Is Raising Or ECM Involved

Yukiko Tsuboi

10/11/2005 presentation

Is raising or ECM involvedin RTO constructions in Japanese?

1.Introduction and Main Claims

Raising in English

(1)a.It seems that John is a genius.

b.John seems to be a genius.

(2)a.John believes that Mary is a genius.

b.John believes Mary to be a genius.

"Raising-to-Object" in Japanese

(3)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'

(3)can be schematized as in (4);

(4)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 (4b) Raising-to-Object sentence (RTO), and NP2-o in (4b) NPAcc.

Main Claim

(5)NPAcc is base-generated in the matrix clause. (first proposed in Hoji 1991, defended in Takano 2003 and further discussed in Hoji 2005)

Goals of this presentation

I will defend (5) by showing that the arguments provided as a support of the raising analysis and ECM analysis are not valid. In particular, the following three issues will be discussed;

(i)There is no empirical basis for the arguments based on the PBC effects.

(ii)There are problematic examples to the argument based on "indeterminate agreement" first pointed out in Takano 2003. An alternative account for such phenomenon will be suggested based on formation of "peculiar constituents" proposed in Kawazoe 2004.

(iii)There are two potential problems for Major Object Analysis; case-stacking and passivization of NPAcc raised by Yoon (2005, to appear). We will discuss those issues and given a possible account for them.

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, Yoon2004),

(b) Major Object analysis (hinted in Saito 1983, explicitly proposed in Hong 1990 and Hoji 1991, and further defended in Takano 2003),

(d) Combination analysis (Hiraiwa 2002, Bruening 2001).

2.1Raising Analysis

There are two types of raising analysis; one proposes raising from the embedded Major Subject position and the other, raising from other part of the embedded clause.

2.1.1Raising from the embedded CP

Raising from the subject of the embedded CP (see line ①in (8))

(6)NPAcc is generated in the embedded CP and gets raised to the matrix clause.

(first proposed in Kuno 1976, further defended in Sakai 1998)

Raising from the edge of the embedded CP (see line ②in (8))

(7)NPAcc is generated (Bruening 2001) at or moved to (Hiraiwa 2002) the edge of the embedded CP and gets raised to the matrix clause.

(8)...NP1- nom...NP2-acc...V2-to...V1 (that)

vPT

NP1-nomv'

NP2i-acc V'

(=NPAcc) ty

CP V1

② ti. C'

TP-to

① ty

ti. v'

...V2

The most crucial argument provided as a support for the raising from the embedded clause is the argument based on the PBC effects.

2.1.2Raising from the embeddedMajor Subject Analysis

J-M Yoon (1989) first claims and Yoon (2004, 2005a and 2005b) further defends that NPAcc is generated in the embedded Major Subjects position and it gets raised to the matrix clause. (9) summarizes the claims in Yoon 2004, 2005a and 2005b.

(9)a.NPAcc in RTO sentences originates in the embedded clause and gets raised to the matrix clause.

b.The movement involved in (9a) 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(10).

d.The landing site of NPAccis derived / non-thematic Major Object position in the matrix clause. (Yoon 2005b:30: (vii))

(10)...NP1- nom...NP2-acc...V2-to...V1 (that)

vPT

NP1-nomv'

[NP2-Acc]i V'

(=NPAcc) ty

CP V1

MP C

ty-to 'that'

[Major Subjectti.] M'

TPM

GS (proi) T'

vP T

(proi)...V2

(11) are the three crucial arguments which distinguishes Major-Subject-raising analysis from the Major Object analysis.

(11)a.PBC effects

b.case-stacking

c.passivizability of NPAcc

2.2Major Object Analysis

(12)a.NPAcc is base-generated in the matrix clause.

b.NPAcc is an adjunct corresponding to of NP in English.

(first proposed in Hoji 1991, further defended in Takano 2003)

(13)...NP1- nom...NP2-acc...V2-to...V1 (that)

vPT

NP1-nomv'

NP2i-acc V'

(=NPAcc) ty

CP V1

TP -to

proi/ ec v'

...V2

The crucial arguments for Major Object Analysis are;

(14)a.the argument based on rokuna-N and Neg (Hoji 2005a, b)

b.the argument based on QP and Neg

2.3ECM Analysis

(15)NPAcc is either base-generated at or moved to Spec of CP and stay inside the embedded clause.

(16)...NP1- nom...[CP NP2-acc...V2-to]...V1 (that)...

vPT

NP1-nomv'

CP V1

[NP2-Acc]i C'

(=NPAcc) 3

TP -to

ti....V2....

The crucial argument for the ECM analysis is based on "indeterminate agreement" observation.

3Argument for the raising analysis is not valid: the PBC effects

(17)A clause cannot undergo movementif an NP has moved out of the clause first. (cf. Bruening 2001:Section 3.2.1)

(18)Kuno 1976: 24 (17b), 35: (66)

a.Yamda-wa Tanaka-o [baka da to] omotteita.

Yamada-TOP Tanaka-ACC [stupid be C] thought

b.*Yamada-wa bakada to Tanaka-o omotteita.

Yamada-TOP [stupid be C]Tanaka-ACC thought

Hoji (1991) points out that the RTO sentences in (19) which are said to show the PBC violation are not as bad as those sentences which have been considered as general cases of the PBC violation in a scrambling construction;

(19)Hoji 1991: 2: (5c) & (5d)

a.??[IP [CPti hoka-no dare yori-mo baka da to]k[IPJohn-ga Billi-o tk{danteisi / omoikom}

more-than-anyone-else fool is that John-NOM Bill-ACC determine/believed firmly

[INFLta]]](koto)

PAST

'John {determined / firmly believed} Bill to be more stupid than anyone else.'

b.[IP [CPti hoka-no do-no biiru-yorimo umai to]k[IPSantorii-ga [NPso-no dorai biiru]i-o tk

more-than-any-other-beer tasty that Suntory-NOM that-dry beer-ACC

sendensiteiru]] (koto)

is advertising

'Suntory is advertising that Dr Beer, saying that it is tastier than any other beer.'

3.1Design of Experiment

For each sentence, the informants were given a scale illustrated in (20) and asked to judge them by selecting one of the five circles. The five circles were then calculated into -2, -1, 0, +1 or +2, where -2 corresponds to "bad" and +2 corresponds to "good."

(20)Bad< ======Good

o o o o o

Schematic Structures of Examples

non-RTO constructions

(21)NP-top/nom...[CP NP-nom...NP-dat/to...V that]...V(non-Scrambling)

(22)a.NPi-dat/to...NP-top/nom... [CP NP-nom...ti...V that]...V(NP-scrambling)

b.[CP NP-nom...NP-dat/to...V that]j...NP-top/nom... tj...V(CP-scrambling)

(23)*[CP NP-nom...ti...V that]j...NPi-dat/to...NP-top/nom...tj...V(PBC effects)

RTO constructions

(24)NP-top/nom...NPi-acc [CP...ti...V that]...V(non-Scrambling)

(25)a.NPi-acc...NP-top/nom...[CP ...ti...V that]...V(NP-scrambling)

bNPi-acc [CP...ti...V that]j...NP-top/nom...tj...V(CP-scrambling)

(26)*/??/ok [CP ...ti...V that]j NPi-acc...NP-top/nom...V(PBC effects)

Two sets of examples with different lexical items are given to the informants corresponding to the above structures. (27)-(32) form the first set, and (33)-(38), the second set.

1st set: non-RTO constructions

(27)keisatu-wa [John-ga tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] danteisita.

police-TOP [John-NOM China-to escaptedCOMP] determined

Intended: 'The police determined that John escaped to China.'

(28)a.tyuugoku-ni keisatu-wa [John-ga nigeta to] danteisita.

b.[John-ga tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] keisatu-wa danteisita.

(29)[John-ga nigeta to]tyuugoku-ni keisatu-wa danteisita.

1st set:RTO-constructions

(30)keisatu-wa John-o tyuugoku-ni nigeta-to danteisita.

police-TOP John-ACC escapted COMP determined

Intended: 'The police determined that John escaped.'

(31)a.John-o keisatu-wa [tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] danteisita.

b.John-o [tyuugoku-ni to nigeta to] keisatu-wa danteisita.

(32)[tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] John-o keisatu-wa danteisita.

2nd set: non-RTO constructions

(33)Yamada sensei -ga [John-ga kaisya-ni syuusyokusita to] omoikondeita(koto)

Prof:Yamada -NOM John-NOM Toyota:at got:a:job COMP believed

Indented: 'Prof. Yamada had believed that John got a job at Toyota.'

(34)a.Toyota-ni Yamada sensei -ga [John-gasyuusyokusita to] omoikondeita(koto)

b.[John-ga Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] Yamada sensei-ga omoikondeita(koto)

(35)[John-ga syuusyokusita to]Toyota-ni Yamada sensei-ga omoikondeita(koto)

2nd set: RTO-constructions

(36)Yamada sensei-ga John-o Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to omoikondeita(koto)

Prof. Yamada-NOM John -ACC Toyota:at got:a:job COMP believed

Indented: 'Prof. Yamada had believed thatJohn got a job at Toyota.'

(37)a.John-o Yamada sensei -ga [Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] omoikondeita(koto)

b.John-o [Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] Yamada sensei -ga omoikondeita(koto)

(38)[Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] John-o Yamada sensei -ga omoikondeita(koto)

(39)Bad< ======Good

o o o o o

3.2The result of the experiment in Japanese

(40)Result Chart

(a) Non-scrambling
(canonical order) / (b) NP-scrambling
-2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2
1. 1st Set: non -RTO / (27) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 18 / (28a) / 2 / 3 / 1 / 5 / 7
2. 2nd Set: non-RTO / (33) / 0 / 0 / 2 / 4 / 12 / (34a) / 3 / 2 / 2 / 5 / 6
3. 1st Set: RTO / (30) / 0 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 10 / (31a) / 0 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 10
4. 2nd Set: RTO / (36) / 4 / 2 / 1 / 2 / 9 / (37a) / 0 / 3 / 2 / 4 / 9
(c) CP-scrambling / (d) PBC effects
-2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2
1. 1st Set: non -RTO / (28b) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 18 / (29) / 14 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 0
2. 2nd Set: non-RTO / (34b) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 17 / (35) / 15 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0
3. 1st Set: RTO / (31b) / 3 / 2 / 1 / 6 / 6 / (32) / 2 / 4 / 3 / 5 / 4
4. 2nd Set: RTO / (37b) / 2 / 0 / 3 / 6 / 7 / (38) / 0 / 7 / 6 / 4 / 1

(41)Degradation from Non-scrambling cases

(a)Non-scrambling / (d)PBCeffects / (e) degradation
1.1stSet:non -RTO / (a-1) +2.00 / (d-1) -1.57 / (e-1) 3.57
2.2ndSet:non-RTO / (a-2) +1.56 / (d-2) -1.50 / (e-2) 3.06
3. 1st Set: RTO / (a-3) +1.00 / (d-3) +0.80 / (e-3) 0.20
4. 2nd Set: RTO / (a-4) +0.56 / (d-4) +0.00 / (e-4) 0.56

3.3 Conclusion

We have demonstrated that the alleged PBC effects in RTO constructions are not as clear as those in non-RTO constructions which display sharp degradation in acceptability. Based on the result, we thus suggest that the alleged PBC effects are not due to unbound trace but due to some sort of a pragmatic rule which affects people's judgments to a varying degree.

Given the fact that the PBC effects are the only evidence which assures the movement of NPAcc from the embedded clause to the matrix clause, the result of the experiment indicates, quite clearly, that the raising analysis cannot be maintained.

4.Arguments for ECM analysis are not valid.

There are two arguments for the ECM analysis

(i)Sentence Final Particles (SFP) cannot appear with the nominative NP in the embedded clause of RTO constructions.

(ii)A wh-phrase appears to be c-commanded by a Q-particle attached to the embedded CP.

4.1Argument 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;

(42)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. SFP, however, can appear with a wa-marked NP which is said to occupy higher in structure than the nominative marked NP.

(43)a.Taroo-ga Hanako-oaitu-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-oaitu-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.

(44)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"

(45)Kuroda 1965:93 (80), (81)

a.dare-mo hon-o kaw-anakat-ta.

who-Q book-ACC buy-NEG-PAST

'No one bought books.'

b.John-ga nani-mo kaw-anakatta.

John-NOM what-Q buy-NEG-PAST

'John did not buy anything.'

A wh-phrase and a Q-particle can appear separately, and they can still be interpreted as "related" to each other.

(46)Kuroda 1965:93 (82) & 94 (83)

a.[kore-made dare-ga kangae-mo si-nakat-ta] aidia

this-till who-NOM think-Q do-NEG-PAST idea

'the idea which no one has ever thought of'

b.John-wa nani-o ka-oo-to-mo si-na-i.

John-TOP what-ACC buy-will-that-Q do-not

'John will not buy anything.'

(47)An indefinite wh-pronoun must be in the c-command domain of Q.

(Sakai1998:498, cf. Hiraiwa 2002: 3:(8))

4.2.1The observation in Sakai 1998 and Hiraiwa 2002

Sakai (1998) first observes that a wh-phrase in a position of NPAcc in (48)can be understood as "any"-words in English.

(48)(Sakai 1998: 489: (21))

Masao-ga dare-o [S ti baka-da]-to-mo omot-te-inai.

-NOM anyone-ACC a fool-COMP-Q think-STAT-NEG

'For no x, Masao thinks that x is a fool.'

Based on the same observation, Hiraiwa (2002) claims that the wh-phrase in NPAcc position stays inside the embedded CP, and thereby it is c-commanded by Q-particle -mo.

(49)(Hiraiwa 2002: 4: (11))

Taro-ga dare (-no-koto)-o baka da to-mo omowa-nakat-ta.

Taro-NOM Indet.(-GEN-thing)-ACC stupid-CPL C-Q think-NEG-PST

'Taro didn't consider anyone to be stupid.'

4.2.1.1Counterexamples to Hiraiwa's claim presented in Takano 2002

The validity of the generalization in (47), however, is challenged by Takano 2003.

(50)Takano 2003: 803: (ii)

a.?Watasi-wa dare-ni koi to mo itteinai

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.'

There are other examples which does not appear to be subject to the c-command requirement in (47).

(51)Tsuboi 2005:47: (119a)

(100-o koeru kazu-no kikaku-ga teiansareta-no-ni)

Yamada syatyoo-wa dore-ga omosiroi to-mo omowanakatta.

Yamada President-TOP which-NOM interesting C-Q think:not:past

(52)Tsuboi 2005:48: (120a)

(sekkaku yuumee restaurant-ni yattekita-to iu-no-ni)

Mary-wa (dasareta) do-no ryoori-ga oisii to-mo kanzinakatta.

Mary-TOP (served) which-GEN dish-NOM delicious C-Q feel:neg:past

4.2.1.2Experiment and its result

(47) can be restated in (53) so as to make a prediction.

(53)If an indefinite wh-pronoun is not c-commanded by a Q-particle, it cannot be interpreted as "any"-words in English.

(54) is schematic structures of example sentences given in the experiment.

(54)1st Set

a.NP1-nom...[CPwh- nom...V2 C]-Q...V1 Neg(that)(c-command)

b.NP1- nom...wh-acc...V2 C-Q...V1 Neg(that)(split)

c.*NP1- nom...wh- acc...V2 C...V1 Neg(that)(no Q-particle)

(55)2nd Set: No apparent c-command

a.NP1-top...wh-dat...NP2-acc-Q VNeg(no c-command)

b.NP1-top...wh -dat-Q...NP2-acc VNeg(adjacent)

c.*NP1-top...wh -dat...NP2-acc VNeg(no Q-particle)

1st Set

(56)a.John-ga dare-ga bakada to-mo omowanakatta(koto)

John-NOM wh-NOM stupid-C-Q think:neg:past (fact)

b.John-ga dare-o bakada to-mo omowanakatta(koto)

John-NOM wh-ACC stupid-C-Q think:neg:past (fact)

c.John-ga dare-o bakada to omowanakatta(koto)

John-NOM wh-ACC stupid-C think:neg:past (fact)

Intended: 'John did not consider anyone to be a fool.'

(57)(sekkaku yuumee restaurant-ni yattekita-to iu-no-ni)

a.Mary-wa (dasareta) do-no ryoori-ga oisii to-mo kanzinakatta.

Mary-TOP (served) which-GEN dish-NOM delicious C-Q feel:neg:past

b.Mary-wa (dasareta) do-no ryoori-o oisii to-mo kanzinakatta.

Mary-TOP (served) which-GEN dish-ACC delicous C-Q feel:neg:past

c.Mary-wa (dasareta) do-no ryoori-ga oisii to kanzinakatta.

Mary-TOP (served) which-GEN dish-ACC delicous C feel:neg:past

Intended: (Although she came to eat at a very famous restaurant,) Mary did not think any dish (served there) were delicious.

(58)(100-o koeru kazu-no kikaku-ga teiansareta-no-ni)

a.Yamada syatyoo-wa dore-ga omosiroi to-mo omowanakatta.

Yamada President-TOP which-NOM interesting C-Q think:not:past

b.Yamada syatyoo-wa dore-o omosiroi to-mo omowanakatta.

Yamada President-TOP which-ACC interesting C-Q think:not:past

c.Yamada syatyoo-wa dore-o omosiroi to omowanakatta.

Yamada President-TOP which-NOM interesting C think:not:past

Intended: '(Although more than 100 proposals are submitted), President Yamada did not think anything was interesting.'

2nd Set

(59)(saikin sigoto-ga tatekondeite, John-wa kyoo-de renzoku hatuka-kan, yasumi-mo torazu-ni kinmusiteiru. sikasi, )

a.John-wa kazoku-no dare-ni guti-mo kobosanakatta.

John-TOP family-GEN who-DAT complaint-Q say:neg:past

b.John-wa kazoku-no dare-ni-mo guti-o kobosanakatta.

John-TOP family-GEN who-DAT-Q complaint-ACC say:neg:past

c.John-wa kazoku-no dare-ni guti-o kobosanakatta.

John-TOP family-GEN who-DAT complaint-ACC say:neg:past

Intended: '(He has been working for the past twenty days without taking any day-off. But ) John didn't say any complaint to his family.'

(60)(kyoo-no paatii-no tame-ni OC-kara USC-made enro harubaru yattekitan-no-ni)

a.Mary-wa dare-ni koe-mo kake-zuni kaettesimatta.

Mary-TOP who-DAT voice-Q say-without go:home:past

b.Mary-wa dare-ni-mo koe-o kakezu-ni kaettesimatta.

Mary-TOP who-DAT-Q voice-ACC say-without go:home:past

c.Mary-wa dare-ni koe-o kakezu-ni kaettesimatta.

Mary-TOP who-DAT voice-ACC say-without go:home:past

Intended: (She came all the way from OC to USC to attend today's party but) she went home without talking to anybody.

(61)(John-wa kaisyade-mo hizyoosikina koto-o suru koto-de yuumee-da. kyoomo, )

a.John-wa dare-ni renraku-mo sezu, ikinari kaisya-o yasunda.

John-TOP who-DAT contact-Q do:without, suddenly company-ACC missed

b.John-wa dare-ni-mo renraku-o sezu, ikinari kaisya-o yasunda.

John-TOP who-DAT-Q contact do:without, suddenly company-ACC missed

c.John-wa dare-ni renraku-o sezu, ikinari kaisya-o yasunda.

John-TOP who-DAT contact do:without, suddenly company-ACC missed

Intended: '(He is famous for absurd behavior at work. Today,) John didn't come to work without informing anybody.'

(62)The result of Experiment

(A) / (B) / (C)
-2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2
1.C-comamnd / (56a) / 7 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 6 / (57a) / 1 / 4 / 3 / 8 / 4 / (58a) / 2 / 3 / 1 / 8 / 6
2. Split / (56b) / 0 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 13 / (57b) / 0 / 5 / 3 / 2 / 10 / (58b) / 1 / 7 / 2 / 0 / 11
3.NoQ-particle / (56c) / 10 / 7 / 0 / 2 / 1 / (57c) / 11 / 5 / 2 / 1 / 1 / (58c) / 14 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 1
4. No C-c / (59a) / 4 / 10 / 2 / 2 / 2 / (60a) / 3 / 8 / 2 / 4 / 3 / (61a) / 0 / 6 / 1 / 8 / 5
5. C-command / (59b) / 1 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 16 / (60b) / 2 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 16 / (61b) / 1 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 17
6.NoQ-particle / (59c) / 15 / 4 / 0 / 1 / 0 / (60c) / 12 / 6 / 0 / 2 / 0 / (61)c / 12 / 6 / 1 / 1 / 0

4.2.1.3Conclusion

The result of the experiment show (i) Hiraiwa & Sakai's type of examples are generally judged as acceptable, and (ii) the examples which do not satisfy the c-command requirementare not found totally unacceptable by many of the informants. If we only consider the result (i), it seems plausible to conclude that NPAcccan be in the embedded clause of the RTO constructions at some point of the derivation as Hiraiwa and Sakai argued. However, (ii) crucially shows that validity of the c-command requirement is very much questionable. Hence, (i) cannot be taken as strong supporting evidence for the ECM analysis.