On Proper Binding Condition effects in RtoO in Japanese
Yukiko Tsuboi
University of Southern California,
1.Introduction: Raising
English is known to have an operation called raising, which dislocates John in the embedded subject position in (1a) to the matrix subject position as in (1b), and Mary in the embedded subject position in (2a), to the matrix object position as in (2b).
(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.
(2b) is said to correspond to (3b) in Japanese, in which John with the nominative case-marker in (3a) is marked with the accusative case-marker.
(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)
In a sentence of the form in (4a), an NP in the embedded subject, that is, NP2 in (4), can optionally be marked with the accusative marker in (4b). In this handout, we will call a sentence whose schematic structure corresponds to (4b) Raising-to-Object sentence (RTO), and NP2-o in (4b) NPAcc.
2.The Aim of the Paper
The validity of the raising analysis crucially relies on the observation that the embedded clause in RTO constructions cannot precede NPAcc, which is attributed to the PBC violation effects under the raising analysis. Is it really the case that dislocation of the embedded CP to the position preceding NPAcc results in unacceptability of a sentence? Is the degraded status of such sentences due to the PBC effects?
2.1The raising analysis: "PBC violation effects are real."
Kuno (1976) observes that the complement clause of RTO cannot be dislocated to the position preceding NPAcc. (5a) is a canonical order of RTO, and the embedded CP, baka dato 'stupid that' precedes NPAcc, Tanaka-o in (5b), which results in unacceptability of the sentence.
(5)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
The observation can be generalized as in (6).
(6)The embedded clause in RTO construction cannot be preceded by NPAcc.
Sakai (1998), Bruening (2001), Hiraiwa (2003), Yoon (2004), among others analyzed such examples as instances of violation of the Proper Binding Condition , the definition of which is given in (7).
(7)Proper Binding Condition
A trace must be bound.(Fiengo 1974)
Under the raising analysis, NPAcc is considered as being raised from the embedded clause, leaving its trace inside the embedded CP as illustrated in (8a).
(8)The hypothesized structures under the raising analysis
a.NP-top..NPi-acc...[CP...ti...V2that]...V1...
b.*NP-top...[CP...ti...V2 that]j...NPi-acc...tj...V1...
×
binding is not possible
When the CP moves across NPAcc, the sentence will have the structure in(8b) in which the trace of NPAcc is not bound.
2.2The Major Object Analysis: "The PBC effects are not real."
The generalization in (6) is, however, challenged by Hoji 1991, further defended by Takano 2003 and Harada 2003. Hoji (1991) points out that the RTO sentence in (9) which is supposed to display the PBC violation is not as bad as a general case of the PBC violation in a scrambling construction.
(9)"the (alleged) PBC violation" in RTO constructionsNot clear
a.??[ti hoka-no dare yori-mo baka da to] j John-ga Billi-otj {danteisi / omoikom} ta /da koto.
b.[ti hoka-no do-no biiru-yori mo umai to]j Santorii-ga [so-no dorai biiru]i-o tj sendensiteiru (koto) Hoji 1991: 2: (5c) & (5d)
On the other hand, in a non-RTO complex sentence in (10a), there is no movement involved. In (10b), PP sono mura-ni 'in the village' is scrambled to the matrix clause leaving its trace inside the CP. In (10c), the CP is dislocated to the position preceding sono mura-ni, and the trace of the PP is no longer bound, hence, causing the PBC violation.
(10)the general case of the PBC violation Very Clear
a.John-ga [CP Bill-ga sono mura-ni sundeiru to] {danteisita / omotteiru} (koto)
b.John-ga sono murai-ni [CP Bill-ga ti sundeiru to] {danteisita / omotteiru} (koto)
c.*[ CP Bill-ga ti sundeiru to] John-ga sono murai-ni {danteisita / omotteiru} (koto)
Hoji 1991: 2: (6) based on Saito 1987: 309: (20b)
Is this merely judgmental variation? If that is the case, we would expect that those who do not find the PBC effects in RTO sentences will not find those in scrambling construction either.
2.3The aim of this paper
The aim of this paper is to check
(i)whether or not sentences of the form in (11b) is unacceptable and
(ii)how unacceptable / acceptable sentences of the form in (11b) as compared to general cases of the PBC.
(11)a.NP-top..NPi-acc...ti...V2..that...V1...
b.*NP-top...[CP... V2...that]j...NP-acc...tj...V1...
4Preliminary Survey on the PBC effects
As summarized in the previous section, two contradicting judgments have been reported in the literature with regard to sentences of the form in (12).
(12)* / ??/okNP1-top...[...V2...that]j...NP2-acc..tj...V1...
The generalization put forth is (6) repeated below.
Generalization
(6)The embedded clause in RTO construction cannot be preceded by NPAcc.
4.1Design of Survey
Number of Informants:16 (7 linguists and 11 non-linguists)
Number of Examples:16 sentences, 2 sets
Set One (4 non-RTO sentences, 4 RTO sentences)
Set Two (4 non-RTO sentences, 4 RTO sentences)
How to rate examples:
For each sentence, the informants were given a scale illustrated in (13) 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."
(13)Bad< ======Good
o o o o o
Schematic Structures of Example Sentences
The structures of Non-RTO examples
(14)Non-Scrambling
NP-top/nom...[CP NP-nom...NP-dat/to...V that]...V
(15a)NP-Scrambling
NPi-dat/to...NP-top / nom... [CP NP-nom ...ti...V C]...V
scrambling
(15b)CP-Scrambling
[CP NP-nom...NP-dat/to... V C]i...NP-top/ nom...ti...V1
scrambling
(16)PBC effects (NP-Scrambling and CP scrambling)
①scrambling
[CP NP2-nom...t3...Verb C]i...NP3- dat/to...NP1-top/ nom...ti...V1
②scrambling
The hypothesized structures of RTO examples under the raising analysis
(17)Non-Scrambling
NP-top/nom...NPi- acc [CP...ti...V2 C] V1
raising
(18a)NP-scrambling
②NP-scrambling
NPi-acc...NP-top/nom...t'i [CP ...ti...V2 C]...V1
①raising
(18b)CP scrambling
③NP-scrambling
②cp-scrambling
b.NPi- acc [CP...ti... V that]j...top/nom... t'i. tj...V
①raising
(19)PBC effects (NP raising, NP-scrambling and CP-scrambling)
②NP-scrambling
[CP .. ti... V2 C]j...NP-acc...NP-top/nom.. t'i...tj ...V1
①raising
③CP-scrambling
4.2Example Sentences
=Set One=
Non-RTO constructions
(20)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.'
(21)a.tyuugoku-ni keisatu-wa [John-ga nigeta to] danteisita.
b.[John-ga tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] keisatu-wa danteisita.
(22)*[John-ga nigeta to]tyuugoku-ni keisatu-wa danteisita.
RTO-constructions
(23)keisatu-wa John-o tyuugoku-ni nigeta-to danteisita.
police-TOP John-ACC escapted COMP determined
Intended: 'The police determined that John escaped.'
(24)a.John-o keisatu-wa [tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] danteisita.
b.John-o [tyuugoku-ni to nigeta to] keisatu-wa danteisita.
(25)[tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] John-o keisatu-wa danteisita. (predicted to be unacceptable)
=Set two=
Non-RTO constructions
(26)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.'
(27)a.Toyota-ni Yamada sensei -ga [John-gasyuusyokusita to] omoikondeita(koto)
b.[John-ga Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] Yamada sensei-ga omoikondeita(koto)
(28)*[John-ga syuusyokusita to]Toyota-ni Yamada sensei-ga omoikondeita(koto)
RTO-constructions
(29)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.'
(30)a.John-o Yamada sensei -ga [Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] omoikondeita(koto)
b.John-o [Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] Yamada sensei -ga omoikondeita(koto)
(31)[Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] John-o Yamada sensei -ga omoikondeita(koto)
(predicted to be unacceptable)
4.3The Result of the Survey
(32)Result Chart 1
(a) Non-scrambling(canonical order) / (b) NP-scrambling
-2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2
1. 1st Set: non -RTO / (20) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 18 / (21a) / 2 / 3 / 1 / 5 / 7
2. 2nd Set: non-RTO / (26) / 0 / 0 / 2 / 4 / 12 / (27a) / 3 / 2 / 2 / 5 / 6
3. 1st Set: RTO / (23) / 0 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 10 / (24a) / 0 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 10
4. 2nd Set: RTO / (29) / 4 / 2 / 1 / 2 / 9 / (30a) / 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 / (21b) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 18 / (22) / 14 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 0
2. 2nd Set: non-RTO / (27b) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 17 / (27) / 15 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0
3. 1st Set: RTO / (24b) / 3 / 2 / 1 / 6 / 6 / (25) / 2 / 4 / 3 / 5 / 4
4. 2nd Set: RTO / (30b) / 2 / 0 / 3 / 6 / 7 / (31) / 0 / 7 / 6 / 4 / 1
Non-scrambling case of non-RTO sentences is judged almost perfectly acceptable where as non-scrambling case of RTO sentences shows judgmental variations.
NP scrambling case of non-RTO and RTO shows judgmental variations.
CP-scrambling case of non-RTO sentences is judged as good as non-scrambling case whereas judgmental variations are observed in the case of CP-scrambling cases of RTO sentences.
80% of the informants gave -1 or -2 to the PBC examples in non-RTO cases whereas only around 30% of the informants gave -1 or -2 to the PBC examples in RTO.
+1 or +2 are given to the PBC examples in RTO by 27-50% of the informants
One might say that examples in (25) and (31) display the PBC effects as about a half of the informants gave them -1 or -2. It is, however noted that the acceptability of those examples before the dislocation of the CP and the NP in (23) and (29) are as low as +1. What we need to pay attention is how much degradation we find between Non-Scrambling cases and the PBC cases, which is summarized in (33).
(33)Differences between Non-scrambling examples and PBC examples
Non-scramblingPBCDegradation
(34)Set one: non-RTO+2➞-1.553.55
(35)Set two: non-RTO+1.55➞-1.613.16
(36)Set one: RTO+1➞0.270.73
(37)Set two: RTO+0.55➞-0.050.6
In the general case of the PBC (non-RTO examples), the degradation is quite big; 3.55 and 3.16 respectively.
In the case of the (alleged) PBC in RTO examples, the degradation is merely 0.73 and 0.6 respectively.
Conclusion
The PBC effects in RTO construction are not as robust at all as it has been claimed in the literature.
Given that the PBC effects have been considered as the strongest piece of evidence adduced for the raising analysis, the result reported above seriously undermines it and in turn provides support for the Major Object analysis, under which the PBC violation of the sort noted above is not predicted in RTO.
4.4The PBC effects in Korean by Y. Cho
Similar experiments are conducted on Korean by three Korean students, and the results are remarkably similar to those of the experiments in Japanese. One of the experiments conducted by Y. Cho is designed very much in the same way as the experiments in Japanese discussed above. We will see the result of his experiment in this section.
Number of Informants:16 for non-RTO examples, 21 for RTO examples
Number of Examples:12 sentences (4 non-RTO sentences, 8 RTO sentences)
How to rate examples:
For each sentence, the informants were given a scale illustrated in (13) 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."
(38)Bad< ======Good
o o o o o
Among other examples, he gave Korean sentences corresponding to the structures in (39)-(42), where (39) and (40) are non-RTO constructions and (41) and (42), RTO constructions.
Structures of Example Sentences
non-RTO constructions
(39)NP-top/nom...[CP NP-nom...NP-dat/to...V that]...V(non-Scrambling)
(40)*[CP NP-nom...ti...V that]j...NP-top/nom..NPi-dat/to...tj...V(PBC effects)
RTO constructions
(41)NP-top/nom...NPi-acc [CP...ti...V that]...V(non-Scrambling)
(42)*/??/ok [CP ...ti...V that]j...NP-top/nom...NPi- acc V(PBC effects)
The result of the experiment is summarized in (43).
(43)Result Chart 2
(a) Non-scrambling(canonical order) / (b) PBC effects
-2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2
Set1:nonRTO / (39) / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 14 / (40a) / 14 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1
Set2:nonRTO / (39) / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 15 / (40a) / 14 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0
Set1: RTO / (41) / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 19 / (42) / 6 / 4 / 9 / 1 / 1
Set2:RTO / (41) / 0 / 0 / 3 / 7 / 11 / (42) / 3 / 7 / 3 / 5 / 3
Set3: RTO / (41) / 0 / 0 / 6 / 6 / 9 / (42) / 5 / 7 / 5 / 1 / 3
Set4:RTO / (41) / 3 / 6 / 4 / 3 / 5 / (42) / 5 / 8 / 3 / 4 / 1
14 informants in the first set and 15 in the second set found non-scrambling examples of non-RTO +2. In contrast, the judgments for non-scrambling examples of the RTO shows a great deal of variations.
For non-RTO cases, 14 out of 16 informants gave the PBC examples -2 whereas for the RTO-cases, only 3-6 informants gave the examples -2.
Since about a half of the informants gave the examples of the form in (42) -1 or -2, one may say that there is a contrast between non-RTO constructions and RTO constructions paying attentions only to the numbers in the shaded part of the chart. What is significant, however, is the degradation of acceptability from non-scrambling examples to the PBC examples because the RTO examples are not found perfectly acceptable even when they are in canonical order as shown in Column (a). Let us look at another chart in (44).
(44)Differences between Non-scrambling examples and PBC examples
Non-scramblingPBCDegradation
(45)Set one: non-RTO+1.68➞-1.683.36
(46)Set two: non-RTO+1.87➞-1.683.55
(47)Set one: RTO+1.90➞+0.611.29
(48)Set two: RTO+1.38➞+0.091.29
(49)Set three:RTO+1.14➞+0.410.71
(50)Set four: RTO+0.04➞+0.57-0.53
In the case of non-RTO, the degradation is3.36and3.55 while in RTO, it is only 1.29,1.29,0.71 and -0.53.
Conclusion
The PBC violation in RTO is not as strong as those in non-RTO in Korean as well as in Japanese.
4.5The 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. He further claims that if NPAcc is an inanimate NP, it must be generated in the embedded clause and gets raised to the matrix clause. Under the analysis, structures of RTO sentences with animate NPAcc is ambiguous between (51a) or (51b) while RTO with inanimate NPAcc should unambiguously corresponds to the structure in (52).
When NPAcc is an animate NP, the structure is ambiguous.
(51)a.NP-top/nom...NPi-acc [CP...ti...V that]...V
b.NP-top/nom...NP-acc [CP...V that]...V
When NPAcc is an inanimate NP, it always derived through movement from the embedded clause.
(52)NP-top/nom...NPi-acc [CP...ti...V that]...V
In the surveys discussed in the previous sections, all the examples contain animate NPs as NPAcc. Under the Yoon's analysis, such examples can correspond to the structure in (51b) where there is no trace inside the CP, and the lack of the PBC effects is not surprising. Yoon then makes the following prediction when NPAcc is an inanimate NP;
(53)Prediction
If an NPAcc is an inanimate NP, the embedded clause in RTO construction cannot be preceded by NPAcc.
A. Ueyama conducted a survey to check the prediction in (53) in spring 2005.
Number of Informants:27
Number of Examples:16 (1 set of non-RTO sentences of the form in (54), seven sets of examples of the form in (55))
Structures of Example Sentences
Non-RTO constructions with an inanimate NP
(54)a.NP-top/nom...[CP NP-nom...NP-dat/to...V that]...V(non-Scrambling)
b.*[CP NP-nom...ti...V that]j...NPi-dat/to...NP-top/nom..tj..V(PBC effects)
RTO constructions with an inanimate NP
(55)a.NP-top/nom...NPi-acc [CP...ti...V that]...V
b.[CP...ti...V that] NPi-acc...NP-top/nom...V(PBC effects)
(56)Differences between Non-scrambling examples and PBC examples
Non-scramblingPBCDegradation
(57)Set one: non-RTO+1.96➞-1.523.48
(58)Set one: RTO+2.00➞+0.811.19
(59)Set two: RTO+2.00➞+0.441.56
(60)Set three:RTO+2.00➞+0.671.33
(61)Set four:RTO+1.96➞+0.891.07
(62)Set five:RTO+1.96➞+0.521.44
(63)Set six:RTO+2.00➞+0.781.22
(64)Set seven:RTO+2.00➞+0.221.78
The degradation (shaded column in the above chart) in RTO cases is as small as 1.37 on the average whereas that it is 3.48 in RTO cases.
Conclusion
The prediction in (53) is not borne out. The result strongly indicates that the PBC in RTO constructions is not clearly observed contra to what the raising analysis advocates have lead us to believe, regardless of the type of NPAcc.
4.6Summary of the Surveys
In this preliminary surveys, we have demonstrated that
(i) the alleged PBC effects in RTO constructions is not as clear as those in non-RTO constructions which displays sharp degradation in acceptability,
(ii) the result of the surveys does not change regardless of whether NPAcc is animate or inanimate.
Based on the result, we suggest that the alleged PBC effects are not due to unbound trace but due to some sort of a pragmatic rule which affect people's judgments to a varying degree.
5.The alleged PBC effectts are due to violating "Aboutness Condtion"
Hoji (1991) suggests, further discussed in Takano 2003 and Harada 2003,that "aboutness condition" (cf. Kuno 1973) is playing a role for the alleged PBC effects in RTO constructions. NPAcc and CP in RTO constructionsare said to be in an "aboutness relation"much as in the case of "aboutness relation" in topic construction as in (65a) where 'that movie' is in an "aboutness relation" with the rest of the sentence.
(65)a. aboutness relation
a-no eiga-wa John-ga syutuensita yakusya-o kiratteiru.
that-GEN movie-TOP John-NOM played actor-ACC hate
'As for that move, John hates the actors who were (on the movie)'
b. ??aboutness relation
??/?*syutuensita yakusya-o a-no eiga-wa John-ga kiratteiru.
played actor-ACC that-GEN movie-TOP John-NOM hate
(cf. Takano 2003)
(65b) sounds a little awkward because a-no eiga-wa 'that movie-top' cannot easily be in an "aboutness relation" with the rest of the sentence due to the preposed NP, syutuensita yakusya-o, disconnected from John-ga kiratteiru. Judgments on examples like (65b) vary since "aboutness condition" is a pragmatic rule. If the context illustrated in (66) is added to (65b), the acceptability of sentences can be improved.
(66)John hates this movie (A) because he did not like the scenario but he hates that movie (B) because he hates the actors (on that movie).
(67) is another example of topic construction in which a topic phrase and the rest of the sentence is in an "aboutness relation".
(67)a.aboutness relation(B is about A)
A B
Natu-wa ooku-no nihonzin-ga rosanzerusu-o otozureru.
summer-TOP many-GEN Japanese-NOM Los:Angeles-ACC visit
"As for summer, many Japanese people visit Los Angeles.'
b. ??aboutness relation
??/?*rosanzerusu-o natu-wa ooku-no nihonzin-ga otozureru.
The situation is very much like the case of the alleged PBC effects in RTO constructions.
(5)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
(68)a. aboutness relation