Is raising or ECM involved in RTO constructions in Japanese?
1. Introduction: Raising
Raising to Subject in English (0) a. It seems that John is a genius. b. John seems to be a genius.
Raising to Object in English (0) a. John believes that Mary is a genius. b. John believes Mary to be a genius.
(0) a. Mary-ga [John-ga bakada-to] omotteiru (koto) Mary-NOM [John-NOM stupid:be-that] think (that)
'(that) Mary thinks that John is stupid' b. Mary-ga John-o bakada-to omotteiru (koto) Mary-NOM John-ACC stupid:be-that think (that)
'(that) Mary thinks of John that he is stupid'
(0) can be schematized as in (0);
(0) a. ...NP1-NOM...[NP2- NOM...V2-to]...V1 (that)
b. ...NP1- NOM...NP2-ACC...V2-to...V1 (that)
Let us call a sentence whose schematic structure corresponds to (0b) Raising-to-Object sentence
(RTO), and NP2-o in (0b) NPAcc.
2. Previous analyses
Four types of analyses have been proposed in RTO constructions in Japanese;
(a) Raising analysis (proposed in Kuno 1976, and further defended in Sakai 1998, Yoon 2004), (b) Major Object analysis (hinted in Saito 1983, explicitly proposed in Hong 1990 and Hoji 1991, and further defended in Takano 2003), (c) ECM analysis (proposed in J.E.Yoon 1989) (d) Combination analysis (Hiraiwa 2002, Bruening 2001).
2.1 Raising Analysis 2.1.1Raising from the embedded subject analysis Kuno (1976) (0) NPAcc is generated in the embedded CP and gets raised to the matrix clause. illustrations of the analysis in Kuno 1976,
2.1.2Raising from Major Subject Analysis The main claims in Yoon 2004, 2005 are summarized in (0).
(0) a. NPAcc in RTO sentences originates in the embedded clause and gets raised to the matrix clause. b. The movement involved in (0a) is NP/A-movement (J-M Yoon 1989, Yoon 2004, 2005b) c. Major Subject in MP {is / can be} co-indexed with a pro within the lower TP in The main claims in Yoon 2004, 2005 are summarized in (0).) d. The landing site of NPAccis derived / non-thematic Major Object position in the matrix clause. (Yoon 2005b:30: (vii))
(0) ...NP1- NOM...NP2-ACC...V2-to...V1 (that)
TP wo vP T wo
NP1-NOM v' ty VP ty
[NP2-Acc]i V' (=NPAcc) ty
CP V1 ty C' ty MP C ty -to 'that'
[Major Subject ti.] M' ty TP M ty
GS (pro i) T' ty vP T 5
(pro i)...V2
2.2 Major Object Analysis illustrations of the analysis in Hoji 1991 and Takano 2003.
Hoji 1991 (0) a. NPAcc is base-generated in the matrix clause. b. NPAcc is an adjunct corresponding to of NP in English. (proposed in Hoji 1991, further elaborated in Takano 2003)
(0) ...NP1- NOM...NP2-ACC...V2-to...V1 (that) TP wo vP T wo
NP1-NOM v' ty VP ty
NP2 i- ACC V' (=NPAcc) ty
CP V1 ty TP -to ty vP wo
proi / ec v' 5
...V2 2.3 ECM Analysis
(0) ...NP1- NOM...[CP NP2-ACC...V2-to]...V1 (that)... TP wo vP T wo
NP1-NOM v' ty VP ty V' ty
CP V1 ty
[NP2-Acc]i C' (=NPAcc) 3 TP -to 6
ti....V2....
3. Against Raising Analysis: The experiment on PBC
3.1 Design of Experiment 3.2 The result of the experiment in Japanese 3.3 The result of the experiment in Korean 3.4 The PBC effects and Inanimate NPs Yoon (2005) observes that there can be more than two NPAccs in an RTO in Korean, one of which can be base-generated and the other of which undergoes movement from the embedded clause.
-summary of Yoon's claim on RTO constructions with more than two NPAcc -prediction which can be made under Yoon's analysis 3.5 Conclusion
4. Against ECM analysis
there are two arguments for this analysis (i) Sentence Final Partickes (SFP) cannot appear with the nominative NP in the embedded clause of RTO constructions. (ii) "Indeterminate Agreement"
4.1 Argument on SFP is false Hiraiwa made an observation that SFP cannot appear when the subject of the embedded clause in RTO constructions is marked with the nominative case-marker;
(0) Hiraiwa 2002: 8: (22) Taro-ga Hanako-wa / o / *ga baka-da-naa to omotta. Taro-NOM Hanako-TOP/ACC/*NOM stupid-be SFP C think
Hiraiwa (2002) takes this as evidence that NPAcc and a wa-marked NP both occupy the same position, Spec of CP, where a topic phrase is generally understood as residing. However, SFP can appear with a wa-marked NP which is said to occupy higher in structure than the nominative marked NP.
(0) a. Taroo-ga Hanako-o aitu-wa (gakkoo iti-no) bakada naa to omotta (koto) Taro-NOM Hanako-ACC that:person-TOP (schoo #1-GEN) stupid:be SFP thought (that)
'Taro thought that Mary was the most stupid person in class.' b. Mary-ga John-o aitu-wa (marenimiru) syuusaida zo to omotta (koto) Mar-NOM John-ACC that:person-TOP (extraordinally) smart C thought (that)
'Mary thought that John was extraordinarily smart.'
SFP can occur with the nominative marked NP contra to the Hiraiwa's observation.
(0) a. Taro-ga Mary de-wa nakute, Hanako-ga kawaii-naa to omotteita (koto) Taro-NOM Mary be-TOP not:and Hanako-NOM pretty-SFP that was thinking (the fact)
'Taro was thinking that not Mary but Hanako is pretty.' b. Mary-wa tunezune John-yori-mo Bill-ga sutekida-naa to omotteita. Mary-NOM always John-from-Focus Bill-NOM attractive-SFP that thought
'Mary always has thought that Bill is more attractive than John.'
4.2 "Indeterminate Agreement"
(0) An indefinite wh-pronoun must be in the c-command domain of Q. (Sakai 1998:498, cf. Hiraiwa 2002: 3:(8))
4.2.1 The observation in Sakai 1998 and Hiraiwa 2002 (0) Hiraiwa 2002: 3:(7)
a. Taro-ga [DP dare-no hon]-mo yoma-nakat-ta. Taro-NOM Indet.-GEN book-Q read-NEG-PST
'Taro didn't read anyone's book.'
b. Taro-ga [vP dare-wo seme]-mo si-nakat-ta. Taro-NOM Indet.-ACC blame-INF-Q do-NEG-PST
'Taro didn't blame anyone.' c. Taro-ga [NP [CP dare-ga kai-ta] ronbun]-mo yoma-nakat-ta. Taro-NOM Indet.-NOM write-PST paper-Q read-NEG-PST
'Taro didn't read any paper that anyone wrote.'
4.2.1.1 Problem, Experiment and its result 4.2.1.2 Counterexamples to Hiraiwa's claim presented in Takano 2002 The validity of (0) is challenged by Takano 2003. (0) Takano 2003: 803: (ii) a. ?Watasi-wa dare-ni koi to mo itteinai1. I-TOP who-DAT come (imperative) that Q said:have:not.
'I haven't said to anyone to come.' b. ?Watasi-wa dare-ni sigoto-o suru to mo yakusokusiteinai. I-TOP who-DAT that job0-ACC do that Q promised:have:not
'I haven't promised anyone to do the job.'
4.2.1.3 Experiment and its result 4.2.2 Peculiar Constituent in Kawazoe 2004 and Indeterminate Agreement Kawazoe (2004) proposes that [NP-cm...NP-cm] can form a constituent.
4.2.3 Wh...Focus Particle and Wh interrogative wh....toka
(0) Masao-ga dare-o [S ti bakada]-to-ka, (ahoda to-ka) omot-teita. -NOM anyone-ACC fool C-Q stupid C-Q think-STAT-NEG
'Masao had a thought such that someone is fool or someone is stupid. (0) a. Mary-wa dare-ga bakada to ka, (dare-ga kasikoi to ka) (itumo sonna koto bakari) Mary-TOP who-NOM stupid:be that Q (who-NOM smart C Q) always such thing only
kangaeteita. was:thinking
'Mary was always thinking like someone is stupid or someone is smart.'
1 Hiraiwa 2002 reports different judgment on a similar example to this. b. John-wa nani-ga ii to ka, (nani-ga warui to ka) (issai) iwanakatta. John-TOP what-NOM good C Q (what-NOM bad C Q) (never) say:not:past
'John has never mentioned something is good (or something is bad).'
(0) a. Mary-wa dare-o baka da to ka (dare-o kasikoi da to ka) (itumo sonna koto bakari) Mary-TOP who-ACC stupid:be that Q (who-NOM smart C Q) always such thing only
kangaeteita. was:thinking
b. John-wa nani-o iito ka, (nani-o warui-toka) (issai) iwanakatta. John-TOP what-NOM good C Q (what-NOM bad C Q) (never) say:not:past wh-interrogatives (0) a. John-wa dare-ga kyoohan (daroo)-ka to kangaeta. John-TOP who-NOM accomplice (probably)-Q C thought
'John wondered who would be an accomplice.' b. ?John-wa dare-o kyoohandaroo-ka to kangaeta. John-TOP who-ACC accomplice (probably)-Q C thought
(0) a. keisatu-wa (tuini) doko-ga azito-ka (*to) tukitometa. police-TOP (finally) where-NOM hideout-Q (*C) find out
'The polce (finally) find out where the hideout is.' b. keisatu-wa (tuini) doko-o azito-ka (*to) tukitometa. police-TOP (finally) where-ACC hideout-Q (*C) find out
4.2.4 Summary 4.3 Conclusion
5. Remaining Issues
5.1 Peculiar Constituent in Kawazoe 2004 -presdiction made under Kawazoe 2004 5.2 Case-stacking 5.3 Passivization of NPAcc Yoon pointed out that NPAcc can be passvized which could be a potential problem for Major Object Analysis which assumes NPAcc is an adjunct.
6. Conclusion