Case valuation after scrambling: Nominative objects in Japanese

This paper provides new evidence for the claim that nominative objects in Japanese undergo overt movement without remaining at their base-generated positions, based on a variant of the construction which has not received as much attention as its complex predicate counterpart. It is then argued that the overt movement is scrambling. Departing from the general assumption, this paper investigates the hypothesis that an application of scrambling affects Case valuation, which was originally investigated by Fukui & Nishigauchi (1992) and Fukui (1995) (cf. Kuno 2002). Under the proposal, a nominative object is scrambled from its original position to the edge of vP, where nominative Case can be assigned. When scrambling does not take place, the object stays in-situ and receives accusative Case at its base-generated position. In other words, the Case alternation is contingent on the application of scrambling, which captures the optionality of the Case alternation in terms of that of scrambling. It is also proposed that the proposed mechanism of the Case alternation be restricted in such a way that the landing site and the base-generated position are included in the same transferred domain. Given this restriction, it is also possible to correctly capture cases where scrambling does not affect case valuation. The proposed analysis crucially adopts the hypothesis proposed by Chomsky (2001), where the transferred domain is the complement of a phase head. To the extent that the proposed analysis is successful, this paper lends support to this characterization of transferred domains.

[1]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Problems of projection , 2013 .

[2]  Masashi Nomura,et al.  Nominative case and AGREE(ment) , 2005 .

[3]  Naoki Fukui A theory of category projection and its applications , 1990 .

[4]  Taisuke Nishigauchi,et al.  Head-Movement and Case-Marking in Japanese , 1992 .

[5]  A. Watanabe,et al.  Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective , 1996 .

[6]  S. Nakai A reconsideration of Ga‐No conversion in Japanese∗ , 1980 .

[7]  A. Watanabe,et al.  The Genesis of Negative Concord: Syntax and Morphology of Negative Doubling , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[8]  Hideki Kishimoto,et al.  Binding of Indeterminate Pronouns and Clause Structure in Japanese , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[9]  Richard S. Kayne Antisymmetry and the lexicon , 2009 .

[10]  H. Sigurðsson To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. , 2002 .

[11]  Masahiko Takahashi Case, Phases, and Nominative/Accusative Conversion in Japanese , 2010 .

[12]  Kiyomi Kusumoto Tense in embedded contexts , 1999 .

[13]  Željko Bošković,et al.  What is sent to spell-out is phases, not phasal complements , 2016 .

[14]  S.-Y. Kuroda,et al.  Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language , 1965 .

[15]  Hiroaki Tada,et al.  Nominative Objects in Japanese , 1992 .

[16]  Ken Hiraiwa,et al.  Dimensions of symmetry in syntax : agreement and clausal architecture , 2005 .

[17]  Kazuko Yatsushiro Case licensing and VP structure , 1999 .

[18]  Yuji Takano,et al.  Nominative Objects in Japanese Complex Predicate Constructions: A Prolepsis Analysis , 2003 .

[19]  Susi Wurmbrand,et al.  The Domain of Agreement , 2005 .