Nishimaki Kazuya

Okubo Tatsuhiro

Sakamoto Akihiko

Yoshioka Ryo

Tsukuba Repository

Exploring a Japanese Case-Licensing Mechanism
and Its Consequences (Summaries of the Papers
Read at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Tsukuba
English Linguistic Society)
著者 Yoshioka Ryo , Okubo Tatsuhiro, Sakamoto
Akihiko, Nishimaki Kazuya
journal or
publication title
 Tsukuba English Studies
volume 31
page range 105-108
year 2012-09-29
URL http://hdl.handle.net/2241/00123080
Exploring a Japanese Case-Licensing Mechanism and Its Consequences 
Ryo Yoshioka, Tatsuhiro Okubo, Akihiko Sakamoto, and Kazuya Nishimaki 
105 
Adopting the "Government and Binding Theory" outlined in Chomsky ( 1981 ), 
Takezawa (1987) proposes that nominative Case in Japanese, on a par with that in 
English, is licensed by finite T. This analysis has been carried over into a 
minimalist framework (Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001)), with the Case-licensing 
mechanism reduced to the agreement system (see e.g. Tada (1992), Ura (1999), 
Mikami (2009)). Fukui and Takano (henceforth, F&T) (1998), in contrast, develop 
the overt particle system for Case assignment, which is based on the hypothesis that 
they refer to as the "Symmetry of Derivation." Under this system, Japanese, unlike 
English, licenses Case through a mechanism independent of agreement (see also 
Kuroda (1978, 1988), Saito (1982)). These two analyses on Case assignment in 
Japanese are at extremely opposite ends in that the former builds on the agreement 
system but the latter does not at all. In this joint research, adapting F&T's analysis 
from the perspective of the theory of feature inheritance (Chomsky (2008)), we 
demonstrate that both analyses are actually demanded, showing that Japanese 
employs both the agreement and nonagreement system for Case assignment. 
Let us begin by reviewing the overt particle system for Case assignment in 
Japanese. F&T (1998) establish this system by reinterpreting the "head-parameter" 
in light of parametric variation in functional categories between English and 
Japanese ( cf. Fukui (1995)): 
( 1) v has the property of attracting V in English but not in Japanese. 
According to (1 ), functional categories in Japanese, if any, are not "active" unlike 
counterparts in English, which is in line with the traditional view but is in contrast 
with Kayne's (1994). This means that the OV order in Japanese reflects the 
underlying property, involving no verb raising, whereas the VO order in English 
derives frmn overt V-to-v raising. 
Assuming that V rather than v bears [assign accusative Case (Ace)] and that 
feature checking is implemented via v, F&T argue that Japanese, which lacks overt 
V -to-v raising unlike English, cannot utilize a Case-licensing mechanism drawing 
upon feature checking. This claim leads them to propose the overt particle system, 
under which [ uCase] on accusative elements and [Ace] on transitive verbs are each 
'checked' in a different manner from feature checking: 
(2) a. The Case particle makes the Case feature of a noun phrase visible 
Tsukuba English Studies (2012) vo/.31, 105-108 
106 
to Spell-Out. 
b. Linking to a particular 8-role makes the Case feature of a transitive 
verb interpretable at LF. 
(2a) states that the existence of an overt Case particle in Japanese enables its 
phonological feature to associate with [ uCase] on a nominal element and Spell-Out 
to remove [ uCase] from a syntactic object that is to be transferred into LF, hence the 
relevant derivation converges. As described in (2b ), on the other hand, [Ace] on a 
transitive verb needs not be deleted because it links to a 8-role ( cf. Takahashi 
(1993)), which is interpretable at LF. UG can thus eliminate Case features either 
via checking (e.g. English) or via Spell-Out (e.g. Japanese). 
The proposed system can be extended straightforwardly to nominative Case 
with respect to (2a), but that is not the case with (2b) because finite T, which is 
generally assmned to check [ uCase] on a nominative element, is not a 8-role 
assignor. This amounts to stating that [assign nmninative Case (Nom)] on T can be 
eliminated neither by checking nor by Spell-Out. Thus, F&T reach the conclusion 
that T in Japanese does not have [Nom] and that nominative ga behaves like a 
default Case ( cf. Saito (1982), Fukui (1986, 1988), Fukui and Nishigauchi (1992)). 
The outlined analysis is attractive in that it has smne significant consequences 
but is problematic in that it is founded on some nontrivial assmnptions. First, the 
claim that [Ace] is located in V rather than v is conceptually unnatural, as F &T 
(1998: note 24) accepts. Then, empirically, it is unclear whether [Ace] on a 
transitive verb always links to a particular 8-role (cf. (5)). 
To overcome the theoretical unnaturalness just mentioned, we adopt the 
mechanism of feature inheritance (Chomsky (2008)), in which the Agree feature (i.e. 
a tense-feature and/or cp-feature) is inherited from C to T and from v to V. This 
mechanism allows V to have [Ace] naturally in a derivative fashion. Although 
English establishes a Case-licensing mechanism drawing upon feature checking via 
verb raising, Japanese does via feature inheritance. In other words, V serves as an 
accusative Case licenser in Japanese, but v does in English. This analysis implies 
that (2b) is no longer needed to render [Ace] on a transitive verb interpretable at LF. 
With respect to the need for (2a), however, there is room for discussion left. In the 
subsequent discussion, we confirm that Japanese can license Case in the following 
complementary way: the Case licensers T and V, c-commanding a nominal 
element, assign it structural Case under the agreement system; otherwise, a nominal 
element is assigned special 'structural' Case under (2a) in compliance with a domain 
into which it merges ( cf. Saito (2007), Takano (20 11 )). 
Let us now observe multiple nominative constructions: 
(3) a. 
107 
Bunmeikoku-ga dansei-ga heikin-jmnyou-ga 1nijikai. 
civilized country-Nmn male-Nom average-lifespan-Nom short 
"In civilized countries, males' average lifespan is short." 
b. [ TP Bunmeikoku-ga[uCase] [ TP dansei-ga[uCaseJ [ TP heikin-jumyou-ga 
T[Nom] [AP <heikin-jumyou-ga[uCase]> mijikai]]]] 
It is well known since Kuno (1973) that Japanese admits multiple occurrences of 
nominative Case in a single sentence, as illustrated in (3a). Here, (3a) is assumed 
to be assigned the structure in (3b ). In this structure, the lowest nominal phrase 
originated in the predicate-internal position is permitted to receive nominative Case 
by establishing a c-cmnmand relation with T. By contrast, the higher nominal 
phrases adjoining to TP are assigned nominative Cases via Spell-Out ( cf. (2a)). 
Based on the difference in grammaticality between ( 4a) and ( 4b ), we are able to 
corroborate the existence of these two ways for licensing nominative Case. 
(4) a. Tsukuba-Daigaku-ga gakutyou-ga ta-daigaku-o 
Tsukuba-university-Nom president-Nom other-university-Ace 
shisatsu-sare-ta. 
inspect-SH-Past 
"The president of the University of Tsukuba inspected another 
university." 
b. * Yamada-sensei-ga musuko-ga ronbun-o o-ymni-ni-natta. 
Yamada-prof.-Nom son-Nom article-Ace SH-read-become-Past 
"Prof. Yam ada's son read an article." 
In ( 4), the underlined phrase is meant to undergo subject honorification ( cf. Harada 
(1976), Shibatani (1990)). Toribio (1990) takes this sort of honorification to be an 
instance of a cp-feature agreement relation with T. If we adopt this perspective, the 
grammatical contrast in ( 4) falls into place in conjunction with our analysis. The 
underlined phrase in ( 4a), which is the lower nominal phrase in the 
predicate-internal position, enters into a cp-feature agreement relation with T, thus 
undergoing subject honorification. Contrastingly, the underlined phrase in ( 4b) is 
outside the c-command domain ofT, so it fails to undergo subject honorification. 
This contrast indicates that there are two ways for licensing nominative Case. The 
existence of these two types of Case-licensing 1nechanisms is also clear from other 
diagnoses for subjecthood: interpretation ofjibun and control of PRO. 
Further demonstration stems from the nani-o X-o construction (cf. Kurafuji 
(1997), Konno (2004), Takami (2010), etc.): 
108 
(5) a. Nani-o bakagetakoto-o itte-i-ru no? 
what-Ace rubbish-Ace say-Prog-Pres Q 
"Why do you talk rubbish?" 
b. [vP Nani-O[uCase] [vP V[Acc] [ VP bakagetakotO-O[uCase] itte-i-ru no]]] 
(6) a. *Nani-o omae-ga bakagetakoto-o itte-i-ru no? 
you-Nom 
b. * [TP Omae-ga [vr nani-o Lr <omae-ga> bakagetakoto-o itte-i-ru no]]] 
(7) a. ??Who do you think that [yesterday [John met <who>]]? 
b. *How do you think that [yesterday [John met <how>]]? 
As exemplified in (5a), this construction contains two occurrences of accusative 
Case and signifies a colloquial interrogative as a whole (cf. Konno (2004)). The 
lower accusative phrase works as the complement of the verb iu, and the higher one 
behaves like a wh-adjunct, which is not required by argument structure. This 
suggests that sentence (5a) has the structure in (5b ). In (5b ), the lower accusative 
phrase is assigned accusative Case, entering into a <p-feature agreement relation with 
v; in contrast, the higher accusative phrase, which is outside the c-command domain 
of v, obtains accusative Case via Spell-Out (cf. (2a)). The ungrammaticality of 
(6a) confirms that the higher accusative phrase, unlike the lower one, is assigned 
accusative Case by means other than establishing a <p-feature agreement relation 
with v. As indicated in (6a), the nani-o X-o construction refuses the appearance of 
a subject element with nominative Case. This refusal comes from the view that a 
wh-adjunct in this construction is in accordance with a sentential adjunct such as 
yesterday. Sentences (7a, b) represent the relevant examples. As the deviance of 
(7) shows, adjunction of sentential adjuncts creates a certain island against 
extraction (Takano (1990: 175-176)). If the same holds for a wh-adjunct in the 
nani-o X-o construction, the ungram1naticality of (6a) follows. In (6b), the 
structure for (6a), the nominative phrase crosses over the wh-adjunct whose 
adjunction yields a kind of island. This movement produces an island violation. 
That is why there arises no nominative subject in the nani-o X-o construction. This 
strongly suggests that in Japanese, accusative Case is licensed under both agreement 
and nonagreement system, in parallel with nominative Case. 
Adapting F &T' s ( 1998) Case system based on parametric variation in 
functional categories between English and Japanese (see (1)) in terms of the theory 
of feature inheritance (Chomsky (2008)), this joint research has proposed that 
Japanese can license Case by means of both checking and Spell-Out. It is highly 
expected that closer investigation from this viewpoint helps shed light on various 
differences between English and Japanese. 


Exploring a Japanese Case-Licensing Mechanism and Its Consequences (Summaries of the Papers Read at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Tsukuba English Linguistic Society)

Exploring a Japanese Case-Licensing Mechanism and Its Consequences (Summaries of the Papers Read at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Tsukuba English Linguistic Society)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Tsukuba Repository