A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
Takashi Kayashima
Kyushu University
Japanese shows many phenomena which do not fit with the current Mini-malist Program (MP) (Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2013)). Many theories in thisprogram crucially depend on φ-features, but alternative possibilities shouldbe pursued to explain various phenomena in Japanese, which lacks overtφ-feature agreement. In this paper, I propose that θ-features play importantroles in syntax, and this is the motivation for the movements of DPs as wellas Case valuation. Actually, English and Japanese have this θ-feature-basedsystem in common, and many apparent differences can be attributed to twoparametric differences, one of which is the morphological parameter and theother is the parameter on v recursion. In addition, it is argued that the latterparameter follows from the formerone.*
In the MP, one of the notions many theories crucially depend on isφ-features (Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2013)). The A-movements of DP aswell as Case valuation cannot occur without these features in narrow syn-tax.1 Although the theory covers many languages, Japanese shows crucialphenomena that cannot be explained using these features. Consider thefollowing examples. (1) includes a direct passive sentence and an indirectpassive sentence in English, and (2) presents equivalent sentences in Japa-nese.
* I am deeply obliged to Nobuaki Nishioka for fruitful suggestions and comments. Ialso appreciate Carey Benom for checking the style. Special thanks are due to twoanonymous reviewers, who raised a number of questions and provided numerous sugges-tions. Of course, all remaining errors and inadequacies aremyown. 1 The motivation for A-movement differs in each of Chomsky’s works, namely EPPfeatures or edge features. Even in the framework of Chomsky (2013, 2014), where wecanmove arguments freely,A-movements cannot occurwithoutφ-features.
273A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
(1) a. Johnwas slappedbyMary. b. Johnhadhiswallet stolenbyMary. (2) a. Taro-ga Hanako-ni tatak-(r)are-ta. Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat slap-Pass-Past ‘Tarowas slappedbyHanako.’ b. Taro-ga Hanako-ni saifu-o nusum-(r)are-ta. Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat wallet-Acc steal-Pass-Past ‘Tarohadhiswallet stolenbyHanako.’
Comparing (1a) and (2a), it is natural to assume that be -en in Englishcorresponds to -rare in Japanese. However, turning to (1b) and (2b), thisintuition turns out to bewrong since English uses have for indirect passiveswhile Japanese uses -rare for both types of passives. The fact that Japa-nese uses -rare in both direct passives and indirect passives leads us to posea simple yet profound question, “what is the syntactic element which sur-faces as -rare?” In addition, there is one more point in (2b) which showsa crucial problem for the current MP theory. In (2b), saifu hasAccusativeCase. According to Chomsky (2001), v in passives is assumed to havedefective φ-features, which makes v incapable of Accusative Case valua-tion. However, this is not the case in Japanese, looking at (2b). This factsuggests that Japanese actives and passives share the same kind of v whichis capableofAccusativeCasevaluation. Other constructions which show a contrast between English and Japaneseinvolvepsychverbs. Compare the following examples.
(3) a. Tommade Johnget irritated atMary. b. *Taro-ga Jiro-o Hanako-ni iradat-(s)ase-ta. Taro-Nom Jiro-Acc Hanako-Dat get irritated-Cause-Past ‘Taromade Jiro get irritated atHanako.’
The contrast between (3a) and (3b) shows that psych verbs can be causativ-ized in English while they cannot in Japanese. Where does this differencecome from? In the following sections I show other differences between English andJapanese, and provide a unified explanation for all the phenomena dis-cussed. I claim here that the key to solving these questions is θ-roles. Since Chomsky (1981, 1986), it has been assumed that θ-roles are assignedto DPs in their base positions, and they do not affect any syntactic op-erations. In contrast, Hornstein (2001) and Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes(2010) propose that θ-roles are formal features which are assigned to DPsnot only in their base position but also in certain landing sites of theirmovements. Here I also assume that θ-roles are formal features and that
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)274
they affect syntactic operations, which enables us to explain some interest-ing differences between English and Japanese. Many differences shownhere can be attributed to only two parametric differences. One is the pa-rameter on themorphology and the other is the parameter on v recursion asdiscussedbelow. This paper is structured as follows. In section 2, I propose howθ-features work in narrow syntax. In addition, for an alternative to aφ-feature-based Case valuation system, I define a new Case valuation sys-tem based on θ-features. In section 3, I show how the proposal noted insection 2 explains the Dat/Acc alternation in Japanese, and clarify the para-metric difference in morphology between Japanese and English. In section4, I solve the problem of passives mentioned in this introduction. In sec-tion 5, I consider the structure of causatives, and explain the reason whyEnglish uses have in both passives and causatives. In section 6, I showanother parametric difference between English and Japanese concerning re-cursion of v by considering psych verb constructions. Section 7 concludesthis paper.
2. Proposal
Since Chomsky (1995), φ-features have been assumed to be the motiva-tion for A-movement and Case valuation. Although MP theory has beenchanging, the importance of φ-features has been conserved. However,some languages seem to lack φ-features (Saito (2007), Şener and Takahashi(2010)).2 If so, an alternative theory is necessary to explain the motiva-tion of movement and Case valuation for such languages. In this paper, Ipursue the possibility that movements and Case valuation are based on the
2 Saito (2007) and Şener and Takahashi (2010) claim that Japanese lacks φ-featureson the basis of the contrast between English and Japanese that the former does not allowargument ellipsiswhile Japanesedoes, as shownbelow. (i) a. John always cites his dissertation.
b. *ButBill doesn’t cite at all. (Saito (2007)) (ii) a. John-ha itsumo jibun-no hakushironbun-o innyousuru. John-Top always self-Gen dissertation-Acc cite b. demo Bill-ha zenzen shi-nai. but Bill-Top at all do-not (Saito (2007))The ungrammaticality of (ib) shows that the uninterpretable φ-features in v cannot findthe appropriate goal as a result of the ellipsis of the object, which causes the derivationto crash. On the other hand, in Japanese we can abbreviate the object since v does nothaveuninterpretableφ-features.
275A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
systemof θ-features. In this section I showhow θ-featureswork in narrow syntax. But beforethat, I have to elaborate the notion of θ-roles, since researchers have notgiven a unified description of θ-roles, including which roles exist and theirhierarchy.
2.1. Elaborationof θ-roles The notion of θ-roles is first introduced byGruber (1965), and this notionhas been developed by Jackendoff (1972), Chomsky (1981) and so on. Al-though familiar kinds of θ-roles assumed in the literature areAgent,Theme,Experiencer, Goal, Source, etc., some researchers assume other θ-roles, e.g.Landmark by Jackendoff (1983), and Subject by Baker (1985). Impor-tantly, some researchers propose that thesemajor θ-roles can be divided intofiner subcategories. For example, Jackendoff (1983) divides Agent intoAgent and Actor, and Cruse (1973) divides Agent into Volitive, Effective,Initiative andAgentive. Among those approaches, the one I would like toemploy isDowty’s (1991) thematicProto-Roles as shown in (4) and (5).3
(4) Contributingproperties for theAgentProto-Role: a. volitional involvement in the event or state (VOL) b. sentience (and/or perception) (SEN) c. causing an event or change of state in another participant
(CAU) d. movement (relative to the position of another participant)
(MOV) (e. exists independentlyof the event namedby theverb) (5) Contributingproperties for thePatientProto-Role: a. undergoes changeof state (CHA) b. incremental theme (INC) c. causally affectedby another participant (AFF) d. stationary relative tomovement of another participant (STA) (e. does not exist independentlyof the event, or not at all)
Adopting the notion thatAgent and Patient are comprised of the bundle ofProto-Roles shown in (4) or (5), it can be said that there exist some differ-ent kinds ofAgents and Patients. That is, it is possible that oneAgent hasonly (4d) while another Agent has (4a, d). Moreover, we can define tra-ditional θ-roles other thanAgent and Patient in terms of the Proto-Roles in
3 Theparenthesesmean thatwedonot use thenotionof (4e) and (5e).
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)276
(4) and (5). For example, we can call an argument which has (4c) Causer,and an argumentwhichhas (4b)Experiencer.4 Having defined how we categorize θ-roles, let us move onto the wayθ-featureswork.
2.2. Roles of θ-features As I note in the introduction, I assume that θ-roles are formal featureswhich work in narrow syntax. The Proto-Roles introduced in the formersection such as MOV, INC and CAU are treated as formal features. Inorder to understand how θ-features work in the current framework, it ishelpful to notice that θ-features are similar to criterial features, as proposedby Rizzi (1997). In Rizzi (1997), the notions of cartography and criterionare introduced. According to him, CP contains several heads (Foc, Topand so on). These heads have criterial features which must be satisfied bya movement of a DP which has the same feature to its Spec. This theoryexplains many displacement phenomena concerned with discourse, such astopical movement or focal movement. According to this theory, those dis-course-relatedmovements to specific positions are motivated by various cri-teria. Importantly, movements derived by criterial features have effects atthe Conceptual-Intentional (C-I) interface (Rizzi (2006, 2011)). The map-ping from syntax to semantics is facilitated by these kinds of movements. I propose here that θ-features have the same effects on the C-I interface asthe criterial features. That is, aDPwhich has certain θ-featuresmustmoveto the specifier of the appropriate functional head in order to be properly in-terpreted at the C-I interface. However, there are two differences betweenθ-features and Rizzi’s (1997) criterial features. One is that a DP can havemore than one θ-feature, as Hornstein (2001) and Boeckx, Hornstein andNunes (2010) assume. As a result, θ-features are satisfied by both exter-nal merge and internal merge. In other words, Criterial Freezing (Rizzi(2006, 2007)) does not occur with θ-features. For example, when a DPhas [MOV] and [CAU], the DP is externally introduced into [Spec,MOVP]satisfying the criterion of [MOV]. After that, the DP internally merges to[Spec, CAUP] and satisfies the criterion of [CAU]. The other difference
4 Other θ-roles such as Goal and Instrument can be illustrated with Proto-Roles in (3)and (4). Goal contains STA and Instrument contains CAU and MOV. Other Proto-Roles can be contained depending on the kind of event. See Dowty (1991) for furtherexamples.
277A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
is that v is a bundle of θ-features and they dissociate derivationally.5 This assumption ismotivated by the spirit of lightening the computational burdenin narrow syntax. θ-features are criterial features, so these are assigned toDPs in a numeration, but not in a derivation. Then, it is efficient to formv in the numeration according to which θ-roles are assigned to DPs, whichenables us to eliminate derivations which will crash. Let me schematizethe systembelow.
(6)
X,Y and Z are θ-features. DP1 has [Y] and [Z], andDP2 has [X] respec-tively. v consists of the same kinds of θ-features that DPs have. There-fore, v is a bundle of X, Y and Z in (6). These features dissociate deri-vationally following the hierarchy of θ-features, which I define below. Wecan see twoways to satisfy θ-features in (6). One is internalmerge. DP1has [Y] and [Z], and these features are satisfied by the movements of DP1
5 The notion that a functional category is an amalgam of features is already proposedinMaeda (2014). She claims thatC is a bundle of criterial features such asToporFin. (i) a. [CP C] b. [αP XPα [CP+α,+β, -γ C+α,+β, -γ]] c. [CP+βC+β [αP XP+α [CP+α,+β, -γ C+α,+β, -γ]]] (Maeda (2014))This proposal is based on Chomsky’s (2013) framework, where the Labeling Algorithmis proposed. In (i), C head has three features, +α, +β and -γ. +means that the featureis not satisfied, and – means that the feature is already satisfied and inactivated. In (ib),XP in the [Spec, CP] has α, which is shared by CP, so the label of this node is αP. At this point, α and γ are already satisfied, while β is not. In this case, C with the activefeature+β splits andmergeswithαP as shown in (ic).
[X]
XP
DP2 X′
X YP
DP1 Y′
X Y ZP
DP1 Z′
X Y Z RP
R DP1 [Y] [Z]
satisfies [X]
satisfies [Z]
satisfies [Y]
v
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)278
to [Spec, ZP] and [Spec,YP]. The other is externalmerge. DP2 has [X],which is satisfiedwhenDP2 is introduced into [Spec,XP]. Now, let me define the hierarchy of Proto-Roles shown in (4) and (5) inthe same spirit as Rizzi (1997) and Cinque (1999). Intuitively,MOV (4d),INC (5b) and STA (5d) should be treated differently from the others, sincethey are distributed into arguments in order to define physical and primitiverelationships among them. Henceforth I call them Primitive Proto-Roles(PPR). VOL seems to be included in the PPR domain, but this intuitionturns out to bewrongbasedon the following.
(7) shows that we cannot tell whether the subject is volitional or not in asimple active sentence without adverbs. That is, the subject is unspecifiedin the sense of volitionality in an active sentence. Therefore, VOL shouldnot project in the PPR domain. Please note that lack of VOL in certainstructures does not mean lack of volitionality of the subject. The lack ofVOL just means that the sentence does not focus on the volitionality of thesubject, so the subject can be interpreted as a volitional entity even in astructurewhich lacksVOL.6 Therefore thePPRdomain containsSTA, INCandMOV. The constructionwhichonly contains these three kinds of headsis active construction. Above the PPR domain, other functional heads project in order to ex-press the complex state of arguments and complex relationships amongthem. I call these heads Non-Primitive Proto-Roles (NPPR). Some kindsof constructions which contain NPPR are passives, causatives and psychverb constructions. Now letme illustratewhichNPPR are related towhichconstructions. First, passives are derivedwhenCHA in (5a) projects. Thisassumption is based on an observation by Shibatani (1998) and Kuno andTakami (2005). Seemingly, actives and passives have the same mean-ing. However, according toKuno andTakami (2005), passives are differentfromactives in severalways. Consider the following examples.
6 As one of the two reviewers points out, in a sentencewith amiddle verb the subjectcannot be interpreted as volitional. (i) *Walls paint easily onpurpose.If the lack of VOL does not mean the lack of volitional interpretation as I assume here,this factmust be explained. A possible answer is that the legitimacy of use of adverbialexpression is related to semantic component.
279A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
(8) a. John readHamlet last night. b.??/*Hamletwas readby John last night. (Kuno andTakami (2005)) (9) a. Apasserbypickedup thepurse from the street. b. Thepursewaspickedup from the street by a passerby. (Kuno andTakami (2005))
What is the source of the contrast of the grammaticality between (8b) and(9b)? Kuno and Takami (2005) claim that the two examples are differentin terms of whether the state of the subject is changed by the event. In(8), the state ofHamlet has not changed at all after the event of John read-ing it. In contrast, in (9) the place and the status of the purse has changedafter the passerby picked the purse from the street. Considering this fact,Kuno andTakami (2005) conclude that passives have the constraint that thestate of the subject must be changed by the event for the sentence to begrammatical. Therefore, here I assume that the subject in passives has thecriterial feature [CHA]. Again, note that the lack of CHA in actives doesnot necessarilymean that the state of the object does not change. The lackof CHA just means that the sentence is unspecified in terms of whether thestate of theobject changesor not. Second, the NPPRs which are concerned with causatives are CAU andAFF. TraditionalCauser has [CAU] andCausee has [AFF]. In causatives,the Causee does something, which is caused by the Causer. Therefore, theCausee has also [MOV]. I assume CAU projects structurally higher thanAFF, sinceCauser appears beforeCausee in causative sentences. Finally, psych verb constructions contain VOL, SEN, CAU and AFF. Dowty (1991) claims that traditional Experiencer has [SEN]. In addition,however, an Experiencer can have [AFF] if there is a Causer in a sen-tence. I assume SEN projects structurally higher than CAU, since Experi-encer appears before Causer. In addition, as I explain in detail in section6, psych verb constructions are categorized into two kinds depending onwhether the construction containsVOL. The hierarchy ofVOL andSEN isirrelevant here, and I assumeVOLprojects aboveSENexpedientially. All things considered, I define thehierarchyofProto-Roles as (10).
(10) CHA > VOL > SEN > CAU > AFF > MOV > INC > STA Non-PrimitiveProto-Roles PrimitiveProto-Roles
v, which is a bundle of θ-features, separates derivationally following thishierarchy.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)280
2.3. On Case Next, I propose the system of Case valuation based on θ-features. Ac-cording to Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001), Structural Case valuation is aside effect of φ-feature agreement. However, since I assume here thatJapanese lacks φ-features, another system of Case valuation which does notdepend on φ-features is necessary. As for the structural Case valuation, Ipartly follow Otsuka (2013). He proposes that Case is determined by aphase head at the transfer. When a DP is transferred by v head it obtainsAccusative Case, and when transferred by C head it obtains NominativeCase. This mechanism does not depend on φ-feature agreement, and canbe extended to the analysis here. However, I add a condition to this sys-tem. As I will discuss in detail later, certain Proto-Roles in (4) and (5)enable v to assign the value Accusative. The key functional heads whichmake v capable ofAccusative Case valuation are INC,AFF and VOL. Ina vP domain whose head does not contain these features [u-Case] is notvalued when transferred. Importantly, v is the bundle of θ-features andthese features dissociate derivationally. Therefore, even if v originally hasthe ability of Accusative Case valuation, it loses this ability when it relin-quishes the key θ-feature. In this case, some strategy is necessary to givesome value to [u-CASE], since it causes the derivation to crash when leftunvalued. I claim here that a DP obtains Dative Case as soon as it landson a vP domainwhere no structural Case valuation occurs. Themotivationto assume that Dative Case valuation occurs before transfer is an observa-tion of McFadden (2014). He notes that in some languages inherent Caseblocks the movement of a DP while structural Case does not. I claim thisfact is attributed to Chomsky’s (2000, 2001)Activity Condition, which saysthat a DP whose [u-CASE] is valued is inactivated, which means that theDP is no longer the target of a syntactic operation. Assuming this condi-tion, the Case valuation system proposed here goes well with the McFad-den’s (2014) observation. Since structural Case valuation occurs aftertransfer, aDPwhichwill obtain the structural Case canmove freely in syn-tax because its [u-CASE] is not valued. On the other hand, since DativeCase valuation occurs before transfer, a DP with Dative Case is stuck atthe position where the DP obtains the Case. With the assumptions above,theoretically the edge of vP is free of Dative Case valuation. A DP inthis position necessarily moves to [Spec, TP] and its [u-Case] is valued asNominative when transferred. Therefore, Dative Case valuation strategy isnot necessary for this position. I schematize thismechanismbelow.
281A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
(11)
In (11), v consists of X,Y and Z. Since Z is the key functional head forAccusative Case valuation, v is originally capable ofAccusative Case valu-ation. That is, [Spec, ZP] is the potential Accusative Case valuation do-main. A DP which is transferred here obtainsAccusative Case. However,sooner or later v loses this ability when Z dissociates from v. After thedissociation, the vP domain turns into the Dative Case valuation domain, soas soon as a DP lands on [Spec,YP] it obtains Dative Case. Dative Casevaluation does not occur in [Spec,XP], since it is the highest positon of vPand a DP which stays here necessarily obtains Nominative Case at the nextphase.
3. In the PPR Domain
In this section we focus on the PPR domain. The construction which isderived exclusively within this domain is that of active clauses. This sec-tion makes it clear that INC makes v capable ofAccusative Case valuationin the PPR domain. First we observe the Acc/Dat alternation in Japaneseas an illustration. After that, I argue that although the phenomenon is notobserved in English, the language has the same system as Japanese, and thedifference between English and Japanese is attributed to the parameters ofmorphology. In Japanese, depending on the kind of verb, we sometimes have two al-ternatives forCasemarking of objects. One such verb isnoboru, as shown in (12).
However,with the sameverb, in other caseswedonot have the choice.(13) a. Taro-ga kaidan-*ni/o nobo-tta. Taro-Non stairs-*Dat/Acc climb-Past ‘Taro climbed the stairs.’ b. Taro-ga choujou-ni/*o nobo-tta. Taro-Nom top-Dat/*Acc climb-Past ‘Taro climbed (something) to the topof it.’
The contrast between (13a) and (13b) shows thatwhen the object is a refer-ence point that is passed by it must be marked withAccusative, and whenthe object is a goal we must mark it with Dative. Therefore, in (12) theinterpretation slightly changes depending on the Case marking of the ob-ject. That is, when yama is marked with Accusative the sentence focuseson the process of Taro’s climbing, while when yama is marked with Da-tive the sentence just expresses the fact that Taro reached the top of themountain. In order to confirm the key functional head which is crucialfor Accusative Case valuation, let us consider what Proto-Roles the par-ticipants in (13a) and (13b) have. First, in (13a),Taro is themoving entityin the climbing event, so it has [MOV]. On the other hand, kaidan is the place where the climbing event occurs, so it has [STA]. In addition, weestimate how much the climbing event has progressed by the state of thestairs (e.g. onwhich stepTaro stands). Therefore, inDowty’s (1991) sensekaidan is an incremental theme,whichmeans that it also has [INC]. Turn-ing to (13b), as for Taro there is nothing different from that in (13a), soit has [MOV]. choujou is the place the climbing event occurs, so it has[STA]. Whatmakes (13a, b) different is that choujou is not an incrementaltheme. Choujou is a conceptually narrow point, and the climbing eventsuddenly endswhenTaro arrives there. Therefore,we cannot estimate howmuch the climbing event has progressed by the state ofchoujou. All thingsconsidered,we can conclude that INC enables v to assign the valueAccusa-tive. Thederivationsof (13a, b) are illustratedby (14a, b) respectively.
283A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
(14) a.
b.
In (14a), v contains INC,whichmakes v capable ofAccusative Case valua-tion. As long as INC stays in v, non-structuralCase valuation does not oc-cur. Therefore, the DP kaidan moves from [Spec, STAP] to [Spec, INCP],and its [u-CASE] is valued as Accusative when it is transferred. [Spec,MOVP] is the edge of vP, which means that the [u-CASE] of Taro is not valued here and it obtains Nominative at the next phase. In contrast, in(14b) v does not have the ability to assign the value Accusative. In thiscase,choujou obtainsDativeCase as soon as itmergeswithSTA. Now, let us turn to English. We observed above that Japanese changes
kaidan
[STA]
kaidan
kaidan
Taro
[INC][u-CASE]
[MOV]
MOVP
DP MOV′
INCP MOV
DP INC′
STAP INC MOV
DP STA′
RP STA INC MOV
DP R
satisfies [STA]
satisfies [INC][u-CASE]→[Acc] when transferred
choujou
[STA]choujou
[MOV]Taro
[u-CASE]
MOVP
DP MOV′
STAP MOV
DP STA′
R STA MOV
DP R
satisfies [STA][u-CASE]→[Dat]
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)284
the Case of an object according to what Proto-Roles the object has. Soeven with the same verb, its interpretation slightly changes depending onthe Case. English does not have such a system, but uses different lexicalitemsdependingonwhatProto-Roles anobject has.7
(15) a. Tom reached the topof themountain. b. Tomarrived at the topof themountain.
Although the basic meaning of reach and arrive is the same, the interpre-tations of (15a) and that of (15b) are slightly different. (15a) means thatTom got to the top of themountainwith his effort,while (15b) refers to justthe result that Tom got there. Thus the former is an accomplishment verband the latter is an achievement verb in the sense of Vendler (1967) andDowty (1979). This means that (15a) has aspectual range, which makesthe top of the mountain an incremental theme, while in (15b) the top of the mountain is not an incremental theme. Therefore, in the derivationof (15a)INC projects and the object obtainsAccusative Case like in Japanese, whilein (15b) Accusative Case valuation does not occur without INC. In otherwords, the fact that INC is the key functional head to assign the valueAc-cusative is sharedby Japanese andEnglish. The difference between English and Japanese is just the way INC sur-faces. In Japanese, INCdoes not surface as a concrete lexical item, but theexistence of INC just affects what Case the object obtains. In contrast, inEnglish INC affects theway the verbal root surfaces. As for reach and ar-rive in (15), their verbal roots are the same, which is the reason why theirbasic meanings are the same. The only difference is whether INC projectsor not. (16) shows thewayarrive and reach are derived.8
(16) a. ARRIVE+MOV→arrive b. ARRIVE+ INC+MOV→ reach
In sum, both inEnglish and Japanese INCmakes v capable ofAccusative
7 According to an anonymous reviewer,English shows the followingphenomena. (i) a. I ate the cake. b. I ate at the cake. (ii) a. Iwalkedon these streets. b. Iwalked these streets.The difference between (ia) and (ib) is whether the object is affected or not. This data can be explained with the current assumption. That is, only in (ia)AFF projects, whichmakes the v capable of Accusative Case valuation. On the other hand, what differenti-ate (iia) and (iib) is habituality. That is, if a man sold something while walking on thestreets, he utters (iib). Many factors other than thematic information should be consid-ered to explain (ii),which I leave for future research. 8 ARRIVE is the expediential notationof themeaning [BECOMEyBEATz].
285A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
Case valuation. In Japanese the surfaced form of R is the same no matterwhether INC projects or not, while in English projection of INC changesthe morphological realization of R. This parametric difference is alsoobserved in causatives, and it relates with the other parametric differencewhich is introduced in section6.
4. Passives
As I briefly mentioned in section 1, the general assumption for passivesin the currentMP cannot explain Japanese passives. In this section, I pointout the problem of the traditional explanation for passives based on theCase system, and I then argue that passivization is based on the θ-systemproposed in section 2, which can provide a unified explanation for bothEnglish and Japanese. Following the framework of Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2008), a passive sen-tence is derived as follows.
(17) a. Tomwas slapped (byMary). b.
In (17b), v is assumed to be “weak.” Weak v has defective φ-features(Chomsky (2001)), which are inherited to V. As a result, the DP does notobtain Accusative Case when it agrees with V, and it can move to [Spec,TP], since transfer of the complement of v does not occur. However, as-suming that the samemechanismworks in Japanese, a serious problem aris-es. Consider the following two passive sentences, a direct passive sentencein (18a) and an indirect passive sentence in (18b).
As for (18a) we can say that the same mechanism as English applies. Turning to (18b), the situation completely changes. Clearly saifu has Ac-cusative Case, so v in (18b) cannot be weak, sinceAccusative Case valua-tion cannot occur without complete φ-features. Considering this fact, it isdesirable to assume that v is strong even in passives, so we have to recon-sider the reasonwhy a thematic objectmoves to the subject position in pas-sives. In addition, the source of the suffix -rare is not clear. Looking at(18a), it seems thatweak v is the source of -rare. However, as v is strongin indirect passives, this intuition is wrong. Then, direct passives and indi-rect passives should share a certain functional headwhich surfaces as -rare. An inevitable matter concerning these questions is how indirect passivesare derived. In order to discuss this matter, we have to refer to the studyof argument introducers, since in indirect passives three arguments are in-volved. The view that there exist functional heads which introduce an ar-gument, as started by Marantz (1984) and Larson (1988), and extended byChomsky (1995), Kratzer (1996) and Pylkkänen (2008). Pylkkänen (2008)proposes seven argument introducers, which enable us to explain multiplephenomena in a variety of languages. One of the seven argument introduc-ers is Low Source Applicative, which enables us to explain Hebrew Pos-sessorDatives and Japanese indirect passives.
(19) HEBREW a. ha-yalda kilkela le-Dan et ha-radio. The-girl spoiled to-Dan Acc the-radio ‘Thegirl brokeDan’s radioonhim.’ (Landau (1999) cited inPylkkänen (2008)) b. VoiceP
Voice′
Voice VP
V APPLP
IO APPL′
ApplFROM DO
287A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
(20) JAPANESE INDIRECT PASSIVES a. Hanako-ga dorobo-ni yubiwa-o to-rare-ta. Hanako-Nom thief-Dat ring-Acc steal-Pass-Past ‘Hanakowas affectedby the thief stealingher ring.’ (Pylkkänen (2008)) b.
(Pylkkänen (2008)) In (19b), IO corresponds to Dan in (19a) and DO corresponds to radio. APPLP makes a possessive relationship between these DPs. Pylkkänen(2008) claims that Japanese has the same functional head, and the basestructure of (20a) is as (20b). In the same way as Hebrew,APPLP meansthat Hanako possesses ring. However, as she points out, an important question is left open. Follow-ingPylkkänen (2008), thederivationof an indirect passive is as follows.
(21)
V takes APPLP as a complement and v verbalizes V. Voice projectsabove vP to introduce the agent dorobo. The problem is the reason whydorobo cannot move to [Spec, TP] andHanako moves there though dorobo is nearer to [Spec, TP] than Hanako. In addition, the simple question
VP
APPLP V
Hanako APPL′
APPLFROM ring
TP
Hanako T′
VoiceP T
dorobo Voice′
vP Voice
VP v
APPLP V
Hanako APPL′
yubiwa APPL
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)288
noticed above is left unsolved. That is, what is the source of the suffix-rare? In (21), v is transitive and Voice introduces an external argument,so there is no reason to pronounce either of them -rare. Now, let us consider the derivation of direct passives and indirect pas-siveswith the proposal noted in section 2. The important task to do beforeconsidering the derivation is to make clear what Proto-Roles each argumenthas. Remember that subjects of passives should have [CHA] consideringthe observation ofKuno andTakami (2005). Otherwise, there is no seman-tic difference between actives and passives. Therefore, I describe the deri-vationof a passive sentence (22a) as in (22b).
(22) a. Taro-ga Hanako-ni tatak-(r)are-ta. Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat slap-Pass-Past ‘Tarowas slappedbyHanako.’ b.
Until the node MOVP the structure is derived in the same way as that ofactives. The only difference is that Taro has [CHA]. Therefore, it movesto [Spec, CHAP] because it fulfils the criterion. Although Hanako is on the path ofTaro’smovement, it does not block thismovement sinceHanako does not have the appropriate features to move to [Spec, CHAP]. Note
Hanako
[STA]
Taro[CHA]
Taro
CHAP
DP CHA′
MOVP CHA
DP MOV′
INCP MOV CHA
DP INC′
STAP INC MOV CHA
DP STA′
R STA INC MOV CHA
DP R
[MOV]
Taro
Taro
satisfies [STA]
satisfies [INC][u-CASE] remains unvalued
[u-CASE]
[INC]
289A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
that [Spec, MOVP] is the only nonstructural Case valuation domain. Untilthe derivation proceeds to MOV′, v contains INC, which makes v capableof Accusative Case valuation. Therefore, the [u-CASE] of Taro is not valued until it is transferred in [Spec, TP], when the [u-CASE] obtains thevalueNominative. Next let us move to a derivation of indirect passives. In the case ofindirect passives like (23a), how are Proto-Roles distributed to each partici-pant, namelyTaro,Hanako and kuruma? As for the Primitive Proto-Roles,no doubtHanako has [MOVE] and kuruma has [STA] and [INC]. Consid-ering the non-Primitive Proto-Roles, Taro’s mental state is changed by theevent of Hanako breaking his car, so Taro has [CHA]. All things consid-ered, thederivationof (23a) is (23b).
(23) a. Taro-ga Hanako-ni kuruma-o kowas-(r)are-ta. Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat kuruma-Acc break-Pass-Past ‘Tarohadhis car brokenbyHanako.’ b.
The structure is the same as that of direct passives (22b). v containsINC, which makes v capable of Accusative Case valuation. Therefore, itis not surprising that kuruma hasAccusative Case. In the same way as inactives, the [u-CASE] of kuruma is valued as Accusative when it is trans-
[MOV]Hanako
[CHA]Taro
kuruma
CHAP
DP CHA′
MOVP CHA
DP MOV′
INCP MOV CHA
DP INC′
STAP INC MOV CHA
DP STA′
R STA INC MOV CHA
DP R
kuruma
kuruma[STA] [INC]
satisfies [STA]
satisfies [INC][u-CASE]→[Acc] when transferred
[u-CASE]
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)290
ferred in [Spec, INCP]. The subject DP Taro is directly introduced into[Spec,CHAP],which is theNominativeCase valuation domain. Therefore,this analysis predicts that in direct passives a subjectmoves from the objectposition while in indirect passives it does not. This prediction conflictswith Pylkkänen’s (2008) analysis, since in her framework the subject ofindirect passives is introduced syntactically into a lower position to makea possessive relation with the direct object, and it moves from there to thesubject position. The following examples suggest that the present analysisis superior to Pylkkänen’swith the assumption that floating quantifiers are aresult of themovement ofDP.
(24) a. Gakusei-ga sensei-ni san-nin homer-(r)are-ta. student-Nom teacher-Dat three-Cl praise-Pass-Past ‘Three studentswerepraisedby a teacher.’ b.??Gakusei-ga sensei-ni san-nin hyouka-o student-Nom teacher-Dat three-Cl grade-Acc sager-(r)are-ta. lower-Pass-Past ‘Three students had their grades loweredby their teacher.’
The contrast between (24a) and (24b) suggests that gakusei moves from astructurally lower position to the subject position in direct passives, such as(24a), while such a movement does not occur in indirect passives, such as(24b). Therefore, the data in (24) support the analysis here rather than Py-lkkänen’s (2008) analysis. As for passives in English, I will explain them in section 5, where weconsider causatives. There we see the θ-structure of have, and the reasonwhyweusehave in bothpassives and causativeswill becomeclear. Having described the mechanism of passivization, let us consider theinteresting data concerning the Acc/Dat alternation, which were discussedin section 3. Recall that the verb noboru can give eitherAccusative Caseor Dative Case to its object depending on what Proto-Roles the objecthas. We have seen that when the object has [INC] it obtains AccusativeCase while without [INC] it obtains Dative Case. This relationship be-tweenProto-Roles andCasefitswith the following examplesof passives.
(25) a. Sono yama-wa tennou-ni nobor-(r)are-ta. the mountain-Top emperor-Dat climb-Pass-Past ‘Themountainwas climbedby the emperor.’ (cf. Tennou-ga sonoyama-o nobo-tta. emperor-Nom themountain-Acc climb-Past ‘The emperor climbed themountain.’)
291A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
b. *Sono choujou-wa tennou-ni nobor-(r)are-ta. the top-Top emperor-Dat climb-Pass-Past ‘The emperor got to the top (of something).’ (cf. Tennou-ga sono choujou-ni nobo-tta. emperor-Nom the top-Dat climb-Past The emperor got to the top (of something).)
(25a) is a passivized version of an active sentence which contains anAcc-marked object, while (25b) originally contains a Dat-marked object. InJapanese, some verbs have a constraint that when they are passivized thewhole sentence must add some property to the subject (Kuno and Takami(2005)), and noboru is one of these verbs. In (25a), the fact that the em-peror has climbed the mountain adds to the mountain a property, in thesense that the mountain gets to be recognized as a special one since theemperor has climbed it, which makes the sentence grammatical. In (25b),this constraint is also satisfied by the climbing event of the emperor. Nev-ertheless, the sentence is ungrammatical. This fact shows that an activesentence with a Dative-marked object cannot be passivized. As I noted insection 2.3, I claim that this is because of theActivity Condition (Chomsky(2000, 2001)), which says that a DP whose [u-CASE] is valued is inacti-vated, which means that the DP is no longer the target of syntactic opera-tions. The structure of (25a) is the same as (22b). The structure of (25b)is shownbelow.
(26) CHAP
DP CHA′
MOVP CHA
DP MOV′
STAP MOV CHA
DP STA′
RP STA MOV CHA
DP R
tennou[MOV]
sono choujou
[STA][u-CASE]
sono choujou
satisfies [STA][u-CASE] → [Dat]
sono choujou
[CHA]
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)292
In (26), v does not contain INC, which means that all the positions except[Spec, CHAP] are in the Dative Case valuation domain. Therefore, the [u-CASE] of choujou is valued as Dative Case as soon as it moves to [Spec,STAP]. When CHA projects, choujou has to move to [Spec, CHAP] be-cause it satisfies the criterion, but it cannot because its [u-CASE] is alreadyvalued as Dative. In this way, we can capture the fact that sentences withAcc-marked objects can be passivized while sentences with Dat-marked ob-jects cannot.9 Summing up this section, I pointed out the problem of passives withinthe current MP framework. That is, the existence of languages where adirect object has Accusative Case even in passives requires v to be strongeven in passives, which conflicts with the standard assumption in theMini-malist Program. This problem is solved with the assumption proposed insection 2. v in passives contains all the functional heads which are con-tained by v in actives. The difference is that v in passives additionally hasCHA, which is the reason why the thematic object moves to the subjectposition in passives. The answer to the simple but important question, thesource of the passive suffix -rare, is that the projection of CHA surfaces as-rare. Another important question remains. In English, be -en is used indirect passives in contrast with have DP -en in indirect passives. If thesystem of passivization proposed here is common between English and Jap-anese, English should be able to produce direct passives and indirect pas-sives with the same form, which is not the case. This question is tackledin thenext section,wherewe consider causatives.
9 As an anonymous reviewer points out, Japanese has the following exception toMcFadden’s (2014) observation. (i) a. Kyojin-ga uma-ni not-ta. giant-Nom horse-Dat ride-Past “Agiant rode a horse.” b. Uma-ga kyojin-ni nor-are-ta. (Sosite, tubure-ta.) horse-Nom giant-Dat ride-Pass-Past (and crush-Past) “Ahorsewas rodeby a giant. (And it crashed.)”Although the object in (27a) is Dative-marked, (27a) can be passivized as shown in(27b). However, as we can see in the part in parentheses, the passivized sentence mustbe interpreted to mean that the horse was adversely affected by the event of the giantroding it. This fact means that (27b) containsAFF. Remember thatAFF is one of theθ-features which makes v capable ofAccusative Case valuation. In (ib),AFF makes vPanAccusativeCasevaluationdomain,which enablesuma tomove to [Spec,CHAP].
293A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
5. Causatives
In section 3, we observed that INC enables v to value [u-CASE] asAc-cusative in the PPR domain. In this section, I show that AFF also workslike INC in the NPPR domain. First, consider the following causative ex-amples.
(27) a. Taro-ga Hanako-ni odor-(s)ase-ta. Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat dance-Cause-Past ‘Taro letHanakodance.’ b. Taro-ga Hanako-o odor-(s)ase-ta. Taro-Nom Hanako-Acc dance-Cause-Past ‘TaromadeHanakodance.’
Taking a look at the interpretation of (27a) and (27b), we notice that whenthe Causee is marked as Dative the coercion of the Causer is weak whilewhen the Causee is marked as Accusative the coercion of the Causer isstrong. Considering this difference in interpretation, the affectedness ofthe Causee seems to be the key factor determining Case marking. Thatis, when the Causee is affected it is marked as Accusative, while whenthe Causer just lets the Causee do something the Causee is marked as Da-tive. Paraphrasing this technically, when v contains AFF it is capable ofAccusativeCasevaluationwhilewhenvdoesnot containAFF, it is not. Remember that in section 3 we observed that an active sentence with anAcc-marked object can be passivized while one with a Dat-marked objectcannot. Aparallel phenomenon is observed in causatives.
(28) Hanako-ga Taro-ni odor-(s)ase-rare-ta. Hanako-Nom Taro-Dat dance-Cause-Pass-Past ‘Hanakowasmade to dancebyTaro.’
When we passivize (27a) and (27b), both result in (28). However, we caninterpret (28) only in one way. As we can see from the interpretation, in(28) Taro forcesHanako to dance. That is, (28) is the passivized sentenceof (27b) but not that of (27a), which means that (27a) cannot be passiv-ized. The reason for this fact is clear if we recall the story of Acc/Datalternation in section4. The structure of (28) is providedbelow.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)294
(29)
In (29), MOVP and everything below it express the event of Hanako dancing. Since the Causee is affected, AFF projects above MOVP, andit enables v to value the [u-CASE] as Accusative. CAU projects abovethat, and surfaces as -sase. In order to passivize the sentence, CHA proj-ects at the top of the derivation. Following the way the structure is de-rived, Hanako is introduced into [Spec, MOVP] and it moves to [Spec,AFFP]. After that CAUP projects and Taro is introduced into its Spec. Note that Taro obtains Dative Case here since AFF has already dissoci-ated from v. Lastly, CHAP projects and Hanako moves to its Spec. When the derivation does not containAFF as (27a), the [u-CASE] ofHana-ko is valued as Dative in [Spec,MOVP], which means that it cannot moveto [Spec, CHAP] to satisfy its criterion. Therefore, (28) can only be inter-preted as containingAFF. Now let us turn to causatives in English. Remember that in section 3we saw that functional heads do not influence the morphological form ofR in Japanese while R changes its morphological form depending on whichfunctional head v contains in English. This difference is also observedbetween Japanese and English here, as in Japanese we use -sase no matterwhich functional head is introduced while in English we use different kindsof causative verbs. Here we consider three verbs, namelymake, have and let. As we can see from the interpretation of (27a, b), let corresponds to
CHAP
DP CHA′
CAUP CHA
DP CAU′
AFFP CAU CHA
DP AFF′
MOVP AFF CAU CHA
DP MOV′
R MOV AFF CAU CHA
satisfies [CHA] Taro[CAU]
[MOV] [u-CASE]
Hanako
[AFF][CHA]
Hanako
satisfies [AFF]Hanako
[u-CASE] remains unvalued
295A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
Dative causatives in Japanese and make corresponds to Accusative caus-atives. Therefore, make is the amalgam of CAU and AFF, and let is the phonological realization of CAU. Then, of what is have constituted? Inorder to clarify the elements of have, let us compare the meaning ofmake with that of have. Generally, we usemake when we force someone to dosomethingwhichwedonotwant to do.
(30) TommadeMarydohis homework.In (30), Tom does not want to do his homework and he inflicts it onMary. In contrast, we use have when we ask someone to do somethingthat hewill not reject.
(31) The child hadhismother buyhis pencils.In (31) the child does not force his mother to buy his pencils but justasks her to do it, and it is natural for the mother to buy pencils for herchild. In addition, the child will benefit from the event of hismother buy-ing his pencils. Therefore, I assume that have is the verb which focuseson the state of the subject, not on affectedness. Technically,have has CHA andCAU. Remember that in Japanese Acc-causatives can be passivized while Dat-causatives cannot. This is because Acc-causatives contain AFF, whichmakes a vP structural Case valuation domain, while Dat-causatives donot contain AFF, making a vP non-structural Case valuation domain. InDat-causatives the Causee, which has obtained non-structural Case, cannotmove anymore, and this is the reason why Dat-causatives cannot be passiv-ized. The same pattern is observed in English, as shown by the followingexamples.
(32) a. Marywasmade to doTom’shomework. b. *Marywas let (to) goplayoutside. c. *Marywashad (to) doTom’shomework.
As shown in (32), make, which contains AFF, can be passivized while let and have, which do not containAFF, cannot be passivized. The source ofthis difference is the same as in Japanese. That is,make does not giveDa-tive Case to the Causee since it containsAFF, while let and have give Da-tiveCase to theCausee,whichdetains theCausee in [Spec,MOVP]. Finally, we consider the remaining problem noted in section 4. In Eng-lish, we use the form be -en for direct passives while we use have DP -en for indirect passives. Why does English use different lexical items? Actu-ally, the biggest difference between English and Japanese will be explicatedhere. Let us consider the derivation of HAVE passives. (33b) is the deri-vationof (1b) beforeJohn is introduced into thederivation. I omit describ-
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)296
ing the separationof v to avoid complicating thefigure.(33) a. Johnhadhiswallet stolenbyMary. (=(1b)) b.
If T projects above the structure (33b), a simple direct passive sentence fol-lows (His wallet was stolen by Mary). CHA surfaces as the passive mor-pheme -en and by is inserted beforeMary to mark Dative Case. However,the numeration has another participant John. This argument is introducedinto the derivation by have, which is also used in causatives. Remem-ber that have has CHA and CAU. In causatives CHA means benefac-tive change of state, while in passives it means malefactive change ofstate. Consideringwhat Proto-Roles John has, John’smental state is wors-ened by the event of Mary stealing his wallet, which means that John has [CHA]. Furthermore, it is necessary to indicate that this change of stateis caused by the event which is expressed by the syntactic structure below,so CAU is necessary. Therefore, have is a suitable functional head to in-troduce John. The structure (33b) is further derived as in (34). I omitdescribing the separationof v once again.
CHAP
DP CHA′
CHA MOVP
DP MOV′
MOV INCP
DP INC′
INC STAP
DP STA′
STA RP
R DP
satisfies [INC][u-CASE] is left unvalued
[u-CASE][STA][INC][CHA]
his wallet
his wallet
satisfies [STA]
his wallet
satisfies [CHA] Mary
his wallet
297A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
(34)
Note that there is no Specifier of CAUP. CAU without a Specifier meansthat there is an unspecified Causer, which the hearer can infer (Pylkkänen(2008)). In this case, theCauser is the event that John’swalletwas stolen,which is indicated by the syntactic structure below the syntactically lowerCHAP. John is directly introduced into the syntactically higher [Spec,CHAP], and it is interpreted that the state of this argument is changed be-cause of the event noted above. The amalgam of CHA and CAU surfacesas have, and it merges with past T to be pronounced as had. Structurallylower CHAP does notmergewithT, so it surfaces as his wallet stolen, likea passive sentencewithoutbe. Importantly, the explanation above is based on the assumption that inEnglish we can introduce two vs while in Japanese we can introduce onlyone v. In the next section I verify this assumption by considering the be-havior of psychverbs in both languages.
6. PsychVerbs
As I mentioned in the previous section, it is shown that English allowsrecursion of v while Japanese does not. First we focus on Japanese. InJapanese, psych verbs are categorized into two kinds depending on theCaseof the object. Henceforth we call the kind of psych verbs in (35a) Dat-psychverbs and (35b)Acc-psychverbs.
(35) a. Taro-ga Hanako-ni iradat-ta. Taro-Nom Hanako-Dat get irritated-Past ‘Tarowas irritated atHanako.’ b. Taro-ga Hanako-o utaga-tta. Taro-Nom Hanako-Acc suspect-Past ‘Taro suspectedHanako.’
These constructions are different in terms of causativization. Specifically,Dat-psychverbs cannot be causativizedwhileAcc-psychverbs can.
CHAP
DP CHA′
CHA CAUP
CAU CHAP
Johnsatisfies [CHA]
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)298
(36) a. *Sono uwasa-ga Taro-ni Hanako-ni the rumor-Nom Taro-Dat Hanako-Dat iradat-(s)ase-ta. get irritated-Cause-Past ‘The rumormadeTaroget irritated atHanako.’ b. Sono uwasa-ga Taro-ni Hanako-o the rumor-Nom Taro-Dat Hanako-Acc utagaw-(s)ase-ta. suspect-Cause-Past ‘The rumormadeTaro suspectHanako.’
This phenomenon can be explained by considering the argument structure ofeach kind of psych verb. First, as for Dat-psych verbs, we can see whatProto-Roles each argument has by altering the arrangement of the argu-ments.
(37) Hanako-ga Taro-o iradat-(s)ase-ta. Hanako-Nom Taro-Acc get irritated-Cause-Past ‘Hanako irritatedTaro.’
Whenwe reverse the arguments of (35a), the causative suffix -sase appears. This fact shows that Taro’s change of mental state is caused by Hanako. In other words Hanako has [CAU] and Taro has [AFF] and [SEN]. Incontrast, we observe a different pattern when we alter the arrangement ofarguments in (35b).
(38) Hanako-ga Taro-o utagaw-(s)ase-ta. Hanako-Nom Taro-Acc suspect-Cause-Past ‘Hanako made Taro suspect someone. / Hanako made someone
suspectTaro.’In order to interpret (38),we have to assume some implicit argument as theone Taro suspects or as the Causee. This fact means that Hanako is not Causer in (35b) but just the target ofTaro’s suspicion. In addition, psych verb constructions have two characteristic θ-features,SEN andVOL. As for SEN, as Dowty (1991) assumes, all the subjects inpsych verbs constructions have this θ-feature. On the other hand, I claimhere that only theAcc-psych verbs have VOL. This can be proved by thefollowing tests. (39) is the Imperative test. If the subject of a sentence isvolitional, the sentence can be an imperative. (40) is the Try-to test. Ifthe subject is volitional -youtosuru “try-to” canbe added to theverb.
299A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
Dat-psychverbs: *Taro-wa irada-toutosi-ta ga Taro-Top be irritated-try to-Past but muri-datta. impossible-Past ‘Taro tried to get irritated but it was impos-
sible.’ Acc-psychverbs: Taro-wa Hanako-o utaga-outosi-ta Taro-Top Hanako-Acc suspect-try to-Past ga muri-datta. but impossible-Past ‘Taro tried to suspect Hanako but it was im-
possible.’The test above shows that the subject ofDat-psych verbs does not have vo-litionalitywhile that ofAcc-psychverbs does. All things considered, the derivation of (35a) is represented in (41a) andthat of (35b) is represented in (41b).
10 One of the two reviewer points out that the acceptability of the sentence with theDat-psychverb in (40) improves if a dativeobject is inserted as follows. (i) Taro-wa [oogoe-de naku akanbou]-ni irada-toutosi-ta ga Taro-Top [bigvoice-with cry baby]-Dat be irritated-try to-Past but muri-datta. impossible-Past “Taro tried to be irritated at the baby cryingwith loud voice, but itwas impos-
sible.”According to my 10 informants, 4 of them answered “ungrammatical,” 2 of them an-swered “unnatural,” and 4 of them answered “grammatical.” This fact suggests that somepeople can add VOL to Dat-psych verbs with certain context. Under my proposal thesepeople should have different Case valuation systems. Iwill pursue this issue in the futurework.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)300
(41) a.
b.
The distribution of Case in (41a) is explained with (28). Since v con-tains AFF, [Spec, AFFP] is the potential Accusative Case valuation domain. Actually, when SENP does not project, Taro obtains Accusative Case asshown in (37a). In (41a), SENP projects and Taro moves to its specifierbefore Accusative Case valuation, and it obtains Nominative Case. As forHanako in[Spec,CAUP],sinceAFFhasalreadydissociatedfromv, itobtainsDativeCasewhen introduced into there. On theother hand, in (41b), all thepositions except [Spec, VOLP] are in theAccusative Case valuation domain,so Hanako obtainsAccusative Case when transferred. As for Taro, since itstayssyntactically in thehighestpositioninvP, itobtainsNominativeCase.
[AFF][SEN]
SENP
DP SEN′
CAUP SEN
DP CAU′
AFFP CAU SEN
DP AFF′
R AFF CAU SENTaro
[CAU]Hanako
Taro
satisfies [SEN]
VOLP
DP VOL′
SENP VOL
DP SEN′
STAP SEN VOL
DP STA′
RP STA SEN VOL
DP RHanako
[STA][u-CASE]
Hanako
Taro[VOL][SEN]
satisfies [STA][u-CASE]→[Acc] when transferred
Taro
satisfies [VOL]
301A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
If each psych verb’s argument structure is as in (41), one predictionarises. In the derivation of Dat-psych verbs the movement of Experienceroccurs and in that of Acc-psych verbs this movement does not occur, soquantifier resumption should be observed in a derivation of Dat-psych verbsand it should not in a derivation of Acc-psych verbs. This prediction isborneout by the following examples.
(42) a. Gakusei-ga sensei-ni san-nin iradat-ta. student-Nom teacher-Dat three-Cl get irritated-Past ‘Three students got irritated at the teacher.’ b. Gakusei-ga sensei-o san-nin utaga-tta. student-Nom teacher-Acc three-Cl suspect-Past ‘The student suspected three teachers.’
As the interpretation shows, in (42a) the quantifier sannin modifies gakusei while in (42b) the quantifier can only modify sensei, which is evidence forthe fact that movement of the Experiencer occurs in Dat-psych verbs whileit does not inAcc-psychverbs. This fact suggests that in Japanese the same Proto-Role cannot appeartwice in a clause. In other words, v cannot appear in a clause more thanonce. Dat-psych verbs originally contain CAU, so they cannot be caus-ativized. In contrast,Acc-psych verbs do not contain CAU, which enablesthem tobe causativized. Turning to English, psych verbs behave differently from those in Japa-nese. Consider the following example, where a psych verb is causativ-ized.11
(43) The rumormadeMaryget irritated at John.(43) corresponds to Japanese example (37a), and it is completely grammati-cal. This fact indicates that twoCausers can exist in a sentence inEnglish,which means that recursion of v is allowed in English. Therefore, Englishhas theverbhave,which canbeused in bothpassives and causatives. The parametric difference between English and Japanese in terms of therecursion of v is also exemplified in double causatives. In the literature, it
11 As an anonymous reviewer points out, the following sentence should be grammaticalundermy analysis, since inEnglishv recursion is allowed. (i) Tommade Johnbe irritated atMary.However, according to my informant the acceptability of this sentence is low. He claims that there is a mismatch because be describes a state while causatives describe anevent. The degradation of the acceptabilitymay be attributed to the difference of aspectbetween be and get. I leave this problem that some property of aspect blocks the recur-sionof v for the future research.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)302
is pointedout that Japanesehas double causatives as in (44).(44) George-ga Naomi-ni Ken-o oki-sase-ru. George-Nom Naomi-Dat Ken-Acc get up-Cause-Pres ‘GeorgemadeNaomimakeKenget up.’ (Kuroda (1993: 10))
The important thing is that the causative morpheme -sase cannot appeartwice although the meaning of the sentence contains double causative rela-tionships.
As we can see from the interpretation, English allows double causatives. This fact is explained by the assumption in this paper that English allows vto iterate. Also, the fact that in Japanese only one causativemorpheme ap-pears is explained as follows. (44) has the structure shown in (46).
(46)
(46) means that each argument in (44) has one θ-feature. George causes the event to happen that Naomi makes Ken get up, so George has CAU. Naomi is affected by George, which means Naomi has AFF. Thecausative relationship betweenNaomi and Ken is inferred by the interpreter. Ken hasMOVsince it is themoving entity. I claim here that the parameter of v recursion follows from the mor-phological parameter noted in section 3.12 Remember that θ-features
12 I thankoneof the anonymous reviewers for the suggestionof this parameter.
CAUP
DP CAU′
AFFP CAU
DP AFF′
MOVP AFF CAU
DP MOV′
RP MOV AFF CAU
DP RKen
[MOV]
Naomi[AFF]
[CAU]George
Ken
303A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
surface as Case or suffixes in Japanese while they influence the form of aroot in English. This difference reflects each language’s way of combin-ing θ-features. In Japanese, there is a one-to-one correspondence betweenθ-features and their morpho-phonological realization, which means that werealize one θ-feature as one morphological entity, e.g. CAU as -sase orAFF as the Accusative Case marker -o. On the other hand, in Englishmultiple θ-features can be mapped onto a single form, e.g., CAU andAFFare realized asmake andCHA andCAU are realized ashave. With such asystem of the mapping of θ-features, it is economical to set the v recursionparameter rather than to create all of the possible kinds of combinations ofθ-features. Consider the following situation.
(47) a. A+B→X,C+D→Y,E+F→Z b. A+B+C+D→α,A+B+E+F→β,C+D+E+F→γ
Suppose we have rules as shown in (47a). Then, how do we create α, βand γ? A natural answer is that we combine X, Y and Z, e.g. X+Y→α,X+Z→β. It is the same way we human beings construct a large andcomplex item such as a car. We make small components first, and thenwe assemble them. In order to assemble the small components, Englishneeds the v recursion parameter. In Japanese, we do not make small com-ponents in the first place. Rather, we assemble all the materials at onetime. Therefore, Japanesedoesnot need thev recursionparameter. In this section, I have shown the biggest difference between Englishand Japanese is that English allows recursion of v while Japanese doesnot. This is the source of the grammatical differences between the two lan-guages concernedwithpassives and causatives.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, I proposed that v has a fine structure based on θ-features,and both movement of DP and Case marking are motivated by the systemof θ-features. DPs must move to the appropriate position in vP in orderto be interpreted properly at the C-I interface. v is capable of AccusativeCase valuation only when it contains INC, AFF or VOL, and v loses thisfunction as soon as it relinquishes the θ-features above. The mechanismbased on θ-features is shared by English and Japanese, and the apparentdifferences are attributed to two parametric differences. One is the mor-phological parameter. In Japanese, functional heads surface as suffixesor grammatical Case, while they surface as lexical items in English. Oneinstance of this parametric difference is that English uses be -en for direct
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 33, NO. 2 (2017)304
passives and have DP -en for indirect passives, while Japanese uses -rare for both direct and indirect passives. The other parameter is on v recur-sion. English allows v to appear twice, while Japanese allows v to appearonly once. This difference explicates the reason why Japanese causativesuse only one lexical verb while English causatives use two lexical verbs,and the reason why psych verbs can be causativized in English while theycannot in Japanese. Note that this paper does not suggest that φ-features should be eliminat-ed. The notion of φ-features covers many phenomena in many languages,but it has a limitation. The domain the φ-feature-based system cannotcover is explained by the θ-feature-based system proposed here. One pos-sibility which should be pursued is that the two systems are related to eachother. Investigating other languages and constructions will explicate therelationshipbetween the two systems,which I leave for futureworks.
REFERENCES
Baker, Mark (1985) “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation,” Lin-guistic Inquiry 16, 373–415.
Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein and Jairo Nunes (2010) Control as Movement,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Chomsky,Noam (1981)Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris,Dordrecht.Chomsky, Noam (1986)Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Prae-
ger,NewYork.Chomsky,Noam (1995)The Minimalist Program,MITPress,Cambridge,MA.Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” Step by Step:
In Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and JuanUriagereka, 89–155,MITPress,Cambridge,MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed.byMichaelKenstowicz, 1–52,MITPress,Cambridge,MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,”Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Es-says in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. OteroandMariaLuisaZubizarreta, 133–166,MITPress,Cambridge,MA.
Chomsky,Noam (2013) “ProblemsofProjection,”Lingua 130, 33–49.Cinque, Guglielmo (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistics Per-
spective,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.Cruse,Alan (1973) “SomeThoughts onAgentivity,”Journal of Linguistics 9, 11–23.Dowty,David (1979)Word Meaning and Montague Grammar,Reidel,Dordrecht.Dowty,David (1991) “ThemaricProto-Roles andArgumentSelection,”Language 67,
547–619.
305A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE vP DOMAIN IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
Gruber, James (1965)Studies in Lexical Relations,Doctoral dissertation,MIT.Hornstein, Norbert (2001)Move!: A Minimalist Theory of Construal, Blackwell, Ox-
ford.Jackendoff, Ray (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press,
Cambridge,MA.Jackendoff,Ray (1983)Semantics and Cognition,MITPress,Cambridge,MA.Kratzer, Angelika (1996) “Severing the External Argument from its Verb,” Phrase
Structure and the Lexicon, ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137,Springer,Dordrecht.
Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami (2005)Nazotoki-no Eibumpou (Solving PuzzlesinEnglish),Kurosio,Tokyo.
Landau, Idan (1999) “PossessorRaising and theStructure ofVP,”Lingua 107, 1–37.Larson, Richard (1988) “On the Double Object Construction,”Linguistic Inquiry 19,
UniversityPress,Fukuoka.Marantz, Alec (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cam-
bridge,MA.McFadden, Thomas (2014) “Deducing the Structural / Inherent / Quirky Case Dis-
tinction from Competing Theories of Case,” paper presented in the 29th Com-parativeGermanicSyntaxWorkshop.
Otsuka, Tomonori (2013) “A Consideration on Weak-Phases: An Extension of Fea-ture-Inheritance,”Kyushu University English Review 55, 115–129.
Pylkkänen,Liina (2008) Introducing Arguments,Doctoral dissertation,MIT.Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery,” Elements of Gram-
mar, ed. byLilianeHaegeman, 281–337,Kluwer,Dordrecht.Rizzi, Luigi (2006) “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects,”
On Wh Movement, ed. by Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver, 97–133,MIT Press,Cambridge,MA.
Rizzi,Luigi (2007) “OnSomeProperties ofCriterial Freezing,”STiL: Studies in Lin-guistics 1, 145–158.
Rizzi, Luigi (2011) “Minimality,” Linguistic Minimalism, ed. by Cedric Boeckx,220–238,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Saito,Mamoru (2007) “Notes on EastAsianArgument Ellipsis,”Language Research 43, 203–227.
Şener, Serkan andDaikoTakahashi (2010) “ArgumentEllipsis in Japanese andTurk-ish,”MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61, 325–339.
![Matching Domain Ontologies A Comparative Study [Mode De Compatibilité]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/54b6b1494a7959ad7b8b464c/matching-domain-ontologies-a-comparative-study-mode-de-compatibilite.jpg)
