ABSTRACT Title of Document: SOME THEORETICAL ISUES IN JAPANESE CONTROL. Tomohiro Fuji, Doctor of Philosophy, 2006 Directed By: Distinguished University Profesor Howard Lasnik, Department of Linguistics The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the understanding of the nature of finitenes and A-movement by looking at control phenomena in Japanese, where verbal morphology sometimes does not help to identify finitenes of clauses. In so doing, the thesis addreses empirical and theoretical questions that arise from analyses of Japanese control and atempts to resolve them. The first part of the thesis, chapter 2, investigates obligatory control (OC) into tensed clauses, where embedded predicates are morphosyntacticaly marked for tense. Recent findings about the obligatory control/non-obligatory control dichotomy leads to the observation that tensed subordinate clauses that either cannot support past tense or present tense trigger OC and raising. It is proposed that this efect comes from the defective nature of T? of such clauses and that this nonfinite T triggers OC and raising. It is shown then that the movement theory of control facilitates to instantiate this proposal and to give a principled acount of a wide range of the data. Chapter 3 concerns isues of controller choice with special reference to embedded mood constructions, where mood markers are overtly realized. It is observed that controller choice is systematicaly correlated with the mood interpretation of complement clauses. While Japanese alows split control in the exhortative mood construction, the language lacks the mood maker that should exist if subject control over intervening objects were possible. The lack of the nonexistent mood marker is derived by the Principle of Minimal Distance. Also, a preliminary movement-based analysis is given to the actual distribution of split control. The final chapter aims to provide an empirical argument for selecting a movement theory of control over PRO-based theories by closely examining backward control and related constructions. While establishing that backward obligatory control exists in Japanese, the chapter shows that the data argue for a copy theory of movement, combined with a particular theory of chain linearization. The hypothesis that economy plays a crucial role in determining how to pronounce chains is shown to explain properties of the clasic Harada/Kuroda style analysis of Counter Equi. SOME THEORETICAL ISUES IN JAPANESE CONTROL By Tomohiro Fuji Disertation submited to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degre of Doctor of Philosophy 2006 Advisory Commite: Profesor Howard Lasnik, Chair Profesor Cedric Boeckx Profesor Norbert Hornstein Profesor Jefrey Lidz Profesor Georges Rey Profesor Juan Uriagereka ? Copyright by Tomohiro Fuji 2006 ii Acknowledgements I wish to convey my deep gratitude to my thesis supervisor Howard Lasnik for the inspiration, encouragement, and patience that made this thesis possible. It has been a privilege working with him since I arived at Stors in 2001. I cannot measure how much I learned from him. I am thankful to Cedric Boeckx for his constant support and friendship over the years. He always gave his time and knowledge generously. I am grateful to Juan Uriagereka for always helping me realize substantive isues that would have escaped me without his guidance. I thank Jef Lidz, who always proved insightful for my work. I benefited a lot from his approach to syntax and the acquisition thereof. I owe a vast intelectual debt to Norbert Hornstein, as might be obvious. I have been very fortunate to have had the benefit of his advice and guidance. I have to mention Jairo Nunes. Although he was not on my commite, his moral support as wel as his work was extremely helpful. I also would like to thank other faculty members and visiting profesors for keeping the Colege Park linguistic community such a thriling place: Tonia Bleam, Ivano Caponigro, Stephen Crain, Colin Philips, Paul Pietroski, David Poeppel, Rozz Thornton, Andrea Zukowski, and Alexander Wiliams. I would also like to expres my gratefulnes to my teachers at UConn as wel: Sigrid Beck, ?eljko Bo?kovi?, Andrea Calabrese, Hary van der Hulst, Yael Sharvit, and Wiliam Snyder. Especialy I am indebted to Sigrid and Yael for their excelent intro semantics courses, which made my thesis writing les hard. I am thankful to my teachers back in Japan: Seisaku Kawakami, Yukio Oba, Yoichi Miyamato, Michael T. Wescoat, Ken-ichi Mihara, and Hiroyuki Ura. Without the support I have constantly received from them since I got to Osaka, I would not be where I am right now. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge previous teachers who are not linguists but philosophers: Akira Watanabe, Yuichiro Okamoto and Ryoichi Hosokawa. They have had an enormous influence on my intelectual development. Thanks also go to my colleagues and friends at the linguistics department: Diogo Almeida, Sachiko Aoshima, Ilhan Cagri, Rob Fiorentino, Youngmi Jeong, iv Nina Kazanina, Utako Minai, Phil Monahan, Mitsue Motomura, Ivan Ortega-Santos, Kaori Ozawa, Leticia Pablos, Usama Soltan, Pritha Chandra, Max Guimar?es, Lydia Grebenyoba, Andrea Gualmini, Soo-Min Hong, Tim Hunter, Atakan Ince, Hirohisa Kiguchi, Luisa Meroni, Yuval Marton, Chizuru Nakao, Akira Omaki, Cilene Rodrigues, Jon Sprouse, Eri Takahashi, Heather Taylaor, Stacey Conroy, Maki Kishida, Elen Lau, and Rebeca MacKeown. Especialy, it should be emphasized that I had Hajime Ono, Takuya Goro, Masaya Yoshida and Scott Fults, who had to spend a ridiculous amount of time with me and made life fun. Thanks are also due to people visiting the department: Maia Duguine, ?ngel Jesus Galego, Ryuichiro Hashimoto, Andrew Nevins, Taisuke Nishigauchi, Testuya Sano, Yoko Sato, and Miki Obata. I also thank Kathi Faulkingham and Rob Magee for their administrative help. People outside College Park who I benefited from for my work must be acknowledged: Pranav Anand, ?eljko Bo?kovi?, Kleanthes Grohmann, Maria Teresa Guasti, Koji Hoshi, Kyle Johnson, Julie Legate, Kimiko Nakanishi, Kjartan Otosson, Paul Portner, Norvin Richards, Sharon Rose, Mamoru Saito, Hiromu Sakai, Rumiko Sode, Chris Tancredi, Carol Tenny, Hiroyuki Ura, and Rafaela Zanuttini. Special thanks go to Masha Polinsky and Eric Potsdam for their interest in my work and their own work, from which my last chapter came into existence. I wish to thank the following people for their friendship: Duk-Ho An, Dave Boothe, Yoshihisa Goto, Ken Hiraiwa, Akira Hiroe, Chizuru Ito, Shinya Iwasaki, Jong Un Park, Yasuyuki Kitao, Naoko Komoto, Sachie Kotani, Jenny Lentz, Yuko Maki, Sumire Mizoe, Yasu Maruki, Nobu Miyoshi, Tatsuro Nayuki, Fumi Ninuna, Masashi Nomura, Toshiko Oda, Myung-Kwan Park, Lara Reglero, Miyagi Sadamitsu, Nilufer and Serkan Sener, Shiva Sinha, Koji Sugisaki, Shoichi Takahashi, Eri Tanaka, Hiroyuki Tanaka, and Yuki-Shige Tamura. In the final stage of writing this thesis in Nagoya, I owe a lot to people in Nanzan University: Yasuaki Abe, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Masatake Arimoto, Tatsuya Suzuki, Chiyo Takagi, and especialy Keiko Murasugi and Mamoru Saito. They provided me with a near perfect environment for finishing the thesis. v Finaly, I thank my family, and my relatives in Saga, Sasebo, Kamata, and Kashii. Without their unbounded support and patience over the years, I could not have reached this stage. A milion thanks go to my sister Yukiko for always cheering me up. I owe everything I have acomplished to my parents Toru and Taeko Fuji, to whom this thesis is dedicated. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgements.................................................ii Table of Contents...................................................vi Chapter 1 Introduction Section 1 The Distribution and the Interpretation of PRO ..............1 Section 2 Finitenes ..........................................7 Section 3 Control and Raising .................................10 Section 4 Split Control and the Principle of Minimal Distance..........18 Section 5 Backward Control...................................20 Section 6 A Note on Sentential Subjects..........................24 Chapter 2 Control/Raising and Finitenes in Japanese Section 1 The Isue..........................................27 Section 2 The Tense Alternation Generalization.....................33 Section 3 ?Finite? Obligatory Control and Non-Control...............36 Section 4 ?Finite? Raising.....................................48 Section 5 An Analysis........................................59 Section 6 When [-finite] Complements Do Not Show OC Properties.....69 Section 7 Notes on Lexical Subjects.............................89 Section 8 Conclusions........................................90 Chapter 3 Split Control and the Principle of Minimal Distance Section 1 Introduction ........................................95 Section 2 Mood Particles and Obligatory Control..................100 Section 3 Split Control and the Exhortative Use of -(Y)oo............115 Section 4 Split Control and the PMD............................127 Section 5 Conclusions .......................................138 Chapter 4 Remarks on Backward Control Section 1 Introduction .......................................139 Section 2 Background .......................................140 Section 3 The Case of Japanese ................................147 Section 4 Asist-constructions.................................158 Section 5 Lower Copy Pronunciation............................193 Section 6 Notes on Circumstantial Adverbial Tokoro-Clause Constructions .................................................206 Section 7 Notes on Backward Split Antecedence...................222 Section 8 Conclusions.......................................229 References ......................................................230 Chapter 1: Introduction 1 The Distribution and the Interpretation of PRO This thesis discusses some empirical and theoretical isues concerning the distribution and the interpretation of PRO in Japanese. In this introductory chapter, I atempt to outline these isues and ilustrate their significance. 1.1 The distribution of PRO To locate our discussion of Japanese control in a theoretical perspective, let us start with two diferent ways of looking at things. First, an adequate theory of control must acount for the distribution of PRO. In a standard GB theory (Chomsky 1981, Lasnik and Uriagereka 1988), the central isue was how to diferentiate positions where PRO is permited from those where it is not, given a paradigm like the following from English: (1) a. * John believes [PRO to be clever] b. * John expected/tried [PRO to admire PRO] c. * John expected [PRO would admire Bil] d. [PRO to admire Bil] is important e. John expected/tried [PRO to admire Bil] The empty category cannot appear in the subject position of ECM complements [(1)a], the object position of transitive predicates [(1)b], or the subject position of finite clauses [(1)c]. So we can describe the situation as follows: infinitives (and gerunds) can host PRO in their subject position unles they are raising/ECM complements. The clasic acount of the paradigm is that PRO must be ungoverned, known as the PRO theorem. Al PROs in (1) that cause ungramaticality (which are underscored) are governed, acording to the theory. One characteristic aspect of the theory is that it 2 asumes al PROs to be syntacticaly identical. That is, they are al [+anaphoric, +pronominal], subject to Binding Theory in the same way. This way of looking at data sems to be shared by ?null Case? approaches (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993, Martin 1996, 2001, Bo?kovi? 1997, Watanabe 1993, 1996a, among others). The null Case theory claims that the Tense of infinitives and gerunds can check null Case, which is necesary for PRO to get licensed. The theory also asumes that the Tense of raising/ECM complements does not check Case and therefore cannot null Case either. This way, raising/ECM complements and control complements are distinguished. There are several theories that appeal to Case in order to acount for the paradigm in (1). For example, Bouchard?s 1984 ?local binding? theory, and Hornstein?s 1999 movement theory of control both adopt the theorem that PRO (or NP-trace) cannot receive Case-marked, though they difer from each other with regard to how to derive it. 1.2 The interpretation of PRO Another angle in looking at control phenomena has been recognized since Wiliams (1980) (cf. Chomsky and Lasnik 1977). The observation is that control is divided into two categories: obligatory control (OC) and non-obligatory control (NOC). The examples in (2) and those in (3) ilustrate how these two categories difer (Examples (2)a-g and (3)a-g are from Hornstein 2003): (2) obligatory control a. * It was expected PRO to shave himself b. * John thinks that it was expected PRO to shave himself c. * John?s campaign expects PRO to shave himself d. John expects PRO to win and Bil does too e. * John persuaded Mary PRO to wash themselves/each other f. The unfortunate expects PRO to get a medal g. Only Churchil remembers PRO giving the BST speech 3 h. * John remembered [PRO arb not to smoke around the babies] (3) non-obligatory control a. It was believed that PRO shaving was important b. John i thinks that it is believed that PRO i shaving himself is important c. Clinton i ?s campaign believes that PRO i keeping his sex life under control is necesary for electoral succes d. John thinks that PRO geting his resume in order is crucial and Bil does too e. John i persuaded Mary j that [PRO i+j washing themselves/each other] would amuse Sam f. The unfortunate believes that PRO geting a medal would be boring g. Only Churchil remembers that PRO giving the BST speech was momentous h. It is dangerous for babies [PRO arb to smoke around them] Each property is briefly commented on. ? OC PRO needs an antecedent while NOC PRO does not [(2)a vs. (3)a] (Wiliams 1980, Bouchard 1982, Koster 1984, Hornstein 1999). ? OC requires a local controller (which must be in the imediately higher clause than the clause that PRO appears in), while NOC can be long distance [(2)b vs. (3)b] (e.g. Wiliams 1980, Manzini 1983, Bouchard 1984, Koster 1984, Lebeaux 1984, among others). ? OC PRO must be c-commanded by its controller whereas NOC PRO does not have to be [(2)c vs. (3)c] (Wiliams 1980, Bouchard 1984, Koster 1984, Hornstein 1999; cf. though Landau 2000: 31). ? Under elipsis, OC PRO does not alow a strict reading, while NOC PRO does [(2)d vs. (3)d] (Bouchard 1984, Higginbotham 1992). 4 ? OC PRO does not alow two diferent antecedents to bind or control it, while NOC PRO alows that to happen [(2)e vs. (3)e] (Wiliams 1980, Lebeaux 1984, Hornstein 2003: 65, n13; cf. Martin 1996, Wurmbrand 2001, Landau 2000: 31, 53ff.). Predicates like to wash each other or to be partners require plural subjects. The unaceptability of examples like (2)e is taken to indicate that OC PRO cannot have two singular antecedents as its split antecedents. The aceptability of examples like (3)e, by contrast, is taken to show that this restriction does not hold for NOC PRO. ? OC PRO must be interpreted de se, while NOC PRO can be interpreted non-de se [(2)f vs. (3)f] (Hornstein 1999, Landau 2000; cf. Chierchia 1989, Higginbotham 1992, Anand and Nevins 2004). Statement (2)f (OC) means the unfortunate expects that he himself wil win a medal. The subject of expects cannot be misinformed about his own identity. This is caled a de se interpretation. By contrast, statement (3)f (NOC) can describe such a situation. Sufering from amnesia, for example, he may not realize that the person he has in mind is actualy him. 1 ? With only-NP antecedents, OC PRO must receive a ?covariant interpretation,? while NOC PRO can receive an ?invariant interpretation? (the terms come from Higginbotham 1992; se Higginbotham 1992, Hornstein 1999 and references cited). In (2)g, the value of PRO covaries depending on the individual to which the relevant function, [?x. x remember x giving the BT], applies. In other words, PRO is always bound by the ?-operator. In (3)g, on the other hand, the value of PRO can be invariant, as in [?x. x remembers Churchil?s giving the BST speech was momentous]. On the later interpretation, statement (3)g can be falsified by the fact that someone other than Churchil remembers Churchil?s giving the BST speech was momentous. ? (2)h and (3)h (from Landau 2000:34, who cited the later sentence from Kawasaki 1993) are intended to ilustrate that OC PRO does not alow the so-caled ?arbitrary? reading while NOC PRO does. (We wil come back to this diagnostic at the end of this chapter.) 1 As Higinbotham (192: 87) correctly observes, de se interpretation cannot be assimilated to bound variable interpretation. Non-de se bound variable pronouns are posible. I do not have a god explanation of why OC PRO (or A-trace in movement theoretic terms) must be interpreted de se. See Anand and Nevins 204 for discusion of obligatoriness of de se interpretation of subject-controled PRO. 5 Although some of these diagnostics have been put to debate, it sems fair to say that some OC/NOC dichotomy exists and that, no mater which diagnostic properties turn to be dropped or which turn to be added, an adequate theory of control must capture the distinction. Note that the government-based theory discussed above has litle to say about it, as it stands. This is so because the theory derives the PRO theorem from Binding Theory by specifying the empty category [+anaphoric] and [+pronominal]. Since PRO satisfies Binding Theory in such a way that it does not have a governor and therefore does not have its local domain, any binding possibility should be alowed as far as Binding Theory is concerned. That is why Control Theory was caled for (se Chomsky 1981 for discussion). Interestingly, previous theories are not uniform regarding what the distinction betwen OC and NOC is. They do not agre on what generalization should be explained. 2 Al the existing theories agre that PRO in examples like (4) is NOC PRO, as briefly reviewed above: (4) John i thinks that [PRO i shaving himself] is important] Controversial environments include the case of infinitival interogative complements, which are often taken to be an NOC environment. For instance, PRO in examples like (5) supports an arbitrary reading (Bouchard 1984, Manzini 1983, Martin 1996, among others; cf. Chomsky and Lasnik 1977, Wiliams 1980: (5) They do not know [how PRO to behave themselves/oneself] Recent studies, however, argue that interogative infinitives yield an OC environment (Landau 2000, Hornstein 1999, Barie 2005). Landau (2000: 39f.) observes that cases like (5) display some properties of typical OC. He examines, for example, examples suggesting that PRO in the wh-complement requires a local 2 As correctly observed by Culicover and Jackendoff (201). See Boeckx and Hornstein (203) for relevant discusion. 6 controller. Interogative complements like the one in example (6)a are on a par with non-interogative complements like the one in example (6)b: (6) a. * Mary 1 knew that John hoped [PRO 1 to perjure herself]. b. * Mary 1 knew that it wans?t clear to John [how PRO 1 to perjure herself]. As for the availability of arbitrary reading, Laudau (p.40) concludes that ?[the oneself-test] has been misused in the past as a diagnostic for arbitrary control, where in fact it merely indicates that the reference of the antecedent is not fully specified.? Throughout the thesis, I asume that the generalization entertained by Landau and Hornstein is right. Namely, NOC does not obtain when PRO appears inside complement clauses of higher predicates. Now let us quickly review what explanations prior theories have offered for an OC/NOC distinction. It is true that these two diferent generalizations require diferent theories of the distribution of OC and NOC PROs, but they al sem to share the intuition that OC PRO gets licensed by some local syntactic relation. A movement theory of control of the Hornstein style argues that OC obtains only when null complement subject positions can be linked up to their antecedent in the next higher clause via A-movement. For Landau?s Agre-based theory, OC obtains only when the embedded Infl or PRO is linked up to a matrix functional head that agres with the controller (via embedded C for some cases). A local binding approach to OC PRO (Bouchard 1984, Manzini 1983, among others) puts forth the hypothesis that OC PRO is an anaphor, which requires an antecedent in its local domain. 3 Finaly, it is interesting to note that the null Case theory, which is designed to acount for the paradigm in (1), incorporates some version of the local binding view, as proposed in Martin 1996 and Watanabe 1996b. It opens a way to acount for the OC/NOC distinction under the nul Case theory; that is, PRO has null Case and needs a local antecedent. This is something that the government-based approach to the distribution of PRO cannot do. 3 See, though, Lasnik (192) for criticism of the idea of treating OC PRO on par with reflexive anaphors. 7 How about NOC? How do these theories explain that the null subject of OC environments do not show properties of NOC PRO? Quite a few theories appeal to the ?elsewhere? condition for NOC. In the local binding approach, pronouns are possible when anaphors fail to get licensed. Taking NOC PRO as pronominal, Bouchard (1984) explains the fact that NOC is impossible when PRO is a complement subject, proposing that the null subject succesfully satisfies its local binding requirement. On the other hand, the null subject of sentential subjects does not provide such an environment. So local biding fails, and therefore pronominal PRO, namely NOC PRO, becomes available (se also Manzini 1983, Lebeuax 1984). This way of handling the OC/NOC dichotomy is incorporated (almost as is) to the movement theory of control. That is, NOC obtains if A-movement fails to create a legitimate control chain due to a locality constraint. Landau?s Agre-based theory could be conceived as a variant of this approach because the theory hypothesizes that NOC obtains when the relevant functional in the higher clause fails to probe the T- Agr complex (for his ?partial control) or PRO (for his ?exhaustive control?) in the embedded clause. 2 Finitenes Chapter 2 of this thesis discusses finitenes in Japanese. It sems useful to summarize what role finitenes plays in major syntactic analyses of control before the central claim of that chapter is introduced. It is widely asumed that we have thre diferent complements: (a) finite complements, (b) control complements, and (c) raising and ECM complements. 4 This basic thre-way distinction with respect to complementation, unsurprisingly, underlies the isue concerning the distribution of PRO. In the standard GB theory (Chomsky 1981), the distinction was achieved by combination of feature [?finite] on T (Infl) and the categorial status of complements. 5 The T of finite complements is specified [+finite] while the T of raising/ECM and control complements [?finite]. The 4 The so-called for-to infinitives are ignored here. 5 This is a rudimentary way of summarizing the theory, though. See Chomsky 1981, George and Kornfilt 1981, Raposo 1987, among others, for the role of tense and agreement. 8 distinction betwen control and raising/ECM complements was made in terms of their categorical diference: control complements are CPs, while raising/ECM complements are TPs. On the asumption that nonfinite T lacks the ability to govern, the Spec,TP of nonfinite CPs (i.e. of control complements) remains ungoverned, so that PRO may appear (under the PRO theorem). The early minimalist framework had to propose a diferent take on the isue of how control and raising/ECM complements difer, since the notion of government was dispensed with. The null Case theory was proposed, then (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993). Take Martin?s (1996, 2001) and Bo?kovi??s (1997) implementation of the theory, where it is proposed, on the basis of properties having to do with temporal interpretation of complement clauses, that the T of control complements, being tensed, asigns null Case while the T of raising complements, being tenseles, does not. 6 What underlies this distinction is, they propose, the generalization that control T is specified [+tense] while raising/ECM T is specified [?tense]. If a given T is [?finite] and [+tense], it asigns null Case (giving rise to control), whereas if it is [?finite] and [?tense], it lacks the Case asigning ability (giving rise to raising or ECM). As correctly pointed out by Watanabe (1993, 1996a) and by Bo?kovi? (1997), once we say that PRO is licensed by checking of its null Case, we do not necesarily need the CP/TP distinction to distinguish betwen control and raising/ECM complements. In fact, Bo?kovi? (1997) proposes that control complements can be TPs, in which T has the feature [+tense]. At any rate, the feature [finite] is necesary to diferentiate finite and control clauses (both being [+tense]) in the framework where null Case is utilized. One other influential theory of control has been proposed: the ?local binding? approach to control. This theory utilizes the notion of Case in a crucial manner. In Bouchard?s (1984) theory, NP-trace and PRO do not have phonetic content because they are not Case-marked (asuming a version of PF Case Filter). The fact that PRO does not appear in finite clauses is explained by asuming that the subject of finite clauses is a Case position. Thus, the feature [finite] must be tied to the nominative 6 Watanabe?s (193, 196a,b) nul Case theory of control, unlike Martin?s and Bo?kovi??s, revives the GB-style CP/TP dichotomy mentioned above, dispensing with the reference to [?tense]. See also Uriagereka (forthcoming: chap. 4) for a different view on nul Case. 9 Case asigning ability of Infl in this type of theory as wel. Raising/ECM and OC complements are esentialy the same gramatical objects in this theory. They are nonfinite clauses whose subject position can be localy bound from the matrix clause. Finaly, consider the movement theory of control (Bowers 1973, O?Neil 1997, Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003, Polisnky and Potsdam 2002, 2006; cf. Manzini and Roussou 2000). This theory claims that the distribution of OC PRO is asimilated to the distribution of NP-trace. If A-movement from Case position is bared in languages like English, then the theory predicts that OC PRO only appears in a Case- les specifier of T . Asuming that [+finite] T asigns Case, the theory excludes control into finite clauses. It would involve A-movement from Case position. In virtualy the same way, OC PRO is excluded from the subject of ECM complements. The ECM subject gets Case from the higher verb before it can move to the matrix external argument position. 7 Notice now that these major approaches to complementation agre that the feature [?finite] plays a crucial role in distinguishing clauses of which T asigns nominative Case from other clauses. To put it another way, if these theories did not incorporate the feature [finite], finite and control complements would not be properly distinguished. Importantly, the theories empiricaly work (at least when the data from languages like English are considered) precisely because when PRO is found in the subject position of a clause, that clause is always infinitival or gerundive. This fact, i.e. that no PRO appears in finite clauses, might look trivial. It is not unimaginable that syntacticians have taken (a subset of) null subjects of nonfinite clauses and identified them with PRO when they look at nonfinite clauses like English infinitives. However, it is not trivial at al if one wishes to propose a theory of the distribution of PRO. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, we need [?finite] in order to prevent PRO from being present in finite clauses. A tough situation arises when PRO looks as if it were present in finite clauses. In that case, the question arises 7 Landau?s (204) Agree-based theory attempts to dispense with the feature [finite]. Rather, the theory utilizes the features [Tense] and [Agr] (which are located in C and/or Infl) to derive it. His system is designed to require that a lexical subject appear when the local Infl is specified [+Tense, +Agr]. The type of Infl that occurs in the complement clause of a sentence like *John expected would win is such an Infl, he proposes. See Landau (204: 860) for the isue of how to rule out sentences like *John believes PRO to be clever. 10 as to which clauses a theory of the distribution of PRO should ?be meant to deal with the properties of the subjects of? (Bouchard 1984: 165). The nature of the theories reviewed above may lead us to say that in cases where PRO does appear in tensed or inflected clauses, these clauses are in fact [?finite]. The isue is how we can tel whether a given clause is [+finite] or [?finite], independently from the mere fact that PRO appears in its subject position. 8 If there is no clear indication that helps to detect the finitenes of a given clause, it becomes a chalenge for one to propose a theory of control. To ilustrate it, consider a hypothetical example like (7), where an auxiliary element ?!? appearing betwen PRO and win remains syntacticaly unidentified: (7) John expects [PRO ! win] Can a theory of control make any prediction about the gramaticality of this sentence? No theory we reviewed above sems to until we know whether ! is to or wil. If ! is a nonfinite marker like to, these theories predict that (7) is gramatical. If ! is a finite auxiliary like wil, the sentence is predicted to be ungramatical. It sems that this kind of state of afairs is what has been taking place in the study of control in Japanese. 3 Control and Raising The Japanese examples in (8) ilustrate some subordinate clauses that do not contain an overt tense morpheme (i.e. present -ru or past -ta): (8) a. John-ga [? hon-o yomi]-{wasure/hazime}-ta John-Nom [ book-Ac read]-forget/begin-Past ?John forgot/began to read a book.? 8 In studies of Balkan languages, it has ben observed that control is found with tensed/inflected complement clauses. ?[O]ne characteristic of the [..] subjunctive clauses in [certain Balkan raising or control constructions] is that they display verbs that in a pretheoretical sense are ?finite?: they are overtly inflected for person, number, and tense and mood. (Rivero and Ralli 201: 7).? See Landau 204 for recent discusion. 11 b. John-ga [? hon-o kai-ni] it-ta John-Nom [ book-Ac buy-Nonfin] go-Past ?John went to buy a book.? c. Taro-ga Hiroshi-o [? naki-nagara] tataita Taro-Nom Hiroshi-Ac [ cry-while] hit ?Taro hit Hiroshi while crying.? These constructions were often treated as Equi or OC since pre-GB frameworks (se for example Shibatani 1973, Nakau 1973). It is plausible to asume that subordinate clauses found in examples like these are nonfinite clauses. 9 However, the language displays control with tensed clauses as wel. (Japanese, like other East Asian languages, does not exhibit an overt agrement system.) As wil be shown in chapter 2 in more detail, pairs of examples like (9)a and (9)b suggest that the embedded koto- clause is tensed and involves OC (below is an example of the ban on long distance control): (9) a. * sono kyoodai i -wa [Hiroshi-ga [? i otagai i -o the brothers-Top [Hiroshi-Nom [ e.o.-Ac tasuke-a-u-koto]-o kesinsita-to] omotteiru help-Recip-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided-C to ] think ?The brothers think that Hiroshi decided to help each other.? 9 The thesis does not examine well-studied control or predication phenomena involving such ?tenseless? subordinate clauses. Thus popular topics in complementation including restructuring and complex predicates wil not be discused here. The reader is referred to numerous prior studies on these phenomena including: Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 205, to appear, Dubinsky and Hamano 203, Fukumitsu 201, Hoshi 194, Inoue 1976, Koizumi 195, 198, Kageyama 193, Kuroda 1965: chapter 4, 1986, 203; Matsumoto 196, Miyagawa 1987, 1989, Nishigauchi 193, Nomura 203, Saito and Hoshi 198, 200, Shibatani 1978, Takahashi 200, Takezawa 1987, 193, Tada 192, Ura 196, 199, 200, Wurmbrand 201: chapter 2, among many others. 12 b. Hiroshi-wa [sono kyoodai i -ga [? i otagai i -o Hiroshi-Top [the brothers-Nom [ e.o.-Ac tasuke-a-u-koto]-o kesinsita-to] omotteiru help-Recip-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided-C to ] think ?Hiroshi thinks that the brothers decided to help each other.? It should be noted that clauses of apparently the same form appearing in complement position do not always have to involve OC. A sharp contrast holds betwen (9)a and (10) with respect to long distance antecedence: (10) sono kyoodai i -wa [Hiroshi-ga [? i otagai i -o the brothers-Top [Hiroshi-Nom [ e.o.-Ac tasuke-a-u-koto]-o yorokob-u-to ] omotteiru help-Recip-Prs-C koto ]-Ac be.delighted-Prs-C to think ?The brothers think that Hiroshi would be delighted that they would help each other .? Given contrasts like this, we can se that surface verbal morphology does not always help to identify PRO in Japanese. Therefore, one looks for a signal of ?abstract? finitenes in the language. The indication must be something detectable in a clause, independently from the mere fact that the clause in question is a control clause or non-control clause. However, as far as I am aware, no such indicator of abstract finitenes has been proposed at least in an explicit way in the Japanese syntax literature in connection with the theory of control. 10 As mentioned above, therefore, it is not straightforward which clause should be marked [+finite] or [?finite] once examples like (9) and (10) face us. It sems that this is one of the obstacles to the atempt to understand the distribution of PRO in Japanese. This is the first problem I 10 Watanabe?s (196b) attempt is an exception. He proposes that a koto-complementizer such as the one found in (9) is a subjunctive complementizer, and that the T of the clause assigns nul Case to the subject. As he briefly notes and as (10) shows, however, koto- complementizers appear in various kinds of non-control structures, as well. 13 tackle in this thesis. 3.1 Tense alternation generalization Chapter 2 aims to solve the problem by proposing that finitenes in Japanese is closely tied to the phenomenon I cal ?tense alternation? (se chapter 2 for a more formal version of the generalization): (11) Tense alternation generalization: Tensed subordinate clauses in Japanese are [?finite] if and only if their predicate does not alternate betwen the present tense form and past tense form. The observation is that OC complements alow either present tense or past tense but not both, as in (12)a. On the other hand, the type of construction exemplified by the non-control sentence (10) alows its complement to be either in the present or in the past, as in (12)b: (12) a. Taro i -wa [? i nato-o tabe-{ru/*ta}-koto]-o Taro-Top [ natto-Ac eat-Prs/Past-C koto ]-Ac kesinsita decided ?Taro decided to eat nato.? b. Taro i -wa [? i nato-o tabe-{ru/ta}-koto]-o yorokonda Taro-Top [ natto-Ac eat-Prs/Past-C koto ]-Ac was.delighted ?Taro was delighted that he {would eat, had eaten} nato.? The complement of ?decide? displays the ?anti-tense alternation? efect, while the complement of ?be delighted? does not. This generalization gives a basis to our approach to ?finite control? phenomena in the language. I wil show that where this generalization holds, embedded tensed clauses act like infinitives; namely, they may arise as obligatory control complements. 14 These ?transparent? tensed clauses are dubbed ?pseudo-finite? clauses, of which T is, I propose, specified [?finite]. When the embedded predicate frely alternates betwen present tense and past tense, on the other hand, the clause is regarded as carying a [+finite] feature. In the same chapter, I wil also propose that pseudo-finite T ([?finite] T) does not asign structural Case while genuine finite T does, so that genuine finite clauses and pseudo-finite clauses can be distinguished. The reason for taking this position (as opposed to proposing that pseudo-finite T, unlike finite T, does not govern any position of the tre or asigns null Case) is that, as we wil se in chapter 2, some Japanese pseudo-finite complements alow their subject to undergo raising. Examples like (13) wil be studied (Uchibori 2000): (13) Taro-ga saikin yoku benkyoosu-ru-yooni nata Taro-Nom recently often study-Prs-C yoni became ?Taro has started to study hard.? Al the pseudo-finite clauses that wil be examined in this thesis are headed by what has been considered as a complementizer, such as the quotative complementizer -to, the nominalizing complementizers -koto and -no, and morphologicaly somewhat complex complementizers such as -yooni. Throughout the thesis, I safely asume that they are of the category C because no clear evidence against it has been found. Given this, the situation concerning finite raising is most straightforwardly dealt with by proposing that pseudo-finite T, being specified [-finite], does not asign structural Case, on the standard asumption that A-movement from Case position is bared. That both OC and raising clauses can be CPs has a consequence for the theory of control (For an overview of the research project of unifying the two phenomena, se Polinsky and Potsdam 2006, Boeckx and Hornstein 2006a, and references cited in them). The government-based approach to control is hard to adopt here because on that clasical view, raising and control are mutualy exclusive. More specificaly, the 15 Japanese data resist the CP/TP dichotomy that the theory relies on. 1 The core idea of the Martin-Bo?kovi? style null Case theory sems to be compatible with the Japanese facts. Maintaining that [?tense] T does not asign Case, one could say that raising CPs in Japanese are specified [?tense] and control CPs [+tense]. Although it is somewhat counterintuitive that tense alternation has to do with finitenes and not the feature [tense], the theory is stil consistent with paralelism betwen raising and control. It is worth recaling how the null Case theory acounts for the fact that OC is not NOC. An approach of this sort handles an OC/NOC distinction by saying that PRO is anaphoric (Martin 1996, Watanabe 1996b). Anaphoric binding must be alowed to take place into a complement CP. It is worth noting that exactly the same line of modification is required for the GB style ?local binding? approach to OC PRO as wel. Bouchard?s analysis otherwise would predict that control into tensed nonfinite CPs in Japanese always displays NOC properties, contrary to fact. Local binding into a nonfinite CP must be alowed. Now let us consider what these theories would have to say about finite raising. If the analysis of (13) that I wil offer in chapter 2 is right, the embedded subject must move across the nonfinite CP. Note that this does not hurt Bouchard?s approach at al. This is because in his theory, NP-trace and anaphors obey the same condition of local binding. So, in fact, once OC into nonfinite CPs is alowed, raising out of nonfinite CPs is expected. The same situation is, on the other hand, harder for the null Case theory, because NP-trace is not an anaphor in the theory. Raising being possible out of nonfinite CPs does not directly follow at al. The movement-based approach to control is one a par with Bouchard?s binding- based approach in this respect. Since OC is derived by A-movement into a thematic position of the matrix clause, the theory certainly needs to ensure that nonfinite CPs 1 Landau?s (204) theory of finite control, which attempts to account for a typology of OC in subjunctives and inflected infinitives, maintains that [+Tense, +Agr] Infl forces a lexical subject to occur. The system seems to need the CP/TP dichotomy to differentiate ECM/raising from control (p.861). Also, in light of the lack of overt morphological agreement in Japanese, it seems hard to detect on independent grounds what value is assigned to the feature [Agr] or even whether the feature is present or not in a structure. For these reasons, I wil not use this theory to investigate Japanese control. 16 do not block A-movement. 12 Once this is done, it automaticaly follows that an NP moves out of nonfinite CPs into a non-thematic position of the matrix clause as wel. In this thesis, I use the movement theory of control to explore the nature of the control phenomenon in Japanese. Thus, the available data concerning Japanese finite raising and control and their analysis do not sem to force one to choose the movement theory of control over the local binding theory of it. However, there are at least two reasons in favor of this move. For one thing, the definition of the local domain for local anaphors would have to be worked out if the binding approach is chosen. It is certainly possible to do so, but unles we revive government, it requires some work in order for the notion of local domain to be explicated. For another, even if the notion is explicated, there sems to be no compeling reason to go back to an approach to raising of the sort that the early GB-theory maintains; namely, that NP- trace is subject to the condition on local binding. Especialy, going back to the trace theory does not fit wel with my analysis of backward control (presented in chapter 4), which employs a copy theory of movement. For these reasons, I use the movement theory of control and a standard approach to raising to investigate various control (and raising) phenomena in Japanese. 3.2 NOC complements Chapter 2 discusses another type of puzzle concerning control into tensed clauses in Japanese. Take one example from chapter 2 to ilustrate the isue. The examples in (14) difer from each other only in the chose of the matrix verb. The a-example has kime(ru) while the b-example kesinsu(ru). Both mean ?decide?. (14) a. Taro i -ga [? i taisyoku-{suru/*sita}-koto]-o kimeta Taro-Nom [ leaving.company-do.Prs/do.Past-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided that he would leave the company.? (non-de se possible) 12 For studies of movement out of and agreement into finite clauses, see Massam (1985), Ura (194, 198), Moore (198), Polinsky and Potsdam (201), Bejar and Massam 199, Branigan and MacKenzie (201), Bruening (201), Potsdam and Runer (201), Hiraiwa (201), Tanaka (202), Rezac (204), Ferreira (204), Rodrigues (204), Fuji (203, 204), Nevins (204), Uriagereka (forthcoming: chap. 4), to name a few. 17 b. Taro i -ga [? i taisyoku-{suru/*sita}-koto]-o kesinsita Taro-Nom [ leaving.company-do.Prs/do.Past-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided to leave the company.? (non-de se not possible) What happens in this pair is that ?decide? in (14)a alows a non-de se interpretation while ?decide? in (14)b does not. (This data point is examined in more detail in chapter 2.6.) A problem comes from the fact that the two types of decide require a pseudo-finite complement; i.e. in this particular case, a past tense complement is prohibited. Note that PRO in nonfinite complements in English never supports a non- de se interpretation (even in cases that Wiliams 1980 clasifies under NOC environments, as Landau 2000: 42-43 shows). So the behavior of null subjects in examples like (14)a may lead one to think that Japanese control phenomena should not be treated in the same way as the phenomena found in infinitives/gerunds in languages like English. Chapter 2.6 wil observe that various cases of pseudo-finite complements display properties of NOC. I wil propose an acount of the unexpected behavior of these nonfinite complements, which relies on the movement theory of control and the asumption that Japanese nominalizing particles like -koto are syntacticaly ambiguous betwen N and C. The claim is that when pseudo-finite complements fail to pas OC diagnostics, they have a complex NP structure, [ NP [ CP ? ? C ] koto N ], where the CP is headed by null C. Then it follows that the Complex NP island blocks movement and therfore OC does not obtain. But why do these complements behave like NOC clauses, in stead of yielding ungramaticality? Proposing a movement theory of control, Hornstein (1999) borrows the idea of Bouchard (1984), which is that NOC PRO is an ?elsewhere? case. Hornstein?s specific claim is that the derivation with NOC PRO, which is a pronoun, is available only when the derivation cannot create a legitimate OC chain (Hornstein 1999 and subsequent work). If this asumption is made, it follows that the nul subject of the complex-NP structure exhibits properties it does. 18 4 Split Control and the Principle of Minimal Distance In chapter 3, I wil discuss two diagnostic properties of obligatory control that wil not be discussed in chapter 2. The Japanese data concerning split control and the ?Principle of Minimal Distance (PMD)? efect wil be examined in some detail. The analytical focus is placed on embedded mood constructions, where a mood marker ataches to a verbal stem without tense morphology. Examples of mood constructions are given in (15)a-c (suppose that these sentences are uttered by Taro): (15) a. Yoko-wa Hiroshi-ni boku-no beeguru-o tabe-ro-to Yoko-Top Hiroshi-Dat my bagel-Ac eat-Imp-C meireisita (yooda) ordered sems ?(It sems that) Yoko ordered Hiroshi to eat my bagel.? ? Yoko said to Hiroshi, ?Eat Taro?s bagel!? b. Yoko-wa boku-no beeguru-o tabe-yoo-to keikakusita (yooda) Yoko-Top my bagel-Ac eat-YO-C to planned sems ?(It sems that) Taro planned to eat my bagel.? ? Yoko thought: ?I?m gonna eat Taro?s bagel!? c. Yoko-wa Hiroshi-ni boku-no beeguru-o tabe-yoo-to Yoko-Top Hiroshi-Dat my bagel-Ac eat-YO-C to teiansita (yooda) proposed sems ?(It sems that) Taro proposed to Hiroshi to eat my bagel.? ? Yoko said to Hiroshi: ?Let?s eat Taro?s bagel!? (15)a ilustrates the embedded imperative construction, which is object control. (15)b is an example of the construction I cal the ?intentive? mood construction, which is subject control. (15)c is an ilustration of the embedded exhortative mood construction. The later two constructions share the same mood morpheme -(y)oo. (Since this mood morpheme is ambiguous, it is glossed YO.) While establishing 19 that these constructions are obligatory control constructions, I wil put forth the descriptive generalization given in (16) (a more formal version is offered in chapter 2) : (16) In embedded mood constructions, the complement subject can be controlled by the matrix subject across the indirect object only when it is controlled by the indirect object as wel. The first data point is that, as in (17)b, split control is alowed in embedded exhortative clauses. (I wil present arguments that this is an instance of split control, rather than an instance of partial control in the sense of Landau 2000.) While the imperative construction does not alow a reciprocalized predicate, which requires plural antecedent(s), to occur in its embedded clause, the exhortative construction does: (17) a. * Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni [? otagai-o sonkeesi-a-e-to] Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac respect-Recip-Imp-C] ita/ meireisita said/ ordered lit. ?Taro said to/ordered Hiroshi [? to respect each other].? b. Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni [? otagai-o sonkeesi-a-oo-to] Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac respect-Recip-YO-C] ita/ teiansita said/ proposed lit. ?Taro said/proposed to Hiroshi [? to respect each other].? The observation supports Landau?s 2000 conclusion (contra Hornstein?s 2003) that split control is in principle alowed in OC. Given that subject and object controls are also possible, embedded mood constructions sem to alow various paterns of controller choice. However, there is one patern of control choice that is not atested, which is subject 20 control across the indirect object. One of the arguments that this is so has to do with a Condition B-like efect: (18) a. * Taro-wa Yoko-ni [? kanozyo-o sonkeisi-yoo-to] Taro-Top Yoko-Dat [ her-Ac respect-YO-C] ita/ yakusokusita said/ promised lit. ?Taro said to/promised Yoko [? to respect her].? b. Taro-wa [? kanozyo-o sonkeisi-yoo-to] omotta/ kesinsita Taro-Top [ her-Ac respect-YO-C] thought/ decided lit. ?Taro thought/decided to [? to respect her].? It looks like (18)a is degraded because a pronoun is too close to its antecedent. If this is correct, it means that, as stated in (16), it is not possible for the embedded subject to be controlled by the embedded subject without being controlled by the indirect object (cf. the status of (18)b). I propose that the unaceptability of (18)a is an efect of the PMD. In short, it is not clear how (18)a can be excluded for semantic or pragmatic reasons. It is perfectly conceivable for the sentence to describe the fact that Taro promised Yoko to respect her, probably saying, ?I wil respect you?. However, this conceivable ?promisive mood? is not atested in the paradigm of mood constructions. The PMD provides a straightforward acount for this negative fact. As long as the gap in the paradigm is not acidental, this constitutes an empirical argument in favor of the PMD or minimality in OC (Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003, Boeckx and Hornstein 2003, 2004). The chapter then proposes a somewhat speculative answer to the question of how the derivation for split control avoids violating this principle. 5 Backward Control Chapter 4 offers an extensive discusion of the phenomenon caled ?backward control?. Here is one example from what we cal the assist-construction in Japanese: 21 (19) isya-ga [kanzya-ga aruk-u-no]-o {tetudata/zyamasita} doctor-Nom [patient-Nom walk-Prs-C no ]-Ac assisted/disrupted ?The doctor asisted a patient to walk.? ?The doctor disrupted a patient from walking.? In the last chapter, one question about the distribution of backward control wil be addresed: Given that most OC constructions do not alow backward control (as opposed to standard forward control), why is it that the principle that prevents the backward proces there does not prevent it entirely? If it did, no backward control would be atested. For instance, no backward subject control exists in Japanese: (20) a. * ? i ni-byoo-de [san-pun kanzya i -ga aruk-u-koto]-o 2-second-in [3-minute patient-Nom walk-Prs-C koto ]-Ac kesinsita decided b. kanzya i -ga ni-byoo-de [san-pun ? i aruk-u-koto]-o patient-Nom 2-second-in [3-minute walk-Prs-C koto ]-Ac kesinsita decided ?The patient decided in two seconds to walk for thre minutes.? The type of phenomenon the chapter is interested in was first studied by Harada (1973) and Kuroda (1978) in generative gramar. (They did not discuss assist- constructions but what is caled the tokoro-clause construction. I wil briefly touch on the later construction as wel and conclude that it does not involve control.) Their theory would correctly rule out examples like (20) by stating the rule ?Counter Equi NP deletion? in such a way that it only applies when the structure would otherwise violate the Double-O Constraint. The constraint is responsible for the unaceptability of examples like (21)a, where two instances of acusative NPs are located in the same 22 VP domain. Note that clefting saves the sentence from a double-o violation by extracting one of the acusative phrases out of the VP as in (21)b: (21) a. ? isya-ga kanzya-o [? aruk-u-no]-o {tetudata/zyamasita} doctor-Nom patient-Ac [ walk-Prs-C no ]-Ac assisted/disrupted ?The doctor asisted a patient to walk.? ?The doctor disrupted a patient from walking.? b. [isya-ga kanzya-o {tetudata/zyamasita}-no]-wa [doctor-Nom patient-Ac assisted/disrupted-C]-Top [? aruk-u-no]-o da [ walk-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop lit. ?It is [to walk] that the doctor asisted a patient.? lit. ?It is [from walking] that the doctor disrupted a patient.? Asuming that Equi NP deletion applies when an matrix NP is identical with the complement subject, the Harada-Kuroda style theory states the rule of Equi so that it only applies backward (to yield (19)) in environments in which a double-o violation would obtain otherwise [cf. (21)a]. But the theory does not sem to provide a real answer to the question of what gramatical principle is violated in the case of (20)a. In short, the sentence is rendered ungramatical because the rule is stated in the way it is stated. I wil atempt in chapter 4 to offer a more principled answer by combining the type of analysis of Japanese complements motivated in the previous chapters together with a copy theory of movement and a theory of chain pronunciation proposed by Nunes (2004), which is first applied to a backward control phenomenon by Potsdam (2006). Asuming that (21) violates the Double-O Constraint as a PF constraint, the proposed theory argues that (20)a, unlike (20)b, violates an economy condition governing the choice of the copy of a chain to delete. Namely, al other things being equal, deletion of the lower copy is chosen over deletion of the higher copy. In our case, (20)a and that of (20)b share the same derivation up to the point where a control chain is reduced in the PF component. Conditions for convergence are satisfied in both 23 derivations; that is, al the offending features are checked and no double-o violation occurs. The derivation in which the higher copy undergoes deletion is bared by the availability of the more economical derivation, in which the lower copy is deleted. The upshot is that (19) survives because no economy considerations arise here. The derivation of (21), which would block its backward counterpart if it were convergent, violates the Double-O Constraint. The proposed theory has a descriptive advantage as wel. Harada?s (1973) generalization that a derivation yields backward control only if the forward counterpart to it would violate the Double-O Constraint makes a correct prediction in most cases. It has been noted in Kuroda 1978 that there is one exception: (22) a. [Taro-ga John 1 -o e i tetudat-ta-no]-wa [Taro-Nom John-Ac assist-Past-C no ]-Top [? 1 oyog-u-no]-o i da [ swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Taro asisted John [to swim].? b. [Taro-ga ? 1 e i tetudat-ta-no]-wa [Taro-Nom assist-Past-C no ]-Top [John 1 -ga oyog-u-no]-o i da [John-Nom swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Taro asisted John [to swim].? As in (22)b, backward control is possible even though this is not an environment in which a double-o violation occurs. Notice that there are two chains involved in these sentences. One is the control chain and the other is the cleft chain, a chain created by A-bar movement. Asuming with Nunes (2004) that chains are reduced one by one and that the order in which these chains are reduced is fre, I can acount for the apparent optionality of backward control in this particular environment. The idea is that if chain reduction applies to the control chain first, the structure stil has a double-o environment. In other words, in the PF derivation of (22)b, the lower copy of the clefted complement can be present when the control chain undergoes chain 24 reduction. So the otherwise unexpected optionality follows without any additional asumptions in the proposed analysis. If the backward assist-construction is an obligatory control construction, no other theory of control than the movement theory can be maintained. This is because none of the theories asuming PRO for OC can posit the empty category outside the control clause. In order to make the analysis of the backward assist-construction work, I need make two asumptions explicit. First, I asume that non-structural nominative Case is available in the subject position of pseudo-finite clauses in Japanese, as has been repeatedly proposed in the literature (Saito 1982, 1985, Ura 1992, among others). The second asumption is also familiar from the literature on raising of quirky subjects in languages like Icelandic: A-movement from inherent (or possibly default) Case position is possible. Since it sems that the validity of the analysis and of its implications largely depends on whether the backward construction in question involves OC or not, I wil spend much space defending my ?OC? analysis of the constructions in the first half of the chapter. 6 A Note on Sentential Subjects Finaly, before closing this introductory chapter, I would like to mention one of the many topics that wil not be discussed in this thesis, i.e. a case that looks similar to English Super Equi. Consider (23): (23) karera i -wa [Mary-ga [? otagai-o hihansi-{a-u}-koto]-ga they-Top [Mary-Nom [ e.o-Ac criticize-Recip-Prs-C koto ]-Nom nyuusu-ni nar-u-to] omotteiru-to] sinziteiru news-Cop become-C to ] thinks-C believe ?They i believe Mary thinks that {criticizing/ having criticized} each other i wil become news.? When the distribution of PRO in tensed clauses is discussed in the literature on Japanese, it looks like tensed sentential subjects containing ?PRO? have been 25 examined much more often than tensed OC (Saito 1982, Kuroda 1983, Hasegawa 1984-85; se also Aoshima 2001). That is probably because it is believed that an interpretive property of NOC PRO helps to distinguish PRO from null subjects of finite indicative clauses, without worrying about their verbal morphology. In the movement-based approach to control, nul subjects of the kind found in (24) (cited from Landau 2000: 92) are considered pronominal, rather than NP-trace: (24) Mary knew that [PRO perjuring himself/herself] disturbed John The fact that both himself and herself, bound by John and Mary respectively, are possible suggests that, as is familiar, the interpretation of the nul subject is much les restricted than that of OC PRO. One imediate question is whether we can show that (23) is an instance of NOC, rather than Case-marked pro. (23) shows that the null subject of the sentential subject can be bound long distance. The theory under consideration adopts the ?elsewhere? approach to those cases (Bouchard 1984, Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003). As mentioned earlier, NOC PRO appears where NP-trace fails to survive. If this is so, long distance antecedence found in (23) is compatible with analyzing ? as NOC PRO and with analyzing it as Case-marked litle pro. Because they are both pronouns, they won?t be distinguishable. Can we, though, determine the finitenes of sentential subjects in Japanese by manipulating the tense marking of the predicate of sentential subjects? There sems to be one possible way of forcing sentential subjects like the one in (23) to be nonfinite within the present set of asumptions. Suppose that the so-caled ?arbitrary PRO? reading signals that the null subject in question is not Case-marked (Authier 1992). If this is the case, we should be able to test whether the ?arbitrary PRO? reading is available in cases where tense alternation is posible. The prediction is that the relevant reading should not be available. Example (25) is adapted from Kuroda (1983: 242), where the version with past tense is judged aceptable: 26 (25) [? taima-o {ka-u/kat-ta}-koto]-ga kokugai-tuihoo-no [ marijuana-o buy-Prs/buy-Past-C koto ]-Nom deportation-Gen gen?in-ni nari-uru cause-Cop.Nonfin become-can ?{Buying/Having bought} marijuana can be a cause of deportation.? Our prediction apparently fails. However, this interpretation of the data is not necesarily waranted. First, it is not clear whether Japanese does not have a phoneticaly null equivalent of English one, which would give rise to a similar reading to what is caled the ?arbitrary PRO? reading. If the language has it, then the interpretation obtained with (25) does not tel us much about the status of the T of the sentential subject in question. Second, the actual distribution of ?arbitrary reference? is not as clear as one might think, given what has been reported in the literature. It is true that null objects inside sentential subjects hardly receive an ?arbitrary reading? (Saito 1982, Kuroda 1983, Hasegawa 1984-85). But a similar reading is sometimes possible with null objects in other environments. Washio (1999) observes cases where objects of transitive verbs receive an ?arbitrary reading?. (26) is from Washio?s (7c): (26) yoi ongaku-wa [? rirakkusus]-ase-te kure-ru good music-Top [ relax]-Caus-Nonfin give-Prs ?Good music makes one relax.? Cf. yoi ongaku-wa [John-o rirakkusus]-ase-te kure-ru good music-Top [John-Ac relax]-Caus-Nonfin give-Prs ?Good music makes John relax.? Finaly, it is not uncontroversial that ?arbitrary reference? of null subjects always indicates NOC. As pointed out by Epstein 1984 and Lebeaux 1984, covert controllers could be involved. Given these situations, there sem to be numerous possibilities of how to interpret the fact in (25). Investigations of the nature of sentential subject constructions with respect to control have to be left for the isues for future research. Chapter 2: Control/Raising and Finitenes in Japanese 1 The Isue Let us start by ilustrating two puzzles that sem to have been major obstacles to proposing a theory of control that can handle Japanese data. Both of the puzzles have to do with what we cal ?finite control? constructions such as (1): (1) Hiroshi i -wa [? i natoo-o tabe-ru-koto]-o Hiroshi-Top nattoo eat-Prs-C koto -Ac kesinsita decided ?John decided to eat nato.? As in (2) below, the null complement subject in a construction of the type exemplified by (1) does not alow for a long distance antecedent (i.e. an antecedent that is not a clause-mate to the control clause), just as the null subject in the English obligatory control sentence John decided ? to eat natto: (2) * karera i -wa [kantoku-ga [? i otagai-o they-Top [director-Nom [ each other-Ac naguri-a-u-koto]-o kesinsita-to] omotta hit-Recip-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided-C to ] thought ?They thought that the director had decided to hit each other.? OC with kesinsu(ru) ?decide? What is curious about this construction is that the predicate of the complement clause appears to be marked for tense, unlike its English counterpart. The so-caled present tense marker -ru ataches to the embedded verb. It looks like the koto-CP in (2) is a finite clause, while many theories of control do not alow this possibility (se though 28 Watanabe 1993: chap. 2.1, Landau 2004, Potsdam 2006, among others). Further, note that, unsurprisingly, Japanese has finite complement clauses that do not involve OC. (2) and (3) are a minimal pair: (3) karera i -wa [kantoku-ga [? i otagai-o they-Top [director-Nom [ each other-Ac naguri-a-u-koto]-o soozoosita-to] omotta hit-Recip-Prs-C no ]-Ac imagined-C to thought ?They thought that the director had imagined that they would hit each other.? non-control with soozoosu(ru) ?imagine? 1 Long distance antecedence is perfectly fine here. Hence, ? in (3) is not OC PRO. Rather it looks like pro. If we take ? in (2) to be PRO of the sort found in English, the isue arises as to why OC PRO occurs in (2) but not in (3) (The isue is noted by Saito (1982: 21f.). (4) Japanese alows OC into tensed clauses. How is this possible, given that it is not possible in languages like English? The answer that we wil provide is that the complement of decide in (2), unlike that of imagine in (3), is a [-finite] clause, just like English infinitival clauses. This answer to the first puzzle leads one to ask whether there is any indication of this way of looking at the two types of complement clauses. Notice that predicates of the so-caled present tense form found in the CP complement of kesinsu(ru) ?deicide? cannot alternate with the so-caled past tense form. (Such cases have been noted in one way or another by many authors including Nakau 1973: 225, Ohso 1976: 90f., Saito 1985: 267, n34, Sakaguchi 1990, Ueda 1990: 76, Watanabe 1996b): 1 ?Non-control? refers to cases that can be analyzed to involve no PRO. If the analysis that wil be presented below is correct, the subject of the complement of imagine is litle pro, which is assigned structural Case. 29 (5) * Hiroshi i -wa [? i natoo-o tabe-ta-koto]-o kesinsita Hiroshi-Top natto-Ac eat-Past-C koto -Ac decided ?Hiroshi decided to eat nato.? In contrast, both the present and past tense forms can occur in the CP-complement of imagine, which does not involve OC: (6) Hiroshi i -wa [? i natoo-o tabe-ta-koto]-o soozoosita Hiroshi-Top [ natto-Ac eat-Past-C koto ]-Ac imagined ?Hiroshi imagined that he had eaten nato.? This diference betwen the two tensed complements leads one to the following generalization that helps to detect the finitenes of Japanese tensed clauses: (7) Tense alternation generalization (informal): Tensed subordinate clauses in Japanese act like infinitives if and only if their predicate does not alternate betwen the present tense form and the past tense form. The intuition that predicates of the present tense form are not always finite can be traced back to Kuroda (1965: 167ff.) and Ohso (1976: 90ff) in the early generative literature. They noted that clauses with predicates of the present tense form, meaning- wise, look like English infinitives; se also Saito 1985: 267, n34, Nemoto 1993: 207, Aoshima 2001, Kuroda 1990, 2003. 2 If (7) or something along these lines is correct, the above data entail that the complement of decide is nonfinite while that of imagine is finite. We cal tensed subordinate clauses that obey the generalization about tense 2 In fact, the simple present tense form of verbs is the citation form in Japanese. The tense alternation generalization, however, should not be taken to mean that when the past tense form is barred, the clause is pseudo-finite. Uchibori (200: 14) makes the observation that factive predicates such as kookaisu(ru) ?regret? takes a clausal complement in which the predicate is always in the past tense. (The observation is attributed to Koichi Takezawa.) These verbs generally involve OC. 30 alternation ?pseudo-finite clauses?. It wil be shown that null subjects of genuine finite clauses (i.e. the ones that alow for tense alternation) display properties of pro and that null subjects of pseudo-finite clauses (i.e. the ones that does not alow for alternation) behave like null subjects in English. Move onto the second puzzle. The reason I think the finite vs. pseudo-finite distinction is fundamentaly correct is that we find no OC sentences that alow their complement to acept both present and past. Despite that, however, the paralelism betwen pseudo-finite complements and infinitival complements in languages like English breaks down in one place. That is, a number of cases are found where pseudo-finite complements do not involve either OC or raising. Compare (8) with the unaceptable long distance antecedence in (2): (8) karera i -wa [kantoku-ga [? i otagai-o they-Top [director-Nom [ each other-Ac naguri-a-u-koto]-o keikakusi-tei-ru-to] omotta hit-Recip-Prs-C koto ]-Ac plan-Asp-Prs-C to ] thought ?They thought that the director was planning to hit each other.? non-control with keikakusu(ru) ?plan? A complement clause of the same form as the one found in (2) ceases to show OC properties when it occurs with the verb keikakusu(ru) ?plan?. A long distance antecedent is alowed here, unlike the case of decide in (2). Given the tense alternation generalization in (7), we expect that the verb embedded under plan alows tense alternation, just like the one sen under imagine. This is not the case, however: (9) * Hiroshi i -wa [? i natoo-o tabe-ta-koto]-o keikakusita Hiroshi-Top [ natto-Ac eat-Past-C koto ]-Ac planned lit. ?Hiroshi planned that he {eats, ate} nato.? ?Hiroshi planned to eat nato.? The unaceptability of (9) suggests that the koto-marked CP is [-finite]. But no OC 31 efects are observed. What we se in (8) and (9) is quite puzzling. Long distance antecedents are prohibited across the board in languages like English when null subjects appear in complement subject position (se Landau 2000 for extensive discussion of the clasification of control in English): (10) *John i thought Mary was planning [? i to eat nato] Given this state of afairs, one could advance a Japanese-particular claim like the following: The null complement subjects appearing under plan and appearing under deicide are both PRO. The interpretation of PRO in the language should follow directly from, say, some lexical semantic diference betwen keikakusu(ru) ?plan? and kesinsu(ru) ?decide?. In such a view, the lexical semantics of ?decide? prohibits PRO from being bound long distance, and the theory of the distribution of the empty category (that alows it to occur in the subject position of infinitives) can be maintained. Although such a way to go is perfectly coherent, its consequence does not sem to be aceptable. This approach makes it almost impossible to tease apart the claim that those null subjects are big PRO from the entirely diferent claim that those are litle pro. If one argues that the interpretation of those null subjects has nothing to do with the syntax of complement clauses, a reason to distinguish PRO from pro based on the contrast betwen (2) and (3) would disappear. The null subjects of the complement of imagine and the complement of decide could be both PRO or both pro. Indeed, two prior studies of nul subjects in East Asian languages in the eighties proposed to make no distinction betwen what one might cal PRO and what one might cal pro. Huang (1989) claims, on data somewhat diferent from ours, that in those languages, null subjects of tensed clauses are ?controlled? pro (when they are not syntactic variables) (se Huang 1984, 1989, 1991 for details). Hasegawa (1984-85), contra Huang, argues that those null subjects are PRO (when they are not syntactic variables), asuming 32 that subject positions of tensed clauses in Japanese are optionaly governed. 3 Note incidentaly that the data that motivate the finite vs. pseudo-finite distinction (i.e. OC PRO vs. pro) argue against Huang?s idea that pro is ?controlled? (se also Huang 1989 for criticism of Hasegawa?s approach.) The bottom line is that we should not discard the present analysis of the diference betwen the imagine case and decide case unles we find a case in which a case in which the tense of subordinate clauses does alternate but their subject acts like OC PRO. Thus, the question pertaining to the non-control behavior found in (8) can be addresed in the following form: (11) How is it possible for the nul subject of nonfinite clauses not to show the properties of OC PRO? I atempt to provide a configurational answer to (11) in section 6. This chapter is organized as follows: In section 2, I atempt to explicate the tense alternation generalization in slightly more formal terms. In section 3, some core data about finite OC are presented. The major aim there is to demonstrate that the actual distribution of OC PRO is largely correlated with a property of tense morphology of embedded clauses. Importance of distinguishing null subjects of pseudo-finite clauses from those of finite clauses is shown. It is also pointed out in that section that there are cases where null subjects of nonfinite complements do not behave as either OC PRO or NP-t (the second puzzle). Section 4 concerns raising. It is observed that pseudo-finite clauses appear in a subject-to-subject raising construction. This observation supports the idea that tense alternation is a central factor in determining finitenes in Japanese. Section 5 analyzes the thre diferent nul subjects, i.e. nul subjects of regular finite complements, OC PRO and NP-t under the movement theory of control. Some implications for the theory of control are briefly discussed, too. The second puzzle about the distribution of PRO is discused in section 6, where 3 Hasegawa (1984-85) examined cases in which nul subjects appear in sentential subjects, as well as complements and adjuncts. I do not discus these cases here. See chapter 1 for some comments. 33 it is argued that the problematic nonfinite complements are Non-obligatory Control (NOC) clauses. Section 7 concludes. 2 The Tense Alternation Generalization Before looking at data concerning OC in greater detail, I would like to mention a few notes on the tense alternation generalization. First, the notion of ?alternation? found in (7) can be made clearer by using features such as [?past] and [?finite]. As noted earlier, kesinsu(ru) ?decide? (yielding OC) and keikakusu(ru) ?plan? (yielding no OC) do not alow its complement to be marked with past tense marker -ta. (Note that Japanese does not exhibit the ?sequence of tense? efect; se Ogihara 1996 for extensive discussion.) Asuming that a T bearing [-past] is realized as -ru and a T bearing [+past] as -ta, the way that decide restricts the tense marking of its complement can be described as in (12): (12) kesinsu(ru) ?decide?, keikakusu(ru) ?plan? T of complement clause: *[+fin, +past] (speled out as -ta) *[+fin, -past] (speled out as -ru) *[-fine, +past] (speled out as -ta) ?[-fin, -past] (speled out as -ru) On the other hand, verbs like soozoosu(ru) ?imagine? alows its complement to be marked with present tense or past tense. (We do not know whether the verb cannot take a [-finite] complement, as indicated by %, because the set of the properties of nonfinite complements is subsumed by the set of the properties of finite complements with respect to the interpretation of their null subject): 34 (13) soozoosu(ru) ?imagine?: T of complement clause: ?[+fin, +past] (speled out as -ta) ? [+fin, -past] (speled out as -ru) %[-fin, +past] (speled out as -ta) %[-fin, -past] (speled out as -ru) Secondly, note that, as briefly mentioned in footnote 2, it is not the case that pseudo-finite clauses are always in the present tense. Factive verbs such as kookaisu(ru) ?regret? require a past tense complement and yield OC: (14) Taro-wa [? otooto-o {*nagu-ru/nagut-ta}-koto]-o Taro-Top younger brother-Ac hit-Prs/hit-Past-C koto -Ac kookaisi-tei-ru regret-Asp-Prs ?Taro has regreted hiting his younger brother.? The present tense form of the embedded predicate is bared, and the complement subject acts like OC PRO: (15) * karera i -wa [kantoku-ga [? i otagai-o they-Top [director-Nom [ each other-Ac naguri-at-ta-koto]-o kookaisi-tei-ru-to] omotta hit-Recip-Past-C koto ]-Ac regret-Asp-Prs-C to ] thought ?They thought that the director had regreted hiting each other.? OC with kookaisu(ru) ?regret? The null complement subject cannot be bound long distance. The two observations lead to characterizing the T of the factive complement clause as in (16): 35 (16) kookaisu(ru) ?regret? T of complement clause: *[+fin, +past] (speled out as -ta) *[+fin, -past] (speled out as -ru) ?[-fin, +past] (speled out as -ta) *[-fin, -past] (speled out as -ru) Viewed in terms of features [?finite] and [?past], the tense alternation generalization then can be restated in the following way: (17) Tense alternation generalization: If the T of a subordinate tensed clause cannot bear [+past] or cannot bear [-past] in environment E, it must bear [-finite] in E. Thirdly, the question of where the tense alternation generalization comes from needs to be asked. Why and how is it the case that clauses whose T can cary [-past] but cannot cary [+past] (or vise versa) must be [-finite]? Although I have no answer to this question, it should be noted that the list of predicates taking pseudo-finite complements is highly similar to the list of predicates that have been caled irealis and realis predicates in the literature on English infinitives. Landau (2000, 2004) proposes a thre-way distinction with respect to the tense of complement clauses: (i) independent tense, (i) dependent tense and (ii) anaphoric tense. 4 The category of Japanese subordinate clauses that we are dealing with sems to be ?dependent tense? in Landau?s term. That is, kesinsu(ru) ?decide? and keikakusu(ru) ?plan? are both irealis predicates, whereas kookaisu(ru) ?regret? is a realis. Landau argues that irealis and realis infinitives have tense features. While it is a coherent position to claim that our [?past] feature is the same thing as Landau?s tense feature, I do not commit myself to the isue of whether nonfinite clauses are ?tensed? or not. Unlike the popular view that at least certain infinitives are ?tensed?, Wurmbrand (to appear) claims that they are tenseles. Observing that infinitives lack the properties found 4 For the interaction between control and the temporal interpretation of embedded clauses, se also Bresnan 1982, Stowell 1982, Pesetsky 191, Martin 196, 201, Bo?kovi? 197, Pesetsky and Torrego 201, Wurmbrand 201, to appear, to list a few. 36 with the tense of finite embedded clauses, she proposes that irealis interpretation of the sort found in certain infinitive constructions come from the abstract future modal woll (which is speled out as wil when it is combined with present tense), but not tense. It is perfectly possible to asociate [-finite] -ru in Japanese with woll (and [- finite] -ta with some other modal that yields the efect it has). I, though, stick to the terminology ?tense? to refer to an element such as -ru and -ta since these morphemes have been caled so in the literature. 3 ?Finite? Obligatory Control and Non-Control This section examines standard diagnostics to distinguish OC PRO from NOC atested in studies of control in other languages to se that we have at least two categories: (a) Pseudo-finite clauses in complement position that involve OC and (b) genuine finite clauses in complement position, which never involve OC. The aim of the section is to show that complements of decide-type verbs, unlike complements of imagine-type verbs, are control clauses by running some OC diagnostics: (i) long distance antecedence is not possible with OC while it is possible with Case-marked pro; (i) strict interpretation under elipsis is not possible with OC PRO while it is possible with Case-marked pro; (ii) bound variable interpretation with ?only NP? antecedents is obligatory with OC PRO while it is not with Case-marked pro; and (iv) de-se interpretation is obligatory with OC PRO while it is not with Case-marked pro. 3.1 Ban on long distance antecedents We have already sen that null subjects of pseudo-finite clauses resist taking their antecedent across two clause boundaries (except for problematic cases such as the case of plan). What these data show is that those null subjects behave like OC PRO. Let us examine (18)a (with decide) and (18)b (with promise): 37 (18) a. * karera i -wa [kantoku-ni [? i otagai-o they-Top [director-Dat [ each other-Ac hihansi-aw-u-koto]-o kesinsi-te] hosikata criticize-Recip-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decide-TE wanted ?They wanted the director to decide to criticize each other (in the next movie).? b. # Mary i -wa [otto-ga kangohu-to [? i sono heya-de Mary-Top [husband-Nom nurse-with [ that room-in syussansu-ru-koto]-o yakusokusita-to] omotta give birth-Prs-C koto ]-Ac promised-C to ] thought ?Mary thought her husband had promised the nurse to give birth in that room.? We have already sen a sentence of the type exemplified by (18)a. Otagai-o V-aw in the first example is the predicate asociated with the null subject. As indicated in the gloss, otagai-o is a reciprocal pronoun, and -aw is a reciprocalizer, which ataches to a verb stem to yield reciprocal verbs. 5 Singular subjects are impossible to obtain when the VP has this form. The point is that otagai-o V-aw helps to force ? to be 5 Hoji (197) correctly observes that reciprocal anaphor otagai can take split antecedents, citing examples like (i) (=Hoji?s 9b with the slightly modified gloses): (i) Ieyasu 1 -wa Nobunaga 2 -ni [Singen-ga otagai 1+2 -o home-tei-ta-to] Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-Nom otagai-Acc praise-Asp-Past-C] tuge-ta tell-Past ?Ieyasu 1 told Nobunaga 2 that Nobunaka had been praising them 1+2. ? Curiously enough, when the embedded verb is reciprocalized, i.e. suplied with the verbal suffix aw, split antecedence goes away: (ii) * Ieyasu 1 -wa Nobunaga 2 -ni [Singen-ga otagai 1+2 -o Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-Nom e.o-Ac home-at-teita-to] tuge-ta praise-Recip-Asp-Past-C] told ?Ieyasu 1 told Nobunaga 2 that Nobunaka had been praising them 1+2. ? The generalization seems to be that when otagai appears inside a VP whose head is morphologically reciprocalized with aw, the reciprocal anaphor requires a local non-split binder. Thanks to Chizuru Nakao for helpful discusion. 38 interpreted as bound by a long distance plural antecedent, rather than by a short distance singular antecedent. (18)a is unaceptable because the locality requirement for OC conflicts with the property of VPs of the reciprocal form. (18)b is pragmaticaly anomalous, because the referent of the short distance antecedent, the husband, is a male, and OC forces the predicate give birth to apply to the male individual, which conflicts with our world knowledge. If long distance antecedence were alowed, this example would be aceptable with the embedded VP predicated of Mary. The ban on long distance antecedence holds for the object control construction. We find examples like (19), whose predicate susume(ru) ?persuade/recommend? takes a control clause: 6 (19) * karera i -wa [butyoo-ni Taro-ni [? i otagai-o asu they-Top [manager-Dat T-Dat [ e.o-Ac tomorrow hihansi-a-u-koto]-o susume-te] hosikata criticize-Recip-Prs-C koto -Ac persuade-TE] wanted ?They i wanted [their boss to persuade Taro [that they i should criticize each other tomorrow].? Here the nul subject of the control clause cannot be bound by the subject of the highest clause, they, which is the only one NP that can satisfy the property of criticize each other. The tense alternation generalization sems to be empiricaly corect. It is expected that the tense of these embedded clauses is fixed to the present tense because the constructions involve embedding of nonfinite clauses. The most deeply embedded predicate is not alowed to be in the past tense form: 6 The so-called nominalizing complementizer koto (which is cased-marked) can replace with a non-nominalizing complementizer yooni; see Nakau 1973, Nemoto 193, Uchibori 200, Aoshima 201 for discusion of the latter complementizer. The difference between nominalizing and non-nominalizing complementizers wil be syntactically relevant in the discusion in section 6.3. 39 (20) a. kantoku-wa [? karera-o {hihansu-ru/*hihansi-ta}-koto]-o director-Top [ them-Ac criticized-Past/Past-C koto ]-Ac kesinsi-ta decide-Past ?They decided to criticize them.? b. Mary-wa kangohu-to [? sono heya-de Mary-Top nurse-with that room-in {syussansu-ru/*syussansi-ta}-koto]-o yakusokusita give birth-Prs/Past-C koto -Ac promised ?Mary promised the nurse to give birth in that room.? c. butyoo-ga Taro-ni [? karera-o manager-Nom Taro-Dat [ they-Ac {hihansu-ru/*hihansi-ta}-koto]-o susume-ta criticize-Prs/Past-C koto ]-Ac persuade-Past ?The boss persuaded Taro to criticize them.? These complement clauses are therefore taken as pseudo-finite clauses, or specified [- finite]. Let us turn to null subjects of genuine finite clauses. They behave just like pro; that is, there is no restriction on long distance antecedence: (21) karera i -wa [kantoku-ni [? i otagai-o they-Top [director-Dat [ e.o.-Ac hihansi-a-u-no]-o mi-te] hosikata criticize-Recip-Prs-C no ]-Ac se-TE wanted ?They wanted the director to se them criticize each other.? non-control with se 40 (22) karera i -wa [butyoo-ni Taro-ni [? i otagai-o asu they-Top [manager-Dat Taro-Dat [ e.o-Ac tomorrow hihansi-a-u-koto]-o tutae-te] hosikata criticize-Recip-Prs-C tokoro -Ac inform-TE] wanted ?They wanted their boss to inform Taro that they would criticize each other tomorrow.? non-control with inform Conforming to the tense alternation generalization, the tense of those finite clauses can be either present or past: (23) a. kantoku-wa karera-ga otagai-o hihansi-{a-u/at-ta}-no-o director-Top they-Nom e.o.-Ac criticize-Recip-Prs/Past-C NO -Ac mita saw ?The director saw them criticize each other.? b. butyoo-ga Taro-ni [karera-ga otagai-o manager-Nom Taro-Dat [they-Nom e.o-Ac hihansi-{a-u/at-ta}-koto]-o tutaeta criticize-Recip-Prs/Past-C koto ]-Ac told ?The manager told Taro that they {would criticize, had criticized} each other.? The data concerning the ban on long distance antecedents show that the distinction betwen OC and non-control correlates with tense marking of complement predicates. 3.2 Necesity of c-command It is generaly agred upon that OC PRO needs c-commanding antecedents (se, though, Landau 2000: 31 and chapter 3 of his work for some constructions where the condition is apparently violated). This requirement holds for null subjects of Japanese pseudo-finite clauses. Clauses occurring in complement position do not alow their null subject to be (semanticaly) bound by the genitive NPs inside a potential 41 controller (24): (24) a. # [Mary i -no titioya]-wa yorokonde [? i sono byooin-de Mary-Gen father-Top happily that hospital-in syussansu-ru-koto]-o kesinsita give birth-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Mary?s father happily decided to give birth in that hospital.? OC with decide + koto b. * sensei-wa sono kyoodai i -no hahaoya-ni [? i otagai-o (yoku) teacher-Top that brother-Gen mother-Dat e.o-Ac often home-aw-u-yooni] tanonda praise-Recip-Prs-C yoni ]-Ac asked ?The teacher asked these brothers? mother to praise each other more often.? OC with ask + yooni If koto-clauses appear with verbs like hear or inform as in (25), the null subject starts to take these antecedents without degradation: (25) a. [Mary i -no titioya]-wa yorokonde [? i sono byooin-de Mary-Gen father-Top happily that hospital-in {syussansu-ru/syussansi-ta}-koto]-o kiita give birth-Prs/give birth-Past-C koto ]-Ac heard ?Mary?s father happily heard that she {would give, had given} birth in that hospital.? non-control with hear + koto b. sensei-wa sono kyoodai i -no hahaoya-ni [? i otagai-o yoku teacher-Top that brother-Gen mother-Dat e.o-Ac often home-{a-u/at-ta}-koto]-o kossori osieta praise-{Recip-Prs/Recip-Past}-C koto ]-Ac secretly informed ?The teacher secretly told these brothers? mother that they {(often) praise, had praised} each other.? non-control with inform + koto 42 Again, the complements of examples like these can be present tense and past tense. The tense alternation generalization correlates with the c-command condition. 3.3 Ban on strict interpretation of ? One other interpretive characteristic of OC PRO is that it is always a bound variable. To put it diferently, the empty category, unlike pronouns, cannot be interpreted as a fre variable (Foder 1975, Chomsky 1981, Reinhart 1983, Lebeaux 1984, Higginbotham 1992); se Heim and Kratzer 1998 for semantic binding. A diagnostic to distinguish OC from others in this respect has to do with elipsis. OC PRO cannot support strict identiy but it requires sloppy identity, just like standard local anaphors (Bouchard 1984, Higginbotham 1992): (26) a. A: Mary-wa [? zibun-no peesu-de sigoto-o Mary-Top [ at self?s pace work-Ac tuzuke-ru-koto]-o kesinsita continue-Prs-C koto -Ac decided ?Mary decided to continue to work at her own pace.? B: butyoo-mo da manager-even Cop ?The manager decided to continue to work at her own pace.? *?The manager decided that she should continue to work at her own pace.? OC with decide + koto 43 b. A: Taro-wa Mary i -ni [? i Osaka-ni ik-u-koto]-o Taro-Top Mary-Dat [ Osaka-to go-Prs-C koto ]-Ac meizita ordered ?Taro ordered Mary to go to the store.? B: Dave-ni-mo da Dave-Dat-even Cop ?Dave, too.? ?Taro ordered Dave that Dave should go to Osaka.? *?Taro ordered Dave that Mary should go to Osaka.? OC with order + koto Both subject and object control, like those in English, do not permit a strict reading. When we run this elipsis test with a finite complement, which alows its predicate to appear in either the present or past tense form, we find that a strict reading is available: (27) A: Mary-wa [? zibun-no peesu-de sigoto-o Mary-Top [ at self?s pace work-Ac tuzuke-{ru/ta}-koto]-o tegami-ni kaita continue-Prs/Past-C koto -Ac leter-in wrote ?Mary wrote in her leter that she {would continue, had continued} to work at her own pace.? B: butyoo-mo da manager-even Cop ?The manager wrote in his leter that he {would continue, had continued} to work at his own pace.? ?The manager wrote in his leter that she {would continue, had continued} to work at her own pace.? non-control with write+ koto 44 Therefore, the availability of strict readings of nul subjects correlates with the tense alternation generalization: pseudo-finite clauses are [-finite], whose subject is OC PRO. 3.4 Bound variable interpretation with ?only-NP? antecedents Virtualy the same point can be shown with another test, which utilizes the focus particle only. Consider: (28) a. Only John expected [PRO to win a prize] b. Only John expected [he would win a prize]. There are two interpretations that are potentialy asociated with (28)a and (28)b: (29)a and (29)b. Folowing Higginbotham (1992), we cal a reading of the former kind the ?covariant? reading and one of the later kind the ?invariant? reading: (29) a. Covariant interpretation: Only John satisfies the property: x expected x would win a prize b. Invariant interpretation: Only John satisfies the property: x expected John would win a prize An interpretive diference betwen pronouns and OC PRO emerges in such a way that (28)a does not alow the invariant interpretation while (28)b alows both readings. To se if this is the case, let us consider two scenarios, both of which make one interpretation true and the other false. (30) Scenario 1 John: ?I?m sure I wil win some prize.? Mary: ?I?m sure I wil win some prize, but I doubt John wil win any.? a. Covariant interpretation (29)a -> false b. Invariant interpretation (29)b -> true 45 Scenario 1 only makes the invariant interpretation true. Native speakers reject statement (28)a in this context because OC PRO does not alow for the non-bound reading. On the other hand, (28)b, where the embedded subject is a pronoun, can be uttered truly. The situation is reverse in the next scenario: (31) Scenario 2 John: ?I?m sure I wil win some prize.? Mary: ?I?m sure John wil win some prize, but I doubt I wil win any..? a. Covariant interpretation (29)a -> true b. Invariant interpretation (29)b -> false In this case, statement (28)a as wel as (28)b is acepted, because both OC PRO and pronouns alow a bound variable interpretation. Given this background, consider first the following finite complement example in Japanese: (32) Yoko i -dake-ga syatyoo-to [? i Osaka-ni ik-u-koto]-o Yoko-only-Nom owner-with Osaka-to go-Prs-C koto -Ac hanasita talked ?Only Yoko talked with the owner (about the plan) that she would go to Osaka.? non-control with talk + koto (33) a. Invariant interpretation: Yoko is the only x such that x talked with the owner about the plan that Yoko would go to Osaka. b. Covariant interpretation: Yoko is the only x such that x talked with the owner about the plan that x would go to Osaka. (32) is ambiguous betwen the interpretation given in (33)a and the one given in (33)b. Under the a-interpretation, the utterance can be naturaly continued with ?No. Hiroshi also talked with the owner about Yoko?s busines trip to Osaka.? Under the b-interpretation, a continuation would be something like ?No. Hiroshi also talked with the owner about him going to Osaka.? Both continuations are possible here. 46 Obligatory control sentences lack this ambiguity. Observe: (34) Yoko i -dake-ga syatyoo-to [? i Osaka-ni Yoko-only-Nom owner-with Osaka-to {ik-u/*it-ta}-koto]-o yakusokusita go-Prs/go-Past-C koto -Ac promised ?Only Yoko promised the owner to go to Osaka.? OC with promise+koto It is not the case that (34) is ambiguous betwen (35)a and (35)b: (35) a. Invariant interpretation: Yoko is the only x such that x promised the owner that Yoko would go to Osaka. b. Covariant interpretation: Yoko is the only x such that x promised the owner that x would go to Osaka. The utterance can only be continued with ?No, Hiroshi also promised the owner that he would go to Osaka.? Also, notice that it-ta ?go-Past? is disalowed in the complement clause in (34). On the other hand, the string ik-u-koto (go-Prs-C) in (33) can be replaced with it-ta-koto (go-Past-C) without degradation of aceptability. The version of the sentence with the past tense complement: (36) Yoko i -dake-ga syatyoo-to [? i Osaka-ni it-ta-koto]-o Yoko-only-Nom owner-with Osaka-to go-Past-C koto -Ac hanasita talked ?Only Yoko talked with the owner (about the fact) that she had gone to Osaka.? non-control with talk + koto This sentence is ambiguous with respect to the interpretation of ?, just like its present-tense variant. 47 3.5 De se interpretation Since Chierchia (1989), it has been a wel-known fact that (subject-controlled) OC PRO does not alow a non-de se interpretation; se also Higginbotham 1992, Hornstein 1999, Landau 2000, Anand and Nevins 2004. Elements including NOC PRO and overt pronouns alow both de se and non-de se interpretations. As wil be shown below, the null subject of the complement of kesinsu(ru) ?decide? requires a de se interpretation, whereas the null subject of the complement of verbs like soozoosu(ru) ?imagine? alows a non-de se interpretation as wel as a de se interpretation. Consider the following scenario: (37) Taro has been working for a smal company. One day, the owner of the company gave him a file that contained info about each employee?s busines achievements. She said that she would have to ask at least one employee to leave the company because downsizing was inevitable. She wanted him to go through the file and pick one person in some objective way. The owner left out employees? names and used diferent numbers to refer to them, so that Taro?s evaluation wouldn?t be biased. Reviewing the records, Taro reluctantly chose one person because his or her achievements were very poor. Imagining that the employee was asked to leave, he felt sorry. He gave the owner the number that was asigned to the employee in question. The owner found the employee to be Taro. She asked him to leave on the following day. This scenario helps to set up a situation in which Taro was not informed of the identity of the person who he chose, even though that person was in fact him. Now compare (38), where soozoosu(ru) ?imagine? is the main verb, and (39), where kesinsu(ru) ?decide? is. 48 (38) Taro i -ga [? i taisyoku-ru-koto]-o soozoosita Taro-Nom [ leave.company-Prs-C koto ]-Ac imagined ?Taro imagined that he would leave the company.? (non-de se) imagine + koto-complement (39) Taro i -ga [? i taisyoku-ru-koto]-o kesinsita Taro-Nom [ leave.company-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided to leave the company.? (*non-de se) kesinsu(ru) ?decide? + koto-complement The result is that the example with decide is not felicitous to utter whereas the one with imagine is fine. (Both sentences are compatible with de se scenarios in which he decided or imagined that he himself would leave the company.) Thus, the null subject of the complement of kesinsu(ru) ?decide? cannot receive a non-de se interpretation just as OC PRO, whereas the null subject of the complement of imagine can receive that interpretation, just as overt pronouns like he in English. 3.6 Intermediate summary This section showed that there is some correlation betwen tense marking on subordinate clauses and the interpretation of null subjects. The data suggest that we need to distinguish betwen two null subjects. One is OC PRO, and the other is pro. I claim that, invoking the generalization in (17), repeated below, that there are two kinds of tensed clauses: genuine finite clauses and pseudo-finite clauses. Once the later are taken to be a species of infinitives, the distributional properties of OC PRO and pro in Japanese become normal; hence this is a welcome result. (40) Tense alternation generalization: If the T of a subordinate tensed clause cannot bear [+past] or cannot bear [-past] in environment E, it must bear [-finite] in E In the next section, the tense alternation generalization gains further support. It holds not only for obligatory control but also for raising. 49 4 ?Finite? Raising If pseudo-finite complements exist, there should be a chance of raising out of tensed clasues. 7 I argue that what we cal the become-construction is an instance of subject- to-subject raising (in agrement with Nakau 1973: 197 and Uchibori 2000), and that the complement yooni-clause found in the construction is [-finite]. Here is one example of the become-construction: (41) Taro-ga benkyoosu-ru-yooni nata Taro-Nom study-Prs-C yoni became ?Taro has started to study hard (habitualy).? The following needs to be shown to hold for this construction: When the subject is non-thematic, it is asigned Case by the matrix Case asigner, say, T. First, let us make sure that the predicate na(ru) ?become? can be non-thematic. There are sat least four possible analyses of the string in (41): (42) a. NP i -Nom [PRO i ? T-C] become ? b. NP ? i -Nom [pro i ? T-C] become ? c. NP i -Nom [t i ? T-C] become ?-bar 7 I say ?chance,? because on the classic GB view, raising and control were mutually exclusive. A-trace must be governed (and properly governed), while PRO must not be governed (se Chomsky 1981, Lasnik and Uriagereka 198). The same mutual exclusiveness holds for the nul Case theory. Martin 192, 196, 201 and Bo?kovi? 197 propose that the T of control infinitives is specified [+tense] and checks nul Case, while the T of raising infinitives is specified [-tense] and does not check Case. Therefore, in these theories, the existence of control infinitives in a language does not necessarily lead one to expect that raising infinitives also exist in the language. 50 d. (Expl) [NP i -Nom ? T-C] become ?-bar (42)a and (42)b ilustrate possibilities under which become has the external argument, which binds the null subject of the yooni-CP. The possibility given in (42)c is that become lacks an external argument and the embedded subject undergoes A- movement to subject position (raising). The structure in (42)d represents the variant involving non-thematic become in which no movement takes place. Instead, an expletive can be inserted. There is evidence that na(ru) ?become? can be non-thematic. Consider the following example: (43) hubuk-u-yooni nata snow-Prs-C yoni became ?A snowstorm has started to blow up.? (43) shows that a predicate taking what we may cal whether-pro (quasi-argument in the sense of Chomsky 1981: 325) can cooccur with become. As Takahashi (2000) shows, weather-pro is necesarily the argument of ?meteorological? predicates like hubuk(u) ?snow hard? or sigure(ru) ?drizle?. Unles nar(u) ?become? can take weather-pro as its quasi-argument, (43)a must have a structure (42)c or (42)d. There is no evidence that become is a meteorological predicate. Stronger evidence for become being non-thematic comes from idiom chunks. As Uchibori (2000:62) observes, the idiom chunk siraha-no ya occurs with nominative Case in this construction. Example (44) is modeled on Uchibori?s. 51 (44) siraha-no ya-ga saikin John-ni tat-u-yooni white fur arrow-Nom recently John-Dat stand-Prs-C yoni nata became lit. ?It recently became that white-fured arows stand on John.? ?John has recently started to get chosen (for a job or a role).? If become always asigns an independent ?-role to its subject, (44) should be excluded because idiom chunks cannot be true arguments. We thus conclude that become should have a non-thematic use, (42)c or (42)d. The next isue to be considered is whether the nominative subject has Case relationship with any element in the matrix. I present one argument that the embedded subject can be asigned Case by the matrix Case asigner. The argument for the raising analysis of the construction is built on the proces caled nominative-genitive conversion (for studies of this construction in the P&P framework, se Miyagawa 1993, Watanabe 1996c, Ochi 1999, Hiraiwa 2001, Saito 2004, among others). (45) a. [gakkoo-ni Taro-ga/no kita-koto]-o siteiru [school-to T-Gen/Nom came.Adnom-C koto ]-Ac know ?I know that Taro came to school.? b. [gakkoo-ni Taro-ga/*no kita-to] siteiru school-to T-Gen/Nom came.Conc-C to know ?I know that Taro came to school.? c. gakkoo-ni Taro-ga/*no kita-yo school-to Taro-Gen/Nom came.Conc-SFP ?Taro came to school.? Hiraiwa showed that this case conversion proces is licensed by rentaikei (adnominal) morphology of predicates, as opposed to syuusikei (conclusive) morphology of them. Roughly put, when a tensed predicate precedes relative heads, nominalizing 52 complementizers, etc., it must be in the adnominal form, whereas when it precedes nothing in roots or precedes the quotative complementizer to, it must be in the conclusive form (se Hiraiwa 2001 for a note on the diachronic development of this morphology). Simplifying Hiraiwa?s theory, I asume with Saito (2006) that when tensed predicates are in the adnominal form, T may asign genitive Case. The asumptions are schematicaly shown as follows: (46) [ CP C {koto, no, relative} [ TP NP-Gen T asign Gen As noted in (45)b, the quotative complementizer to does not enable T to asign genitive Case. This is because the verbal morphology of a predicate followed by to is not the adnominal form but is the conclusive form. I asume with Hiraiwa that the conclusive form is asociated with nominative Case ga. Also, Hiraiwa has shown that the subject of embedded finite clauses cannot be Case-marked long distance. Consider an impersonal sentence of the type that Saito (1985: 203) discusses: (47) a. [ Cl1 Expl [ Cl2 John-{*no/ga} {kaetta/kaeru}-to] kangaerareteiru-yo] John-Gen/Nom left/leave.Conc-C to is thought-SFP ?It is thought that John {left, wil leave}.? b. [ Cl1 Expl [ Cl2 John-{*no/ga} {kaetta/kaeru}-to] John-Gen/Nom left/leave.Conc-C to kangaeraretei-ru-koto]-wa zannen-da is.thought.Adn-C koto ]-Top regrettable-Cop ?That it is thought that John {left, wil leave} is regretable.? The subject of Clause 2 (Cl2) in (47)a, John, cannot obtain genitive Case, which is not surprising because there is no potential genitive Case asigner. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the subject of Clause2 in (47)b fails to be asigned genitive from the adnominal T of the one up higher clause. There are quite a few conceivable technical ways of handling the 53 ungramaticality of (47)b. It might be the case that (i) John is already in a Case position, so that it cannot get another Case, that (i) a finite CP imposes a locality constraint on long distance A-movement or long distance Case asignment (just like the CP in *Mary i sems [t i is happy]), or that (ii) the expletive gets genitive Case from the adnominal T, so that the embedded subject has no chance to get it. No mater which analysis applies, the ungramaticality of (47)b sems to suggest that genitive Case asignment displays normal properties of Case asignment. Let us now move onto the become-construction. The following contrast is obtained: (48) a. * sirahanoya-no saikin John-ni tat-u-yooni white fur allow-Gen recently John-Dat stand-Prs-C yoni nata(-to hizyooni yorokobareteiru-yo) became.Conc-C to very is.appreciated-SFP ?(It is celebrated that) John has recently started to get chosen.? b. [sirahanoya-no saikin John-ni tat-u-yooni white fur allow-Gen recently John-Dat stand-Prs-C yoni nata-koto]-wa hizyooni yorokobasi-i-yo become-Past.Adnom-C koto ]-Top very delightful-Prs-SFP ?It is very delightful that John has recently started to get chosen.? There is a clear contrast betwen (48)a and (48)b. The later is considerably beter than the former. It sems to be true that predicates preceding the yooni- complementizer are in the adnominal form. So let us consider the contrast in (48) under two possibilities. First, suppose that the complementizer yooni licenses genitive-asigning T. Under this asumption, the unaceptability of (48)a can be explained if the following holds: raising of the subject out of the yooni-CP is required. Since no genitive-Case asigner is present in the matrix, the subject fails to obtain genitive no here. The status of (48)b automaticaly follows then. The koto complementizer licenses the genitive subject (through the T of that clause). The T succesfully enters into a Case relation with the moved subject. (It should be noted 54 that this explanation leads us to drop the standard asumption that A-movement from Case position is prohibited. We are asuming that the T of the yooni-CP asigns Case.) The second possibility is that the embedded T does not asign genitive. 8 (48)a is straightforwardly excluded, since no adnominal T is present anywhere in the structure. (48)b, on the other hand, is expected to be gramatical if raising/long Case asignment is asumed. The adnominal T of the koto-clause should be able to afect the downstairs subject. If this reasoning is correct, the contrast shown in (48) strongly suggests that raising or long distance Case asignment is involved in this construction, regardles of whether or not -yooni by itself makes the adjacent T license genitive subjects. Having shown that the become construction has properties of raising complements, let us se whether these complements show the property of infinitives, namely, whether the embedded predicate alternates with the past tense form in this construction. As in (49), the embedded clause must be in the present tense: (49) * sirahanoya-ga saikin John-ni tat-ta-yooni white fur allow-Nom recently John-Dat stand-Past-C Yoni nata became lit. ?It has recently become that white-fured arows stood on John.? If the discussion in previous sections is correct, this suggests that a yooni-complement is nonfinite. However, this cannot be the whole story. We find aceptable examples in which a past tense complement is headed by -yooni. Examine for example (50): (50) John-ga tabako-o sut-ta-yooni nata John-Nom cigarete-Ac smoke-Past-C yoni became ?John became as if he had smoked.? 8 In fact, adnominal morphology seems to be a necessary condition for nominative-genitive conversion, not a sufficient condition; see Hiraiwa and Ishihara 202 for a relevant observation. 55 (50) is an aceptable sentence. With closer scrutiny, however, it turns out that the sentence is not a raising construction. Below I atempt to show that sentences like (50) have a structure of the following form, which involves predication: 9 (51) a. [ TP John i [ CP [ TP t i V-Prs]-C yoni ] become T] raising b. [ TP John [ CP [ TP pro i V-Past]-C yoni ] become T] predication Consider the paradigms given in (52) and (53): (52) A. John-no musuko-ga niwa-o aruku-ru-yoo-ni nata John?s son-Nom backyard-Ac walk-Prs-C yoni became ?John has recently started to walk in the backyard.? (e.g. He couldn?t do it before because he was too young.) B: *? Mary-no musume-mo sono-yooni nata Mary?s daughter-even so-C yoni became lit. ?Mary?s daughter became so, too.? B?: Mary-no musume-mo soo su-ru-yoo-ni nata Mary?s daughter-even so do-Prs-C yoni became ?Mary?s daughter has started to do so, too.? (53) A. John-no musuko-ga niwa-o arui-ta-yoo-ni nata John?s son-Nom backyard-Ac walk-Past-C yoni became ?John? son became as if he had walked in the backyard.? (e.g. His son?s shoes got covered with mud, though he didn?t walk in the backyard) B: Mary-no musume-mo sono-yooni nata Mary?s daughter-even so-C yoni became lit. ?Mary?s daughter became so, too.? 9 Alternatively, the non-raising construction may involve a small clause structure, in which the CP containing pro is the predicate of the small clause. It is also worth noting that become- constructions in Japanese somewhat similar to English copy raising constructions (e.g. John seems like he is intelligent.) Heycock (194) argues that the latter involve predication. See also Potsdam and Runer 200; Fuji 203, 204; Asdeh 204, Asdeh and Toivonen 206, and reference therein. Note that in the Japanese construction, become apparently can be replaced with perception predicates such as mieru ?lok? or kikoeru ?hear?, which also indicates some conection between the English and Japanese constructions. 56 B?: ? Mary-no musume-mo soo si-ta-yoo-ni nata Mary?s daughter-even so do-Past-C yoni became ?Mary?s daughter became as if she did so, too.? Let us asume that in (52)B and (53)B, the lower TP undergoes some sort of proform replacement (caled ?TP-replacement?), and asume also that in (52)B? and (53)B?, some verbal constituent of the embed clause undergoes ?VP-replacement?. Only (52)B, where the lower TP is replaced, is unaceptable. Also the following asumptions are made: (i) A constituent containing a trace cannot undergo replacement, as suggested by Tada 2003, Takezawa 2006 (presumably because so(o) is a deep anaphor; Hankamer and Sag 1976). (i) The focus particle mo ?even? imposes a paralelism requirement betwen two clauses; that is, the first clause and the second clause obeys ?paralelism?. Under these asumptions, the paradigms are acounted for if (52)A and (53)A are analyzed as in (54)a and (54)b, respectively. (54) a. [ TP John?s son i [ CP [ TP t i V-Prs]-C yoni ] become T] ? proform b. [ TP John?son [ CP [ TP pro i V-Past]-C yoni ] become T] ? proform To obtain (53)B and (52)B, the embedded TP must undergo replacement. If (52)A/B have a structure like (54)a, the oddnes of (52)B folows. The TP proform sono would replace a constituent containing a trace. If (53)A and (53)B have a structure like (54)b, the aceptability of (53)B is captured. Therefore, this proform replacement fact argues for the analysis that distinguishes two kinds of become-construction in the way suggested in (51). Retuning to (49), repeated as (55), the unaceptability of this sentence now suggests that the idiomatic interpretation is somehow incompatible with the ?predication? analysis. 57 (55) * sirahanoya-ga saikin John-ni tat-ta-yooni white fur allow-Nom recently John-Dat stand-Past-C Yoni nata became lit. ?It has recently become that white-fured arows stood on John.? This makes sense because the subject, which is an idiom chunk, should not get a ?- role via predication in a configuration of the sort presented in (54)b, where the V? or the T? is a predicate (se Heycock 1994). Another question that arises is, why is it that (55) cannot have the derivation of raising? The answer I adopt here is that their complement clause is a genuine finite clause, from which NPs cannot raise. Take the predication construction in (53)B and add the (progresive) aspect marker -tei to the predicate. The present and past tense form are possible here: (56) John-no musuko-ga niwa-o arui-tei-{ru/ta}-yoo-ni John?s son-Nom backyard-Ac walk-Prog-{Prs/Past}-C yoni nata became ?John? son became as if he {were walking, had been walking} in the backyard.? (e.g. He became, in appearance, as if he {were, had been} walking in the backyard, though he was not walking.) Importantly, the sentence can be an antecedent for (53)B, regardles of the tense marking of the embedded predicate. This means that both the present and past variants of (56) are predication constructions. 10 On the other hand, (57), with an idiom, is hopelesly bad under the idiom interpretation: 10 The simple present tense variant does not have the ?predication? interpretation, as in (52)B. I do not have an explanation for this fact. 58 (57) * sirahanoya-ga saikin John-ni tat-tei-ru-yooni white fur arrow-Nom recently John-Dat stand-Asp-Prs-C Yoni nata became lit. ?It has recently become that white-fured arows have stood on John.? What is happening here sems to be that when the aspect marker tei is added to embedded eventive predicates, (i) the raising interpretation goes away, (i) the predication construction stays aceptable; and (ii) the later construction apparently alows tense alternation. Suppose now that (56) is taken to be an instance of tense alternation relevant to our generalization, and that NPs cannot raise out of genuine finite clauses. This said, the ungramaticality of (55) may folow: the CP in the predicational become-construction is finite, which blocks raising of the embedded subject. One final thing important to add is about the question of how we interpret the notion ?alternation? in our generalization. Pairs of sentences like the one in (59) (=(52)A and (53)B) should not count as tense alternation in the relevant sense. (58) Tense alternation generalization: If the T of a subordinate tensed clause cannot bear [+past] or cannot bear [-past] in environment E, it must bear [-finite] in E If it did, (59)b would have to involve raising from a finite clause, which would be at odds with the proposed acount of the diferences betwen the two kinds of become- constructions: 59 (59) a. raising John-no musuko-ga niwa-o aruku-ru-yoo-ni nata John?s son-Nom backyard-Ac walk-Prs-C yoni became ?John has recently started to walk in the backyard.? (e.g. He couldn?t do it before because he was too young.) b. predication John-no musuko-ga niwa-o arui-ta-yoo-ni nata John?s son-Nom backyard-Ac walk-Past-C yoni became ?John? son became as if he had walked in the backyard.? (e.g. His son?s shoes got covered with mud, though he didn?t walk in the backyard) So I asume that ?environment E? in (61) ranges over syntactic environments. In the current case, the T occurring in the raising construction and the one occurring in the predication construction are not two instances of T that occurs in the same environment. In sum, we conclude that the raising become-construction does not alow tense alternation. This entails that the complement clause of examples like (59)a is a [- finite] clause. The possibility of subject-to-subject raising out of tensed clauses is then les surprising because these clauses are [-finite]. Theories that do not distinguish betwen finite and pseudo-finite clauses would have to come up with some other explanation of why control and raising go hand in hand in this way. 5 An Analysis We are ready to propose the distribution of OC PRO in Japanese tensed clauses. The observations made in sections 3 and 4 suggest a unified analysis of raising and obligatory control. They both occur only in pseudo-finite clauses (specified [-finite]) and exhibit a severe constraint on their embedded predicate?s tense marking. To acount for the data, the subject positions of pseudo-finite clauses must be one in which A-trace and OC PRO (in standard GB terms) both can show up. In other words, the theory of the distribution of PRO must be able to predict that OC PRO and A- 60 trace (or elements asigned Case in-situ if overt raising is not involved) have something in common in terms of their distribution. In addition, the data strongly suggest that these subject positions exclude pro. (Recal that null subjects of pseudo- finite control complements contrast with those of genuine finite complements, which exhibit the properties of pro.) The empirical validity of the tense alternation generalization leads us to think that the adequate acount of the data should refer to Tense. There sem to be two theories in the P&P framework that enable us to do so. One is a group of theoris entertained in the early 80?s by Bouchard 1984, Lebeaux 1984, Koster 1984, among others. Some of these theories (Bouchard 1984, Koster 1984) esentialy asume that OC PRO and A- trace are both anaphoric and therefore are subject to the condition for anaphors. The other theory that is useful for handling the Japanese data is a theory that asimilates OC PRO to A-trace, a movement theory of control (Bowers 1973, O?Neil 1997, Hornsten 1999, 2001, 2003, Polinsky and Potsdam 2002, 2006, among others). The theory asumes that ?-role asignment can give rise to movement and that A- movement from Case position is bared. The later asumption enables the movement theory to capture similarities betwen OC PRO and A-trace. In either theory, at least the following must be asumed to explain the distribution of OC PRO (and A-trace): (60) T asigns structural Case if and only if it is [+finite]. It should be noted that these two theories exclude pronouns from the subject position of nonfinite clauses in virtualy the same way. It is easy to exclude Case- marked pro from the subject position. Case-marked pro cannot occur in the subject of nonfinite clauses, which is a non-Case position. What can be more problematic is a Case-les pronoun if such a thing exists at al. Under the Bouchard style approach, Non-obligatory Control (NOC) PRO is the Case-les pronoun precisely because the empty category exhibits properties of pronouns. NOC PRO does not need a c- commanding local antecedent, does not have to be interpreted as a bound variable, does not have to be interpreted de se, and so on (se chapter 1). Thus, an adequate theory needs to ensure that NOC PRO not occur in positions where OC PRO occurs. 61 Bouchard (1983, 1984) proposed a version of avoid pronoun principle, acording to which overt pronouns are ?elsewhere? cases for overt anaphors and NOC PRO is such a case for OC PRO. This ?elsewhere? approach to pronouns enables us to capture one fundamental aspect of the Japanese data sen above. That is, the subject of nonfinite clauses does not show pronominal properties. Given that the subject position is not structuraly Case-marked, the subject position cannot be filed with Case-marked pro, whereas it can be filed with OC PRO. The availability of OC PRO in turn prevents a Case-les pronoun (NOC PRO) from occurring in that position. In what follows, I use a movement theory of control to analyze the Japanese data. This is mainly because it is not clear how to define the binding domain of anaphors in current terms (The binding domain for OC PRO must be the clause one higher up.) 1 Our core asumptions are laid out here: (61) a. ?-roles are features in the sense that their checking may derive movement; b. Movement from structural Case position is bared; c. Movement obeys minimality (Minimal Link Condition); and d. NOC PRO, which is pronominal and lacks Case, can appear only where A-trace cannot appear. Below I show how the diferences betwen OC/raising constructions (with [-finite] complements) and non-control constructions (with [+finite] complements) are derived. 5.1 OC, non-control and raising First, the derivation for OC constructions such as (62) is considered: (62) John-ga [? senkyo-ni rikkoohosu-ru-koto]-o kesinsita John-Nom [ election-Dat run for-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?John decided to run for the election.? 1 See Dobrovie-Sorin (201) for such an attempt. See also Hornstein 201, who analyzes anaphors in terms of movement. 62 Suppose V and the complement pseudo-finite CP are merged. V checks the ?-role feature of the CP. After v is introduced into the derivation, it checks the Case feature of the CP (possibly at LF if the clasic T-model is asumed). The embedded subject moves to the Spec,vP, so that v can discharge its ?-role feature (for expository purposes, English words and head initial order are used): (63) [ vP John v [ VP decide [ CP C koto [ TP t i T (-fin) ? This movement is possible precisely because the embedded T, being a [-finite] T, does not asign structural Case [(61)b]. The raised subject further moves to the matrix Spec,TP. The derivation converges. 12 Given that movement of John to Spec,vP is posible, major properties of OC constructions can be made to follow automaticaly. The ban on long distance antecedents (cf. (18)) follows from the fact that the A-moved subject cannot move that far. To obtain a sentence with long distance control in (64) below, NP 2 would have to move from the embedded subject position across the subject position of the clause one higher up: (64) [ VP __ think [ CP [ TP NP 1 [ VP promise [ CP [ TP NP 2 ? Among other things, this movement clearly violates minimality. Next, necesity of c- command (cf. (24)) may follow if the subject cannot move into a position embedded inside another NP. 12 A couple of technical isues must be addressed here. Why does the complement CP not block movement of John into Spec,vP? If the CP or the C 0 has its own Case/?-features and ?- role feature, then the those features, being closer to the target Spec,vP, might block movement of John in the derivation shown in (63). Another isue that may arise hs to do with the Phase Impenetrability Condition, proposed by Chomsky (20, 201 and subsequent work) I wil return to this isue in the next section. 63 (65) [ TP [ NP1 ___ N] [ VP promise [ CP [ TP NP 2 ? If a chain created by movement is subject to the chain condition, this type of movement should be bared. The condition excludes a chain in which the head does not c-command the tail at LF. The ban on strict interpretation under elipsis (cf. (26)) and the ban on the absence of invariant interpretation with only-NP antecedents (cf. (32)) are both a consequence of an interpretive property of traces. Unles reconstruction takes place, they are interpreted as bound variables (se Heim and Kratzer 1998). Having sen the explanation of why pseudo-finite clauses can host OC PRO, turn to a ?negative? property of these clauses. Why is it that a pronominal element does not show up in the embedded subject position? The derivation that needs to be blocked is as in (66): (66) [ vP John v [ VP decide [ CP C koto [ TP pronoun T (-fin) ? As noted earlier, the embedded Spec,TP cannot host pro because it must be Case marked. Only NOC PRO, which we asumed is Case-les, is the type of pronoun that could appear in this position. Hornstein?s movement theory of control (1999 and subsequent work), which incorporates Bouchard?s 1984 ?elsewhere? approach to NOC PRO, proposes that a derivation with OC PRO (or A-trace) compete with otherwise exactly the same derivation with NOC PRO. The derivation with NOC- PRO survives in a last resort fashion, i.e. only when the movement derivation fails to converge. Acording to this minimalist version of ?elsewhere? approach to NOC PRO, the derivation with NOC PRO (66) is excluded because the derivation involving movement (63) is possible. Hence, null subjects of pseudo-finite clauses do not show interpretive properties of pronouns. Having presented the way the theory handles most properties of null subjects of [- finite] OC complements, let us consider null subjects of [+finite] clauses. In section 3, it was observed that the null subject of the complement of imagine exhibits properties 64 of pronouns, not those of OC PRO. Example (3) is repeated: (67) karera i -wa [kantoku-ga [? i otagai-o they-Top [director-Nom [ each other-Ac - naguri-{a-u/at-ta}-koto]-o soozoosita-to] omotta hit-{Recip-Prs/Recip-Past}-C no ]-Ac imagined-C to ] thought ?They thought the director had imagined that they {would hit, had hit} each other.? Recal that koto-CPs of this kind acept both present-tense and past-tense complements. Suppose the sentence type involving imagine has reached a stage of the derivation as in (68): (68) [ vP __ v [ VP imagine [ CP C koto [ TP NP T (+fin) ? As mentioned in (61)b, we asume that A-movement from structural Case position is prohibited. The NP then cannot move to Spec,vP, which makes OC impossible. On the standard asumption that languages like Japanese have Case-marked nul pronouns, they should be alowed to appear in the embedded clause. It should be noted that the null subject cannot be NOC PRO under the theory under consideration. The underlying asumption is that the derivation of an infinitival construction with NOC PRO is not comparable with that of a finite complement construction like (67). Also, it should be noted that nothing prevents a contra-indexed lexical NP from being merged with the embedded Spec,vP in (68). Aceptable examples like (69) are obtained: 65 (69) [kantoku-ga [John-to Mary-ga otagai-o [director-Nom [John and Mary-Nom e.o.-Ac naguri-{a-u/at-ta}-koto]-o soozoosita hit-{Recip-Prs/Recip-Past}-C koto ]-Ac imagined ?The director imagined that John and Mary {would hit, had hit} each other.? Finaly, turn to finite raising. The sentence in (70) (=(41)) is analyzed as in (71): (70) Taro-ga benkyoosu-ru-yooni nata Taro-Nom study-Prs-C yoni became ?Taro has started to study hard.? (71) [ TP __ T [ VP become [ CP C yoni [ TP John T (-fin) ? One crucial asumption we make here is that the yooni-CP does not have Case and ?- features. Otherwise the CP would block movement of the embedded subject say in A- over-A fashion. (I wil discuss this asumption in section 5.2.) I hope to have shown that the tense alternation generalization alows the movement theory of control to succesfully derive the fundamental diferences among finite obligatory control, non-control and finite raising constructions. I conclude this subsection by mentioning an important implication of the current analysis of finite control and finite raising for the theory of control. Recal that the derivations for finite control and finite raising share one property: The complements of these constructions are pseudo-finite clauses. 13 The theory we adopt captures the generalization that control into and raising out of tensed clauses are possible when the clauses are pseudo-finite. The Ts of tensed control and raising CP-complements are both [-finite] 13 Indeed, the fact that raising complements and control clauses are morphosyntactically similar to each other seems to be cros-linguistically common. In Romanian, control into and raising out of subjunctives are both allowed (Watanabe 196a and references cited threin). A similar parallelism is reported to obtain in Brazilian Portuguese, where finite raising and finite control are permited (Ferreira 204, Rodrigues 204). See Polinsky and Potsdam 206 and Boeckx and Hornstein 206b for relevant discusion. 66 and therefore their specifiers cannot be structuraly Case-marked, alowing A- movement. The clasic government-based approach fails to capture the generalization without further asumptions. That GB analysis would have to claim that the Spec,TP of the pseudo-finite CP of the raising construction is governed whereas that of the pseudo-finite CP of the control construction is not. It is not imediately clear how it is possible to defend such a claim. Another influential theory of control is a null Case theory of the type advocated by Martin (1996, 2001) and Bo?kovi? (1997) (se also Chomsky and Lasnik 1991). Such a theory would asume that the pseudo-finite T for raising does not asign null Case while the pseudo-finite T for control does. Since the T of raising complements is asumed to be [-tense] in this theory, one has to say that the pseudo-finite complement of the raising construction is [-tense]. First, it is somewhat counterintuitive to say that the T or Infl of the finite raising construction, which caries [-past] in our description, is tensels. Apart from that, a more substantive problem for the theory has to do with its acount of the fact that OC is not NOC. An approach of this sort handles an OC/NOC distinction by saying that PRO is anaphoric (Martin 1996, Watanabe 1996b). OC PRO must be bound by its antecedent in its local domain. Given the Japanese fact, i.e. that OC into nonfinite CPs is alowed, the null Case theory incorporating local binding of PRO needs to say that the local domain of local anaphors is or extends to the matrix clause, just as the movement theory needs to say that A-movement out of nonfinite CPs is possible. The isue is whether this modification also makes it possible to handle raising out of nonfinite CPs within the same theory. While the fact that raising out of nonfinite CPs is possible directly follows in the movement theory, it does not follow in the null Case theory on the asumption that the locality condition on local anaphors does not regulate A-movement. Martin (1996) specificaly proposes that PRO is a clitic anaphor, just as SE in Romance (se Uriagereka 1988, 1995, and reference cited therein). So clitic climbing must be alowed to take place from inside of a nonfinite CP. The claim that PRO is clitic sems to suffer from empirical problems. First, in Martin?s system, head movement needs to take place across a CP. Although it is not clear at al whether any head movement can be that long distance, let us say that it is alowed to for the sake of discussion. Then, is it possible to derive the fact concerning 67 finite raising in Martin?s theory without adding other asumptions? As it stands, the answer is not clear. It sems to me that, to drive finite raising, locality of A- movement and locality of clitic climbing must be (at least partly) governed by the same gramatical device or the same locality constraint. 14 Since such a constraint is not proposed in Martin (1996), I take this to suggest that the theory does not succed to derive paralelism betwen raising and control. 5.2 A note on the absence of intervention efects with CP One thing remains unexplained in the analysis advanced above. Why is it the case that the CP complement neither blocks ?-driven movement for the OC construction on the one hand, nor Case/?-related movement for the raising construction on the other? Let us examine first the absence of intervention efects in the become-raising construction. The schema in (71) is repeated: (72) [ TP __ T [ VP become [ CP C yoni [ TP John T (-fin) ? It is worth noting first that the yooni-complementizer, unlike the koto- and no- complementizers, cannot bear an overt case marker: (73) * hasi-ru-yooni-{ga/o} run-Prs-C yoni -Nom/Ac To distinguish complementizers like -yooni from nominalizing ones like koto, it sems useful to cal the former ?postpositional C? (esentialy adopting the idea of Fukui 1986 and Motomura 2003). 15 Suppose that pre- or postpositional heads, as 14 See Lasnik and Uriagereka 204: chapter 7 for an attempt to derive the locality of SE from timing of Spell-out. 15 The string yooni seems to be massively ambiguous. Although I do not attempt to examine the ful range of data, I would like to note a couple of things. I assume that the instance of - yooni occurring in the raising construction does not have an internal structure of any sort. (One could say that particle ni attaches to formal noun yoo, for instance: see Uchibori 200 for related discusion). I assume that the same thing applies to -yooni occurring in object 68 opposed to nominal heads, do not cary ?-features. (This asumption sems to be plausible given the fact that English to does not block A-movement as in John sems to me [t to be honest]). If intervention efects with non-?-driven A-movement come from ?-features of an intervening element, then the absence of the efect with the yooni-construction follows. 16 control. I take -yooni in (i) to be C 0 . Note that in this construction, -yooni can be folowed by quotative complementizer to (Nemoto 193, Uchibori 200): (i) John-ga Mary-ni [? boku-no uchi-ni ik-u-yoni(-to)] meireisita John-Nom Mary-Dat [ my house-to go-Prs-YONI-TO] ordered ?John ordered ary to go to my house.? Sometimes the optionality of to in this circumstance is analyzed as some sort of complementizer omision (see Nemoto 193). However, as noted in Nemoto (193), this analysis raises apparent difficulty, given that standard Japanese does not allow complementizer omision. My intuition is that -yooni in the version with to is not a complementizer. It is a (weak) imperative mood marker (Uchibori 200): (ii) kimi-wa boku-no uchi-ni ik-u-yoni you-Top my house-to go-Prs-Imp ?You should go to my house? Since there is no reason to think that (ii) cannot be embedded under complementizer to, the version of (i) with to can be analyzed in the way sugested here. A justification for this analysis comes from the fact that ik-u-yooni in (i) can be replaced with the (regular) imperative form of ?go? ik-e (go-Imp) only when quotative to is present. (ii) John-ga Mary-ni [? boku-no uchi-ni ik-e*(-to)] meireisita John-Nom Mary-Dat [ my house-to go-Imp-C] ordered ?John ordered ary to go to my house.? 16 It seems to be to haste to conclude that postpositional CPs cannot bear Case. There is circumstantial evidence that they can. Note first that koto-control complements can be case- marked and may undergo case conversion of a familiar sort: (i) John-ni-wa Mary-ni [? DC-ni ik-u-koto]-ga meirei-deki-ru John-Dat-Top Mary-Dat [ DC-to go-Prs-C koto ]-Nom order-Pot-Pres ?John can order ary to go to DC.? Nominative ga here arises on the object because the matrix verb is stativized. Note that the koto-complementizer in object control constructions can be replaced with -yooni as seen in the previous footnote (see Nakau 1973: 124-25 for discusion). Stativization yields the folowing acceptable sentence: (ii) John-ni-wa Mary-ni [? DC-ni ik-u-yoni] meirei-deki-ru John-Dat-Top Mary-Dat [ DC-to go-Prs-C yoni ] order-Pot-Pres 69 One might think that nominalized CPs should block movement of the subject out of a control complement into the matrix clause because they, being not postpositional, cary ?-features. Notice that the A-movement at isue is ?-driven. So even if koto- clauses have ?-features, it is plausible to think that ?/Case considerations do not mater in control cases. 17 What is more puzzling here is, instead, that the ?-feature of the koto-complement does not break down the control chain. The CP is apparently closer to the ?-position in which the controller gets its second ?-role. A possibility is that ?-role features asigned to clausal complements are somewhat defective with respect to ?-role features asigned to regular noun phrase complements. Presumably clauses do not need referential ?-roles. Theoreticaly, this is not surprising. It has been already observed that clauses behave diferently from regular DPs with respect to Case. Clauses at least do not need to get Case (se Stowel 1981, Bo?kovi? 1995, and references therein). If so, we need depart anyhow from the null hypothesis that clauses and noun phrases should be treated in the same way. 6 When [-finite] Complements Do Not Show OC Properties This section discusses one semingly serious problem for the proposal made above. As observed with a construction involving the verb keikakusu(ru) ?plan? in section 1, it is not always the case that the nul subject of pseudo-finite clauses shows the properties of OC PRO. The following examples ilustrate the same point: ?John can order Mary to go to DC.? If the Case assigner for nominative objects obeys inverse Case Filter, then the acceptability of (ii) sugests that the yooni-CP receives silent nominative Case. 17 This predicts that the complementizer -koto does not introduce a finite raising complement. I haven?t found a testing ground for determining whether this predication is correct or not. 70 (74) a. Hiroshi-wa kaigi-de tyuugokugo-o Hiroshi-Top meting-in Chinese-Ac {tukau/*tukata}-koto-o teiansita use-Prs/used-C koto -Ac proposed ?Hiroshi proposed that {Hiroshi, they} would use Chinese during metings.? b. hutari i -wa [Hiroshi i -ga [? otagai-o two.people-Top [Hiroshi-Nom e.o-Ac {home-a-u/*home-at-ta}-koto]-o teiansita-to] praise-Recip-Prs/preise-Recip-Past-C koto ]-Ac proposed-C to omotteiru thinks ?The two people think Hiroshi proposed that they should praise each other during the meting. Acording to the tense alternation generalization, the complement clauses in (74) contain [-finite] T, because the tense marker is fixed here. Al other things being equal, the theory predicts that obligatory control should be observed with these examples. This prediction is incorrect: long distance antecedence is not blocked, as in (74)b. English apparently difers from Japanese in this respect. As Landau (2000) extensively argues, in English, to-infinitives with null subjects occurring in complement position always involve OC (se footnote 19 for relevant discussion). In the traditional clasification of control, some nonfinite complements are considered NOC (Chomsky and Lasnik 1977, Wiliams 1980, Bouchard 1984, Manzini 1983, Martin 1996, among others). For instance, when PRO alows an ?arbitrary? reading as in They do not know how PRO to behave themselves/oneself), it counts as NOC PRO. Also, when PRO can alternate with a lexical subject (cf. John prefered for Mary/PRO to leave), it is grouped under NOC PRO. Landau (2000; 4-5, 32-33, 38-43) however shows (capitalizing on observations made by Manzini 1983 in part), that PRO in these complements is not that diferent from the one occurring in typical OC with respect to other diagnostic tests. These aleged NOC PROs require a 71 local antecedent, cannot support a referential reading, require a de re interpretation, and so on. As we wil se, the phenomenon in Japanese is more radical: they fail those core diagnostic tests. In this section, examining some instances of NOC complements, I propose one solution to the problem posed by them, and present some empirical arguments for that solution. The movement theory of control leads us to the hypothesis that in cases like (74), movement to a matrix ?-position out of the subordinate clause fails; namely, there is more structure involved betwen the verb and the pseudo-finite CP. More specificaly, I would like to suggest that these problematic pseudo-finite complements involve an extra NP-layer betwen V and CP, as in (75)b, as opposed to (75)a: (75) a. V [ CP C koto [ TP OC-PRO T (-fin) ? b. V [ NP N koto [ CP C ? [ TP NOC-PRO T (-fin) ? If this is the case, the embedded subject of the CP in (75)b is arguably precluded from moving to a matrix ?-position. Either (i) the NP, unlike the pure CP headed by koto, blocks ?-driven movement by minimality, or (i) a complex NP island is at stake. Under the first alternative, the NP is a potential mover and closer to V than the embedded subject. By minimality, the subject is prevented from moving to the ?- position. Hence, obligatory control is not obtained. The second alternative simply proposes that the complex NP, as an island, prevents the subject from moving out of it. In either of these alternatives, the subject position of the nonfinite CP is filed with NOC PRO as an ?elsewhere? case. The choice betwen the two alternatives does not concern us. In what follows, four arguments that the extra NP-layer blocks OC are made. 6.1 NP/CP distinction Here I discuss the data concerning pasivization of yakusokusu(ru) ?promise? and verbs of deciding. Let me first introduce the relevant descriptive properties of Japanese promise, which, taking a clausal complement, displays properties of OC when the comitative-marked ?promise? is present (se Watanabe 1996b for virtualy 72 the same observation): (76) Hiroshi-wa Yoko-to [? daigaku-ni Hiroshi-Top Yoko-with [ college-Dat {gookakusu-ru/*gookakusi-ta}-koto]-o yakusokusi-ta pass-Prs/pass-Past-C koto ]-Ac promise-Past ?Hiroshi promised Yoko to pas a college entrance exam.? When no comitative phrase is present as in (77), the diagnostic properties of OC sem to go away: (77) a. Hiroshi i -no sensei-wa [? i daigaku-ni gookakusu-ru-koto]-o Hiroshi-Gen teacher-Top [ college-Dat pass-Prs-C koto ]-Ac yakusokusi-ta promise-Past ?Hiroshi?s teacher promised that he would pas a college entrance exam.? b. Hiroshi-wa [sensei-ga [? i daigaku-ni gookakusu-ru-koto]-o Hiroshi-Top [teacher-Nom [ college-Dat pass-Prs-C koto -Ac yakusokusi-ta-to] hahaoya-ni tutaeta promise-Past-C to ] mother-Dat told ?Hiroshi told his mother that his teacher had promised that he would pas a college entrance exam.? (78) a. * Hiroshi i -no sensei-wa Yoko-to [? i daigaku-ni Hiroshi-Gen teacher-Top Yoko-with [ college-Dat gookakusu-ru-koto]-o yakusokusi-ta pass-Prs-C koto ]-Ac promise-Past ?Hiroshi?s teacher promised that he would pas a college entrance exam.? 73 b. * Hiroshi-wa [sensei-ga Yoko-to [? i daigaku-ni Hiroshi-Top [teacher-Nom Yoko-with [ college-Dat gookakusu-ru-koto]-o yakusokusi-ta-to] hahaoya-ni tutaeta pass-Prs-C koto ]-Ac promise-Past-C to ] mother-Dat told ?Hiroshi told his mother that his teacher had promised that he would pas a college entrance exam.? Minimal pairs given in (77) and (78) show the contrasts betwen the two kinds of promise constructions regarding long distance antecedence and c-command. The sentences with a comitative argument [(78)] exhibit the properties of OC, but the ones without it [(77)] do not. Let us, for expository purposes, refer to instance of yakusokusu(ru) appearing in OC as ?PROMISE 1 ? and refer to the other instance as ?PROMISE 2 ?. To clarify the problem that faces us, observe that uncontrolled complements of PROMISE 2 do not alow their predicate to alternate betwen the past and present tense forms: (79) a. Hiroshi i -no sensei-wa [? i daigaku-ni Hiroshi-Gen teacher-Top [ college-Dat {gookakusu-ru/*gookakusi-ta}-koto]-o yakusokusi-ta pass-Prs/pass-Past-C koto ]-Ac promise-Past ?Hiroshi?s teacher promised that he {would pas, *had pased} a college entrance exam.? b. Hiroshi-wa sensei-ga [? i daigaku-ni Hiroshi-Top teacher-Top [ college-Dat {gookakusu-ru/*gookakusi-ta}-koto]-o yakusokusi-ta-to] pass-Prs/pass-Past-C koto ]-Ac promise-Past-C to hahaoya-ni tutaeta mother-Dat told ?Hiroshi told his mother that his teacher had promised that he {would pas, *had pased} a college entrance exam.? 74 This means that the embedded T is [-finite], which should alow the subject of the embedded clause to move to yield OC. I claim that PROMISE 2 takes an N-CP complement, which blocks OC in a way suggested above. The argument comes from pasives. Both (80) (with PROMISE 2 ) and (81) (with PROMISE 1 ) involve pasivization of a clausal complement: (80) [? i daigaku-ni gookakusu-ru-koto]-ga Hiroshi i -no sensei-niyotte college-Dat pass-Prs-C koto -Ac Hiroshi-Gen teacher-by yakusokus-are-ta promise-Pass-Past ?It was promised by Hiroshi?s teacher that he would pas a college entrance exam.? (PROMISE 2 ) (81) * [? daigaku-ni gookakusu-ru-koto]-ga Hiroshi-no sensei-niyotte college-Dat pass-Prs-C koto -Ac Hiroshi-Gen teacher-by Yoko-to yakusokus-are-ta Yoko-with promise-Pass-Past ?To pas a college entrance exam was promised Yoko by Hiroshi?s teacher.? (PROMISE 1 ) When a comitative phrase is added [(81)], the pasive sentence becomes unaceptable (se Watanabe 1996b for virtualy the same observation). This diference can be explained if, as Huang (1989: 202) suggests following Rosenbaum (1967), pasive subject is required to be NP and cannot be S-bar/CP. 18 Then sentences like (81) should involve conflicting demands. The comitative phrase forces the complement to be a CP, while pasive requires the (D-structure) complement to be an NP. (I do not have an acount of why the presence of a comitative phrase afects selectional 18 Iatridou and Embick (197) make a related observation, attributing it to Mark Baker. The observation is that Mohawk sentential subjects necessarily carry a demonstrative. They sugest that CPs do not have ?-features and the Mohawk agreement system forces a clausal argument to be able to be agreed with by the verb. 75 property of promise in this way.) To the extent that Huang is right, the data suggest that the NP vs. CP distinction is responsible for the diferences betwen PROMISE 1 and PROMISE 2 . (82) a. NP-with [ CP [ TP ? ? T (-fin) ] C koto ] PROMISE 1 b. ? [ NP [ CP [ TP ? ?. T (-fin) ] C ] N koto ] PROMISE 2 This fact is not an isolated one. There is a similar (but slightly diferent type of) fact, which has to do with verbs of deciding. One group of verbs (e.g. kesinsu(ru) and ketuisu(ru)) behave as if they are ?obligatory control verbs?. The other group of verbs (e.g. keteisu(ru) and kime(ru)) behave as if they are not. Let us cal the former DECIDE 1 and the later DECIDE 2 . To se how these two groups difer, take the de-se interpretation diagnostic. As sen in section 3.5, sentence in (83)(=(39)) lacks a non- de se interpretation: (83) Taro i -ga [? i taisyoku-ru-koto]-o kesinsita Taro-Nom [ leave.company-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided to leave the company.? (*non-de se) DECIDE 1 + koto-complement The sentence is not felicitous to utter under the non-de se scenario (37), repeated here: 76 (84) Taro has been working for a smal company. One day, the owner of the company gave him a file that contained info about each employee?s busines achievements. She said that she would have to ask at least one employee to leave the company because downsizing was inevitable. She wanted him to go through the file and pick one person in some objective way. The owner left out employees? names and used diferent numbers to refer to them, so that Taro?s evaluation wouldn?t be biased. Reviewing the records, Taro reluctantly chose one person because his or her achievements were very poor. Imagining that the employee was asked to leave, he felt sorry. He gave the owner the number that was asigned to the employee in question. The owner found the employee to be Taro. She asked him to leave on the following day. In contrast with (83), the statement in (85), which contains kime(ru) ?decide? rather than kesinsu(ru), is a perfectly fine description of the situation under consideration: (85) Taro i -ga [? i taisyokusu-ru-koto]-o kimeta Taro-Nom [ leave.company-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided that he would leave the company.? (non-de se possible) DECIDE 2 + koto-complement The hypothesis we are entertaining predicts that the complement of DESIDE 2 (85), which acepts a non-de se interpretation of ?) can be pasivized, whereas the complement of DECIDE 1 (83), which resists the same interpretation) cannot be. The prediction is correct: (86) a. * [? i taisyokusu-ru-koto]-ga Taro i -niyotte kesins-are-ta [ leave.company-Prs-C koto ]-Nom Taro-by decide-Pass-Past b. [? i taisyokusu-ru-koto]-ga Taro i -niyotte kimer-are-ta [ leave.company-Prs-C koto ]-Nom Taro-by decide-Pass-Past lit. ?To leave the company was decided by Taro.? 77 (86)b is considerably beter than (86)a, which again shows that properties of OC correlate with pasivizability of koto-clauses. As for the question as to the nature of the diference betwen DECIDE 1 and DECIDE 2 , I have to speculate that the former cannot c-select NP at this point. This ?N vs. C? ambiguity of the nominal particle koto is somewhat reminiscent of work by Simpson and Wu 2001 and Simpson 2003 on the diachronic development of formal nouns in East Asian languages including Japanese no. No is ambiguous among its complementizer use, its genitive use, and its ?pronominal? use, as ilustrated in (87)a, (87)b, and (87)c, respectively (se Murasugi 1990): (87) a. boku-wa John-ga hasit-tei-ru-no-o mita I-Top John-Nom criticize-Prs-Ac saw ?I saw John running.? b. John-no hon John-Gen book ?John?s book? c. akai-no red-one ?read one? Simpson argues that no undergoes gramaticalization from N to C through D. Now note that koto alows the equivalent of (87)c: (88) tanosi koto enjoyable thing ?something enjoyable? I do not have any concrete claim about gramaticalization of koto here, but the dual status of koto is not radical at al, given the multiple ambiguity of no. The question of where the diference betwen English and Japanese comes from 78 should be addresed; that is, why English infinitives do not alow the NP-layer under discussion when they are in complement position. 19 20 I would like to suggest one speculation. Suppose that this NP-layer is phoneticaly realized whenever it is in the 19 Culicover and Jackendoff (201, 205) observe examples like (i) (from Culicover and Jackendoff 205:423) that may be taken to ilustrate that nonfinite clauses occurring in complement positions of non-raising predicates do not always yield OC, contrary to what is said in the text: (i) John i talked to Sarah j about ? i/j/i+j/gen taking care of himself i /herself j / themselves i+j /oneself gen . In light of the discusion in the text, it could be the case that English gerundive clauses, unlike infinitival ones, can be NPs/DPs (see Pires 201 for extensive discusion of control in gerundive complements). One thing that might be related to this contrast between to- infinitives and gerunds is Koster?s (1978) classic observation that sentential subjects do not stay in canonical subject position (see also Stowell 1981). Notice that gerunds can occur as embedded sentential subjects more freely than to-infinitives. The example in (iia) (adapted from Koster 1978: 53) is worse than the one in (iib): (ii) a.* That to smoke bothers the teacher is quite posible b. That smoking bothers the teacher is quite posible This contrast folows if English gerundive clauses may be NPs/DPs. Interestingly, Japanese koto-clauses behave like English gerunds in the relevant respect: (ii) [[ Bil-ga tabako-o su-u-koto]-ga kare-no titioya-o [[ Bil-Nom smoke-Prs-C koto ]-Nom his father-Acc nayamaseteiru-toyu-no]-wa honto-da bothers-C-NO-Top true-Cop lit. ?That that Bil smokes bothers his father is true.? If gerunds have the ability to be NPs/DPs, Culicover and Jackendoff?s example cited above does not undermine the generalization that when nonfinite CP/TP complements (with a nul subject) always result in OC. 20 Cros-linguistically, it does not seem exotic that nominalized infinitival complements block OC. San Martin and Uriagereka (202) and San Martin (204) observe that in Basque, the nominalizing suffix tze attaches to certain infinitival complements to yield NOC. Also, languages like Spanish allow the determiner el to occur on infinitival clauses. OC constructions generally do not accept the determiner, however: (i) Quiero (*el) comer en restaurantes caros I-want the eat in restaurants expensive The effect of the determiner may be indicating the presence of the extra layer. Curiously enough, factive predicates like forget seem to be insensitive to presence of the nominalizer in Basque (see the references above) or the determiner in Spanish (Picallo 202) on their infinitival complement. Thanks go to Ivan Ortega-Santos for helpful discusion. 79 structure. Then, the additional NP layer in English, if it existed, should be realized as to. Suppose that the syntactic category of to cannot be N, which is plausible given the fact that the English infinitive marker to is diachronicaly developed out of its prepositional use (se Lightfoot 1979). Then it follows that English infinitival complements cannot be ambiguous betwen of the category NP and of the category CP. 6.2 Phonetic realization of C in the N-CP structure Let me add one morphosyntactic fact that supports the NP/CP distinction. It has to do with the distribution of the quotative complementizer when it shows up in noun- complement constructions (the complementizer appears in the adnominal form in this environment): (89) [boodoo-ga okor-u-toyuu] uwasa [riot-Nom happen-Prs-C toyu ] rumor ?the rumor that a riot happens.? Also, this complementizer toyuu can occur with koto: (90) [boodoo-ga okor-u-toyuu] koto [riot-Nom happen-Prs-C toyu ] koto ?the fact that a riot happens? Although subtle judgments are required, the distribution of the quotative complementizer sems to correlate with the distinction betwen OC and NOC complements. That is, OC complements do not alow toyuu-C to occur inside them, whereas NOC complements do. Observe examples like (91) (with PROMISE 2 ) and (92) (with DECIDE 2 ): 80 (91) (?) Hiroshi-wa [? daigaku-ni gookakusu-ru-toyuu-koto]-o Hiroshi-Top [ college-Dat pass-Prs-C toyu -N koto ]-Ac yakusokusi-ta promise-Past ?Hiroshi promised to pas a college entrance exam.? (PROMISE 2 ) (92) (?) Taro i -wa [? i taisyoku-ru-toyuu-koto]-o kimeta Taro-Top [ leave.company-Prs-C toyu -N koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided that he would leave the company.? (DECIDE 2 ) These sentences might sound beter when toyu is not present, but they are not unaceptable. If we are right that OC complements do not alow for the extra NP- layer, it is expected that the quotative complementizer toyuu cannot occur with PROMISE 1 and DECIDE 1 . Some speakers find a sharp contrast betwen (91) and (92) on the one hand, and (93) and (94), on the other, respectively: (93) *? Hiroshi-wa Yoko-to [? daigaku-ni Hiroshi-Top Yoko-with college-Dat gookakusu-ru-toyuu-koto]-o yakusokusi-ta pass-Prs-C koto ]-Ac promise-Past (PROMISE 1 ) ?Hiroshi promised Yoko that he would pas a college entrance exam.? (94) *? Taro i -wa [? i taisyoku-ru-toyuu-koto]-o ketsuisita Taro-Top [ leave.company-Prs-C toyu -N koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided that he would leave the company.? (DECIDE 1 ) In addition, when pasivization applies to sentences (91) and (92), the status sems to become even beter: 81 (95) [? daigaku-ni gookakusu-ru-toyuu-koto]-ga Hiroshi-niyotte [ college-Dat pass-Prs-C toyu -N koto ]-Nom Hiroshi-by yakusokus-are-ta promise-Pass-Past lit. ?To pas a college entrance exam is promised by Hiroshi.? (PROMISE 2 ) (96) [? i taisyoku-ru-toyuu-koto]-ga Taro i -niyotte [ leave.company-Prs-C toyu -N koto ]-Nom Taro-by kimer-are-ta decide-Pass-Past lit. ?To leave the company was decided by Taro.? (DECIDE 2 ) Over al, the distribution of the quotative complementizer toyuu sems to argue in favor of the proposed way of distinguishing OC complements from NOC complements: koto in the later is an N. 6.3 Anti-nominal pseudo-finite complements Our proposal predicts that when an N head cannot occur in a complement for an independently reason, that complement wil not exhibit the kind of dual status that koto-complements exhibit. There are some control complement clauses headed by non-nominalizing C. (97) is an example of the type sen in section 3, where the complementizer -yooni is present. (97) Taro-wa Hanako i -ni [? i biiru-o nom-u-yooni] Taro-Top Hanako-Dat [ beer-Ac drink-Pres-C yoni meireisita ordered ?Taro ordered Hanako to drink beer.? One other type of clauses relevant to the discussion is one found in examples like (98), where the embedded verb takes the suffix -(y)o, which I cal the intentive mood 82 marker (the term is borrowed from Palmer 2001). (98) Taro i -wa [? i taisyokusi-yoo-to] kimeta Taro-Top [ leave.company-YO-C to ] decided ?Taro decided to leave the company.? When the clause in question is embedded, it is always headed by to, which is the quotative complementizer or a subordinator (se Bhat and Yoon 1991), and no tense element shows up. Se Nakau (1973:39), Hasegawa (1984-85), Watanabe (1996b) for relevant facts and observations. Se also chapter 3. That embedded intentives are OC clauses is ilustrated by (99), which shows that long distance control is prohibited: (99) * karera i -wa [Taro-ga [? i otagai-o suisensi-a-oo-to] they-Top [Taro-Nom e.o.-Ac recommend-Recip-YO-C to keikakusita-to] omotta planned-C to ] thought ?They thought that Taro planned to recommend each other.? cf. Taro-wa [karera i -ga [? i otagai-o suisensi-a-oo-to] T-Top [they-Nom [ e.o.-Ac recommend-Recip-YO-C to keikakusita-to] omotta planned-C to ] thought ?Taro thought that they planned to recommend each other.? Now note that -to and -yooni are postpositional. We already saw this for -yooni in section 5.2. The -yooni complementizer cannot be followed by a case particle; se (73). Likewise, quotative to is not alowed to occur with a case paticle: (100) * tabe-yoo-to-{ga/o} eat-Int-C to -Nom/Ac This indicates that these complementizers are morphosyntacticaly anti-nominal. If so, 83 there is no way for these heads to be generated under an N-node. Recal now from the discussion in section 6.1 that two types of decide and two types of promise exist in Japanese. With koto-complements, DECIDE 1 (e.g. kesinsu(ru) ?decide?) acts like an ?obligatory control verb? while DECIDE 2 (e.g. kime(ru) ?decide?) does not. The former resists pasivization of the koto-complement, whereas the later alows it (se (86)). It was proposed that non-OC complements are of the category NP, while OC-complements are of the category CP. Now what would happen if a postpositional CP occurs in the complement of DECIDE 2 or PROMISE 2 ? If those verbs can co-occur with such a CP at al, our theory predicts that the sentence should display the properties of OC, because there is no chance for the complement to be an NP. The data turns out to be in favor of our prediction. First, pasives are unaceptable with intentive mood complements, regardles of the choice betwen the two types of decide: (101) * (Taro i -niyotte) [? i taisyokusi-yoo-to] (Taro i -niyotte) Taro-by [ leave.company-Int-C to ] Taro-by {kesins/kimer}-are-ta DECIDE 1 /DECIDE 2 -Pass-Past lit. ?To leave the company was decided by Taro.? Second, regardles of the choice betwen the two types of decide, the non-de se reading is clearly impossible when the complementizer is postpositional: (102) Taro i -wa [? i taisyokusi-yoo-to] Taro-Top [ leave.company-Int-C to ]-Ac {kesinsi/kime}-ta DECIDE 1 /DECIDE 2 -Past ?Taro decided to leave the company.? These results argue for our structural approach to the fact that [-finite] complement 84 clauses sometimes do not trigger OC. It is not true that DECIDE 1 is an ?obligatory control verb? while DECIDE 2 is not. They behave diferently, depending on what structure they have in their complement position. 6.4 Independent support: Verbal noun constructions The previous thre sections discussed the distinction betwen ?more noun-like? complements and ?les noun-like? complements with respect to OC-hood of pseudo- finite constructions. The idea is that the extra NP-layer blocks the null complement subject from being OC PRO. This section shows that this structural acount of the unexpected non-OC behavior (e.g. one found with verbs like PROMISE 2 and DECIDE 2 ) has a positive empirical consequence for nonfinite complementation as wel. Hence the general idea advanced above gains further support. The additional argument in favor of the current proposal comes from the behavior of a type of clauses that reside on the borderlines betwen noun-like and non-noun- like complements, i.e. the behavior of verbal noun (VN) constructions (se Grimshaw and Mester 1988, Kageyama 1993, Matsumoto 1996, Hoshi 1994, Saito and Hoshi 1998, 2000, to list a few). As wil be sen below, a property of the construction helps to reveal that an extra layer above a clause prevents the sentence from involving OC. Let us begin by looking at a construction of the type that Grimshaw and Mester (1988) discussed. When a VN is placed under the light verb suru ?do?, the wel- studied, light verb construction, is obtained: (103) Taro-{ga/*no} giin-e(*?-no) toti-no zyooto-o sita Taro-Nom/Gen law maker-to-Gen land-Gen giving-Ac did ?Taro gave land to a lawmaker.? Given that al the satelites of a noun must have their adnominal form (such as genitive) in Japanese, the prohibition of genitive marking on the agent and goal arguments found in (103) suggests, as Grimshaw and Mester observed, the following generalization: 85 (104) The highest internal argument of a VN, as wel as its external argument, must undergo ?argument transfer?. Argument transfer refers, pretheoreticaly, to the proces by which a satelite of the VN is realized outside the maximal projection of it, which is determined by the absence of the genitive case marker. If the goal NP in (103) were inside the projection of the VN, it would be marked with genitive. The NP acts as if it were an augment of the light verb do. This is a halmark of light verb constructions. Argument transfer is found not just with the do-construction. Matsumoto (1996: chap. 4) extensively discusses sentences like (105) (=Matsumoto?s ex. 25b, p.77) and (106) (=Matsumoto?s ex. 34b, p.80): (105) Jon wa sono supai to sesyoku o kokoromita Jon Top the spy with contact Ac attempted ?Jon atempted to make contact with the spy.? (106) Jon wa ie-ni renraku o wasureta Jon Top house Goal sending.mesage Ac forgot ?Jon forgot to send a mesage to his house.? The absence of a genitive marker on sono supai-to ?with the spy? and ie-ni ?to the house? shows that both (105) and (106) are light verb constructions. What is interesting in these cases is that VNs appear in the complement position of ?heavy? verbs rather than light verb do (se Saito and Hoshi 1998 and Kuroda 2003, among others). As noted by Matsumoto 1996 and studied by Saito and Hoshi 1998, the ?heavy? construction is an OC construction. This is correct: 86 (107) Mary-wa sono byooin-de (daisi-no) syussan-o Mary-Top that hospital-in first child-Gen giving.birth-Ac kokoromita attempted ?Mary atempted to give birth to her first child in that hospital.? (108) a. # Mary-wa [otto-ga sono byooin-de (daisi-no) Mary-Top [husband-Nom that hospital-in first child-Gen syussan-o kokoromi-ru-to] omotta giving.birth-Ac attempt-Prs-C to ] thought ?Mary thought that her husband would atempt to give birth to her first child.? b.# Mary-no titioya-ga sono byooin-de [daisi-no Mary-Gen husband-Nom that hospital-in first child-Gen syussan]-o kokoromita giving.birth-Ac attempted ?Mary?s husband atempted to give birth to her first child.? c. A: Mary-wa sono byooin-de [(daisi-no) syussan-o] Mary-Top that hospital-in [first child-Gen giving.birth]-Ac kokoromita attempted B: #ottomo-mo da husband-even Cop ?Her husband, too.? We are interested in the readings of examples (108)a-c in which the locative is unambiguously ?transfered? from the VN?s domain; that is, it needs to be made thematicaly asociated with the VN and disociated from attempt. Thus, al the examples in (108) should be read under a particular context. Let us suppose: Mary and her husband were doing shopping. Suddenly, Mary went into labor. The couple tried to find a taxi to get to the hospital they normaly went to. In this situation, where neither Mary nor her husband was physicaly in the hospital, the statement in (107) 87 can be truthfully uttered. (108)a-c, where transfer is applied, are al anomalous because the properties of OC make the sentences to mean that a male person gives birth. While pointing out similarities of the ?heavy? construction to the ?light? construction, Matsumoto (1996: 85) also observes one diference betwen the two constructions: that argument transfer of the higher internal argument, apparently, does not have to apply in the ?heavy? construction, unlike in the ?light? construction (109)a is adapted from Matsumoto?s (ia) in his footnote 11): (109) a. Jon-wa Tokyo-e-no ryokoo-o keikakusi-tei-ru Jon-Top Tokyo-to-Gen trip-Ac plan-Prs ?Jon is planning on a trip to Tokyo.? b. Jon-wa Tokyo-e(?*-no) ryokoo-o sita Jon-Top Tokyo-to-Gen trip-Ac do-Prs ?Jon went on a trip to Tokyo.? Further, he makes an extremely interesting observation about the apparent optionality of argument transfer: when argument transfer does not take place, the construction ceases to display OC properties. He cites examples like the following (adapted from his (i), observing that split antecedents are possible. Namely, the sentence can be uttered truthfully when Jon plans that Mari and him wil go on a trip together: (110) Mari-wa [Jon-ga Tokyo-e-no ryokoo-o Mari-Top [Jon-Nom Tokyo-to-Gen trip-Ac keikakusi-tei-ru-to] omotta plan-Asp-Prs-C to ] thought ?Mari thought that Jon planned on a trip to Tokyo.? I agre with Matsumoto?s conclusion that this sentence type is not an OC construction. But his particular example is not as indicative as we hope. The following example, which minimaly difers from (110) in that the genitive case on to Tokyo is left out, 88 has the interpretation that Matsumoto sems to refer to by ?split antecedence?: (111) Mari-wa [Jon-ga Tokyo-e ryokoo-o Mari-Top [Jon-Nom Tokyo-to-Gen trip-Ac keikakusi-tei-ru-to] omotta plan-Asp-Prs-C to ] thought ?Mari thought that Jon planned on a trip to Tokyo.? This shows that Matsumoto?s ?split antecedence? interpretation of (110) does not have anything to do with argument transfer. 21 Nevertheles, other OC diagnostics enable us to show that Matsumoto?s conclusion is fundamentaly correct. The construction in which internal argument transfer does not take place fails to pas the tests we have been using. (112)a-c contrast with (108)a-c, respectively: (112) a. Mary-wa [otto-ga [sono byooin-de-no (daisi-no) Mary-Top [husband-Nom [that hospital-in-Gen first child-Gen syussan]-o kokoromi-ru-to] omotta giving.birth]-Ac attempt-Prs-C to ] thought ?Mary thought that her husband would atempt her giving birth to her first child.? b. Mary-no otto-wa [sono byooin-de-no (daisi-no) Mary-Gen husband-Top [that hospital-in-Gen first child-Gen syussan]-o kokoromita give birth-Ac attempted ?Mary?s husband atempted her giving birth to her first child.? 21 The reason why (11) is true in the situation that Matsumoto discuses seems to be an uninteresting one. The situation that he has in mind makes the sentence true even if Jon is the sole antecedent for PRO. For instance, Jon planed to go to Tokyo is true when he planned to go there together with Mary. 89 c. A: Mary-wa [sono byooin-de-no (daisi-no) Mary-Top [that hospital-in-Gen first child-Gen syussan]-o kokoromita giving birth]-Ac attempted B: otto-mo da husband-even Cop ?Her husband, too.? When argument transfer does not take place, long distance control becomes possible [(112)a]; a non-c-commanding NP becomes able to bind the null subject of the VN [(112)b]; and strict identity under elipsis becomes possible [(112)c]. Matsumoto?s generalization can be summarized as in: (113) Argument transfer of the highest internal argument ? OC I do not have a full explanation of this curious generalization. We can learn thre things from the above discussion, though. First, one might atempt to clasify higher predicates of ?heavy? light verb construction into obligatory control and non- obligatory control predicates (se Matsumoto 1996, Saito and Hoshi 1998). However, Matsumoto?s generalization suggests itself that structural/configurational considerations are necesary. One way of looking at Matsumoto?s generalization is to asume that the projection of the complement of atempt is a DP when transfer is not applied. Saito and Hoshi (2000) argue that in the ?light? construction, the efect of argument transfer is a consequence of covert incorporation of a VN into the light verb, which enables the VN to asign a ?-role to the transfered argument. If so, the presence of D might be prohibiting VN?s incorporation at LF. This conjecture might be right. There is a correlation betwen the availability of demonstratives and the (non-)application of argument transfer: 90 (114) a. * Hiroshi-wa DC-e sono ryokoo-o keikakusi-tei-ru Hiroshi-Top DC-to that trip-Ac plan-Prs ?Hiroshi is planning on that trip to DC.? b. (?) Hiroshi-wa sono DC-e-no ryokoo-o keikakusi-tei-ru Hiroshi-Top that Tokyo-to-Gen trip-Ac plan-Prs ?Hiroshi is planning on that trip to DC.? The data are not always clear, but it sems true that argument transfer is blocked whenever a demonstrative is present. (This is highly reminiscent of Grimshaw and Mester?s dichotomy betwen transparent and opaque VNs (Grimshaw and Mester 1988: 208). If demonstratives are indicative of the existence of D in the structure, the contrast in (114) can be taken to mean that VNs lacking argument transfer is a DP. The remaining task is to explain why OC does not obtain with the presence of D. Suppose the ?heavy? OC construction involves movement of the external argument of a VN to the matrix subject ?-position in overt syntax. If the presence of D blocks this movement, it follows that OC is excluded if the complement has a D-layer. Presenting this as a preliminary suggestion, I conclude this discussion of light verb constructions. 7 Notes on Lexical Subjects Take one more look at our generalization about T?s Case asignment property and finitenes. (60) is repeated here: (115) T asigns structural Case if and only if it is [+finite] Notice that this generalization does not prevent us from saying that non-structural Case can be asigned to the Spec,TP of pseudo-finite clauses. In fact, pseudo-finite clauses are alowed to have a lexical subject (cf. Yang 1985, Borer 1989, Hasegawa 1984-85, Sakaguchi 1990, Watanabe 1996b): 91 (116) a. butyoo-wa [Mary-ga Osaka-ni ik-u-koto]-o manager-Top [Mary-Nom Osaka-to go-Prs-C koto -Ac kimeta decided ?The manager decided that Mary would go to Osaka.? b. butyoo-wa Taro i -ni [kare i -ga Osaka-ni ik-u-yooni] manager-Top Taro-Dat [he-Nom Osaka-to go-Prs-C Yoni ] meireisita decided ?The manager ordered that Taro that he should go to Osaka.? I asume that these instances of -ga found in the embedded pseudo-finite clauses are inherent or default case markers; se Saito (1982, 20ff.; 1985: 196f.) and Ura (1992) for proposals along these lines. Se chapter 4, where this asumption about nominative -ga plays a crucial role in the proposed acount of backward control. 8 Conclusions This chapter argued that the actual distribution and interpretation of PRO in Japanese can be explained straightforwardly under a theory of control that is compatible with the following statements: ? A necesarily condition for occurrence of PRO in a given syntactic position P is that P is not structuraly Case-marked. ? OC PRO and NOC PRO are diferent creatures. The later is pronominal. The former is licensed by an antecedent that is roughly A-chain away from the empty category. The later is an elsewhere case for the former. ? Some gramatical proces (e.g. A-movement or Condition A) underlines both obligatory control and raising. As conditions on A-dependencies clearly play a significant role in such a theory of 92 the distribution of PRO, the theory can be considered a syntax-oriented approach to control. Nevertheles, it should be stresed that I am not claiming that semantics is not involved in the control phenomena. Indeed, the anti-tense alternation efect is highly likely a semantic efect. It sems plausible to asume, for instance, that yakusokusu(ru) ?promise? and verbs of deciding semanticaly require their complement to have a ?future? interpretation. Note that the results of the present study show that this semantic property is not a sufficient condition for OC to be obtained. The actual distribution of OC PRO in Japanese shows that when the complement of those verbs has a form in which the OC chain cannot be created, OC does not ensue even if the embedded tense satisfies the verbs? requirement. I have been careful not to use the term ?selection? to refer to the requirement in question (se Landau 2000, 2004 for a related proposal). If selection is taken to mean that a local head-to-complement or head-to-head relation, then we might predict that an extra layer destroys the relation in question and therefore the sentence becomes ungramatical, the verb requirement being unsatisfied. But this is not what happens. Another key observation is that the anti-tense alternation efect can be found with adjunct OC. 2 If the asumption that adjuncts are never selected by predicates is correct, the restriction on subordinate tense should not be analyzed as something that selection does. Consider a concrete example. Tameni ?in order? may introduce a subject-controlled rational tensed adjunct clause (Nakayama and Tajima 1993). The examples in (117) show that rational tamani-clauses yield OC. A non-c-commanding NP cannot be an antecedent for the null subject of the adjunct clause: 2 This thesis does not discus OC into adjuncts in detail, but a movement-based analysis seems to work for adjunct control as well as complement control. Roughly put, the subject of a ?high? adjunct cannot sideward-move to Spec,vP due to extension/cyclicity and the adjunct island condition (see Hornstein 199, 201 for details). So the prediction is that high nonfinite adjuncts do not yield OC. See Arita 197, where it is observed that control into te- gerundive adjuncts like hasit-te (run-Ger) ?runing? ceases to be OC when they function as conditional adjuncts, which seem to attach high. The question of whether the prediction holds for high pseudo-finite adjuncts is left for future research. 93 (117) a. sono kyoodai i -wa [? i otagai-o nonosiri-a-u-tameni] the brothers-Top e.o.-Ac curse-Recip-Prs-in.order heya-ni hita room-to entered ?The brothers entered the room in order to curse at each other.? b. * sono kyoodai i -no titioya-wa [? i otagai-o nonosiri-a-u-tameni] the brothers-Gen father-Top e.o.-Ac curse-Recip-Prs-in.order heya-ni haita room-to entered ?The brothers? father entered the room in order to curse at each other.? At first sight, it appears that tameni-clauses acept both the present and past tense forms of a verb. The past tense form of ?curse (each other)? is fine inside a tameni- adjunct, as in (118): (118) sono kyoodai-no titioya-wa [? tabitabi otagai-o the brothers-Gen father-Top often e.o.-Ac nonosiri-{a-u/ at-ta}-tameni] byooki-ni nata curse-{Recip-Prs/Recip-Past}-in.order became sick ?The brothers? father became sick because they often cursed at each other.? It is obvious, however, that the tameni clause in (118) is not a rational clause. The use of tameni introduces a causal adjunct, as is indicated by the translation. Note also that (118), unlike (117)a, is not an OC construction (in (118), the non-c-commanding NP antecedes the null subject of the tameni-adjunct). When a causal interpretation of a tameni adjunct is hard, the tense of the adjunct is restricted to present: 94 (119) Yoko-wa [? Jiro-o {damasu/*damasita}-tameni] Yoko-Top [ Jiro-Ac cheat/cheat-in.order] denwasu-ru huri-o sita cal-Prs pretended ?Taro pretended to make a phone cal to cheat on Jiro.? So it looks like causal adjuncts are finite whereas rational adjuncts are nonfinite. If adjuncts are never selected by their local predicate, therefore, the restriction on the tense of complement clauses should not be treated as a mater of selection. Chapter 3: Split Control and the Principle of Minimal Distance 1 Introduction This chapter studies two diagnostic properties of obligatory control (OC) that were not discussed in chapter 2: (i) the ban on split control (discussed by Wiliams 1980, Lebeaux 1984, Martin 1996, Wurmbrand 2001, Landau 2000, among others) and (i) the efect of the Principle of Minimal Distance (PMD) (proposed by Rosenbaum 1970 and discussed by Larson 1991, Martin 1996, Mazini and Roussou 2000, Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003, Boeckx and Hornstein 2003, 2004, Landau 2000, 2003, Culicover and Jackendoff 2001, Davies and Dubinsky 2004, to list a few). Here are some ilustrations of the two properties: 1 (1) a. * John ordered Bil [? to wash each other] b. John ordered Bil that they should wash each other c. John told Bil that [? to wash each other] would be fun (2) a. * John told Mary [? to wash himself] b. John told Mary that he would wash himself c. John told Mary that [? to wash himself] would be fun In (1)a, the null subject of the embedded infinitival clause cannot be bound by the matrix subject and the matrix indirect object at the same time, which is signaled by the exclusion of each other (which needs a plural antecedent). This restriction is not observed with the subject of finite clauses as in (1)b or with the null subject of 1 It loks as though sentences like (1)a violate the PMD, because PRO is controled by the matrix subject, which is not a closer potential controler. As shown in section 3.1, its equivalent of this kind of example in Japanese is also unacceptable. I wil sugest in section 4 that the effect in Japanese at least is not a PMD violation. Thanks are due to Howard Lasnik (personal communication) for bringing this point to my attention. 96 non-obligatory control clauses as in (1)c. Hence, the ban on split control has been considered a diagnostic property of OC. (2)a ilustrates the efect of the PMD, which requires that the null controlle be bound by the closer antecedent. The presence of an intervener such as the indirect object Mary in (2)a, it is argued, leads the sentence to ungramaticality in OC. This minimality condition does not have to be respected for binding of the subject of finite clauses and binding of NOC PRO. The ban on split antecedence and the PMD efect sem to be most controversial OC diagnostic properties. Consider the PMD efect first. A famous potential counterargument has to do with the verb promise. Unlike (2)a, (3) is judged as aceptable even though the closer potential antecedent is skipped: (3) John promised Mary [? to wash himself] Some proponents of the PMD (or minimality, more generaly) claim that Mary in (2)a and Mary in (3) have diferent structures. Hornstein (2001: 64, footnote 19) and Boeckx and Hornstein?s (2003) propose a ?null P? analysis. The ?null P? analysis claims that the second object of the promise construction does not block the local control chain in the same way as the experiencer P of the raising sem-construction does not; cf. John sems to Mary t to be happy. The isue of split control is more complicated in that, as far as English data are concerned, there sems to be litle consensus in the recent literature on what the generalization is. To se how this is so, we need to begin by looking at partial control, which may look similar to split control. Partial control is the proces in which OC PRO takes a single antecedent but a certain kind of plurality is involved in the interpretation of the empty category (The relevant fact is first observed in Wiliams 1980: 218, who atributes the observation to Debbie Nanni). (4) is an ilustration: (4) John 1 wanted PRO 1+ to met at 6 97 The sentence roughly means that John wanted it to be the case for him and some other person(s) (notated with ?1+? in Landau 2000) to met at 6. Monadic collective predicates like met require that their subject denote a group. Crucial is that met does not need a syntacticaly plural subject. Semanticaly group-denoting NPs sufficiently met the requirement (cf. The commite met at 6). It sems to be the case that split control difers from partial control, as argued in Landau (2000) and acepted in Hornstein (2003), Culicover and Jackendoff (2005: 460) among others. Given the above characterization of partial control, split control can be taken to refer to the proces in which syntacticaly plural PRO is bound by two diferent antecedents. The example from Landau (2000: 54) shows that partial control and split control are diferent phenomena: (5) Mary needed an appointment with John 1 , but didn?t know his schedule. The secretary proposed to her 2 [PRO 1+2 to met (*each other) at 6]. The second sentence in (5) involves object control. Her controls PRO. John in the fist sentence is not able to participate in control of the PRO since it is outside the control sentence. Thus, the sole controller for PRO is singular and therefore PRO is so, too. When each other is not present, the VP is a collective predicate. Here PRO, just like the commite, supports semantic plurality, Landau argues. By contrast, when the reciprocal anaphor is added, the VP must have a syntacticaly plural subject. Since the singular antecedent her controls PRO, this requirement cannot be satisfied. This is how the sentence with each other is excluded. In a nutshel, if partial control were the same thing as split control, the efect of each other should not arise. Hence, they are diferent proceses. Notice that this conclusion does not say anything about whether OC PRO is alowed to have split antecedents. There are two views. It is often claimed that split control is prohibited in English (Wiliams 1980, Bouchard 1984, Koster 1984, Lebeaux 1984, Hornstein and Lightfoot 1987, Franks and Hornstein 1992, Hornstein 2003, to list a few). This clasical view is chalenged by Landau (2000), who 98 observes that some examples of split antecedence, such as (6)b (6)=Landau?s (79), p.53), are possible. 2 (6) a. * John told Mary that he prefered to met each other at 6 b. John proposed to Mary to met each other at 6 As noted above, the reciprocal anaphor makes the predicate require a plural subject. Landau?s pair of sentences shows that the requirement on the plural predicate met each other is satisfied when two singular NPs can control OC PRO, as in (6)a. When one of the antecedents cannot control PRO due to locality as in (6)b (where Mary would be a long distance controller), the requirement cannot be met. Hence, (6)b is an instance of split control. While claiming that OC PRO can support split antecedents, Landau observes that examples like (7) are unaceptable. Since there are two potential controllers in the matrix clause, OC PRO could be split-controlled. He notes that ?[u]nlike propose and ask, recommend and order do not alow split control - for obvious reasons, given that in order to engage in some action, one does not recommend to/order other people to do it.? (p. 55): (7) * Mary i recommended to/ordered John j [PRO i+j to cooperate with each other] Thus Landau sems to have concluded that the source of unaceptability found in cases like (7) is independent from the gramatical nature of OC PRO. Hornstein (2003: 65, footnote 13) maintains that split control does not exist. Examining the example in (8), he makes the following points: (i) many native speakers do not acept (8); (i) even for those who acept the sentence, replacing themselves with each other makes the sentence degraded; (ii) for some of those 2 See Matrin (196: 192) for discusion of a different patter of the judgments. I assume with Landau and Hornstein that split control and partial control differ in the way presented in the text. 99 speakers, the reflexive appearing in this context does not behave as a run-of-the-mil anaphor. They (marginaly) alow plural pronouns like them as wel as themselves; (iv) there are myriad other examples uniformly rejected; (v) those who acept (8) acept the ECM example similar to the sentence: John expected Mary to get themselves a new car. (8) John i persuaded/suggested to Mary j [PRO i+j to get themselves a new car] With these observations, Hornstein sems to argue that there is no clear evidence that get themselves a new car requires a plural subject in this context. The limited goal of this chapter is the following: First, I show that split control is possible in a certain environment, that is, when clauses headed by the mood particle -(y)oo are interpreted or typed as the exhortative. Second, I point out that a certain sentence mood that appears to be semanticaly and pragmaticaly coherent does not exist. The PMD proves to be useful to explain the absence of the unatested mood particle. Third, an analysis of split control wil be given that is compatible with the claim that the PMD or minimality is respected in the gramar. I won?t atempt to add anything new to the debate about the descriptive generalization about English data on split control or the isue of how the English data concerning the PMD efect should be analyzed. This is so because the proposal that we wil make concerns mood clauses and it is not clear to me whether English infinitives are mood clauses in the same way that the relevant Japanese constructions are. The chapter is organized as follows: section 2 atempts to document the relevant data to the main isues. Basic properties of embedded imperative constructions and those of what we cal intentive constructions are laid out. In section 3, the data pertaining to split control is introduced. It is shown that sentences whose null subject is analyzed as split-controlled are obligatory control constructions. Section 4 atempts to provide a possible analysis of split control constructions and explore its consequences. 100 2 Mood Particles and Obligatory Control 2.1 Imperatives and intentives This section introduces preliminary data concerning two mood particles triggering OC. The discussion of these mood particles wil become useful when we identify under what condition split control is alowed. The particles are the imperative mood particle -e/-ro and the mood particle -(y)oo. (9)a and (9)b ilustrate examples: (9) a. (boku-wa) beeguru-o tabe-yoo I-Top bagel-Ac eat-YO ?I?l eat bagels.? b. (kimi-wa) beeguru-o tabe-ro You-Top bagel-Ac eat-Imp ?You eat bagels!? The particle -(y)oo ataches to vowel-final stems to surface as -yoo, while it ataches to consonant-final stems to surface as -oo. The imperative mood particle is realized as -e when it follows consonant-final stems and as -ro (or -yo, used in formal speech) when it follows vowel-final stems. Throughout the chapter, I asume that these particles are heads of Mood Phrases and the Case for the subject of these clauses is unavailable inside the domain of MoodP. Whether TP is projected below Mood does not realy mater. 3 A rough semantic or pragmatic characterization of the -(y)oo particle is in order. (Y)oo is sometimes translated as ?be wiling to? or ?be ready to? in cases found in (9)a. 3 As Nakau (1973) observes, negative imperatives contain the present tense morpheme (which cannot be altered with the past tense): (i) John-wa Mary-ni [? kare-no beeguru-o tabe-ru-na-to] ita John-Top Mary-Dat [ he-Gen bagel-Ac eat-Prs-Neg.Imp-C] said ?John told Mary not to eat his bagel.? It is posible to take this to indicate that nonfinite TP is the complement of the Mood head and generalize to all the mood clauses. 101 (Nakau 1973 cals the use of -(y)oo found in examples like (9)a ?volitional?.) We wil se in section 3 that the behavior of this particle is more complex. Cases where the particle cannot be translated as ?be wiling to? are examined there. For this reason, I gloss -(y)oo just ?YO?. In talking about semantic and pragmatic functions of these mood particles, it is useful to appeal to the notions TO-DO LIST and discourse participants such as speaker and addrese, along the lines of Portner (2004). Portner proposes that imperative sentences represent a TO-DO LIST, which is defined as a set of properties and that ?[t]he conventional force of imperatives, what we can cal Requesting, is to add the property denoted by the imperative to the addrese?s To-Do LIST (Portner 2004; se also Portner and Zanutini 2005).? In this view, Leave! denotes the property of leaving and this property is placed on the addrese?s TO-DO LIST. In this light, the force of the intentive is to add the relevant property to the speaker?s TO-DO LIST. 4 This is why (9)a and (9)b have the translations they have. These mood constructions can be embedded in the complement position of a verb, the CP being headed by the complementizer to: (10) a. Taro-wa boku-no beeguru-o tabe-yoo-to keikakusita Taro-Top my bagel-Ac eat-YO-C to planned ?Taro planned to eat my bagel.? b. Yoko-wa Hiroshi-ni boku-no beeguru-o tabe-ro-to Yoko-Top Hiroshi-Dat my bagel-Ac eat-Imp-C meireisita ordered ?Yoko ordered Hiroshi to eat my bagel.? It has been always an isue whether embedded clauses found in examples like these involve real embedding, i.e. whether they involve indirect speech or not. For intentives As Han (1998/2000: 159) noted, Japanese sems to alow imperatives to be 4 Intentives might be the same as Portner and Zanutini?s ?promisives?. I use the intentive here in order to save ?promisive? to refer to a slightly different case that wil be discused later. 102 embedded. At this point, it suffices to recognize that when a mood clause is embedded, TO-DO LISTs are relative to the speaker and the addrese of the indirect speech. In section 2.3, I wil argue that these sentences involve indirect quotation, rather than direct quotation. 2.2 Diagnostic Properties of OC This section applies some OC diagnostics to embedded mood clauses to show that they are obligatory control ones. Unique antecedents The antecedent for the null subject of the embedded mood construction under consideration requires an antecedent and the antecedent is uniquely determined: (11) a. Hiroshi i -wa [? {??kare i /zibun i }-o hihansi-yoo-to] Hiroshi-Top him/self-Ac criticize-YO-C {omotta/kesinsita} thought/decided ?Hiroshi {thought of criticizing/ decided to criticize} {??him, himself}.? b. Hiroshi-wa Yoko-ni [? {kare/?kanozyo}-o hihansi-ro-to] Hiroshi-Top Yoko-Dat he/she-Ac criticize-Imp-C {ita/meireisita} said/ordered ?Hiroshi {said to/ordered} Yoko to criticize {him, *her}.? The ? in (11)a necesarily corefers to the matrix subject, Hiroshi. A Condition B efect is observed with with kare ?he?, which suggests that the null subject must be bound by Hiroshi. Likewise, ? in (11)b necesarily corefers to the matrix indirect object, Yoko. Hence, it is likely for the former to involve subject control and for the later to involve object control. 103 Ban on non-c-commanding antecedents The diference betwen (12)a and (12)b below demonstrates that the subject of the embedded intentive clause must be c-commanded by its antecedent [(12)a] while the null subject of praise each other in a finite clause does not have to be [(12)b]: (12) a. kyoodai i -no titioya j -wa [? *i/j otagai-o home-a-oo-to] brothers-Gen father-Top [ e.o-Ac praise-Recip-YO-C] omot-tei-ta think-Asp-Past ?The brothers? father thought to praise each other.? b. kyoodai i -no titioya j -wa [? i/j otagai-o home-a-u-to] brothers-Gen father-Top [ e.o-Ac praise-Recip-Prs-C] omot-tei-ta think-Asp-Past ?The brothers? father thought that they would praise each other.? The same restriction holds for embedded imperative clauses: their subject needs a c-commanding antecedent. As in (13) below, the subject of should respect each other does not have to be anteceded by a c-commanding NP, in contrast with that of an imperative clause: (13) a. * Taro-wa sono hutago-no hahaoya j -ni [? otagai-o Taro-Top the twins-Gen mother-Dat [ e.o-Ac sonkeisi-a-e-to] ita respect-Recip-Imp-C] said ?Taro told the twins? mother to respect each other.? b. Taro-wa sono hutago-no hahaoya j -ni [? otagai-o Taro-Top the twins-Gen company-Dat [ e.o.-Ac sonkeisi-a-u-bekida-to] ita respect-Recip-Prs-should-C] said ?Taro told the twins? mother they should respect each other.? 104 Thus intentive and imperative subjects (i.e. subjects of clauses marked with intentive (y)oo and imperative ro/e, respectively), when embedded, need a c-commanding antecedent. Ban on long-distance antecedents OC PRO does not alow long-distance antecedents. Japanese embedded-mood constructions do not alow long distance antecedents: (14) a. * karera-wa [Hiroshi-ni [? otagai-o naguri-a-oo-to] they-Top [Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o-Ac hit-Recip-YO-C] omw]-ase-ta think]-Caus-Past ?They made Hiroshi think to hit each other.? b. karera-wa [Hiroshi-ni [? otagai-o naguri-a-u-to] they-Top [Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o-Ac hit-Recip-Pres-C] omw]-ase-ta think]-Caus-Past ?They made Hiroshi think that they might hit each other.? In these examples, the causative morpheme -(s)ase takes a sentential untensed complement in which the verb think takes as its complement a to-clause. 5 ? is one clause away from the subject of the causative -sase but two clauses away from the highest subject. The pair of examples above shows that the lowest, null subject cannot take the highest subject as its antecedent when the most deeply embedded verb is marked with intentive. Thus, the subject of intentives must be local to its antecedent at least in clausemate fashion. Null imperative subjects also must be one clause away from its antecedent: 5 It might be the case that the dative NP is the ?deep? object of sase and that the deep subject of think is PRO. But this does not affect the observation made here. The reader could read ?dative NP? in the text as ?the PRO controled by that dative NP?. 105 (15) a. * karera i -wa [Yoko-ni otto-ni they-Top [Yoko-Dat husband-Dat [? i otagai-o itawari-a-e-to] it-te] hosikata [ e.o.-Ac be nice-Recip-Imp-C to.say] wanted lit. ?They i wanted Yoko to tel her husband ? i to be nice to each other.? b. karera i -wa [Yoko-ni otto-ni they-Top [Yoko-Dat husband-Dat [? i otagai-o itawari-a-u-bekida-to] it-te] hosikata [ e.o.-Ac be nice-Recip-Prs-should-C] to.say] wanted ?They wanted Yoko to tel Taro that they should be nice to each other.? The structure for (15)a can be ilustrated as in (16) with English words: (16) They wanted [Yoko tel her husband [ CP ? be-nice Imp to each other ] This clausemate restriction imposed on embedded imperatives and the antecedent for its subject is totaly expected if the null subject in (14)a and (15)a is OC PRO. Only-NP antecedents OC PRO, unlike pronouns, cannot function as a fre variable (se chapter 2 for the details about the diagnostic property). Let us start with ambiguity of the sort observed with (17): 106 (17) Hiroshi i -dake-ga [pro i siai-ni kat-u-to] Hiroshi-only-Nom [ game-Datwin-Prs-C] kangaeteiru think-Stat-Prs i. Covariant interpretation: ?Hiroshi is the only x such that x thinks that x wil win the game.? i. Invariant interpretation: ?Hiroshi is the only x such that x thinks that Hiroshi wil win the game.? As we saw in chapter 2, pro can be interpreted as a bound variable (as in (17)i) or fre variable (as in (17)i). The following scenario is intended to make the invariant interpretation true and the covariant interpretation false: (18) Hiroshi: ?I?m sure I wil win my game.? Atsuko: ?I?m sure I wil win my game. I don?t think Hiroshi wil win his game.? Yoko: ?I doubt that Hiroshi wil win his game.? (17) can be uttered truly under this scenario. Hence the nul subject embedded in a finite clause in (17) is pro. The null subjects of embedded intentives and imperatives behaves as OC PRO. Neither of them alow for an invariant reading: (19) Hiroshi i -dake-ga [? i siai-ni kat-oo-to] kangaeteiru Hiroshi-only-Nom [ game-Datwin-YO-C] think.Asp.Prs ?Hiroshi thinks to win the game.? Covariant interpretation: ?Hiroshi is the only x such that x thinks that x wil win the game.? Invariant interpretation: *Hiroshi is the only x such that x thinks that Hiroshi wil win the game? 107 Like the first scenario, the following one, in which Hiroshi, Atsuko and Yoko are the relevant individuals, makes the invariant one true and the covariant interpretation false: (20) Hiroshi: ?I?m gonna win my game.? Atsuko: ?I wil win my game. I don?t think Hiroshi wil even try to. Yoko: ?I wanna win my game, of course. Hiroshi? I?m not sure he is interested in winning his game.? Statement (19) is rejected under this scenario. This shows that the statement does not have the invariant interpretation. Hence, we conclude that ? cannot act like a pronoun. If it is OC PRO, the judgment obtained here is not surprising. The invariant reading with an only-NP antecedent is not possible with embedded imperatives either. The same reading is possible, by contrast, with a sentence with finite auxiliary bekida ?should?: (21) a. John-wa Taro-dake-ni [? Izu-ni ik-e-to] ita John-Top Taro-only-Dat [ Izu-to go-Imp-C] said ?John told only Taro that he should go to Izu.? (John told only Taro, ?You go to Izu!?) b. John-wa Taro i -dake-ni [pro i Izu-ni John-Top Taro-only-Dat [ Izu-to ik-u-bekida-to] ita go-Prs-should-C] said ?John told only Taro i that he i should go to Izu.? 108 (22) Covariant interpretation: Only Taro is an x such that John told x that x should go to Izu. [Ok with both (21)a and (21)b] Invariant interpretation: Only Taro is an x such that John told x that Taro should go to Izu. [Impossible with (21)a and ok with (21)b] The subject of embedded imperatives must be interpreted covariantly, while the subject of should can be interpreted either invariantly or covariantly. Absence of strict reading The asymmetry betwen bound variable and fre variable interpretations for intentive and imperative subjects can be ilustrated on the basis of their behavior in elipsis contexts as wel. The subject of an embedded intentive does not alow the strict reading in stripping. (Se Hoji 1990 for extensive discussion about this construction in Japanese.) (23) A: Atsuko-wa [? kono biiru-o nom-oo-to] omotteimasita Atsuko-Top [ this beer-Ac drink-YO-C] thought.Pol ?Atsuko i thought that she i would drink this beer.? B: Hiroshi-mo desu Hiroshi-even Cop.Pol ?Hiroshi j also ? The imperative construction works in the same way except that it is object control: (24) a. A: John-wa Taro-ni [? Izu-ni ik-e-to] ita John-Top Taro-Dat [ Izu-to go-Imp-C] said ?John ordered Taro to go to Izu.? B: Hiroshi-ni-mo desu Hiroshi-Dat-even Cop ?John said to Hiroshi also {Hiroshi, Taro*} to go to Izu.? 109 b. A: John-wa Taro-ni [? Izu-ni ik-u-bekida-to] John-Top Taro-Dat [ Izu-to go-Prs-should-C] ita said ?John said to Taro i that he i should go to Izu? B: Hiroshi-ni-mo desu Hiroshi-Dat-even Cop ?John said to Hiroshi also that {Hiroshi, Taro} should go to Izu.? When the embedded predicate contains an imperative head, the strict reading is extremely dificult. The finite auxiliary should does not impose this restriction, as can be sen with the availability of the strict reading in (24)b. Absence of non-de se interpretation As has been sen in chapter 2, OC PRO can only support a de se interpretation while pronouns alow a non-de se interpretation. Now consider examples of embedded intentives like the one given in (25): (25) Hiroshi-wa [? gaikoku-ni ik-oo-to] omotteiru Hiroshi-Top [ foreign country-to go-YO-C] thinks ?Hiroshi thinks of going abroad.? Suppose that Hiroshi planned to go abroad. He had already got his pasport and made a visa available recently. One day, he went to drinking and came home badly drunk. He found the pasport on the table, without remembering that this was what he himself got from the embasy. Looking at the picture on the pasport and the visa, he thinks, ?I don?t know who this guy is, but he sems to be planning to go abroad soon. I wish I could!? In this non-de se context, (25) cannot be uttered felicitously. In contrast, (26), whose embedded predicate has the simple present tense form, alows for a reading compatible with this situation. 110 (26) Hiroshi-wa [? gaikoku-ni ik-u-to] omotteiru Hiroshi-Top foreign country-to go-Prs-C thinks ?Hiroshi thinks he wil go abroad.? The subject of embedded yoo-clause, like standard OC PRO, cannot receive a non-de se interpretation. 2.3 ? ? null equivalent of overt indexicals Before we go on, one empirical isue needs to be considered. How do we make sure that embedded intentive and imperative clauses do not involve direct quotation (se Kuno 1988)? 6 7 If the subject of direct quotes behaved exactly in the way that ? behaves, our claim that ? is OC PRO would be weakened. Notice also that root intentives and imperatives require first and second person subjects, respectively: (27) a. ? Izu-ni ik-oo-to Izu-to go-YO-SFP ?{I?m, *You?re, *He?s, .} gonna go to Izu.? b. ? Izu-ni ik-e Izu-to go-Imp ?{You, *me, *John}, go to Izu!? 6 This posibility becomes an isue here precisely because the Japanese quotative complementizer to occurs in direct quote complements as well as in indirect quote complements, unlike English that. See Shibatani (1978) for an overview of basic properties of the quotative complementizer, and also Motomura 203 for relevant discusion. Note incidentally that we ignore instances of quotes called ?quotational intrusion? such as (i) (from Schlenker 203). (i) My three-year old son believes that I am a ?phitosopher?. See Kuno 198 for Japanese data of this kind. 7 Speas (200) makes an interesting proposal for the syntax of direct and indirect quote complementation of the relevant sort, based on Navojo data. 111 In fact, true direct quotes sem to pas at least some diagnostics that we use to argue that ? is OC PRO. Remember for instance the context that was sen when the impossibility of a non-de se interpretation with ? was examined. (28), which is a direct quote, cannot be utered to describe the situation. The first person expresion ore ?I? requires that the quote be Hiroshi?s direct thought. This is the same as the way OC PRO difers from pronouns with respect to this diagnostic test: (28) Hiroshi-wa [ore-wa gaikoku-ni iku] to] Hiroshi-Top [I-Top foreign country-to go.Prs C] omotteiru thinks ?Hiroshi thinks: ?I wil go abroad?.? Moreover, whether they are embedded or not, indexicals in Japanese are often null. For these reasons, it needs to be shown that embedded intentives and imperatives can be indirect quotation. There are several ways of controlling for this factor. First, long distance wh-movement cannot originate inside and take scope outside a direct speech. When a quote contains first person that refers to the author of the speech, a wh-phrase cannot appear inside: (29) * Hiroshi i -ga [ore i -wa doko-ni ik-u(-zo) to] ita-no Hiroshi-Nom [I-Top where-to go-Prs-SFP C] said-Q ?What place is x such that Hiroshi said, ?I wil go to x??? Embedded intentive clauses with a null subject can contain a (long distance) wh-element: (30) Hiroshi i -ga [? i doko-ni ik-oo-to] ita/kimeta-no Hiroshi-Nom [ where-to go-YO-C] said/decided-Q ?What place is x such that Hiroshi said to go to x?? 112 Hence, the embedded clause with -(y)oo at least can be an indirect quote. Another way to show that we are dealing with indirect quotation is to put a third person pronoun refering back to the addrese of the report. It forces the embedded clause to be an indirect quote. He inside a direct quote cannot be coreferential with the speaker or the hearer of the main utterance: (31) Hiroshi i -ga [boku i -wa kare i -no ie-o Hiroshi-Nom [I-Top his house-Ac u-ru-zo] to kangaeteiru sel-Prs-SFP C think-Stat-Prs ?Hiroshi i thinks: ?I i wil buy {*his i , my i } house.?? As in (32), the embedded mood particle can co-occur with such kare ?he?: (32) Hiroshi i -ga [? kare i -no ie-o Hiroshi-Nom [ his house-Ac ur-oo-to] kangaeteiru sel-YO-Prs-C think-Stat-Prs ?Hiroshi thinks of seling his i house.? Likewise, when the author or addrese of the quoted speech difers from the actual speaker or hearer (of the main utterance), using first or second person expresions in the quote forces it to be indirect speech: (33) * John said, ?I (actual speaker) am a hero.? The embedded intentive and imperative constructions in (34), which contain indexicals that refer to the speaker or hearer of the actual context, are perfectly aceptable: 113 (34) a. Hiroshi i -ga [? i boku-no ie-o Hiroshi-Nom [ my house-Ac ka-oo-to] kangaeteiru buy-YO-Prs-C] thinks ?Hiroshi thinks of buying my(=the actual speaker) house.?? b. Hiroshi-ga Yoko i -ni [? i kimi-no ie-o Hiroshi-Nom Yoko-Dat [ your house-Ac ka-e-to] meizita buy-Imp-Prs-C] ordered ?Hiroshi ordered Yoko to buy your(=the actual hearer) house.? Therefore, we are not necesarily dealing with root phenomena by looking at these mood constructions. These subordinate sentences can be indirect speech. The paterns of judgments about the diagnostics that have been used so far remain the same even when the possibility of direct quotation is eliminated. Some of the data are presented below: necesity of c-command (35) a. * sono kyoodai i -no titioya j -wa [? *i/j otagai-o that brother-Gen father-Top [ e.o-Ac dokode home-a-oo-to] omot-tei-ta-no where praise-Recip-YO-C] think-Asp-Past-Q ?Where did the brothers? father think to praise each other t?? b. * keikan-wa sono kyoodai i -no titioya j -ni [? *i/j otagai-o policeman-Top that brother-Gen father-Top [ e.o-Ac dokode home-a-e-to] meireisi-ta-no where praise-Recip-Imp-C] order-Past-Q 114 ban on long distance antecedents (36) a. * karera-wa [Yoko-ni otto-ni [? they-Top [Yoko-Dat husband-Dat [ otagai-o doregurai itawari-a-e-to] it-te] hosikata-no e.o.-Ac how much be nice-Recip-Imp-C] to.say] wanted-Q ?How nice did they want Yoko to tel her husband ? to be to each other?? b. karera-wa [Yoko-ni [? otagai-o doregurai they-Top [Yoko-Dat [ e.o.-Ac how much itawari-a-oo-to] omotte-te] hosikata-no be nice-Recip-YO-C] to.think] wanted-Q ?How nice did they want Yoko to think of ? being to each other?? absence of strict reading under elipsis (37) a. A: John i -wa Taro-ni [? kare i -no ie-ni ik-e-to] ita John-Top Taro-Dat [ his house-to go-Imp-C] said ?John i told Taro j to go to his i house.? B: Hiroshi-ni-mo desu Hiroshi-Dat-also Cop.Pol ?John said to Hiroshi also {Hiroshi, *Taro} to go to John?s house.? b. A: Yoko-wa John i -ni [? kare i -no ie-ni ik-oo-to] Yoko-Top John-Top [ his house-to go-YO-C] omow-ase-ta think-Caus-Past ?Yoko made John i think of going to his i house.? B: Hiroshi-ni-mo desu Hiroshi-Dat-also Cop.Pol ?She made Hiroshi also think of{Hiroshi?s, *John?s} going to John?s house.? 115 3 Split Control and the Exhortative Use of -(Y)oo 3.1 Where split control is licensed Having established that intentive mood and imperative mood particles trigger OC, I would like to consider split control in Japanese, which, to my knowledge, has not been discussed in the literature. As we wil se, the following sems to be the case: that null subjects of embedded clauses containing the imperative particle -ro/-e never alow split control, whereas null subjects of embedded clauses containing the particle -(y)oo alow it under a certain interpretation. First, observe a minimal pair of examples in which the imperative and (y)oo-constructions are contrasted: (38) a. * Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni [? otagai-o sonkeesi-a-e-to] Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac respect-Recip-Imp-C] ita/ meireisita said/ ordered lit. ?Taro said to/ordered Hiroshi that ? respect-IMP each other.? b. Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni [? otagai-o sonkeesi-a-oo-to] Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac respect-Recip-YO-C] ita/ teiansita said/ proposed lit. ?Taro said/proposed to Hiroshi that ? respect-YO each other.? (38)a and (38)b only difer with respect to the kind of the mood particle atached to the embedded verb. The diference in meaning betwen these sentences can be made clearer by translating them into the versions with a direct quote. Se (39)a and (39)b. The former is unaceptable: 116 (39) a. * Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni [kimi-wa otagai-o Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [you-Top e.o.-Ac sonkeesi-a-e-yo!] to ita respect-Recip-Imp-SFP] C said ?Taro said to Hiroshi: ?Respect each other!?? b. Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni [watasi-tati-wa otagai-o Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [we-Top e.o.-Ac sonkeesi-a-imas-yoo] to ita/teiansita respect-Recip-Pol-YO] C said/proposed ?Taro said to Hiroshi: ?Let?s respect each other.?? Notice that the use of -(y)oo in (38)b and (39)b is, meaning-wise, diferent from the use of the same particle in the intensive construction. -(y)oo found in (38)b and (39)b is asociated with exhortation of a similar sort to the one found with English let?s-construction. Recal that in section 2, we esentialy follow Portner (2004) in characterizing the discourse function of intentives as follows: It is to add the property denoted by the VP to the TO-DO LIST of the speaker (of the reported speech). In the same vein, the discourse efect of exhortatives is to place the relevant property on the TO-DO LIST of the addrese (of the reported speech) as wel as that of the speaker of the reported speech (Portner and Zanuttini 2005 and references cited therein). Take kaer-oo ?let?s leave? for example. The property of leaving is added to the addrese?s TO-DO LIST as wel as the speaker?s own TO-DO LIST. In the next subsection, I wil show that (38)b is an instance of split control; that is, that the embedded predicates need a plural subject. 3.2 Reciprocal and reflexive predicates Whether the examples involve split control depends on whether the predicate in (38)a and (38)b is a gramaticaly plural predicate. Hoji (1997) observes that the reciprocal otagai can take split antecedents, citing examples like (i) (=Hoji?s 9b with the glosses slightly modified): 117 (40) Ieyasu i -wa Nobunaga j -ni [Singen-ga otagai i+j -o Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-Nom e.o.-Ac home-tei-ta-to] tuge-ta praise-Asp-Past-C] tel-Past ?Ieyasu i told Nobunaga j that Shingen had been praising them i+j .? If Hoji is right, one might think that examples like those in (38) show very litle because ?praise each other? does not require a plural subject. Curiously enough, when the embedded verb is reciprocalized, i.e. supplied with the verbal suffix -aw, the aceptability of the sentence becomes impossible: 8 (41) * Ieyasu i -wa Nobunaga j -ni [Singen-ga otagai i+j -o Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-Nom e.o-Ac home-at-teita-to] tuge-ta praise-Recip-Asp-Past-C] told ?Ieyasu i told Nobunaga j that Shingen had been praising each other i+j .? The generalization sems to be that when otagai appears inside a VP whose head is morphologicaly reciprocalized with -aw, the reciprocal anaphor requires a local plural binder. If this is the case, the aceptability of examples like (38)b suggests that the null embedded subject appearing in these examples is a plural noun phrase, taking the matrix subject and indirect object as its split antecedents. Next, when two local controllers are not available, the nul subject of the (y)oo construction cannot support split antecedents (as Landau observes for English control constructions): 8 See Nakau (1973: 75-76), Ishi (1989), Tonoike (191), Nakao (203) for data concerning the reciprocalizer -aw and analyses of its syntax and semantics. 118 (42) a. * Taro i -wa Hiroshi j -ni [kare i -ga [? i+j otagai-o Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [he-Nom [ e.o.-Ac sonkeisi-a-oo-to] {omotteiru/kesinsita}-koto]-o tugeta respect-Recip-YO-C] thinks/decided-C koto ]-Ac told ?Taro i told Hiroshi j that he i {thought of PRO i+j respecting/ had decided PRO i+j to respect} each other.? b. Taro i -wa otooto-ni [kare i -ga Hiroshi j -ni [? i+j otagai-o Taro-Top brother-Dat [he-Nom Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac sonkeesi-a-oo-to] ita/ teiansita-koto]-o tugeta respect-Recip-YO-C] said/ proposed-C koto ]-Ac told ?Taro i told his brother that he i had said/proposed to Hiroshi j PRO i+j to respect each other.? Though the relevant examples are inevitably complicated, there is a clear contrast betwen these two sentences. Given that ? requires split antecedents here, the contrast follows if the null subject does not alow long distance antecedents. In (42)b, there are two local controllers present in the intermediate clause while in (42)a, he is the only one controller. The indirect object of the highest clause cannot control ?, because it would have to control it long distance. We have been using reciprocalized verbs to force the embedded predicate to be syntacticaly plural. Another thing one can use to keep the embedded predicate a plural predicate is reflexive predicates of a certain type. Consider the following pair of sentences that contain the expresion X-no kao-o sikameru (screw up X?s face): (43) a. Ieyasu-wa Nobunaga-ni [Shingen-ga Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-Nom {*otagai/*zibun-tati/?zibun}-no ka-o sikameta-to] tugeta e.o./self-Pl/self-Gen face-Ac screwed.up-C] told lit. ?Ieyasu told Nobunaga that Shingen had screwed up {*each other?s, *selves?, self?s} face 119 b. Ieyasu-wa Nobunaga-ni [Shingen-to Yoshimoto-ga Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-and Yoshimoto-Nom {otagai/zibun-tati/zibun}-no ka-o sikameta-to] tugeta e.o./self-Pl/self-Gen face-Ac screwed.up-C] told The reflexive verb phrase in question sems to require the possesive to be non-distinct from the subject with respect to person, number and gender, just like crane one?s neck in English. The reason for the unaceptability of the versions of (43)a with otagai ?each other? and zibun-tati ?self-Pl? is then that the embedded subject does not match the possesive in number at least. 9 As an aside, this efect of matching can be observed for cases where overt pronouns occupy the possesive position, too. The possesive position does not easily support overt pronouns like kare ?he? or karera ?they?. But when we compare a case in which the subject of a reflexive predicate and the possesive match in gender and/or number and one in which they do not, a very clear contrast is obtained: (44) a. * John-wa kanozyo-no kao-o sikameta John-Top her face-Ac screwed up ?John screwed up her face.? b. ? John-wa kare-no kao-o sikameta John-Top his face-Ac screwed up ?John screwed up his face.? c. * John-to Bil-wa kare-no kao-o sikameta John-and Bil-Top his face-Ac screwed up ?John and Bil screwed up his face.? 9 Reflexive predicates of this kind include X-no hana-o kamu ?blow X?s nose?, X-no te-o ageru ?conduct violence?, X-no me-o hikaraseru ?keep X?s eye (on something)?, and so on. The reason why zibun is ok in both examples may be that the reflexive is underspecified in number. Also note that otagai here roughly behaves like their own. 120 d. ? John-to Bil-wa karara-no kao-o sikameta John-and Bil-Top their face-Ac screwed up ?John and Bil screwed up their face.? As indicated, (44)b and (44)d are far from perfect. This is probably because, as is common cross-linguisticaly, the possesive of inalienable possesion nouns does not host overt pronouns easily (Kayne 1975 for French, Cheng and Riter 1988 for Chinese, Yoon 1989 for Korean, Fuji 2000 for Japanese). 10 It should be noted that when the possesive does not match the subject in gender and/or number, the sentences becomes hopeles, as in (44)a and (44)b. Bearing these in mind, consider the following pair, which shows that controlled exhortative subjects alow a plural possesive but controlled imperative ones do not: (45) a. * John i -wa Bil j -ni [? {otagai/zibun-tati} i+j -no kao-o John-Top Bil-Dat [ e.o./self-Pl-Gen face-Ac sikame-ro-to] ita/meireisita screw up-Imp-C] said/ordered lit. ?John said to/ordered Bil to screw up their face.? ? ?John said to Mary: ?Screw up our own face!? b. John i -wa Bil j -ni [? {otagai/zibun-tati} i+j -no kao-o John-Top Bil-Dat [ e.o./self-PL-Gen face-Ac sikame-yoo-to] ita/teiansita screw up-YO-C] said/proposed lit. ?John said to/proposed to Bil to screw up their face.? ? ?John said to Mary: ?Let?s screw up our own face!? 10 This obviation effect (cf. Bouchard 1984, Lebeaux 1984) may indicate that inalienable posession constructions involve OC. See Pesetsky (195), who sugests an idea along these lines. 121 (46) a. * John i -wa Bil j -ni [? karera i+j -no kao-o sikame-ro-to] John-Top Bil-Dat [ their-Gen face-Ac screw up-Imp-C] ita/meireisita said.ordered lit. ?John said to/ordered Bil that ? screw up-Imp their face.? ? ?John said to Mary: ?Screw up our own face!? b. ? John i -wa Bil j -ni [? karera i+j -no kao-o sikame-yoo-to] John-Top Bil-Dat [ their-Gen face-Ac screw up-YO-C] ita/teiansita said/proposed lit. ?John said to/proposed to Bil to screw up-YO their face.? ? ?John said to Mary: ?Let?s screw up our own face!? The contrast betwen (46)a and (46)b suggests the following: the null subject of the imperative resists indexing such as ?i+j? [(46)a], whereas that of the (y)oo-clause can [(46)b]. Hence, split control is permited in the later sentence, not in the former. The reflexive construction, just like the reciprocal construction (cf. (42), helps us show that when OC PRO would have to be controlled long distance the requirement on ?screw up each other?s/selves? face? couldn?t be met. (47) a. * John i -wa Bil j -ni [kare i -ga [? i+j {otagai/zibun-tati}-no kao-o John-Top Bil-Dat [he-Nom [ e.o./self-Pl-Gen face-Ac sikame-yoo-to] {omotteiru/kesinsita}-koto]-o tugeta screw.up-YO-C] thinks/decided-C koto ]-Ac told lit. ?John i told Bil j that he i {thought of respecting/ had decided to respect} each other i+j .? 122 b. John i -wa otooto-ni [kare i -ga Bil j -ni [? i+j John-Top brother-Dat [he-Nom Bil-Dat [ {otagai/zibun-tati}-no kao-o sikame-yoo-to] e.o./self-Pl-Gen face-Ac screw.up-YO-C] ita/ teiansita-koto]-o tugeta said/ proposed-C koto ]-Ac told ?John told his brother that he had said/proposed to Bil to screw up their own face.? The unaceptability of (47)a can be acounted for if the indirect of the highest clause Bil cannot control ? across the intermediate clause. Only he is a legitimate controller. By contrast, example (47)b is expected to be gramatical since the intermediate clause has two controllers that license, via control, the requirement that the reflexive VP have a plural subject. Before proceding to the next section, let us se if diagnostic properties of OC other than the ban on long distance control (cf. (42) and (47)) hold for that embedded exhortative clauses. The null subject of the (y)o-clause that has split antecedents does not support strict interpretation under elipsis. Observe the pair of examples in (48) and (49), where the (y)oo-construction and a finite complement construction are contrasted: (48) A. Taro i -wa Hiroshi j -ni [? i+j otagai-o Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac tasuke-a-oo-to] teiansita help-Recip-YO-C] proposed ?Taro proposed to Hiroshi to help each other.? B. Yoko-ni-mo da Yoko-Dat-even Cop ?Taro proposed to Yoko also that {Taro and Yoko, *Taro and Hiroshi} should help each other.? 123 B?. Hanako-mo da Hanako-even Cop ?Hanako also proposed to Hiroshi that {Hanako and Hiroshi, *Taro and Hiroshi} should help each other.? (49) A. Taro i -wa Hiroshi j -ni [? i+j otagai-o Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac tasuke-a-u-bekida-to] teiansita help-Recip-Pres-should-C] proposed ?Taro proposed to Hiroshi that they should help each other.? B. Yoko-ni-mo da Yoko-Dat-even Cop ?Taro proposed to Yoko also that {Taro and Yoko, ?Taro and Hiroshi} should help each other.? B?. Hanako-mo da Hanako-even Cop ?Hanako also proposed to Yoko also that {Hanako and Hiroshi, ?Taro and Hiroshi} should help each other.? (48)B and (49)B both have the indirect object as the remnant of elipsis. While the former does not alow the embedded subject (in the elipsis site) to refer to Taro and Hiroshi, this type of interpretation of the null subject is fine in the later. (48)B? and (49)B? are cases where the subject of propose is the elipsis remnant. Again, the strict interpretation of the null subject is not alowed in the -(y)oo construction, whereas it is alowed in the should construction. Thus split-controlled null subjects behave in the same way as uniquely controlled OC PRO. The following example shows that a non-commanding antecedent cannot be coindexed with the null subject that has split antecedents without yielding unaceptability: 124 (50) # Yamada-kyoozyu-no hisyo j -ga [? otagai-o Prof. Yamada-Gen secretary-Nom [ e.o.-Ac osie-a-oo-to] Tanaka-kyoozyu j -ni ita teach-Recip-YO-C] Prof.Tanaka-Dat said ?Profesor Yamada?s secretary told Profesor Tanaka to teach each other].? ? ?Profesor Yamada?s secretary said to Profesor Tanaka: ?Why don?t we teach each other??? This example is pragmaticaly biased towards an interpretation in which a profesor and the other profesor teach each other. Suppose Yamada, a profesor of linguistics, thinks that she needs to learn psychology for writing a grant proposal and also believes that Tanaka, a profesor of psychology, wants to learn linguistics from her. She asked her secretary to tel him about her idea. The sentence, however, only yields the interpretation in which the persons who teach each other are the secretary and Prof. Tanaka, as indicated. This means that the indexation given in (51)a is prohibited, while (51)b is alowed: (51) a. * Prof. Yamada i ?s secretary j told Prof. Tanaka k [? i+k to teach each other] b. Prof. Yamada i ?s secretary j told Prof. Tanaka k [? j+k to teach each other] If (51)a were alowed by gramar, no pragmatic anomaly should occur in (50). The data suggest that the representation in (51)a must be excluded. This is readily expected if ? is OC PRO, whose antecedent(s) must c-command the null subject. The pragmatic anomaly disappears when the complement (y)oo-clause is replaced with a finite complement: 125 (52) Yamada-kyoozyu i -no hisyo j -ga [? i+k otagai-o Prof. Yamada-Gen secretary-Nom [ e.o.-Ac osie-a-u-bekida-to] Tanaka-kyoozyu k -ni ita teach-Recip-Prs-should-C] Prof.Tanaka-Dat said ?Profesor Yamada i ?s secretary told Profesor Tanaka that they should teach each other ].? ? ?Profesor Yamada?s secretary said to Profesor Tanaka: ?You and she should teach each other??? 3.3 Exhortatives We have studied reciprocalized predicates and reflexive predicates, for which the controlled subject is forced to be plural. In both circumstances, the sentence is gramatical only if two local controllers are available and if the particle -(y)oo, though not the imperative particle, is used. It is evident that split control is alowed when the control clause is asociated with the exhortative meaning and prohibited when it is asociated with the directive meaning: (53) Split control -> embedded -(y)oo = exhortative mood marker Recal that the mood marker -(y)oo appearing in split control cases is the same suffix as the one we have been caling the intentive mood particle. (10)a is repeated here: (54) Taro-wa boku-no beeguru-o tabe-yoo-to keikakusita Taro-Top my bagel-Ac eat-YO-C to planned Taro planned to eat my bagel.? As was pointed out by Nakau (1973: 38-39), the particle -(y)oo is, descriptively speaking, ambiguous betwen its intentive use and its exhortative use: 126 (55) a. intentive Taro i -wa [? i boku-no koto-ni zibun i -no me-o Taro-Top [ my thing-to self-Gen eye-Ac hikarase-te ok-oo-to] omotta/kimeta (yooda) kep.brightening-YO-C] thought/decided sems ?(It sems) that Taro {thought of keeping, decided to keep} his eye on me.? b. exhortative Taro i -wa Hanako j -ni [? i+j boku-no koto-ni Taro-Top Hanako-Dat[ [ my thing-to otagai-no me-o hikarasete ok-oo-to] ita/teiansita each other-Gen eye-Ac kep.brightening-YO-C] said/proposed (yooda) sems ?(It sems that) Taro said to/proposed to Hanako to keep each other?s eye on me.? ? ?Taro said to Hanako: ?Why don?t we keep our own eye on him.? (55)a means that Taro had the intention of paying his atention the actual speaker?s behavior. The sentence is a subject control construction. (55)b means that Taro proposes to Hanako the idea of him and her paying their atention to the actual speaker? behavior. Split control is found with the exhortative interpretation of -(y)oo, but not with the intentive interpretation of the particle. In sum, this section shows that the exhortative construction alows spit control. Recal Landau?s remark, which was cited in the quick review of English facts given in section 1. He mentions that ?[u]nlike propose and ask, recommend and order do not alow split control.? (Landau 2000: 55) If he is right, the Japanese data suggests that roughly the same thing is happening in both languages. It is plausible that propose and ask can be asociated with the exhortative mood but recommend and order cannot be. 127 4 Split Control and the PMD 4.1 A gap in the paradigm Notice now that there is one patern of indexation that has not been mentioned in the above discussion of embedded mood constructions. The embedded imperative given in (56)a is straightforward. The paterns given in (56)b,c correspond to (55)b,c respectively. What has not been examined is the patern in (56)d, where the matrix predicate takes an indirect object, and the nul subject is controlled by the matrix subject and not by the matrix indirect object: (56) a. NP i NP j [ CP ? j ? Mood? C?] say/order imperative b. NP i [ CP ? i ? Mood? C?] think/decide intentive [(55)a] c. NP i NP j [ CP ? i+j ? Mood? C?] say/propose exhortative [(55)b] d. NP i NP j [ CP ? i ? Mood? C?] V The mood meaning asociated with the patern in (56)d is perfectly imaginable. Such conventional force would be to add the relevant property denoted by the embedded clause, e.g. the property of screwing up x?s face, to the speaker?s TO-DO LIST and crucialy not to the addrese?s. Let?s cal the unatested use of -(y)oo the ?promisive? use. (The term is borrowed from Portner 2004, but it is used in a more specific way here.) I characterize the promisive diferently from the intentive in that the former necesarily involves the speaker and the addrese, while the later only involves the speaker. Having introduced the hypothetical mood meaning that -(y)oo may be asociated with, let us determine whether indexation of the type (56)c is actualy permited or not, i.e. whether the promisive use of -(y)oo is possible. I propose to use the possesive construction discussed before. With the verb phrase X-no kao-o sikameru ?screw up X?s face?, the value of X signals the antecedent for its null subject. By manipulating gender of the possesive, we can force the ? in (56)c to be bound by the matrix subject but not by the matrix indirect object. Bearing this in mind, consider (57) (an example of the same type as (46)b): 128 (57) * Taro i -wa Hanako-ni [? i kare i -no kao-o sikame-yoo-to] Taro-Top Hanako-Dat [ his face-Ac screw up-YO-C] ita/ teiansita said/ proposed lit. ?Taro i {said to, proposed to} Hanako to screw up his i face.? The sentence is unaceptable. When his face is replaced with their face, the sentence becomes considerably beter: (58) ? Taro i -wa Hanako j -ni [? i+j karara i+j -no kao-o Taro-Top Hanako-Dat [ their face-Ac sikame-yoo-to] ita/teiansita screw up-YO-C] said/proposed lit. ?Taro {said to, proposed to} Hanako that ? screw up-YO their face.? ??Taro said to Hanako: ?Let?s screw up our own face!?? The version of (58) with karera ?they? is far from perfect. To obtain a perfect sentence with the same interpretation, otagai ?each other? or zibun(-tati) ?self-Plural? needs to be substituted for ?they?. On the other hand, (57) sounds gibberish. Thus the matrix subject cannot control the complement subject in the presence of the matrix object. The minimal diference betwen (57) and (58) lies in whether the matrix predicate has the indirect object or not. Therefore, no promisive mood marker sems to exist in Japanese. The same point can be confirmed in another way. (59)a looks like am efect of the Condition B type. A pronoun is too close to its antecedent. If subject control can be licensed without the intervening object controlling the complement subject, (59) should be good under that interpretation. But it is not. 129 (59) * Taro-wa Yoko-ni [? kanozyo-o sonkeisi-yoo-to] Taro-Top Yoko-Dat [ her-Ac respect-YO-C] ita said lit. ?Taro said to Yoko [? to respect her].? cf. Taro-wa [? kanozyo-o sonkeisi-yoo-to] omotta Taro-Top [ her-Ac respect-YO-C] thought lit. ?Taro thought [? to respect her].? The fact that the sentence is unaceptable therefore indicates that this particular control possibility is not alowed. The present situation can be summarized as follows: (60) a. NP NP [ CP [? ?. Mood?] C? ] V i. imperative possible (object control) i. exhortative possible (split control) i. * promisive not possible (subject control over indirect object) b. NP [ CP [? ? Mood?] C? ] V iv. intentive possible (subject control) Then, the following generalization emerges: (61) In embedded mood constructions, the complement subject can be controlled by the matrix subject across the indirect object only when it is controlled by the indirect object as wel. Why should this be so? My suggestion is that the PMD is at stake here. In other words, the indirect object counts as an intervener for the minimality purposes only when it has no control relation with the complement subject. 130 (62) NP i NP j [ CP PRO i ? Mood? C?] V The PMD, or minimality, provides an answer to the question of why there is no mood marker that is available in environment (62). It is interesting to note that the verb promise cannot take as its complement a (y)oo-clause, as pointed out by Watanabe (1996b): (63) a. * John-wa Mary-ni/to [? kare-no kao-o sikame-yoo-to] John-Top Mary-Dat/with [ his face-Ac screw. up-YO-C] yakusokusita promised b. ? John-wa Mary-ni/to [? kare-no kao-o John-Top Mary-Dat/with [ his face-Ac sikame-ru-koto]-o yakusokusita screw. up-Prs-C koto ]-Ac promised ?John promised Mary to screw up his face.? The b-example, which is a litle degraded because of presence of the overt pronoun kare, shows that the embedded clause can be headed by the nominalizing complementizer -koto, which follows the present tense form of the verb. Note however that it is not the case that yakusokusu(ru) ?promise? never takes a yoo clause. When the downstairs predicate is a plural predicate, it is alowed under the exhortative mood interpretation of -(y)oo: 1 1 In this case, the indirect object cannot be marked with dative. See Nakau 1973:74-75, who made an observation quite similar to this. 131 (64) John-wa Mary-to [? (boku-ga kita-ra) John-Top Mary-with [ I-Nom came-Cond otagai-no kao-o sikame-yoo-to] yakusokusita (yooda) each other?s face-Ac screw.up-YO-C] promised sems lit. ?(It sems that) John promised Mary to screw up each other?s face (if I come).? ?John and Mary agre to screw up their own face.? The contrast given in (63) can be acounted for if we asume thre things: (i) that mood clauses headed by the postpositional complementizer -to, unlike koto-clauses, resist Case marking; 12 (i) that ?promise? must asign objective Case, and (ii) that minimality is respected. Under these asumptions, the indirect object in (63)a must be an NP if a P cannot obtain Case. Then (63)a must receive the analysis shown in (62), and therefore the sentence can be excluded as a minimality violation. On the other hand, (63)b can have a derivation in which the indirect object is analyzed as a P. This is so because objective Case can be asigned to the nominalized CP in this case. If the P does not cause a minimality violation, the status of the sentence is expected. 13 If we do not asume the PMD, we sem to have to say that Japanese acidentaly does not have a mood marker that is available for the promisive mood, even though the language has a marker for the intentive (which is similar to the promisive in that both are asociated with the efect of placing a property on the speaker?s TO-DO LIST). I do not know at this point how to test the claim that the gap we saw in the paradigm in (56) is an acidental gap. Thus it sems useful to asume that the above acount is correct because, even if it proves to be wrong eventualy, it could shed light on the theory of controller choice and the mood system. In the next section, I propose one analysis to explain the other half of the generalization in (61); that is, subject control becomes possible when the object also control, which can be represented as in (65): 12 Mood markers cannot appear in koto-clauses. See Bhat and Yon (191) for discusion. 13 Verbs like tika(u) ?vow? behave in exactly the same way as ?promise?. 132 (65) NP i NP j [ CP PRO i+j ? Mood? C?] V I sek for a way to make the derivation for split control sentences not violate minimality. 4.2 Analyses of split control Let us first consider what a PRO-based approach to the possibility of split control would be like. As we saw earlier, Landau (2000) takes the position that PRO, in principle, can be bound by two antecedents. He sems to claim, as we saw earlier, that the fact that split control is prohibited in cases we cal embedded imperatives is reduced to incompatibility betwen the meaning of higher verbs and the interpretation of the embedded subject, namely PRO. He notes that ?[w]here split control is impossible with certain OC verbs (e.g. encourage), there sems to be plausible pragmatic reasons for that. (p.31).? He also remarks that [u]nlike propose and ask, recommend and order do not alow split control - for obvious reasons, given that in order to engage in some action, one does not recomend to/order other people to do it? (p. 55). This kind of acount does not sem to be available once we asume the PMD. The relevant configuration arguably violates the minimality principle. In (66), repeated from (65), PRO is controlled by the antecedent that is not closest, as wel as the closest antecedent: (66) NP i NP j [ CP PRO i+j ? Mood? C?] V To capture the fact that split control is possible, asuming the PMD, I suggest that two NPs are alowed to occur in the specifier of -(y)oo. The idea can be ilustrated roughly by (67): 133 (67) MoodP NP+NP Mood? Mood YO TP The unusual structure given in (67) makes it possible for the derivation to proced without violating minimality in tandem with a few other technical asumptions. The proposed derivation is as folows: (68) [ vP ? [ VP ?+? V [ CP C? [ ModP ?+? (Y)O ? In this derivation, ? and ? are conjoined, and the conjoined elements move to Spec,MoodP from their base position. One of the conjuncts (say, ?) then moves to the indirect object position of the matrix clause to check a ?-role feature of V, pied-piping the other conjunct, as in (68). Finaly, ? moves up to Spec,vP, checking the external ?-role feature of v. This proposal is based on at least thre asumptions that deserve comments. First, it esentialy asumes that at least a certain type of plural noun phrases can be a conjunction in syntax. Schlenker (2002) proposes that variables are conjoined in syntax, citing the following example to argue that we is partialy bound: (69) Each of my colleagues is so dificult that at some point or other we?ve had an argument The informal paraphrase of the meaning of his example would be: For each of the speaker?s colleagues x, x is so dificult that the speaker and x had an argument (Se Stockwel et al. 1975, Lasnik 1976 for relevant clasic observations). The pronoun we is analyzed as ?I+x? in the relevant interpretation. Se also Kayne 2002, who hinted at 134 a possibility of treat bound plural pronouns to be a combination of traces of their split antecedents. 14 Second, ? and ? in (68) must be ?equidistant?. Namely, neither should ? block movement of ? in the first movement (pied-piping ?), nor should ? block movement of ? in the second movement. As mentioned above, movement of ??+?? must be motivated by the ?-role feature checking of ?, because if ??+?? obtains the Theme role, the wrong interpretation would result. So we need to asume that ? is pied-piped when ? moves to the matrix clause. Third, movement of ? to the specifier of vP sen in (68) looks like extraction out of a derived position. It is often claimed in the literature that extraction out of a moved element is prohibited (Takahashi 1994, Nunes and Uriagereka 2000, Lasnik 2003, among others; cf. also Wexler and Culicover 1980). Notice that this view of extraction is not odds with only the particular analysis of split control that I am considering. Any theory in which movement into theta-position is alowed faces a potential problem. Based on the fact pointed out by Chomsky (1973), Runner (2006) observes that a problem for a movement theory of control is posed by the aceptability of extraction out of a controller: 14 A similar but different idea is found in Vassilieva and Larson (205), who propose an analysis of the Rusian plural pronoun construction. Consider first (69) (cited from Vassilieva and Larson 205: 101): (i) My projd?m domoj we go-Fut home ?We/*I wil go home? My is first person plural pronoun, as indicated in the English translation of the sentence. However, when the plural pronoun appears with a comitative phrase ?with NP?, it shows an interesting property: (2) My s Ivanom nenavidim brokoli we with Ivan hate-1st Pl broccoli ?Ivan and I hate broccoli? Here ?we + Ivan? comes to mean ?Ivan and I?. To account for this curious fact, Vassileva and Larson propose that plural pronouns take a comitative phrase as their complement and that the first plural pronoun my ?we? is semantically interpreted as ?I+_?, where _ indicates the slot that is filed with the value of the complement of the preposition s in semantics. 135 (70) Which famous person did Martha persuade [a friend of t] to sign the program? The logic is that if extraction out of a moved element is prohibited, then sentences like (70) should not be alowed. So, what proponents of a movement theory might have to say is that the condition on extraction in question should be Condition on Extraction Domain of the Huang type, rather than a condition of the Takahashi type. Namely, domains of lexical heads do not prohibit sub-extraction but those of functional heads do. A final question to ask is why imperative null subjects do not support split antecedents. (45)a is repeated: (71) * John i -wa Bil j -ni [? {otagai/zibun-tati} i+j -no kao-o John-Top Bil-Dat [ e.o./self-Pl-Gen face-Ac sikame-ro-to] ita/meireisita screw up-Imp-C] said/ordered lit. ?John said to/ordered Bil to screw up their face.? ? ?John said to Mary: ?Screw up our own face!? I do not have a definitive answer to this question. I would rather suggest one speculation. Suppose that the semantics and pragmatics of mood are organized in such a way that they ?read off? the structures that are yield by syntax. Subject control structures are interpreted as intentive mood clauses, split control structures are interpreted as exhortative mood clauses, and object control structures are interpreted as imperative mood clauses. This amounts to saying that mood is not represented in syntax as such (se Portner 2004, Zanuttini and Portner 2005 for relevant discussion; cf. Han 2000). 15 At this point, our conjecture admitedly looks very close to a mere 15 If this is the case, verbs should not select these mood clauses in syntax. This is so because there is no clause marked for [imperative] or [intentive] in syntax; cf. Landau 200, 204 for a theory in which selection plays a significant role. 136 restatement of the fact that, for example, the subject of imperatives must exclude the author of the relevant request from its reference. Further investigations are needed. 4.3 A note on the root case We started the discussion of mood particles in Japanese by the following examples (repeated from (9): (72) a. (boku-wa) beeguru-o tabe-yoo I-Top bagel-Ac eat-YO ?I?l eat bagels? b. (kimi-wa) beeguru-o tabe-ro You-Top bagel-Ac eat-Imp ?You eat bagels!? An example of root exhortative is added: (73) (watasi-tati-wa) beeguru-o tabe-yoo we-Top bagel-Ac eat-YO ?Let?s eat bagels.? Not surprisingly, NPs that do not refer to discourse participants never be subjects of these constructions. (74) a. * aitu-wa beeguru-o tabe-yoo that guy-Top bagel-Ac eat-YO b. * aitu-wa beeguru-o tabe-ro that guy-Top bagel-Ac eat-Imp What is curious about these non-embedded cases is that the efect of the PMD found in the embedded cases can be found in them as wel. We observed in section that the intentive interpretation of -(y)oo disappears when the higher verb takes an 137 indirect object, which we took to be an instance of the PMD efect. It sems correct that what we cal the intentive mood in Japanese, when it appears in a root, requires that the addrese of the actual speech not participate in the relevant discourse. Namely, intentive sentences are always monologues of some sort. Suppose that Ana promises Bil that she wil leave his party in a couple of minutes because she has another appointment. It is very odd for her to say to Bil: kaer-oo ?leave-YO?. Ana may utter the same sentence felicitously, when she is alone at the party as a monologue or when the hearers are just side-participants of the discourse, who are not ?the one for whom the speaker most directly designs his utterances? in Potsdam?s word (Potsdam 1996/1998: 166). When the addrese is present, the utterance can only be understood exhortative: Let?s leave. When the existence of the addrese is intended by the speaker, the subject of the -(y)oo sentence must be the inclusive ?we? including the addrese, as opposed to the exclusive ?we? excluding it. Hence, the root sentence kaer-oo cannot be the promisive. Given the present discussion of control constructions involving mood, we are led to the hypothesis that mood clauses in roots are root infinitives of some sort and that projections that support indexicals like ?you? are located somewhere in the relevant clause structure, along lines with Portner and Zanuttini (2005); cf. Ross 1970, Tenny and Speas 2003, Tenny 2006. In the present case, ?Speaker Phrase? and ?Addrese Phrase? are located above Mood Phrase, and it must be the case that Spec,AddreseP is closer to the Spec,MoodP than the Spec,SpeakerP is. Namely, the movement of an indexical element to Spec,SpeakerP cannot skip the Spec,AddreseP. If these phrases can only support indexicals, then the person restriction found in examples like (74) is readily expected. If we are right that the Case is not available inside the domain of MoodP, it is possible to maintain that the motivation of short movement of indexicals is Case in the root construction. NPs like that guy, if they do not undergo movement to the specifier of SpeakerP or AddreseP, fail to have their Case licensed. It is also worth stresing that these phrases should not be available in embedded clauses. If they were, the proposed analysis of control into mood clauses could not be instantiated because the embedded AddreseP/SpeakerP would trap the embedded subject in the complement clause. They only occur in roots. 138 5 Conclusions This chapter discussed split control and the PMD efect based on the facts concerning Japanese mood constructions. It was observed that split control is systematicaly alowed in exhortative control clauses and not in other clauses and that no subject control mood construction with the matrix indirect object exists in the language. Semantic and pragmatic considerations do not sem to help because the promisive mood sems to be coherent on semantic and pragmatic grounds. Taking this gap in the paradigm as an explanandum for the theory of control, we appealed to the PMD (or the minimality condition on A-movement under the movement theory of control) and derived the absence of the ?promisive? mood particle in the language. The analysis led us to the hypothesis that minimality is respected in cases where split control is alowed, i.e. in embedded exhortative constructions. I suggested that a plural subject can be a conjunction of two NPs and that they move to argument positions of the matrix clause in a way that does not violate minimality. Consequently, the impossibility of split control in embedded imperative constructions cannot be a mater of syntax. I suggested that whether a mood clause is an imperative, exhortative or intentive one is determined by the structure of that mood clause (though the interpretive proces needs to be made concrete in future research). In a nutshel, the diference among these moods should not be represented in syntax if the absence of promisive clauses is reduced to the PMD. Chapter 4: Remarks on Backward Control in Japanese 1 Introduction The goal of this chapter is to argue, in favor of Potsdam (2006), that a movement- based theory of obligatory control and a copy theory of movement (Nunes 2004) provide an adequate acount of the wide range of data pertaining to a backward control construction found in Japanese. The proposal entertained here does not only acount for the core data of backward control, but also provides an answer to one question that arises in what we may cal a ?Counter Equi? theory, proposed in Harada (1973) and developed in Kuroda (1978), which is probably the earliest proposal about the phenomenon in the generative literature. As noted by these authors, in Japanese, backward control is not always possible, i.e. there are cases where forward control is required. Thus, application of backward control neds to be prevented in these cases by something stated in the theory. The question is, as already touched on in Harada 1973, why this something does not prevent backward control from existing in the gramar entirely. In his recent paper on Malagasy backward object control, Potsdam (2006) proposes a theory that can answer this question, capitalizing on Nunes?s theory of chain linearization. In what follows, I wil show an analysis of a Japanese backward object control construction, which retains both the appealing feature of Potsdam?s proposal and the descriptive advantage of the Harada-Kuroda type formulation of Counter Equi. The organization of the chapter is as follows: In section 2, background information about backward control is presented, based on Polinsky and Potsdam?s (2002) findings. There, I mention one theoretical/methodological isue that has arisen in prior theories, that is, the isue as to when backward control is permited and when it is blocked. In short, the problem for the prior theories is that they do not make any prediction about the distribution of backward control versus forward control. Then I show that Potsdam?s (2006) approach to Malagasy backward object control 140 constructions opens up a new ay to tackle this distribution question. Examining two important components of his approach, i.e. a movement theory of control and a particular theory of chain linearization, I show how the Potsdam-style approach to backward control solves the inadequacy of the existing theories. In section 3, it is observed that a Japanese object control construction (refered to as the assist- construction), if it involves backward control, raises theoretical and analytical isues. First, I show that the clasic Counter Equi theory succesfully covers a wide range of facts about (non-)alternations betwen forward and backward control in Japanese. However, despite being descriptively succesful, it does not explain why backward control is permited where it is actualy permited. Section 4 presents a number of empirical arguments that the assist-construction alows backward object control and explains how the basic syntactic properties of the assist-construction follow from the movement theory. In section 5, we return to our main question and provide a copy theoretic analysis that acounts for the distributions of forward and backward control in Japanese. Section 6 briefly discusses the circumstantial adverbial tokoro-clause construction, which is a construction that the Harada-Kuroda theory is mainly concerned with. I wil show that this construction is not an obligatory control construction, contrary to the widely believed claim that it is so. Section 7 concludes. 2 Background 2.1 Backward control The phenomenon caled backward control has become a hot topic in the ?Principles and Parameters? framework of syntax, especialy since Polinsky and Potsdam?s work on a control construction in Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2002). The basic characterization of the phenomenon is as follows: In the sample examples in (1), the phonologicaly null argument in the lower S (indicated by ?) takes as its antecedent one of the arguments occurring in the higher S. Descriptively, when the relation betwen the overt NP and the non-overt NP displays a certain set of syntactic and interpretational properties, we speak of an ?obligatory control? (OC) relation holding betwen the two NPs. Cal the lexicaly realized NP the ?controller? and the null category the ?controlle?, following Bresnan (1982). When the controller is a 141 gramatical subject, the control relation is caled subject control (as in (1)a), whereas when the controller is an gramatical object, it is caled object control (as in (1)b): 1 (1) a. [ S the girl i began [ S ? i to fed the cow] CONTROLER CONTROLE b. [ S Mary ordered the girl i [ S ? i to fed the cow] CONTROLER CONTROLE In standard cases of obligatory control, the controller is superior to the controlle. Polinsky and Potsdam (2002) claim that Tsez exhibits a phenomenon in which the controlle, i.e. ?, is structuraly superior to its antecedent. They dub the relation found in sentences like (2) backward (subject) control: (2) ? i [kid-ba i ziya b-i?r-a] y-oq-si girl.II-ERG cow-III.ABSIII-fed-INF II-begin-PAST.EVID ?The girl began to fed the cow.? Polinsky and Potsdam?s proposal that the matrix subject of (2) enters into control relation with the embedded subject is motivated by a fact having to do with agrement (Polinsky and Potsdam 2002: 247-48). They first note the generalization that in Tsez, predicates agre with an absolutive element in noun clas. In (3), the absolutive object cow, which belongs to clas II, agres with the verb fed. The agrement prefix shows up on the verb. (3) kid-ba ziya b-i?r-si girl.II-ERG cow-III.ABS III-fed-PAST.EVID ?The girl fed the cow.? Given this situation, the agrement patern found in (2) is unexpected since it appears 1 As is well known, some verbs are ambiguous betwen their raising use and its control use, as discused in Perlmuter (1970). 142 as if the ergative subject agres with the matrix verb begin. This apparently surprising agrement patern in (2) with respect to (3) leads them to propose that there is a null absolutive element in the matrix clause, as in (2), and that the ergative subject stays in the embedded clause without having an agrement relation with the higher predicate. They convincingly show, that (i) the use of begin in examples like (2) thematicaly takes the external argument; that (i) the overt ergative subject in (2) is in the lower clause (i.e., it forms a constituent with the embedded VP); and that (ii) the matrix clause has an empty subject, which may function as a binder or induce verbal agrement in the same way as the controller of a standard control construction does. Backward subject control can be schematized as in (4): (4) [ S ? i began [ S the girl i to fed the cow] CONTROLE CONTROLER Thus, while the schemas given in (1) represent the structures of forward control constructions, the one given in (4) represents the structure of a backward control construction. I sometimes cal ? in a backward construction ?backward controlle? and ? in a forward construction ?forward controlle?. The former is structuraly superior to its antecedent, while the later is c-commanded by the overt controller. Also, when the term ?backward controller? is used, it refers to the lower NP of a control chain in the backward construction. Lastly, ?forward controller? refers to what the traditional use of ?controller? refers to. An imediate isue is, how can we make it theoreticaly possible for a control relation to be backward, given that the controlle is structuraly superior to the controller in the Tsez construction? Recognizing dificulties arising with a standard PRO-based approach in this domain of data, Polinsky and Potsdam (2002) propose to acount for the phenomena by appealing to the movement theory of control, proposed by Bowers 1973, O?Neil 1997, and Hornstein 1999. The movement theory of control analyzes control relations or control chains as established though A-movement into a ?-position. The complement subject moves to the thematic subject or thematic object position in the matrix clause, yielding subject and object control, respectively. The 143 subject of the control clause becomes a trace, rather than PRO, after movement. Polinsky and Potsdam?s (2002) innovation is the observation that backward control in Tsez is a covert analogue of the type of A-chains that are agued to exist in forward control in the movement theory of control. 2.2 Potsdam (2006) on backward control While the movement-based approach to backward control claims that the control construction in question involves the covert version of A-movement found in standard forward control constructions, this core idea may be implemented in various ways, depending on how we think of covert movement. Polinsky and Potsdam?s (2002) original analysis is proposed within Chomsky?s (1993) framework (except that Chomsky rejects movement into ?-position), where covert movement is viewed as movement of phrasal categories that takes place in the component after Spel-out: asuming the traditional T-model, this theory atempts to diferentiate overt and covert movements in terms of timing of movement. Within this framework of asumptions, forward control is obtained when the subject of an embedded clause moves into a theta-position before Spel-out, whereas backward control is obtained when the same kind of movement takes place after Spel-out. Also, another variant of this theory can be thought of. The notion of feature movement, proposed by Chomsky (1995) and developed by a series of papers included in Lasnik 2002, may take backward control to be a case in which the higher thematic verb (and the Case asigner) atract(s) the ?-role feature (and the Case feature) of the embedded subject with other features including phonological features in-situ. Or the efect might be achieved within the Agre-based system (Chomsky 2000, 2001), where the relevant head(s) in the matrix clause probe(s) the embedded subject with respect to the ?-role feature (and the Case feature). One unsatisfactory aspect of these theories of backward control sems to be that while each theory manages to expres control relations instantiated ?backward?, a deep answer is hard to provide for the question of why backward control is required or alowed in certain cases while forward control is required in other cases. Although it is not wel-documented yet what the cross- linguistic distributional patern of forward and backward control is like, we can ask, 144 for example, why we do not find backward control in English. In the theories just discussed, we do or would have to say that the relevant atracting feature or the relevant probe does not have the ability to give rise to overt phrasal movement when we observe backward control, whereas the feature or head has such ability when we observe forward control. Moreover, as Potsdam (2006) notes, things look worse when both overt and covert movement is available in the same construction, as observed in Malagasy (Potsdam 2006) and Korean (Monahan 2004). An example of the forward- backward alternation in Malagasy is given in (5) (from Potsdam 2006): (5) a. forward object control tranon? iza no naneren? i Mery ahy [hofafana]? house who FOC force.CT Mary me swep.T b. backward object control tranon? iza no naneren? i Mery [hofafa- ko]? house who FOC force.CT Mary swep.T I ?Whose house did Mary force me to swep?? In (5)a, the first person pronoun ?me? appears in the matrix clause and binds an empty subject of the embedded clause, which is preceded by the verb swep, given the Malagasy VSO word order. In (5)b, the theme object of force is not sen. Rather, the first person pronoun occurs after the embedded predicate. (The reader is refered to Potsdam?s work for the details of voice morphology and the role of A-bar movement such as question formation in the backward object control construction.) At any rate, when a theory ceases to make a prediction about when backward (or forward) control is permited or required, that sems to show weaknes of the theory. Potsdam (2006) develops a theory of forward and backward control that may overcome this unsatisfactory feature of prior theories, by making recourse to Nunes?s (2004) theory of linearization of chains. The major isue that Potsdam is concerned with has to do with the contrast betwen English and Malagasy with respect to object control. While English only alows forward control, Malagasy alows both forward and backward object control, as in (5). Potsdam observes that this cross-linguistic 145 diference in question comes out as a consequence of interactions of two diferent kinds of conditions of gramar (and other asumptions about the relevant construction): convergence conditions and economy conditions. First, the convergence condition that is relevant here is the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), which requires that one and only one copy be pronounced. Which copy to be pronounced is determined by an economy condition. The gist of Potsdam?s proposal incorporating Nunes?s theory of chain linearization is that while the derivation involving deletion of the higher copy is les economical than the one involving deletion of the lower copy in the English construction, the former is as economical as the later in the Malagasy construction. Let us examine properties of the Nunes-style theory of chain linearization more closely. He proposes that phonological deletion of links is motivated by a version of LCA, which is first proposed in Kayne (1994). To se that how LCA is relevant to linearization of chains, take a sample derivation where the element ? moves to the specifier of some head: (6) XP ? X ? ? If no link of the chain that contains two instances of ? undergoes deletion, this structure yields the partial sequence . It suffices for the current purposes to note that this sequence violates the LCA, which requires, among other things, that a single element cannot precede itself (the ireflexivity condition on linear order); se Nunes 2004: 24. If a deletion operation (dubbed Chain Reduction by Nunes) deletes either the higher or the lower occurrence, the particular kind of violation of the LCA can be avoided. For determining which copy is wiped out, Nunes?s proposal is as follows: (i) Uninterpretable features of a copy are deleted in the syntax if the copy enters into a checking relation. (i) Unchecked uninterpretable features cause the derivation to 146 crash at the PF level (and at the LF level), unles they undergo checking. (ii) Copies appearing in non-checking positions may cary unchecked uninterpretable features. As an ilustration of these thre asumptions, let us se the derivation for standard raising such as John sems to be happy (following Nunes, unchecked features are in bold, and checked features are subscripted): (7) [ IP ?- CASE T sems [ TP ?-CASE to be happy] ]] In (7), the higher copy of ? has no unchecked feature. The Case feature is checked by T. The lower copy of ? does have an unchecked feature, asuming that to is not able to check Case. CASE in the embedded clause wil cause the derivation to crash if it is not deleted some how. (iv) Acording to Nunes, such unchecked features may be deleted by the copy deletion proces that reduces chains or by an operation caled F- Elimination, which may apply after Morphology. (v) F-Elimination is subject to economy considerations, i.e. the fewer times it applies, the more economical the derivation is. If Chain Reduction targets the higher copy in (7) for deletion, then F- elimination needs to be applied in order to eliminate the unchecked Case feature of the lower copy, so that the derivation may converge. If, on the other hand, the copy deletion proces targets the lower copy, F-elimination does not have to apply because there are no unchecked uninterpretable features left in the structure. Hence, the computational system, by economy, prefers the derivation where the lower copy is deleted to the one where deletion of the higher copy is followed by applying F- Elimination to the lower copy. Keping these in mind, let us return to Potsdam?s observation. When these asumptions are made, backward control is excluded by economy: (8) [ TP [ vP Mary v [ VP ? -CASE force [ TP ?-CASE T swep the house] ]] Because the embedded T does not check Case, the lower instance of ? must undergo deletion. If the higher ? were deleted, F-elimination would have to apply to eliminate CASE, which is unnecesary if the lower ? is deleted. 147 Now turn to Potsdam?s treatment of the Malagasy construction, where both forward and backward control are both alowed. Potsdam claims that in the Malagasy construction, the embedded Infl or T asigns Case to its specifier, as schematicaly represented in (9): (9) [ TP [ vP Mary v [ VP ? -CASE force [ TP ?- CASE T swep the house] ]] Given this property of Malagasy, which is reduced to the possibility of multiple Case checking in that language, the LCA can be fulfiled in two ways. Since both copies have their Case features checked, the derivation in which the higher copy undergoes deletion is as economical as the one in which the lower copy does. Hence, optionality is predicted, as desired. Two important aspects of the theory are summarized: (10) a. One and only one chain link must be pronounced (in acordance with the LCA) b. Pronounce the link with the fewest unchecked features 3 The Case of Japanese This section is devoted to ilustrating the major question that this paper addreses. As we wil argue in later sections, Japanese alows backward object control in the construction caled the assist-construction: 2 (11) a. Taro-wa [John-ga siken-ni too-ru-no]-o tetudat-ta Taro-Top [John-Nom exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac assisted ?Taro asisted John to pas the exam.? 2 The asist-construction has been largely ignored in the generative literature. To the best of my knowledge, the construction was first discused by Josephs (1976: 30); see also Kuroda (197) for relevant discusion. Josephs also correctly noted that the construction differs from a head-internal relative clause construction, attributing the observation to Susumu Kuno. We wil discus how they differ in section 4.3. 148 b. ? Taro-wa John i -o [? i siken-ni too-ru-no]-o Taro-Top John-Ac [ exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac tetudat-ta assisted ?Taro asisted John to pas the exam.? The example given in (11)a is a transitive construction in which the matrix verb tetudau ?asist? takes an apparently tensed complement headed by a nominalizing complementizer -no. The diference betwen (11)a and (11)b is the position of John in the structure and case marking. One interesting property of the construction is that the native speaker has the intuition that (11)a means what (11)b would mean. Namely, in (11)a, the referent of the embedded subject is thematicaly understood not only as the agent of the subordinate ?pasing? event, but also the theme of the matrix ?asisting? event. Though the sentence is degraded for the reason I wil shortly discuss, the surface syntax of (11)b is thus more faithful to the interpretation in the relevant sense than that of (11)a in that the NP John occupies the direct object position of the verb assist. The status of (11)b is strongly reminiscent of the wel-known Double-O Constraint. Harada (1973) stated the constraint as follows: 3 3 For double-o phenomena, see also Shibatani 1973, Kuroda 1965, 1978, Harada 1975, Poser 1981, Miyagawa 1989, 199, Hiraiwa 202a, among others. It is sufficient for the present purposes to note that the Double-O Constraint is a constraint that is circumvented by clefting and other processes (see Hiraiwa 202a for a recent attempt to identify the nature of the constraint). Hence, the ban on the Acc-Acc frame in transitive-stem causative constructions such as (ia) has nothing to do with the constraint, as proposed by Harada 1976; Kuroda 1978; Miyagawa 1989, 199; Watanabe 193, etc.). Its violation is not remedied by clefting as in (iia): (i) a. * Naomi-ga Taro-o rooka-o sozis-ase-ta Naomi-Nom Taro-Ac halway-Acc clean-Caus-Past ?Naomi let Taro clean the hallway.? b. ?? Naomi-ga Taro-o rooka-o hasir-ase-ta Naomi-Nom Taro-Ac halway-Acc run-Caus-Past ?Naomi let Taro run down the hallway.? (ii) a.* [Naomi-ga Taro-o sozis-ase-ta-no]-wa rooka-o da [Naomi-Nom Taro-Ac clean-Caus-Past-C no ]-Top halway-Acc Cop ?It is the hallway that Naomi let Taro clean.? 149 (12) The Double-O Constraint A derivation is marked as il-formed if it terminates in a surface structure which contains two occurrences of NPs marked with o, both of which are imediately dominated by the same VP-node (Harada 1973: (55)) In fact, as is the case with typical double-o efects (se footnote 3), clefting removes its efect by moving one of the overt acusative NPs out of the VP: (13) [Taro-ga John-o e i tetudat-ta-no]-wa [Taro-Nom John-Ac assist-Past-C no ]-Top [? i siken-ni too-ru-no]-o da [ exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?It is [to pas the exam] i that Taro helped John e i .? Note that the surface structure, as opposed to a structure that sems to be obtained in the course of the derivation, does not have a VP-domain containing two overtly acusative-marked NPs. 4 Exactly the same point can be made with the construction in which the verb zyamasuru ?disrupt? takes a no-CP: (14) a. Taro-wa ? i [John i -ga siken-ni too-ru-no]-o zyamasita Taro-Top [John-Nom exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?Taro disrupted John from pasing the exam.? b. [Naomi-ga Taro-o hasir-ase-ta-no]-wa rooka-o da [Naomi-Nom Taro-Ac run-Caus-Past-C no ]-Top halway-Acc Cop ?It is down the hallway that Naomi let Taro run.? The example in (ib), which is intransitive-stem causative, contains an accusative-marked ?adverbial? halway. This example violates the Double-O Constraint, because the VP contains two accusatives. This double-o violation is remedied by clefting, as in (iib). 4 As wil be discused in section 5.3, we assume that cleft formation involves A-bar movement of the focalized phrase from the position represented by e in (13). 150 b.? Taro-wa John i -o [? i siken-ni too-ru-no]-o zyamasita Taro-Top John-Ac [ exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?Taro disrupted John from pasing the exam.? c. [Taro-ga John i -o zyamasi-ta-no]-wa [? i siken-ni [Taro-Nom John-Ac disrupt-Past-C no ]-Top [ exam-Dat too-ru-no]-o da pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop.Prs ?Taro disrupted John [to pas the exam].? 5 Therefore, a simple, active assist-construction violates the Double-O Constraint, but the construction permits a forward-backward alternation in principle. 3.1 Forward but not backward Note that generaly, constructions that alow forward control do not alow backward control. Consider the following pasive control sentence with an assist-type verb: (15) Yoko i -ga Hiroshi-niyotte [? i san-pun-de syukudai-o Yoko-Nom Hiroshi-by [ 3-munite-in homework-Ac oe-ru-no]-o zyamas-are-ta finish-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupt-Pass-Past ?Yoko was disrupted by Hiroshi from finishing her homework in thre minutes.? This pasive sentence can be considered as ?transformationaly related? to the forward object control sentence in (16)a, which is unaceptable due to the Double-O Constraint but has its backward counterpart as in (16)b: 5 For expository purposes, focus material of cleft constructions is sometimes underlined with . 151 (16) a. ? Hiroshi-ga Yoko i -o [? i san-pun-de syukudai-o Hiroshi-Nom Yoko-Ac [ 3-minute -in homework-Ac oe-ru-no]-o zyamasita finish-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?Hiroshi disrupted Yoko from finishing her homework in thre minutes.? b. Hiroshi-ga [Yoko-ga san-pun-de syukudai-o Hiroshi-Nom [Yoko-Nom 3-minute-in homework-Ac oe-ru-no]-o zyamasita finish-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?Hiroshi disrupted Yoko from finishing her homework quickly.? Given that the active control construction permits both forward and backward control sentences (abstracting away from the efect of the Double-O Constraint), one might think that the alternation would hold for the pasive sentence in (15), as wel. This expectation turns out to be wrong, however: (17) * ? i Hiroshi-niyotte [san-pun-de Yoko i -ga syukudai-o Hiroshi-by [3-minute-in Yoko-Nom homework-Ac oe-ru-no]-o zyamas-are-ta finish-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupt-Pass-Past Yoko was disrupted by Hiroshi from finishing her homework in thre minutes.? The contrast betwen the two backward examples (i.e. (16)b and (17)) needs to be explained. 6 Second, a subject control construction of the following kind also raises a similar problem. In (18), the verb kesinsuru ?decide? takes a koto-CP complement: 6 One terminological note. ?Backward? is sometimes used pretheoretically in this chapter. When a sentence (putatively) has the nul element ? that is coreferential with an NP in the superodinate clause, the sentence may be referred to as ?backward? for purely descriptive convenience. In this usage of ?backward?, non-control sentences also could be backward. 152 (18) Taro i -wa [? i syukudai-o oe-ru-koto]-o kesinsita Taro-Top [ homework-Ac finish-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided to finish the homework.? This construction involves OC. As the data in (19) show, ? is not alowed to have either a long distance or a non-c-commanding antecedent (19)a); The empty category requires sloppy interpretation (19)b); With an ?only NP? as its antecedent, the covariant reading is possible while the invariant reading is not (19)c); and the non-de se reading is clearly prohibited in this construction (19)d). (19) a. * karera-wa [sono kyoodai-no titioya-ni [? otagai-o they-Top [the brother?s father-Dat [ e.o.-Ac sonkeisi-a-u-koto]-o kesinsi-te] hosikata finish-Prs-C koto ]-Ac to.decide] wanted ?They wanted the brothers? father to decide to respect each other.? b. Mary-wa [? sigoto-o yame-ru-koto]-o kesinsita Mary-Top[ work-Ac quit-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Mary decided to quit her job.? butyoo-mo da manager-even Cop ?The manager decided to quit his job, too.? *?The manager decided that she should quit her job.? c. Naomi-dake-ga [gaikoku-ni ik-u-koto]-o kesinsita Naomi-only-Nom [foreign country-to go-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Only Naomi decided to go abroad.? d. kanzya-wa [syuzyutu-o uke-ru-koto]-o kesinsita patient-Top [operation-Ac receive-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?The patient decided to have the operation.? 153 Again, the backward analogue of this subject control construction fails to be atested. An example like (20), where the nominative subject is intended to appear downstairs, is unaceptable: (20) * ? i ni-byoo-de [san-pun-de Taro i -ga syukudai-o 2-second-in [3-minute-in Taro-Nom homework-Ac oe-ru-koto]-o kesinsita finish-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided in two seconds to finish the homework in thre minutes.? Another case where forward control does not alternate with backward control has to do with pairs such as (21) (adapted from Cormack and Smith 2004), which involves a complement yooni-clause: (21) a. Taro-wa [Mary-ga mise-ni ik-u-yooni] susumeta Taro-Top [Mary-Nom store-to go-Prs-C yoni ] recommended b. Taro-wa Mary-ni [mise-ni ik-u-yooni] susumeta Taro-Top Mary-Dat [store-to go-Prs-C yoni ] recommended ?Taro recommended Mary to go to the store.? Cormack and Smith claim that (21)a and (21)b ilustrate a backward-forward alternation. If (21)a, which sounds slightly awkward to some speakers including me, is aceptable at al, it looks like forward control alternates with backward control here. The data in (22) demonstrate that they are right that examples like (21)b involve forward object control: (22) a. * karera-wa [sono kyoodai-ni Taro-ni [? otagai-o they-Top [the brothers-Dat Taro-Dat [ e.o.-Ac home-a-u-yooni] susumete] hosikata praise-Recip-Prs-C] to.recommend] wanted ?They wanted the brothers to recommend Taro to praise each other.? 154 b. A: Taro-wa Mary i -ni [? i Osaka-ni ik-u-yooni] susumeta Taro-Top Mary-Dat [ Osaka-to go-Prs-C yoni ] recommend ?Taro recommended Mary to go to Osaka.? B: Dave-ni-mo da Dave-Dat-even Cop ?Dave, too.? ?Taro recommended Dave that {Dave, *Mary} should go to Osaka.? The choice of the antecedent for ? is severely restricted as in (22)a. (22)b shows that the sloppy reading is obligatory. However, aleged backward examples like (23)b do not look like an OC construction. First, it does not sem to be the case that the referent of the null recommendee in (23)a is restricted to Taro, if the sentence is aceptable at al: (23) a. Yoko-wa [butyoo-ni ? [Taro-ga Osaka-ni Yoko-Top [manager-Dat [Taro-Nom Osaka-to iku-yooni] susume-te] hosikat-ta go-Prs-C yoni to.recommend] wanted lit. ?Yoko wanted her boss to recommend ? for Taro to Osaka.? b. Yoko-wa [butyoo-ni Taro-ni [? Osaka-ni Yoko-Top [manager-Dat Taro-Dat [ Osaka-to iku-yooni] susume-te] hosikata go-Prs-C yoni ] to.recommend] wanted ?Yoko wanted her boss to recommend Taro ? to Osaka.? Consider the following scenario: Yoko was going to have a meting with her boss to talk about who to send to Osaka. She wanted it to be true for Taro to be chosen. She hoped that her boss would tel him that Taro would be the one. Statement (23)a sems to be compatible with this situation, unlike (23)b. This suggests that the antecedent for the empty object could be the subject of the highest clause. Such long distance antecedence should be impossible if the construction is backward obligatory control. 155 As wil be sen in section 4.2, such a long distance dependency is clearly bared in the genuine backward control sentence (se footnote 13 for a minimal pair of sentences in which genuine backward control is contrasted with aleged one). One other indication that the complement yooni-construction with a nominative complement subject is not OC is the fact that a strict reading is possible under elipsis: (24) A: Taro-wa ? i [Mary i -ga Osaka-ni ik-u-yooni] Taro-Top [Mary-Nom Osaka-to go-Prs-C yoni ] susumeta recommend ?Taro recommended Mary that Mary should go to Osaka.? B: [Dave-ga Tokyo-ni ik-u-yooni]-mo da [Dave-Nom Tokyo-Dat go-Prs-C yoni ]-even Cop ?Taro recommended Mary that Dave should go to Tokyo, too.? 7 The judgment about the aceptability of the strict reading sems robust. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that putative backward yooni-constructions like (21)a are not OC, while forward counterparts of them such as (21)b surely are. (Se section 4.2 for the elipsis data for the true backward control construction. Se also footnote 15 for comparison betwen the two backward constructions with respect to the availability of strict reading.) Thus, even if the complement yooni-construction under discussion alows forward control, the careful examination of ?backward? examples of the Cormack and Smith type reveals that their ?backward? construction does not involve OC. Rather, if these backward examples are aceptable, they must be cases of pronominalization of some sort, ironicaly enough. 8 Hence, the construction with a dative object and a yooni-CP 7 Most speakers, including me, find the strict reading much better than the slopy one here. It is not clear to me if the slopy reading is acceptable. If it is not, it might be sugesting that there is no bound variable relationship between the matrix nul element and the nominative subject in the antecedent clause. 8 This is so, given Cormack and Smith?s (204) claim that those examples are backward 156 clausal complement does not show an alternation betwen forward and backward control. The generalization acounting for the distribution of backward control discussed above is straightforward. (25) A control sentence alows backward control if and only if its forward control analogue would result in a double-o violation in the surface structure of the sentence. This is virtualy what Harada (1973/2000: 213) proposes for a construction that he argues involves backward control (or Counter Equi NP deletion in his terms), namely the circumstantial adverbial tokoro-clause construction. For the sake of discussion, though, we examine his proposal, based on the data from assist-constructions that we have looked at. Harada?s theory of backward control was proposed in the framework of Standard Theory. Forward control was analyzed as Equi NP deletion (Rosenbaum 1967). Harada proposed that the gramar employs a rule caled General Equi NP deletion, which dictates that deletion targets one of the identical NPs. When a structural description satisfies the format of General Equi, there are two manners of application of the rule. Where application of Straight Equi causes a violation of the Double-O Constraint, Counter Equi is required. Otherwise, Straight Equi must apply: (26) a. Straight Equi: [ S ? NP i [ S NP i ? ] b. Counter Equi: [ S ? NP i [ S NP i ? ] (if and only if (26)a would arive at a double-o violation) As far as the data discussed so far are concerned, his proposal of General Equi makes empiricaly correct predictions. It should be noted that in Harada?s theory, what he cals the double-o conspiracy control and should be treated as a pro-construction, rather than a movement-into-?-position construction. 157 is crucial. 9 As we saw, many cases of obligatory control do not alow backward control. Therefore, we need something in the theory (cal it P) that prevents backward control from happening in those environments, i.e. cases like the ones sen in (20), (17), and (22)-(24). If nothing like P exists, then we might expect that those forward control constructions do have their backward analogue as wel, which is not the case. If P is stated in the gramar somehow, then we should ask why that property does not block backward control in cases where it is actualy permited. Let us make sure that the existence of the Double-O Constraint does not answer this question by itself. Suppose that the Double-O Constraint is a mere surface constraint. Then it follows from the constraint that forward control such as (14)b (=(27)b) is not available in the assist-construction unles clefting applies (cf. (14)c=(27)c). (27)a does not violate the Double-O Constraint. But if nothing more than that were added, P would wrongly block the backward control in (14)a (=(27)a): (27) a. Taro-wa ? i [John i -ga siken-ni too-ru-no]-o zyamasita Taro-Top [John-Nom exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?Taro disrupted John from pasing the exam.? b. ? Taro-wa John i -o [? i siken-ni too-ru-no]-o Taro-Top John-Ac [ exam-Dat pas-Prs-C no ]-Ac zyamasita disrupted ?Taro disrupted John from pasing the exam.? c. [Taro-ga John i -o zyamasi-ta-no]-wa [? i siken-ni [Taro-Nom John-Ac disrupt-Past-C no ]-Top[ exam-Dat too-ru-no]-o da pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Taro disrupted John [to pas the exam].? In fact, Harada sems to have worried about this isue, though in a slightly diferent 9 The ? double-o conspiracy? refers to the way that General Equi, which applies in the course of the derivation, is formulated: The rule is able to ?see? whether or not the derivation where it applies wil end up with a double-o violation at the surface structure. 158 way than we do. He noted, ?in order to participate in the double-o conspiracy, General Equi is forced to violate [the principle that requires the lower copy, rather than the higher copy, to be deleted].? (Harada 1973/2000: 214, fn. 28). The question is why P is violable. Potsdam?s (2006) economy-based approach to backward control provides a perfectly coherent answer to the question of why backward control is not ruled out by P across the board. Higher copy deletion is sometimes permited because the choice of the copy to be deleted is regulated by an economy condition, rather than a condition on convergence. More precisely, as sen in the previous section, Nunes?s Chain Reduction says that the derivation in which higher copy is deleted actualy converges, though it might be blocked by a more economical derivation. The economy theory therefore gives a principled explanation of the existence of backward control. 10 This cannot be the whole story, however. The particular analysis provided by Potsdam for the Malagasy construction cannot be caried over to the Japanese data for empirical reasons. Before we se how this is so, it need be shown that backward examples of the assist construction realy involve OC. The next section is devoted to this task. 4 Asist-constructions Our goal here is to show that examples like (11)a (=(28)) involve backward control in Polinsky and Potsdam?s sense: 10 As Potsdam notes, this is very similar to the condition on wh-in-situ in multiple wh- fronting languages reported by Bo?kovi? (202) and taken up by Nunes (204) (see also Franks 198). In multiple wh-interrogative sentences in these languages (including Serbo- Croatian, Bulgarian, Rusian, and Romanian), two wh-phrases generally must be fronted. However, when two wh-phrases are homophonous, wh-in-situ is allowed, and forming a sequence of these wh-phrases by fronting both of them is disallowed. Thus, the ?double homophonous wh- conspiracy? is at stake. 159 (28) Taro-wa [John-ga siken-ni too-ru-no]-o tetudata Taro-Top [John-Nom exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac assisted ?Taro asisted John to pas the exam.? I would like to show that the syntactic representation of these examples contains a phonologicaly unrealized argument NP in the thematic object position of the matrix clause and that the empty element is ?controlled backward? by the embedded subject, as in (29): (29) [ vP NP [ VP ? i [ CP NP i ? C No ] V-v ] ? Agent ? Theme ? Situation In order to draw this conclusion, we take two steps. First, we show that some empty position ? exists in the syntax of examples like (28). Second, we show that the distribution and interpretation of ? is restricted in a similar way to the way that ? in forward OC is restricted. 4.1 Arguments for the presence of the syntacticaly active theme position I wil provide five arguments in favor of the claim that in the assist-construction, the matrix verb discharges a null syntactic position that thematicaly functions as Theme. The first argument makes use of a semantic implication relation that holds betwen sentences. Consider the pair of (30)a (or (30)b) and (30)c: (30) a. [Taro-ga John i -o e j tetudat-ta-no]-wa [Taro-Nom John-Ac assist-Past-C no ]-Top [? i siken-ni too-ru-no]-o j da [ exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?It is [to pas the exam] i that Taro helped John i .? 160 b. [Taro-ga e j [? i siken-ni too-ru-no]-o j [Taro-Nom [ exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac tetudat-ta-no]-wa John i -o da assist-Past-C no ]-Top John-Ac Cop ?It is John that Taro asisted to pas the exam.? (31) Taro-wa John-o tetudaw-anakat-ta Taro-Top John-Ac assist-Neg-Past ?Taro didn?t asist John.? (30)a and (30)b are examples of the forward asist-construction. These two cleft sentences difer with respect to which phrase undergoes clefting, but the diference is imaterial here. It is easy to observe that either of the statements contradicts the statement given in (31). There is no state of afairs in which (30)a (or (30)b) and (31) are both true at the same time. The first two sentences thus entail a sentence asociated with a logical form like (32)a, where ?e? ranges over events (Parsons 1990), namely (32)b: (32) a. ?e [Asist(e) & Taro(Agent,e) & John (Theme,e)] b. Taro-wa John-o tetudata Taro-Top John-Ac assisted ?Taro asisted John.? (31) contradicts (32)b because the former is obtained by negating the later. Now examine the backward equivalent of (30)a and (30)b: (33) a. Taro-wa [John-ga siken-ni too-ru-no]-o tetudat-ta Taro-Nom [John-Nom exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac assist-Past ?Taro asisted [John to pas the exam].? 161 b. [Taro-ga tetudat-ta-no]-wa [John i -ga [Taro-Nom assist-Past-C no ]-Top [John-Nom siken-ni too-ru-no]-o j da exam-Dat pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Taro asisted John to pas the exam.? Observe that both (33)a and (33)b, just like their forward counterparts, contradict (31). This means that the sentences in (33) both entails (32)a. This set of facts is explained if the null element whose semantic value is identical with John exists in the syntactic representation of the backward construction as wel as the forward construction. If there is no such an element, it would be unclear why the forward and backward constructions behave similarly with respect to entailment relations to the negative sentence in (31). A traditional voice alternation test provides another reason to think that the empty object analysis of examples like (33)a and (33)b is right. As is wel known, control constructions, unlike raising constructions, do not alow a voice alternation in the embedded clause without changing the meaning of the sentence: (34) a. Hiroshi persuaded the doctor to examine the patient b. Hiroshi persuaded the patient to be examined by the doctor (34)a and (34)b have diferent interpretations, which contrasts with the fact that the raising-to-object construction is insensitive to the alternation: (35) a. Hiroshi believes the doctor to have examined the patient b. Hiroshi believes the patient to have been examined by the doctor The standard explanation of this diference betwen control and raising is that control predicates asign a theta role to their subject or object, while raising predicates do not. The examples of assist-construction in (36) show that the construction behaves like the standard object control construction in this respect: 162 (36) a. Hiroshi-wa [isya-ga kanzya-o sinsatusu-ru-no]-o Hiroshi-Top [doctor-Nom patient-Ac examine-Prs-C no ]-Ac tetudata assisted ?Hiroshi asisted the doctor to examine the patient.? b. Hiroshi-wa [kanzya-ga isya-niyotte sinsatus-are-ru-no]-o Hiroshi-Top [patient-Nom doctor-by examine-Pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac tetudata assisted ?Hiroshi asisted the patient to be examined by the doctor.? (36)a implies that Hiroshi helped the doctor while (36)b implies that he helped the patient. This contrast in meaning is acounted for if doctor is interpreted as Theme of the asisting event in the first sentence and so patient is in the second sentence. The contrast in question becomes even clearer when the pair in (36) is compared with a pair that is similar on surface but thematicaly diferent from the assist-construction. Consider (37): (37) a. Hiroshi-wa [isya-ga kanzya-o sinsatusu-ru-no]-o Hiroshi-Top [doctor-Nom patient-Ac examine-Prs-C no ]-Ac kanoo-ni sita possible did ?Hiroshi made it possible for the doctor to examine the patient.? b. Hiroshi-wa [kanzya-ga isya-niyotte sinsatus-are-ru-no]-o Hiroshi-Top [patient-Nom doctor-by examine-Pass-Prs-C no ]-Ac kanoo-ni sita possible did ?Hiroshi made it possible for the patient to be examined by the doctor.? The verb suru ?do? can take a smal clause; the subject of the smal clause in these 163 examples is a no-clause, of which the adjective kanoo-ni ?possible? is predicated. Neither do nor possible sems to theta mark the subject of the no-clause. As expected, the voice alternation that takes place in the most deeply embedded clause does not afect the meaning of the original sentence. Data having to do with elipsis also provide interesting evidence that the forward construction has the same meaning or structure as the backward construction in a particular sense. Saito (2004) and Nishigauchi and Fuji (2006) argue that so-caled short answers in Japanese are derived from cleft formation followed by elipsis: (38) A: Jade-wa dare-o asokode mateiru-nodesu-ka? Jade-Top who-Ac there is.waiting-NODA.Pol-Q ?Who is Jade waiting for out there?? B: [Jade-ga asokode mateiru-no]-wa [kanozyo-no [Jade-Nom there is.waiting-C no ]-Top [her office-Gen officemeto-o] desu mate-Ac] Cop.Pol ?The person that Jade is waiting for out there] is her officemate.? B?: [Jade-ga asokode mateiru-no]-wa [kanozyo-no officemeto-o] desu Under this approach to short answers, the fragment in (38)B? is derived through the cleft sentence in (38)B via elipsis that targets the presuppositional no-clause, as represented by a strikethrough in (38)B?. Both Saito (2004) and Nishigauchi and Fuji (2006) argue that elipsis is licensed under some sort of identity or paralelism betwen the elided site and its antecedent (se Merchant 2001, 2004, Fox and Lasnik 2002, Fox and Takahashi 2005 for diferent ideas about the identity condition). Let us suppose that the elided site and its antecedent must be paralel in terms of binding relations at LF. In the case of (38), we can think of the elided site in (38)B to have [?x John-ga x asokode mateiru(-no)], which is arguably identical with the LF for the antecedent TP in (38)A. Keping this in mind, let us consider (39): 164 (39) A: Taro-wa [dare-ga gakkai-ni ik-u-no]-o Taro-Top [who-Nom conference-to go-Prs-C no ]-Ac zyamasita-nodesu-ka disrupted-NODA.Pol-Q B: [Taro-ga e i [? j gakkai-ni ik-u-no]-o [Taro-Nom [ conference-to go-Prs-C no ]-Ac zyamasita-no]-wa [kare-no officemeto j -o] i desu disrupted-C no ]-Top [his office mate-Ac] Cop.Pol B?: [Taro-ga e i [? j gakkai-ni ik-u-no]-o [Taro-Nom [ conference-to go-Prs-C no ]-Ac zyamasita-no]-wa [kare-no officemeto j -o] i desu disrupted-C no ]-Top [his office mate-Ac] Cop.Pol The short answer in (39)B? is aceptable and therefore the elided site must be able to find an appropriate antecedent in (39)A. The elided site, which involves forward control, sems to contain the LF that can be represented as in (40) (we are asuming that the focalized phrase or a null operator undergoes focus movement; se section 5.3 for the details of cleft formation): (40) [?x Taro-ga x [ CP x gakkai-ni iku-no]-o zyamasita] [ Taro-Nom [ conference-to go-C no ]-Ac disrupted] If the identity or paralelism condition for elipsis requires the antecedent clause to have the representation identical or paralel with (40), then it folows that the backward sentence in (39)A must have the representation in which there are two instances of x. Hence its matrix clause should contain an argument position that hosts one of these x?s. 1 1 One might think that the strength of the argument may be weakened if Merchant (201, 204) is right that appropriateness of antecedents for ellipsis is regulated by a semantic condition. 165 The third argument for positing an empty position in the object position has to do with object honorification. When a simple transitive predicate takes the so-caled object honorific form, it is presupposed that the speaker takes the referent of the object NP to be socialy superior to her; se Harada 1979 for basic properties of Japanese honorifics. When the referent of the object is not socialy superior to the speaker, the honorific form of the predicate makes the sentence sound awkward, as can been sen in the contrast betwen (41)a and (41)b: (41) a. Taro-wa Yamada-sensei-o otazunesi-ta Taro-Top Prof. Yamada-Ac visit.OH-Past ?Taro visited Prof. Yamada.? b. # Taro-wa boku-no otooto-o otazunesi-ta Taro-Top my younger brother-Ac visit.OH-Past ?Taro visited my younger brother.? The folowing shows that assist behaves as a simple transitive when it takes an acusative object: (42) Taro-wa {Yamada-sensei-o/ #otooto-o} otetudaisi-ta Taro-Top Prof. Yamada-Ac/ younger brother-Ac assist-Past ?Taro asisted {Prof. Yamada, #my brother}.? Now let us se what happens in the backward assist-construction. If the object position of the matrix verb is occupied by the element that is eventualy understood as identical with the referent of the embedded subject, then it is expected that the embedded subject triggers object honorific agrement on the matrix object when it (i) John was reading. But I don?t know hat he was reading A posible flaw of the present argument would be that there is a posibility that asist takes a ?hiden? direct object of the same kind as the hiden theme argument of read in the antecedent clause in (i). However, an objection to the argument along these lines seems to be weak, precisely because the ?hiden? internal argument of tetuda(u) ?assist? and zyamasu(ru) ?disrupt? is not generic. 166 refers to a socialy superior person and causes awkwardnes when it refers to a non- socialy-superior person. This expectation is correct: (43) a. Taro-wa [Yamada-sensei-ga Hiroshi-to Taro-Top [Prof. Yamada-Nom Hiroshi-with oainina-ru-no]-o otetudaisi-ta met.SH-Prs-C no ]-Ac assist.OH-Past ?Taro asisted Prof. Yamada to met with Hiroshi.? b. # Taro-wa [otooto-ga Hiroshi-to Taro-Top [younger brother-Nom Hiroshi-with {oainina-ru/ a-u}-no]-o otetudaisi-ta met.SH-Prs/ met-Prs-C no ]-Ac assist.OH-Past ?Taro asisted my brother to met with Hiroshi.? (43)a and (43)b difer with respect to the social superiority of the subject of the no- clause. The honorific on the matrix predicate is licensed when it is Prof. Yamada and not licensed when it is my younger brother. This is explained under empty object analyses. If no material is posited in the theme position, the object honorific should be able to operate across a clause boundary, which has not been atested. The fourth argument for the existence of the Theme position in the theta grid of verbs of the assist-type, as in (29), is due to Potsdam (2006). Potsdam convincingly shows that Malagasy alows a backward object control structure, as wel as its forward analog, with verbs like force. He observes that these verbs can show up as a non-control verb, as in (44) (from Potsdam 2006: ?3.2.2): (44) a. omby iza no nanere- nao an?i Paoly hovonoin? cow which FOC force.CT you ACC?Paul kil.T ny mpiompy? the catleman ?Which cow did you force Paul to have the catleman to kil?? 167 b. omby iza no nanere- nao ny mpiompy i cow which FOC force.CT you the catleman hovonoi- ny i ? kil.T he ?Which cow did you force him/the catleman to kil?? In (44)a, Paul is the theme argument of force, and the cattleman is the complement subject. In (44)b, the matrix theme object the cattleman is coreferential with the overt pronoun he in the embedded subject position. (Note incidentaly that Malagasy does not alow null objects, unlike Japanese or Korean; se Potsdam 2006 and references therein.) It sems that Japanese assist-type verbs also have a non-control use, as ilustrated by the examples below: (45) a. [Yoko-ga Taro i -o tetudata-no]-wa [Yoko-Nom Taro-Ac assisted-C no ]-Top [kare i -ga sono kaisya-o uttae-ru-no]-o da [he-Nom that company-Ac sue-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Yoko asisted Taro i (to have) [him i sue that company].? b. ? [Yoko-ga butyoo-o zyamasita-no]-wa [Yoko-Nom manager-Ac disrupted-C no ]-Top [kare-no hisyo-ga sono kaisya-o uttae-ru-no]-o da [he-Gen secretary-Nom that company-Ac sue-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Yoko disrupted the manager (from having) his secretary sue that company].? Both examples have a nominative element in the complement clause. In (45)a, the complement subject position is occupied by the overt pronoun kare, which is coreferential with the overt matrix object DP. In (45)b, which might be les natural but stil sems to be possible, the complement subject is an NP that is referentialy disjoint from the matrix object. These data argue that the Theme position actualy exists. In particular, the synonymy betwen (45)a and the backward example in (46), 168 suggests that the later example also contains the Theme position, which is silent: (46) [Yoko-ga ? tetudata-no]-wa [Yoko-Nom assisted-C no ]-Top [Taro i -ga sono kaisya-o uttaeru-no]-o da [Taro-Nom that company-Ac sue-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Yoko asisted Taro to sue that company.? Note in pasing that the data do not argue against the possibility that the verb can be a ?control verb?. In English, for instance, the verb prefer alows a non-control use (cf. Bil prefers for himself/Mary to leave), but this does not mean that Bil prefers to leave is not an OC construction (se Landau 2000 for relevant discussion). Finaly, it appears that the higher verb exhibits a selectional restriction with respect to the embedded subject: (47) a. John-wa [Mary-ga tobu-no]-o tetudata John-Top [Mary-Nom fly-Prs-C no ]-Ac assisted ?John asisted Mary to fly? b. * John-wa [huusen-ga tobu-no]-o tetudata John-Top [balloon-Nom fly-Prs-C no ]-Ac assisted ?John asisted a baloon to fly? (48) a. John-wa Mary-o tetudata John-Top Mary-Ac assisted ?John asisted Mary.? b. * John-wa huusen-o tetudata John-Top balloon-Ac assisted ?John asisted a baloon.? The pair of sentences given in (48) shows that tetsudau ?asist?, when it is used as a simple transitive predicate, only takes an NP denoting a sentient entity. The contrast sen in (47) receives an acount if the higher verb discharges a Theme position that is 169 coreferential with the embedded subject. Hence, backward constructions such as those in (47) have a syntactic object position, even though it does not have phonological content. 12 The arguments presented so far do not necesarily show that the relation betwen the empty category and the subject of the no-clause is OC. The goal of the next subsection is to show that the dependency betwen the two NPs in question is best analyzed as OC. 4.2 Arguments for the involvement of OC The strategy that is taken here is try to show that the assist-construction is a backward object control construction is to show paralels betwen the backward construction and the forward construction. As we wil se, there are a number of reasons to believe that the forward construction involves forward object control. Thus, if we can succesfully show that the backward construction just difers from the forward construction with respect to the way that the controller is located, then the conclusion 12 It is posible to claim that these verbs ?select? a verb denoting a voluntary action. (Note the use of fly in (47)b, which is presumably an unaccusative use, does not denote such action while the one in (47)a does.) A similar claim can be found in Higins (1973), who (capitalizing on certain observations made by Kajita 1967) observes that verbs like serve impose a thematic restriction on the controlee: PRO must be an instrument in the relevant cases, as in the ice serves to chil the beer vs. *the ice serves to melt (see Lasnik 1985, 192 for related discusion; cf. Bresnan 1972). If so, the contrast in (47) might be accounted for by saying that ?assist? requires that the embedded subject be an agent. However, as pointed out by Howard Lasnik (personal communication), the phenomenon is not that simple. First, the complement of order seems to have the same ?agentive? requirement. But if negation is added in the embedded clause, the effect apparently goes away: (i) John-wa Mary-ni [ki-o {*usina-u/usinaw-na-i}-yoni] meizita John-Top Mary-Dat [energy-Acc lose-Prs/lose-Neg-Prs-C yoni ] ordered ?John ordered Mary {*to faint, not to faint}.? On the other hand, asist/disrupt seem to behave diferently from order. The saving effect with negation does not seem to hold for these verbs: (ii) * John-wa [Mary-ga ki-o {*usina-u/*usinaw-na-i}-no]-o tetudatta John-Top [Mary-Nom energy-Ac lose-Prs/lose-Neg-Prs-C no -Ac asisted ?John assisted Mary {to faint, not to faint}.? Hence, admiting that a potentially interfering factor is involved in the argument given in the text, the nature of that factor is unclear at best. 170 that OC is involved in the backward construction can be drawn. Given this reasoning, we wil se five empirical arguments below. First, take a look at the forward assist-construction, where the antecedent for the null subject of the no-clause must be the object of the clause one higher up, i.e. the object of assist. Native speakers of Japanese?s intuition is that for instance, (49) only means that the teacher made Hiroshi asist his friend to ask a question (X in the translations is intended to an entity provided by the prior discourse): (49) [sensei 1 -ga [Hiroshi 2 -ni tomodati 3 -o e i [teacher-Nom [Hiroshi-Dat friend-Ac {tetudaw/zyamas}]-ase-ta-no]-wa [? *1/*2/3/*4 situmon-o assist/disrupt]-Caus-Past-C no ]-Top [ question-Ac su-ru-no]-o i da do-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?The teacher 1 made Hiroshi 2 disrupt his friend 3 from {*the teacher 1 ?s, *Hiroshi 2 ?s, his friend 3 , *X 4 ?s } asking a question].? OR ?The teacher 1 made Hiroshi 2 asist his friends 3 for {*the teacher 1 ?s, *Hiroshi 2 ?s, his friend 3 , *X 4 ?s } to ask a question].? If this intuition is right, then the null subject of the most deeply embedded clause, i.e. ?, must take as its antecedent the acusative-marked NP friend, which is the Theme argument of assist/disrupt. Neither the Agent argument of the causative predicate, teacher, nor the Agent argument of disrupt, Hiroshi, can antecede the null subject. Also, ? is not alowed to refer to an entity which is prominent in context, as indicated by the index 4 in the example. These restrictions on the interpretation of ? are expected if it is OC PRO. (Recal that predicates of the assist-type are not ECM predicates; se the discussion of the examples in (36).) The property of the assist- construction under consideration can be sen even clearer when it is contrasted with the purpose yooni-construction: 171 (50) [sensei 1 -ga [Hiroshi 2 -ni tomodati 3 -o e i tetudaw]-ase-ta-no]-wa [teacher-Nom [Hiroshi-Dat friend-Nom assist]-Caus-Past-C no ]-Top [? 1/2/3/4 situmon-ga deki-ru-yooni] i da [ question-Nom can.do-Prs-C yoni ] Cop ?The teacher 1 made Hiroshi 2 asist his friend 3 (from doing something) so that{the teacher 1 , Hiroshi 2 , his friend 3 , X 4 } could ask a question.? The complementizer -yooni can be the head of a purpose clause. The subject of the purpose yooni-clause does not have to refer to the object of the matrix clause. 13 The backward equivalent of (49) is the example in (51): (51) [sensei 1 -ga [Hiroshi 2 -ni ? *1/*2/3/*4 [teacher-Nom [Hiroshi-Dat {zyamas/tetudaw}]-ase-ta-no]-wa [tomodati 3 -ga disrupt/assist]-Caus-Past-C no ]-Top [friend-Nom situmon-o su-ru-no]-o da question-Ac do-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?The teacher 1 made Hiroshi 2 disrupt {*the teacher 1 , *Hiroshi 2 , his friend 3 , *X 4 } from his friend 3 ?s asking a question.? OR ?The teacher 1 made Hiroshi 2 asist {*the teacher 1 , *Hiroshi 2 , his friend 3 , *X 4 } for his friend 3 to ask a question.? (49) and (51) are paralel in that no referential dependencies other than the one 13 The same result is obtained for the construction where yooni-clauses are selected by verbs like recomend, discused in section 3.1 ((ib)=(23)): (i) a. * Yoko i -wa [butyo-ni ? i [Taro-ga Osaka-ni iku-no]-o Yoko-Top [manager-Dat [Taro-Nom Osaka-to come-C no ]-Acc zyamasi-te] hosikatta to.disrupt] wanted ?Yoko wanted her bos to disrupt her so that Taro would not go to Osaka.? b. Yoko i -wa [butyo-ni ? I [Taro-ga Osaka-ni iku-yoni] Yoko-Top [manager-Dat [Taro-Nom Osaka-to come-C yoni ] susume-te] hosikat-ta to.recomend] want-Pat ?Yoko wanted his bos to recommend her that Taro should go to the store.? 172 refered to by the index 3 are possible: The object of disrupt/assist is identical with the subject of the no-CP in the backward construction as wel as the forward construction. Given that (49) is an OC construction, the empty category in (51) likely enters into a backward control relation with the lowest subject. The ?paralelism? argument sems to be reliable. The purpose clause construction apparently alows a backward dependency betwen the matrix object position and the embedded subject position, as in (52): (52) [sensei 1 -ga [Hiroshi 2 -ni ? 1/*2/3/4 {zyamas/tetudaw}]-ase-ta-no-wa [teacher-Nom [Hiroshi-Dat disrupt/assist]-Caus-Past-C no ]-Top [tomodati 3 -ga situmon-ga deki-ru-yooni] da [friend-Nom question-Nom can.do-Prs-C yoni ] Cop ?The teacher 1 made Hiroshi 2 disrupt {the teacher 1 , *Hiroshi 2 , his friend 3 , X 4 } (from doing something) so that his friend could ask a question.? OR ?The teacher 1 made Hiroshi 2 asist {the teacher 1 , *Hiroshi 2 , his friend 3 , X 4 } (to do something) so that his friend could ask a question.? The important diference from the construction with a no-CP is that the null matrix object in (52) can be understood as coreferential to the highest subject and a discourse referent as wel. (Some of the readings require unusual situations such as the one in which the teacher asked Hiroshi to interupt her so that Hiroshi?s friend, say John, can ask a question or something like this.) The only one unavailable interpretation, that is the 2 reading, looks like a standard Condition B efect. Nothing is surprising if the purpose yooni-clause is adjoined to a position betwen the subject and the object of the VP headed by an assist-type verbs. Thus paralelism betwen forward and backward constructions holds for a non-control construction as wel as a control construction. The claim that the null object in the backward assist-construction must be referentialy linked to the overt complement subject is further confirmed by the test using the adverbial sorezore ?each?. The examples of forward asist-construction in (53) show that ?each?, which occurs right before assist, must be localy asociated 173 with a plural NP: (53) a. * [karera-ga [Mary-ni John-o e i sorezore tetudat-te] [they-Nom [Mary-Dat John-Ac each to.asist] hosikata-no]-wa [? oyog-u-no]-o i da wanted-C]-Top [ swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?They wanted Mary to asist John each [to help each other].? b. [karera-ga [Mary-ni John-to Bil-o e i sorezore [they-Nom [Mary-Dat John-and Bil-Ac each tetudat-te] hosikata-no]-wa [? oyog-u-no]-o i da to.assist] wanted-C]-Top [ swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?They wanted Mary to asist John and Bil each [to help each other].? In (53)a, the direct object of asist is John, whereas in (53)b, the direct object is John and Bil. The unaceptability of the a-example indicates that the subject of wanted, which is a plural, is too far from ?each? to license it. Kep this in mind, observe the pair of examples in (54), both of which are examples of backward assist-construction: (54) a. * [karera-ga [Mary-ni ? e i sorezore tetudat-te] [they-Nom [Mary-Dat each to.assist] hosikata-no]-wa [John-ga oyog-u-no]-o i da wanted-C]-Top [John-Nom swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop lit. ?They wanted Mary to asist ? each [John to help each other].? b. [karera-ga [Mary-ni ? e i sorezore tetudat-te] [they-Nom [Mary-Dat each to.assist] hosikata-no]-wa [John-to Bil-ga oyog-u-no]-o i da wanted-C]-Top [John-and Bil-Nom swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop lit. ?They wanted Mary to asist ? each [John and Bil to help each other].? 174 These examples difer from each other only in number of the complement subject. The unaceptability of (54)a reveals that the null object of the backward assist- construction cannot be bound by the higher subject. In a nutshel, the interpretive properties of the null object in the backward assist-construction are acounted for if it is in the control chain whose tail is the complement subject. Let us move onto another structural argument in favor of the analysis put forward here. Note that whereas the forward purpose yooni-construction is not sensitive to c- command, the forward no-construction is: (55) a. [Taro 1 -ga Hiroshi 2 -no tuma 3 -o tetudat-ta-no]-wa [Taro-Nom Hiroshi?s wife-Ac assisted-Past-C no ]-Top [? *1/*2/3 nimotu-o hakob-u-no]-o da [ luggage-Ac carry-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Taro 1 asisted Hiroshi 2 ?s wife 3 to cary the luggage.? b. [Taro 1 -ga Hiroshi 2 -no tuma 3 -o tetudat-ta-no]-wa [Taro-Nom Hiroshi?s wife-Ac assisted-Past-C no ]-Top [? 1/2/3 nimotu-o hakob-e-ru-yooni] da [ luggage-Ac carry-can-Prs-C yoni ] Cop ?Taro 1 asisted Hiroshi 2 ?s wide 3 , so that {Taro 1 , Hiroshi 2 , Hiroshi?s wife 3 } could cary the luggage.? The generalization may be stated as follows: in object control, the subject of the subordinate clause and the matrix object can participate in an OC chain, but not an NP inside it. Once the data in (55) are sen in this way, the contrast found in the corresponding pair of backward sentences can be taken to suggest that the no-version involves an OC chain: 175 (56) a. Taro 1 -wa ? *1/*2/3 [Hiroshi 2 -no tuma 3 -ga nimotu-o Taro-Top [Hiroshi?s wife-Nom luggage-Ac hakob-u-no]-o tetudata carry-Prs-C no ]Ac assisted ?Taro 1 asisted ? *1/*2/3 [Hiroshi 2 ?s wife 3 to cary their luggage].? b. Taro 1 -wa ? *1/2/3 [Hiroshi 2 -no tuma 3 -ga nimotu-o Taro-Top [Hiroshi-Gen wife-Nom luggage-Ac hakob-e-ru-yooni] tetudata carry-can-Prs-C yoni ] assisted ?Taro 1 asisted ? *1/2/3 [so that Hiroshi 2 ?s wife 3 could cary their luggage]. The examples need to be located in situations where Hiroshi and his wife both are carying their luggage and Taro helped him but didn?t help her at al. Then, a clear contrast emerges in such a way that (56)a is false but (56)b is true. This contrast tels us that the NP embedded inside the actual controller cannot be anteceded ? in the backward no-construction. The third argument for the control analysis of the backward no-construction has to do with one general fact about forward control; that is, the empty category, i.e. PRO in standard GB terms, cannot appear in non-subject position of a control complement. The unaceptability of the folowing example shows that this is the case with the forward assist-construction as wel: (57) * [boku-ga Tanaka-sensei-o otetudaisita-no]-wa [I-Nom Tanaka-sensei-Ac assisted.ObjHon-C]-Top [tomodati-ga ? ohomesu-ru-no-o] da [friend-Nom praise.ObjHon-Prs-C no -Ac Cop lit. ?I asisted(ObjHon) Tanaka-sensei for my friend to praise(ObjHon) ? i .? Intended meaning: ?I asisted Tanaka-sensei i to have my friends praise him i .? 176 (58) * [boku-ga ? otetudaisita-no]-wa [tomodati-ga [I-Nom assisted.ObjHon-C]-Top [friend-Nom Tanaka-sensei-o ohomesu-ru-no-o] da Tanaka-sensei-Ac praise.ObjHon-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop lit. ?I asisted(ObjHon) ? for my friends to praise(ObjHon) Tanaka- sensei.? (59) [boku-ga Tanaka-sensei 1 -o otetudaisita-no]-wa [I-Nom Tanaka-sensei-Ac assisted.ObjHon-C-Top [tomodati-ga ? 1/2 ohomesu-ru-yooni] da [friend-Nom praise.ObjHon-Prs-C yoni Cop ?I asisted Tanaka-sensei 1 so that my friends would praise him 1/2 .? (60) [boku-ga ? 1/2 otetudaisita-no]-wa [tomodati-ga [I-Nom assisted.ObjHon-C]-Top [friend-Nom Tanaka-sensei 1 -o ohomesu-ru-yooni] da Tanaka-sensei-Ac praise.ObjHon-Prs-C yoni ]-Ac Cop ?I asisted {Tanaka-sensei 1 , X 2 } so that my friends would praise him 1 .? No mater how this fact is explained, if backward control exists at al, it should be the case that the controller cannot appear in a non-subject position, given forward- backward paralelism. Indeed, such a backward construction is clearly unaceptable: (61) [boku-ga ? otetudaisita-no]-wa [tomodati-ga [I-Nom assisted.ObjHon-C]-Top [friend-Nom Tanaka-sensei-o ohomesu-ru-no-o] da Tanaka-sensei-Ac praise.ObjHon-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop lit. ?I asisted(ObjHon) ? for my friends to praise(ObjHon) Tanaka- sensei.? It should be noted that in the purpose clause construction, whether it is forward or backward, the matrix object and ? in the embedded object position can be coreferential quite easily: 177 (62) a. [boku-ga Tanaka-sensei 1 -o otetudaisita-no]-wa I-Nom Tanaka-sensei-Ac assisted.ObjHon-C-Top [tomodati-ga ? 1/2 ohomesu-ru-yooni] da [friend-Nom praise.ObjHon-Prs-C yoni Cop ?I asisted Tanaka-sensei 1 so that my friends would praise him 1/2 .? b. [boku-ga ? 1/2 otetudaisita-no]-wa [tomodati-ga [I-Nom asisted.ObjHon-C]-Top [friend-Nom Tanaka-sensei 1 -o ohomesu-ru-yooni] da Tanaka-sensei-Ac praise.ObjHon-Prs-C yoni ]-Ac Cop ?I asisted {Tanaka-sensei 1 , X 2 } so that my friends would praise him 1 .? Again, the forward construction paralels its backward counterpart. Given that the unaceptability of (57) indicates that the construction is OC, the unaceptability of the corresponding backward construction, (61), constitutes evidence that the later is also an OC construction. Forth, the forward assist-construction, like a typical OC construction, does not alow a strict interpretation of the null subject under elipsis: 14 14 The careful reader might wonder if (63)b is really an instance of ellipsis, as oposed to deep anaphora of some sort. One independent (though indirect) argument for the involvement of ellipsis in such examples can be made. As originally pointed out in Kuno (1978, 1980) and recently discused in Merchant (201), ellipsis generally exhibits the effect called ?Max Elide,? which roughly dictates that when the process aplies, a biger constituent be deleted whenever posible (cf. Takahashi and Fox 205). An interaction of Sluicing and VP-ellipsis in English is presented to ilustrate the effect: (i) a. She loves someone, but I don?t know ho she loves b. * She loves someone, but I don?t know ho she does love t The generalization is that VP-ellipsis is barred here since Sluicing, which elides a TP, could be applied. A similar effect is found with potential ellipsis of no-clauses in Japanese. Consider: (ii) A: [Yoko-ga e j [? *i/j [tamago-ga hukasu-ru-no]-o mi-ru-no]-o [Yoko-Nom [ [egg-Nom hatch-Prs-C no ]-Ac see-Prs-C no ]-Acc tetudatta-no]-wa Taro i -o desu-ga asisted-C no ]-Top Taro-Ac Cop.Pol-though 178 (63) a. [Yoko-ga e i [? i suugaku-no mondai-o tok-u-no]-o [Yoko-Nom [ math problem-Ac solve-Prs-C no ]-Ac tetudata-no]-wa Taro i -o desu-ga assisted-C no ]-Top Taro-Ac Cop.Pol-though b. [Naomi-ga e j [? *i/j suugaku-no mondai-o tok-u-no-o] [Naomi-Nom [ math problem-Ac solve-Prs-C no ]-Ac tetudata-no]-wa Hiroshi j -o desu assisted-C no ]-Top Hiroshi-Ac Cop.Pol ?Although Yoko asisted Taro i to solve a math problem, Naomi asisted Hiroshi j ? *i/j to solve a math problem.? As sen in the translation of the second sentence, the subject of the elided no-clause cannot be understood as refering to Taro. Thus, the forward construction behaves like an OC construction. Now consider the backward construction to se if a strict interpretation is not alowed: B: [Naomi-ga e j [? j [tamago-ga hukasu-ru-no]-o mi-ru-no]-o [Naomi-Nom [ [egg-Nom hatch-Prs-C no ]-Ac see-Prs-C no ]-Acc tetudatta-no]-wa Hiroshi j -o desu asisted-C no ]-Top Hiroshi-Acc Cop.Pol B?:*[Naomi-ga e j [? j [tamago-ga hukasu-ru-no]-o mi-ru-no]-o tetudatta-no]-wa Hiroshi j -o desu B?: [Naomi-ga e j [? j [tamago-ga hukasu-ru-no]-o mi-ru-no]-o tetudatta-no]-wa Hiroshi j -o desu ?Although it is Taro i that Yoko assisted to see an egg hatch, it is Hiroshi j that Naomi assisted e j to see an egg hatch.? The contrast between (iiB?) and (iiB?) shows that omision of the lowest no-clause is barred. This is totally expected if the process under consideration is ellipsis and subject to Max Elide. Under this view, (63)b is fine because the presence of Naomi makes it imposible for the largest no-clause to be elided. The subject of the potential antecedent in (63)a, i.e. the largest no-clause, is different. 179 (64) A: Yoko-ga [Taro-ga suugaku-no mondai-o tok-u-no]-o Yoko-Nom [Taro-Nom math problem-Ac solve-Prs-C no ]-Ac tetudai-masita assisted- Pol.Past ?Yoko asisted Taro to solve a math problem.? B: [Naomi-ga buturi-no mondai-o tok-u-no]-mo desu [Naomi-Nom physics problem-Ac solve-Prs-C no ]-even Cop.Pol ?She asisted Naomi to solve a physics problem, too.? Since, as is wel known, cleft sentences are not prefered when the focus element is marked with nominative case, stripping the sense of Hoji (1990) is employed; se Hoji 1990 for arguments that the proces involves elipsis. (64)B may have the (irelevant) interpretation, ?Naomi also asisted Taro to solve a math problem,? and this interpretation might be the most prefered one. The point is that the interpretation indicated above, i.e. the one in which Naomi is understood as the ?asiste,? is possible. When the sentence is so interpreted, the ?solver? must be her, rather than Taro. Thus, no strict interpretation exists, hence another argument for the OC analysis of the backward assist-construction. Backward purpose yooni-constructions, on the other hand, sem to alow both sloppy and strict readings as in (65)B. 15 15 Here is the minimal pair that was promised in section 3.1, which ilustrates the contrast between the backward asist-construction and the backward yooni-complement construction, with respect to the posibility of strict reading ((24) is repeated as (i)): (i) A: Taro-wa ? i [Mary i -ga Osaka-ni ik-u-yoni] susumeta Taro-Top [Mary-Nom Osaka-to go-Prs-C yoni ] recomend ?Taro recommended Mary that Mary should go to Osaka.? B: [Dave-ga Tokyo-ni ik-u-yoni]-mo da [Dave-Nom Tokyo-to go-Prs-C yoni ]-even Cop ?Taro recommended Mary that Dave should go to Tokyo, to.? (ii) A: Taro-wa ? i [Mary i -ga Osaka-ni ik-u-no]-o tetudatta Taro-Top [Mary-Nom Osaka-to go-Prs-C no ]-Ac asisted ?Taro assisted Mary to go to Osaka.? B: [Dave-ga Tokyo-ni ik-u-no-mo] da [Dave-Nom Tokyo-to go-Prs-C no ]-even Cop lit. ?Taro disrupted Mary from Dave?s going to Tokyo, to.? The genuine backward control construction, unlike the construction ilustrated by (i), does not permit the strict reading. 180 (65) A: Yoko-ga pro i/j [Taro i -ga suugaku-no mondai-o Yoko-Nom [Taro-Nom math problem-Ac tok-e-ru-yooni] tetudai-masita solve-can-Prs-C yoni ] assisted-Past.Pol ?Yoko asisted {Taro i , Naomi j } so that Taro i could solve a math problem.? B: [Naomi(-zisin)-ga buturi-no mondai-o tok-e-ru-yooni]-mo [Naomi-self-Nom physics problem-Ac solve-Prs-C]-even desu Cop.Pol ?She asisted Naomi so that Naomi can solve a math problem, too.? OR ?She asisted Taro so that Naomi (herself) can solve a physics problem, too.? This section has examined forward and backward assist-constructions, both of which display diagnostic properties of obligatory control. 4.3 A brief comparison with the head-internal relative clause One might analyze the backward assist-construction, such as (66) below, as a head- internal relative clause (HIRC) of some sort: (66) isya-wa [kanzya-ga aru-ku-no]-o tetudat-ta doctorn-Top [patient-Nom walk-Prs-C no ]-Ac assist-Past ?The doctor asisted a patient to walk.? This is a fair worry because typical Japanese HIRCs are also headed by -no and are case-marked as if they are direct arguments of predicates: 181 (67) isya-wa [kanzya-ga arui-tei-ru-no]-o tukamaeta doctor-Top [patient-Nom walk-Prog-Prs-NO]-Ac caught ?A patient was walking, and then the doctor caught him.? The possibility of asimilating the backward assist-construction to the HIRC is worth considering for the following reason. No prior analyses of the HIRC explicitly claim that the construction should be treated as a variety of OC. 16 So asume that HIRCs do not involve OC. If examples like (66) turn out to be a species of HIRC, then, as a logical consequence, these should not involve OC, contrary to the empirical claim advanced here. Thus it is important to show that the assist-construction is not an instance of HIRC construction. Let us start with one wel-established descriptive generalization about the temporal interpretation of HIRCs. As noted by Kuroda (1976-77) and extensively discussed by M.J. Kim (2004), HIRCs must be interpreted to mean that the event described by them takes place simultaneously with the time reference of the superordinate clause. For instance, the sentence in (67), repeated as (68), means that an event of a patient?s walking (= the event described by the HIRC) had been going on, and at a point in its duration, an event of the doctor?s catching that patient (= the event described by the superordinate clause) took place: (68) isya-wa [kanzya-ga arui-tei-ru-no]-o tukamaeta doctor-Top [patient-Nom walk-Prog-Prs-NO]-Ac caught ?A patient was walking, during which time the doctor caught him.? Following Fuji (1998) and M.-J. Kim (2004), let us cal this the Simultaneity Condition, which is intended to cover what Kuroda?s (1976-77) Relevancy Condition covers. 16 See Kuroda (199a: 49) for a relevant comment on this posibility. This is not a place to discus how the HIRC should be analyzed. The reader is referred to Kuroda (1974, 1976-7. 197; 199a), Watanabe (191), Hoshi (195), Mihara (194), Shimoyama (199), M.-J. Kim (204), among many others. 182 Now consider the temporal interpretation of the no-clause of the assist control construction: (69) a. isya-wa [kanzya-ga aruk-u-no]-o tetudata (=(66)) doctor-Top [patient-Nom walk-Prs-C no ]-Ac assisted ?The doctor asisted a patient to walk.? b. isya-wa [kanzya-ga aruk-u-no]-o zyamasita doctor-Top [patient-Nom walk-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?The doctor disrupted a patient from walking.? As noted by Josephs (1976: 330, n 23), examples like those in (69) do not alow an interpretation of the kind that HIRC constructions exhibit. The Simultaneity Condition does not apply to the backward control construction: it is not the case that the walking event described by the no-clause is interpreted as taking place simultaneously with the event described by the matrix asisting or disrupting event. Rather, the no-complement of assist/disrupt receive an ?irealis? interpretation of the familiar kind in the literature on English infinitival complements (Bresnan 1972, Grosu 1974, Stowel 1982, Pesetsky 1992, Martin 1996, Bo?kovi? 1997, Landau 2000, Wurmbrand 2001 and many others). Take (70) as an example: (70) The doctor ordered a patient to walk The walking event descried by the infinitive is a hypothetical or unrealized event. Roughly put, the patient has not walked yet at the time of the doctor?s ordering. The ?tense mismatch? phenomenon found in examples like (71) might help to give a flavor for this irealis interpretation (though not every infinitival complement alows this sort of ?tense mismatch?; cf. Wurmbrand 2001, Landau 2000): (71) Yesterday, the doctor ordered a patient to walk tomorrow The point here is that presence of the time adverb tomorrow indicates that the walking 183 event is a future event with respect to the ordering event. The same is observed for the backward assist-construction. Returning to examples like those in (69), observe that tense mismatch is alowed: (72) kinoo isya-wa [kanzya-ga asu aru-ku-no]-o yesterday doctor-Top [patient-Nom tomorrow walk-Prs-C no ]-Ac tetudata/ zyamsita assisted/ disrupted ?Yesterday, the doctor {asisted a patient to walk, disrupted a patient from walking}.? Compare with the HIRC equivalent, where such placement of adverbials is generaly unaceptable: (73) * kinoo isya-wa [kanzya-ga asita yesterday doctor-Top [patient-Nom tomorrow {arui-tei-ru/aru-ku}-no]-o tukamaeta walk-Prog-Prs/walk-Prs-NO]-Ac caught lit. ?A patient {is walking, walks} tomorrow, and yesterday the doctor caught that patient.? Thus, while HIRCs always have a simultaneous interpretation, the complement of assist cannot have such an interpretation. Second, the two types of no-clauses difer with respect to their ability to take past tense and present progresive complements. Note first that HIRCs can support past tense and progresive aspect as long as the Simultaneity Condition is met: 184 (74) keikan-wa [doroboo-ga kinko-o policeman-Top [burglar-Nom safe-Ac ake{-ta/-tei-ru}-no]-o tukamaeta {open-Past/Prog-Prs-C no ]-Ac caught ?A burglar policeman {opened, was opening} a safe and the policeman caught him then.? The complement of assist, on the contrary, does not sem to alow either past tense or present progresive. It requires simple present tense. 17 Consider (75): (75) keikan-wa [doroboo-ga kinko-o policeman-Top [burglar-Nom safe-Ac ake{-ta/-tei-ru}-no]-o zyamasita {open-Past/Prog-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?A burglar {opened, was opening} a safe and the policeman disrupted him then.? The example is aceptable. However, its interpretation is clearly not the one asociated with assist-constructions that we have sen so far. It does not mean that the policeman disrupted a burglar from opening a safe. It means that the policeman disrupted a burglar from doing something when that burglar opened or was opening a safe. This no-clause is unambiguously an HIRC. Hence, the no-complement of the assist control construction cannot support past or present progresive. I am not putting forth any claim about why HIRC predicates are restricted in the way they are. (For this isue, the reader is refered to Kuroda (1976-77), M.-J. Kim (2004), among others.) Al I am trying to show here is that control no-clauses always appear in the present tense form whereas HIRCs may appear in other forms. Therefore, when the predicate of a no-clause is in the past tense form, it eliminates the possibility of control and forces the HIRC structure of that no-clause. 17 As is extensively argued in chapter 2, this is an indication that control no-complements are pseudo-finite clauses, i.e. their Tense is specified for [-finite] (cf. Nakau 1973, Ohso 1976, Josephs 1979, Saito 1982, Sakaguchi 190, Uera 190, Nemoto 193, Watanabe 196b). 185 Third, the HIRC and the assist-construction behave diferently in pasives. While the no-clause of the HIRC can stand in subject position of a pasive sentence, the no- clause of the assist-construction cannot: 18 (76) a. [soto-e doroboo-ga nige-yoo-to suru-no]-ga [outside-to burglar-Nom run.away-Mood-C TO do-NO]-Nom keikan-niyotete tukamae-rare-ta policeman-by catch-Pass-Past ?A burglar was about to run toward , and then a policeman catch him.? b. * [soto-e doroboo-ga nige-ru-no]-ga keikan-niyotte [outside-to burglar-Nom run.away-Pres-C no ]-Nom policeman-by zyamas-are-ta arrest-Pass-Past ?A burglar was disrupted by a policeman from running outside.? (Note that the Theme object can undergo pasivization with forward control; se (15).) Thus, both semanticaly and syntacticaly, no-clauses that we have been dealing with in the assist-construction are not HIRCs. As has been observed in section 4.2, the choice of the antecedent for OC PRO or the null object of the backward assist-construction is severely restricted. As in (77) and (78), control into a non-subject position is prohibited: (77) a. John i hoped [? i to help Mary] b. * John i hoped [Mary to help ? i ] 18 In passing, the tokoro-clause, which is often argued to be backward control, behaves in the same way as the no-clause of the asist-construction with respect to passivization. See Harada (1973), Kuroda (1978, 199b) for passivization of the tokoro-clause. See chapter 2 for discusion of prohibition of passivization of control clauses. 186 (78) keikan-wa ? i/*j [tuukoonin i -ga doroboo j -o policeman-Nom [passer-by-Nom buirgler-Ac torikako-mu-no]-o zyamasita surround-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?A policeman disrupted ? i/*j [from pasers-by i surrounding the burglar j ].? The HIRC construction does not exhibit this kind of asymmetry. Consider the example in (79): (79) keikan-wa ? i [tuukoonin-ga doroboo i -o policeman-Top [passer-by-Nom burglar-Ac torikakon-dei-ru-no]-o tukamaeta surround-Prog-Prs-NO]-Ac caught ?Pasers-by were surrounding the burglar, and then the policeman caught him.? The following data further confirm the speaker?s intuition that the object in the embedded clause is identical with the thematic argument of the matrix verb: (80) sono gakusei-wa ? i [tuukoonin-ga koomeina sensei i -o that student-Top [passer-by-Nom wel known teacher-Ac torikakon-dei-ru-no]-o otasukesi-ta surround-Prog-Prs-NO]-Ac help.ObjHon-Past ?Pasers-by were surrounding a wel known teacher, and then the student helped him.? In (80)a, the matrix predicate bears object-honorific morphology and the embedded object, unlike the embedded subject, denotes a socialy superior person to the speaker. Thus the matrix verb (or its thematic object position) enters into a dependency with the embedded object, not the embedded subject. This strongly indicates that the construction is something else than obligatory control. 187 I argue in chapter 2 that (i) complements that do not undergo present-past tense alternation are nonfinite; that (i) pasivization of obligatory control clauses is bared, and that (ii) control chains exhibit properties of A-chain. Given these, the observations made above strongly argue that HIRCs do not involve OC. Since they support both present and past tense, they are [+finite]. Hence, control chains cannot be formed. In terms of the movement-based theory, no A-movement is alowed from the subject position of finite clauses at least in Japanese. Therefore, the fact that HIRCs cannot be control clauses is acounted for straightforwardly. The assist- construction, on the other hand, shares these properties with forward control. Namely, its complement does not alow tense alternation (and hence it is [-finite]), cannot be a pasive subject, and exhibits A-chain-like properties. The next section wil show how the movement theory of control derives properties of the backward control construction. 4.4 Deriving the properties of assist-constructions Asuming a movement theory of control, let us se how the properties documented above are acounted for in that theory. The theory gives a Japanese assist- construction such as (81) a derivation of the following kind (head-finality is ignored for ease of exposition): (81) Hiroshi-ga [Taro-ga oyog-u-no]-o zyamasita Hiroshi-Nom [Taro-Nom swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac disrupted ?Hiroshi disrupted Taro from swiming.? (82) [ TP Hiroshi T [ vP Hiroshi v [ VP Taro i disrupt [ CP C no [ TP Taro i T [ vP Taro i swim]]] Let us asume with other movement-based analyses of control that the ?-role feature of a predicate is a formal feature that may be checked through phrasal movement and that an A-chain can cary more than one ?-role feature. These asumptions alow us to move Taro in the Spec,TP of the complement CP to the Spec,VP to check the ?-role 188 feature of disrupt, when armed with another asumption, which is that the complement CP does not prevent extraction of the embedded subject out of it. 19 As for Case, we may asume that the litle v is responsible for the Case of the NP object and the large V for the Case of the CP, though some other asumption may be compatible with the main point we are making; e.g., v asigns acusative Case to the NP and the CP (Hiraiwa 2005, Chomsky 2004). Regarding the Case for the embedded subject, it suffices for now to asume that nominative Case is available for the complement subject and it does not prevent the subject from moving to the matrix clause. I wil elaborate on this hypothesis in section 4.4. Once the complement subject is alowed to move into the matrix thematic domain, al the syntactic properties of the construction documented in previous sections follow. First, the severe restriction on the interpretation of the empty matrix object (ilustrated by (47) and (50) follows if ? is occupied by the head of the A-chain. Second, the fact that the embedded object cannot backward control the matrix object [cf. (58)] can be derived from standard asumptions. If A-movement from Case position is impossible (Chomsky 1995, 2001; Lasnik 1995), i.e. if an NP is ?active? for A-movement only if it has not had its Case checked, then the movement-based analysis correctly excludes unaceptable examples like the one at isue (se section 5.2 for discussion). 20 Third, the unavailability of strict reading [se (63)] also follows from the movement analysis. At LF, the copy in the embedded subject must be interpreted as a bound variable, just 19 A locality isue may arise, given the generalization that CP is assumed to break an A-chain, which is often considered correct in GB theories (e.g. Aoun 1982). However, it is not entirely clear that this is a correct generalization anymore (see Chomsky 200, Fuji 204, 205, Nevins 205). Another potential isue would be about minimality. It is conceivable for a minimality constraint (such as Shortest Move or Atract Closest) to block movement of the complement subject in an A-over-A fashion. See chapter 2 for discusion. 20 It is interesting to note here that the subject-object asymmetry in English can be taken to be a Case Filter violation. In (77)b (repeated as (i)) below, Mary cannot obtain Case under standard assumptions: (i) John i hoped Mary to help PRO i However, this account cannot apply to Japanese examples like (57), because we know independently that the complement subject can obtain nominative Case in the backward construction. Thus, the subject-non-subject asymmetry in Japanese backward control tells us that either minimality or Case-activity is needed, even if (i) can be excluded by the Case Filter. 189 like the ?trace? of A-movement. 21 Finaly, we observed in (76)b that the no-clause cannot undergo pasivization, whereas the Theme argument can be, as observed in (15). The relevant pair of examples is as follows (83)b=(76)b): 2 (83) a. doroboo-ga [soto-e nige-ru-no]-o keikan-niyotte burglar-Nom [outside-to run.away-Pres-C no ]-Ac policeman-by zyamas-are-ta arrest-Pass-Past 21 How precisely non-top copies are interpreted at the level of interpretation under a copy theory of movement is an isue (cf. Fox 202). Potsdam reports that in Malagasy, forward controlers and backward controlees behave the same with respect to scope interpretation. According to Potsdam, the Malagasy forward and backward sentences corresponding to which secret did you ask al your friends not to reveal? are both ambiguous between the ?all>not? and ?not>all? interpretations. The situation seems to be different in Japanese. To show how this is so, we use the so-called anti-reconstruction effect (Wurmbrand 201, Bobaljik an Wurmbrand 205), where the restructuring verb forget cannot scope over its direct object: (i) [John-ga zen?in-o tetudai-wasureta-no]-wa [hayaokisu-ru-no]-o desu [John-Nom al-Ac asist-forgot-C no ]-Top [wake.up.early-Pres-C no ]-Acc Cop,Pol ?John forgot to assist all the people to wake up early.? (*forget>all) (ii) [John-ga tetudai-wasure-ta]-no-wa [zen?in-ga hayaokisuru-no]-o desu [John-Nom asist-forgot-C no ]-Top [al-Nom wake.up.early-Pres-C no ]-Ac Cop.Pol ?John forgot to assist all people to wake up early.? (forget>all) The availability of the narrow scope interpretation of the universal with respect to the negative verb, taken as face value, indicates that the embedded nominative NP does not act like the direct object of the higher predicate at the relevant level of representation. There seem to be two ways to characterize this phenomenon. One way is to say that the contrast stems from the rigid nature of scope-taking in languages like Japanese; that is, scope is determined based on S-structure syntax (see Kuroda 1970, Huang 1982, Hoji 1985). Another way of describe the state of affairs is to assimilate the contrast between (i) and (ii) to the contrast between someone from NY seems to be in the garden and there seems to be someone from NY in the garden. The there-construction does not allow for the interpretation where someone takes scope over seem (see Lasnik 199, den Diken 199, Boeckx 201, Bobaljik 202 and references cited therein for recent investigation; see also Lidz and Isardi 197). I haven?t been able to find a way to tease apart these two posibilities. 2 A multiple nominative configuration is barred here. The folowing example seem to be unacceptable: (i) ?* dorobo i -ga keikan-niyote [? i soto-e nige-ru-no]-ga zyamas-are-ta burglar-Nom policeman-by [ outside-to run.away-Prs-C no ]-Nom was.disrupted ?A burglar was disrupted from runing outside by the policeman.? I won?t be able to explore implications of this fact here. 190 b. * [soto-e doroboo-ga nige-ru-no]-ga keikan-niyotte [outside-to burglar-Nom run.away-Pres-C no ]-Nom policeman-by zyamas-are-ta arrest-Pass-Past ?A burglar was disrupted by a policeman from running outside.? There is a potential acount of this contrast. If (niyotte-)pasivization involves A- movement to subject position (Kuroda 1979, Hoshi 1994, 1999), the Spec,TP is closer to the first (NP) argument position (which wil be deleted in the PF component in our analysis) than the second (CP) argument position. Thus, minimality may block movement of the CP. This acount, however, is not likely, because one interfering factor is involved; that is, (83)b is a backward control example. Given Harada?s generalization that backward control is possible if and only if the Double-O Constraint is potentialy violated, (83)b can be excluded for this reason. No potential double-o configuration can be found in this example. It should be noted that the minimality consideration may be stil relevant. The sentence becomes unaceptable when the CP bears nominative case and burglar bears acusative case, as opposed to when the former bears acusative case and the later bears nominative case [(83)a]: (84) * [soto-e nige-ru-no]-ga doroboo-o keikan-niyotte [outside-to run.away-Pres-C no ]-Nom burglar-Ac policeman-by zyamas-are-ta arrest-Pass-Past The discussion is not conclusive because of the poorly understood nature of pasivization and case absorption. The present analysis of the assist-construction, though, is compatible with the unaceptability of examples like (84). 4.5 Case-marked Pro vs. deleted copy It has been shown that examples like (85)a below involve nothing but forward OC. Also, we saw in section 4.1 that the non-control use of assist clas verbs is available, 191 as in (85)b: (85) a. [Taro-ga Naomi i -o e j zyamasita-no]-wa [Taro-Nom Naomi-Ac disrupted-C no ]-Top [? i oyog-u-no]-o j da [ swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop b. [Taro-ga Naomi i -o e j zyamasita-no]-wa [Taro-Nom Naomi-Ac disrupted-C no ]-Top [kanozyo i -ga oyog-u-no]-o j da [she-Nom swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Taro disrupted Naomi from swiming.? Given and that Japanese masively alows null pro, we should ask ourselves why ? in (85)a cannot be the null version of she in (85)b. To put it another way, what is wrong with deriving a representation like (86)? (86) [Taro-ga Naomi i -o zyamasita-no]-wa [Taro-Nom Naomi-Ac disrupted-C no ]-Top [pro i oyog-u-no]-o j da [ swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop The puzzle can be related to the Bouchard-Hornstein type ?elsewhere? approach to non-obligatory control (NOC); se Bouchard 1983, 1984, Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003. The basic idea is that so-caled NOC PRO, ilustrated in (87), is pronominal, i.e. pro, while so-caled OC PRO is anaphoric: (87) [PRO NOC to swim here] is ilegal Justification for this dichotomy is empirical. Unlike OC PRO, NOC PRO does not need an antecedent in the sentence. When an antecedent is present, it does not have to be local or does not have to c-command ?. While OC PRO must be interpreted as 192 bound, NOC PRO can be referential, and so on (se chapter 1 for more details). Since this pronominal NOC PRO is available, we should ask why it does not appear in places where t appears: (88) Bil persuaded John i [{t i /*pro i } to swim here] The elsewhere approach explains the prohibition of NOC PRO in the complement subject position by claiming that it is inserted only when PRO/t is prohibited. That is, insertion of NOC PRO is a last resort strategy. Exactly the same acount caries over to the fact that (86) is not for the representation of (85)a. Since obligatory control, i.e. movement from the complement subject position, is alowed, the representation with NOC PRO cannot be generated. There is one consequence of this ?elsewhere? approach to (85)a. Notice that the movement derivation competes with the derivation utilizing NOC PRO-insertion; the fact that (85)b, which contains the overt pronoun kanozyo ?she?, is possible suggests that the derivation for that sentence does not compete with the movement derivation. If it did, (85)b might be incorrectly excluded. Thus, I conclude that overt pronouns, unlike pro, are not inserted into the structure as a last resort. 23 4.6 Interim summary In section 3, we saw that Harada?s theory provides an adequate description of the data. We also noted there that, at the same time, the Harada type theory, as he correctly noted, does not explain why backward control (or Counter Equi) is not blocked by a principle of the gramar that requires Equi NP deletion to apply forward when it is so. Recal that Nunes?s proposal that the choice of the target of deletion is regulated by an economy condition opens up a way to solve this problem, as can be observed in Potsdam?s development of Nunes?s idea. However, Potsdam?s specific analysis for 23 It seems true that we have to distinguish between structural case-marked and non-structural Case marked pro. If so-called PRO arb is restricted to the subject position as Saito (1982) and Kuroda (1983) observe (see Hasegawa 1984-82), it may sugest that NOC PRO in Japanese, as in the one in English, cannot bear structural Case (Authier 192). The distribution of PRO arb in Japanese, however, awaits more investigations. See the discusion at the end of chapter 1. 193 Malagasy backward object control cannot be used for the Japanese case. The next section wil discuss some descriptive isues that arise when we apply Potsdam?s analysis for Malagasy control to Japanese. 5 Lower Copy Pronunciation 5.1 Malagasy ? Japanese Let us recal how Potsdam?s theory works for pairs of Malagasy sentences like (89) (=(5)): (89) a. forward object control tranon? iza no naneren? i Mery ahy [hofafana]? house who FOC force.CT Mary me swep.T b. backward object control tranon? iza no naneren? i Mery [hofafa- ko]? house who FOC force.CT Mary swep.T I ?Whose house did Mary force me to swep?? The gist of his analysis is that either the upper link or the lower link can be made phoneticaly realized by appealing to the economy nature of link deletion (se the review of Potsdam?s proposal in section 2.2). The statements given in (10) are repeated: (90) a. One and only one chain link must be pronounced (in acordance with the LCA) b. Pronounce the link with the fewest unchecked features The derivation in which Chain Reduction targets the upper link (yielding backward control) and the one in which the operation targets the lower link (yielding forward control) are equaly economical due to the asumption that the lower copy, as wel as the higher copy, is in a Case checking position. These two copies have the fewest 194 unchecked features: (91) [ IP Mary [ vP v [ VP ? -CASE force [ IP ?- CASE Infl swep the house] ]] One reason that some modification wil be needed for the case of Japanese is that if Japanese control constructions with a present-tensed complement clause have the same Case property as the Malagasy construction, we would wrongly expect that backward control was possible with the pasive version of asist-constructions, the subject control construction with koto-CP, and the yooni-control construction. (92) is an example of the subject control construction discussed in section 3.1: (92) * ? i ni-byoo-de [san-pun-de Taro i -ga syukudai-o 2-second-in [3-minute-in Taro-Nom homework-Ac oe-ru-koto]-o kesinsita finish-Prs-C koto ]-Ac decided ?Taro decided in two seconds to finish the homework in thre minutes.? If the Case checking takes place in the complement subject, then sentences like the above would be ruled in, just like Malagasy backward object control sentences are. To put it another way, while the economy-based approach explains how the gramar alows backward control in principle, the asumption that the complement subject is a Case position leads us to fail to capture the generalization that backward control is permited when it would cause a double-o violation. 5.2 Deriving the distribution of backward control in Japanese Turn to the Japanese backward object control. Two asumptions are made: (93) a. The complement subject position of a tensed control complement is not asigned structural nominative Case but may asign inherent nominative Case 195 b. It is possible that a link of a chain caries an inherent Case feature as wel as a structural Case feature In section 4.3, we saw that the predicate of the complement of assist-type verbs does not alow tense alternation: it must be in the simple present form. As extensively discussed in chapter 2, this non-alternation is taken as indicating that the complement clause is nonfinite. Hence, its T does not asign structural Case. The asumption that nominative Case could be inherent is not entirely new. Saito (1982, 1985) claims, on diferent empirical ground, that in Japanese, nominative Case, unlike acusative Case, is inherent; se also Monahan 2004 for an analysis of a Korean backward control construction that contains a similar claim. The current asumption about Case departs from Saito?s in that inherent nominative is limited to nonfinite clauses (se chapter 2 for arguments that finite T asigns structural Case. As for (93)b, se Chomsky (2000: 131) and Hiraiwa (2005: 49), Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a), among others, for a similar asumption. It has been noted that raising takes place from non-structuraly case-marked positions (e.g. dative) or that control into such positions is possible (se, e.g., Zaenen, Maling, and Thr?insson 1985 for raising, and Sigur?son 1991 for control in Icelandic). Also, the so-caled case-stacking phenomenon found in languages like Korean, where two case particles are stacked on one NP, can be taken as indicating that an NP is able to be asigned one structural and one non-structural case (se Hong 2003, Yoon 2004; cf. Sch?tze 1998). Let us se how reduction of chains in the assist-construction starts to look when we are armed with the asumptions in (93). We consider the case in which double-o is relevant and the case in which it is irelevant in turn. The derivation for the assist control construction proceds in a slightly diferent way from the one for the Malagasy object control. Since the embedded T does not check the structural Case of ?, a structure like (94) would be obtained: (94) [ IP Hiroshi [ vP v [ VP ? -CASE asist [ IP ?-CASE + Inherent NOM T Prs swim] ]] It should be noted that, as long as one and only one copy is pronounced, there are two 196 deferent convergent derivations: The derivation involving deletion of the lower copy (forward control) and the one involving deletion of the upper copy (backward control) are available. Al else being equal, the economy condition given in (90)b, which dictates that the lower instance of ? must be deleted because that would be more economical given the presence of the unchecked structural Case feature. However, things are not equal here. The structure in (94) violates the Double-O Constraint. Therefore, it would not converge if the lower copy were deleted. The only way to obtain a convergent derivation would be to delete the higher link and apply the feature elimination mechanism to the unchecked feature caried by the lower copy. Since one of the two potentialy competing derivations crashes, no isue of comparison would arise for these two derivations. Turn to the non-double-o case, i.e. a case such as (92). Since no double-o structure can be involved in this instance, the option with deletion of the lower copy is convergent. The unaceptable backward subject control example would have a derivation like the following (irelevant expresions are omited): (95) Taro i- ga [Taro i -CASE +Inherent NOM syukudai-o Taro [Taro homework-Ac oe-ru-koto]-o kesinsita finish-Prs-C koto -Ac decided ?Taro decided to finish the homework.? The lower copy, which has an unchecked structural Case feature, must undergo copy deletion, which gives a correct result. The deletion of the higher copy violates the economy condition. Hence, backward control is prohibited in cases like those, as desired. 5.3 A problem with backward control in clefting Recal that when assist-constructions were introduced in section 3, it was observed that cleft formation provides a way to avoid a violation of the Double-O Constraint: 197 (96) [Taro-ga John 1 -o e i tetudat-ta-no]-wa [Taro-Nom John-Ac assist-Past-C no ]-Top [? 1 oyog-u-no]-o i da [ swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Taro asisted John [to swim].? Note that the Harada style theory of Equi NP deletion is descriptively adequate in this respect, as he notes. Because the surface structure does not violate the Double-O Constraint (since the acusative-marked CP has evacuated the VP-domain), Counter Equi cannot apply. How is this exemption from the Double-O Constraint technicaly made possible under the present proposal? The theory of linearization of chains asumed here, together with our analytical asumptions about the relevant sort of control clauses, predicts that examples like (96) are gramatical. To se this, we need some concrete analysis of cleft constructions. Here Hiraiwa and Ishihara?s analysis is adopted, though I believe other analyses are compatible with my major point as long as the gap position and the focus element are chained (se Kizu 1997, Takano 2002, Koizumi 2000). Hiraiwa and Ishihara propose a derivation that involves remnant movement. A sample derivation for sentences like (97) proceds as in (98) (we use traces for convenience): (97) [Hiroshi-ga ata-no]-wa Mary-to da [Hiroshi-Nom met-Past-C no ]-Top Mary-with Cop ?It is with Mary that Hiroshi met.? 198 (98) In the derivation, focus movement (of the P) is followed by topic movement (of the FinP). This yields the correct surface linear order FinP-wa P-da in the case at hand. Asuming the Hiraiwa and Ishihara style derivation of cleft constructions and the movement analysis of the backward object control construction, the analysis of cleft forward control examples such as (96) involves two instances of remnant movement. As represented in (99) with English word-by-word translations and head initial linear order, the complement clause and the FinP undergo remnant movement (we use traces for expository purposes here): (99) a. the matrix VP is built [ VP asist [ CP [ TP John i T? swim]] b. movement of John to the Spec,VP -> [ VP John i asist [ CP [ TP t i T? swim]] 199 c. building the structure up to FocP -> [ FocP Foc? [ FinP Fin? [ TP Hiroshi v? [ VP John i asist [ CP [ TP t i T? swim]]] d. movement of the complement clause to the Spec,FocP-> [ TopP Top? [ FocP [ CP [ TP t i T swim] j Foc? [ FinP Fin? [ TP Hiroshi ?v [ VP t i asist t j ]]] e. movement of the FinP to the Spec,TopP-> [ TopP [ FinP Fin? [ TP Hiroshi v [ VP t i asist t j ]] k Top? [ FocP [ CP [ TP John i T? swim] j Foc? t k ] This derivation gives rise to thre chains, namely the chains created by movement of John, the complement CP and the FinP (vP internal subjects are abstracted away): (100) a. CH1: John i , John i b. CH2: [ CP John swim] j , [ CP John swim] j c. CH3: [ FinP Hiroshi asisted CP] k , [ FinP Hiroshi asisted CP] k Now the isue becomes how these chains can be made to undergo Chain Reduction to obtain empiricaly corect results. Nunes (2004: 50-62) has already presented a proposal on how Chain Reduction works for remnant movement in his system. Following Chomsky?s (1995) suggestion, Nunes observes that remnant movement examples can be acounted for straightforwardly if we think of chain links as occurrences of their sisters. To se how, take the derivation for the simple cleft construction given in (97). The chains involved there have to be represented as in (101), rather than as in (102): (101) a. CH1: ([ P Mary with] i , Foc?), ([ P Mary with] i , met k ) b. CH2: ([ FinP John [Mary with] i met k ] j , Top?), ([ FinP John [ P Mary with] i met k ] j , Fin) (102) a. CH1: [ P Mary with] i , [ P Mary with] i b. CH1: [ FinP John [Mary with] i met k ] j , [ FinP John [Mary with] i met k ] j 200 Now CH1 and CH2 in (101) undergo Chain Reduction. Asuming that movement to Spec,FocP and movement to Spec,TopP both involve feature checking, highest copies should survive deletion. It should be noted that there is no reason to think that the two applications of Chain Reduction are specificaly ordered. Consider first the case in which CH1 undergoes reduction. What must be deleted in this case is the sister of the verb met k . Notice that, as Nunes observes, the tre contains two occurrences of that element. One is in the lower copy of the FinP, and the other is in the higher copy of the same phrase. Nunes?s point is that these two are indistinguishable (because two instances of met k are nondistinct.). Therefore, both the P in the lower link of CH1 and the P in the upper link of CH2 in (101) undergo Chain Reduction. The result is as follows: (103) Then the surface form is obtained by applying Chain Reduction to CH2, which deletes the lower copy of the FinP. The desired linear order ensues. If, on the other hand, reduction of CH2 precedes that of CH1, the lower FinP is deleted first, and then the P inside the fronted FinP is deleted. Thus, the same (correct) result follows in either way for the cleft sentence in (97), repeated as (104): 201 (104) [Hiroshi-ga ata-no]-wa Mary-to da [Hiroshi-Nom met-Past-C no ]-Top Mary-with Cop ?It is with Mary that Hiroshi met.? Having sen how the Nunes style theory of linearization works for remnant movement, we are now in a position to explain the fact that forward control becomes possible in the target example presented in (96) (=(105)): (105) [Taro-ga John-o tetudat k -ta-no] i -wa [Taro-Nom John-Ac assist-Past-C no ]-Top [ CP ? oyog-u-no] j -o da [ swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop.Prs ?Taro asisted John [to swim].? The chains we are going to consider are represented as follows: (106) a. CH1: (John, V?), (John, T?) b. CH2: ([ CP John swim] j , Foc?), ([ CP John swim] j , asist k ) c. CH3: ([ FinP Hiroshi asisted CP] k , Top?), ([ FinP Hiroshi asisted CP] i , Foc?) There are six ways of reducing these thre chains, depending on how the thre applications of the rule are ordered: CH1-CH2-CH3, CH1-CH3-CH2, CH2-CH1-CH3, CH2-CH3-CH1, CH3-CH1-CH1, and CH3-CH2-CH1. What makes things diferent is the order of reduction of CH1 and CH3. The liner order sen in (105) follows if application of the rule to CH3 precedes application of the rule to CH1. Reduction of CH3 deletes the sister of tetudaw k ?asist?. (No economy isue arises because higher link deletion would lead to a double-o violation.) This gives rise to the tre given in (107), where occurrences of John are numbered exclusively for ease of reference: 202 (107) Since the CP in the fronted FinP and the CP in the FinP in-situ are ?the same? thing, both get deleted, which is represented in gray font in the picture above. The key is that when reduction of CH1 is performed, no configuration that violates the Double-O Constraint is found anymore. Reduction of CH3 bleds higher link deletion for CH1. Notice the constraint exhibits its efect when two occurrences of NPs marked with -o are dominated by the VP node, as Harada observes. In the tre in (107), the VP headed by tetudaw ?asist? does not contain two acusative phrases because one of them is deleted. Given this, Chan Reduction for CH1 must apply in such a way that upper link, namely (John 4 , V?) survives deletion since it is in a structural Case position. The system predicts that the copy in the complement subject, (John 3 , T?), must be deleted: 203 (108) As the final step, reduction of CH2 wipes out the lower copy of the FinP. Note that where CH2 is reduced in the thre steps does not afect the outcome. Whenever CH3 undergoes reduction before CH1 does, the absence of violation of the Double-O Constraint in the structure forces forward control. This Nunes style approach to cleft sentences derived from object control base structures not only captures the aceptability of a cleft example involving forward control (such as (105)), but it makes another prediction. Suppose that CH1 undergoes Chain Reduction before CH2 or CH3. Notice that, as we implicitly asumed above, the Double-O Constraint must prevent Chain Reduction from targeting the lower link of the chain, i.e. (John, T?). This is precisely because, as Nunes stresed (2004: 50-51), the structure is evaluated in a strictly local fashion; which link of CH1 is to be deleted is determined solely by looking at the result of the application of Chain Reduction to that very chain. To put it diferently, the system does not alow the upper link of CH1 to be deleted, anticipating a double-o violation in a later stage. 204 Also, Nunes?s proposal implies that when two chains or more are present in the structure, they cannot get reduced simultaneously. If chains are reduced one by one and if evaluation of the output is local, (109) is obtained after CH1 is reduced: (109) Since the chain link (John, V?) undergoes deletion, John 1 and John 4 are wiped out in the tre. Nothing special happens with reduction of CH2 and CH3. The upper link of each chain gets pronounced, regardles of which chain is reduced first. Given these steps of Chain Reduction, it is predicted that a backward control structure should be available even when the complement clause undergoes clefting. Strikingly enough, the prediction is correct, despite the fact that no double-o configuration is found in the surface structure: 205 (110) [Hiroshi-ga ? i tetudat-ta-no]-wa [ CP John i -ga [Hiroshi-Nom assist-Past-C no -Top [ John-Nom oyog-u-no]-o da swim-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?Hiroshi asisted John to swim.? (Recal that forward control is also possible as in (96), where we argued that the CP is deleted first.) Thus, our proposal nicely acounts for the fact that backward control is possible with clefting, although the later proces removes a surface double-o violation. In fact, the state of afairs at isue sems to be where Harada?s innovative proposal of Counter Equi runs into a descriptive problem. Recal that his Counter Equi is formulated in such a way that Counter Equi applies if and only if the surface structure would result in a double-o configuration with Straight Equi. 24 Note however that example (110) would not exhibit a double-o violation even if Straight Equi had been applied. Nonetheles, backward control is stil possible. It should be stresed that, in the proposed system, the computational system does not look at a surface structure. Upper link deletion takes place if and only if the outcome of that operation would violate the Double-O Constraint. One other aspect that makes the present proposal distinct from the Counter Equi analysis is that cleft chains interact with control chains in terms of copy deletion under the copy theory of movement. Crucialy, this theory of movement, together with the movement-based theory of control, enables us to have the ?traces? created by cleft formation and ?Equi NPs? subject to the same principle of linearization of chains. As noted in footnote 10, Bo?kovi? (2002) and Franks (1998) show that in multiple wh-questions of multiple wh-fronting languages like Serbo-Croatian, the ban on adjacent homophonous wh- phases leads to pronunciation of lower links of A-bar chains. The null hypothesis is 24 This is not so in Kuroda?s theory of Counter Equi. Kuroda weakens the condition for application of Counter Equi by proposing that the higher Equi NP undergoes deletion only if (rather than if and only if) a putative double-o environment arises at a surface structure. By this modification, Straight Equi becomes a rule that can freely apply even when a double-o violation would arise. Although his major concern was not about examples like (110), his theory successfuly rules in this type of examples. 206 that A- and A-bar chains are treated in the same way with regard to chain reduction. The result here provides empirical evidence for that position. 6 Notes on Circumstantial Adverbial Tokoro-Clause Constructions 6.1 Tokoro-clauses As Polinsky and Potsdam note (p. 261, fn 15), the circumstantial adverbial tokoro- clause construction in Japanese (tokoro-clause construction, hereafter) is one of the first phenomena discussed in the generative literature with relevance to backward control. 25 26 Harada (1973) analyzes circumstantial tokoro-clause constructions in Japanese, exemplified by (111), in terms of ?Counter Equi NP deletion?: (111) keikan-wa [doroboo-ga nigeteiku-tokoro]-o policeman-Top [burglar-Nom escape go-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac tukamaeta caught ?A burglar was about to run away, and then the policeman caught him.? 25 Most studies of tokoro-clauses are done in the 70?s. See Nakau 1973: I01ff. 131, Harada 1973, 1975, Kuroda 1976-7, 1978, 199, Josephs 1976: 345ff., Ohso 1976: chapter 2, Hale and Kitagawa 1976-7, Mihara 194: 249, Kitagawa 196, Shimoyama 199, Fuji 204, Narita 206. 26 A basic meaning of the nominal expression tokoro sems to be ?location?, as is seen in: (i) Mary-wa [boku-ga it-ta {tokoro/basyo}]-ni it-ta Mary-Top [I-Nom go-Past TOKORO/place]-to go-Past ?Mary went to the place I went to.? Having undergone grammticalization (see Ohori 201), tokoro has at least two interesting uses. One of them occurs in a circumstantial adverbial clause construction such as (11) in the text. The other use can be seen with perception predicates such as see (Nakau 1973: 131, Josephs 1976, Kuroda 199b): (ii) keikan-wa [dorobo-ga nigeteiku-tokoro]-o kansatusita policeman-Top [burglar-Nom escape go-Prs-TOKORO]-Acc watched ?The policeman watched the burglar runing away.? As Kuroda (199b) observes, tokoro-clauses of the latter sort can undergo passivization, while circumstantial adverbial clauses like the one in (11) cannot. We wil limit our discusion to the circumstantial adverbial use of tokoro-clauses. 207 Harada (1973) proposes that, observing that the subject of the tokoro-clause thematicaly behaves like the object of the higher verb, these two NPs stand in the relation of Equi NP. Semanticaly, the clause behaves like an adverbial, as indicated in the English translation. In other words, the circumstantial adverbial tokoro-clause does not sem to be theta marked by the matrix verb. 27 As is clear from the paradigm presented below, the construction behaves quite similar to the assist-construction we have been thus far discussing. It (at least apparently) alows some backward configuration (112)a), exhibits a double-o efect (112)b), and can avoid the violation with clefting (112)c): 27 Tokoro-clauses share some properties with Romance pseudo-relatives (see Cinque 196, Kayne 1975, Guasti 193, Taraldsen 1984 for different analyses). First, they may appear both with verbs like catch, which does not select a clausal complement and with perception verbs, which may take a clausal complement (see footnote 26). The Italian examples in (i) and (ii) are from Cinque (196): (i) Ho visto Gianni [che correva] I saw Gianni that was runing (ii) Hanno colto Mario [che rubava negli spogliatoi] They caught M. that was stealing in the dressing-room Also, Cinque pointed out sentences like (i) are ambiguous between when Mario is the subject of the small clause complement selected by see and when Mario is the direct object of the verb. The same kind of ambiguity is observed for tokoro-clauses occurring with perception predicates by Kuroda (199b). It is interesting to note that pseudo-relatives involve OC; they exhibit the subject-object asymmetry, as authors cited above observe. A French example (from Kanye 1975) is given below: (ii) * Je l i ?ai vu que Jean grappait e i ?I saw him i Jean hiting e i .? This folows if Cinque (196) is right that the gap of pseudo-relatives is PRO (in standard GB terms). Given this, one would be tempted to analyze circumstantial adverbial tokoro-clause constructions as an OC construction, as Harada did. However, the latter do not exhibit this asymmetry, as shown in the text. 208 (112) a. keikan-wa ? i [doroboo i -ga nige-te policeman-Top [burglar-Nom to.run away iku-tokoro]-o tukamaeta go-Prs-TOKORO-Ac caught ?A burglar was about to run away, and then the policeman caught him.? b. * keikan-wa doroboo i -o [? i nige-te policeman-Top burglar-Ac [ to.run away iku-tokoro]-o tukamaeta go-Prs-TOKORO-Ac caught ?A burglar was about to run away, and then the policeman caught him.? c. [keikan-ga doroboo i -o e j tukamaeta-no]-wa [policeman-Top burglar-Ac caught-C no ]-Top [? i nige-te iku-tokoro]-o j da [ to.run away go-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac Cop ?A burglar was about to run away, and then the policeman caught him.? A Harada/Kuroda type analysis of the backward construction says that, as shown in (113) below, when an NP is ?coreferential? with the subject of the lower clause, Counter Equi NP deletion, unlike regular Equi, may target the NP in the higher clause for deletion: (113) keikan-wa doroboo-o [ S doroboo-ga policeman-Top burglar-Ac [ burglar-Nom nigeteiku-tokoro]-o tukamaeta escape go-Prs-TOKORO-Ac caught It is not dificult to translate this traditional analysis to the framework where our analysis of the assist-construction is given. One potential diference betwen the tokoro-clause construction and the assist-construction lies in the nature of the clause that hosts the backward controller or the forward controlle. If the no-clause of the assist-construction is the complement of verbs of the assist-type, the tokoro-clause of 209 the circumstantial adverbial construction is diferent from the no-clause in that it functions as a VP-adjunct at surface structure at least. (Harada 1973, Kuroda 1978, 1999b). 28 If so, and if we asume binary-branching structures, then we might say that the tokoro-clause construction has a structure of the following kind: (114) Analyticaly speaking, a coherent movement-based analysis may be given. The derivation would go as follows: First. the tokoro-clause is formed. Asume, folowing Nunes (2004), that it is possible to apply Copy to the subject of the tokoro-clause, ?. Then nothing prevents the new copy from merging into the ?-position discharged by the V (sideward movement). 29 Under Nunes?s theory (se Nunes 2004: 91), the ? in the complement of V has to move to a higher position from which it c-commands the subject position of the adverbial clause and the direct object position. (Se also Hornstein 2001 for a theory of sideward movement that does not require the last step.) The aim of this section is very limited. Instead of giving an analysis to the tokoro- clause construction, I wil show two things: (i) the data we wil present suggest that 28 As an aside, two different structures have been proposed for tokoro-clauses in the literature: (i) a. [ S NP [ VP NP i [ Adv NP i ? TOKORO] V] T] b. [ S NP [ VP [ NP NP i [ S NP i ? TOKORO]] [ Adv e] V] T] ? [ S NP [ VP [ NP NP i t k ] [ Adv [ S NP i ? TOKORO] k ] V] T] In structure (ia), the matrix object, NP i , is in the regular direct object position, and the tokoro- clause is generated inside the VP, as an adverbial. This is the structure proposed by Harada (1973) for sentences like (113). In structure (ib), which is entertained by Kuroda (1978, 199b), the tokoro-clause is adjoined to the direct object NP as if it is some sort of relative clause. In Kuroda?s analysis, the tokoro-clause moves to an adverbial position from the NP. 29 See also Bobaljik 195, Uriagereka 198: chapter 4, and Hornstein 201 for sideward movement. 210 the tokoro-clause construction is not an obligatory control construction; but (i) some of its properties suggest that the construction cannot be a simple pro-construction, either (se Ohso 1976, Hale and Kitagawa 1976-77 for relevant discussion). And I wil suggest a possible reason why the tokoro-clause construction cannot participate in OC, asuming that sideward movement mentioned above is possible. 6.2 Tokoro-clause ? obligatory control construction The arguments that the tokoro-clause construction is not an OC construction are partly similar to the ones we constructed in section 4.3 that the head-internal relative construction has nothing to do with OC. Take first a subject/non-subject asymmetry. As was sen in (78), control into a non-subject position is prohibited. The tokoro-clause construction sems to fail to exhibit the asymmetry, whether in its forward or backward form, as in (115): (115) a. keikan-wa ? i [tuukoonin-ga doroboo i -o policeman-Top [passer-by-Nom burglar-Ac torikakon-dei-ru-tokoro]-o tukamaeta surround-Prog-Prs-TOKORO-]Ac caught ?Pasers-by were surrounding the burglar, and then the policeman caught him.? b. [keikan-wa doroboo i -o tukamaeta-no]-wa [policeman-Top burglar-Ac caught-C no ]-Top [tuukoonin-ga ? i torikakon-dei-ru-tokoro]-o da [passer-by-Nom surround-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac Cop ?Pasers-by were surrounding the burglar, and then the policeman caught him.? 211 (116) a. Mary-wa ? i [gunsyuu-ga sono kasyu i -ni akusyu-o Mary-Top [crowd-Nom the singer-Dat shaking.hands-Ac motome-tei-ru-tokoro]-ni hanataba-o tewatasi-ta ask for-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Dat bouquet-Ac pass-Past ?The crowds were trying to shake hands with the singer, and Mary pased her a bouquet.? In the backward example, (115)a, it appears that the null element ? in the matrix clause corefers to the direct object in the subordinate tokoro-clause. In the forward example, (115)b, ? in the embedded object position corefers to the matrix object burglar. The data point in question can be made clearer, using object honorifics: (117) Mary-wa ? i [kansyuu-ga Suzuki-sensei i -ni akusyu-o Mary-Top [crowd-Nom Suzuki-sensei-Dat shake hands-Ac motome-tei-ru-tokoro]-ni hanataba-o owatasisi-ta ask for-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Dat bouquet-Ac pass.ObjHon-Past ?The crowds were trying to shake hands with Suzuki-sensei i , and Mary pased him i a bouquet.? Here the matrix predicate bears object honorific morphology. The object-honorific form of pass requires the interpretation that the speaker of the sentence respects the referent of the Goal argument of the pasing event in question; se Harada 1976, Boeckx and Ninuma 2002. The sentence is aceptable under the reading in which Mary pased a bouquet to Profesor Suzuki. A dependency over the subordinate clause subject like those found in these examples is not permited in OC constructions, while it is in the tokoro-clause construction. Therefore, this indicates that no OC is involved in the tokoro-clause construction. Second, it sems that a long distance referential dependency is permited in the tokoro-clause construction. Both the putative backward controller (as in (118)a) and the putative forward controlle (as in (118)b) can be embedded inside the clausal complement of the predicate of the tokoro-clause: 212 (118) a. yakuza-wa [terorisuto-ga [hitoziti-ga kega-o yakuza-Top [terorists-Nom [hostage-Nom injury-Ac si-tei-na-i-koto]-o kakuninsi-ta-tokoro]-o kyuusyutusita do-Asp-Neg-Prs-C koto ]-Ac make.sure-Past-TOKORO]-Acc saved ?The terorist made sure that the hostages were not injured, and then the yakuzas saved them.? (backward tokoro-clause) b. [yakuza-ga hitoziti i -o kyuusyutusita-no]-wa [terorisuto-ga [yakuza-Nom hostage-Ac saved-C no ]-Top [terorists-Nom [? i kega-o si-tei-na-i-koto]-o kakuninsita-tokoro]-o da [ injury-Acc do-Asp-Neg-Prs-C koto ]-Ac made sure-TOKORO]-Ac Cop ?The yakuzas saved the hostages, which happened just when the terorist made sure that they were not injured.? (forward tokoro-clause +clefting) Abstracting away from clefting, (118)a and (118)b are represented as in (119)a and (119)a, respectively, using English words: (119) a. yakuza-Top ? i [ tokoro-clause terorists-Nom [ CP hostages i -Nom are.injured- C]-Ac made.sure-tokoro]-Ac saved (backward) b. yakuza-Top hostages i -Ac [ tokoro-clause terorists-Nom [ CP ? i are.injured- C]-Ac made.sure-tokoro]-Ac saved (forward) These examples are aceptable in contrast with the corresponding assist- constructions: 213 (120) a. * yakuza-wa ? i [terorisuto-ga [hitoziti i -ga kega-o yakuza-Top [terorists-Nom [hostage-Nom injury-Ac si-tei-na-i-koto]-o kakuninsu-ru-no]-o tetudata do-Asp-Neg-Prs-C koto ]-Ac make sure-Prs-C no -Ac assisted ?The yakuzas asisted the hostages for the terorists to make sure that they were not injured.? b. * [yakuza-ga hitoziti i -o tetudata-no]-wa [terorisuto-ga [yakuza-Nom hostage-Ac assisted-C no ]-Top [terorists-Nom kega-o si-tei-na-i-koto]-o kakuninsu-ru-no]-o da injury-Ac do-Asp-Neg-Prs-C koto ]-Ac make sure-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop ?The yakuzas asisted the hostages, which is for the terorists to make sure that they were not injured.? Thus, we conclude that the referential dependency found in tokoro-clause constructions is les constrained than the one found in obligatory control. One might conclude that null arguments occurring in this construction are pro. We wil se however that the state of afairs is not that simple. 30 6.3 Some non-pro properties Perplexingly enough, though we observed that the tokoro-clause construction displays non-control properties, it sometime behaves as if it were a control construction. As is familiar from the literature on this construction, the choice of the antecedent for ? is not fre as that of litle pro. So the claim that the properties of the tokoro-clause construction follow from pronominalization and the Double-O Constraint (just taken to be a surface constraint) is untenable at least in its simplest form (cf. Ohso 1976, Hale and Kitagawa 1976-77). First, in typical cases, when there is no referential dependency betwen arguments across a tokoro-clause boundary, no aceptable sentences are obtained, as in (121)a. 30 As the reader might have noticed, we have not examined yet whether the tokoro-clause construction respects the c-command condition that OC constructions respect. See the subsequent section, where it is shown that the subject position of tokoro-clauses does not have to be c-commanded by a coindexed argument in their superordinate clause. 214 No such restriction is found with temporal adverbial clauses like the one presented in (121)b: (121) a. * [keikan-ga doroboo-o e i tukamaeta-no]-wa [policeman-Nom burglar-Ac caught-C no ]-Top [ginkooin-ga tasuke-o motome-tei-ru-tokoro]-o i data [bank clerk-Nom help-Ac call for-Prog-Prs-tokoro]-Ac Cop.Past ?The policeman caught the burglar, which was at the moment a bank clerk was caling for help.? b. [keikan-ga doroboo-o taihosita-no]-wa [policemen-Nom burglar-Ac arrested-C no ]-Top [ginkooin-ga tasuke-o motometa sono toki] data [bank clerk-Nom help-Ac called.for that time] Cop.Past ?The policeman caught the burglar, which was at the very moment that a bank clerk was caling for help.? One might relate this coreference requirement to a similar efect found in some instances of obligatory control construction (cf. *John persuaded Mary for you to leave), though such an atempt does not fit with non-OC properties of the tokoro- clause construction observed in the previous subsection. Next, the fact that the circumstantial tokoro-clause does not alow a strict interpretation under elipsis makes the construction look like an OC construction. Note that forward tokoro-constructions do not alow a sloppy reading: (122) A. [Mary-ga kyoo John i -ni dekuwasita-no]-wa [Mary-Nom today John-Dat encountered-C no ]-Top [? i tabako-o sutteiru-tokoro]-ni da [ cigarete-Ac is.smoking-TOKORO]-Dat Cop ?Mary encountered John today, which is when he was smoking a cigarete.? 215 B: Bil-ni-mo desu Bil-Dat-even Cop ?Bil, too.? The utterance B cannot mean that Mary encountered Bil, too, when John was smoking a cigarete. The backward variant of (122) behaves the same: (123) A. Mary-wa ? i kyoo [John i -ga tabako-o Mary-Top today [John-Nom cigarete-Ac sutteiru-tokoro]-ni dekuwasita is.smoking-TOKORO]-Dat encountered ?Today, when John was smoking a cigarete, Mary encountered him.? B: [Bil-ga tabako-o sutteiru-tokoro]-ni-mo da [John-Nom cigarete-Ac is.smoking-TOKORO]-Dat-even Cop ?When Bil was smoking, too.? Uterance B can only receive a sloppy interpretation, as indicated by the translation. Under the hypothesis that obligatory control is involved in the circumstantial tokoro clause, these results are expected. 31 Another OC-dagnostic property found with the tokoro-clause construction is that, in most cases, a putative forward controller must be a gramatical object of the clause next higher. The construction looks like an object control construction. When the controller is placed in subject position, for instance, as in (124)a, the sentence is remarkably degraded. (124)b shows that the adverbial the time clause, unlike a tokoro-clause, does not require a selective antecedent for its null subject: 31 Based on Hoji (190), I analyze ellipsis involved in (123)B as striping. 216 (124) a. [doroboo i -ga keikan j -o tukitobasita-no]-wa [burglar-Nom policeman-Ac pushed away-C no ]-Top [? *i/j nige-yootositeiru-tokoro]-o da [ run.away-is.about.to-TOKORO]-Ac Cop ?The burglar pushes away a policeman, which was the moment that {*the burglar, the policeman} was about to run away.? b. [doroboo i -ga keikan j -o tukitobasita-no]-wa [burglar-Nom policeman-Ac pushed away-C no ]-Top [? i/j nige-yootositeiru sono toki] da [ run.away-is.about.to that time] Cop ?The burglar pushes away a policeman, which was at the very moment {the burglar, the policeman} was about to run away.? For the backward tokoro-construction, a minimal pair is not easy to construct. In the example in (125)b, the lexical subject of the that time-clause is intended to bind backward the null subject of the clause modified by that adverbial clause. The example is degraded, probably due to Condition C (via reconstruction). Nevertheles, I found the tokoro-clause example in (125)a much worse than that example: (125) a. * [? i keikan-o tukitobasita-no]-wa [zensokuryoku-de [ keikan-Ac pushed away-C no ]-Top [at full speed sono doroboo i -ga nige-yootositeiru-tokoro]-o da that burglar-Nom is about to run away-C no ]-Ac Cop ?He pushed away the policeman, which was the moment the burglar was trying to run away at full speed.? b. ? [? i keikan-o tukitobasita-no]-wa [zensokuryoku-de [ keikan-Ac pushed away-C no ]-Top [at full speed sono doroboo i -ga nige-yootositeiru sono toki] da that burglar-Nom is about to run away that time] Cop ?He pushed away the policeman, which was at the very moment {the burglar, the policeman} was trying to run away at full speed.? 217 Thus, it sems that the unaceptable (125)a violates some gramatical condition that is diferent from what we cal a Condition C violation here. If the tokoro-clause construction were an object control construction, this would not be surprising. Having sen that the subject position of a tokoro-clause cannot be linked up to the subject position of the superordinate clause in forward and backward constructions, let us examine necesity of c-command. The observation we wil make below is that the tokoro-clause construction, unlike OC constructions, does not respect the c- command condition. Neither the putative forward controller (cf. (126)a) nor the putative backward controlle (cf. (126)b) needs to c-command the subject position of the tokoro-clause: (126) a. [ NP NP i ? ] ? [ tokoro-clause ? i ? (forward) b. [ NP ? i ? ] ? [ tokoro-clause NP i ? (backward) Let us consider concrete examples blow: (127) a. [keikan-ga [doroboo i -no kata]-ni tamago-o [policeman-Nom [burglar-Gen shoulder]-Dat egg-Ac nageta-no]-wa [? i zenryoku-de nige-yoo-to-su-ru-tokoro]-ni threw-C no ]-Top [ at full speed run away-Mood-C-do-Prs-TOKORO]-Dat data Cop.Past ?A burglar was about to run away at full speed, and then the policeman threw an egg to his shoulder.? b. * [doroboo i -no kata]-ga zenryoku-de nige-yoo-to-si-ta [burglar-Gen shoulder]-Nom at full speed run away-Mood-C-do-Past ?The burglar?s shoulder was about to run away at full speed.? 218 (128) [keikan-ga [? i kata]-ni tamago-o nageta-no]-wa [policeman-Nom [ shoulder]-Dat egg-Ac threw-C no ]-Top [sono doroboo i -ga zenryoku-de nige-yoo-to [the burglar-Nom at full speed run away-Mood-C su-ru-tokoro]-ni data do-Prs-TOKORO-Dat] Cop.Past ?That burglar i was about to run away at full speed, and then the policeman threw an egg to his i shoulder.? The aceptability of the forward construction in (127)a and the backward construction in (128) provides initial support for the claim that c-command is not required in tokoro-clause constructions. Note, though, that, in these examples, the larger noun phrases that contain the forward antecedent or the backward dependent element are al headed by an inalienable possesion expresion, namely, kata ?shoulder?. In fact, it is sometimes argued that inalienable possesion noun phrases are transparent for A- movement or ?-role asignment in the literature (Kikuchi 1994, Laudau 1999, Fuji 2000, Hiraiwa 2001; cf. Kuroda 1978, 1999b, Cheng and Riter 1988, Yoon 1989). Given that the possibility that the possesor in these examples might actualy c- command the downstairs subject somehow, the test under consideration should use ordinary NPs The following example provides such a case. Here the putative backward controlle is embedded in the larger NP headed by an animate noun phrase: (129) [Blasie-ga [? sekondo]-o nagurituketa-no]-wa [Blassie-Top [ handler]-Ac hit-C no ]-Top [Destroyer-ga ringu-de sawai-deiru-tokoro]-o [The Destroyer-Nom in the ring make noise-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac data Cop.Past ?Blasie hit The Destroyer?s handler, which was the moment he was screaming in the ring.? 219 Given the coreference condition discussed above, the superordinate clause needs a null argument that corefers to the subject of the tokoro-clause for the sentence to be gramatical. Unfortunately, the judgment is not clear. So we cannot draw a conclusion with regard to c-command, based on examples like this. On the other hand, the forward example in (130) sems to be aceptable and have the interpretation: The Destroyer screamed in the ring and his handler did not. That is the interpretation that should be obtained when the non-commanding genitive NP is coindexed with the null subject of the tokoro-clause: (130) [Blasie-ga [Destroyer-no sekondo]-o nagurituketa-no]-wa [Blassie-Top [The Destroyer?s handler]-Ac hit-C no ]-Top [? ringu-de sawai-deiru-tokoro]-o data [ in the ring make noise-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac Cop.Past ?Blasie hit Backglund?s handler, which was at the moment he was screaming in the ring.? If the null subject of the tokoro-clause can be coindexed with the genitive NP, it should be possible that (130) can be followed by the statement in (131) without yielding a contradiction: (131) sekondo zitai-wa sawaideinakata handler itself-Cont was not screaming ?The handler himself was not screaming.? This continuation sems to be alowed. When (130) is followed by the statement ?Neither The Destroyer nor his handler was screaming,? then it is clearly judged as contradictory. Based on this observation, we conclude that at least in the forward tokoro-clause construction, ? does not have to be c-commanded by its antecedent. 32 32 Notice that the data do not necessarily imply that the tokoro-clause construction does not require any kind of binding relation between ? and its antecedent. There are cases where bound variable binding is established under the structural relation which Hornstein (195: 220 Finaly, we briefly look at examples where the matrix theme position is coreferential with the genitive position of the tokoro-clause subject: (132) a. [keikan-ga doroboo i -o taihosita-no]-wa [ [? i te]-ga [policeman-Top burglar-Ac arrested-C no ]-Top [ hand-Nom kinko-ni hure-ta-tokoro]-o da safe-Dat touch-Past-TOKORO]-Ac Cop ?The policeman arested the burglar, which was at the moment his hand touched the safe? b. keikan-wa ? i [doroboo i -no te]-ga kinko-ni policeman-Top [burglar-Gen hand-Nom safet-Dat hure-ta-tokoro]-o taihosita touch-Past-TOKORO]-Ac arrested ?The burglar?s hand touched the safe, and then the policeman arested him.? chapter 6) calls ?almost c-command?, such as (i) (originally pointed out by Reinhart 1983; cf. Lasnik 1976): (i) No one i ?s mother kised him i Norbert Hornstein (personal communication) observes that ?almost c-command? does not license OC: (ii) a. * No one i ?s mother wants PRO i to kis Naomi b. No one i ?s mother wants him i to kis Naomi This ?almost c-command? might be the licensing condition for the dependency for the tokoro- clause construction: (ii) [Blassie-ga [[Destroyer-no yokoni i-ru] sekondo]-o nagurituketa-no]-wa [Blasie-Top [The Destroyer?s side-in exist-Prs] handler]-Ac hit-C no ]-Top [? ringu-de sawai-deiru-tokoro]-o datta [ in the ring make noise-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac Cop.Past ?Blassie hit the handler who was standing next to The Destroyer, which was at the moment he was screaming in the ring.? The interpretation where The Destroyer (semantically) binds ? seems to be harder in (ii) than in (130). 221 (133) a. Blasie-wa Destroyer i -o [? i sekondo]-ga ringu-de Blassie-Top The Destroyer-Ac [ handler]-Nom in the ring sawai-deiru-tokoro]-o nagurituketa make noise-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac hit ?His handler was screaming in the ring, and then Blasie hit him.? b. Blasie-wa ? i [Destroyer i -no sekondo]-ga ringu-de Blassie-Top [The Destroyer?s handler]-Nom in the ring sawai-deiru-tokoro]-o nagurituketa make.noise-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac hit ?Backglund?s handler was screaming in the ring, and then Blasie hit him.? These sentences are al aceptable under their intended interpretations. The availability of the indicated interpretation of (133)b is confirmed by the fact that the sentence can be uttered truthfully when the statement ?Blasie didn?t hit the handler? is true. If the observations made about the tokoro-clause construction so far are correct, the next task wil be as follows: First, we want to explain why backward obligatory control does not obtain in this construction. Second, we want to give an analysis of the construction that covers the observed data. As mentioned at the beginning of section 6, I am only able to give an answer to the first question, leaving the second question for future research. 3 Consider again the derivation discussed in (114): 3 The state of affairs sugests that a chain, which must not be a control (or A-)chain, is involved in the tokoro-clause construction, and Chain Reduction manipulates it. Otherwise, it would be mysterious why it behaves the same way as the asist-construction with respect to chain reduction (see (112) (see Harada 1973, Kuroda 1978, 199b for the relevant data). So I am lead to assume that tokoro-clauses involve some kind of A-bar movement that, which moves an internal head to the edge of the tokoro-clause, and the top copy of the chain is deleted to avoid a double-o violation. 222 (134) Recal that in section 5.2, I argued that the no-clause of the assist-construction does not have a structuraly Case-marked subject (se chapter 2 for full discussion). The subject position can be only inherently Case-marked. This proposal was tied to the tense of the embedded clause. In the assist-construction (and other obligatory control constructions in Japanese), embedded predicates never alow present-past alternation. This defective nature of the tense of the no-complement clause correlates with the defective nature of the Case of T, i.e. not being able to asign structural Case. If this is correct, the T of the tokoro-clause must be a structural Case asigner: (135) keikan-wa [doroboo-ga tatidomat-ta-tokoro]-o policeman-Top [burglar-Nom stop-Past-TOKORO]-Ac tukamaeta caught ?The burglar stopped, and then the policeman caught him.? If we asume that checking of the structural Case of a nominal makes the nominal inactive for A-movement (Chomsky 1995, Lasnik 1999: chap. 6, Chomsky 2000, 2001), it follows that A-movement of ? out of the tokoro-clause to the complement of VP is bared. Hence, obligatory control chains cannot be obtained, which explains why the tokoro-clause construction does not pas some diagnostic test of OC. 7 Notes on Backward Split Antecedence In chapter 3, it is observed that embedded imperative constructions, exemplified by (136)a, and embedded hortative constructions, exemplified by (136)b, behave diferently with respect to the possibility of split control: 223 (136) a. * Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni [? otagai-o sonkeesi-a-e-to] Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac respect-Recip-Imp-C] meireisita ordered ?Taro ordered Hiroshi to respect each other.? b. Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni [? otagai-o sonkeesi-a-oo-to] Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [ e.o.-Ac respect-Recip-YO-C] teiansita proposed ?Taro proposed to Hiroshi to respect each other.? While the imperative construction does not alow split control, the hortative one clearly does. In chapter 3, I proposed that conjoined subjects are involved in split control. The derivation proposed there is something like (137) (some ireverent details are omited): (137) [ vP ? i v [ VP ?+? say [ CP [ ModP ?+? Mood ? There is no movement that violates minimality in this derivation. As for the unaceptability of (136)b, an embedded imperative construction, I speculated that a structure obtained via the derivation in (137) cannot be interpreted as imperative. It is interesting to note here that neither assist-constructions nor tokoro-clause constructions involve mood such as the imperative or the exhortative in their embedded clauses. So if the analysis of split control is correct, This section tries to document the data concerning split antecedence in backward constructions including the assist-construction and the tokoro-clause construction. Before looking at forward constructions, it should be noted that the forward assist- construction does not alow split control. The judgment sems to be robust: 224 (138) * [Hiroshi i -ga Taro j -o e k zyamasita-no]-wa [Hiroshi-Nom Taro-Ac disrupted-C no ]-Top [? i+j otagai-o hihansi-a-u-no]-o k da [ e.o.-Ac criticize-Recip-Prs-C no ]-Ac Cop lit. ?Hiroshi i disrupted Taro j [? i+j from criticizing each other] k .? (138) is contrasted with (139), which shows that the null subject of the purpose yooni- construction supports split antecedents. (139) [Hiroshi i -ga Taro j -o e j zyamasita-no]-wa [Hiroshi-Nom Taro-Ac disrupted-C no ]-Top [? i+j otagai-o hihansi-a-e-ru-yooni] da [ e.o.-Ac criticize-Recip-can-Prs-C yoni ] Cop lit. ?Hiroshi i disrupted Taro j (from doing something) [so that ? i+j could criticize each other].? The fact that the sentence is aceptable is not surprising, because the null subject of purpose clauses, as we saw in section 4.2, constantly displays properties of pronouns. Before acounting for the absence of split control in the forward assist-construction, let us se the data concerning ?backward split antecedents?. The imediate isue here is what ?backward split control? would mean. If we mechanicaly replace the empty subject position in a forward construction with an overt expresion based on its interpretation and every relevant overt NP with ?, then a pair of sentences that have the following schema can be thought of: (140) a. ? i ? j [ CP [NP i -and NP j ]-Nom ? V-Prs-C No ] asisted Agent Theme Situation b. ? i ? j [ CP [NP i -and NP j ]-Nom ? V-can-Prs-C yoni ] asisted Agent Theme Purpose 225 (We are abstracting away from the existence of cases where the first and second conjuncts bear indices j and i respectively.) As can be sen from these schematic representations, we are dealing with examples of ?conjoined antecedents?, rather than ?split antecedents?. (141)a and (141)b would be examples that potentialy have ?conjoined antecedents?: (141) a. [Hiroshi-to Taro-ga otagai-o hihansi-a-u-no]-o [Hiroshi-and Taro-Nom e.o.-Ac criticize-Recip-Prs-C no ]-Ac zyamasita disrupted b. Hiroshi-to Taro-ga otagai-o hihansi-a-e-ru-yooni Hiroshi-and Taro-Nom e.o.-Ac Recip-Prs-C yoni zyamasita disrupted These two strings can be analyzed in many ways. For instance, the string in (141)b can mean that Hiroshi and Taro disrupted someone so that they could criticize each other. If we set aside irelevant interpretations like this, it sems impossible for (141)b to obtain the interpretation that is asociated with the structure (140)b. The same situation holds for (141)a. Note that the unaceptability of (141)a under the relevant interpretation does not tel us anything about split control in backward OC since a non-OC sentence like (141)b is also unaceptable. Backward examples of more interest would be a pair of sentences such as (142): (142) a. * Hiroshi-wa ? i+j [Taro i -ga Naomi j -o Hiroshi-Top [Taro-Nom Naomi-with hihansu-ru-no]-o sorezore tetudata criticize-Prs-C no ]-Ac each assisted lit. ?Hiroshi asisted Taro and Naomi each [Taro to criticize Naomi].? 226 b. Hiroshi-wa ? i+j [Taro i -ga Naomi j -to Hiroshi-Top [Taro-Nom Naomi-with hihansu-ru-yooni] sorezore tetudata criticize-Prs-C yoni ] each assisted lit. ?Hiroshi asisted Taro and Naomi each, [so that Taro would met with Naomi].? The adverb sorezore ?each? requires the presence of an expresion denoting a plural entity in the same sentence, as is sen in: (143) a. * Hiroshi-ga Toro-o sorezore tetudata Hiroshi-Nom Taro-Ac each assisted ?Hiroshi asisted Taro each.? b. Hiroshi-ga [Taro-to Naomi]-o sorezore tetudata Hiroshi-Nom [Taro-and Naomi]-Ac each assisted ?Hiroshi asisted Taro and Naomi each.? If the contrast betwen (142)a and (142)b paralels the contrast betwen (143)a and (143)b, it shows that ? in the backward assist-construction does not alow split backward control. Another example is added: (144) * Hiroshi-wa ? i+j [isya i -ga kanzya j -o katug-u-no]-o Hiroshi-Top [doctor-Nom patient-Ac lift-Prs-C no ]-Ac sorezore tetudata each assisted ?Hiroshi asisted a doctor i and a patient j each for the doctor i to lift the patient j .? This is acounted for by the proposal made in chapter 3. To obtain split control in backward control constructions, the derivation would proced as follows: 227 (145) [ VP __ asist [ CP NP i V NP j NP i + NP j The conjoined NPs are built via sideward movement (of NP i and/or of NP j ), and the complex structure moves into the object position. This derivation is prohibited under the proposed system, because the position of NP j in the embedded clause is a structural Case position, which prevents it from moving to begin with. Return to the unaceptability of (138). It poses a potential problem for the proposed analysis of split control constructions, which does not prevent the conjoined NPs start out as the complement subject of the assist-construction. I do not have a solution to this problem. As was aluded to above, the no-clause complement of assist/disrupt sems to lack a mood head. So I speculate that only mood heads can host conjoined NPs of the relevant sort in their specifier at this point. Before discussing split antecedence in the tokoro-clause construction, let us take a look at HIRC cases. As observed by Kuroda (1975-76/1992: 155) among others, the HIRC alows a split interpretation. example (146) is contrasted with example (144): (146) Hiroshi-wa ? i+j [isya i -ga kanzya j -o katui-de ik-u-no]-o Hiroshi-Top [doctor-Nom patient-Ac lifting go-Prs-NO]-Ac sorezore tetudata each assisted ?A doctor was carying along a patient, and then Hiroshi asisted that doctor i and that patient j each.? Note now that split antecedence is alowed with the backward tokoro-construction as easily as with the HIRC: 228 (147) Hiroshi-wa ? i+j [isya i -ga kanzya j -o katui-de Hiroshi-Top [doctor-Nom patient-Ac lifting ik-u-tokoro]-o sorezore tetudata go-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac each assisted ?A doctor was carying along a patient, and then Hiroshi asisted that doctor i and that patient j each.? The tokoro-clause construction, however, shows a somewhat complicated patern. While backward examples alow split antecedence, at least forward examples of the sort found in (148) do not sem to alow split antecedence. Example (149) is aceptable: (148) * [keikan i -ga Tamura j -o tukamaeta]-no-wa [? i+j [policeman-Nom Tamura-Ac caught-C no ]-Top [ (tamatama) zibun i+j -no ie-ni denwasi-yoo-to by accident self?s house-to call-Mood-C si-tei-ru-tokoro]-o da do-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac Cop ?Both the policeman and Tamura happened to be about to make a phone cal to their home, and then the policeman caught him.? (149) keisatu-wa ? i+j [Tamura i -ga yakuza j -to police-Top [Tamura-Nom yakuza-Ac hansi-tei-ru-tokoro]-o sorezore taihosita talk-Prog-Prs-TOKORO]-Ac each arrested ?Tamura i was talking with a yakuza j , and then the police rounded up both of them i+j each.? In fn 33, I suggested that tokoro-clauses involve some sort of A-bar movement of the internal head to its edge. Let me spel out the idea in mode detail here: (150) [ XP NP i [ XP [ S ? NP i ? ] tokoro] 229 I adopt Kuroda?s (1978) idea that a tokoro-clause is a kind of relative clause, whose relative head is adjoined to the tokoro-clause and that the ?head? of the tokoro-clause is asigned Case from the outside of the clause because of adjunction. The top copy of the created chain is deleted, so that the Double-O Constraint wil not be violated. This provides an acount of the fact that split antecedents are not alowed in the forward construction as in (148). The matrix subject policeman cannot originate inside the tokoro-clause. Then the data concerning backward spilt antecedents suggest that a derivation like the following is possible: (151) [ XP NP i +NP j [ XP [ S ? NP i ? NP j ?] tokoro] Two NPs move to the edge position, and the lowest links of the two chains undergo deletion. Split antecedents should not be possible, otherwise. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to examine the empirical validity of this analysis. 34 8 Conclusions This chapter argued that major properties of the Japanese backward object control construction follow from the movement theory of control and the theory of chain reduction incorporating a copy theory of movement proposed by Nunes (2004). The analysis proposed above cannot be instantiated unles obligatory control is reduced to movement into ?-position, just as prior movement-based analyses of backward control. The isue has been how to acount for where backward control is possible 34 Incidentally, it is sometimes argued that Japanese allows ?multiple-headed relative clauses? such as (i) (Takeda 199): (i) [[Taro-ga e i e j okuta] ronbun i -to syupansya j ]-o osie-te [[Taro-Nom sent] paper-and publisher]-Acc tell.me lit. Tell me the paper and the published that Taro sent to.? ?Tell me which paper Taro sent to which publisher.? See Takeda (199) for discusion of such a construction. 230 and where it is not. As reviewed above, Potsdam (2006) provides an acount of the fact that a Malagasy object control construction alows forward and backward control while al the English control constructions prevent backward control. He ties the possibility of backward control in Malagasy to the hypothesis that the language alows A-movement from Case position. Acording to Potsdam, the higher and the lower links have their Case checked, making these two links equaly legitimate targets for pronunciation. It was shown that this does not fit quite wel with Japanese backward control. This is so because backward control appears only when the Double-O Constraint is violated, as has been noted since Harada?s (1973) clasical work. The conclusion that tensed control clauses are nonfinite clauses, drawn in chapter 2, helps to resolve the tension. I argued there that structural Case for the subject is not available in those nonfinite clauses. If this is correct, then it is expected that a Japanese control construction must be forward one unles some condition for convergence is violated. The present discussion reveals that there are two types of backward control. One type is found in languages where multiple Case checking is alowed, if Potsdam is right. In this case, the controler choice is optional. The other type of backward control, as argued above, shows up only in languages that have a PF-constraint whose violation may prevent the option of higher link pronunciation. Importantly, backward control arises only in constructions that may yield a violation of such a constraint. The Double-O Constraint in Japanese is such a constraint. References Anand, Pranav, and Andrew Nevins (2004) Shifty operators in changing contexts. In K. Watanabe and R. B. Young (eds.) Procedings of SALT 14. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, pp. Aoshima, Sachiko (2001) Mono-clausality in Japanese obligatory control constructions. Generals paper, University of Maryland. Aoun, Joseph (1982) The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Asdeh, Ash (2004) Resumption as resource management. Doctoral disertation, Stanford University. Asdeh, Ash, and Ida Toivonen (2006) Copy raising and perception. Ms., Carleton University. Authier, J-Marc (1989) Arbitrary nul objects and unselective binding. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.) The null subject parameter. pp. 69-109. Bejar, Susana, and Diane Masam (1999) Multiple case checking. Syntax 2: 66-79. Bhat, Rakesh Mohan, and James Hye-Suk Yoon (1991) On the composition of COMP and parameters of V2. In D. Bates (ed.) Procedings of the 10th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. pp. 41-52. Bobalijk, Jonathan David, and Susi Wurmbrand (2005) The domain of agrement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 809-865. Bobalijk, Jonathan David, and Susi Wurmbrand (To appear) Complex predicates, aspect, and anti-reconstruction. Journal of East Asian Linguistics Bobaljik, Jonathan David (1995) Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2002) A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and "covert" movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197-267. Boeckx, Cedric (2001) Scope reconstruction and A-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 503-548. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein (2003) Reply to "Control is not movement". 232 Linguistic Inquiry 34: 269-280. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein (2004) Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431-452. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein (2006a) Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 591-606. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein (2006b) The virtues of control as movement. Syntax 9: 118-130. Boeckx, Cedric, and Fumikazu Ninuma (2004) Conditions on agrement in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 453-480. Boskovic, Zeljko (1995) Case properties of clauses and the Gred Principle. Studia Linguistica 49: 32-53. Boskovic, Zeljko (1997) The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres. Boskovic, Zeljko (2002) On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351-383. Bouchard, Denis (1983) The avoid pronoun principle and the elsewhere principle. In P. Sels and C. Jones (eds.) Procedings of NELS 13. Amherst, Mas.: GLSA, pp. 29-36. Bouchard, Denis (1984) On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Bowers, John (1973) The theory of grammatical relations. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Branigan, Philip , and Marguerite MacKenzie (2002) Altruism, A'-movement, and object agrement in Innu-aim?n. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 385-407. Bresnan, Joan (1972) Theory of complementation in English syntax. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Bresnan, Joan (1982) Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 343-434. Bruening, Benjamin (2001) Syntax at the Edge: Cross-clausal Phenomena and the Syntax of Passamaquoddy. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Elizabeth Riter (1987) A smal clause analysis of inalienable possesion in Mandarin and French. Procedings of NELS 18. pp. 65-78. Chomsky, N. (1993) A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. 233 Keyser (eds.) The view from Building 20: Esays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 1-52. Chomsky, Noam (1973) Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232-286. Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1995) Categories and transformations. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 219-394. Chomsky, Noam (2000) Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: esays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 89-155. Chomsky, Noam (2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Linguistics. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 1-52. Chomsky, Noam (2004) Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Beleti (ed.) Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Pres, pp. 104-131. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik (1977) Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425-504. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik (1993) The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.) An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 506-569. Cinque, Guglielmo (1996) The pseudo-relative and AC-ing constructions after verbs of perception. In G. Cinque (ed.) Italian syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, pp. 224-275. Cormack, Annabel, and Neil Smith (2004) Backward control in Korean and Japanese. UCL Working papers in linguistics 16. pp. 57-83. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff (2001) Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493-511. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff (2005) Simpler syntax. New York: Oxford University Pres. 234 Davies, Wiliam D., and Stanley Dubinsky (2004) The grammar of raising and control. A course in syntactic argumentation. Oxford: Blackwel. den Dikken, Marcel (1995) Binding, expletives, and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347-354. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (2001) Head-to-head merge in Balkan subjunctives and locality. In M.-L. Rivero and A. Rali (eds.) Comparative syntax of Balkan languages. Oxford: Oxford University Pres, pp. 4-74. Dubinsky, Stanley, and Shoko Hamano (2003) Case checking by AspP. Japanese/Korean Linguistics. pp. 231-242. Epstein, Samuel David (1984) Quantifier-pro and the LF-representation of PROARB. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 499-505. Fereira, Marselo (2004) Hyperaising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. Collected papers on Romance syntax. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47. Cambridge, Mas.: MITWPL, pp. 57-85. Foder, Jery A. (1975) The language of thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowel. Fox, Danny (2002) Antecedent-contained deletion and copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63-96. Fox, Danny, and Howard Lasnik (2003) Succesive cyclic movement and island repair: The diference betwen sluicing and VP elipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143-154. Franks, Steven (1998) Clitics in Slavic. Position paper at the comparative slavic morphosyntax workshop, Spencer, Ind. Franks, Steven, and Norbert Hornstein (1992) Secondary predication in Russian and proper government of PRO. In K. R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri and J. Higginbotham (eds.) Control and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1-50. Fuji, Masaki (1998) Temporal interpretation of internaly headed relative clauses in Japanese. In R. Artstein and M. Holler (eds.) RuLing Papers 1: Working Papers from Rutgers University. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University, pp. 75-91. Fuji, Tomohiro (2000) Multiple nominative constructions and their implications. In S. Kawakami and Y. Oba (eds.) Osaka University Working Papers in English 235 Linguistics. Osaka: Osaka University, pp. 1-47. Fuji, Tomohiro (2003) Licit and ilicit long subject-to-subject raising. In Y. Otsu (ed.) TCP 2004: The Procedings of the Fourth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi, pp. 109-124. Fuji, Tomohiro (2004) Binding and scope in Japanese backward control. Talk given at the 'Control in cross-linguistic perspective' Workshop, ZAS, Berlin, May 2004. Fukui, Naoki (1986) A theory of category projection and its applications. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Fukumitsu, Yuichiro (2001) Covert incorporation of smal clause predicates in Japanese. In M. C. Cuervo, D. Harbour, K. Hiraiwa and S. Ishihara (eds.) Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41. Cambridge, Mas.: MITWPL, pp. 251-266. George, Leland, and Jacklin Kornfilt (1981) Finitenes and boundednes in Turkish. In F. Heny (ed.) Binding and filtering. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 105-127. Grimshaw, Jane, and Armin Mester (1988) Light verbs and theta-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 205-32. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. (2003) Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam.Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Guasti, Maria Teresa (1993) Causative and perception verbs. A comparative study. Torino: Rosenberg & Selier. Hale, Ken, and Chisato Kitagawa (1876-77) A counter to Couter-Equi. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5: 41-61. Han, Chung-Hye (1998) The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives. Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. Doctoral disertation, University of Pennsylvania. Harada, Shin-Ichi (1973) Counter Equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin 8: 113-147. Reprinted in Syntax and meaning: S.I. Harada colected works in linguistics, ed. by N. Fukui, Taishukan, Tokyo, 2000. Harada, Shin-Ichi (1975) The Functional Uniquenes Principle. Atempts in 236 Linguistics and Literature 2. International Christian University, pp. 17-24. Reprinted in Syntax and meaning: S.I. Harada colected works in linguistics, ed. by N. Fukui, Taishukan, Tokyo, 2000. Harada, Shin-Ichi (1976) Honorifics. In M. Shibatani (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar. San Diego, California: Academic Pres, pp. 499-561. Reprinted in Syntax and meaning: S.I. Harada collected works in linguistics, ed. by N. Fukui, Taishukan, Tokyo, 2000. Hasegawa, Nobuko (1984-85) On the so-caled 'zero pronouns' in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 4: 289-341. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwel. Heycock, Caroline (1992) Layers of predication. Doctoral disertation, University of Pennsylvania. Published by Garland, New York, 1994. Higginbotham, James (1992) Reference and control. In K. R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri and J. Higginbotham (eds.) Control and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 79-108. Higgins, Roger (1973) The Pseudo-cleft construction in English. Doctoral disertation, University of Masachusets, Amherst. Hiraiwa, Ken (2000) On nominative-genitive conversion. In O. Matushansky and E. Guerzoni (eds.) A few from building E39. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39. Cambridge, Mas.: MITWPL, pp. 66-123. Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) Multiple agre and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In O. Matushansky, A. Costa, J. Martin-Gonzalez, L. Nathan and A. Szczegielniak (eds.) Procedings of the HUMIT 2000. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Cambridge, Mas.: MITWPL, pp. 67-80. Hiraiwa, Ken (2002a) Facets of Case: On the nature of the double-o constraint. In Y. Otsu (ed.) The Procedings of the 3rd Tokyo Psycholinguistics Conference (TCP 2002). Tokyo: Hituzi, pp. 139-163. Hiraiwa, Ken (2002b) Raising and indeterminate-agrement. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mas. Hiraiwa, Ken (2005) Dimensions of symetry in syntax: Agrement and clausal 237 architecture. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Hoji, Hajime (1985) Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral disertation, University of Washington. Hoji, Hajime (1997) Otagai. Ms., University of Southern California. Hong, Soo-Min (2005) "Exceptional" Case-marking and resultative constructions. Doctoral disertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Hornstein, Norbert (1995) Logical form. From GB to minimalism. Malden, Mas.: Blackwel. Hornstein, Norbert (1999) Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96. Hornstein, Norbert (2001) Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden, Mas.: Blackwel. Hornstein, Norbert (2003) On control. In R. Hendrick (ed.) Minimalist syntax. Malden, Mas.: Blackwel, pp. 6-81. Hornstein, Norbert, and Daivd Lightfoot (1987) Predication and PRO. Language 63: 23-52. Hoshi, Hiroto (1994) Passive, causative, and light verbs: A study on theta role assignment. Doctoral disertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Hoshi, Hiroto (1999) Pasives. In N. Tsujimura (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Blackwel, pp. 191-235. Hoshi, Koji (1995) Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative clauses. Doctoral disertation, University of Rochester. Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Huang, C.-T. James (1984) On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531-574. Huang, C.-T. James (1989) Pro drop in Chinese: A generalized control approach. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 185-214. Huang, C.-T. James (1992) Remarks on the status of the null object. Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. Iatridou, Sabine, and David Embick (1997) Apropos pro. Language 73: 58-78. 238 Inoue, Kazuko (1976) Henkei bunpoo to nihongo Jo (Transformational grammar and Japanese, Vol. 1 ). Tokyo: Taishukan. Ishii, Yasuo (1989) Reciprocal predicates in Japanese. Procedings of ESCOL 6. pp. 150-161. Josephs, Lewis S. (1976) Complementation. In M. Shibatani (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar. New York: Academic Pres, pp. 307-370. Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpo to Gokeisei (Grammar and Word Formation). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Kajita, Masaru (1967) A generative-transformational study of semi-auxiliaries in present-day American English. Doctoral disertation, Princeton University. Kayne, Richard (2002) Pronouns and their antecedents. In S. D. Epstein and T. D. Sely (eds.) Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwel, pp. 133-166. Kayne, Richard S. (1975) French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres. Kikuchi, Akira (1994) Extraction from NP in Japanese. In M. Nakamura (ed.) Current topics in English and Japanese. Tokyo: Hituzi, pp. 79-104. Kim, Min-Joo (2004) Event structure and the Internally-headed relative clauses in Korean and Japanese. Doctoral disertation, University of Masachusets, Amherst. Kizu, Mika (2005) Cleft constructions in Japanese. New York: Palgrave MacMilan. Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995) Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Koizumi, Masatoshi (1998) Invisible Agr in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 15: 1-39. Koster, Jan (1978) Why subject sentences don't exist. In S. J. Keyser (ed.) Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 53-64. Koster, Jan (1984) On binding and control. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 417-459. Kuno, Susumu (1978) Danwa-no bunpoo [Grammar of discourse]. Tokyo: 239 Taishukan. Kuno, Susumu (1980) Discourse deletion. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, Mas.: Harvard University, pp. 1-144. Kuno, Susumu (1988) Blended quasi-direct discourse in Japanese. In W. J. Poser (ed.) Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 75-102. Kuroda, S-Y. (1978) Case-marking, canonical sentence paterns and counter equi in Japanese. In J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds.) Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 30-51. Reprinted in Kuroda 1992. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1979) On Japanese pasives. In G. Bedel, E. Kobayashi and M. Masatake (eds.) Explorations in linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue. Tokyo: Kenkyusha, pp. 305-347. Reprinted in Kuroda 1992. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1983) What can Japanese say about Government and Binding. In M. Barlow, D. P. Flickinger and M. T. Wescoat (eds.) Procedings of the Second West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Asociation, pp. 153-164. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1986) Movement of noun phrases in Japanese. In T. Imai and M. Saito (eds.) Isues in Japanese linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 229-271. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1990) Shieki jodoshi no jiritsusei ni tsuite. Bunpo to imi no aida. Tokyo: Kuroshio, pp. 93-104. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1999a) Shubu-naizai kankeisetsu (Head-internal relative clauses). In S.-Y. Kuroda and M. Nakamura (eds.) Kotoba no kaku to shuhen: Nihongo to eigo no aida (Language, its core and periphery: Explorations in English and Japanese). Tokyo: Kuroshio, pp. 27-104. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1999b) Tokoro setsu (Tokoro clauses). In S.-Y. Kuroda and M. Nakamura (eds.) Kotoba no kaku to shuhen: Nihongo to eigo no aida (Language, its core and periphery: Explorations in English and Japanese). Tokyo: Kuroshio, pp. 105-162. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (2003) Complex predicates and predicate raising. Lingua 113: 240 447-480. Landau, Idan (1999) Possesor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107: 1-37. Landau, Idan (2000) Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitive constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Landau, Idan (2003) Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471-98. Landau, Idan (2004) The scale of finitenes and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811-877. Larson, K. Richard (1991) Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 103-139. Lasnik, Howard (1976) Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2: 1-23. Lasnik, Howard (1988) Subjects and the theta-criterion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 1-17. Lasnik, Howard (1992) Two notes on control and binding. In J. Higginbotham, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri and R. Larson (eds.) Control and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 235-251. Lasnik, Howard (1995a) Case and expletives revisited: On Gred and other human failings. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615-633. Lasnik, Howard (1995b) Last resort. In S. Haraguchi and M. Funaki (eds.) Minimalism and linguistic theory. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, pp. 1-32. Reprinted in Lasnik (1999), Minimalist analysis, Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, 120-150. Lasnik, Howard (1999) Minimalist analysis. Malden, Mas.: Blackwel. Lasnik, Howard (2003) Minimalist investigations in linguistic theory. London and New York: Routledge. Lasnik, Howard, and Myung-Kwan Park (2003) The EP and the subject condition under sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 649-660. Lasnik, Howard, and Juan Uriagereka (1988) A course in GB Syntax: Lectures on binding and empty categories. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres. Lasnik, Howard, and Juan Uriagereka (2004) A course in minimalist syntax: Foundations and prospects. Oxford: Blackwel. Lebeaux, David (1984) Anaphoric binding and the definition of PRO. In C. Jones and 241 P. Sels (eds.) NELS 14. Amherst, Mas.: GLSA, pp. 253-274. Lebeaux, David (1984-85) Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review 4: 343-363. Lidz, Jefrey, and Wiliam Idsardi (1997) Chains and phono-logical form. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5.1: 109-126. Lightfoot, David (1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. Manzini, M. Rita (1983) On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421-446. Manzini, M. Rita, and Anna Roussou (2000) A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110: 409-447. Martin, Roger (1996) A minimalist theory of PRO and control. Doctoral disertation, University of Connecticut. Martin, Roger (2001) Null Case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141-166. Masam, Diane (1985) Case theory and the projection principle. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Matsumoto, Yo (1996) Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion `Word'. Stanford and Tokyo: CSLI and Kuroiso. Merchant, Jason (2001) Syntax of silence. New York: Oxford University Pres. Mihara, Ken'ichi (1994) Nihongo no Togo Kozo (Japanese Syntactic Structures). Tokyo: Shohakusha. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1987) Restructuring in Japanese. In T. Imai and M. Saito (eds.) Isues in Japanese linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 273-300. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989) Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Pres. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) LF Case-checking and minimal link condition. In C. Philips (ed.) Papers on Case and Agrement I. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19. Cambridge, Mas.: MITWPL, pp. 213-254. Miyagawa, Shigeru (2001) Causatives. In N. Tsujimura (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Blackwel, pp. 236-268. 242 Monahan, Philip (2003) Backward object control in Korean. In G. Garding and M. Tsujimura (eds.) Procedings of the Twenty Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somervile, Mas.: Cascadila Pres, pp. 356-369. Moore, John (1998) Turkish copy-raising and A-chain locality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 149-189. Motomura, Mitsue (2003) The thematic roles of sentential to/ko complements in Japanese and Korean. In P. M. Clency (ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12. pp. 295-306. Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax, learnability and acquisition. Doctoral disertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Nakao, Chizuru (2003) Japanese reciprocal constructions and Binding Theory. Linguistic Research 19. Tokyo: University of Tokyo, pp. 17-43. Nakau, Minoru (1973) Sentential complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Nakayama, Mineharu, and Kazuhiko Tajima (1993) Purpose clauses in Japanese. Lingua 91: 1-32. Nemoto, Naoko (1993) Chains and Case positions: A study from scrambling in Japanese. Doctoral disertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Nevins, Andrew (2004) Derivations without the activity condition. In M. McGinnis and N. Richards (eds.) Perspectives on phases, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49. Cambridge, Mas: MITWPL, pp. 287-310. Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1993) Long distance pasive. In N. Hasegawa (ed.) Japanese syntax in comparative grammar. Tokyo: Kuroshio, pp. 79-114. Nishigauchi, Taisuke, and Tomohiro Fuji (2006) Structures of short answers. Ms., Kobe Shoin Women's University, Kobe, Japan, and University of Maryland, College Park. Nomura, Masashi (2003) Nominative Case and AGRE(ment). Doctoral disertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Nunes, Jairo (2004) Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, Mas: MIT Pres. Nunes, Jairo, and Juan Uriagereka (2000) Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 243 20-43. O'Neil, John H. (1997) Means of control: Deriving the properties of PRO in the minimalist program. Doctoral disertation, Harvard University. Ochi, Masao (1999) Constraints on feature checking. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut. Ohori, Toshio (2001) Clause integration as gramaticalization: A case from Japanese TOKORO-complements. In K. Horie and S. Sato (eds.) Cognitive-functional linguistics in an East Asian context. Tokyo: Kuroshio, pp. 279-301. Ohso, Mieko (1976) A study of zero pronominalization in Japanese. Doctoral disertation, Ohio State University. Parsons, T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres. Perlmutter, David (1970) The two verbs begin. In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mas.: Blaisdel, pp. 107-119. Pesetsky, David (1991) Zero syntax, Vol. 2: Infinitives. Ms., MIT. Pesetsky, David (1995) Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego (2001) T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 355-426. Picalo, Carme M. (2002) Abstract agrement and clausal arguments. Syntax 5: 116-147. Pires, Acrisio (2001) The syntax of gerunds and infinitives: Subjects, Case and control. Doctoral disertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam (2001) Long-distance agrement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583-646. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam (2002) Backward control. Linguistics Inquiry 33: 245-282. Portner, Paul, and Rafaela Zanuttini (2005) Clause typing: From syntax to discourse semantics. Ms., Clas handout at 2005 LSA Institute, MIT. Poser, Wiliam John (1981) The ?Double-O Constraint?: Evidence for a direct object 244 relation in Japanese. Ms., MIT, Mas: Cambridge. Potsdam, Eric (1996) Syntactic isues in the English imperative. Doctoral disertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Published by Garland, New York, 1998. Potsdam, Eric (2006) Backward object control in Malagasy and Principles of Chain Reduction. Ms., University of Florida. Potsdam, Eric, and Jef Runner (2001) Richard returns: Copy Raising and its implications. Procedings of CLS 37. Chicago, Ilinois: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 453-468. Raposo, Eduardo P. (1987) Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85-109. Reinhart, Tanya (1983) Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora question. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 47-88. Rivero, Maria-Luisa, and Angela Rali (eds.) (2001) New York: Oxford University Pres. Rodrigues, Cilene (2004) Impoverished Morphology and A-movement out of Case Domains. Doctoral disertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1967) The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres. Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1970) A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. In R. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mas.: Ginn and Company, pp. 20-29. Ross, John R. (1970) On declarative sentences. In R. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mas.: Ginn and Company, pp. 222-272. Runner, Jefrey T (2006) Lingering chalenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions. Syntax 9: 193-213. Saito, Mamoru (1982) Case marking in Japanese: A preliminary study. Ms., Cambridge, Mas. Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some asymetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral disertation, MIT. 245 Saito, Mamoru (2004a) Elipsis and pronominal reference in Japanese clefts. Nanzan Linguistics 1. Nagoya: Nanzan University, pp. 21-50. Saito, Mamoru (2004b) Genitive subjects in Japanese. In P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.) Non-nominative subjects, Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169-184. Saito, Mamoru, and Hiroto Hoshi (2000) The Japanese light verb construction and the minimalist program. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: Esays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 261-95. Saito, Mamoru, and Hitoro Hoshi (1998) Control in complex predicates. Paper presented at the Tsukuba Workshops on Complex Predicates, 1998, Nanzan University & SOAS, University of London. Sakaguchi, Mari (1990) Control structures in Japanese. Japanese and Korean Linguistics 1: 303-317. San Martin, Itziar (2004) On subordination and the distribution of PRO. Doctoral disertation, University of Maryland, College Park. San Martin, Itziar, and Juan Uriagereka (2002) Infinitival complementation in Basque. Eramu Boneta: Festschrift for Rudolf P.G. de Rijk. University of the Basque Country, pp. Schlenker, Philippe (2003) A plea for monsters. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 29-120. Schlenker, Philippe (2004) Person and binding (A partial survey). Italian Journal of Linguistics/ Rivista di Linguistica 16: 155-218. Sch?tze, Carson T. (2001) On Korean 'Case stacking': The varied functions of the particles ka and lul. The Linguistic Review 18: 192-232. Shibatani, Masayoshi (1973a) Semantics of Japanese causativization. Foundations of Language 9: 327-373. Shibatani, Masayoshi (1973b) Whare morphology and syntax clash: A case of Japanese aspectual verbs. Gengo Kenkyu 64: 65-96. Shibatani, Masayoshi (1978) Nihongo no bunseki (An analysis of Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan. 246 Shimoyama, Junko (1999) Internaly headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 147-82. Sigur?son, Hald?r ?rmann (1991) Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327-263. Simpson, Andrew (2003) On the re-analysis of nominalizers in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. In A. Li and A. Simpson (eds.) Functional structure(s), form and interpretation. London and New York: Routledge-Curzon, pp. Simpson, Andrew, and Zoe Wu (2001) The gramaticalization of formal nouns and nominalizer in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. In T. E. McAuley (ed.) Language chage in East Asia. London: Curzon, pp. 250-283. Speas, Margaret** (2000) Person and Point of View in Navajo. In E. Jelinek (ed.) WCFL Papers in Honor of Ken Hale. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. Speas, Peggy, and L. Carol Tenny (2003) Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. M. Di Sciullo (ed.) Asymetry in grammar. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 315-344. Stockwel, Robert P., Paul Schacter, and Barbara Hal Parte (1973) The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Stowel, Tim (1982) The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561-70. Tada, Hiroaki (1992) Nominative objects in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14: 91-108. Takahashi, Daiko (1994) Minimality of movement. Doctoral disertation, University of Connecticut. Takahashi, Daiko (2000) Move-F and raising of lexical and empty DPs. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step: Esays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres, pp. 297-317. Takahashi, Shoichi, and Danny Fox (2005) Maxelide and the re-binding problem. SALT 15. pp. Takano, Yuji (2002) Surprising constituents. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 243-301. Takeda, Kazue (1999) Multiple headed structures. Doctoral disertation, University 247 of California, Irvine. Takezawa, Koichi (1987) A configurational approach to case-marking in Japanese. Dotcoral disertation, University of Washington. Takezawa, Koichi (1993) Secondary predication and locative/goal phrases. In N. Hasegawa (ed.) Japanese syntax in comparative grammar. Tokyo: Kuroshio, pp. 45-77. Tanaka, Hidekazu (2002) Raising to object out of CP. Linguistics Inquiry 33: 637-652. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald (1986) Som and the binding theory. In L. Helan and K. K. Christensen (eds.) Topics in Scandinavian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 149-184. Tenny, L. Carol (2006) Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 245-288. Tonoike, Shigeo (1991) Nihongo no sogobun to judoubun (Reciprocal and pasive sentences in Japanese). In Y. Nita (ed.) Nihongo no voice to tadousei (Voice and transitivity in Japanese). Tokyo: Kuroshio, pp. 83-104. Uchibori, Asako (2000) The syntax of subjunctive complements: Evidence from Japanese. Doctoral disertation, University of Conencticut, Storrs. Ueda, Masanobu (1990) Japanese phrase structure and parameter seting. Doctoral disertation, University of Masachusets, Amherst. Ura, Hiroyuki (1992) Inverted minimality and topic-island efects. Lingua 88: 21-65. Ura, Hiroyuki (1994) Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory. MIT Ocasional Papers in Linguistics. Mas., Cambridge: MITWPL. Ura, Hiroyuki (1996) Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function spliting. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Ura, Hiroyuki (1998) Checking, economy, and copy-raising in Igbo. Linguistic Analysis 28: 67-88. Ura, Hiroyuki (2000) Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. New York: Oxford University Pres. Uriagereka, Juan (1988) On government. Doctoral disertation, University of Connecticut. 248 Uriagereka, Juan (1995) Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79-123. Uriagereka, Juan (1998) Rhyme and reason. Cambridge, Mas.: MIT Pres. Vasilieva, Masha, and K. Richard Larson (2005) The semantics of the plural pronoun construction. Natural Langauge Semantics 13: 101-124. Washio, Ryuichi (1999) Notes on adverb positions. Tsukuba Review of English Studies 17. University of Tsukuba, pp. 35-53. Watanabe, Akira (1991) Wh-in-situ, subjacency and chain formation. MIT Ocasional Papers in Linguistics 2. Cambridge, Mas.: MITWPL. Watanabe, Akira (1993) Agr-based Case theory and its interaction with the A-bar system. Doctoral disertation, MIT. Watanabe, Akira (1996a) Case absorption and wh-agrement. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Watanabe, Akira (1996b) Control and switch reference. Ms., Kanda University of Foreign Studies. Watanabe, Akira (1996c) Nominative-genitive conversion and agrement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian linguistics 5: 373-410. Wiliams, Edwin (1980) Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203-308. Wurmbrand, Susi (2001) Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wurmbrand, Susi (to appear) Infinitives are tenseles. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1. Philadelphia, Penn.: University of Pennsylvania. Yang, Dong-Whee (1985) On the integrity of control theory. In S. Berman, J.-W. Choe and McDonough (eds.) NELS 15. Amherst, Mas.: GSLA, pp. Yoon, James Hye-Suk (1990) Theta Theory and the gramar of inalienable possesion constructions. Procedings of NELS 20. pp. 502-516. Yoon, James Hye-Suk (2004) Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. In P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.) Non-nominative subjects, Vol. 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 265-314. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and H?skuldur Thr?insson (1985) Case and 249 gramatical functions: The Icelandic pasive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441-483.