«Optional A-Scrambling* MAMORU SAITO Nanzan University 1. Introduction The non-uniform approach to Japanese scrambling as developed in a series of ...»
The 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference
October 7-9, 2006
The non-uniform approach to Japanese scrambling as developed in a series
of works by Shigeru Miyagawa (2001, 2003, 2005) has been quite influ-
ential. It admits two distinct kinds of scrambling operations. One is A-
movement to TP Spec triggered by the EPP-feature on T and the other is
A’-adjunction motivated by focusing. The obvious advantage of this ap- proach is that scrambling is assimilated to other widely attested types of movements. There is no need to revise the theory to accommodate scram- bling, and there is no need in particular to postulate ‘optional movement’.
In this paper, I will develop Miyagawa’s analysis of A-scrambling and explore its consequences. The discussion will lead to conclusions that con- tradict the non-uniform approach. More specifically, I will argue that A- * The material in this paper was presented in syntax seminars at Nanzan University and the University of Connecticut, in colloquia at Keio University and Stony Brook University, and at the 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. I would like to thank the audience, espe- cially Jonathan Bobaljik, Tomoko Kawamura, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and Masaki Sano, as well as Hiroshi Aoyagi, Keiko Murasugi, Masashi Nomura, and Koji Sugisaki for helpful comments and suggestions.
scrambling is neither movement to TP Spec nor is triggered by the EPP- feature.
In the following section, I will introduce Miyagawa’s core data and his analysis. I will also discuss the binding properties of A-scrambled phrases and present suggestive evidence that their landing site is not TP Spec. In Section 3, I will try to define ‘subject’ under Miyagawa’s analysis and show that this leads to the conclusion that A-scrambling is not triggered by the EPP-feature. Then, in Section 4, I will suggest an alternative analysis for Miyagawa’s core data. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Miyagawa’s Analysis of A-scrambling
2.1. The Core Data Miyagawa presents the following extremely interesting paradigm as evi-
dence for his non-uniform approach to scrambling:
(1) a. Zen’in-ga sono tesuto-o uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u) all -NOM that test -ACC take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres ‘All did not take that exam’ (All Not, *Not All) b. Sono tesuto-oi zen’in-ga ti uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u) that test -ACC all -NOM take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres ‘That exam, all did not take’ (All Not, Not All) (2) Syukudai -oi zen’in-ga [CP sensei -ga ti das -u to] homework-ACC all -NOM teacher-NOM assign-Pres that omow-ana -katta (yo) think -Neg-Past Part ‘Homework, all did not think that the teacher would assign’ (All Not, *Not All) In (1a), the quantified NP in the subject position, zen’in ‘all’, takes wide scope over negation, and the sentence expresses total negation. (1b) is derived from (1a) by scrambling the object to the sentence-initial position.
In this case, the subject quantified NP is no longer sentence-initial, and it can take narrow scope with respect to negation. The example is ambiguous between total negation and partial negation. This effect is observed only with clause-internal scrambling. Thus, in (2) the subject quantified NP takes scope over negation despite the fact that the embedded object is preposed over it by long-distance scrambling.
Miyagawa argues that (1)-(2) can be readily accounted for under his non-uniform analysis of scrambling. Let us consider the structure in (3).
NP2 V (1a), according to Miyagawa, is derived when the subject NP1 moves to TP Spec (b) in order to check the EPP-feature on T. In this case, the NP asymmetrically c-commands the negation and hence takes wide scope. (1b) can be derived from (1a) by adjoining the object NP2 to TP (a) by A’scrambling. Then, the subject takes wide scope over negation just as in the case of (1a). However, given that A-scrambling can be to TP Spec, there is an alternative derivation for (1b). That is, NP2 can move to TP Spec (b) instead of NP1 and satisfy the EPP requirement of T. With this derivation, NP1 remains in vP Spec and hence takes narrow scope with respect to negation. The scope fact in (2) follows because movement to TP Spec cannot take place across a CP boundary, and long-distance scrambling must involve adjunction. The matrix subject must move to TP Spec in order to check the EPP-feature of the matrix T.
The generalization observed with (1)-(2) is not always clear-cut, and there are some loose ends in Miyagawa’s analysis. First, the clarity of the contrasts depends on the specific quantified NP, the verb form, and the sentence-ending, as Miyagawa notes. For example, when a sentence of the form in (1a) is embedded in a conditional, a scope ambiguity emerges as (4) shows.
(4) Zen’in-ga sono tesuto-o uke -na -katta-ra, raigetu mata all -NOM that test -ACC take-Neg-Past -if next month again tesuto-o su -ru test -ACC do-Pres ‘If all do not take the exam, (we will) have another exam next month’ (All Not, Not All) Miyagawa suggests that tense may be subjunctive in this case, and that this may be the cause of the availability of the narrow scope reading of the subject. On the other hand, potentially problematic examples are found in other contexts as well. Thus, (5) seems totally ambiguous when uttered in the context where students have a choice of taking an exam or handing in a term paper to receive credit for a course.
(5) Zen’in-ga siken -o erab -ana -i to omo -u all -NOM exam-ACC choose-Neg-Pres that think-Pres ‘I think that all will not choose an exam (over a term paper)’ (All Not, Not All) As far as the analysis is concerned, comparison of (1a) with its English counterpart raises a question. As (6) indicates, a quantified NP in TP Spec can fall within the scope of negation in English.
(6) Everyone had not left the party. There were still some people talking and drinking.
The narrow scope reading of ‘everyone’ may arise due to its reconstruction to vP Spec or because negation can take TP as its scope. Whichever the reason is, it is puzzling why the same mechanism does not yield ambiguity in the case of Japanese (1a).1 Nevertheless, I believe that the contrasts in (1)-(2) obtain in a wide variety of contexts and are definitely worth exploring. In the following subsection, I will consider the effect of scrambling in (1b) and show that it is observed even when the scrambled object clearly does not occupy the TP Spec position.
2.2. The Binding Properties of A-Scrambled Phrases It was proposed originally by Mahajan (1990) that scrambling is of two types, A and A’, because of its effects on the binding relations.2 Let us
consider the following examples:
(7) a. *[Otagai -no sensei] -ga karera-o hihansi -ta (koto) each other-GEN teacher-NOM they -ACC criticize-Past fact ‘Lit. Each other’s teachers criticized them’ b. Karera-oi [otagai -no sensei] -ga ti hihansi -ta (koto) they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM criticize-Past fact ‘Lit. Them, each other’s teachers criticized’ 1 See also Yamashita 2001 and Kawamura 2004 for much relevant discussion. They argue that A-scrambling does not observe the locality expected of movement to TP Spec.
2 Mahajan’s proposal is based on Hindi data. See Tada 1993 and Nemoto 1993 for detailed discussion on the Japanese data considered here.
(8) a. *[Otagai -no sensei] -ga [Hanako-ga karera-o each other-GEN teacher-NOM -NOM they -ACC hihansi -ta to] it -ta (koto) criticize-Past that say-Past fact ‘Lit. Each other’s teachers said that Hanako criticized them’ b. *Karera-oi [otagai -no sensei] -ga [Hanako-ga ti they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM -NOM hihansi -ta to] it -ta (koto) criticize-Past that say-Past fact ‘Lit. Them, each other’s teachers said that Hanako criticized’ (7a) is out because the anaphor otagai ‘each other’ is not bound by its antecedent karera ‘they’. As shown in (7b), if karera is scrambled to a position that c-commands otagai, the sentence becomes grammatical. This indicates that a scrambled phrase can serve as an A-binder for an anaphor.
This effect, however, is limited to clause-internal scrambling. In (8b), karera is scrambled across a CP boundary to a position that c-commands otagai, and no improvement is observed. Mahajan concludes then that clause-internal scrambling can be A-movement while long-distance scrambling is necessarily A’-movement.
If there is scrambling with A’-properties, we would expect it to apply not only across a CP boundary but clause-internally as well. This prediction is borne out by examples such as (9).
(9) Zibun-zisin-oi Taroo-ga ti seme -ta (koto) self -self -ACC -NOM blame-Past fact ‘Himself, Taroo blamed’ If the landing site of zibun-zisin-o ‘self-ACC’ is an A-position in (9), the example should be in violation of Condition (C) of the binding theory. Thus, it suggests that clause-internal scrambling can be A’-movement.
Miyagawa follows Mahajan and assumes that there are two types of scrambling, A and A’. As noted at the outset of this paper, his proposal is that A-scrambling is movement to TP Spec while A’-scrambling involves adjunction. Now, if we combine his analysis of the paradigm in (1)-(2) and Mahajan’s account of the binding facts in (7)-(9), a clear prediction follows.
I will illustrate this with the concrete examples in (10)-(11).
(10) a. Zen’in-ga zibun-zisin-ni toohyoosi-na -katta (to omo -u) all -NOM self -self -DAT vote -Neg-Past that think-Pres ‘Everyone did not vote for herself/himself’ (All Not, *Not All) b. Zibun-zisin-nii zen’in-ga ti toohyoosi-na -katta self -self -DAT all -NOM vote -Neg-Past (to omo -u) that think-Pres ‘For herself/himself, everyone did not vote’ (All Not, Not All) (11) a. Zen’in-ga zibun-zisin-o seme -na -katta (to omo -u) all -NOM self -self -ACC blame-Neg-Past that think-Pres ‘Everyone did not blame herself/himself’ (All Not, *Not All) b. Zibun-zisin-oi zen’in-ga ti seme -na -katta (to omo -u) self -self -ACC all -NOM blame-Neg-Past that think-Pres ‘Herself/himself, everyone did not blame’ (All Not, Not All) In (10a), the quantified NP subject zen’in ‘all’ takes wide scope over negation. This is expected under Miyagawa’s analysis since the subject is raised to TP Spec exactly as in the case of (1a). (10b) is ambiguous and parallels (1b). If this example is derived from (1b), the subject is in TP Spec and the scrambled phrase is adjoined to TP. In this case, the subject zen’in takes scope over negation. On the other hand, according to Miyagawa, the narrow scope reading of zen’in obtains when the scrambled phrase is in TP Spec and check the EPP-feature. Then, zen’in remains in vP Spec and is within the c-command domain of the negation. But note that the scrambled phrase is a reflexive just as in (9). That is, if it is in TP Spec, the example should be in violation of Condition (C) of the Binding theory. It follows that zen’in can take narrow scope even when the scrambled phrase is not in TP Spec but is in an A’-position. The examples in (11) raise the same problem.
The ambiguity of (10b) and (11b) suggests that the narrow scope reading of zen’in is not made possible because the scrambled phrase checks the EPP-feature on T in its place. It seems then necessary to come up with an alternative analysis for the paradigm in (1)-(2). Before I pursue this, I will raise another issue in the following section with the analysis of A-scrambling as movement to TP Spec. It has to do with the definition of ‘subject’.
3. On the Definition of Subject As is well known, the Japanese reflexives zibun ‘self’ and zibun-zisin ‘selfself’ are subject-oriented. Thus, only Hanako qualifies as the antecedent of zibun in (12) and (13).
(12) Hanako-ga Taroo-ni zibun-no hon -o okut -ta
-NOM -DAT self -GEN book-ACC send-Past ‘Hanako sent her book to Taroo’ (13) Hanako-ga Taroo-o zibun-no ie -de sikat -ta
-NOM -ACC self -GEN house-at scold-Past ‘Hanako scolded Taroo at her house’ However, as far as I know, the definition of ‘subject’ in this context is yet to be made precise. There are two obvious candidates, TP Spec and vP Spec.
This is so since Hanako in (12), for example, is merged at vP Spec and is raised to TP Spec, as illustrated in (14).
(14) [TP Hanakoi-ga [vP ti [VP Taroo-ni zibuni-no hon-o okut-]] ta] Interestingly, Miyagawa’s analysis of A-scrambling as movement to TP Spec is compatible only with the definition of ‘subject’ as vP Spec. A scrambled object never qualifies as the antecedent of zibun, as shown in (15), and hence, the analysis makes incorrect predictions if TP Spec is the ‘subject’ in the relevant sense.
(15) Taroo-oi Hanako-ga ti zibun-no ie -de sikat -ta
-ACC -NOM self -GEN house-at scold-Past ‘Hanako scolded Taroo at her house’ In this section, I will first examine ‘subjecthood’ in examples with complex predicates and present evidence that phrases in vP Spec are indeed possible antecedents for zibun. This appears to provide support for Miyagawa’s analysis. In Section 3.2, however, I will argue that further exploration of the definition of ‘subject’ leads us to the conclusion that A-scrambling is not triggered by the EPP-feature on T.
3.1. Subject as vP Spec It has been known that what qualifies as a possible antecedent for zibun is the ‘surface subject’. Thus, zibun can refer to the subjects of passive and unaccusative sentences, as shown in (16)-(17).
(16) Taroo-gai karera-niyotte zibun-no ie -de ti koros-are -ta
-NOM they -by self -GEN house-at kill -Passive-Past (koto) fact ‘Taroo was killed by them at his house’ (17) Taroo-gai zibun-no ie -de ti sin -da (koto)
-NOM self -GEN house-at die-Past fact ‘Taroo died at his house’ If Taroo in (16)-(17) moves directly to TP Spec from the internal argument position, these examples suggest that TP Spec is the ‘subject position’ in the relevant sense.
On the other hand, the examination of complex predicate constructions leads us to a different conclusion. Let us consider the following causative
(18) Hanako-ga Taroo-ni zibun-no hon -o sute -sase -ta