b l e attachment  / \  (topic)DP  site)  C  :  |  /\  D'  I P C  / I I XP  D'  VP  I  /  pro  L  \  V  or t i  As  l o n g a s XP, t h e g e n i t i v e o r r e l a t i v e c l a u s e t h a t m o d i f i e s  i s a t t a c h e d no lower NP, i t w i l l the  still  i n t h e D -P e x t e n d e d p r o j e c t i o n t h a n a p o s i t i o n a d j o i n e d t o  be o u t s i d e  domain o f m a t r i x  t h e domain o f l e x i c a l  V, i f we assume t h a t  t o C i n Japanese.  N.  41  It w i l l  a l s o be o u t s i d e  (a), topics a r e attached  f u n c t i o n a l p r o j e c t i o n a b o v e IP a n d ( b ) , t h a t contra raise  t h e DP t o p i c  Whitman  (1991a),  t oa high V does n o t  4 2  On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i n t h e g r a m m a t i c a l o r m a r g i n a l l y d e v i a n t e x a m p l e s (190),  the t r a c e o f t h e postposed phrase  n a m e l y V, a s we s e e i n d i a g r a m  (192)  i s i n t h e domain o f a l e x i c a l  (179)head,  below.  I shall propose in sec. 5.2.1 immediately below that, based on the non-postposability of argument genitives out of topics, the trace of the postposed phrase must be in the domain of a head with [+V] features. If this is true, it will not matter if the genitive or relative clause is in the domain of N . 42  See also Dechaine (1996) who argues that there is no head movement in Japanese. Yoon (1994) makes a  similar argument for Korean.  128 VP  (192)  \  V /  \  DP  V  D' /  \  ( t r a c e of postposed phrase)- t  D'  In (192). we do not n e c e s s a r i l y want t o say t h a t the s i t e o f the postposed phrase  i s head-governed. We saw i n c h a p t e r s 2 and 3 t h a t  genitives  act l i k e  weak i s l a n d s  a d j u n c t s . We appear the adjunct/argument  f o r p o s t p o s i n g -- t h a t  t o need a more s u b t l e apparatus status of d i f f e r e n t  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and i s , they behave  like  f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between  types o f elements. The d a t a we looked  at above suggest t h a t a d j u n c t s i n the domain of a l e x i c a l head a r e l e s s a d j u n c t l i k e than those t h a t a r e not i n the domain o f a l e x i c a l  The  difference  i n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y between  head.  the two s e t s  43  of data  can be  e x p l a i n e d by the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i n the d e v i a n t s e t , the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s not i n the domain of a l e x i c a l head and must c r o s s a non-L-marked b a r r i e r topic),  whereas  i n the non-deviant  or m i l d l y  deviant  ( i . e . the  s e t the t r a c e  of the  p o s t p o s e d phrase i s a l s o s e p a r a t e d from i t s antecedent by a non-L-marked b a r r i e r but the t r a c e _is i n the domain o f a l e x i c a l  Notice  that  i n the examples  head.  i n c h a p t e r 2 i n which an a d j u n c t such as a  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e o r g e n i t i v e i s p o s t p o s e d out o f an i s l a n d such as an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e o r r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , i n each case where o n l y m a r g i n a l d e v i a n c e  resulted,  the p o s t p o s e d r e l a t i v e o r g e n i t i v e was i n the domain of a l e x i c a l V. C o n s i d e r the  Grlmshaw (1990) introduces the concept of "a-adjuncts", which behave like adjuncts in some ways and like arguments in others. A-adjuncts resemble arguments in that they are licensed by argument structure.  129 following  examples  (196). The and  from chapter  2,  repeated  here as  (193)  ,(194),  (195),  t r a c e of the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s i n the domain of V " s t o l e "  (194), and of V "ate" i n (195)  and  (196). Thus the f a c t t h a t these  in  and (193)  sentences  are o n l y m i l d l y d e v i a n t , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t an adjunct has been p o s t p o s e d out of an  island,  i s e x p l a i n e d by our  hypothesis.  (193) ??Masao-wa, okane-o  nusunda n o - n i ,  -top money-acc s t o l e In s p i t e  of the  fact  although  sikararenakatta,  Taroo-no.  scold-pass.-neg-past  -gen  t h a t Masao s t o l e money, he wasn't s c o l d e d - -  Taro's  (money)  (194) ?Masao-wa, okane-o  nusunda n o - n i ,  sikararenakatta,  boku-no  kinoo  moratta. -top money-acc s t o l e  although s c o l d - p a s s . - n e g . - p a s t  I-gen(subj) y e s t e r d a y  received In s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money, he wasn't s c o l d e d -I received  (money) that  yesterday.  (195) ?purin-o  t a b e t a otoko-no-ko-ga n i g e t a ,  pudding ate The  boy  who  boy-nom  boku-no  tukutta.  ran-away I-gen(subj.) made  ate the pudding ran away --  (the pudding) t h a t I made.  (196) ?purin-o  t a b e t a otoko-no-ko-o s i k a t t a ,  pudding-acc ate I s c o l d e d the boy  boy-acc who  scolded  ate the pudding --  boku-no t u k u t t a . I-gen  made  (the pudding) t h a t I made.  130 4.2.1 a lexical  Can we postpose  an element out of a t o p i c i f i t i s i n the domain of  N?  C o n s i d e r the case of g e n i t i v e s t h a t behave as arguments, such as those see  i n E n g l i s h examples  argument)  or  "England's  g e n i t i v e s are a r g u a b l y role.  In  such  (197), N  (197) eigo-no  as  defeat  "the of  city's  the  French  destruction" (genitive army"  (agent  we  as  theme  argument)).  Such  i n the domain of the N head t h a t a s s i g n s them a t h e t a -  "study" would appear t o a s s i g n a t h e t a - r o l e t o DP  "English".  benkyoo  English-gen  study  the study of E n g l i s h  Yet when we of a t o p i c we  t r y t o postpose  an "argument g e n i t i v e "  l i k e the one above out  f i n d t h a t t h e r e i s no c o n t r a s t i n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y w i t h p o s t p o s i n g  a "possessive" g e n i t i v e " :  (198) ?*benkyoo-wa hajimeta, study-top As  began  f o r the study  (199) ?*hon-wa  English (of i t ) ,  I began  ( i t ) --  English.  yonda, Taroo-no  book-top read As  eigo-no.  -gen  f o r the book, I read i t -- T a r o ' s .  I f we  accept a f o r m u l a t i o n of the ECP  t h a t r e q u i r e s a phrase  t o be  either  head-governed or antecedent governed, then we s h o u l d expect an argument g e n i t i v e to be head-governed by N and  thus e x t r a c t a b l e , but  i n the example above we  see  t h a t i t i s not. These d a t a are e x p l a i n e d i f we r e f i n e our h y p o t h e s i s t o say t h a t t o be e x t r a c t a b l e from an i s l a n d , an adjunct must be i n the domain of a l e x i c a l [+V]  head.  131 To summarize t h i s s e c t i o n , I s h a l l and  review how  f o r m a l l y s t a t e the proposed c o n d i t i o n  i t d i s t i n g u i s h e s between two c o n t r a s t i n g  sentences  i n which a  phrase i s p o s t p o s e d out of a t o p i c . C o n s i d e r a g a i n the f o l l o w i n g two examples:  (200) * [ e n purin-wa] pudding-top  Taroo-nOj.  tabeta, ate  -gen  As f o r the pudding, I a t e i t -- Taro's  (pudding).  (201) ??[dareka-ga  [e, k i n k o - o ]  np  aketa  t o yuu  uwasa-wa],  hontoo da,  [ano  ginkoo-no] . 1  someone-nom  safe-acc  opened C  say rumour-top t r u e  cop.  that  bank-gen I t ' s c e r t a i n t h a t someone opened the s a f e  -- t h a t bank's  (safe).  Let us s t a t e the c o n d i t i o n on t r a c e s of p o s t p o s e d phrases as f o l l o w s :  1. A t r a c e t must be l i c e n s e d i n Max(x) where x i s [+V]. 2. t i s l i c e n s e d by x i f f x i s l e x i c a l  Suppose t h a t t h i s l i c e n s i n g i s done i n two (a) choose the s m a l l e s t  steps : 4 4  domain of a [+V] head t h a t c o n t a i n s t  (b) check t h a t x i s l e x i c a l  In of any  (200) above, the t r a c e of the p o s t p o s e d g e n i t i v e i s not i n the domain  [+V] head so i t i s not l i c e n s e d .  I originally proposed this condition in a slightly different way. Formulating it in two steps more straightforwardly handles cases like those seen below in sec. 4.8.1. Thanks to Hisatsugu Kitahara (p.c.) for a suggesting this two-step formulation.  132 (202)(structure  of  (200))  CP /  \  (topic)DP  I  I  D'  IP  / I t  C  D'  /-\  I  VP  I V  In  (201), by c o n t r a s t ,  domain of l e x i c a l  the t r a c e of the p o s t p o s e d phrase w i l l  embedded V "opened", which w i l l  l i c e n s e the t r a c e :  be i n the  133 (203) ( s t r u c t u r e of (201))  XP /  \  X'  (topic)DP  I  I  D'  IP  I  I  NP  VP  I  I  N'  V  / \ CP  N  I  rumour  I  VP  I V /  DP | D' / I t  D'  NP /_\ safe  \  V opened  134 Notice embedded VP.  t h a t the s m a l l e s t Max(x) t h a t c o n t a i n s  t , where x i s [+V],  S i n c e i t s head i s l e x i c a l , t i s l i c e n s e d , a c c o u n t i n g  degree of d e v i a n c e of  i s the  f o r the l e s s e r  (201) . (The m a r g i n a l i t y of the sentence c o u l d be due  to a  subjacency v i o l a t i o n . )  4.2.2  Can  a p o s t p o s e d g e n i t i v e or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e o r i g i n a t e i n the domain  of an argument pro?  Another generation  matter  account  we  of  coindexed w i t h a p r o  need  consider  wa-marked t o p i c s i n an  is  the  i n Japanese.  generally If a  that m o d i f i e s  accepted  wa-marked  argument p o s i t i o n , i s i t p o s s i b l e  g e n i t i v e or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e adjoined  to  that  a t o p i c o r i g i n a t e s not  base-  topic  is  a postposed  in a position  to the t o p i c but i n s t e a d , a d j o i n e d to the p r o t h a t i s c o i n d e x e d w i t h the  t o p i c ? I f the t r a c e of such a postposed g e n i t i v e or r e l a t i v e c l a u s e were a d j o i n e d t o an argument pro, pro  then we  i s an argument. The  should expect i t to be governed by the V of which the  f o l l o w i n g i s the h y p o t h e t i c a l  (204)  CP /  \  CP /  XP \  (topic)DPj  C / \ IP  C  VP / prOi  / t  2  \ V  \ pro  i  2  structure:  135 N o t i c e t h a t i n t h e a b o v e s t r u c t u r e , t h e r e i s no way of  the  trace. Therefore,  d e r i v a t i o n of the  4.3  Postposing  So a  topicalized  "conjunctive"  (205)  [ano that  o f VP  or  CP.  kind  safe-acc  two-times-P open-top  do-not  i s not  V P  c l e a r whether t h i s  in  conjunctive  (205)  above o r  In  an o b j e c t o u t o f a t o p i c a l i z e d VP.  "open",  form.  It only  V  wa-marked i s  (206)  The  has  [+V]  form of  occurs  i n purpose clauses  the  we  see  or  type of  VP  i n the  (discussed  in We  sec. shall  that i t i s p o s s i b l e to postpose  grammaticality  features  the verb  l o c a t i v e m a r k e r ni.)  t r a c e of the p o s t p o s e d o b j e c t  i f the  be  infinitival  f o r m i s m a r k e d by  t o p i c a l i z e d VP's.  the  form i s the  nominalized  4.5)  fact that  can  of  s a f e a t a l l , I d o n ' t do i t .  i t i s some k i n d o f  f i r s t consider  possible  t o p i c a l i z a t i o n as i n (205) :  si-nai.  It  V  that  ake] -wa  see  bare  element  ni-do-to  f o r opening that  the  of  kinko-o  i n which the  a  i s not  above examples.  b a r e f o r m o f t h e v e r b t h a t o c c u r s i n VP  t o p i c a l i z a t i o n we  by  structure  position  a t e x a m p l e s i n w h i c h an e l e m e n t i s p o s t p o s e d o u t  Another  As  whether  this  the  topics  have looked DP  assume t h a t  postposed phrase i n the  out  f a r we  I shall  to recover  in  of  (206)  c o u l d be  explained  i s l e x i c a l l y g o v e r n e d by  spite  of  i t s projection  the being  topicalized.  (206)  ni-do-to  ake-wa  si-nai,  two-times-P open-top do-not As  f o r opening  In  (207)  ano  kinko-o.  that  safe-acc  ( i t ; ) a t a l l , I d o n ' t do  below, a V P - l e v e l  i t , --  that  adverb i s p o s t p o s e d out  safe;.  of a t o p i c a l i z e d  VP.  136 (207)  ?*[ei garasu-o  kowasi] -wa s i t a , VP  glass-acc As  The  break-top  f o r breaking  sentence  did  konagona-nii. into-pieces  the g l a s s , I d i d i t -- i n t o p i e c e s .  i s judged as being  moderately ungrammatical.  The c o n t r a s t  between (206) and (207) c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d i f the t r a c e of the postposed  adjunct  i n (207) i s o u t s i d e the domain o f V "break" -- f o r example i n a p o s i t i o n a d j o i n e d t o VP. There a r e s e v e r a l ways i n which t h i s might be the case. One i s t h a t the t r a c e o f the postposed  adverb i s a d j o i n e d t o VP, where i t w i l l  be o u t s i d e the  domain o f V. But r e c a l l t h a t we wish t o r e s t r i c t a d j u n c t i o n t o XP. We saw i n s e c . 4.2. t h a t we need t o r u l e out a d j u n c t i o n of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e o r g e n i t i v e t o the DP i t m o d i f i e s  i n order  (177). S i m i l a r l y , VP,  t o e x p l a i n the i s l a n d h o o d  i f t h e t r a c e o f the postposed  o f DP t o p i c s i n cases  like  adverb i n (207) i s a d j o i n e d t o  t h e r e w i l l be no b a r r i e r between i t and i t s postposed,  unless a t o p i c a l i z e d  VP c o n t a i n s o t h e r p h o n o l o g i c a l l y n u l l m a t e r i a l above the VP, f o r which we have no d i r e c t  evidence.  A second e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the deviance of (207) i s t h a t the postposed i s a r e s u l t a t i v e . We f i n d  i n other  languages as w e l l t h a t r e s u l t a t i v e s  b e i n g d i s l o c a t e d from the VP w i t h which they a r e a s s o c i a t e d .  adverb resist  4 5  In English, for example, resultatives contrast with other types of adverbs such as instrumentals in their ability to be stranded by VP ellipsis: 45  (i) *John broke the glass into pieces and Mary did so into pieces too. (ii) John broke the glass with a hammer and Mary did so with a hammer too. A better example for testing postposability of adverbs from a topicalized VP might be the following: (iii) (172) [e, garasu-o kowasi] -wa sita, kanazuti-de,. glass-acc break-top did hammer-inst As for breaking the glass, I did it - with a hammer (no judgement yet on this example) VP  See Dechaine (1993) for a discussion of violations similar to (i) above in English.  137 To conclude  this  s e c t i o n on p o s t p o s i n g  out of VP t o p i c s I s h a l l  some data t h a t f u r t h e r support the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the t r a c e of p o s t p o s e d i n s i d e an i s l a n d must be i n the domain of a l e x i c a l  Consider  the f o l l o w i n g p a i r :  study-top  began  As f o r the study  As f o r b e g i n n i n g  above)  English-gen  (of i t ) ,  begin-top  [+V] head.  [eigo-no]i.  I began  (209) [ej benkyoo-o hajime]-wa s i t a study-acc  phrase  4 6  (208) ( r e p e a t e d here from s e c . 4.2.1 * [ e i benkyoo]-wa h a j i m e t a ,  present  did  t o study  ( i t ) -- E n g l i s h .  [eigo-no]i. English-gen  (it),  I d i d -- E n g l i s h .  D e s p i t e the c l o s e s i m i l a r i t y between the two sentences, t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t g r a m m a t i c a l i t y c o n t r a s t . In the f i r s t  example, the t r a c e i s not i n the domain of  m a t r i x V "began", as e x p l a i n e d above. In the second example, i t i s i n the domain of bare V "begin", whose VP has been t o p i c a l i z e d . The c o n t r a s t i s i n a c c o r d w i t h our  hypothesis.  4.4  Postposing  out of non-case-marked CP t o p i c s  CP's headed by the non-case-marked complementizer t o can a l s o be marked as topics with  wa:  These examples were suggested by Hisatsugu Kitahara (p.c).  l6  138 (210) a s i t a Taroo-ga tomorrow I don't  In  kuru t o  wa , omoenai. 47  -nom come comp top t h i n k t h a t Taro w i l l  think-potent.-neg  come tomorrow.  (211) and (212) we f i n d t h a t p o s t p o s i n g a s u b j e c t o r o b j e c t out o f such  phrases i s grammatical.  (211) a s i t a  kuru t o  wa, omoenai,  Taroo-ga.  tomorrow come comp top t h i n k - p o t e n t . - n e g I don't  t h i n k that  (212) dareka-ga  (hej will  akeru t o  come tomorrow -- Taro;.  wa, omoenai,  someone-nom open comp top t h i n k - n o t I don't  -nom  ano  kinko-o.  that  safe-acc  t h i n k t h a t someone opened ( i t j -- t h a t  Can we t e s t whether p o s t p o s i n g an element t h i s k i n d o f c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be ungrammatical, cannot s t r a n d the complementizer  safej  outside  the domain of V out of  as our h y p o t h e s i s p r e d i c t s ? We  and postpose the IP. One p o s s i b l e c a n d i d a t e i s  a p r o p o s i t i o n a l l e v e l adverb. We need t o be sure t h a t  the adverb  i s construed  w i t h the embedded r a t h e r than the m a t r i x c l a u s e . C o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g examples.  (213)  * [ e i dareka-ga  ano  think that  akeru  to] , C F  wa,  omoenai,  kittO;  s a f e - a c c o p e n comp  top t h i n k - n o t  surely  i t w i l l be t h e c a s e t h a t  someone w i l l  open t h a t  someone-nom t h a t I don't  kinko-o  safe  -- s u r e l y .  Because postposing normally occurs i n casual speech, this sentence, although grammatical, w o u l d sound more n a t u r a l i f were r e p l a c e d by i t s more c o l l o q u i a l v a r i a n t has e q u i v a l e n t meaning to but almost always occurs i n negated c o n s t r u c t i o n s , which suggests that i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c l a u s e i t heads i s an N P I . 4 7  to-wa to-wa  nante. nance  an  139 (214) * [e; s o o r i - d a i  j  jinin-suru  in-ga  Prime-minister-nom I heard t h a t  In  resign  daroo t o ] , wa C[  modal C  [e; the Prime m i n i s t e r w i l l  the two  above sentences  that  resign]  lexical  CP /  CP /  A  surely  to i n t e r p r e t  the  adverb  can a g a i n be e x p l a i n e d by  l e v e l adverb w i l l  be o u t s i d e the  head. C o n s i d e r the s t r u c t u r e below.  (215)  /  k i t t O ; .  surelyj.  Such a r e s u l t  the t r a c e of the p r o p o s i t i o n a l  domain of a [+V]  kiita,  top y e s t e r d a y heard  i t i s very d i f f i c u l t  " s u r e l y " as m o d i f y i n g the embedded CP. the f a c t  kinoo  X  \  postposed  X  adverb  3  \  I IP I I'  / I B  CP CP  2  X  VP  i s the m a t r i x c l a u s e , to which the postposed phrase i s r i g h t - a d j o i n e d .  i s the t o p i c a l i z e d CP. The c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n of the p o s t p o s e d  adverb  will  be  somewhere between p o s i t i o n A and  position  B. The  clause-level t r a c e of  adverb w i l l not be i n the domain of embedded V as l o n g as i t i s a t t a c h e d no than an a d j o i n e d - t o - V P p o s i t i o n . We o t h e r m o d i f i e r s of  topics,  that  must a l s o assume as we  the  trace  of  the  the  lower  d i d f o r the case of  clause-level  adverb  i s not  a d j o i n e d t o the CP i t m o d i f i e s . I f i t were, t h e r e would be no b a r r i e r between i t and i t s antecedent.  140 4.5  wa-marked purpose  clauses  I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e to wa-mark a purpose c l a u s e headed by the bare form of the v e r b marked by  (216)  l o c a t i v e marker  ni:  yasai-o  kai-ni  wa,  vegetables-acc  buy-loc  top a l r e a d y went  As  f o r to buy  vegetables  In  (217)  (218)  and  moo  itte-kita.  I a l r e a d y went.  below, we  f i n d that postposing  an o b j e c t out  of  this  k i n d of c o n s t r u c t i o n r e s u l t s i n a s e v e r e l y ungrammatical sentence, i n c o n t r a s t t o what we  (217)  found f o r p o s t p o s i n g  *kai-ni buy-loc As  (218)  wa,  moo  out of o t h e r types o f iva-raarked c l a u s e s .  itte-kita,  yasai-o.  top a l r e a d y went  f o r to buy  (themj),  *dareka-ga ake-ni  vegetables-acc  I a l r e a d y went --  wa,  moo  itte-kita,  someone-nom open-loc top a l r e a d y went As  f o r someone to open  vegetables^  ano  kinko-o.  that  safe-acc  ( i t j , they a l r e a d y went -- t h a t  safei  These examples are judged to be worse than what we would have i f the o b j e c t remained i n i t s c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n and a m o d i f i e r of the o b j e c t were postposed, as we  see  i n (219)  (219) ?*dareka-ga  below.  kinko-o  ake-ni  wa,  moo  itte-kita,  someone-nom s a f e - a c c open-loc top a l r e a d y went As  ano  ginkoo-no.  t h a t bank-gen  f o r someone to open the s a f e , they a l r e a d y went -- t h a t bank's  (safe)  141 T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s s i m i l a r t o the [+N]  domain e f f e c t s we saw  f o r postposing  out of r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s i n chapter 3. A s i m i l a r account i s p o s s i b l e f o r (217)  and  (218). Here,  the  the  topicalized  l o c a t i v e phrase  i s a potential  island,  like  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s i n the examples of chapter 3. Suppose t h a t the purpose c l a u s e i s headed by a nominal t h i s i s so,  (217) and  DP c r o s s e s the  [+N]  element i n o r d e r t h a t i t can r e c e i v e l o c a t i v e case. I f (218)  suffer  [+N]  domain v i o l a t i o n s because the  postposed  head of the case-marked c o n j u n c t i v e form of the verb, i f we  assume t h a t t h i s v e r b has r e c e i v e d nominal  f e a t u r e s i n o r d e r t o be case-marked.  In e n t e r t a i n i n g such an account, we must a l s o c o n s i d e r the f a c t t h a t when the purpose c l a u s e i s not effects,  (220)  as we  see i n  iva-marked, we  do  not  the  itte-kita,  ano  open-loc  go-particip.-came  that safe-acc  island  ( i t ) -- t h a t s a f e .  the examples of r e l a t i v i z e d m i n i m a l i t y e f f e c t s  postposed  of  kinko-o.  What might e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e between (217) and all  same k i n d s  (220).  ake-ni  I went t o open  get  (220)? R e c a l l t h a t i n  i n chapter  out of an i s l a n d such as a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . And  where we saw an apparent  3,  a phrase  i n many of the  [+N] domain e f f e c t , the postposed element was  which ought t o be head-governed. Thus the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y  was  cases  an o b j e c t ,  of those examples  may  have been a severe subjacency e f f e c t r a t h e r than an ECP e f f e c t . Arguably, we  are  s e e i n g the same k i n d of e f f e c t  i n (217), g i v e n the improved s t a t u s of  (220),  the postposed  however,  the  t r a c e of  object  i s not  embedded  (219). In inside  an  i s l a n d as i t i s i n (217), i f we assume t h a t the purpose c l a u s e i n i t s c a n o n i c a l position  i s an argument . Thus, 48  [+N]  domain e f f e c t s o n l y seem t o o c c u r when a  non-L-marked b a r r i e r i n t e r v e n e s between the postposed  element and  i t s trace.  Such a hypothesis is supported by the fact that only a limited number of verbs, typically verbs of motion that take locative arguments can occur with a purpose clause of the type being considered here. 48  142 We r e q u i r e a [+N] b e t t e r than (218). But deviant  domain account t o e x p l a i n the f a c t t h a t (219)  is slightly  there i s a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t both (217)  because the v e r b i n a purpose c l a u s e has  [-V]  features  - (219)  i n order  are  that i t  can be marked w i t h l o c a t i v e case. I f i t has these f e a t u r e s , the p o s t p o s e d element w i l l not be  i n the domain of a l e x i c a l  [+V]  head, which, under our  would account f o r the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y . As f a r as i f the t r a c e of the p o s t p o s e d o b j e c t are  no  i s t h a t when a phrase headed by ni kinds  (1985) and  Hoji  of  constraints  and  i n that  will  not  the  (1985) shows t h a t PP former, u n l i k e the  allow  resumptive  a l l o w resumptive pronouns. H o j i  is derived  by movement r a t h e r  resumptive pronouns and  inside a r e l a t i v e clause,  (221 )* [ y a s a i - o  in  (217)-  and  (218)  i n accord  with  latter,  pronouns,  49  from  seems to obey i s l a n d  whereas  the  Examples  pattern with other allowing  Saito  latter  will  topicalization (221)  and  (222)  wa-marked PP's  vegetables-acc  buy-P-top  that-P  As  vegetables]  t  itte-kita went  -- I went to do  in  construal with a p o s i t i o n  u n l i k e non-PP t o p i c s .  sore^-ni  [to buy  (217)  (1985) argues t h a t PP  i n not  kai-nij—wa,  for  are  there  topicalization differs  than b a s e - g e n e r a t i o n .  below show t h a t wa-marked purpose c l a u s e s allowing  head,  is topicalized, i t is in a different position  marginally  not  there  f o r the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of  t o p i c s . Such a h y p o t h e s i s would be  (1985). S a i t o  topicalization  t r a c e , as  [+V]  contrast.  Another p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n  than o t h e r  i s concerned, t h e r e , even  i n the domain of a  b a r r i e r s to antecedent government of the  (219), which would e x p l a i n the  DP  i s not  (220)  hypothesis,  thatj  To determine the exact structure of a sentence with a PP topic or a non-PP topic would be difficult since both obligatorily occur as the leftmost element. Nevertheless, based on the evidence of Saito and Hoji, and the evidence I present below, I shall assume that there is some relevant structural difference and that purpose clauses pattern with PP topics.  143 (222) * [ e i g a - o mi-ni] -wa  [kinoo  i  dekaketa kyakusan-ga]  modoranakatta.  D P  f i l m - a c c see-P-top y e s t e r d a y went-out guest-nom As  To  f o r [to see a movie] , the guest t  test  the  t o p i c s such as DP  hypothesis  that  t o p i c s , we  who  PP-topics  did-not-return  went out  are  e; hasn't  strong  need to t e s t whether we  islands, unlike  can p o s t p o s e out  k i n d s of PP t o p i c s -- f o r example those of the form DP-ni-wa. to postpose a l e x i c a l l y embed a c l a u s e  in this  governed element DP.  I f the  another i s l a n d . Thus i t i s necessary like  "rumour" t h a t can  take a CP  clause  returned.  of  other  However, i f we  from such a phrase, we is a relative  other  will  c l a u s e , we  are  need  to  have added  to use a complement c l a u s e headed by a noun  complement.  In (223) below, a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s p o s t p o s e d out of a PP t o p i c ,  resulting  i n a d e v i a n t sentence. In (224)  a s i m i l a r r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s p o s t p o s e d out of the  same c l a u s e  in a  that  i s embedded  d i s t i n c t l y b e t t e r than  (223) . We  DP  t o p i c and  okane-o  nusunda  to  result  get the same r e s u l t i n (225)  p o s t p o s e d out of a complement c l a u s e i n s i d e a DP  (223) * [ e i  the  iu  i s marginal,  but  when a g e n i t i v e i s  topic.  uwasa-ni-wa],  Taroo-ga  maitta,  [boku-no  moratta]i. money-acc  stole  C  say  rumour-P-top  -nom  yielded  I-gen  received Taro was I had  received.  defeated  b y / y i e l d e d to the rumour  cop  t h a t he  s t o l e money  that  144 (224) ??Masao-ga,  [e okane-o]  nusunda t o i u  4  uwasa-wa  hontoo da,  [boku-ga  moratta]i.  kinoo  -nom yesterday  money-acc  stole  C  say rumour-top  true  copula  I-nom  received  The rumour t h a t Masao s t o l e the money i s t r u e -- (the money) t h a t I r e c e i v e d yesterday.  (225) ??dareka-ga  [e^ kinko-o] , aketa DE  someone-nom  safe-acc  to i u  opened C  uwasa-wa,  hontoo da,  say rumour-top t r u e  cop.  I t ' s c e r t a i n t h a t someone opened the s a f e -- t h a t bank's  In  ginkoo-no].^  that  bank-gen  (safe).  (226) and (227) we see a s i m i l a r c o n t r a s t . When an o b j e c t i s postposed  out of a complement When, i n (227), topic,  [ano  c l a u s e i n s i d e a PP t o p i c , the r e s u l t  an o b j e c t  the r e s u l t  i s p o s t p o s e d out of a complement  clause  deviant.  i n s i d e a DP  i s much b e t t e r .  (226) ??[ei nusunda t o i u stole  i s marginally  C  uwasa-ni-wa], Taroo-ga  say rumour-P-top  Taro was d e f e a t e d  maitta,  -nom  okane-Oi-  y i e l d e d money-acc  b y / y i e l d e d t o the rumour  cop  t h a t he s t o l e -- money.  (227) DP  [dareka-ga e someone-nom  t  aketa  to yuu uwasa]-wa,  opened C  say rumour-top  The rumour t h a t someone opened  hontoo d a t t a , true  i s a stronger  island  copula-past  that  ( i t j i s t r u e -- the safe;,  A l t h o u g h I cannot g i v e an e x p l a n a t i o n , topic  [ano k i n k o - o ] ^  f o r postposing  the above r e s u l t s  than a D P - t o p i c .  safe-acc  (good)  show t h a t a PP-  These r e s u l t s are  145 consistent  with  the  evidence  of  Saito  and  Hoji  that  PP -topics  behave  50  d i f f e r e n t l y s y n t a c t i c a l l y than base-generated t o p i c s . I f purpose c l a u s e s , which are o f t h e form [ ... V-ni-wa]  a r e of a s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r e t o PP t o p i c s , which a r e  of the form [DP-ni-wa] , we can e x p l a i n the f a c t t h a t purpose c l a u s e s a r e s t r o n g e r islands  f o r postposing  than base-generated t o p i c s by the f a c t  t h a t they  are a  d i f f e r e n t k i n d of c o n s t r u c t i o n , even i f we cannot g i v e a p r e c i s e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the reasons why purpose c l a u s e s and P P - t o p i c s  show these s t r o n g i s l a n d  effects.  In s e c t i o n 4 . 8 I propose a p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the d i f f e r e n t i s l a n d e f f e c t s shown by P P - t o p i c s  versus  base-generated t o p i c s w i t h r e s p e c t t o p o s t p o s i n g .  I am referring to topics of the form XP-ni-wa as PP topics for the sake of giving them a label. In Appendix B I present evidence that particle ni is more likely a case-marker than a P.  146 4.6  Do  CP  We  t o p i c s p a t t e r n w i t h DP  observed i n sec.  or  to do  DP  t o p i c s i n t h i s way,  4.1  topics with respect  t h a t CP  diagnostics?  koto,  t o p i c s such as those headed by  seem to permit e x t r a c t i o n of a postposed phrase. I f they p a t t e r n  with respect  then we would expect them to a l s o p a t t e r n  l i k e DP  no, like  topics  t o the d i a g n o s t i c s S a i t o and H o j i use f o r comparing DP and PP t o p i c s  with respect  to movement v e r s u s b a s e - g e n e r a t i o n . We  (marginally)  allow  (229)  to S a i t o ' s  (228)  resumptive pronouns.  was  also  judged  find  that. CP  to be  no  topics  worse  than  .  (228) ?[Masao-ga  okane-o  nusunda  koto-wa]  i(  Mary-ga  sore-Oj  minna-ni  hanasita. -nom  money-acc s t o l e  C-top  -nom  t h a t - a c c everybody-dat  spoke As  for  [the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money]  i (  Mary t o l d i t  4  to everyone.  (229) ?Taroo -wa Hanako-ga i  -top As  -nom  k a r e ^ o hometa . him-acc p r a i s e d .  f o r Taro, Hanako p r a i s e d  Saito  (1985)  argues  him.  that  coindexing  a  topic  with  a  position  inside  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s b e t t e r than scrambling a phrase out of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . we  do not  f i n d that  t h i s i s the  case f o r CP  topics:  a  Yet  147 (230) *[Masao-ga hito-ga]  okane-o  nusunda t o i u koto-wa];,  tadaima  [kinoo e  ;  tutaeta  kite-iru.  D P  -nom person-nom  money-acc s t o l e  C say C-top  right-now y e s t e r d a y t o l d  come-exist  As f o r the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money, the p e r s o n who i s here r i g h t  said  (so) y e s t e r d a y  now.  (topic construed with p o s i t i o n inside r e l a t i v e clause)  (231) *[Masao-ga hito-ga]  okane-o  nusunda t o i u koto-o]  i t  tadaima  [kinoo e  ;  tutaeta  kite-iru.  D P  -nom person-nom  money-acc s t o l e  C say C-acc  right-now y e s t e r d a y t o l d  come-exist  As f o r the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money, the p e r s o n who i s here r i g h t  said  (so) y e s t e r d a y  now.  (scrambled o b j e c t c o n s t r u e d w i t h p o s i t i o n i n s i d e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e -- i . e . o b j e c t scrambled out of r e l a t i v e c l a u s e )  I f CP t o p i c s behave the same as DP t o p i c s , S a i t o ' s a n a l y s i s ought t o p r e d i c t that (230)  i s b e t t e r than  (231), but t h i s i s not the case.  I cannot o f f e r an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the l a c k of c o n t r a s t between  (230)  (231) . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t CP t o p i c s are y e t another type of c o n s t r u c t i o n differ  4.7  from both DP t o p i c s and PP  and that  topics.  L e x i c a l government of s u b j e c t s i n Japanese  The evidence we have seen so f a r suggests t h a t t o p i c s i n Japanese a r e not L-marked and are i s l a n d s f o r p o s t p o s i n g i f a phrase p o s t p o s e d out of a v/a-marked t o p i c i s not i n the domain of a [+V] head that  extends  complements.  to This  elements raises  within the  the  -- i . e . a form of l e x i c a l  whole  q u e s t i o n of  domain whether  of  a  head,  not  government just i t s  s u b j e c t s i n Japanese  are  148 l e x i c a l l y governed and whether they can be p o s t p o s e d out of t o p i c s . R e c a l l f i r s t , (225),  repeated  p o s t p o s e d out  as (232),  here  i n which  an o b j e c t  (lexically  governed) i s  of a t o p i c :  (232) CP  [dareka-ga e  4  someone-nom It's  tabetesimatta  koto]-wa,  ate-up  c e r t a i n that  tasika  comp-top  someone ate  da ,  [ano  c e r t a i n copula  ( i t ; ) up -- t h a t  wagasi-o];.  that  sweet-acc  sweet;.  I f we postpose a s u b j e c t i n s t e a d o f an o b j e c t i n (232), the r e s u l t i s o n l y s l i g h t l y worse and nowhere near as bad as the d e v i a n t the t r a c e o f the p o s t p o s e d element was not  cases we looked at i n which  i n the domain o f a l e x i c a l head. :  (233) ? [e C P  It's  This  i  Wagasi-o t a b e t e s i m a t t a  koto]-wa, t a s i k a - d a ,  sweet-acc ate-up  comp-top  c e r t a i n that  (he)  Taroo-ga;  certain-cop.  -nom  ate up the sweet-- Taro.  r e s u l t suggests that  i f our  h y p o t h e s i s about  lexical  government i s  c o r r e c t , that s u b j e c t s i n Japanese are l e x i c a l l y governed -- under my assumptions here, as a r e s u l t o f s u b j e c t s  4.8  Summary and  being  VP-internal.  r e l a t e d issues  In summary, then, the g r a m m a t i c a l i t y  of p o s t p o s i n g  out of a wa-marked t o p i c  i n Japanese seems to depend on a number of f a c t o r s . One i s the n e c e s s i t y f o r the p o s t p o s e d phrase to be w i t h i n the domain of a l e x i c a l question  o f what  kind  of topic  postposing  [+V]  head. Another i s the  i s occurring  out of.  I t seems  r e a s o n a b l e to assume, f o l l o w i n g S a i t o (1985) t h a t t h e r e i s more than one wa-marked t o p i c i n Japanese and  type of  that d i f f e r e n t types o f t o p i c s occupy d i f f e r e n t  149 p o s i t i o n s . For example, as d i s c u s s e d above, the i n c r e a s e d out  of a  structural  PP  topic  as  opposed  d i f f e r e n c e : that  t o a base-generated  PP t o p i c s a t t a c h  s e v e r i t y of p o s t p o s i n g  topic  could  be  due  to a  t o a lower p o s i t i o n , as shown i n  (234) below:  (234) (i)  XP | \ XP  ZPi  /I YP X' /_\  ti  (ii)  XP  I\ XP  ZP  4  WP / I PP w /_\ ti  (i) above r e p r e s e n t s  the p o s i t e d r e l e v a n t  s t r u c t u r e of a sentence w i t h a  phrase ZP p o s t p o s e d out of a base-generated t o p i c YP. In t h i s s t r u c t u r e , XP w i l l not  be a b a r r i e r t o antecedent  contained In  i n but not i n c l u d e d  government  t  4  by ZP s i n c e  ZP i s  by XP.  ( i i ) on the o t h e r hand,  p r o j e c t i o n , WP.  of the t r a c e  the PP t o p i c  i s i n the s p e c i f i e r  of a lower  Here, WP c o n s t i t u t e s an e x t r a b a r r i e r t o antecedent  government  150 of t; by  ZP.  There  51  i s one  possible  problem w i t h  such  an  analysis,  t o which  propose a s o l u t i o n . I f PP t o p i c s are a t t a c h e d t o a lower p r o j e c t i o n g e n e r a t e d t o p i c s , then we  I  shall  than base-  s h o u l d expect t h a t r i g h t w a r d e x t r a c t i o n of a PP t o p i c  i n i t s e n t i r e t y ought not t o be l i c i t . For example, PP i n the diagram above ought not t o be L-marked by W,  i f W i s a f u n c t i o n a l head. I t a l s o must move out of  WP  i n o r d e r t o r i g h t - a d j o i n t o the h i g h e s t p r o j e c t i o n , i f we assume t h a t a postposed phrase cannot a t t a c h lower than t h a t . Thus WP ought t o be a b a r r i e r f o r r i g h t w a r d e x t r a c t i o n of PP, u n l i k e the case of r i g h t w a r d e x t r a c t i o n of t o p i c i n the s p e c i f i e r of the h i g h e s t p r o j e c t i o n . postposed  (235)  j u s t l i k e other  Taroo-ga -nom Taroo  Yet we  find  that  base-generated  PP t o p i c s  can  be  topics:  s u n d e - i r u , Tookyoo-ni-wa. lives  Tokyo-loc-top  l i v e s t h e r e -- i n Tokyo.  I now o f f e r the f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of the example above. S a i t o (1985) g i v e s good evidence that P P - t o p i c s are g e n e r a t e d by movement. Let  us  suppose then t h a t  the l i c e n s i n g of base g e n e r a t e d  t o p i c s and  PP-topics  d i f f e r as f o l l o w s . Base generated t o p i c s are base g e n e r a t e d i n a h i g h f u n c t i o n a l p r o j e c t i o n and are l i c e n s e d t h e r e . P P - t o p i c s move t o a h i g h p o s i t i o n i n o r d e r t o take scope but do not n e c e s s a r i l y need t o be l i c e n s e d by moving t o "the c h e c k i n g domain",  in minimalist  movement  from  an  terms,  position  that  of  a  high  projection.  i s argument  If  o r complement  this  i s true,  then  of V  directly  to a  postposed p o s i t i o n i s a l l t h a t i s necessary f o r a PP t o p i c t o take scope. In t h a t case, the t r a c e of the postposed  PP t o p i c w i l l be L-marked by V, e x p l a i n i n g  l i c i t n e s s of movement. C o n s i d e r now  the case of p o s t p o s i n g out of a PP t o p i c .  A n o t h e r f a c t o r t h a t we n e e d t o c o n t r o l f o r i s t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a w a - m a r k e d p h r a s e we are c o n s i d e r i n g i s an i n s t a n c e of i n - s i t u " c o n t r a s t i v e " w a - m a r k i n g r a t h e r t h a n t o p i c a l i z a t i o n . For e x a m p l e , i n e x a m p l e s l i k e (124) or (128) i n w h i c h the wa-marked p h r a s e o c c u r s w i t h a n e g a t e d m a t r i x verb, it i s p o s s i b l e t h a t we a r e s e e i n g h e r e an i n s t a n c e o f "contrastive" wa. 5 1  the We  151 saw  i n (217)  and  (218)  that postposing  out  of a PP t o p i c r e s u l t e d i n a  sentence. I f a phrase i s p o s t p o s e d out of a PP t o p i c b e f o r e the  topic  in i t s original  L-marked p o s i t i o n should  not  deviant  the t o p i c i s r a i s e d ,  constitute a barrier;  however, such movement w i l l be r u l e d out by s t r i c t c y c l i c i t y :  when the PP t o p i c  i s r a i s e d a f t e r i t s c o n s t i t u e n t has been p o s t p o s e d i t w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o r e t u r n t o a lower c y c l e , or, i n m i n i m a l i s t raising  the  postposing  PP  topic,  since  a  terms, the s t r u c t u r e w i l l not be extended by  higher  structure  has  already  been  created  i t s constituent.  In the f o r e g o i n g a n a l y s i s , I have proposed a m o d i f i c a t i o n t o the "disjunctive" adjuncts  by  version  under  of  the  ECP  that  certain conditions:  the  allows  the  trace  of  e i t h e r antecedent governed, or l i c e n s e d by being head. T h i s  proposal  explains  the  l i c e n s i n g of a postposed  classical  the  traces  of  must  be  adjunct  i n the domain of a [+V]  ungrammaticality  of  (219),  (236), s i n c e the t r a c e of the postposed g e n i t i v e w i l l not be  lexical  r e p e a t e d here l i c e n s e d by a  as [+V]  head.  (236)*purin-wa  tabeta,  Taroo-no.  pudding-top ate  As  -gen  f o r the pudding, I ate i t -- Taro's  4.8.1  The  s t a t u s of s e n t e n c e - l e v e l  (pudding).  adjuncts  I f t o p i c s i n Japanese are b a r r i e r s to antecedent government -- f o r example, as  a  r e s u l t of  not  being  lexically  p o s t p o s e d g e n i t i v e i n (236) a  t+V]  head.  clauses, domain  On  the  of  a  lexical  [+V]  themselves  --  the  trace  w i l l be n e i t h e r antecedent governed nor  other  which appear to be  governed  hand,  matrix-level  sentence-level head,  are  concessive  adjuncts  clauses  t h a t are not  r e a d i l y postposed.  (see  of  the  l i c e n s e d by or  reason  likely  i n the  Endo  (1989)  for  examples.) I f they are p o s t p o s e d by movement, we need to assume t h a t t h e i r t r a c e s  152 are  antecedent-governed.  I f we assume t h a t  command but not p r e c e d e n c e antecedent governed  52  antecedent  government  r e q u i r e s c-  then the t r a c e o f a s e n t e n c e - l e v e l a d j u n c t can be  i f i t o c c u r s w i t h i n the h i g h e s t p r o j e c t i o n of the sentence.  For example, i f a s e n t e n c e - l e v e l a d j u n c t such as a reason c l a u s e i s c a n o n i c a l l y l e f t - a d j o i n e d t o a p r o j e c t i o n of m a t r i x C and CP i s a l s o the p r o j e c t i o n t o which postposed  phrases  are right-adjoined,  then  t h e r e i s no b a r r i e r  t o antecedent  government o f the t r a c e . The same would be t r u e f o r (base-generated)  topics i f  they a r e g e n e r a t e d i n [ S p e c , CP].  But  when  considering  the matter  of l i c e n s i n g  of traces  of  postposed  s e n t e n c e - l e v e l a d j u n c t s , we need t o ask whether they a r e p o s t p o s e d by movement at  all.  We  saw  i n chapter  1 that  arguments  and l o w - l e v e l  adjuncts  such as  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and g e n i t i v e s show evidence through C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n effects  of being  postposed  by  movement.  We  also  saw  i n section  2.1  that  p o s t p o s i n g o f these phrases shows s u b j e c t - o b j e c t asymmetries w i t h r e s p e c t t o the grammaticality  of p o s t p o s i n g  them  out of a  subject versus  an o b j e c t  -- a  phenomenon t h a t we would u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e w i t h movement. But the same may not be t r u e f o r o t h e r k i n d s of a d j u n c t s . The f o l l o w i n g examples a r e d e s i g n e d t o t e s t whether a s e n t e n c e - l e v e l a d j u n c t i s postposed by movement. I f we use the k i n d of C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n t e s t t h a t was used i n c h a p t e r 1, the o n l y element t h a t can c-command the s i t e o f the postposed a d j u n c t i s a t o p i c . But as was d i s c u s s e d in  chapter  directly  1, i t i s p o s s i b l e  c-command  a postposed  that  a topic  phrase.  i s i n a high  In t h a t  case,  we  enough p o s i t i o n t o need  t o postpose  a  c l a u s e - l e v e l a d j u n c t of an embedded c l a u s e . When we c o n s t r u c t such examples we need t o guard a g a i n s t a s t r o n g tendency  f o r such a d j u n c t s t o be c o n s t r u e d w i t h  the m a t r i x r a t h e r than the embedded c l a u s e , as i s the case i n (237) below:  I f a n t e c e d e n t government r e q u i r e d p r e c e d e n c e then the t r a c e of any p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e d e r i v e d by movement c o u l d o n l y be l i c e n s e d by h e a d g o v e r n m e n t . I n s u c h a c a s e we w o u l d e x p e c t t h a t the p o s t p o s a b i l i t y o f a p a r t i c u l a r p h r a s e w o u l d o n l y d e p e n d on w h e t h e r i t was l e x i c a l l y g o v e r n e d a n d n o t o n w h a t k i n d o f i s l a n d i t i s e m b e d d e d i n . G i v e n t h e e v i d e n c e we saw i n e a r l i e r s e c t i o n s , i n which t h e g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f p o s t p o s i n g t h e same t y p e o f e l e m e n t " w o u l d v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t y p e o f i s l a n d i t was e m b e d d e d i n , I s h a l l a s s u m e h e r e t h a t w h e r e p o s t p o s i n g i s d e r i v e d b y movement t h e t r a c e o f a p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e c a n be a n t e c e d e n t - g o v e r n e d from t h e r i g h t . 5 2  153 (237)  kare-ga,  [e; o m o i k i r i  benkyoo-suru]  to  itta,  C  said  [asita  siken-ga  aru  kara] . i  he-nom  hard  study  tomorrow exam-nom e x i s t  because He  said  The to  [e; he would study hard]  f o l l o w i n g sentence  --[because  i s d e s i g n e d so t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t p r a g m a t i c a l l y  c o n s t r u e the a d j u n c t w i t h the m a t r i x c l a u s e :  (238) G a l i l e o - w a t a i r a de-aru  to]  kinoo-no C P  iu  kaigi-de  koto-o  flat  cop.  C  say C-acc  (238)  above  da-kara]  earth-nom f l a t - m o d a l cop.-because  denied  G a l i l e o d e n i e d at y e s t e r d a y ' s meeting because i t l o o k s  [[tikyuu-ga taira-soo  hitei-sita.  -top y e s t e r d a y - g e n m e e t i n g - l o c  In  t h e r e i s an exam tomorrow];  the f a c t  [ t h a t the e a r t h i s f l a t CP  flat].  i t i s possible  t o get  a c o n s t r u a l of  embedded c l a u s e . Thus reason c l a u s e s can modify However, when we  t r y t o postpose  the  reason  clause with  embedded c l a u s e s i n  the reason c l a u s e i n (238)  Japanese.  c o n s t r u a l w i t h the  embedded c l a u s e becomes i m p o s s i b l e :  (239) * G a l i l e o - w a koto-o]  C P  kinoo-no  hitei-sita,  kaigi-de  [taira-soo  denied *Galileo  meeting  --  t  tikyuu-ga  taira  de-aru  to i u  da-kara];  -top y e s t e r d a y - g e n m e e t i n g - l o c acc  [e  earth-nom  flat  cop.  C  say C-  f l a t - m o d a l cop.-because denied  [because  This result  the  fact  [ t h a t the CP  earth  is flat  ej  at  yesterday's  i t looks f l a t ] ; .  i s i n t e r e s t i n g because examples i n c h a p t e r s 2 and 3 suggested  t h a t c l a u s e s embedded i n a A:oto or to i u Jcoto c o n s t r u c t i o n are at most v e r y weak i s l a n d s f o r p o s t p o s i n g . For example, r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and V P - l e v e l adverbs  can  154 be p o s t p o s e d out o f c l a u s e s  headed by koto.  (240) [Masao-ga,  [e; okane-o]  nusunda  koto]-ga  akiraka  da, • [kinoo  boku-ga  moratta] . i  -nom  money-acc  stole  comp-nom  clear  cop. y e s t e r d a y  I-nom  received It's  c l e a r t h a t Masao s t o l e the money -- t h a t I r e c e i v e d  yesterday.  (241) [Masao-ga,  [e  t  -nom  okane-o]  nusunda koto]-ga  aru,  money-acc  stole  exist  comp-nom  [boku-no k a k u s i t a J i . I-gen  Masao has (on o c c a s i o n ) s t o l e n money -- t h a t  hid  I hid.  (242) [Masao-ga,  [ei okane-o]  nusunda  koto]-o  sitte-iru,  [kinoo  boku-ga  morattai. -nom  money-acc  stole  comp-acc  know  yesterday  I-nom  received I know t h a t Masao s t o l e the money -- t h a t (or) Masao knows t h a t  (they) s t o l e the money -- t h a t  (243)?[Taroo-ga ei kuru] koto-ga -nom It's  In in  I received  come  c l e a r t h a t Taroo w i l l  cop. a l r e a d y  come -- i n a l i t t l e  (240) - (242) a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  that  responsible  yesterday.  ;  soon while.  i s p o s t p o s e d out o f a koto  (243) a temporal adverb i s postposed m a r g i n a l l y  suggests  I/he r e c e i v e d  a k i r a k a da, [moo s u g u ]  comp-nom c l e a r  yesterday,  i n (239) i t i s not t h e i s l a n d h o o d  out o f a koto o f t h e koto  c l a u s e and  clause.  clause  that i s  f o r the severe u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y t h a t r e s u l t s when the r e a s o n  i s p o s t p o s e d out o f i t . T h e r e f o r e ,  This  clause  we might e x p l a i n the c o n t r a s t between (239)  155 and  (240)-(243) by c o n t i n u i n g t o pursue our h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t r a c e s o f postposed  phrases must be e i t h e r assuming  that  antecedent  postposed  governed  adjuncts  cannot  o r l i c e n s e d by a [+V] head be b a s e - g e n e r a t e d .  The  53  and by relative  c l a u s e s and V P - l e v e l adverbs i n (240)-(243) a r e p o s s i b l y w i t h i n the domain o f V. In  (239), on the o t h e r hand, i f the reason c l a u s e i s a d j o i n e d t o a f u n c t i o n a l  p r o j e c t i o n o f IP o f the embedded c l a u s e , i t w i l l not be i n the domain o f embedded V, as we see i n the f o l l o w i n g  structure:  (239)(repeated a g a i n as (244)(a) *Galileo-wa koto-o]  C P  hitei-sita, -top  acc  denied *Galileo  meeting  kinoo-no" [taira-soo  kaigi-de  [e; t i k y u u - g a  taira  de-aru  to i u  da-kara];  yesterday-gen meeting-loc  earth-nom  flat  cop.  C  say C-  f l a t - m o d a l cop.-because denied  the f a c t  [ t h a t the e a r t h CP  i s flat  ej  at yesterday's  -- [because i t l o o k s f l a t ] ; .  If i t were p o s s i b l e t o b a s e - g e n e r a t e a postposed adjunct, i t would be d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n why i t c o u l d n o t b e c o n s t r u e d w i t h a p o s i t i o n i n s i d e a koto c l a u s e , given the evidence i n Saito (1985) t h a t a b a s e - g e n e r a t e d t o p i c c a n be c o n s t r u e d w i t h a p o s i t i o n i n s i d e a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , w h i c h i s t y p i c a l l y a w o r s e i s l a n d t h a n a koto c l a u s e . (I r e t u r n t o t h i s m a t t e r o f S a i t o (1985) i m m e d i a t e l y below.)  156 (244)(b)(structure  of (248a) CP / CP  \ adverbi  I IP I VP  V / CP  \ V(matrix)  I C  I IP(embedded  clause)  I I' / I ti  I' I VP I V(embedded)  R e c a l l t h a t we a r e assuming here t h a t t h e r e  i s no head movement of V t o I  i n Japanese.  We must a l s o e x p l a i n why the t r a c e i s not l i c e n s e d by m a t r i x V. R e c a l l t h a t in  the grammatical  examples where a r e l a t i v e  clause  o r g e n i t i v e m o d i f y i n g an  argument DP was postposed, we needed t o assume t h a t the V t h a t theta-marks the  157 argument t h a t the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e o r g e n i t i v e m o d i f i e s  can somehow l i c e n s e the  adjunct:  (245)  V / DP  \ V  I / I /  I  adjunct  Yet we have a very s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r e i n (244). I t i s as i f the embedded CP p r o j e c t i o n i n (244) a c t s as a b a r r i e r t o some g o v e r n i n g r e l a t i o n o f the adjunct by m a t r i x V but t h a t DP does not a c t as such a b a r r i e r i n (245) .  Recall,  now  out proposed  licensing  condition  on  traces  of  postposed  phrases:  1. A t r a c e t must be l i c e n s e d i n Max(x) where x i s [+V]. 2. t i s l i c e n s e d by x i f f x i s l e x i c a l  (a) choose the s m a l l e s t  domain of a [+V] head t h a t c o n t a i n s t  (b) check t h a t x i s l e x i c a l  I propose t o e x p l a i n the deviance of (244) by p o s i t i n g t h a t t h e embedded CP,  headed  by  complementizer  koto  has a  [+V]  embedded CP, not m a t r i x VP, w i l l be the s m a l l e s t  feature.  5 4  I f i t does,  then  [+V] c a t e g o r y c o n t a i n i n g the  t r a c e i n (244).  Whitman(1991) p r o p o s e s t h a t koto c a n f u l f i l t h e r o l e o f a C . I f h a s a [+V] f e a t u r e a s a member o f t h e V - I - C e x t e n d e d p r o j e c t i o n ( i n t h e t h e n koto may h a v e t h i s f e a t u r e i n t h e a b o v e e x a m p l e . 5 4  t h i s i s t r u e , and i f a C sense of Grimshaw (1991),  158 As a f i r s t  step, we choose the CP as the s m a l l e s t [+V] c a t e g o r y c o n t a i n i n g  the t r a c e . As a second a  step, we determine  koto  complementizer,  p r o p e r l y l i c e n s e d and  i s arguably  whether i t i s l e x i c a l .  not l e x i c a l .  the deviance o f (244)  Thus  In i t s r o l e as  the trace w i l l  not  be  i s explained.  I r e t u r n now t o the q u e s t i o n of why phrases  such as embedded c l a u s e - l e v e l  a d j u n c t s whose t r a c e s would not be l e x i c a l l y governed nor  antecedent-governed,  cannot be p o s t p o s e d by b a s e - g e n e r a t i o n i n o r d e r t o escape ECP e f f e c t s , e s p e c i a l l y in  light  o f t h e evidence  i n Saito  (1985)  that  base-generated  topics  can be  construed with a p o s i t i o n inside a r e l a t i v e clause. If Saito's c l a i m i s correct, why  then c o u l d not a base-generated  postposed  p o s i t i o n i n s i d e a koto c l a u s e i n (244)  r e a s o n - c l a u s e be c o n s t r u e d w i t h a  g i v e n the evidence t h a t koto  c l a u s e s are  much weaker i s l a n d s than r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s ? One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t when a base-generated  t o p i c i s c o n s t r u e d w i t h a p o s i t i o n elsewhere  i n the  sentence,  t h a t p o s i t i o n i s o c c u p i e d by a p r o . For example, i n the examples S a i t o g i v e s f o r c o n s t r u a l of a base-generated  t o p i c with a p o s i t i o n i n s i d e a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , the  p o s i t i o n i n q u e s t i o n i s an argument DP t h a t can be r e p r e s e n t e d by a p r o . I n the case  of a reason-clause  assumption occupied  on the o t h e r hand,  i t would seem t o be a r e a s o n a b l e  t h a t the c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n o f a postposed  by a p r o  -- i . e . t h a t t h e r e  i s no such  reason  pro-form  c l a u s e cannot be  i n the  language --  e i t h e r p h o n e t i c a l l y empty o r o v e r t .  4.8.3  The of  Different  types o f a d j u n c t s -- d i f f e r i n g degrees  of islandhood  c o n t r a s t i n p o s t p o s a b i l i t y we have seen here between d i f f e r e n t  adjuncts  would  lead  us t o p r e d i c t  that  we' s h o u l d  also  see them  types behave  d i f f e r e n t l y from each o t h e r as b a r r i e r s t o e x t r a c t i o n . I f s e n t e n c e - l e v e l a d j u n c t s are  n o t i n the  domain  of a lexical  [+V] head  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and g e n i t i v e s t h a t modify  while  V P - l e v e l a d j u n c t s , and  an argument DP are, we s h o u l d expect  t o f i n d t h a t the former are much more severe i s l a n d s f o r e x t r a c t i o n . T h i s i s i n f a c t what we f i n d . In chapter 3 we found t h a t reason c l a u s e s were g e n e r a l l y more  159 severe i s l a n d s f o r e x t r a c t i o n of postposed phrases than r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s .  I have pursued an a n a l y s i s here i n which t r a c e s of some a d j u n c t s such as relative  clauses that  adjuncts,  modify  arguments  can  be  licensed  such as s e n t e n c e - l e v e l a d j u n c t s , cannot, because  i n a way  that  other  the former, but not  the l a t t e r are i n the domain of a V. But r e g a r d l e s s of whether we pursue such an analysis,  i t would seem t h a t a model of l o c a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t r e l i e s  on whether a phase  i s L-marked or not  t o determine  i t s island  solely  status  cannot  account f o r the g r a d a t i o n of g r a m m a t i c a l i t y we see i n the d a t a on p o s t p o s i n g . We saw of  i n c h a p t e r 3 t h a t d i f f e r e n t types of a d j u n c t s a l l e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n t i s l a n d h o o d . For example, r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e s appear  degrees  t o be weaker i s l a n d s  than  o t h e r types of a d j u n c t c l a u s e s . I t might be p o s s i b l e t o e x p l a i n these g r a d a t i o n s in  g r a m m a t i c a l i t y by  a  subjacency  account  i n which  stronger islands  have  g r e a t e r number of b a r r i e r s -- f o r example t h a t some types of c l a u s e s are CP's  a  and  o t h e r s are CP's embedded i n PP's, which would c o n s t i t u t e two b a r r i e r s i n s t e a d of one,  but t h i s k i n d of mechanism does not appear s e n s i t i v e enough t o account f o r  the f a c t , f o r example, t h a t A:oto-clauses, r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , temporal c l a u s e s , and w h - i s l a n d s a l l show d i f f e r e n t i s l a n d e f f e c t s when d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of elements are p o s t p o s e d out of them, as we saw i n c h a p t e r s 2 and 3. I f we are s e e i n g subjacency e f f e c t s i n those examples t h a t depend on the number of b a r r i e r s c r o s s e d by the p o s t p o s e d phrase, these e f f e c t s may L-marked or not,  and  p o s i t i o n . There may  whether  a l s o be determined by whether the b a r r i e r i s  i t i s i n an  or  complement  a l s o be o t h e r types of mechanisms t h a t l i c e n s e p h r a s e s . For  example, a l t h o u g h t o p i c s do not appear element  adjoined, s p e c i f i e r ,  t o be L-marked, they are an  obligatory  i n most types of Japanese sentence. T h i s i s not a c o n d i t i o n t h a t we would  associate  with  a d j u n c t s . Are  topics  then  licensed  in a  different  way  than  arguments, and i s i t t h i s l i c e n s i n g t h a t p e r m i t s some phrases t o be p o s t p o s e d out of them? I t would seem t h a t we need a more w e l l - d e v e l o p e d t h e o r y of a d j u n c t s and o t h e r non-arguments.  160 5.  Postposing  as  a root  c l a u s e phenomenon: an  explanation  i n terms of Minimal  Domains  5.1  Introduction  Endo (1989), and construction  In  this  Whitman  (1991b) have noted the  fact  t h a t the  postposing  i n Japanese i s s t r i c t l y a r o o t c l a u s e phenomenon.  chapter  I show t h a t  under  the  framework of  Chomsky  (1995),  in  p a r t i c u l a r under the concept of a minimal domain, a p o s i t i o n a d j o i n e d t o the root c l a u s e i s a unique p o s i t i o n t h a t has no d i r e c t semantic or c h e c k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the r e s t of the c l a u s e and u n i q u e l y  serves as a s i t e f o r a p o s t p o s e d element.  A l t h o u g h I draw from the ideas of the M i n i m a l i s t programme i n t h i s the p r o p o s a l  t h a t there  c o n t r o v e r s i a l one,  and  i s rightward i s not  chapter,  movement to a r i g h t - a d j o i n e d p o s i t i o n i s a  i n accord  w i t h the M i n i m a l i s t  programme.  C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g examples, which show t h a t i n Japanese when a phrase i s p o s t p o s e d to the r i g h t , i t must be  (246)  ride  C P  comp  To go here and  (247)  position.  [Endo 15;29]  [ei basu n o t t e - i k u n o ] bus  i n the rightmost  there  mendo-kusai  l o t - o f - t r o u b l e modal r i d i n g a bus  * [ e i basu n o t t e - i k u n o ] bus  ride  comp  To go here and  Example (247)  desyoo?  there  C P  atti-kottii. here-and-there  i s a l o t of t r o u b l e ,  atti-kottij  isn't it?  mendo-kusai  desyoo? .  here-and-there l o t - o f - t r o u b l e modal r i d i n g a bus  i s a l o t of t r o u b l e ,  isn't it?  above shows t h a t a s e n t e n c e - l e v e l adverb cannot a t t a c h to the  r i g h t of an i n t e r m e d i a t e  CP. Example (248)  below shows t h a t i t a l s o cannot a t t a c h  161 to  an i n t e r m e d i a t e IP.  (248)  * [ [ e i basu n o t t e - i k u ] bus  ride  atti-kottii  I P  here-and-there  no]  mendo-kusai  C P  comp  desyoo? .  l o t - o f - t r o u b l e modal  To go here and t h e r e r i d i n g a bus i s a l o t o f t r o u b l e ,  isn't i t ?  Whereas i n (246) the postposed phrase can be l i c i t l y a d j o i n e d t o the r i g h t of  the m a t r i x verb, i t cannot appear t o the r i g h t o f the embedded IP o r embedded  CP. We a l s o f i n d t h a t to  i f a complementizer  such as q u e s t i o n p a r t i c l e ka  the r i g h t o f the m a t r i x verb, the p o s t p o s e d phrase must f o l l o w t h a t  (249) [e; basu n o t t e - i k u n o ] bus  ride  mendo-kusai  C P  comp  desyoo  l o t - o f - t r o u b l e modal  ka?  4  basu n o t t e - i k u n o ]  bus  ride  comp  C P  mendo-kusai  comp here-and-there  desyoo  l o t - o f - t r o u b l e modal  isn't i t ?  atti-kottii  isn't i t ?  We can conclude from these data t h a t the p o s t p o s e d element the r o o t c l a u s e and t h a t  ka?  here-and-there comp  To go here and t h e r e r i d i n g a bus i s a l o t o f t r o u b l e ,  to  element:  atti-kottii-  To go here and t h e r e r i d i n g a bus i s a l o t of t r o u b l e ,  (250) * [ e  appears  i t as the r i g h t m o s t element  only attaches  o f the r o o t  clause.  5.2 A member o f the domain of no c a t e g o r y  In  this  projection head, under  section  I show t h a t  a phrase  i s uniquely i n a position  that  that  i s a d j o i n e d t o the h i g h e s t  i s not i n the minimal domain of any  the d e f i n i t i o n of a minimal domain i n Chomsky (1995). The r e l e v a n t  m i n i m a l i s t d e f i n i t i o n s a r e as f o l l o w s :  162 (251)  Max(a)  Max(a) = t h e s m a l l e s t maximal p r o j e c t i o n i n c l u d i n g a .  (252)  Domain  The domain o f head a = t h e s e t o f c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e d  5 5  i n Max (a) t h a t a r e  d i s t i n c t from and do not c o n t a i n a .  (253)  Complement Domain  The complement domain o f a = the subset o f the domain r e f l e x i v e l y dominated by t h e complement o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n .  (254)  Residue  The r e s i d u e o f a = t h e domain o f a minus i t s complement domain.  (255) Min(S)  For a s e t S o f c a t e g o r i e s , the minimal  s u b s e t , Min(S) = t h e s m a l l e s t subset  K o f S such t h a t f o r any y e S, some P £ K r e f l e x i v e l y dominates y.  (256)  I n t e r n a l domain  The  internal  domain o f a = Min(complement domain o f a)  -- t y p i c a l l y  i n t e r n a l arguments o f a .  a d o p t h e r e t h e d e f i n i t i o n of m i n i m a l domain of Chomsky (1995:299) as o p p o s e d t o the v e r s i o n i n w h i c h t h e d o m a i n o f a was a s e t o f n o d e s i n Max(a) r a t h e r than i n Max(a). T h e d i f f e r e n c e i s c r u c i a l f o r o u r p u r p o s e s h e r e , s i n c e the l a t e r d e f i n i t i o n e x c l u d e a c a t e g o r y a d j o i n e d to a maximal p r o j e c t i o n from the domain of t h a t projection. 5 5  earlier  I  included  will  contained  163 (257)  Checking domain  The  checking  domain of  checking i n f l e c t i o n a l  a  the  no  illustrated  (At t h i s p o i n t  s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the m i n i m a l i s t  (258)i. adjoined  to the complement of  framework.  (Chomsky  (1995:334))  Z.  YP  ZP I Z' /I XP  Z' I  z  in  follow.  precedence,  Z  s i s t e r to an  involved  consider  / \  ii.  typically  I s h a l l not  / \  XP  --  i n the examples t h a t  Z'  YP  a)  f o l l o w i n g p o s s i b l e p o s i t i o n s f o r a d i s l o c a t e d phrase  i n r e l a t i o n to a head Z. i t has  of  features.  These d e f i n i t i o n s w i l l be  C o n s i d e r now  = Min(residue  intermediate  p r o j e c t i o n of  Z.  XP  since  164 iii.  a d j o i n e d to the s i s t e r of an  intermediate  p r o j e c t i o n of  Z.  ZP  I Z' / \ YP /  \  XP  iv.  Z' \  YP  Z  s p e c i f i e r of  Z.  ZP / \ XP  Z' \ Z  v. a d j o i n e d to the s p e c i f i e r of Z.  ( R e c a l l t h a t we are not concerned here w i t h  l i n e a r o r d e r and t h a t l e f t - a d j u n c t i o n and r i g h t - a d j u n c t i o n are e q u i v a l e n t f o r the purposes of t h i s  ZP / \  XP  YP  Z'  / \  \  YP  Z  discussion.)  165 vi.  a d j o i n e d t o ZP, the maximal p r o j e c t i o n of Z.  ZP /  \  XP  ZP \  Z  In case above.  Then  everything  ( i ) , l e t Comp(Z) r e p r e s e n t the complement  XP,  along  reflexively  with  YP,  i s i n the i n t e r n a l  dominated by YP. XP  i s part  domain of Z as d e f i n e d  domain  of Z.  Comp(Z) i s  of the minimal  complement  domain of Z s i n c e the complement YP does not dominate i t .  In case and of  ( i i ) XP i s i n the c h e c k i n g domain of Z s i n c e i t i s d i s t i n c t  from  does not c o n t a i n Z and i t i s not dominated by any o t h e r member of the domain Z.  In case  ( i i i ) XP i s i n the c h e c k i n g domain  ( M i n ( r e s i d u e ) ) of Z, s i n c e YP,  i n the c h e c k i n g domain of Z, does not dominate i t .  In case ( i v ) XP i s i n the c h e c k i n g domain of Z. I t i s i n the minimal domain of  Z s i n c e i t i s i n the minimal s e t of c a t e g o r i e s t h a t a r e c o n t a i n e d by Max(Z)  that  are d i s t i n c t  from  and do not c o n t a i n  Z.  I t i s not a complement  of Z;  t h e r e f o r e i t i s i n the minimal r e s i d u e of Z or i t s c h e c k i n g domain.  In  case  (v) XP i s i n the c h e c k i n g domain of Z. I t i s i n the domain of Z  s i n c e i t i s c o n t a i n e d by Max(Z), and i t i s d i s t i n c t from and does not c o n t a i n Z. It  i s i n the r e s i d u e  of  Z because  i t i s not  complement of Z. I t i s i n the minimal r e s i d u e it  reflexively  dominated by the  ( i . e . c h e c k i n g domain) of Z s i n c e  i s not dominated by YP, the s p e c i f i e r of Z.  166 Thus so f a r , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of case  ( v i ) , which we have not c o n s i d e r e d  y e t , XP i s i n every case i n the minimal domain of Z: e i t h e r the c h e c k i n g domain or the i n t e r n a l  domain. C o n s i d e r now  case  ( v i ) . XP  i s not  i n the domain of Z  s i n c e i t i s not i n c l u d e d i n Max(Z); i t i s o n l y c o n t a i n e d i n Max(Z). However, i f ZP i s dominated the minimal  by a node of another p r o j e c t i o n ,  call  i t W,  domain of W f o r the same reasons t h a t XP was  ( v ) . I f ZP i s i n the minimal domain of W,  then XP,  then ZP w i l l be i n  i n cases  ( i ) through  a d j o i n e d t o ZP, must a l s o be  i n the minimal domain of W s i n c e no o t h e r member of the domain of W dominates XP.  The remaining case to be c o n s i d e r e d i s where XP i s dominated  by no node of another  (259)  i s a d j o i n e d t o ZP and  ZP  projection:  ZP / \ ZP  XP  I Z  In t h i s case, XP i s not i n the minimal domain of Z s i n c e i t i s not i n the domain o f Z as e x p l a i n e d immediately above. But i t cannot be i n the domain of any h i g h e r p r o j e c t i o n e i t h e r s i n c e t h e r e i s no p r o j e c t i o n above ZP. Thus we unique c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n which XP i s not i n the domain of any  have a  projection.  I f a p o s i t i o n a d j o i n e d t o the r o o t node has the unique s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t y of b e i n g syntactic  i n the domain of no properties  p r o p e r t y i n Japanese  head then we  ought  Empirically,  this  as w e l l .  t o expect' i t t o show position  does show a  as the o n l y p o s s i b l e s i t e f o r r i g h t - d i s l o c a t e d  unique special  phrases.  In Japanese we can observe two o t h e r types of d i s l o c a t i o n of a phrase  from  i t s c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n : s c r a m b l i n g and t o p i c a l i z a t i o n . Suppose that t h e r e are (at least)  three  ways  i n which  a  phrase  can  be  dislocated  from  i t s canonical  167 position:  (a)  base-generation  i n the minimal  l i c e n s e s i t . (e.g. base-generated  domain  of a  functional  (e.g. PP t o p i c a l i z a t i o n o r scrambling)  (c) movement t o a s e m a n t i c a l l y - and checking-vacuous  refer  to t h i s  position  that  topicalization)  (b) movement t o a c h e c k i n g p o s i t i o n  I  projection  i n (c) as b e i n g  p o s i t i o n (e.g. p o s t p o s i n g ) .  both  "checking  vacuous" and  " s e m a n t i c a l l y vacuous."  The p o s i t i o n can be c o n s i d e r e d "checking-vacuous"  i n the sense  t h a t as I  have shown above, i t i s the o n l y p o s i t i o n t h a t i s not i n the minimal  domain of  a head. T h i s means t h a t i t i s not i n the c h e c k i n g domain o f any c a t e g o r y . I f a constituent  i n a c h e c k i n g p o s i t i o n i s i n t e r p r e t e d by b e i n g checked  by the head  of the c h e c k i n g domain i n which i t o c c u r s , then the p o s t p o s i n g p o s i t i o n i s not eligible  f o r such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , not being i n a c h e c k i n g domain.  The p o s i t i o n can be c o n s i d e r e d " s e m a n t i c a l l y vacuous" i n the sense t h a t i t is  not i n t h e complement  semantic  domain  I f complements  receive a  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o the head i n whose complement domain  they occur, then a postposed in this  of any c a t e g o r y .  phrase  i s not e l i g i b l e  f o r such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  position.  To the extent t h a t the postposed p o s i t i o n i s not i n the domain o f a head, it,  i t cannot r e c e i v e a semantic  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n through i t s r e l a t i o n t o any head  i n whose domain i t o c c u r s . On the o t h e r hand, I am not s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p o s t p o s i n g is  a s e m a n t i c a l l y vacuous  analysis  to a purely  speakers  on  o p e r a t i o n . Although  syntactic  postposing  I have  one of p o s t p o s i n g  indicate  that  discourse  here,  chosen  to r e s t r i c t  my  judgements o f n a t i v e  factors  are  important  in  168 determining  the  there  higher  is a  discourse position  realm of  l e g i t i m a c y of a p a r t i c u l a r p o s t p o s i n g o p e r a t i o n . Suppose t h a t node above  but  not  postposed  the  i n the  root  node of  syntactic  phrases  would  realm.  have  some  the  sentence  If this  is in  the  were t r u e , then  the  structural  that  relation  to  the  d i s c o u r s e component of the grammar, even though i t i s o u t s i d e the domain of any head i n the s y n t a c t i c component. I f the postposed p o s i t i o n i s d i s c o u r s e - l i n k e d , it  will  have some semantic  even though i t may  Another  s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o the o v e r a l l d i s c o u r s e  not w i t h the r o o t node of the  prediction  that  the  hypothesis  sentence.  that  the  postposed  position  is  " d i s c o u r s e - l i n k e d " makes i s t h a t to have a r e l a t i o n w i t h the d i s c o u r s e , we would p r e d i c t t h a t the postposed phrase s h o u l d be a t t a c h e d h i g h i n the sentence, which i s what we  find.  I f the postposed p o s i t i o n i s i n e l i g i b l e f o r a d i r e c t semantic r e l a t i o n with  a head,  then we  must ask how  the postposed  phrase  or checking receives i t s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . To answer t h i s we must a l l o w the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t movement and c h a i n - f o r m a t i o n can occur without  a c h e c k i n g r e l a t i o n between the l a n d i n g s i t e  of movement and a l o c a l head. Although some types of movement (e.g. wh-movement) have been  explained  as  movement  l i c e n s e d by a f u n c t i o n a l head  to  a position  (e.g. a  [+wh  i n which  the  moved phrase  complementizer] i n the case of  is wh-  movement) t h i s does not e n t a i l t h a t a l l types of movement must undergo a f e a t u r e c h e c k i n g p r o c e s s . I f p o s t p o s i n g has a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the d i s c o u r s e component of the  grammar,  i t i s p o s s i b l e that  the  syntactic  component  component, a l t h o u g h separate, must i n t e r a c t i n some way.  and  the  discourse  For example, p o s t p o s i n g  c o u l d be movement t h a t takes p l a c e w i t h i n the s y n t a c t i c component of the grammar, as I have argued that  f o r by showing t h a t p o s t p o s i n g shows s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t s , but  i t s l a n d i n g s i t e i s l i c e n s e d by the d i s c o u r s e component of the grammar --  f o r example by a r e l a t i o n w i t h a node t h a t i s o u t s i d e the s y n t a c t i c domain but i n the d i s c o u r s e domain.  169  (260)  DisP /  ( i n d i s c o u r s e component)  \  Dis  CP /  (upper l i m i t of s y n t a c t i c \  CP  The  possibility  component)  XP(postposed phrase) l i c e n s e d by a r e l a t i o n t o DisP.  that  the  landing  site  of p o s t p o s e d phrases  i s somehow  l i c e n s e d by the d i s c o u r s e component of the grammar i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the f a c t t h a t p o s t p o s i n g i s o b l i g a t o r i l y a s e n t e n t i a l phenomenon. We see i n the f o l l o w i n g examples t h a t when a sentence fragment such as a DP i s u t t e r e d , an a b b r e v i a t e d answer t o a q u e s t i o n ,  such a phrase cannot  f o r example, as  l i c e n s e a postposed  phrase on i t s r i g h t , even though such a postposed phrase would be a d j o i n e d to the r o o t node of t h a t sentence  (261)  [purin-o tabeta  fragment : 56  otoko-no-ko]  D P  pudding-acc ate boy the boy who  ate the pudding  (262) * [ [ t i t a b e t a ] otoko-no-ko] , p u r i n - O ; DP  ate  boy  the boy who  The  DP  ate  sentence  component  ]  pudding-acc ( i t ) -- pudding  fragment  p r o j e c t i o n s above i t . We might discourse  D P  above  above i s a r g u a b l y a bare DP  w i t h no  IP or  CP  f u r t h e r p o s i t t h a t t h e r e are no p r o j e c t i o n s of a  that  l i c e n s e d as i t would be i n (260)  i n whose domain  a p o s t p o s e d phrase  could  be  above.  I f we attempt t o d i s l o c a t e a phrase to a r i g h t - a d j o i n e d p o s i t i o n o t h e r than t o the r o o t node, the phrase w i l l be i n the complement o r c h e c k i n g domain of some  T h e s e examples were s u g g e s t e d by H i s a t s u g u K i t a h a r a s e n t e n t i a l n a t u r e of the phenomenon o f p o s t p o s i n g . 5 6  (p.c),  who  p o i n t e d out the  170 head and w i l l need t o meet whatever l i c e n s i n g requirements t h e r e a r e f o r moving 'to  t h e domain o f t h a t  head. O s t e n s i b l y ,  s c r a m b l i n g and t o p i c a l i z a t i o n . head  implies  scrambling  5 7  this  I f movement  or t o p i c a l i z a t i o n ,  i s what happens i n the case o f  o r d i s l o c a t i o n t o t h e domain o f a the q u e s t i o n  a r i s e s why we  cannot  scramble o r t o p i c a l i z e t o a r i g h t - a d j o i n e d p o s i t i o n lower than the r o o t node. In the  following  section  I s h a l l propose a f o r m u l a t i o n o f the head parameter f o r  Japanese t h a t e x p l a i n s why r i g h t - a d j u n c t i o n i s o n l y p e r m i t t e d t o the r o o t node in  the language. My p r o p o s a l w i l l  cannot o c c u r t o a p o s i t i o n  a l s o o f f e r an e x p l a n a t i o n o f why  postposing  l e f t - a d j o i n e d t o the r o o t node, and which ought t o  a l s o be a p o s i t i o n i n the domain of no c a t e g o r y .  5.3 The head parameter i n a l e f t - a t t a c h i n g  In  a)  language  t h i s s e c t i o n I examine two q u e s t i o n s :  Other than p o s t p o s e d phrases, no o t h e r type o f r i g h t a d j u n c t i o n i s p e r m i t t e d  i n Japanese. ( R e c a l l (246) - (250) above.) In a l l p r o j e c t i o n s o t h e r than the r o o t node, both complements and a d j u n c t s o b l i g a t o r i l y precede heads: thus Japanese i s strictly  "left-attaching."  Not o n l y  can a phrase  not be r i g h t  dislocated to  a d j o i n t o a non-root node but no type of a d j u n c t i o n t o such a node i s p o s s i b l e - f o r example an adjunct such as a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e cannot o c c u r t o the r i g h t o f the  (263)  NP o r DP i t m o d i f i e s .  [ [purin-o  t a b e t a ] otoko-no-ko-ga ] n i g e t a  pudding-acc a t e The  CP  DP  boy-nom  ran-away  boy who a t e the pudding r a n away.  We might s p e c u l a t e , f o r example, t h a t t h e r e a s o n why s c r a m b l i n g a n d t o p i c a l i z a t i o n allow o n l y c e r t a i n t y p e s o f p h r a s e s t o b e d i s l o c a t e d i s b e c a u s e some k i n d o f f e a t u r e - c h e c k i n g of the m o v e d p h r a s e i s d o n e b y t h e f u n c t i o n a l h e a d t h a t l i c e n s e s s c r a m b l i n g o r t o p i c a l i z a t i o n . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s a r e n o t m o v e d t o t h e d o m a i n o f some h e a d , t h e r e o u g h t t o b e n o f e a t u r e c h e c k i n g . L a c k o f f e a t u r e c h e c k i n g w o u l d e x p l a i n why t h e r a n g e o f p h r a s e t y p e s t h a t can b e p o s t p o s e d i s much b r o a d e r t h a n t h a t o f p h r a s e s t h a t c a n b e s c r a m b l e d o r topicalized. 57  171 (264)*[otoko-no-ko-ga  [purin-o  boy-nom  In DP  nigeta  ate  ran-away  C P  pudding-acc  The boy who  tabeta ] ] D P  a t e the pudding r a n away.  (263) the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e m o d i f y i n g "boy" p r e c e d e s the head noun of the  and the sentence i s good. In  (264)  the r e l a t i v e  clause  f o l l o w s the noun i t  m o d i f i e s and the sentence i s bad.  Why  i s Japanese  strictly  l e f t - a t t a c h i n g everywhere  except at the r o o t node?  b) Many p h r a s e s t h a t can be p o s t p o s e d cannot be l e f t - a d j o i n e d t o the r o o t node.  The  f o l l o w i n g examples are e v i d e n c e that phrases such as g e n i t i v e s and adverbs,  which can be postposed, cannot be l e f t - a d j o i n e d t o the r o o t  (265) kinoo  [ei  yesterday  ronbun-o] yon-da,  Chomsky-nOi.  paper-acc r e a d - p a s t  Yesterday I read  (that) paper  node.  -gen -- Chomsky's,  ( p o s t p o s i n g of g e n i t i v e )  (266)  *Chomsky-nOi  [e  kinoo  -gen  ronbun-o] yon-da  t  yesterday  paper-acc r e a d - p a s t  *Chomsky's -- y e s t e r d a y I r e a d ( f r o n t i n g of g e n i t i v e  If  we  explain  highest p r o j e c t i o n the  sentence  (265)  ( h i s ) paper,  illicit)  by  adjunction  of  the g e n i t i v e  t o the r i g h t  of  the  (e.g. CP) , then l e f t a d j o i n i n g i t t o the same p r o j e c t i o n makes  completely  uninterpretable  as  f a r as  the  i n t e n d e d meaning  is  172 concerned.  (267)  58  The same argument would h o l d f o r (267) and (216) below.  kono syoosetu-wa e; o m o s i r o i  no  t h i s novel-top  comp emph very-much  interesting  This novel i s i n t e r e s t i n g  (267)  totemo;.  -- v e r y much so.  above i s taken from Endo (1989). I f we t r y t o f r o n t  adverb, however, the r e s u l t  (268)  yo,  *totemOi  i s ungrammatical.  kono syoosetu-wa e  t  59  omosiroi  very-much t h i s n o v e l - t o p  the p o s t p o s e d  no  interesting  yo.  comp emph  ? Very much so t h i s n o v e l i s i n t e r e s t i n g .  It  i s as i f , when  parameter  has  been  we  get o u t s i d e  reversed:  right  of the domain  adjunction  o f a head,  i s possible,  but  the head not  left  adjunction.  A l t h o u g h the p r o c e s s by which a phrase i s p o s t p o s e d cannot  automatically  a p p l y l e f t w a r d s t o l e f t - d i s l o c a t e i t , t h e r e a r e two ways i n which a phrase can be  left-dislocated  from  i t s canonical  position  i r i Japanese:  namely  through  s c r a m b l i n g o r through t o p i c a l i z a t i o n .  Scrambling i s l i m i t e d t o a f a i r l y that  the s c r a m b l a b i l i t y  some k i n d  of feature  narrow range o f phrase t y p e s . The f a c t  of a phrase seems t o depend on i t s Case suggests  checking  i s involved  i n scrambling.  that  Under a m i n i m a l i s t  I assume h e r e t h a t f o r not f u l l y d e t e r m i n e d i n d e p e n d e n t r e a s o n s , a g e n i t i v e c a n n o t move t o a f e a t u r e - c h e c k i n g p o s i t i o n i n J a p a n e s e , s i n c e t h e r e i s no e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e t h a t genitives c a n b e s c r a m b l e d . I f we a s s u m e t h e a n a l y s i s o f s c r a m b l i n g o f K i t a h a r a ( 1 9 9 5 ) a s m o v e m e n t t o a f e a t u r e - c h e c k i n g p o s i t i o n then i t appears that g e n i t i v e s e i t h e r lack proper features for scrambling/feature checking or else possess features (possibly t h e i r case features) that are i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the head t h a t would check them. 5 8  Some s p e a k e r s judge t h i s s e n t e n c e as b e i n g g r a m m a t i c a l . It i s p o s s i b l e that the adverb c a n be b a s e - g e n e a t e d i n s e n t e n c e - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n here, but i t i s not c l e a r whether i t i s lefta d j o i n e d to the r o o t node o r n o t . More examples of p h r a s e s d i s l o c a t e d to the l e f t of a t o p i c need t o be e x a m i n e d . 5 9  173 framework, we  would expect t h a t scrambling  i s movement to a s p e c i f i e r p o s i t i o n  r a t h e r than to an a d j o i n e d - t o - X P p o s i t i o n s i n c e the l a t t e r i s not domain.  i n a checking  60  T o p i c a l i z a t i o n r e q u i r e s t o p i c marker wa t o f o l l o w the t o p i c a l i z e d phrase, except i n c e r t a i n cases of c o l l o q u i a l  speech where "wa-drop" can  o c c u r . I t too  i s more r e s t r i c t e d i n the phrase types t h a t can be t o p i c a l i z e d than For  example,  p o s t p o s e d but  as  we  not  saw  in  sec.  0.4  genitives  and  relative  t o p i c a l i z a t i o n does not  appear to be a d j u n c t i o n  I f n e i t h e r scrambling  a) Why b)  be  l i c e n s e d by  Like  scrambling,  to the r o o t node.  t o p i c a l i z a t i o n are  l e f t - a d j u n c t i o n to the  root  not l e f t - a d j u n c t i o n .  r e c a p i t u l a t e then, the two  i s r i g h t adjunction  Why  nor  can  have a s i t u a t i o n i n Japanese i n which r i g h t - a d j u n c t i o n to the r o o t node  i s p o s s i b l e but  To  clauses  t o p i c a l i z e d . These f a c t s suggest t h a t t o p i c s are  some k i n d of f u n c t i o n a l head i n whose domain the t o p i c o c c u r s .  node, we  postposing.  is  only  right  questions  I seek to answer here  o n l y p o s s i b l e at the r o o t node but  adjunction  possible  at  the  root  not  node  are:  elsewhere? and  not  left  adjunction?  6 0  See  principles.  Kitahara  (1997)  for  an  analysis  of  scrambling  as  feature  checking  based  on  minimalist  174 (269) root:  CP /  \  CP  non-root:  *CP /  XP  XP  *CP /  \  /  XP  of  the  relation  CP  f a c t s I s h a l l propose c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s on  constituents  r e l a t i o n s h i p to each o t h e r terms of  \  XP  In o r d e r to e x p l a i n these ordering  CP  CP  CP  linear  \  according  to  the  way  they  show  structural  i n a sentence. These r e l a t i o n s h i p s are expressed  between  a head  and  an  element  that  the  in  i s i n i t s minimal  domain, i n the sense of the concept of minimal domain of Chomsky (1995) . I s h a l l state  the  conditions  first,  and  then  discuss  what  might  motivate  these  conditions.  5.4  Proposed c o n d i t i o n s on  For a t e r m i n a l / h e a d  linear  ordering  x l e t T(x) denote the l a r g e s t set of t e r m i n a l s such t h a t f o r  every y £ T ( x ) , Max(x) c o n t a i n s y.  ( i . e . T(x)  i s the s e t of t e r m i n a l s  contained  by Max(x).)  Let T'(x)  denote the l a r g e s t set of t e r m i n a l s such t h a t f o r every y £ T(x)  every y' £ T ' ( x ) , x precedes y. of those  Condition  ( i . e . , T'(x)  and  i s the s e t of t e r m i n a l s t o the r i g h t  in T(x)).  1.  Max(x) i s i n the  minimal domain of head a  i f and  only  i f there  e x i s t s n o n - n u l l T' (x) w i t h oc £ T' (x) .  S t a t e d i n f o r m a l l y , C o n d i t i o n 1 means t h a t i f a maximal p r o j e c t i o n Max(x) has been  175 built  up  and  i f there  Max(x), then one that  are  terminals  of those t e r m i n a l s  Max(x) w i l l  be  i n that  to  i t s right  must be  head's minimal  that  are  not  contained  in  a head w i t h which Max(x) merges so domain. C o n v e r s e l y ,  i f a maximal  p r o j e c t i o n Max(x) i s i n the minimal domain of head a , then a must be to the r i g h t of Max(x).  Condition rightmost and  2.  If  Max(X)  is  member of T ( x ) .  in  the  minimal  domain  of . head  Y,  then  x  is  the  ( i . e . Max(X) i s h e a d - f i n a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o complements  adjuncts) .  Stated  informally, Condition  maximal p r o j e c t i o n s to be  Let  us  now  look  2 means that heads may  only  select left-attaching  i n t h e i r minimal domain.  at  how  these  proposed  constraints  bear  on  certain  s t r u c t u r e s i n Japanese.  (270)  Phrase l e f t - a d j o i n e d to r o o t node:  YP / XP  This  \ YP  s t r u c t u r e i s r u l e d out  by  condition  1.  Since  the  " i f f " implication  works both ways, c o n d i t i o n 1 r e q u i r e s that f o r head a , i f t h e r e e x i s t s a n o n - n u l l T'(x)  with a E T'(x),  the set of t e r m i n a l s T'(x)  with respect  then Max(x) must be  i n the minimal domain of a . In  dominated by the lower segment of YP c o n s t i t u t e a  to head X,  but  there  e x i s t s no head a i n t h i s set  XP i s i n i t s minimal domain, s i n c e a phrase a d j o i n e d domain of  Y.  t o YP  i s not  (10),  non-null f o r which  i n the minimal  176 (271)  Phrase r i g h t - a d j o i n e d  t o root  node  YP / YP  This  \ XP  s t r u c t u r e meets c o n d i t i o n  1. YP meets the c o n d i t i o n  since  (a) YP i s  i n the minimal domain o f no head and (b), T(Y) i s the whole phrase and T'(Y) i s n u l l . XP meets the c o n d i t i o n f o r s i m i l a r reasons: XP i s i n the minimal domain of no head and no t e r m i n a l s e x i s t t o the r i g h t o f T ( X ) . The s t r u c t u r e  a l s o meets  c o n d i t i o n 2 s i n c e n e i t h e r XP nor YP i s i n the minimal domain o f any head.  (272)  Phrase l e f t - a d j o i n e d t o a YP, where YP i s i n the minimal domain of some  head.  ZP  I Z' / \ YP / XP  Z \ YP  In the s t r u c t u r e g i v e n above, YP i s the complement o f Z. I t would h o l d a l s o i f YP were i n some o t h e r p o s i t i o n i n the minimal domain of Z.  T h i s example meets c o n d i t i o n 1. T' (X) e x i s t s but Z i s a member o f T' (X) and Max(X) i s i n the minimal domain of Z. I t w i l l t h a t XP i s l e f t - a t t a c h i n g .  a l s o met c o n d i t i o n 2 i f we assume  177 (273)  Phrase r i g h t - a d j o i n e d  to YP,  where YP  i s i n the minimal domain of some  head.  ZP  I Z' /  \  YP /  Z \  YP  XP  T h i s example meets c o n d i t i o n 1 s i n c e i t i s ZP whose minimal domain XP i s in  and  Z e T ' ( X ) . However i t v i o l a t e s c o n d i t i o n  2 s i n c e YP  i s i n the minimal  domain of a head Z and YP i s not head f i n a l : Y i s not the r i g h t m o s t element of T(Y); X i s .  These  two  conditions  then have the r e s u l t  concerned, r i g h t a d j u n c t i o n non-root a d j u n c t i o n  t h a t where r o o t  i s p o s s i b l e but not l e f t a d j u n c t i o n ,  i s concerned the r e v e r s e  adjunction  is  whereas where  i s t r u e . These a r e the f a c t s t h a t  we observe f o r Japanese.  These adjunction not  conditions  will  a l s o guarantee t h a t o u t s i d e  t o the r o o t , a l l p r o j e c t i o n s w i l l  themselves  i n the minimal  structure w i l l  be r u l e d out:  (274)  YP / Y  domain  of the case of r i g h t  be r i g h t headed,  of a head.  For  even i f they a r e  example,  the  following  (root) \ XP  A l t h o u g h t h i s s t r u c t u r e meets c o n d i t i o n 2 (YP i s i n the minimal domain of  178 no head so i t doesn't have to be i n the minimal domain of Y but  These c o n d i t i o n s node', where each adjoined  will  l e f t - a t t a c h i n g ) i t v i o l a t e s c o n d i t i o n 1. XP i s  there  i s no n o n - n u l l  also allow  successive  multiple  right-adjoined  T'(X)  right  phrase  such t h a t Y E  adjunction  adjoins  to  to  the  T"(X).  the  root  previously  phrase:  (275)  YP /  \  YP  XjP /  \  XiP  XP 2  /  \  XP 2  XP n  For  all i  | i e  {1,  c o n d i t i o n 1 s i n c e T'(Xi) X;.  ...  is null:  I t meets c o n d i t i o n 2 s i n c e X P t  Multiple adjunction of  2,  X;P  are  adjoined  example, c o n s i d e r  (276)  to  n),  XP L  MaxfXJ  meets c o n d i t i o n s  contains  1 and  a l l terminals  2.  I t meets  to the r i g h t of  i s i n the minimal domain of no  head,  to the r i g h t of the root node i s not p o s s i b l e i f any  the  left  of  a  subsequent  r i g h t - d i s l o c a t e d phrase.  For  (276):  YP \  YP  X,P /  XP 2  (276)  \  XjP  v i o l a t e s c o n d i t i o n 1 s i n c e T' (X ) 2  i s non-null:  T' (X ) 2  i s the  set of  179 terminals  dominated  by the lower segment of X P. There X  such t h a t X P i s i n t h e minimal domain o f a: 2  i s no head a i n T' (X P) 2  X P i s i n t h e minimal domain o f no 2  head.  These p r e d i c t i o n s empirical fact,  f a c t s f o r Japanese  find  e± e^ i i  d  e  here Here  (279)  e  t  k  w i t h the  (1989) we do,  r i g h t - d i s l o c a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g  koto yo ne? [aa-yuu  I t ' s a good t h i n g ,  koko e£ e  are consistent  in  examples a r e  (1989).  good t h i n g  (278)  right adjunction  p o s t p o s i n g . In the data of Endo  examples of m u l t i p l e  reproduced from Endo  (277)  for multiple  such isn't  zyosei-ga  i r u tte-yuu  [zitu-ni].,  woman-nom e x i s t C V I C-top  i t -- t h a t t h e r e  kawaru no ne? y a p p a r i change C  no-wa]i  i (  truly  i s a woman l i k e t h a t  [ m a i n i t i ne], n a i y o o - g a  a s - e x p e c t e d every-day  -- t r u l y .  k  content-nom  ( i t ) changes -- as expected -- every day -- t h e c o n t e n t .  ima i s o g a s i i - n - d a , now I'm  busy  [e, kyaku-ga  C V  kuru k a r a ] ,  guest-nom come because  busy now -- because  a guest  asita^. tomorrow  i s coming -- tomorrow.  Example (279) i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g because an a d v e r b i a l i s postposed out o f an a d v e r b i a l phrase which has i t s e l f been p o s t p o s e d . Endo notes t h a t (279) i s ungrammatical  i f only  t h e temporal a d v e r b i a l  i s p o s t p o s e d and t h e a d v e r b i a l  c l a u s e out o f which i t i s p o s t p o s e d remains i n s i t u . T h i s m y s t e r i o u s f a c t can be explained  by our a n a l y s i s  "because"  clause.  i f "tomorrow"  i s right-adjoined  t o the adverbial  180 (280)  CP /  \  PP  CP  I'm  busy  \  /  /_\  now  adv.  PP  /_\ because a guest  tomorrow  i s coming  I f the PP were i n s i t u ,  then i t would be a t y p i c a l i s l a n d f o r e x t r a c t i o n of  temporal a d v e r b i a l . But i n (280) i t i s a d j o i n e d to i t : a barrier  At  the a d v e r b i a l i s not o u t s i d e the PP i s l a n d s i n c e  i . e . i n Chomsky (1986) terms the non-L-marked PP cannot be  f o r e x t r a c t i o n because no b a r r i e r has  5.4.1  this  Motivation  point  the  I  been c r o s s e d by  the  adverb.  f o r the c o n d i t i o n s s t a t e d above  shall  speculate  on  what  might  motivate  the  above  conditions.  Suppose t h a t o r d e r has some c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p r o c e s s i n g -- f o r example w i t h r e c o v e r i n g a s y n t a c t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from p h o n o l o g i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by p a r s i n g a s t r i n g of t e r m i n a l elements and c o n v e r t i n g them to a s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e . The head parameter or i t s e q u i v a l e n t w i l l impose c e r t a i n c o n s t r a i n t s on the p o s s i b l e order  of  an  XP  and  a  head  c o n s t r a i n t s are n e c e s s a r y t h a t can be c o n v e r t e d  Pursuing  the  with  i n order  which  i t has  to c r e a t e an  a  syntactic relation.  o r d e r i n g of t e r m i n a l  to s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e by a p a r s i n g  idea that the concept of  These  elements  algorithm.  "minimal domain" of Chomsky  (1995)  i s fundamental to r e l a t i o n s between a head and a maximal p r o j e c t i o n , suppose that t h e r e i s a p a r s i n g a l g o r i t h m t h a t w i l l b u i l d up s t r u c t u r e from a set of t e r m i n a l elements seeking  in a  left-to-right  direction,  c r e a t i n g maximal  t o merge each maximal p r o j e c t i o n XP  £  with  p r o j e c t i o n s XP;  and  a head Y or a p r o j e c t i o n of  181 head Y so t h a t XP; w i l l be  i n the minimal domain of  T a k i n g these assumptions, c o n s i d e r algorithm  might work f o r a r i g h t - h e a d e d  The terminal  string element  of  terminal  is  a  head  how  The  i s parsed  parser  p r o j e c t i o n of i t w i t h maximal p r o j e c t i o n ( s ) i t s l e f t by an o p e r a t i o n  a s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n of a p a r s i n g  language.  elements  X;.  Y.  seeks  from to  left  to  merge  right.  that  t h a t have a l r e a d y  head  Each or  been b u i l t up  a on  s i m i l a r to "Merge" i n Chomsky (1995). I f i t f i n d s such  a maximal p r o j e c t i o n to i t s l e f t , and i f the head can s e l e c t t h a t p r o j e c t i o n , the head X  may  £  merge w i t h i t and  maximal p r o j e c t i o n s on for  merging with,  the  its left  head p r o j e c t s . I t c o n t i n u e s  until  at which p o i n t  that  will  XP  must  be  incorporated  them a l l as 4  t  that i s created,  merge w i t h p r o j e c t i o n s  minimal domain of a head. We  considered  a maximal p r o j e c t i o n X P  For each maximal p r o j e c t i o n XP right  i t has  to do  has  been  this  with  candidates created.  i t looks f o r a head to i t s  i n such a way  that  XP;  will  be  in  the  c o u l d g e n e r a l i z e t h i s requirement t o say t h a t each  into  the  structure  in  such  a  way  that  i t can  be  " i n t e r p r e t e d " as having a r e l a t i o n to some head -- e i t h e r a semantic or c h e c k i n g r e l a t i o n , w i t h i n the minimal domain of t h a t head. T h i s requirement must have  one  exception,  not  however: an XP  t h a t has no remaining t e r m i n a l s  on i t s r i g h t w i l l  be a b l e to f i n d any head i n whose minimal domain i t can o c c u r . T h i s w i l l be for XP  true  the r o o t node, and a l s o f o r a postposed phrase. Thus we need to say t h a t each t h a t i s b u i l t up by the p a r s i n g a l g o r i t h m must f i n d a head w i t h which i t can  have  a  "minimal  terminals  domain  relation"  to the r i g h t of that  i f and  only  i f there  is a  non-null  set  of  XP.  Suppose t h a t the p a r s i n g a l g o r i t h m c r e a t e s a CP r o o t c l a u s e and then f i n d s t h a t t h e r e are s t i l l minimal  domain  the  terminals CP  can  to i t s r i g h t t h a t do not c o n t a i n a head i n whose  occur.  This  i s what  happens when  these  remaining  t e r m i n a l s are p o s t p o s e d m a t e r i a l . In such a case, the above c o n d i t i o n can be  met  182 if  t h e CP p r o j e c t s  material  after  f u r t h e r t o form another segment and a d j o i n s  i t has been  structure:  an XP. We  will  the f o l l o w i n g  \  CP  S i n c e T(C) i s null.  XP  i s the whole sentence, T(C) has no t e r m i n a l s t o i t s r i g h t : i . e .  S i n c e CP has no t e r m i n a l s  to i t s right  a head t o form a minimal domain r e l a t i o n w i t h .  i t does not need t o look  The same i s t r u e f o r XP.  N o t i c e t h a t the c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e r e be a n o n - n u l l r i g h t o f XP i n order the  have  CP /  for  into  •  (281)  T'(C)  parsed  the p o s t p o s e d  case o f r o o t  s e t o f t e r m i n a l s t o the  f o r i t t o be r e q u i r e d t o f i n d a head i s n e c e s s a r y t o handle  clauses.  I t i s not c r e a t e d  t o a l l o w p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s but i t  ends up a l l o w i n g them.  The c o n d i t i o n s proposed above w i l l not a l l o w p h r a s e s t h a t a r e l e f t - a d j o i n e d t o the r o o t :  (282)  *  CP / XP  \ CP  In such a s t r u c t u r e , XP has t e r m i n a l s  t o i t s r i g h t but none o f them i s a  head w i t h which XP has a minimal domain r e l a t i o n .  I a l s o proposed a second c o n d i t i o n . In the p a r s i n g p r o c e s s , terminal Y left  £  i s encountered, going  from l e f t t o r i g h t ,  when each new  i t " l o o k s " f o r XP's t o i t s  t o merge w i t h head Yi. Suppose t h a t a l t h o u g h the p a r s e r b u i l d s up complex:  s t r u c t u r e , when i t looks back a t the s t r u c t u r e t o the l e f t o f the t e r m i n a l i t i s  183 considering,  i t only  "sees",the head of each maximal p r o j e c t i o n t h a t has been  formed:  [. . . X J  [. - . X ] . . . Y 2  Suppose projection,  further  that  that  maximal  i n order  t o "see" the boundary  projection  must  be  o f each  right-headed.  Another  maximal way  of  c o n c e i v i n g t h i s i d e a i s t h a t when c o n s i d e r i n g whether a maximal p r o j e c t i o n t o the l e f t i s a p o s s i b l e c a n d i d a t e f o r merging w i t h the head i t i s p a r s i n g , the p a r s e r considers  the rightmost  element of each XP t h a t has been formed and assumes i t  to be the head of t h a t XP, r a t h e r than examining t h e i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e o f the XP t o determine where the head i s . I f such a p r o c e s s i s t o work, t h a t XP must be r i g h t headed so t h a t the head can be found t r i v i a l l y . Thus the second c o n d i t i o n for  operation  of the p a r s i n g a l g o r i t h m  i s t h a t each XP t h a t merges w i t h a head  must be r i g h t - h e a d e d .  5.5  Summary  In summary, then, the concept of a minimal domain o f a head developed i n Chomsky (1995) p r e d i c t s that there w i l l be a unique p o s i t i o n t h a t i s a d j o i n e d t o the h i g h e s t being  p r o j e c t i o n which w i l l not be i n the minimal domain o f any head. I f  i n the minimal domain o f a head i s e q u i v a l e n t  t o t h a t head, then t h i s h i g h e s t - a d j o i n e d  to having a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n  p o s i t i o n w i l l escape from h a v i n g t o have  a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n w i t h any head and can serve as a s e m a n t i c a l l y vacuous p o s i t i o n that  can be used  for,  feature-checking-driven formulation  f o r example, movement  a landing  site  f o r c e r t a i n kinds  such as p o s t p o s i n g .  I f we  o f non-  f u r t h e r adopt the  o f the head parameter t h a t I have proposed above, we can e x p l a i n why  a d j u n c t i o n t o the r o o t node can only o c c u r t o the r i g h t , and why r i g h t a d j u n c t i o n to a non-root node i s not p o s s i b l e .  Notice  that  the c o n c l u s i o n  here  i s that  at  least  in left-attaching  184 languages, a d j u n c t i o n of XP t o YP i s s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t e d ,  as Chomsky (1995)  predicts.  The  constraints  I  have  proposed  Japanese a r e a f i r s t a p p r o x i m a t i o n  with  respect  to d i r e c t i o n a l i t y  f o r c a p t u r i n g some noteworthy  in  observations  about p o s t p o s i n g i n Japanese. The i s s u e of d i r e c t i o n a l i t y i n s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s appears t o have r e a l e m p i r i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s and c o n s e q u e n t l y  demands f u r t h e r  research.  6. N o n - s y n t a c t i c  factors i n postposing  As s t a t e d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n , t h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f p o s t p o s i n g i s l i m i t e d t o a p u r e l y s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s ; however, i t i s c l e a r than n o n - s y n t a c t i c l i k e l y p l a y a r o l e i n the postposing briefly questions  present  data  c o n s t r u c t i o n as w e l l .  on some n o n - s y n t a c t i c  about p o s t p o s i n g .  F o r example,  postposing i s subject t o a heaviness  In t h i s chapter,  phenomena t h a t  I include  factors  bear  examples t h a t  I  on c e r t a i n show t h a t  e f f e c t : p h r a s e s t h a t a r e "heavy" a r e e a s i e r  t o p o s t p o s e than those t h a t a r e not. T h i s f a c t i s i m p o r t a n t  i n some of my e a r l i e r  examples, because i t shows t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r ungrammatical sentence t h a t has a heavy p o s t p o s e d element cannot be accounted f o r by t h e h e a v i n e s s o f t h e p o s t p o s e d element.  I t i s a l s o important  t o my d i s c u s s i o n of t h e p o s t p o s i n g  of "heavy"  s u b j e c t s i n sec. 2.9.  I also give  some examples of p o s t p o s i n g  e f f e c t s that  I cannot e x p l a i n  t h r o u g h a s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s , and which may r e q u i r e a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f d i s c o u r s e f a c t o r s i n e x p l a i n i n g what makes a p o s t p o s i n g o p e r a t i o n g r a m m a t i c a l o r n o t .  185 6.1 Postposed phrases l i k e t o be "heavy"  A l t h o u g h I cannot g i v e a p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n of what i t means f o r a phrase t o be  "heavy", the f o l l o w i n g  grammatical  example shows t h a t p o s t p o s i n g  sentence when the postposed  v i r t u e of c o n t a i n i n g  clausal material,  r e s u l t s i n a more  element i s "heavy" -- f o r example by  than when i t i s n o t .  (283) : ??Masao-wa,  okane-o  nusunda n o - n i ,  -top money-acc  stole  sikararenakatta,  Taroo-no.  although scold-pass.-neg-past  -gen  In s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money, he wasn't s c o l d e d - -  Taro's  (money)  (284)  (postposed phrase made  ?Masao-wa, okane-o  heavier)  nusunda n o - n i ,  sikararenakatta,  tonari-ni  sunde-iru  Taroo-no. -top money-acc  stole  a l t h o u g h s c o l d - p a s s . - n e g - p a s t next-door  lives  -gen In s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t Masao s t o l e money, he wasn't s c o l d e d - - T a r o , who next door's  lives  (money)  In (284), the sentence shows a d e f i n i t e improvement when the p o s t p o s e d DP i s made heavier  This  by adding a r e l a t i v e  phenomenon  clause.  i s reminiscent  of Heavy  NP  Shift  i n English  as w e l l  r e l a t i v e h e a v i n e s s t h a t i s r e q u i r e d f o r the e x t r a p o s e d c l a u s e i n r e l a t i v e  as the clause  e x t r a p o s i t i o n i n E n g l i s h . For example, i n the f o l l o w i n g p a i r of E n g l i s h examples, we see t h a t an NP that c o n t a i n s  c l a u s a l m a t e r i a l can be s h i f t e d t o the r i g h t of  i t s c a n o n i c a l p o s i t i o n whereas a non-heavy NP cannot.  186 (285) (a)  I saw e; y e s t e r d a y  i n my backyard  [that next-door neighbour of mine  named T a r o ] .  (b) * I saw e; y e s t e r d a y  The focus  (b) sentence  by being  i n my back y a r d Taro;.  i s highly unnatural  stressed.  This  fact  unless  shows t h a t  the o b j e c t  i n E n g l i s h as w e l l ,  cannot be d e f i n e d i n p u r e l y s y n t a c t i c terms: d i s c o u r s e case,  focus,  difficult subject  receives heaviness  f a c t o r s such as, i n t h i s  a r e important as w e l l .  6.2 A n a l y s i s o f p o s t p o s e d s u b j e c t w i t h  For  "Taro"  some  speakers,  t o coindex  when  a ga-marked  the m a t r i x  object  object  subject  with  i n canonical p o s i t i o n  i s postposed,  a name embedded  i t becomes  i n the postposed  ( f o r example, embedded as a g e n i t i v e ) , even though such c o i n d e x i n g i s  p o s s i b l e when the s u b j e c t i s not postposed. I do not d e r i v e any f i r m c o n c l u s i o n s from the f o l l o w i n g data,  but have i n c l u d e d i t because the way a speaker p l a c e s  these examples i n a d i s c o u r s e  Consider  (286)  context  seems t o a f f e c t h i s o r her judgements.  the f o l l o w i n g examples i n which a s u b j e c t  TaroOi-no tomodati-ga -gen  friend(s)-nom  k a r e — o semeta.  i s postposed:  (canonical  sentence)  him-acc blamed  Taro's f r i e n d s blamed him.  (287) (a) k a r e — o  semeta, TaroOj-no tomodati ga. ( u n d e r l i n i n g i n d i c a t e s s t r e s s )  h i m — a c c blamed  T.j-gen  f r i e n d (s) -nom  (They) blamed him; -- Taroj's f r i e n d s .  187 (287) (b)*kare -o  semeta, Tarooj-no  i  hin^-acc blamed  T.i-gen  tomodati ga. friend(s)-nom  (They) blamed himi -- TarOi' s f r i e n d s .  (288)  ?kare -o  semeta,  4  [TaroOj-o yonda tomodati-ga]  hiir^-acc blamed (They-j) blamed him  For  some speakers,  [T. -acc ;  4  called  friends-nom  -- [the f r i e n d s who c a l l e d  (287) i s o n l y  Tarojj.  p o s s i b l e when t h e r e  "blamed" and no s t r e s s on the postposed  phrase.  i s stress  on the v e r b  In a d d i t i o n , kare must r e f e r t o  someone i n the speaker's in-group and "Taro's f r i e n d s " t o people i n the speaker's out-group.  These  judgements  suggest  that  discourse  factors  strongly  affect  speaker-judgements of these examples. The "awkwardness" i n g e t t i n g c o r e f e r e n c e u n l e s s c e r t a i n d i s c o u r s e and focus c o n d i t i o n s a r e met may be due t o a tendency f o r speakers  t o be s e n s i t i v e t o context  i n judging  sentences.  I f we were t o t r y t o e x p l a i n the d i f f i c u l t y of c o r e f e r e n c e f o r some speakers i n (287)  i n p u r e l y s y n t a c t i c terms then the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s may be r e l e v a n t :  1. Many speakers  seem t o judge  (287) as b e i n g b e t t e r than  (288), even those who  have l e s s t r o u b l e g e t t i n g c o r e f e r e n c e i n (287) . The f a c t t h a t c o r e f e r e n c e becomes e a s i e r when the name i s embedded i n a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i n s t e a d of a g e n i t i v e i s h i g h l y s u g g e s t i v e of C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .  2. I f what we a r e s e e i n g here i s i n f a c t a C o n d i t i o n C e f f e c t then we would have to  assume  that  the s u b j e c t  i s being  reconstructed  from  an A' p o s i t i o n  to a  p o s i t i o n where i t i s c-commanded by the o b j e c t . T h i s means t h a t the o b j e c t must have moved as w e l l . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t p o s t p o s i n g the s u b j e c t induces some k i n d  188 of  focusing  position.  6 1  effect  the  object  requires  receiving stress in this  6.2.1  VP-  In t h i s s u b s e c t i o n  in  (287)  to  a  higher subject  cannot be  who  focused  by  example.  and  I P - l e v e l adverb t e s t  I s h a l l t r y to determine whether the d e v i a n c e of  to f o r c e d r a i s i n g of the o b j e c t when the  whether a c o n s t i t u e n t  i s i n VP  or  IP : 62  and  i f the  a V P - l e v e l adverb such as "ravenously" i n (289) i t appears to the l e f t of a s e n t e n c e - l e v e l  of the  i t move  s t a t e d t h a t kare  Whitman (1991a) uses the p o s i t i o n of VP-  if  that  might expect t h a t t h i s i s a f o c u s i n g e f f e c t , y e t a speaker  d i f f i c u l t y with coreference  (b) i s due  that  I f the o b j e c t were o b l i g a t o r i l y r a i s e d (scrambled?) when the  i s postposed, we had  on  subject  (287)  i s postposed.  I P - l e v e l adverbs to determine  object o r (235)  appears t o the  r i g h t of  below, i t must be i n VP;  adverb, i t must have been  outside  VP:  M i c h a e l Rochemont (p.c.) o b s e r v e s t h a t i f p o s t p o s i n g the s u b j e c t r e q u i r e s r a i s i n g of the o b j e c t , such movement i s r e m i n i s c e n t of l o c a t i v e i n v e r s i o n i n E n g l i s h , i n which one movement a p p e a r s t o h i n g e on a n o t h e r ( i . e . s u b j e c t - a u x . i n v e r s i o n on l o c a t i v e p r e p o s i n g . ) I f we were t o c l a i m t h a t the o b j e c t i s i n f a c t b e i n g f o c u s e d i n s e n t e n c e s l i k e (287) we would need t o t e s t t h i s c l a i m with question-answer p a i r s . L o c a t i v e i n v e r s i o n i n E n g l i s h and p o s t p o s i n g i n J a p a n e s e a r e not e x a c t l y p a r a l l e l , however, s i n c e the two movements i n v o l v e d i n l o c a t i v e i n v e r s i o n a r e l e f t w a r d , whereas i n p o s t p o s i n g , a p p a r e n t r a i s i n g of the o b j e c t i s l e f t w a r d and I am assuming p o s t p o s i n g t o be rightward. 6 1  Whitman (1991a) does not appear t o have any d i r e c t independent e v i d e n c e t h a t the a d j u n c t i o n s i t e o f what he r e f e r s t o as "modal" (e.g. " s u r e l y " ) and "manner" a d v e r b s (e.g. " h u n g r i l y " , " u n s t e a d i l y " ) d i f f e r s w i t h r e s p e c t to a d j u n c t i o n to IP o r t o VP. He shows t h a t the p o s i t i o n of a s u b j e c t w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e s e adverbs d e t e r m i n e s the e l i g i b i l i t y of a n e u t r a l d e s c r i p t i o n v e r s u s an e x h a u s t i v e l i s t i n g r e a d i n g of the s e n t e n c e and c i t e s e v i d e n c e i n works such as D i e s i n g (1988) t h a t (a) s u b j e c t s of EL and ND s e n t e n c e s d i f f e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o whether the s u b j e c t i s V P - i n t e r n a l o r e x t e r n a l and (b) t h a t "the ND r e a d i n g i s g e n e r a l l y u n a v a i l a b l e f o r n o m i n a t i v e s u b j e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l p r e d i c a t e s i n the sense of C a r l s o n (1978)." He a l s o n o t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e r e a r e t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the s u b j e c t of i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l p r e d i c a t e s o r i g i n a t e s e x t e r n a l t o VP." In my a n a l y s i s of p o s t p o s i n g , I have been assuming t h a t s u b j e c t s a r e V P - i n t r e r n a l , i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n , f o r example, why the t r a c e of a s u b j e c t p o s t p o s e d out of an i s l a n d does not seem t o s u f f e r an ECP e f f e c t . I t would be u s e f u l e to examine whether the t r a c e s of s u b j e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l p r e d i c a t e s can be p o s t p o s e d out of an i s l a n d . 62  189 (289) ?(mori-de-wa) forest-loc-top  [ musyamusya  banana-o  VP  ravenously  tabe]-te-iru, gorira-ga.  banana-acc i s - e a t i n g  In the f o r e s t ( i t ) i s e a t i n g bananas r a v e n o u s l y - -  (290) ?(mori-de-wa)  banana-o  [ musyamusya VP  f o r e s t - l o c - t o p banana-acc  ravenously  banana-o  kitto  is-eating  (291) was  gorilla-nom  -- a g o r i l l a .  [ tabe]-te-iru, gorira-ga. V P  f o r e s t - l o c - t o p banana-acc s u r e l y In the f o r e s t  a gorilla.  tabe]-te-iru, gorira-ga.  In the f o r e s t ( i t ) i s e a t i n g bananas r a v e n o u s l y  (291) (mori-de-wa)  gorilla-nom  is-eating  gorilla-nom  ( i t ) i s s u r e l y e a t i n g bananas -- a g o r i l l a  judged t o be b e t t e r than  (289) and  (290) . T h i s r e s u l t  c o u l d be  e x p l a i n e d i f the o b j e c t undergoes r a i s i n g when the s u b j e c t i s p o s t p o s e d . In (291) the  object  according  occurs  t o the l e f t  of the s e n t e n c e - l e v e l  t o Whitman's h y p o t h e s i s  adverb  " s u r e l y " , which,  about the p o s i t i o n of what he r e f e r s t o as  "modal" adverbs, a d j o i n s t o IP, not VP: I f t h i s i s t r u e , then i n (291) the o b j e c t i s o u t s i d e of VP. In (289) the presence of a V P - l e v e l adverb t o the l e f t of the object that  suggests t h a t here, the o b j e c t  has not been r a i s e d out of VP. The  (289) was judged as worse than (235) supports the h y p o t h e s i s  must r a i s e when the s u b j e c t  requires raising  t h a t the o b j e c t  i s postposed.  What I cannot e x p l a i n , however, i s why subject  fact  of the o b j e c t ,  (290) i s m a r g i n a l .  i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r the o b j e c t  r a i s e d i n (290) t o the same p o s i t i o n as i t does i n (291), (290) i s t h a t the o b j e c t occurs  I f p o s t p o s i n g the  t o the l e f t  s i n c e a l l we know i n  of the V P - l e v e l adverb  The s t r u c t u r e of the t h r e e above examples i s shown below.  t o have  "hungrily."  190 CP /  \  c  PP  I IP /  \  DP obj.(291)  I' /  \  adv.  I'  surely  | VP /  \  t r a c e of postposed s u b j .  V /  \  adv.  V'  hungrily  / DP obj.(289)  \  191 7.  Summary  Considering the  postposing  generative  the f a c t t h a t Japanese i s a language w e l l s t u d i e d by  construction  literature.  Endo  has  received  (1989)  and  relatively  Whitman  (1991b)  s t u d i e s I am aware o f . Given the f a c t t h a t scrambling the o n l y o t h e r  forms of d i s l o c a t i o n i n the  and  attention  are  the  only  a n a l y s i s i s intended I  have  m o d i f i c a t i o n and  to be  proposed  a "first  h o l d s the p o t e n t i a l f o r shedding  in  this  generation,  paper  f u r t h e r t e s t i n g w i t h new  because  it  shows  Condition  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s to the extent  In  chapter  postposing:  2  I  showed  that  will  need  empirical  further  by movement, not  reconstruction  t h a t we  or even an  r e s p e c t t o a [+N]  effects  subject-object  asymmetries  are  and  baseanti-  apparent  in  adjunct.  shows r e l a t i v i z e d e f f e c t s w i t h  head: t h a t i s , severe d e v i a n c e r e s u l t s when a c o n s t i t u e n t w i t h  f e a t u r e i s postposed out of a h i g h e r phrase t h a t a l s o has  T h i s phenomenon does not apply to g e n i t i v e s , which, I suggest may feature,  default  and  are a b l e to t e s t f o r them.  In c h a p t e r 3 I gave evidence that p o s t p o s i n g  [+N]  refinement  data.  i s derived  C  The  s p e c i f i c a l l y , that a s u b j e c t i s a more severe b a r r i e r f o r e x t r a c t i o n  than an o b j e c t  [+N]  studied,  pass" at e x p l a i n i n g the phenomenon.  In c h a p t e r 1 I argued t h a t p o s t p o s i n g  a  recent  l i g h t on the nature of s y n t a c t i c movement i n Japanese.  hypotheses  a  the  P P - t o p i c a l i z a t i o n are  Because the phenomenon of p o s t p o s i n g has not y e t been e x h a u s t i v e l y my  in  language t h a t show good evidence of  b e i n g d e r i v e d by movement, a study of p o s t p o s i n g new  little  linguists,  possibly  because  the  particle  no  f u n c t i o n a l head t h a t i s unmarked f o r such  In c h a p t e r 4 I examined the q u e s t i o n  of why  that  a [+N]  feature.  be unmarked f o r  marks g e n i t i v e s  is a  features.  postposing  a relative  clause  192 or  a genitive  deviant.  out  of  I explained  a  topic  island  the r e l e v a n t  i s sometimes  data by  grammatical  proposing that  and  sometimes  different  k i n d s of  a d j u n c t s behave d i f f e r e n t l y when they are e x t r a c t e d from an i s l a n d . We d i s t i n g u i s h between a d j u n c t s t h a t  are i n the domain of a  t h a t are not. The former s e t , but not the l a t t e r , head-governed.  Even  though  [+V]  head  need t o  from those  show p r o p e r t i e s a k i n t o b e i n g  they are a d j u n c t s , b e i n g  i n the domain of a  l e x i c a l head makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r them t o be e x t r a c t e d ,  [+V]  sometimes m a r g i n a l l y ,  from a weak i s l a n d such as a t o p i c .  In c h a p t e r 5 I showed t h a t the p o s i t i o n I am assuming f o r p o s t p o s e d phrases --  right-adjoined  t o the  root  node,  i s unique  under  the  concept  of  minimal  domains of Chomsky (1995) .1 a l s o examined two q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g precedence i n Japanese:  (a) why  i n a l e f t - a t t a c h i n g language l i k e Japanese r i g h t a d j u n c t i o n i s  possible,  but o n l y t o the r o o t node and  (b) why  left  a d j u n c t i o n appears t o be  p o s s i b l e except t o the r o o t node. I proposed an answer t o these q u e s t i o n s through a statement of the head parameter m o t i v a t e d by the way  f o r Japanese. The  conditions  I proposed are  sentences might be p r o c e s s e d i n a l e f t - a t t a c h i n g  language.  193 Appendix  A E a r l y A n a l y s e s of the P o s t p o s i n g  Construction  The f o l l o w i n g i s a b r i e f s y n o p s i s of pre-1989 a n a l y s e s of the p o s t p o s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n as d i s c u s s e d i n Endo (1989) a l o n g w i t h Endo's comments on these analyses. Inoue ( 19 7 8 ) argues f o r a non-movement a n a l y s i s , r e g a r d i n g postposed elements as a " p a r t i a l r e p e t i t i o n " of the main sentence. She groups t o g e t h e r both sentences i n which the p o s t p o s e d element corresponds t o a gap i n the main sentence and those i n which i t corresponds t o a resumptive pronoun. Endo argues t h a t the s o - c a l l e d resumptive pronoun examples, a l l of which use e p i t h e t s such as a i t u , (a d e p r e c a t o r y form of ano hito, "that person") are i n f a c t a d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n from t r u e p o s t p o s e d sentences t h a t have a gap i n the main sentence. She shows t h a t i n sentences i n v o l v i n g e p i t h e t s , the o r d e r of the p o s t p o s e d element and the e p i t h e t w i t h which i t i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l can i n f a c t be r e v e r s e d , w i t h the e p i t h e t o c c u r r i n g as the p o s t p o s e d element. She shows t h a t i n the "resumptive" examples i t i s p o s s i b l e t o have any phrase postposed, and c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h another phrase i n the main sentence as long as the l a t t e r e i t h e r (a) c o n t a i n s a d e m o n s t r a t i v e pronoun such as ano "that one" (or a form of i t as p a r t of the morphology of a word of the phrase) or (b) g i v e s more s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n about the former. Endo a l s o shows t h a t embedded c l a u s e s , a d j e c t i v e and a d v e r b i a l s can be postposed but that no resumptive pro-form i s a v a i l a b l e f o r them. 63  64  Kuno (1978b) argues t h a t postposed phrases are " a f t e r t h o u g h t s . " He g i v e s an example of a l o c a t i v e phrase postposed out of an embedded w h - i s l a n d which he s a i d would be a s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n of Ross (1967)'s h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r i g h t w a r d movement i s upward bounded. Kuno proposes t h a t what can be p o s t p o s e d i s c o n s t r a i n e d not s y n t a c t i c a l l y but s e m a n t i c a l l y and p r a g m a t i c a l l y , s a y i n g t h a t "(i) [ p ] o s t v e r b a l elements are e i t h e r d i s c o u r s e - p r e d i c t a b l e [by the speakers assumptions] or supplementary; t h e r e f o r e , the sentences s h o u l d have made sense without them , ( i i ) Elements t h a t would change the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the f i r s t p a r t of the sentence cannot appear p o s t v e r b a l l y . " 65  Endo(1989:38) g i v e s examples from taped c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t show t h a t elements t h a t can change the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f i r s t p a r t of the sentence can appear p o s t v e r b a l l y -- f o r example n e g a t i v e sentences i n which a p o s t p o s e d n e g a t i v e p o l a r i t y a d v e r b i a l such as anmari "(not) much" changes the meaning from "not at a l l " t o "not much", or NPI sika "only, (no) more than" which o b l i g a t o r i l y o c c u r s w i t h n e g a t i o n changes the meaning from "not at a l l " t o "only (three t i m e s ) . " Endo (1989:41) a l s o shows t h a t whereas s m a l l p r o i n a main sentence can o n l y be i n t e r p r e t e d as d e f i n i t e , a p o s t p o s e d DP can be i n t e r p r e t e d as b e i n g i n d e f i n i t e : t h a t i s , i n the non-postposed p a r t of the sentence, we have an empty c a t e g o r y t h a t r e c e i v e s an i n d e f i n i t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I f o n l y the main p a r t of the sentence i s i n t e r p r e t e d , the gap l e f t by the p o s t p o s e d phrase w i l l be i n t e r p r e t e d as a s m a l l p r o , and can o n l y r e c e i v e a d e f i n i t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . But i f the whole sentence, i n c l u d i n g the p o s t p o s e d phrase i s i n t e r p r e t e d , the gap can r e c e i v e an i n d e f i n i t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g example from Endo (1989:41) i l l u s t r a t e s this fact.  T h i s work i s w r i t t e n 6 4  discuss 6 5  i n Japanese.  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the example she uses i s i d e n t i c a l t o one t h e use of r e s u m p t i v e pronouns i n p o s t p o s e d s e n t e n c e s . This  a s s e r t i o n i s reminiscent  t h a t Whitman  (1991b) u s e s  of a s i m i l a r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n made i n Whitman  (1991).  to  194 (293)  (a) depaato-de e(pro) k a t t a no? dept.-store-loc bought C Did you buy i t / t h e m a t the department interpretation i s possible)  store?  (b) depaato-de ei k a t t a no? n a n i - k a i . dept.-store-loc bought C somethingj Did you buy something a t the department interpretation i s possible)  (only  store?  definite  (indefinite  Kuno (1978a) f o l l o w s Inoue (1978) i n r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s t p o s e d phrase as " p a r t i a l r e p e t i t i o n o f an e l l i p t i c a l f i r s t c l a u s e " Kuno argues t h a t t h e p o s t p o s e d element cannot r e p r e s e n t "new i n f o r m a t i o n " , thus d i s a l l o w i n g ga-marked p h r a s e s i n most cases, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n "that [a] ga-marked element can appear sentence f i n a l l y i f the whole sentence expresses new i n f o r m a t i o n . Kuno proposes t h a t a p o s t p o s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n i s d e r i v e d from two i d e n t i c a l c l a u s e s w i t h complementary elements d e l e t e d i n each. He i s unable t o e x p l a i n why a phrase can be p o s t p o s e d out o f an embedded q u e s t i o n but not out o f a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . In d i s c u s s i n g Kuno (1978a) Endo (1989:54) shows t h a t i t i s i n f a c t p o s s i b l e t o postpose, under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , [discourse-]new i n f o r m a t i o n , such as phrases marked w i t h c o n t r a s t i v e wa o r w i t h "exhaustive l i s t i n g " ga and t h a t c o n s t r a i n t s on whether these elements can be postposed are s y n t a c t i c . 6 6  1 , 6 7  Saito (1985) notes t h r e e d i f f e r e n c e s between what he c a l l s "rightd i s l o c a t i o n " and s c r a m b l i n g : (a) p o s t v e r b a l elements can appear o n l y t o the r i g h t of a m a t r i x v e r b (b) t h e r e i s no s u b j e c t - o b j e c t asymmetry f o r p o s t p o s i n g but t h e r e i s f o r scrambling and (c) o v e r t resumptive pronouns a r e p o s s i b l e i n p o s t p o s e d p h r a s e s (but not scrambled ones.) Endo (1989) argues a g a i n s t the c l a i m t h a t the p r o n o u n - l i k e elements t h a t can be c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h a p o s t v e r b a l phrase are i n f a c t resumptive pronouns, f o r reasons c i t e d above. Haraguchi (1973) argues f o r a movement a n a l y s i s o f p o s t p o s i n g based on s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s that must be s a t i s f i e d between the p o s t p o s e d element and i t s head. Kuroda (1980) observes t h a t s t r i c t h e a d - f i n a l o r d e r i s always observed i n dependent c l a u s e s but t h a t i t can be v i o l a t e d i n m a t r i x c l a u s e s ( i . e when p o s t p o s i n g occurs) and he proposes t h a t postposed sentences a r e d e r i v e d by a transformation. In summary, a number o f r e s e a r c h e r s have l o o k e d a t p o s t p o s i n g as a s y n t a c t i c phenomenon, but Endo's i s the o n l y study I am aware o f t h a t (a) t r e a t s a l a r g e body o f p o s t p o s i n g data and (b) a n a l y s e s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h i n a r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t g e n e r a t i v e framework -- i . e . Chomsky (1981) o r l a t e r .  6 6  Endo  6 7  quoted  (1989:43) from  Kuno(1978a:76)  i n Endo  (1989:46)  195 Appendix B: No-marked phrases In c h a p t e r 3 I showed t h a t no-marked phrases behave more l i k e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s than l i k e DP's i n t h a t they are not b l o c k e d by a maximal p r o j e c t i o n w i t h a [+N] f e a t u r e when they are postposed out of a DP. In o r d e r t o e x p l a i n t h i s b e h a v i o u r of no-marked phrases I suggested t h a t they are unmarked f o r the f e a t u r e [+N] . In t h i s appendix I s h a l l e x p l o r e the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t no i s a d e f a u l t f u n c t i o n a l head t h a t serves many purposes i n the grammar and which i s unmarked f o r a [+N] f e a t u r e . Types of  no no  The p a r t i c l e enumerated below:  can  serve  a  number  of  different  1. combines w i t h DP's t o form phrases t h a t modify have v a r i o u s k i n d s of semantic f u n c t i o n s : a) (294)  3.  These phrases  can  possessor hon book "Taro's book"  adjectival betu-no hon different book "a d i f f e r e n t book"  2. combines w i t h PP's (296)  o t h e r DP's.  are  Taroo-no  b) (295)  f u n c t i o n s , which  t o a l l o w them t o modify  a  DP  Tookyoo-kara-no densya Tokyo-from train 'the t r a i n from Tokyo"  no i s the form of the c o p u l a t h a t o c c u r s i n r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s  (297)  haisya-no o t o o t o dentist brother "my b r o t h e r who i s a d e n t i s t "  4. complementizer clauses) (298)  heads  case-marked  complement  CP's  (similar  found at the end  koto  of m a t r i x c l a u s e s i n i n f o r m a l q u e s t i o n s or  ano hon-o m o t t e - k i t a no? t h a t book brought comp "Did you b r i n g t h a t book?"  6. marker of " g e n i t i v e s u b j e c t " of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e (300)  to  Taroo-ga kaetta no-o sitte-iru -nom went-home comp-acc know "I know t h a t Taro went home."  5. complementizer "feminine speech" (299)  that  Masao-wa, okane-o nusunda koto-ga aru, boku-no k a k u s i t a . -top money-acc s t o l e comp-nom e x i s t I-gen hid Masao has (on occasion) s t o l e n money -- t h a t I h i d .  196 (see subjects.)  Miyagawa  (1991)  f o r further  7. "case-marked g e n i t i v e " pro-DP (301)  can  examples  and d i s c u s s i o n  of genitive  68  Taroo-no-o -gen-acc "Taro's"  be a pro-form f o r a DP o f the form:  (302)  D P  [Taroo-no DP]  Taroo-no hon-o -gen book-acc "Taro's book"  T r a d i t i o n a l l y , these d i f f e r e n t forms o f no have been c o n s i d e r e d t o be s e p a r a t e l e x i c a l items -- f o r example #1 as the g e n i t i v e case marker, #2, #3 as a c o p u l a V, #4, #7 as an N, e t c . Here, I s h a l l i n v e s t i g a t e the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e i s one no i n Japanese t h a t serves as a d e f a u l t m u l t i - p u r p o s e f u n c t i o n a l head. Problems w i t h no as a g e n i t i v e case  assigner  The p a r t i c l e no i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h what has been r e f e r r e d t o as g e n i t i v e case i n Japanese. There a r e two p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r the r o l e o f no: (!) t h a t i t i s a case-marker t h a t i s a p h o n e t i c r e a l i z a t i o n o f the assignment o f g e n i t i v e case, which i s a s s i g n e d i n some way -- f o r example i n h e r e n t l y o r (2) t h a t i t i s a g e n i t i v e c a s e - a s s i g n e r : a f u n c t i o n a l head t h a t a s s i g n s case t o an element i n i t s domain. I f we assume p o s s i b i l i t y (1) , t h a t no i s a p h o n e t i c r e a l i z a t i o n o f i n h e r e n t g e n i t i v e case, then i t becomes d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n a number o f t h i n g s . F i r s t , u n l i k e E n g l i s h , Japanese a l l o w s m u l t i p l e g e n i t i v e s f o r the same head noun. I f m u l t i p l e g e n i t i v e s a l l r e c e i v e case i n h e r e n t l y , we must assume t h a t they a l l have some t h e t a r e l a t i o n w i t h the head noun. Secondly, g e n i t i v e phrases a r e r e a d i l y p o s t p o s e d . In E n g l i s h , movement i s not p o s s i b l e f o r elements t h a t a r e a s s i g n e d i n h e r e n t case -- f o r example, g e n i t i v e s o r d a t i v e s cannot be t o p i c a l i z e d and cannot undergo heavy NP s h i f t . F i n a l l y , g e n i t i v e s and r e l a t i v e s seem t o be a b l e t o i n t e r c h a n g e t h e i r word o r d e r : see examples (3 0.3) and (304) below) I f a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e can i n t e r v e n e between a g e n i t i v e and t h e noun i t m o d i f i e s , i t 69  7 0  6 8  For  a discussion  of  this  kind  of  construction  see Murasugi  (1991)  and S a i t o  and Murasugi  (1990). I n the f o l l o w i n g example, three d i f f e r e n t genitive phrases modify see that i t i s p o s s i b l e to interchange the order of the g e n i t i v e s . 6 9  also (i)  Taroo-no n a t u y o o - n o rnizutarna-moyoo-no -gen summer-use p o l k a - d o t - p a t t e r n - g e n " T a r o ' s p o l k a - d o t p a t t e r n e d summer p a n t s "  (ii) (iii)  natu-no  mizutama-moyoo-no  mizutama-moyoo-no  7 0  The  following  topicalization  or  Taroo-no  natuyoo-no  examples  show  pantu pants  pantu  English  datives  and g e n i t i v e s  cannot  undergo  HNPS:  (i) * J o h n , , Mary gave t that book, ( d a t i v e cannot be t o p i c a l i z e d ) (ii) *John's,, Mary g a v e [t, b o o k ] . ( g e n i t i v e cannot be t o p i c a l i z e d ) (iii) *Mary gave t t h a t book y e s t e r d a y [ t h e man who u s e d t o l i v e n e x t d o o r ] j . ( d a t i v e c a n n o t u n d e r g o HNPS) (iv) *Mary gave John [t b o o k ] y e s t e r d a y ' [ t h e man who u s e d t o l i v e n e x t d o o r ] ' s . (  ;  (  "pants".  pantu  Taroo-no that  t h e noun  (  We  197 would seem u n l i k e l y t h a t g e n i t i v e s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the head noun.  are  assigned  inherent  case  by  their  (303) Taroo-no [Masao-ga kinoo yonda] hon -gen -nom y e s t e r d a y read book Taro's book t h a t Masao read y e s t e r d a y (304)  [Masao-ga kinoo yonda] Taroo-no hon -nom y e s t e r d a y read -gen book Taro's book t h a t Masao read y e s t e r d a y .  For these reasons, case assignment by no as a c a s e - a s s i g n i n g seems a more p l a u s i b l e h y p o t h e s i s .  functional  head  71  Is no a P? One p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t comes t o mind i s t h a t no i s a P, a c t i n g as a d e f a u l t c a s e - a s s i g n e r i n a manner p a r a l l e l t o "of" i n E n g l i s h o r "de" f o r French p o s s e s s o r DP's. However, i f no i s a P that a s s i g n s case, we need t o be a b l e t o e x p l a i n why a PP headed by no i s the o n l y type o f PP t h a t can d i r e c t l y modify a noun. C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g examples: (305) *Tookyoo-kara densya Tokyo-from train the t r a i n from Tokyo (306) *Tookyoo-made densya Tokyo-as-far-as t r a i n the t r a i n t o Tokyo (307) *mizu-ni o t o w a t e r - i n sound a sound i n the water (308) *Tookyoo-(h)e densya Tokyo-to train the t r a i n t o Tokyo Phrases headed by P - l i k e p a r t i c l e s kara "from", made "as f a r as", ni " t o " , "in", (h)e " i n the d i r e c t i o n o f " can never d i r e c t l y modify nominal p h r a s e s . However, they can when t h e i r phrases have the p a r t i c l e no s u f f i x e d t o them:  0 n t h e o t h e r h a n d t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e t h a t g e n i t i v e c a s e i s a s s i g n e d d i f f e r e n t l y i n Japanese than n o m i n a t i v e or a c c u s a t i v e c a s e . Nominative and a c c u s a t i v e D P ' s can o c c u r w i t h bare q u a n t i f i e r s s u c h as "three p e o p l e " , but g n e i t i v e s cannot, as shown b e l o w : 7 1  san-nin  (i)  gakusei-ga student-nom  san-nin three-people  (ii) gakusei-o student-acc  san-nin three-people  (iii) *gakusei-no san-nin student-gen three people This  contrast  was  pointed  out  by  Hisatsugu  Kitahara  ( p . c ) .  198 (3 09)Tookyoo-kara-no densya Tokyo-from train the t r a i n from Tokyo (310) Tookyoo-made-no densya Tokyo-as-far-as t r a i n the t r a i n t o Tokyo (311) mizu-no o t o w a t e r - i n sound a sound i n the water (312) Tookyoo-(h)e-no densya Tokyo-to train the t r a i n t o Tokyo In the case o f p a r t i c l e ni, i t must be dropped when no i s added. T h i s suggests t h a t n i may be a case-marker r a t h e r than a P. T h i s matter i s d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r below. There a r e s e v e r a l ways of e x p l a i n i n g the above d a t a . One i s t h a t Japanese l a c k s the c a t e g o r y P (except, perhaps, f o r no), and t h a t the p a r t i c l e s t h a t resemble P's (of which t h e r e a r e o n l y about f i v e , e x c l u d i n g no) a r e simply case markers. I f they a r e merely case-markers, then they cannot a s s i g n case and we can e x p l a i n why some o t h e r element such as the p a r t i c l e no i s need t o l i c e n s e them when they modify a noun, which cannot a s s i g n case. But t h e r e a r e problems w i t h t h i s p r o p o s a l . F i r s t of a l l , these p a r t i c l e s seem t o have f a i r l y s p e c i f i c semantic f u n c t i o n s -- f o r example kara s i g n i f i e s o r i g i n , (h)e d i r e c t i o n , e t c . I f they a r e case markers, then we would expect t h a t they a r e a r e a l i z a t i o n o f caseassignment by some k i n d of theta-marking head, such as a V, and t h a t each p a r t i c l e w i l l r e f l e c t a p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f t h e t a - c a s e r e l a t i o n s . But i n examples (309) -(312) above, t h e r e i s no theta-marking head t h a t takes nouns "Tokyo" o r "water" as an argument. For example, i n (312), "Tokyo" i s not an argument of noun " t r a i n " . Nor does the p a r t i c l e no have any t h e t a - a s s i g n i n g p r o p e r t y here s i n c e i t has no semantic v a l u e o f i t s own. Let us assume, then t h a t the p a r t i c l e s i n the examples above a r e P's and t h a t P's must be l i c e n s e d by no when they modify a noun. The f a c t t h a t phrases headed by no can modify nouns but those headed by p a r t i c l e s such as kara, "from", and made "as f a r as" cannot, suggests that no has d i f f e r e n t p r o p e r t i e s from these o t h e r p a r t i c l e s , which we have c o n c l u d e d above behave more l i k e P's. Not o n l y does no behave much more l i k e a f u n c t i o n a l head, but when i t combines w i t h P P - l i k e phrases, t h e r e i s good r e a s o n t o p o s i t t h a t the no we a r e s e e i n g here i s the c o p u l a r no t h a t o c c u r s i n r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s (See (297) above) and t h a t examples l i k e (309)- (312) a r e a c t u a l l y r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s . In the f o l l o w i n g examples, we s h a l l see that the- s e t o f P - l i k e elements t h a t can modify a noun by t h e i n s e r t i o n of no c l o s e l y matches the s e t t h a t can form a p r e d i c a t e w i t h i n f l e c t i o n p r o v i d e d by the c o p u l a . C o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g examples: (313) Tookyoo-kara no densya -from train the t r a i n from Tokyo (314) Tookyoo-kara da. -from c o p u l a I t i s from Tokyo (315) Tookyoo-made no densya -as-far-as t r a i n the t r a i n t o Tokyo  199 (316) Tookyoo-made da. -as-far-as copula It i s (going) t o Tokyo (317) Tookyoo-he no densya -to train the t r a i n t o Tokyo (318) Tookyoo-he da. -to copula (319) eigo-de no benkyoo. E n g l i s h - i n s t r . study study(ing) using English (320) eigo-de da. E n g l i s h - i n s t . copula I t i s by means o f E n g l i s h . (321) *mizu-ni no o t o -in sound a sound i n the water (322) ?mizu-ni da. (See f t n . - i n copula I t i s i n the water.  72.)  The f a c t t h a t p a r t i c l e s such as kara, made, and (h)e can both modify nominals by n o - i n s e r t i o n and be f o l l o w e d by the c o p u l a and t h a t ni c a n n o t i s most e a s i l y e x p l a i n e d i f the former s e t of p a r t i c l e s a r e P's and the l a t t e r a r e case-markers. N o t i c e t h a t the nominative and a c c u s a t i v e case-markers p a t t e r n w i t h ni i n not a l l o w i n g no i n s e r t i o n and not being a b l e t o be f o l l o w e d by the c o p u l a : 72  (323) *Taroo-ga/o da. -nom/acc c o p u l a I t i s Taro 73  (324) *Taroo-ga/o-no hito -nom/acc person the p e r s o n who i s Taro Suppose  that  the f i r s t  s e t of p a r t i c l e s  (kara,"from"  made,"as  f a r as"  T h e s t a t u s o f ni i s a c t u a l l y unclear. Although p a r t i c l e n i cannot occur a f t e r p a r t i c l e no as seen above, i n some c o n t e x t s i t c a n o c c u r w i t h t h e c o p u l a i n a s e n t e n c e w i t h a c o n t r a s t i v e interpretation, a s we s e e i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e , w h i c h was p o i n t e d o u t b y H i s a t s u g u K i t a h a r a ( p . c ) : 7 2  (i)  kaeru-ga frog-nom What t h e  t o b i k o n d a - n o - w a (kawa d e n a k u ) ike-ni da. jumped-in-C-top river-cop.-neg. pond-into cop. f r o g j u m p e d i n t o was ( n o t t h e r i v e r b u t ) the pond.  mizu-ni-da  It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the example above, c o n t e x t g i v e n to get a c o n t r a s t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . marked p h r a s e s u n s o l v e d here.  I  leave  i s s i m p l y awkward, b e c a u s e t h e r e i s the q u e s t i o n of the n a t u r e of ni-  A DP t h a t i s c a s e - m a r k e d a s n o m i n a t i v e c a n o c c u r a s s u b j e c t o f a DP p r e d i c a t e l i c e n s e d b y t h e c o p u l a , b u t i n s u c h a c a s e , t h e n o m i n a t i v e DP o c c u r s o u t s i d e o f t h i s 7 3  Taroo-ga gakusei-da. -nom student-copula I t i s T a r o o who i s a student.  that is predicate:  no  200 (h)e,"towards", a r e P's but t h a t i n Japanese, PP's cannot occur i n t h e i r bare form as m o d i f i e r s o f a DP but must be l i c e n s e d must be l i c e n s e d by a f u n c t i o n a l head. When a PP o c c u r s as a complement t o a v e r b i t w i l l be l i c e n s e d by the V o r I head o f the v e r b a l p r o j e c t i o n . But when i t o c c u r s as a m o d i f i e r o f a noun, i t must be l i c e n s e d by f u n c t i o n a l head no. S i m i l a r l y , when a PP headed by one o f the f i r s t s e t of p a r t i c l e s o c c u r s w i t h the c o p u l a , i t i s forming a p r e d i c a t e , and the c o p u l a s e r v e s simply t o p r o v i d e i n f l e c t i o n . If t h e second s e t o f p a r t i c l e s ( i . e . ni " d a t i v e " , ga "nominative", o " a c c u s a t i v e " ) a r e s t r u c t u r a l case-markers, then they s i g n i f y a r e l a t i o n w i t h a t h e t a - a s s i g n i n g and c a s e - a s s i g n i n g v e r b a l head, s i n c e phrases they head occur as arguments o f v e r b s o r a d j e c t i v e s . Phrases t h a t they head cannot occur as m o d i f i e r s o f a noun, s i n c e a noun cannot a s s i g n s t r u c t u r a l case. Nor can they be l i c e n s e d by no i n s e r t i o n s i n c e no does not a s s i g n a t h e t a r o l e . If t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s c o r r e c t , then no f i t s i n t o n e i t h e r group: i t does not r e f l e c t assignment o f s t r u c t u r a l case by a v e r b a l head nor does i t show the same p r o p e r t i e s as p a r t i c l e s t h a t behave l i k e P's. In a t l e a s t some o f i t s r o l e s , no behaves as a k i n d o f d e f a u l t l i c e n s e r : i t l i c e n s e s PP's t h a t modify DP's as we saw above and i t p r o v i d e s i n f l e c t i o n i n i t s r o l e as t h e c o p u l a i n r e l a t i v e clauses. As f a r as the P - l i k e p a r t i c l e s a r e concerned, we have seen t h a t they must be l i c e n s e d by no when they modify a noun. There a r e t h r e e environments i n which they can occur, as shown below. 1. as arguments (325)  74  o r adjuncts of a V  Tookyoo-kara Kyooto-made itta -from - a s - f a r - a s went I from Tokyo as f a r as Kyoto.  2. as m o d i f i e r s o f a noun, mediated (326)  by n o - i n s e r t i o n  Tookyoo-kara-no densya Tokyo-from train the t r a i n from Tokyo  3. as p r e d i c a t e s , mediated p o s s i b l e i n Japanese) (327)  by t h e c o p u l a  (small  clause predicates are  not  Tookyoo-kara-da -from-copula I t i s from Tokyo.  If no i s a P, then i t e x h i b i t s i n e x p l i c a b l y d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o u r from a l l o t h e r P's i n the language i n t h a t PP's headed by no can d i r e c t l y modify a noun but no o t h e r PP's can. No, i n i t s r o l e as a l i c e n s e r o f bare PP m o d i f i e r s o f a noun p a t t e r n s more l i k e v e r b a l elements, s i n c e PP's can be l i c e n s e d by (a) no, (b) i n f l e c t e d v e r b s , (c) the c o p u l a , and a l s o by bare v e r b s as we see below. The f o l l o w i n g example s u f f i c i e n t t o l i c e n s e a PP:  In obligatory 7 4  t h i s example I goal arguemnt.  suggests  that  a V head  without  inflection i s  a s s u m e t h a t Kyooto-made i s an argument s i n c e t h e v e r b " t o go" takes an I t i s n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e PP Tookyoo-kara i s an argument o r a d j u n c t .  201  (328) Tookyoo-made i k i - w a s i - n a i . -P go-top do-neg As f o r g o i n g t o Tokyo, I don't do i t . I n t h i s case o f VP t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , t h e PP i n s i d e t h e VP t o p i c i s not i n t h e domain o f any o v e r t i n f l e c t i v e head s i n c e t h e v e r b o c c u r s i n i t s bare " c o n j u n c t i v e " form. I t i s noteworthy t h a t i n Japanese, AP's p a t t e r n w i t h PP's i n t h a t they need t o be l i c e n s e d by i n f l e c t i o n o r a c o p u l a r element. A d j e c t i v e p h r a s e s i n Japanese must e i t h e r be i n f l e c t e d l i k e VP's i f t h e head a d j e c t i v e i s i n f l e c t i b l e , o r i f not, (the case o f "nominal" a d j e c t i v e s ) they must be s u p p o r t e d by i n s e r t i o n o f no o r i t s v a r i a n t na. The l a t t e r p a r t i c l e i s a n o t h e r form o f t h e c o p u l a . These r e q u i r e m e n t s h o l d whether they a r e p r e d i c a t e s o r whether they a r e m o d i f i e r s o f a noun. A l t h o u g h I cannot e x p l a i n why PP's and AP's i n Japanese seem t o r e q u i r e t h i s l i c e n s i n g , we can a t l e a s t make a d e s c r i p t i v e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n : i n Japanese, AP's and PP's cannot merge w i t h a [+N] c a t e g o r y on t h e i r own b u t r e q u i r e some k i n d o f m e d i a t i o n o r l i c e n s i n g . I f no i s a f u n c t i o n a l head t h a t l i c e n s e s these AP's and PP's i n t h e k i n d s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n s we saw above, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t i t i s d o i n g t h e same t h i n g i n what we c a l l g e n i t i v e p h r a s e s . I f t h e no t h a t o c c u r s i n what we c a l l g e n i t i v e p h r a s e s i s t h e same no t h a t l i c e n s e s AP's o r PP's - - p o s s i b l y a f u n c t i o n a l head o f some k i n d -- then we appear t o have two ways i n which DP's i n Japanese a r e l i c e n s e d : ( i ) when they a r e case-marked i n a t h e t a - r e l a t i o n w i t h a l e x i c a l head (e.g. n o m i n a t i v e , a c c u s a t i v e , and d a t i v e case-marked DP's) ( i i ) when they a r e not case-marked b u t a r e l i c e n s e d by a an element such as no or t h e c o p u l a L i c e n s i n g o f what we c a l l g e n i t i v e s by no c o u l d be an example o f t h e l a t t e r c a s e . P r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l s would a l s o f a l l i n t o t h i s case s i n c e they a r e n o t case marked but appear t o be l i c e n s e d by t h e c o p u l a , which c a n a l s o t a k e t h e form no i n r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s . The f o l l o w i n g example shows t h a t p r e d i c a t e nominals cannot be case-marked: 75  (329)  Taroo-wa g a k u s e i (*-ga) (*-o) da. -top s t u d e n t copula Taro i s a s t u d e n t . So f a r , we have l o o k e d  a t no i n i t s r o l e a s :  1. a marker o f g e n i t i v e s 2. t h e form o f t h e c o p u l a t h a t o c c u r s i n r e l a t i v e 3. a l i c e n s e r o f PP's and AP's  clauses  T h e r e i s a q u e s t i o n of whether p r e d i c a t e nominals are DP's or N P ' s . I s h a l l t h e y a r e D P ' s s i n c e b o t h names a n d N P ' s w i t h d e t e r m i n e r - l i k e e l e m e n t s c a n o c c u r a s nominals: 7 5  (i)  ano that That  gakusei-wa Taroo-da. student-top copula student is Taro.  (ii)  boku-no hon-o nusunda no-wa, ano. gakusei-da. my book-acc s t o l e one-top that student-copula T h e o n e who s t o l e my b o o k i s t h a t student.  assume t h a t predicate  202 In 3. i f no i s the copula, i t may be a V o r I head t h a t p r o v i d e s s u p p o r t i n g i n f l e c t i o n , w i t h no semantic v a l u e . In o r d e r t o u n i f y our account of no, i t would be d e s i r a b l e t o say t h a t no i s a C r a t h e r than an I i n i t s c o p u l a r r o l e ; however the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s argue a g a i n s t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . Suppose t h a t i n a c o p u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n , no i s a C, w i t h a n u l l I: (330)  haisya-no otooto dentist-cop brother [DP null-I C] DP "my b r o t h e r who i s a d e n t i s t " C P  Then we have no e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the f a c t t h a t i n c o n s t r u c t i o n s where no i s a C, the i n f l e c t i o n t h a t precedes i t cannot be dropped. (331)  otooto-wa haisya-na-no brother-top dentist-copula-C My b r o t h e r i s a d e n t i s t .  (332) *otooto-wa haisya-no brother-top d e n t i s t - ( n u l l I)-C Consider  now some o t h e r i n s t a n t i a t i o n s o f no.  4. complementizer t h a t heads case-marked complement CP's ( s i m i l a r t o koto clauses) 5. complementizer found a t the end of m a t r i x c l a u s e s i n i n f o r m a l q u e s t i o n s o r "feminine speech" 6. marker o f " g e n i t i v e s u b j e c t " o f a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e 7. "case-marked g e n i t i v e " pro-DP e.g. Taroo-no-o r e p l a c e s Taroo-no hon-o In (4) and (5) no i s a C. In (6), no marks o r a s s i g n s case t o the " g e n i t i v e s u b j e c t " of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . Miyagawa (1991:35) argues t h a t the I n f l of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i n Japanese does not c o n t a i n AgrS t o a s s i g n nominative case t o the s u b j e c t o f the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , which r e c e i v e s g e n i t i v e case from the D head of the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . He does not, however, e x p l a i n why r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s w i t h g e n i t i v e s u b j e c t s a r e d e f e c t i v e i n not b e i n g a b l e t o a s s i g n nominative case. The i n f l e c t i o n a l morphology on the main p r e d i c a t e o f a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e does not d i f f e r from t h a t of a m a t r i x c l a u s e except when i t s i n f l e c t i o n i s s u p p l i e d by the c o p u l a , i n which case the copula takes the form no i n s t e a d o f da as d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . I have not adopted Miyagawa's p r o p o s a l t h a t a Japanese r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s a DP. Suppose, however, we adopt p a r t of Miyagawa's h y p o t h e s i s : namely, t h a t a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e w i t h a  203 g e n i t i v e subject i s f o r some y e t u n e x p l a i n e d r e a s o n , unable nominative case t o i t s s u b j e c t . Then no, as a l i c e n s e r of the s u b j e c t , a s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n t o t h e no t h a t l i c e n s e s a p r e d i c a t e nominal o r PP as the c o p u l a o r t h a t l i c e n s e s a PP o r u n i n f l e c t e d AP t h a t m o d i f i e s 76  to assign i s serving i n i t s role a DP.  In ( 7 ) , phrases headed by "case-marked no" f u n c t i o n as pro-DP's. F o r example Taroo-no-o "Taro-gen-acc" i s a pro-form f o r [Taroo-no DP]-o. We might p o s i t t h a t t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n has the s t r u c t u r e [Taroo-no p r o ] - o and t h a t p r o here i s l i c e n s e d by no as a f u n c t i o n a l head. In summary, i t seems p o s s i b l e t o argue up t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t t h a t a t l e a s t some types o f no-marked phrases a r e headed by a d e f a u l t f u n c t i o n a l head. In some cases no has the r o l e of an I head and i n o t h e r s the r o l e of a C. Throughout t h e d a t a I have looked a t on p o s t p o s i n g , g e n i t i v e s a t times e x h i b i t anomalous o r c o n t r a d i c t o r y b e h a v i o u r : f o r example, they behave l i k e a d j u n c t s r a t h e r than s p e c i f i e r s i n t h a t they do no show SC e f f e c t s , y e t i n the C o n d i t i o n C r e c o n s t r u c t i o n examples we looked a t i n c h a p t e r 1, they behave differently from r e l a t i v e clauses i n that they do not show the a n t i r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t s that a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a d j u n c t embedding. And i n p o s t p o s i n g out o f [+N] c o n s t i t u e n t s , they p a t t e r n d i f f e r e n t l y from s u b j e c t s , o b j e c t s , d a t i v e s , and o b l i q u e s , as we saw i n c h a p t e r 3. I t seems t h a t the nature of no-marked phrases i n Japanese r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  I c a n o f f e r t h e f o l l o w i n g s p e c u l a t i o n ' a b o u t why r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s w i t h " g e n i t i v e " subjects c a n n o t a s s i g n n o m i n a t i v e c a s e . A s a r g u e d a b o v e , x o t o c l a u s e s show s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s f r o m r e l a t i v e a n d c o m p l e m e n t c l a u s e s t h a t make them l o o k m o r e l i k e C P ' s t h a n D P ' s . F o r e x a m p l e , they a r e w e a k e r b a r r i e r s t o movement t h a n c l a u s e s h e a d e d by l e x i c a l n o u n s a n d t h e y do n o t p e r m i t "genitive subjects." I f we a c c e p t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t Jcoto c l a u s e s a r e C P ' s , t h e n t h e following p a r a d i g m s u g g e s t s t h a t i n J a p a n e s e i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r a noun to be m o d i f i e d by an IP.. 7 6  (i)  [Taroo-ga Nihon-ni kaetta -nom Japan-loc returned The rumour t h a t T a r o r e t u r n e d  (ii)  [[Taroo-ga Nihon-ni kaetta -nom Japan-loc returned The f a c t that Taro r e t u r n e d to  C to  to  iu] say Japan  X P  uwasa wa... rumour top . . .  to i u ] koto] C say C Japan . . . I P  C P  wa... top  In (ii), i f koco i s a C , t h e n t h e c l a u s e X P , h e a d e d b y t h e i d i o m a t i c " c o m p - s a y " c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a r g u a b l y a n I P , n o t a C P . B u t t h e same i d i o m a t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n o c c u r s i n (i), m o d i f y i n g a l e x i c a l n o u n . I t w o u l d s e e m u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e same i d i o m a t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n h a s a different structure i n ( i ) . t h a n i n ( i i ) . T h u s , i n ( i ) we s e e m t o h a v e a l e x i c a l n o u n m o d i f i e d an IP. Suppose, then that r e l a t i v e clauses with " g e n i t i v e s u b j e c t s " s u p p o s i t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by the f a c t t h a t i n J a p a n e s e , clauses that a d j e c t i v e s have o b l i g a t o r y complementizers. R e l a t i v e c l a u s e s w i t h a anomaly i n the language.  by  are I P ' s and not C P ' s . T h i s are complements of v e r b s or n u l l C would a p p e a r t o be an  If Japanese r e l a t i v e clauses are IP's, a n d i f t h e y i n v o l v e some k i n d o f operator-variable c o n s t r u c t i o n . ( p o s s i b l y w i t h an empty o p e r a t o r ) , t h e n t h e r e i s no CP t o h o s t s u c h an o p e r a t o r . Suppose t h e n , t h a t w h a t e v e r p r o j e c t i o n a s s i g n s n o m i n a t i v e c a s e must be u s e d to h o s t t h i s operator and t h a t i t cannot b o t h a s s i g n c a s e and host an o p e r a t o r . If t h i s hypothesis i s c o r r e c t , t h e n we c a n e x p l a i n why r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s , which involve o p e r a t o r - v a r i a b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s would r e q u i r e n o - i n s e r t i o n to a s s i g n case to the s u b j e c t and o t h e r c l a u s e s t h a t may b e I P ' s s u c h a s c o m p l e m e n t c l a u s e s d o n o t . What obligatory.  I  cannot  explain  is  why g a - n o  conversion  in  relative  clauses  is  optional  and  not  204 Bibliography Abe, Jun (1993)  B i n d i n g C o n d i t i o n s and Scrambling without the Ad i s t i n c t i o n Univ. of C o n n e c t i c u t , D i s s e r t a t i o n  Chomsky,N. (1981)  Lectures  on Government  Chomsky, N.  (1986)  Barriers  MIT Press Cambridge  Chomsky, N.  (1995)  The Minimalist  Diesing  Bare plural U.Mass ms.  (1988)  Endo-(Simon), Grimshaw, Jane  Mutsuko (1991)  and Binding  Dordrecht,  Programme MIT Press, subjects  Foris  Cambridge  and the stage/individual  contrast  (1989) The Postposing Construction In Japanese, D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , Ann A r b o r Extended  Projection  A'  Ph.D.  Ms.  Hale, K and S.J. Keyser (1993) "On Argument S t r u c t u r e and the l e x i c a l e x p r e s s i o n of s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s , " i n The View from Building 20 MIT Press, Cambridge Haraguchi, S. Hoji  Remarks on Dislocation  (1973)  Dissertation • Configurational Washington  (1985)  Huang  Kayne,  no bunpoo-kisoku  (1994) The Antisymmetry CUNY  Form in  MIT  Constraints Japanese Univ.  (1994)  Koopman & S p o r t i c h e  of Syntax  (1973)  The position  The Structure Cambridge  of  of subjects the  of grammar  Ms. Graduate Centre,  Leftward Movement in Japanese Relative Conference on Rightward Movement  (19 91)  and of  T a i s y u k a n , Tokyo  (1997) (to appear) Elementary Operations Derivations MIT Press Cambridge  Hisatsugu  Koike, S a t o s h i  Kuno, S  Nihongo  (1978)  Richard  Kitahara,  Logical Structures  Ms.,  Logical Relations in Chinese and the theory Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , MIT, Cambridge  (1982)  Inoue, K.  in Japanese,  and  Clauses  Optimal Tilburg  Lingua 85  Japanese  Language  MIT  Press  Kuno, S (1978)  " T h e o r e t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s on Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s , " i n J . Hinds and I. Howard, eds.  Kuno,S  (1978)  "Japanese, a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 0V language," i n Lehmann, ed., Syntactic Typology, Univ. of Texas P r e s s , A u s t i n  Larson  (1988)  "On the Double Object C o n s t r u c t i o n " L i n g u i s t i c 19:335-391  L a s n i k , H. and M. S a i t o  (1984) "On the Nature of Proper Government," I n q u i r y 15:235-289  L a s n i k , H. and M. S a i t o  (1992) Move-alpha  MIT Press,  Cambridge  Inquiry  Linguistic  205 Miyagawa  (1991)  Nonconfigurationality  Rizzi,L.  (1990)  Relativized  Minimality  Constraints  on Variables  Ross  (1967)  MIT,  Saito,  Mamoru  Saito,  M  (1985)  (1989)  Within  a Configurational  Structure  i n Japanese Syntax and Semantics  MIT Press,  in Syntax  Cambridge  D i s s e r t a t i o n Some Asymmetries theoretical implications MIT "Scrambling  as  Alternative  semantically  Conceptions  Cambridge  Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n ,  in Japanese vacuous  their  Movement" i n  of Phrase  Structure  in Japanese  JEAL 1  B a l t i n and Kroch, 182-200. U n i v e r s i t y Chicago  , eds.  of Chicago Press,  Saito,  M  (1992)  Long-distance  Saito,  M  (1994)  Scrambling wh-phrases  Saito,  M  (1994)  Improper Adjunction (MITWPIL 1994) i n "Formal Approaches to Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s "  Whitman, J  (1991)  String-vacuous  Whitman, J  (1991)  Rightward  Yoon, James  (1994)  Scrambling  A'  and  and Ms.  the  functional  interpretation  of  V-to-COMP (GLOW Paper)  Movement  International  in  Symposium,  Verb  Final  Languages  Dokkyo  Korean V e r b a l I n f l e c t i o n and Checking Theory, MITWPL  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087263/manifest

Comment

Related Items