‘Neg-sensitive’ Elements, Neg-ccommand and Scrambling in Japanese
KIYOKO KATAOKA
Nihon University, College of Economics
1. Goal
Most languages have some expressions which must occur with sentential
negation. In this paper, I will refer to those ‘Neg(ation)-sensitive’ elements
as NPIs for ease of exposition.1 XP-sika and rokuna-N are instances of such
elements in Japanese.
(1)
a.
Taro-wa manga-sika yoma-nai. / *yomu.
Taro-TOP comics-all:but read-Neg / *read
b.
‘Taro does not read any kind of book but comics.’
Taro-sika manga-o yoma-nai /* yomu (koto)
Taro-all:but comics-ACC read-Neg / *read (Comp)
‘Nobody but Taro reads comics.’
1The term NPI (Negative Polarity Item) has been widely used as a descriptive term to refer to
such ‘Negation-sensitive’ items, departing from the original notion of polarity in the terms of
the works such as Fauconnier 1975 and Ladusaw 1979. Chapter 1, section 1.1 of Kataoka
2004 contains some relevant discussion.
(2)
a.
Saikin rokuna-sakka-ga syoo-o {tora-nai / *toru}.
recently good-writer-NOM award-ACC get-Neg / get
b.
‘Recently, no good writers have got an award.’
Taro-wa itumo rokuna-koto-o {si-nai / *suru}.
Taro-TOP always good-thing-ACC
do-Neg / do
‘Taro always does damn things.’
In general, the condition in (3) is assumed, and this is widely accepted in
the Japanese literature, too (Kato 1994, 2002, Kuno 1995, and others).
(3)
An NPI must be c-commanded by Neg at LF. (Klima 1964)
The goal of this paper is to show, contrary to this general assumption,
that not all NPIs in Japanese obey the condition in (3). More specifically, I
will argue for (4) and (5) below.
(4)
(5)
Rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF.
XP-sika must c-command Neg at LF.
I first argue that rokuna-N is, but XP-sika is NOT, subject to (3). For
that purpose, we need to examine whether those items can occur in a position outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF. Though it appears that
every NP in Japanese can be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF as seen
in (6) below, I will demonstrate that some element in a certain configuration
cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, and I will show how to
identify such element. Making use of the construction in question, I will
first argue for (4), and then propose (5), on the basis of scope interactions
between Neg and QP in the sentences containing XP-sika and another QP. I
will then discuss some consequences.
2. Scrambling construction, A-scrambled object and Neg
It has been observed that the scope relation between Neg and QP is ambiguous in Japanese (Kuno 1980),2 suggesting, given the general assumption that
the scope of α is its c-command domain at LF, that [ I think I have suggested
the changes that have resulted in the current version. But the use of "(i)"
2It has been observed that the wide scope reading for Neg over a QP is not easy to obtain
compared with the one for the QP over Neg, especially for a subject QP. As pointed out in
Imani 1993, however, the difference in acceptability can be attributed to pragmatic factors and
it is possible even for a subject QP to be in the scope of Neg. As also pointed out in Imani
1993, the interpretation in question can obtain more readily when the sentence is embedded in
a conditional clause, and it is for this reason that some of the examples here are embedded in a
conditional clause.
here does not look very good. So, what I am suggesting now is one alternative. Which of the two would be better, you may want to think about it
yourself and also ask the others at GGES. --> every NP α can be in the ccommand domain of Neg where α and the Neg are clause-mates.
(6)
a.
[goninizyoo-no seito]QP-ga so-no hon-o yoma-na-katta (koto)
b.
‘Five or more students did not read that book.’ QP>Neg, Neg>QP
[gosatuizyoo-no hon]QP-o so-no seito-ga yoma-na-katta (koto)
5:or:more-GEN student-NOM that-GEN book-ACC read-Neg-Past (Comp)
5:or:more-GEN book-ACC that-GEN student-NOM read-Neg-Past (Comp)
‘Five or more books, that student did not read.’ QP>Neg, Neg>QP
A close examination of sentences of the O(bject)-S(ubject) V order,
however, reveals that this is not quite correct.
2.1. Scrambling construction and its structural ambiguity
While it has been assumed since the mid 1980s that the subject asymmetrically c-commands the object in a non-scrambling sentence, the structural
relation between the subject and the object is said to be ambiguous in the
scrambling construction, and each case reveals its own properties as illustrated below.3
(7)
a.
b.
A-scrambling: A- properties (e.g., the absence of WCO effects)
PF : NP-ACC/DAT NP-NOM V
LF : [ NP-ACC/DAT [ NP-NOM V ] ]
A’-scrambling: A’- properties (e.g., reconstruction effects)
PF : NP-ACC/DAT NP-NOM V
LF : [ NP-NOM [ NP-ACC/DAT V ] ]
(Saito 1992, Ueyama 1998)
2.2. A-scrambling or A’-scrambling?
I will show that the object in an A-scrambling case (henceforth A-scrambled
object) is outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF. Since it is necessary
to know, for that purpose, whether the relevant object is an A-scrambled
object or not, I will first introduce two tests in order to identify an Ascrambled object.4
3In this paper, I use the terms ‘scrambling’ and ‘scrambled’ object as purely descriptive terms.
Though I do not discuss here how the two LF representations in (7) are derived since the discussion here is not affected, the base-generate analysis of A-scrambled object proposed by
Ueyama 1998 is pursued in Kataoka 2004 on the basis of negation-related phenomena.
4An A-scrambled object can also be identified based on scope interpretation. See Kataoka
2004: Chapter 3, 3.3.2, and 3.4.2 for more details. <== I think you need to cite Ringe's works.
2.2.1. Test 1: bound variable construal (BVA)
The availability of bound variable construal (BVA) has been regarded as a
test to determine whether a given syntactic position is an A-position or an
A’-position, and the NP in question is said to be in an A-position if the binding is possible from there. The same test has been applied to the scrambled
object in Japanese; if the scrambled NP can serve as a ‘binder’, it is considered as an A-scrambled NP (Ueyama 1998, Yoshimura 1992). 5 See (8),
where the object QP is an A-scrambled object when the BVA obtains.6
(8)
[Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ni sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga Nissan-o
5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT
it-GEN client-NOM
Nissan-ACC
suisensi-ta.
recommend-Past
‘To [each of five or more banks]i, itsi client recommended Nissan.’
2.2.2. Test 2: resumption
Since it has been observed that ‘resumption’ is allowed in A-scrambling but
not in A’-scrambling (Hayashishita 1997, Hoji & Ueyama 1998, and Hoji
2003), its use is another way to force the scrambled NP to be an Ascrambled object. As in (9a), ‘resumption’ (soko) is allowed when the object NP succeeds in binding, which shows that the object is an A-scrambled
object. ‘Resumption’, however, is not allowed in (9b) when the BVA interpretation is forced through reconstruction i.e., it is not possible when the
object is forced to be an A’-scrambled object.7
(9)
a.
[Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ni sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga soko-ni
5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT
it-GEN client-NOM
it-DAT
Nissan-o suisensi-ta.
Nissan-ACC recommend-Past
‘To [each of five or more banks] i, itsi client recommended Nissan to it.’
b.
*Sokoi-no torihikisaki-ni [itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ga soko-ni
it-GEN client-DAT
Nissan-o
5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM
it-DAT
suisensi-ta.
5Ueyama 1998: Ch. 2, 2.2.1, and Ch. 2, Appendix B, B.1.3 contain a survey of much of the
past literature, and provide reasons why the tests that have often been used in the literature,
such as the 'anaphor-binding', are not reliable tests for our purposes.
6 For what 'binder-bindee' pairs should be used in the relevant paradigm and why, see Hoji
2003 and the references provided there.
7One might object that examples with resumption are less than perfect. However, I would like
to report, according to a survey I have conducted, that 9 out of 14 people find (9a) acceptable,
and more crucially all the speakers find (9b) unacceptable. The judgmental variation and
fluctuation on resumption in the scrambled sentences is addressed in Hoji 2003. See Ueyama
1998: Chapter 2, Appendix A.2. and Hoji 2003: section 3 for more details.
Nissan-ACC recommend-Past
‘To itsi client, [each of five or more banks]i recommended Nissan to it.’
You may want to tell the reader that (9b) is okay if there is no resumption. I wonder if you want to put the 'resumptive' soko in parentheses as in
"(*soko)" for (9b) and just "(soko)" for (9a). If you do that, you will have to
make a minor change in your footnote 7.
2.3. A-scrambled objects and Neg
I will now argue, by making use of the two methods above, that the Ascrambled object is outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF.
2.3.1. BVA
The QP in (10), which is an A-scrambled object, cannot be in the scope of
Neg, while the QP in (11), which can be an A’-scrambled object, can be in
the scope of Neg. (See footnote 8.)
(10)
[Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ni sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga Nissan-o
5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT
it-GEN client-NOM
Nissan-ACC
suisensi-na-katta.
recommend-Neg-Past
‘To [each of five or more banks]i, itsi client did not recommend Nissan.’ with BVA obtained, ok5-or-more>Neg, *Neg>5-or-more
(11)
[Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]-ni Toyota-ga Nissan-o suisensi-na-katta.
5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT Toyota-NOM Nissan-ACC recommend-Neg-Past
‘To five or more banks, Toyota did not recommend Nissan.’
5-or-more>Neg, Neg>5-or-more
2.3.2. Resumption
The QP in (12), which is forced to be an A-scrambled object by ‘resumption’, cannot be in the scope of Neg. Compare this again with (11) above,
whose object can be in the scope of Neg. (See footnote 8.)
(12)
[Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]-ni Toyota-ga soko-ni Nissan-o
5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT Toyota-NOM it-DAT Nissan-ACC
suisensi-na-katta.
recommend-Neg-Past
‘To five or more banks, Toyota did not recommend Nissan to it.’
5-or-more>Neg, *Neg>5-or-more
Given the assumption that the scope of α is its c-command domain at LF, the
observation above shows that the A-scrambled object cannot be in the ccommand domain of Neg at LF. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the Ascrambled object is outside the c-command domain of Neg before QR. The
structures before QR of the A/A’-scrambling cases should be as illustrated
in (13). Notice here that the general condition on movement in (14) should
be assumed.
(13)
a.
b.
(14)
Structures before QR
A-scrambling: [ NP-ACC/DAT [NegP [VP NP-NOM V] [Neg -nai]]]
A’-scrambling: [NegP [VP NP-NOM [ NP-ACC/DAT V]] [Neg -nai]]
Movement cannot be downward.
3. XP-sika, rokuna-N as A-scrambled objects
Now I will turn to XP-sika and rokuna-N, and show that XP-sika can, but
rokuna-N cannot, occur as an A-scrambled object.
3.1. A-scrambling case with BVA
With the BVA interpretation, the scrambled object is forced to be an Ascrambled object, as seen in 2.2.1. See (15) and (16a). XP-sika can be a
‘binder’ in this position, while rokuna-N cannot. (Cf. (16b)).8
(15)
Mosi [Tokyoginkoo-ni-sika]i sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga
if
Bank of Tokyo-DAT-all:but
it-GEN client-NOM
syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, ....
invitation-ACC
send-Neg-Past-if
If, to [any company except Bank of Tokyo]i, itsi client did not send an
invitation, ....’ ok BVA(Tokyoginkoo-ni-sika, soko)
(16)
a.
*Mosi [rokuna-ginkoo]i-ni sokoi-no-torihikisaki-ga
if good-company-DAT
it-GEN client-NOM
syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, ....
invitation-ACC
send-Neg-Past-if
* BVA(rokuna-ginkoo, soko)
b.
Mosi [rokuna-ginkoo]i-ga sokoi-no-torihikisaki-ni
8Some people find the Neg>QP reading possible for (10), just a few for (12), and some find
(16a) acceptable, though the analysis proposed here predicts them to be unacceptable. I see
two alternatives at the moment. One is that, if the same speakers find all the relevant readings
acceptable, the A-scrambled object can be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF for those
speakers. The other possibility is that, for those speakers who find (16a) acceptable,
BVA(rokuna-N, soko) is not based on the c-command relation at LF, but that it arises in a way
that is sensitive to a PF-precedence relation (‘co-I-indexation’ in the terms of Ueyama 1998),
with the condition on rokuna-N in (4) being satisfied at LF ‘through reconstruction’. The
conclusions reached in this study in (4) and (5) are not affected by those observations since the
predictions to be discussed in section 5, in regard to XP-sika and rokuna-N, are borne out even
for those who find them acceptable. Kataoka (in preparation) contains further discussion.
<==This footnote needs to be worked on. What would the possible accounts mentioned here
say about the status of (18)?
if
good-company-NOM
it-GEN client-DAT
syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, ....
invitation-ACC send-Neg-Past-if
ok BVA(rokuna-ginkoo, soko)
3.2. A-scrambling case with ‘resumption’
‘Resumption’ also forces the scrambled object to be an A-scrambled object.
As seen below, XP-sika can, but rokuna-N cannot, occur with resumption.
(17)
Mosi Tokyoginkoo-ni-sika Mitubisi-ga soko-ni syootaizyoo-o
if
Bank of Tokyo-DAT-all:but Mitsubishi-NOM it-DAT invitation-ACC
okura-na-katta-ra, ....
send-Neg-Past-if
‘If, to any company except Bank of Tokyo, Mitsubishi did not send
there an invitation, ....’
(18)
*Mosi rokuna-ginkoo-ni Mitubisi-ga soko-ni syootaizyoo-o
if good-company -DAT Mitsubishi-NOM it-DAT invitation-ACC
okura-na-katta-ra, ....
send-Neg-Past-if
The observations above show that XP-sika can, but rokuna-N cannot, occur
as an A-scrambled object. Given (13) and (14), I conclude that rokuna-N
must be c-commanded by Neg at LF, but that XP-sika can be outside the ccommand domain of Neg at LF. What then is the necessary condition on
XP-sika? I will propose that XP-sika MUST C-COMMAND Neg at LF.
4. Proposal
I will argue that XP-sika must c-command Neg at LF, as stated in (5) above.
4.1. Scope interaction between XP-sika and QP
The argument for the proposal comes from the scope interaction between
XP-sika and QP. As noted above with the example in (6), the scope relation
between Neg and QP is generally observed to be ambiguous. This scope
ambiguity can be accounted for by assuming, as in (19), that there are two
distinct landing sites for QR, an instance of an adjunction to a maximal projection (Hasegawa 1991, section 1).
(19)
a.
b.
c.
PF : ... QP1 ... V-nai
LF1 : [ QP1 [ [VP ... t1 ... ] [Neg -nai] ] ]
LF2 : [ [VP QP1 [VP ... t1 ... ] ] [Neg -nai] ]
→ QP1 > Neg
→ Neg > QP1
However, when XP-sika and a QP are in the same clause, the ambiguity
disappears. As in (20), where the XP-sika is the subject of the sentence, the
QP, which is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR, cannot take wide scope
over Neg. On the other hand, as shown in (21), a QP which c-commands
XP-sika before QR cannot be in the scope of Neg.
(20)
Yamada-sensei-sika [sanninizyoo-no gakusei]QP1-o Mitubisi-ni
Yamada-professor-all:but 3:or:more-GEN student-ACC Mitsubishi-DAT
syookaisi-nai (koto)
introduce-Neg (Comp)
‘All professors but Prof. Yamada do not introduce three or more students to Mitsubishi.’ (i) * QP1>Neg, (ii) ok Neg>QP1
(21)
[sanninizyoo-no sensei]QP2-ga Taro-o Mitubisi-ni-sika
3:or:more-GEN student-NOM Taro-ACC Mitsubishi-DAT-all:but
syookaisi-nai (koto)
introduce-Neg (Comp)
‘Three or more professors do not introduce Taro to any company but
Mitsubishi.’ (i) ok QP2 > Neg, (ii) * Neg > QP2
4.2. Analysis
The unambiguity suggests that, if (it is) <== Okay without this, too. I wonder which is better… c-commanded by XP-sika before QR, a QP cannot
raise to a position outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF, while it
cannot be in a position c-commanded by Neg at LF, if it c-commands XPsika before QR.
Assuming that XP-sika undergoes QR, and that the Scope Rigidity Principle (henceforth the SRP) holds in Japanese, I propose that XP-sika must
be in NegP-Spec at LF.
(22)
(23)
Scope Rigidity Principle (SRP): The c-command relation between maximal projections XP1 and XP2 cannot be altered
through LF movement. (Huang 1982, Hoji 1985)
9 10
XP-sika must be in NegP-Spec at LF. ,
9XP-sika does not fall into the same category as the Negative Concord items found in Italian
or Spanish (Zanuttini 1991), since XP-sika cannot induce negation by itself, even in an ellipsis
context with negation in the first ‘conjunct’ as is observed below.
(i) Hokani dareka ko-na-katta-no? Taro-sika ko-na-katta. / *Taro-sika kita. / *Taro-sika.
else anybody come-Neg-Past-Q Taro-all:but come-Neg-Past / Taro-all:but came / Taro-all:but
‘Didn't anybody else come?'
‘Nobody but Taro came.’
10The original idea of this hypothesis was suggested to me by Y. Takubo (p.c. 1998). Aoyagi
& Ishii 1994 also proposes the condition in the same line based on the one-to-one relation
between XP-sika and Neg, claiming that XP-sika must be licensed by Spec-head agreement
with Neg at LF. The important point of my proposal, however, is not whether there is some
kind of agreement or not, but that, at LF, XP-sika must c-command and be close enough to
Given that the SRP prohibits the c-command relation between QPs to be
altered after QR, a QP, if it is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR, cannot
raise beyond the XP-sika, and therefore must stay inside the c-command
domain of Neg at LF, since XP-sika must be in NegP-Spec at LF after QR.
(In what follows, ‘ok’ means that the condition/principle is satisfied.)
(24)
XP-sika1 QP2 V-nai, where XP-sika1 c-commands QP2 before QR
a. LF1: [[NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP QP2 [VP t1 [V' t2 V]]] [Neg -nai]]]]
ok
(23) for XP-sika, ok (22) SRP
b. *LF2: [IP [IP QP2 [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP t1 [V' t2 V]] [Neg -nai]]]]]
ok
(23) for XP-sika, * (22) SRP
c. *LF3: [IP XP-sika1 [IP QP2 [IP [NegP [Neg' [VP t1 [V' t2 V]] [Neg -nai]]]]]]
* (23) for XP-sika, ok (22) SRP
If the QP2 raised to the position outside the NegP, it would violate the SRP
as in (24b), or the condition on XP-sika would be unsatisfied as in (24c).
Consequently, the QP which is c-commanded by XP-sika cannot be outside
the c-command domain of Neg at LF, making its wide scope over Neg impossible; see (20).
On the other hand, if it c-commands XP-sika before QR, a QP must raise
beyond the XP-sika, due to the SRP, and therefore must be outside the ccommand domain of Neg, since XP-sika must be in NegP-Spec at LF.
(25)
QP2 XP-sika1 V-nai, where QP2 c-commands XP-sika1 before QR
a. LF1: [[IP QP2 [IP [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP t2 [V' t1 V]] [Neg -nai]]]]]]
ok
(23) for XP-sika, ok (22) SRP
b. LF2: [[NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP QP2 [VP t2 [V' t1 V] ] ] [Neg -nai]]]]
ok
(23) for XP-sika, * (22) SRP
c.
LF3: [IP [NegP [Neg' [VP QP2 [VP XP-sika1 [VP t2 [V' t1 V]]]] [Neg -nai]]]]
* (23) for XP-sika,
ok
(22) SRP
In order for the QP to be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, the QP
must either be in the c-command domain of the XP-sika violating the SRP as
in (25b), or be in the c-command domain of Neg with the condition on XPsika unsatisfied as in (25c). Therefore the QP which c-commands XP-sika
before QR cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF.
Thus the condition in (23), together with (22), accounts for the observation in (20) and (21); a QP which is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR
Neg just like the structural relation of Spec-head. Further discussion can be found in Kataoka
2004: 5.2, and Kataoka in preparation, including the differences between the two analyses.
cannot take wide scope over Neg since it cannot be outside the c-command
domain of Neg at LF, while a QP which c-commands XP-sika before QR
cannot be interpreted in the scope of Neg since it cannot be in the ccommand domain of Neg at LF.
5. Some Consequences and Predictions
I argued in section 3 that rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF
((4)). I then argued in section 4 that, given (22) and (23), a QP which ccommands XP-sika before QR cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg
at LF, while, if c-commanded by XP-sika before QR, it must be in the ccommand domain of Neg at LF. Assuming that rokuna-N undergoes QR at
LF (see (16b) above), it follows that rokuna-N, if it c-commands XP-sika
before QR, must c-command the XP-sika at LF due to the SRP, and, hence
be outside the c-command domain of Neg, violating (4). We thus deduce
that rokuna-N cannot occur in the position c-commanding XP-sika before
QR.
5.1. XP-sika and rokuna-N in non-scrambling construction
Given the assumption that the subject asymmetrically c-commands the object in a non-scrambling sentence, the first prediction we make is (26).
(26)
(27)
Prediction 1: Rokuna-N cannot occur as the subject of a 'nonscrambling' sentence where XP-sika occurs as the object in the
same sentence, being related to the same Neg.
a.
LF1: *[IP rokuna-N2 [IP [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP t2 [V' t1 V]] [Neg -nai]]]]]
* (4) for rokuna-N, ok (23) for XP-sika, ok (22) SRP
b.
LF2: *[IP [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP rokuna-N2 [VP t2 [V' t1 V]]] [Neg -nai]]]
ok
(4) for rokuna-N, ok (23) for XP-sika, * (22) SRP
This prediction is borne out, as illustrated in (28), which should be compared with acceptable (29a), where the subject XP-sika c-commands the
object rokuna-N.
(28)
*[Rokuna-sensei-ga] [Taro-sika] Mitubisi-ni syookaisi-nai
good-professor-NOM
Taro-all:but Mitsubishi-DAT introduce-Neg
(koto)
(Comp)
(29)
a.
[Mori-sensei-sika] [rokuna-kaisya-o] Taro-ni syookaisi-nai
Mori-professor-all:but good-company -ACC Taro-DAT introduce-Neg
(koto)
(Comp)
(Roughly) ‘All professors but Prof. Mori do not introduce any decent
company to Taro.’
b.
LF: ok [IP [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP rokuna-N2 [VP t1 [V' t2 V]]] [Neg -nai]]]
ok
(4) for rokuna-N, ok (23) for XP-sika, ok (22) SRP
The status of (29) is as expected; a QP which is c-commanded by XP-sika
before QR can be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, and hence there
can be a legitimate LF representation like (29b), with all the conditions in
question satisfied.
5.2. XP-sika and rokuna-N in a scrambling construction
The second prediction is regarding the scrambling construction. Given the
structural ambiguity of a scrambled sentence, the two distinct c-command
relations between rokuna-N and XP-sika are possible at LF for the phonetic
string of the form rokuna-N-ACC XP-sika(subj) V .
(30)
a.
b.
A’- scrambling: XP-sika(subj) >> rokuna-N-ACC
A-scrambling: rokuna-N-ACC >> XP-sika(subj)
(where α >> β means α c-commands β.)
It is thus expected that (31), which is the scrambled counterpart of (29a),
can be acceptable since it can be analyzed as an A’-scrambling case, where
rokuna-N is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR.
(31)
[Rokuna-kaisya-o] [Mori-sensei-sika] Taro-ni syookaisi-nai
good-company -ACC Mori-professor-all:but Taro-DAT introduce-Neg
(koto)
(Comp)
(Roughly) ‘All professors but Prof. Mori do not introduce any decent
company to Taro.’
Now, if we ‘force’ (31) to be an instance of A-scrambling, rokuna-N
should be in a position c-commanding XP-sika before QR, and hence could
not be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, given (14). Thus we predict
(32), since ‘resumption’ forces it to be an instance of A-scrambling, as seen
in section 2.2.2.
Prediction 2: ‘Resumption’ makes (31) unacceptable.
(32)
The prediction is also borne out, as indicated in (33a), whose LF representation should be (33b).
(33)
a.
*[Rokuna-kaisya-o] [Mori-sensei-sika] Taro-ni soko-o
good-company -ACC Mori-professor-all:but Taro-DAT there-ACC
syookaisi-nai (koto)
b.
introduce-Neg (Comp)
LF: [IP rokuna-N1-ACC [IP t1 [NegP XP-sika2 [Neg' [VP t2 [V' soko-ACC V]]
[Neg -nai]]]]
* (4) for on rokuna-N
6. Concluding remarks
I first demonstrated that the ‘A-scrambled’ object is outside the c-command
domain of Neg (-nai) at LF. I then argued for (4) and (23) (which means (5)
by definition).
(4)
(5)
(23)
Rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF.
XP-sika must c-command Neg at LF.
XP-sika must be in NegP-Spec at LF.
References
Aoyagi, H., and T. Ishii. 1994. On NPI Licensing in Japanese. Japanese/Korean
Linguistics vol.4: 295-311.
Fauconnier, G. 1975. Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure. Linguistic Inquiry
vol.6. No.3. 353-375.
Hasegawa, N. 1991. On Non-Argument Quantifiers: Floating Quantifiers and the
Narrow Scope Reading. Metropolitan Linguistics 11: 52-78.
Hayashishita, J.-R. 1997. On the Scope Ambiguity in the Scrambling Construction
in Japanese. ms. USC.
Hoji, H. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
Hoji, H. 2003. Falsifiability and Repeatability in Generative Grammar: A Case
Study of Anaphora and Scope Dependency in Japanese. Lingua vol.113, No.4-6:
377-446.
Hoji, H., and A. Ueyama. 1998. Resumption in Japanese. ms. USC.
http://www.gges.org/work/hoji/WECOL-handout-3.pdf
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.
Doctoral Dissertation. MIT.
Imani, I. 1993. Hiteeryokabun-o Zenken-ni Motu Jyokenbun-ni-tuite (On Conditional Clauses including quantifiers and negative element). Nihongo-no JyokenHyogen, ed. T. Masuoka, 203-222. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kataoka, K. 2004 Hiteibun-no Koozoo: Kakimaze-bun to Hiteekoohyoogen (Syntactic Structure of Japanese Negative Sentences: Scrambling Construction and
Negation-sensitive Elements). Doctoral dissertation. Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Kataoka, K. in preparation. Two Types of Neg-sensitive Elements.
Kato, Y. 1994. Negative Polarity and Movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24: 101-120.
Kato, Y. 2002. Negation in English and Japanese: Some (A)symmetries and their
Theoretical Implications. Proceedings of the Sophia Symposium on Negation:
1-21. Sophia University, Tokyo.
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. The Structure of Language, ed. J.
Fodor and J. Katz, 246-323. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kuno, S. 1980. The Scope of the Question and Negation in Some Verb-Final Languages. CLS 16: 155-169.
Kuno, S. 1995. Negative Polarity Items in Japanese and English. Harvard Working
Papers in Linguistics 5: 165-197.
Ladusaw, W. A. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York
and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Saito, M. 1992. Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69-118.
Ueyama, A. 1998. Two Types of Dependency. Doctoral Dissertation. USC. Distributed by GSIL Publications, USC, Los Angeles.
Yoshimura, N. 1992. Scrambling and Anaphora in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation.
USC.
Zanuttini, R. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation. A Comparative
Study of Romance Languages. Doctoral dissertation. UPenn.