Two Types of Neg-Sensitive Elementsv.6 Kiyoko Kataoka 4/02/05

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................2

2. Preliminary discussion: structural characteristics of Japanese negative sentences. .32.1. Scope ambiguity between Neg and QP................................................................32.2. Different landing sites of QR................................................................................42.3. Summary and a problem......................................................................................5

3. O(bject) S(ubject)-construction......................................................................................63.1. Structural ambiguity.............................................................................................6

3.1.1. Bound Variable Anaphora (BVA) Interpretation.........................................73.1.2. Wide Scope Distributive Readings...............................................................103.1.3. Resumption...................................................................................................11

3.2. Deep DL : an element outside the c-command domain of Neg.........................133.3. Summary................................................................................................................15

4. Rokuna-N: an N(egation)S(ensitive)E(lement) that must be in the c-command domain of Neg154.1. Rokuna-N as an QP...............................................................................................164.2. Rokuna-N (as?) a Deep DL...................................................................................16

4.2.1. Rokuna-N and BVA......................................................................................174.2.2. Rokuna-N and resumption............................................................................17

4.3. Summary................................................................................................................18

5. XP-sika: an NSE that must be outside the c-command domain of Neg.......................185.1. XP-sika as an QP....................................................................................................185.2. XP-sika as a Deep DL............................................................................................19

5.2.1. XP-sika and BVA.........................................................................................195.2.2. XP-sika and resumption................................................................................19

5.3. Proposal..................................................................................................................205.3.1. Scope interaction between XP-sika and QP..................................................205.3.2. Analysis........................................................................................................205.3.3. Examples in OS-construction.......................................................................22

5.4. Summary................................................................................................................25

6. Consequences: XP-sika and rokuna-N............................................................................256.1. Prediction 1 : XP-sika and rokuna-N in a S(ubject)-O(bject) construction.....266.2. Prediction 2: XP-sika and rokuna-N in a O(bject)-S(ubject) construction......276.3. Summary................................................................................................................28

7. Further consequences and implications.........................................................................287.1. (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo as a Deep DL..............................................................297.2. (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo and XP-sika................................................................30

1

7.2.1. SO-construction............................................................................................307.2.2. OS-construction............................................................................................31

7.3. An alternative analysis..........................................................................................317.4. (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo and rokuna-N.............................................................31

7.4.1. SO-construction............................................................................................327.4.2. OS-construction............................................................................................32

7.5. Summary................................................................................................................32

8. Concluding remarks.........................................................................................................33

Appendix: Judgmental fluctuation and variation.............................................................33

References..............................................................................................................................35

1. Introduction

As is well known, most languages have elements which must occur with sentential negation. Japanese expressions such as XP-sika 'all but XP' and rokuna-N 'good/decent N' are among those as illustrated below.

() a. Taro-wa manga-sika yoma-nai. / *yomu. Taro-TOP comics-all:but read-Neg / read (Roughly) 'Taro does not read any kind of book but comics.'

b. Taro-sika manga-o yoma-nai. /* yomu.Taro-all:but comics-ACC read-Neg / read (Roughly) 'Nobody but Taro reads comics.'

() a. Jiro-wa kyoositu-de rokuna-koto-o iwa-nai. / *iu.Jiro-TOP classroom-in good-thing-ACC say-Neg / say(Roughly) 'Jiro does not say any good thing in the classroom.'

b. Rokuna-gakusei-ga gakkai-de happyo-o si-nai. / *suru. good-student-NOM conference-LOC presentation-ACC make-Neg /make(Roughly) 'No good students make a presentation at the conference.'

As seen above, these expressions require sentential negation. We henceforth refer to them as 'Neg(ation)-sensitive' elements (NSE).1 Based on the observation that an NSE in English such as any(-) cannot occur outside the c-command domain of the negative element (not), as observed in (), it

1 Those items which must occur with negation are in general called Negative Polarity Items (NPI), and the term NPI has been widely used as a descriptive term to refer to them. We will not, however, use the term to refer to those items. Since the notion of 'polarity' was introduced by such works as Fauconnier 1975 and Ladusaw 1979 in order to give an account for the syntactic behavior and semantic characteristics of any(-) in English which requires negative environment, it originally had a close connection with a particular semantic property of those items: they induce 'scale' interpretation in the terms of Fauconnier 1975, or 'downward entailment' interpretation in the terms of Ladusaw 1979, which allows an element without universal force to give rise to an interpretation of universal negation. If we take this into consideration, that term should not be used as a purely descriptive term, since it is possible that some elements, though they require negation, may not induce the 'scale' interpretation.

2

has been generally agreed that the condition () holds of NSEs.

() a. He didn't [ invite anybody.]b. *Anybody didn't [invite him.]

() An NSE must be c-commanded by Neg at LF. (Klima 1964)

Following this analysis, Japanese NSEs have also been treated in general as falling under the condition in () (Kato 1985, 1994, 2002, Kuno 1995 and many others), and this condition has been widely accepted in the field. (I will hereafter refer to the condition in () as the Neg-c-command condition.)

[The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that not all NSEs obey the condition in (), and that there are at least two types of NSEs in terms of the c-command relation with Neg, and more specifically rokuna-N obeys () but XP-sika does not. <==Is this the aim of the paper? If so, you might want to declare that the aim of this paper is descriptive in nature, or something like that. See my remarkd on the concluding section.]there are some NSEs in Japanese which MUST C-COMMAND Neg, rather than being c-commanded by Neg, such as XP-sika in (). I thus claim that, though there are some NSEs which are subject to the condition in () such as rokuna-N in (), not all NSEs obey the condition in (), and that there are at least two types of NSEs in terms of the c-command relation with Neg.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In the next section, after introducing several assumptions we should adopt regarding the structure of negative sentences in Japanese, I will point out that it is necessary to identify an element which is independently demonstrated to be outside the c-command domain of Neg, in order to discuss the validity of the condition (). In section 3, I will first provide [three methods to disambiguate the structure of 'scrambling' construction, and then demonstrate that the so-called 'A-scrambled' object cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF. Making use of the 'A-scrambled' object, <==I will later comment on this; but I will leave it uncommented on for now.] I will argue, in section 4, that rokuna-N is subject to the condition (), and, in section 5, show that XP-sika is not subject to the condition (). I will then propose a structural condition for XP-sika based on the scope interpretation in a sentence that involves XP-sika, Neg, and another QP. In section 6, I will provide supporting evidence for the hypotheses put forth in this paper, by showing that [the predictions made under the proposed analyses <==You may want to make their content known to the reader, if that is possible] are borne out. Section 7 is to discusses consequences and further implications from the discussions here in regard to xxx. I will suggestsuggest will be concluded that dare-mo/nani-mo, another NSE in Japanese must be outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF as well as XP-sika. Section 8 is for provides the conclusion and remaining issues.

2. Preliminary discussion: structural characteristics of Japanese negative sentences

2.1. Scope ambiguity between Neg and QPIn this subsection, we will go over the scope phenomena which have been reported in the

literature, and, in consideration of them, introduce the assumptions we should adopt regarding the structural characteristics of Japanese negative sentences.

3

It has been observed that, in Japanese, both a subject NP and non-subject NPs can be within the scope of negation (Kuno 1980, Hasegawa 1991 (1993), Imani 1993). Let's see the examples below.

() a. QP-NOM NP-ACC/DAT V-Neg[QP goninizyoo-no gakusei ]-ga so-no hon-o yoma-na-katta (koto) 5:or:more-GEN student-NOM that-GEN book-ACC read-Neg-Past (Comp)'Five or more students did not read that book.' 5-or-more>Neg, Neg>5-or-more

b. NP-ACC/DAT QP-NOM V-Negso-no hon-o [QP goninizyoo-no gakusei ]-ga yoma-na-katta (koto)that-GEN book-ACC 5:or:more-GEN student-NOM read-Neg-Past (Comp)'That book, five or more students did not read.' 5-or-more>Neg, Neg>5-or-more

() a. NP-NOM QP-ACC/DAT V-Negso-no gakusei-ga [QP gosatuizyoo-no hon ]-o yoma-na-katta (koto) that-GEN student-NOM 5:or:more-GEN book-ACC read-Neg-Past (Comp)'That student did not read five or more books.' 5-or-more>Neg, Neg>5-or-more

b. QP-ACC/DAT NP-NOM V-Neg[QP gosatuizyoo-no hon ]-o so-no gakusei-ga yoma-na-katta (koto) 5:or:more-GEN book-ACC that-GEN student-NOM read-Neg-Past (Comp)'Five or more books, that student did not read.' 5-or-more>Neg, Neg>5-or-more

All the sentences above are ambiguous with respect to the scope interpretation between the QP and Neg: one reading in which the QP takes scope over Neg (henceforth, QP > Neg), and the other in which Neg takes scope over the QP (henceforth, Neg > QP). The two interpretations for (a), for instance, can be informally described as in ()and (), respectively.

() QP > Neg : 5 or more x (x= student) NOT (x read that book)The interpretation where the number of the students who did not read that book is concerned.

() Neg > QP : NOT 5 or more x (x= student) (x read that book)The interpretation where the number of the students who read that book is concerned.

The latter interpretation Neg > QP is often observed to be more or less marginal. It is pointed out, however, that the judgmental variation is attributed to pragmatic factors (Kato 1985: Chapter xxx, Imani 1993), and the interpretation obtains more easily if the relevant sentence is embedded in some context, such as the conditional clause, as pointed out by Imani (1993).

() [QP Goninizyoo-no gakusei ]-ga so-no hon-o yoma-na-kereba, .... 5:or:more-GEN student-NOM that-GEN book-ACC read-Neg-if'If five or more students did not read that book, ....'

In any case, it seems to be the case that every NP in Japanese can be in the scope of negation, which must be derived by whatever analysis one might take.2.2. Different landing sites of QR

We adopt the widely-accepted assumption that every NP, i.e., the subject NP and non-subject

4

NPs, base-generates in a position inside the VP(or vP in the recent framework), and assume, according to Kuroda 1988 and Kitagawa 1986, that the subject NP does not obligatorily move up to the Specifier position of the IP. Furthermore if we assume (), as is generally assumed, regarding the syntactic position of the negative element, every NP in Japanese can be in the c-command domain of Neg (-nai) at LF.

() Negative element Neg (-nai) is in the sister position of the VP at LF.(Masuoka 1989, Pollock 1989)

Given all and the general assumption that the c-command domain of an element α will be the scope of α (Reinhart 1983), it can be given an account that every NP in Japanese can be in the scope of Neg. Now if we adopt the assumption, following Hasegawa 1991, that Quantifier Raising (QR) at LF2 (May 1977, 1985) can either be an IP-adjunction (whose landing site is a position c-commanding Neg) or a VP-adjunction (whose landing site is a position c-commanded by Neg), the LF representations as illustrated in () are available.

() a. [IP QP [IP [NegP [VP ... t ... V ]-Neg ] ] ]b. [IP [NegP [VP QP [VP ... t ... V ]]-Neg ] ]

Once these two LF-representations are possible, the observation given above that the scope relation between an NP and Neg are ambiguous can be derived. Thus it is reasonable to adopt these assumptions, and many studies in the Japanese literature, including Hasegawa 1991 (1993), have adopted the assumptions along this line.2.3. Summary and a problem

Based on the discussion above, wWe will adopt the followings assumptions.

() Assumptions:(i) The subject NP as well as the non-subject NP can remain inside the VP at LF. (Kuroda

1988 and Kitagawa 1986) (ii) Negative element Neg (-nai) is in the sister position of the VP at LF. (Pollock 1989,

Masuoka 1989)(iii) QR at LF can either be an IP-adjunction (whose landing site is a position c-commanding

Neg) or a VP-adjunction (whose landing site is a position c-commanded by Neg) at LF. (Hasegawa 1991)

Once we accept all the assumptions abovein (), as is generally done in the literature, the distributional characteristics of Japanese NSEs that they can occur not only in the subject position but also in the non-subject positions can also be given an account by the analysis is consistent withunder

2 We assume that a quantificational phrase (QP) undergoes, at LF, Quantifier Raising (QR), which is an instance of an adjunction to a maximal projection (cf. May 1977, 1985) in order for a so-called 'type-mismatch' to be avoided. The possible landing sites are any adjoined position with the category of type-t, including VP and NegP.

5

the Neg-c-command condition in (), without giving rise to any problem, since every NP in Japanese can be c-commanded by Neg at LF under the assumptions above.

() An NSE must be c-commanded by Neg at LF. (Klima 1964)

Given the possibility of VP adjunction of QR, the subject and the object QP can both be within the scope of Neg at LF. It is perhaps It can be said that it is for this reason, one may suggest, that the validity of the condition () in Japanese has never been questioned seriously.

[Notice, however, that, given all the assumptions above, it cannot be verified whether the condition () actually works or not on the licensing of NSEs, since, under those assumptions, every NP in Japanese can be inside the c-command domain of Neg at LF so that there cannot be a position which is necessarily outside the c-command domain of Neg. This only means that the distributional characteristics of Japanese NSEs can be accounted for by the condition () under the assumptions above, but not that the condition is necessary for Japanese NSEs. <==Try to shorten this part.] In order to show that an NSE is subject to the condition (), it is necessary to show that the NSE cannot occur in a position where the condition () is not satisfied, i.e., a position outside the c-command domain of Neg. It is therefore necessary to identify an element which is independently demonstrated to occupy a position outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF in order to examine the validity of the condition ().

[In the following sections, I will first demonstrate that, if we examine in detail so-called 'scrambled' sentences in the Object-Subject-Verb order (NP-ACC/-DAT NP-NOM V) (henceforth, we will refer to them as OS-constructions, according tofollowing Ueyama 1998), there can be an element which cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, and that it is possible to identify the relevant NP through interactions with other phenomena such as QP-scope interpretation or bound variable anaphora (BVA). Then, making use of the NP in question, I will test how valid the condition () is, and then propose the syntactic conditions which work on NSEs. <==Redo.]

3. O(bject) S(ubject)-construction

3.1. Structural ambiguityIt is generally agreed in the Japanese literature that, while sentences with the word order of

Subject-Object-Verb (NP-NOM NP-ACC/-DAT V) (henceforth, SO-construction, according to Ueyama 1998) have only one kind of structural relation between the subject and the object at LF, where, corresponding to its phonetic form (PF), the subject NP asymmetrically c-commands the object NP (Hoji 1985, 2003), two kinds of structural relation at LF are available to sentences in the OS-construction (Saito 1992, Ueyama 1998): the one where the subject NP c-commands the object NP, and the other where the object NP c-commands the subject NP. Thus, for the sentence with the PF (), the two LF-representations are possible as indicated in ().

() PF: NP-ACC/-DAT NP-NOM V

6

() a. LF-representation in which the subject NP c-commands the object NP

NP-NOM

NP-ACC/-DAT V

b. LF-representation in which the object NP c-commands the subject NP

NP-ACC/-DAT

NP-NOM V

This analysis is based on the observations, as is introduced in the next subsection, regarding binding phenomena and scope interpretation among others. The case which is assumed to have the LF-representation in (a) has been called 'A-bar-scrambling', since it shows 'A-bar-properties' such as reconstruction effects, and the other which is assumed to have the LF in (b) has been called 'A-scrambling' with 'A-properties' such as absence of Weak Cross Over effects (WCO).

In this paper, we will, according to Ueyama 1998, refer to the sentence with the PF ()and the LF (a), i.e., 'A-bar-scrambling' case, as Surface OS, and its object NP as Surface DL (DL means 'dislocated element'), and we will refer to the sentence with the PF () and the LF (b), i.e., 'A-scrambling' case, as Deep OS, and its object NP as Deep DL.3

It is necessary to identify on which LF-representation the interpretation of the sentence in question is based if we discuss structural issues based on the observations of sentences in the OS-construction. In the following subsection, we will introduce the analyses of Bound variable anaphora (henceforth, BVA) interpretation, wide-scope-distributive reading (henceforth, DR), and resumption, to which we can have recourse in order to identify the structure of a sentence with the PF of (), and, more crucially, to identify a Deep DL, i.e., a dislocated object in a Deep OS case. Then I will argue that elements which are identified to be a Deep DL in the OS-construction cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg by demonstrating that they cannot be interpreted in the scope of Neg.3.1.1. Bound Variable Anaphora (BVA) Interpretation

The first way to identify the structure of a sentence in the OS-construction is to examine the availability of BVA. The necessary condition for a BVA interpretation between a QP α and a dependent term β (henceforth, BVA(α, β)) to obtain is that the trace of α left by QR at LF should c-command β as argued in Ueyama 1998 and Hoji 2003. In other words, the relevant QP must c-command the dependent term in the position which the QP occupies before QR. Thus we can identify the c-command relation between the subject and the object in the OS-construction by making use of BVA.

3 It has been discussed in the literature how the so-called 'scrambled' object is derived or how the two kinds of LF-representation in question are derived (Saito 1992, 2003, Ueyama 1998). In Kataoka 2004, it is claimed that Ueyama’s base-generation analysis of 'A-scrambled' object should be adopted on the basis of the discussion of negation-related phenomena, including those which are not discussed in this paper. However, I will not discuss it here since it does not affect the discussions in this paper whichever analysis would be adopted.

7

Let's start from the examples in the SO-construction. Given the assumption that only one type of LF, where the subject NP c-commands the object NP, is possible for the SO-construction (Hoji 1985, 2003), it is predicted that the BVA interpretation cannot obtain in (a), where the relevant QP does not c-command the dependent term (soko) in the pre-QR position. On the other hand, it is expected that the BVA interpretation can obtain in (b), where the QP c-commands the dependent term in the pre-QR position. This prediction is borne out as shown by the examples in (), and the unavailability of BVA in (a) is a so-called WCO effect.

() a. PF: [ ...soko ... ]-NOM QP-ACC/-DAT V * BVA(QP, soko)b. PF: QP-NOM [ ... soko ... ]-ACC/-DAT V ok BVA(QP, soko)

() a. Sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ni Nissan-o suisensi-ta. it-GEN client-NOM 5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT Nissan-ACC recommend-Past 'Itsi client recommended Nissan to [each of five or more banks]i.'* BVA(itutuizyo-no-ginkoo, soko)

b. [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ga sokoi-no torihikisaki-ni Nissan-o suisensi-ta. 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM it-GEN client-DAT Nissan-ACC recommend-Past 'To [each of five or more banks]i, itsi client recommended Nissan.'ok BVA(itutuizyo-no-ginkoo, soko)

Next, it is observed that the BVA interpretation obtains both in (a) and (b), which are in the OS-construction.

() a. Sokoi-no torihikisaki-ni [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ga Nissan-o suisensi-ta. it-GEN client-DAT 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM Nissan-ACC recommend-Past 'To itsi client, [each of five or more banks]i recommended Nissan.'ok BVA(itutuizyo-no-ginkoo, soko)

b. [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ni sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga Nissan-o suisensi-ta. 5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT it-GEN client-NOM Nissan-ACC recommend-Past 'To [each of five or more banks]i, itsi client recommended Nissan.'ok BVA(itutuizyo-no-ginkoo, soko)

Now if we assume that two types of c-command relation between the subject and the object, as indicated above, are available to the sentences in the OS-construction, each of the sentences in () has possibly two LF representations; one in which the subject-NP c-commands the object-NP, and the other in which the object NP c-commands the subject NP. (Henceforth, α >> means α c-commands .)

() a. PF: [ ... soko ... ]-ACC/-DAT QP-NOM V ok BVA(QP, soko)b. LF1 : QP-NOM >> [ ... soko ... ]-ACC/-DAT

c. LF2: [ ... soko ... ]-ACC/-DAT >> QP-NOM

() a. PF: QP-ACC/-DAT [ ... soko ... ]-NOM V ok BVA(QP, soko)b. LF1: [ ... soko... ]-NOM >> QP-ACC/-DAT

8

c. LF2: QP-ACC/-DAT >> [ ... soko ... ]-NOM

Thus the BVA interpretation between the QP and the dependent term soko may obtain in both sentences with the PF (a) and sentences with the PF (a), since, for each of them, the LF-representation where the trace of the QP after LF-movement c-commands soko is available.

Since it has been said that the NP in question should be in an A-position if it binds successfully a dependent term from its position, the availability of BVA has been also regarded as a test for determining whether a given syntactic position is an A-position or an A'-position. Given the condition for BVA, if the scrambled object gives rise to a BVA interpretation with the dependent term in the subject NP, the object should be in an A-position c-commanding the subject NP. Thus the BVA test has been applied to sentences in the OS-construction in order to identify their structural characteristics (Yoshimura 1992, Ueyama 1998).

Given the condition for BVA that, in order for BVA(QP, soko) to obtain, the QP must c-commands soko in the position which it occupies before QR, when the BVA is established, the sentence with the PF in (a) should be Surface OS with LF1 of (b), and the one with the PF in (a) should be Deep OS with LF2 of (c).4 5 In the other words, the object QP in (a) must be a Deep DL when the BVA interpretation obtains. We thus have () as a method to identify a Deep DL through BVA interpretations.

() Generalization IThe dislocated object in QP-ACC/DAT in QP-ACC/DAT [... soko ... ]-NOM V must be a Deep DL when BVA(QP, soko) is established.

3.1.2. Wide Scope Distributive ReadingsWe can also use the wide scope distributive reading (DR) to identify the LF structure of

sentences in the OS-construction.Let's see the sentences in the SO-construction first. In the example (), the interpretation with the

object QP2 taking scope over the subject QP1 is not possible, while the one with the wide scope reading of the subject QP over the object QP is possible.

4 It is pointed out in Ueyama 1998 and Hayashishita 2004 that those QPs which can refer to a specific group can give rise to a BVA interpretation without establishing the relevant c-command relation with the dependent term. It is also claimed by Ueyama (1998) that there can be BVA interpretations which are established on the basis of a PF-precedence relation (‘co-I-indexation’ in the terms of Ueyama 1998) but not on the c-command relation of the relevant NPs at LF, for instance, those by QPs such as do-no-N (which N). In order to avoid those cases of BVA, which are not based on the syntactic relation, we will not use those QPs for the discussion.

5 In other words, we can identify a QP which gives rise to BVA only on the basis of the relevant c-command relation, by checking those effects of WCOr and reconstruction, since, if the BVA is based on the PF-precedence relation (‘co-I-indexation’ in the terms of Ueyama 1998), it cannot show a reconstruction effect. If the BVA is not based on any grammatical representation but through 'minor' in the terms of Hayashishita 2004, it does not show the WCO effects. It is pointed out in Hoji 2003 that, in addition to them, those QPs show Local disjointness effects; a QP of this type cannot give a BVA interpretation with a dependent term which is a co-argument of the QP.

(i) *[Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ga Nissan-ni sokoi-o suisensi-ta. 5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT Nissan-DAT it-ACC recommend-Past

9

() [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]QP1-ga [mittuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP2-ni Toyota-o suisensi-ta 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM 3:or:more-GEN company-DAT Toyota-ACC recommend-Past'Five or more banks recommended Toyota to three or more companies.'

ok DR(QP1, QP2)* DR(QP2, QP1)

It is argued that the necessary condition on the establishment of the wide scope reading of QP 1 over QP2 (henceforth, DR(QP1, QP2)) is that QP1 must c-command QP2 at LF (Hayashishita 1999, 2004). Given the widely-accepted assumption of the Scope Rigidity Principle (Huang 1982, Hoji 1985) 6, which requires the c-command relation between a maximal projection XP1 and XP2 to maintain after an LF movement, the c-command relation between QP1 and QP2 cannot be altered through QR at LF. It follows that, in order for the interpretation DR(QP1, QP2) to obtain, QP1 must c-command QP2 in the positions which they occupy before QR. The example (), in which only the interpretation with DR for the subject QP1 over the object QP2 is possible, shows that this analysis is correct, since, in the SO-construction, the subject asymmetrically c-commands the object at LF. Thus the possibilities of DR interpretation in the SO-construction are illustrated as below.

() PF: QP1-NOM QP2-ACC/-DAT Vok DR(QP1, QP2)* DR(QP2, QP1)

We now turn to cases in the OS-construction. The scope interpretation is ambiguous as exemplified below.

() [Mittuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP2-ni [itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]QP1-ga Toyota-o suisensi-ta 3:or:more-GEN company-DAT 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM Toyota-ACC recommend-Past'To three or more companies, five or more banks recommended Toyota.'

ok DR(QP1, QP2)ok DR(QP2, QP1)

() a. PF: QP2-ACC/-DAT QP1-NOM V ok DR(QP1, QP2), ok DR(QP2, QP1)b. LF1: QP1 >> QP2

c. LF2: QP2 >> QP1

Given the assumption that the c-command relation between the subject and the object is ambiguous in the OS-construction, two LF representations are possible for the sentence in (): one where QP1 c-commands QP2 before QR, and the other where QP2 c-commands QP1 before QR. Thus the two different scope interpretations can obtain in (): the one with DR(QP1, QP2) is based on the LF1 of (b) and the other with DR(QP2, QP1) is based on the LF2 of (c). When the interpretation DR(QP2, QP1) is established, QP2-ACC/-DAT must be a Deep DL, since, then, QP2 must c-command QP1 before QR. We

6 See section 5.2 for the details of the Scope Rigidity Principle.

10

have the second generalization as indicated below.

() Generalization IIThe dislocated object QP2 must be a Deep DL when the interpretation with DR(QP2, QP1) obtains in QP2-ACC/DAT QP1-NOM V.

3.1.3. ResumptionFinally, we will see that we can identify the LF structure of a sentence in the OS-construction,

and a dislocated object as Deep DL, through making use of the distribution of resumption.It is reported in Hayashishita 1997, Hoji & Ueyama 1998 and Hoji 2003 that sentences in the

Deep OS construction are felicitous with resumption but not those in the Surface OS construction. Let's see the examples in () (which is ()) below first. As seen in section 3.1.1, when the BVA

interpretation obtains, the example in (a) must be a Surface OS case where the subject QP c-commands the object at LF, and the example in (b) must be a Deep OS case where the object QP c-commands the subject at LF.

() a. Sokoi-no torihikisaki-ni [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ga Nissan-o suisensi-ta. it-GEN client-DAT 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM Nissan-ACC recommend-Past 'To itsi client, [each of five or more banks]i recommended Nissan.'ok BVA(itutuizyo-no-ginkoo, soko)

b. [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ni sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga Nissan-o suisensi-ta. 5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT it-GEN client-NOM Nissan-ACC recommend-Past 'To [each of five or more banks]i, itsi client recommended Nissan.'

ok BVA(itutuizyo-no-ginkoo, soko)

Now, if a resumptive element (soko) is embedded in the examples in (a, b), the latter, which is a Deep OS case, is felicitous, but not the former, which is a Surface OS case.7

() a. *Sokoi-no torihikisaki-ni [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ga Nissan-o soko-ni suisensi-ta. it-GEN client-DAT 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM Nissan-ACC it-DAT recommend-Past 'To itsi client, [each of five or more banks]i recommended Nissan to it.'ok BVA(itutuizyo-no-ginkoo, soko)

b. [Itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]i-ni sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga Nissan-o soko-ni suisensi-ta. 5:or:more-GEN bank-DAT it-GEN client-NOM Nissan-ACC it-DAT recommend-Past 'To [each of five or more banks]i, itsi client recommended Nissan to it.'

ok BVA(itutuizyo-no-ginkoo, soko)

The same point can be shown by making use of scope interpretations. In (), which is a case in the OS-

7 One 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 the example (27b) acceptable, and more crucially all the speakers find (27a) 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.

11

construction, the scope interpretation is ambiguous, and this is as expected under the analysis shown in the previous subsection.

() [Mittuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP2-ni [itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]QP1-ga kanoona-kagiri 3:or:more-GEN company-DAT 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM possible:limit yuusisi-tafinance-Past'To three or more companies, five or more banks financed as much as possible.'

ok DR(QP1, QP2)ok DR(QP2, QP1)

When the interpretation with DR(QP2, QP1) obtains in (), the sentence must be a Deep OS case, where the object QP2 c-commands the subject QP1 at LF, and the dislocated object must be a Deep DL. As observed below, the sentence then is acceptable with resumption.

() [Mittuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP2-ni [itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]QP1-ga kanoona-kagiri soko-ni 3:or:more-GEN company-DAT 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM possible:limit it-DATyuusisi-tafinance-Past'To three or more companies, five or more banks financed to it as much as possible.'(when DR(QP2, QP1) is established.)

On the other hand, when the interpretation with DR(QP1, QP2) obtains, the sentence must be a Surface OS case, where the subject QP1 c-commands the object QP2, and the dislocated object must be a Surface DL. The sentence then is not acceptable with resumption.

() *[Mittuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP2-ni [itutuizyoo-no ginkoo]QP1-ga kanoona-kagiri soko-ni 3:or:more-GEN company-DAT 5:or:more-GEN bank-NOM possible:limit it-DATyuusisi-tafinance-Past'To three or more companies, five or more banks financed to it as much as possible.'(when DR(QP1, QP2) is established.)

Thus we have another generalization as indicated below.

() Generalization IIIThe dislocated object NP-ACC/DAT in NP-ACC/DAT NP-NOM soko-ACC/DAT V must be a Deep DL when the sentence is felicitously interpreted.

3.2. Deep DL : an element outside the c-command domain of NegIn this subsection, we will argue, making use of the three generalizations introduced above, that

the Deep DL cannot occupy a position inside the c-command domain of Neg at LF, based on the observation that the Deep DL cannot be interpreted within the scope of Neg.

Let's see the examples below first. As we have seen in 2.1, when a QP occurs in a negative

12

sentence in the OS-construction, the scope relation between the QP and Neg is ambiguous as well as in negative sentences in the SO-construction.

() a. [Itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni Mitubisi-ginkoo-ga yuusisi-na-katta. 5:or:more-GEN-company-DAT Mitsubishi:bank-NOM finance-Neg-Past'To five or more companies, the Bank of Mitsubishi did not finance.'ok QP1 > Negi, ok Neg > QP1

b. Mosi [itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni Mitubisi-ginkoo-ga yuusisi-na-kereba, if 5:or:more-GEN-company-DAT Mitsubishi:bank-NOM finance-Neg-ifkeizai-zyookyoo-wa kooten-si-nai-daroo.economy:situation-TOP improve-Neg-will'If, to five or more companies, the Bank of Mitsubishi does not finance, the economy will not improve.'ok QP1 > Neg, ok Neg > QP1

This scope ambiguity, however, disappears, as is shown below, if the dislocated object QP is interpreted as a Deep DL, whose interpretation can be forced through making the sentence involve BVA, DR and resumption.

First, when BVA(QP1, soko) is established in (), the QP1 must be a Deep DL according to the generalization (I) in (), and then the QP1 cannot be interpreted within the scope of Neg.8

() a. [Itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni [ soko-no torihiki-ginkoo]-ga yuusisi-na-katta. 5:or:more-GEN-company-DAT it-GE-dealing:bank-NOM finance-Neg-Past'To five or more companies, its own bank did not finance.'ok QP1 > Neg, * Neg > QP1

b. Mosi [itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni [ soko-no torihiki-ginkoo]-ga yuusisi-na-kereba, .... if 5:or:more-GEN-company-DAT it-GE-dealing:bank-NOM finance-Neg-if'If, to five or more companies, its own bank does not finance, ....'ok QP1 > Neg, * Neg > QP1

The example (b) shows that the interpretation Neg > QP1 cannot obtain even if the sentence is embedded in the conditional clause, which is a context where the Neg can take wide scope more easily as stated in section 2.1.

Second, when DR(QP1, QP2) is established in (), QP1 must be a Deep DL according to the generalization (II) in (), and then QP1 cannot be within the scope of Neg.

() a. [Itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni [mittuizyoo-no ginkoo]-ga yuusi-si-na-katta. 5:or:more-GEN-company-DAT 3:or:more-GEN-bank-NOM finance-do-Neg-Past'To five or more companies, its own bank did not finance.'DR(QP1, QP2) → ok QP1 > Neg, * Neg > QP1

8 Some speakers accept the reading Neg > QP1, which result is not in accordance to the predictions drawn by the hypothesis put forth in this paper that the Deep DL occupies the position outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF, and therefore falsifies the hypothesis. See the Appendix for the relevant discussion.

13

b. Mosi [itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni [mittuizyoo-no ginkoo]-ga yuusi-si-na-kereba, .... if 5:or:more-GEN-company-DAT 3:or:more-GEN-bank-NOM finance-do-Neg-if'If, to five or more companies, its own bank does not finance, ....'DR(QP1, QP2) → ok QP1 > Neg, * Neg > QP1

Finally, when the sentence with resumption in () is felicitously interpreted, QP1 must be a Deep DL according to the generalization (III) in (), and then QP1 cannot be within the scope of Neg.

() a. [Itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni Nitigin-ga kanoona-kagiri soko-ni 5:or:more-GEN company-DAT Bank:of:Japan-NOM possible:limit it-DAT yuusi-si--na-kattafinance-do-Neg-Past'To five or more companies, the Bank of Japan did not finance to it as much as possible.'ok QP1 > Neg, * Neg > QP1

b. Mosi [itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni Nitigin-ga kanoona-kagiri soko-ni if 5:or:more-GEN company-DAT Bank:of:Japan-NOM possible:limit it-DAT yuusi-si--na-kereba, ....finance-do-Neg-if'If, to five or more companies, the Bank of Japan does not finance to it as much as possible, ....'ok QP1 > Neg, * Neg > QP1

As is observed above, the object which is forced to be a Deep DL cannot be interpreted within the scope of Neg.

The observations above lead us to conclude that the Deep DL necessarily occupies the position which is not c-commanded by Neg at LF, given the general assumption that the scope of an element α is its c-command domain at LF (Reinhart 1983).

() Deep DL, i.e., the dislocated object in an 'A-scrambling' case, is outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF.

Thus it is reasonable to assume that the Deep DL is outside the c-command domain of Neg before QR, since, if it is inside the c-command domain of Neg before QR, it may be possibly interpreted in the scope of Neg as discussed in section 2.2. The structures before QR of the Surface/Deep OS cases then should be as illustrated in (). Notice that the general condition on movement in () should be assumed here.

() Structures before QRa. Surface OS: [NegP [VP NP-NOM [ NP-ACC/DAT V]] [Neg -nai]]b. Deep OS: [ NP-ACC/DAT [NegP [VP NP-NOM V] [Neg -nai]]]

() Movement cannot be downward.

3.3. SummaryI have argued in this section that the Deep DL, i.e., the dislocated object in an 'A-scrambling'

14

case, is necessarily outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF, by showing that it cannot be inside the scope of Neg. The Deep DL can be identified by making reference to the following three methodsgeneralizations. <==When one reads this, the notions in (i) are not clear, unless one has read the preceding discussion.(i) Deep DL(ii) dislocated objects(iii) A'-scrambling properties.I think it is okay to introduce new concepts/terms and use them in your discussion, which we do all the time. But in a summary section, it would be nice (at least for the reader) if you (once again) explain what you mean by (i)-(iii), so that the summary can be more or less self-contained. See what you can do.

() Generalization IThe dislocated object in QP-ACC/DAT in QP-ACC/DAT [... soko ... ]-NOM V must be a Deep DL when BVA(QP, soko) is established.

() Generalization IIThe dislocated object QP2 must be a Deep DL when the interpretation with DR(QP2, QP1) obtains in QP2-ACC/DAT QP1-NOM V.

() Generalization IIIThe dislocated object NP-ACC/DAT in NP-ACC/DAT NP-NOM soko-ACC/DAT V must be a Deep DL when the sentence is felicitously interpreted.

In the following sections (<==All the sections that follow?), I will examine the validity of the 'Neg-c-command' condition for NESs in () above by making use of the Deep DL. You examine it and draw what conclusion. State that here.

4. Rokuna-N: an N(egation)S(ensitive)E(lement) that must be in the c-command domain of Neg

We will examine the validity of the condition for NSEs in () for Japanese, making use of the Deep DL, and show that there is an NSE in Japanese which in fact obeys the condition.

() An NSE must be c-commanded by Neg at LF. (Klima 1964)

As argued in the previous section, a Deep DL cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF. It follows that, if an NSE is subject to the condition (), it cannot be a Deep DL or embedded in the phrase which is a Deep DL, since the NSE then cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg violating the Neg-c-command condition in ().

In this section, we will first examine the examples containing rokuna-N. If the condition in () works, it follows that rokuna-N cannot be a Deep DL, while it can be a Surface DL. Thus we can get ().

() Rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF.

15

() Consequence 1: Rokuna-N cannot be a Deep DL, while it can be a Surface DL.

The predictions drawn from () will be borne out as shown below, which provides a supporting evidence that the condition () is correct and rokuna-N is subject to the Neg-c-command condition.4.1. Rokuna-N as an QP

It is pointed out in Hoji 1985, Chapter 4 that there are several particular properties which QPs in Japanese display in general. Those in () are among them.9

() Quantifiers in Japanesea. They can bind a variable, and gives rise to a BVA interpretation.b. They show weak cross over effects (WCO).c. They show reconstruction effects.

It is observed that rokuna-N shows these three properties as illustrated below.

() a. [Rokuna-kaisya]i-ga sokoi-no-bengosi-o suisensi-nai. good-company-NOM it-GEN-attorney-ACC recommend-Neg'No good companies recommend its attorney.ok BVA(rokuna-kaisya, soko)

b. Sokoi-no-bengosi-ga [rokuna-kaisya]i-o suisensi-nai. it-GEN-attorney-NOM good-company-ACC resommend-Neg'Its attorney does not recommend any good company.'* BVA(rokuna-kaisya, soko) (WCO effect)

c. Sokoi-no-bengosi-o [rokuna-kaisya]i-ga suisensi-nai. it-GEN-attorney-ACC good-company-NOM resommend-Neg'Its attorney, no good companies recommend.'ok BVA(rokuna-kaisya, soko) (Reconstruction effect)

Rokuna-N can give rise to a BVA, and show a reconstruction effect and a WCO effect, which means that the BVA interpretation is based on the relevant c-command relation at LF (See footnote 5). On the basis of these observations, we assume that rokuna-N is a quantificational element which undergoes QR at LF.4.2. Rokuna-N (as?) a Deep DL

We will show that, making use of the BVA interpretation and resumption, rokuna-N cannot be a Deep DL. Make sure first that, as in (), rokuna-N can be a dislocated object in the OS-construction.

() OS constructiona. [Rokuna-kaisya-o] Yamada-sensei-ga gakusei-ni syookaisi-na-katta.

good-company -ACC Yamada-professor-NOM student-DAT introduce-Neg-Past'No good companies, Prof. Yamada introduced to students.'

9 As stated in footnote 5, the properties in (42b) and (42c) show that the relevant BVA interpretation is based on the syntactic relation in terms of c-command at LF.

16

b. [Rokuna-ginkoo-o] Toyota-ga Mitubisi-ni suisensi-na-katta. good-bank -ACC Toyota-NOM Mitsubishi-DAT recommend-Neg-Past'No good banks, Toyota recommended to Mitsubishi.'

4.2.1. Rokuna-N and BVAFirst, a dislocated rokuna-N cannot be a binder for a dependent term in the subject NP to

establish the BVA interpretation. The BVA interpretation cannot obtain in the examples below, or, the sentence itself becomes unacceptable if the BVA interpretation with rokuna-N is forced to obtain.10

() a. *[Rokuna-kaisya-o]i [sokoi-o sitteiru-sensei]-ga gakusei-ni syookaisi-na-katta. good-company -ACC it-ACC know professor-NOM student-DAT introduce-Neg-Past'No good companies, the professor who knows it introduced to students.'* BVA(rokuna-kaisya, soko)

b. *[Rokuna-ginkoo-o]i [sokoi-no bengosi]-ga Mitubisi-ni suisensi-na-katta. good-bank -ACC it-GEN attorney-NOM Mitsubishi-DAT recommend-Neg-Past'No good banks, its attorney recommended to Mitsubishi.'* BVA(rokuna-ginkoo, soko)

In (a, b), the rokuna-N, according to the generalization I in (), must be a Deep DL for the BVA interpretation to be established. The unacceptable status of them shows that rokuna-N cannot be a Deep DL.4.2.2. Rokuna-N and resumption

Next we will show that a dislocated rokuna-N cannot be interpreted felicitously with resumption.

() a. Rokuna-hon-o Taroo-ga yoma-na-katta.good-company-ACC Taro-NOM read-Neg-Past'No good books, Taro did not read.'

b. *Rokuna-hon-o Taroo-ga sore-o yoma-na-katta.good-company-ACC Taro-NOM it-ACC read-Neg-Past

(Cf.) Harry Potter-o Taroo-ga sore-o yoma-na-katta.Harry Potter-ACC Taro-NOM it-ACC read-Neg-Past'Harry Potter, Taro did not read it.'

() a. [Rokuna-kaisya-o] Yamada-sensei-ga gakusei-ni syookaisi-na-katta. good-company -ACC Yamada-professor-NOM student-DAT introduce-Neg-Past'No good companies, Prof. Yamada introduced to students.'

b. *[Rokuna-kaisya-o] Yamada-sensei-ga gakusei-ni soko-o syookaisi-na-katta.good-company -ACC Yamada-professor-NOM student-DAT there-ACC introduce-Neg-Past

() a. Mosi rokuna-ginkoo-ni Mitubisi-ga syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, .... if good-company -DAT Mitsubishi-NOM invitation-ACC send-Neg-Past-if'If, to no good companies, Mitsubishi sent an invitation card, ... '

b. *Mosi rokuna-ginkoo-ni Mitubisi-ga soko-ni syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, .... if good-company -DAT Mitsubishi-NOM it-DAT invitation-ACC send-Neg-Past-if

10 There are some speakers who accept these examples. See the Appendix for the relevant discussion.

17

According to the generalization III in (), in order for a sentence with resumption to be interpreted successfully, the sentence should be a Deep OS case, which means the dislocated object should be a Deep DL. Since all (b) examples above, which involve resumption, are unacceptable, this also shows that rokuna-N cannot be a Deep DL.4.3. Summary

[It may be kind to the reader if you provide, as a review, what is meant by a DL. Then what follows would read quite easily. You can give it a try here.] It is shown that rokuna-N cannot be a Deep DL. Given that , whicha Deep DL is necessarily outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF. This shows , it follows that rokuna-N cannot occur outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF, leading us to (), repeated here. We hence conclude that rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF as in ().

() Rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF.

5. XP-sika: an NSE that must be outside the c-command domain of Neg

In this section, we will see, making use of the BVA interpretation and resumption, that XP-sika can be a Deep DL, in contrast with rokuna-N, which suggests that XP-sika is not subject to the Neg-c-command condition in ().

() An NSE must be c-commanded by Neg at LF. (Klima 1964)

Then I will propose a condition for XP-sika based on the scope interactions between Neg and a QP in sentences where XP-sika and the QP co-occur and are related to the same verb.5.1. XP-sika as an QP

We assume that XP-sika is a quantificational element which undergoes QR at LF, since XP-sika, as well as rokuna-N, displays the properties of QP as seen below. This also shows that the BVA interpretation involving XP-sika is based on the relevant c-command relation at LF (See footnote 5).

() a. Mosi [Tokyoginkoo-sika]i sokoi-no torihikisaki-ni syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, ...11

if Bank:of:Tokyo-all:but it-GEN client-DAT invitation-ACC send-Neg-Past-if'If [no companies except Bank of Tokyo]i sent an invitation to itsi client, ....'ok BVA(Tokyoginkoo-sika, soko)

b. *Mosi sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga [Tokyoginkoo-ni-sika]i syootaizyoo-o if it-GEN client-NOM Bank:of:Tokyo-DAT-all:but invitation-ACC

okura-na-katta-ra, .... send-Neg-Past-if'If itsi client did not send an invitation to [any companies except Bank of Tokyo]i, ....'* BVA(Tokyoginkoo-ni-sika, soko) (WCO effect)

c. Mosi sokoi-no torihikisaki-ni [Tokyoginkoo-sika]i syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, ...

11 Though the suffix -sika can be attached to any maximal projection, nominative marker -ga does not co-occur with -sika, and in most cases accusative marker -o does not, either. Therefore it is possible that XP-sika in (48a) may not be the subject but an adjunct. However, I assume in this work that XP-sika in (48a) is the subject NP of the sentence without the relevant discussion.

18

if it-GEN client-DAT Bank:of:Tokyo-all:but invitation-ACC send-Neg-Past-if'If, to itsi client, [no companies except Bank of Tokyo]i, sent an invitation, ....'ok BVA(Tokyoginkoo-sika, soko) (reconstruction effect)

5.2. XP-sika as a Deep DLAs observed below, XP-sika can be a Deep DL, in contrast with rokuna-N, which suggests that

XP-sika is not subject to the Neg-c-command condition.5.2.1. XP-sika and BVA

First, as shown in (), a dislocated XP-sika can be a binder for a dependent term in the subject NP to establish the BVA interpretation.

() Mosi [Tokyoginkoo-ni-sika]i sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, .... if Bank:of:Tokyo-DAT-all:but it-GEN client-NOM 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)

According to the generalization I in (), in order for the BVA interpretation to obtain, the XP-sika must be a Deep DL. Thus the acceptable status of the example above shows that XP-sika can be a Deep DL.5.2.2. XP-sika and resumption

Next, as shown in the following examples, XP-sika can be a dislocated object in the OS-construction which is related to a resumptive element.

() a. Mosi Tokyoginkoo-ni-sika Mitubisi-ga syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, ... if Bank:of:Tokyo-DAT-all:but Mitsubishi-NOM invitation-ACC send-Neg-Past-if'If, to any company except Bank of Tokyo, Mitsubishi did not send an invitation, ...'

b. Mosi Tokyoginkoo-ni-sika Mitubisi-ga soko-ni syootaizyoo-o okura-na-katta-ra, ... if Bank:of:Tokyo-DAT-all:but Mitsubishi-NOM there-DAT invitation-ACC send-Neg-Past-if'If, to any company except Bank of Tokyo, Mitsubishi did not send there an invitation, ...'

() a. [Toyota-sika] Yamada-sensei-ga gakusei-ni syookaisi-na-katta. Toyota-all:but Yamada-professor-NOM student-DAT introduce-Neg-Past'Any company but Toyota, Prof. Yamada did not introduce to students.'

b. [Toyota-sika] Yamada-sensei-ga gakusei-ni soko-o syookaisi-na-katta. Toyota-all:but Yamada-professor-NOM student-DAT there-ACC introduce-Neg-Past'Any company but Toyota, Prof. Yamada did not introduce it to students.'

According to the generalization III in (), in order for these sentences with resumption to be felicitously interpreted, the dislocated object XP-sika must be a Deep DL. This also shows that XP-sika can be a Deep DL.

The observations above show that XP-sika can be a Deep DL, which is outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF. Thus we conclude that XP-sika is not subject to the Neg-c-command condition in ().

19

5.3. Proposal5.3.1. Scope interaction between XP-sika and QP

As stated in 2.1 with the example in () and (), the scope relation between Neg and QP is generally observed to be ambiguous. This scope ambiguity can be accounted for by assuming, as in (), that there are two distinct landing sites for QR (Hasegawa 1991: section 1).

() a. PF : ... QP1 ... V-nai b. LF1 : [ QP1 [ [VP ... t1 ... ] [Neg -nai] ] ] → QP1 > Negc. LF2 : [ [VP QP1 [VP ... t1 ... ] ] [Neg -nai] ] → Neg > QP1

However, when XP-sika and a QP are in the same clause, the ambiguity disappears. As in (), where the XP-sika is the subject of the sentence, the QP, which is c-commanded by the XP-sika before QR, cannot take scope over Neg. On the other hand, as shown in (), the QP which c-commands the XP-sika before QR cannot be in the scope of Neg.

() Yamada-sensei-sika [sanninizyoo-no gakusei]QP1-o Mitubisi-ni Yamada-professor-all:but three: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

() [Sanninizyoo-no sensei]QP2-ga Taro-o Mitubisi-ni-sika three: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

5.3.2. AnalysisIf we assume that a QP undergoes QR at LF to an adjoined position of any maximal projection,

the unambiguity suggests that a QP, if it is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR, 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 XP-sika before QR.

Recall here the Scope Rigidity Principle, which is introduced in 3.1.2. as in ().

() The Scope Rigidity Principle (SRP)The c-command relation between maximal projections XP1 and XP2 cannot be altered through LF movement. (Huang 1982, Hoji 1985)

This principle is widely accepted in the studies of Japanese syntax, and is indispensable to give an account for the fact that the object QP cannot take wide scope over the subject QP in the SO-construction as illustrated below.

20

() QP1-NOM QP2-ACC V * QP2 > QP1

() [Goninizyoo-no gakusei]QP1-ga [sansatuizyoo-no hon]QP2-o yon-da. 5:or:more-GEN student-NOM 3:or:more-GEN book-ACC read-Past'Five or more students read three or more books.'ok QP1 > QP2, * QP2 > QP1

Given the general assumption that the scope of an element α is its c-command domain at LF (Reinhart 1983), the LF representation in () should be excluded, though the LF in () should be possible, in order to account for the observation above.

() LF1: [ QP1-NOM [ QP2-ACC [VP t1 [ ... t2 ... V] ] ] ]() LF2: [ QP2-ACC [ QP1-NOM [VP t1 [ ... t2 ... V] ] ] ]

In addition to the Scope Rigidity Principle above, we propose that the condition in () works for XP-sika, rather than the Neg-c-command condition in ().

() XP-sika must be in the NegP-Spec position at LF. 12, 13

We henceforth refer to the condition in () as the Neg-Spec condition.Now, as the consequence of the Scope Rigidity Principle (henceforth, SRP) and the Neg-Spec

condition on XP-sika in (), the possible/impossible LF-representations for sentences where XP-sika and another QP co-occur in the same clause and related to the same verb are those indicated in the followings.

Since the SRP prohibits the c-command relation between QPs from being 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.)

() XP-sika1 QP2 V-nai, where XP-sika1 c-commands QP2 before QRa. LF1: [[NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP QP2 [VP t1 [V' t2 V]]] [Neg -nai]]]]

ok Condition for XP-sika, ok SRPb. *LF2: [IP [IP QP2 [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP t1 [V' t2 V]] [Neg -nai]]]]]

12 The idea that XP-sika must not only c-commnad Neg but be close enough to Neg such as being in the relation of specifier and head is based on the suggestion by Yukinori Takubo (p.c. June/1999), though he did not use the term 'Spec-head relation'.

13 Aoyagi & Ishii 1994 proposes that XP-sika should move to the Spec position of NegP to establish the Spec-head agreement with Neg at LF, on the basis of the observation that XP-sika must be in one-to-one relation with Neg, and it provides, as its arguments, the interactions between XP-sika and wh-element or another Neg-sensitive element. Though, here, I leave it open whether we should postulate, for XP-sika, some kind of feature which induces agreement, I would like to point out that their reasoning in the arguments only show that the observations provided by Aoyagi & Ishii (1994) can be accounted for by their analysis. The important point of my claim is that XP-sika and the VP attached by Neg (-nai) must be close enough at LF just as in the sister relation based on the phenomena of scope interpretation provided in this paper.

21

ok Condition for XP-sika, * SRPc. *LF3: [IP XP-sika1 [IP QP2 [IP [NegP [Neg' [VP t1 [V' t2 V]] [Neg -nai]]]]]]

* Condition for XP-sika, ok SRP

If the QP2 raised to the position outside the NegP, it would violate the SRP as in (b), or the condition on XP-sika would be unsatisfied as in (c). 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 ().

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 c-command domain of Neg, since XP-sika must be in NegP-Spec at LF.

() QP2 XP-sika1 V-nai, where QP2 c-commands XP-sika1 before QRa. LF1: [[IP QP2 [IP [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP t2 [V' t1 V]] [Neg -nai]]]]]]

ok Condition for XP-sika, ok SRPb. LF2: [[NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP QP2 [VP t2 [V' t1 V] ] ] [Neg -nai]]]]

ok Condition for XP-sika, * SRPc. LF3: [IP [NegP [Neg' [VP QP2 [VP XP-sika1 [VP t2 [V' t1 V]]]] [Neg -nai]]]]

* Condition for XP-sika, ok 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 (b), or be in the c-command domain of Neg with the condition on XP-sika unsatisfied as in (c). Therefore the QP which c-commands XP-sika before QR cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, which makes the QP impossible to be in the scope of Neg; see ().

Thus the condition on XP-sika in (), together with the SRP in (), accounts for the observations above; a QP which is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR cannot take scope over Neg because 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 because it cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF.5.3.3. Examples in OS-construction

I will provide some examples in OS-construction, and show that they are all subsumed under the generalization drawn in the previous subsection; a QP which is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR cannot take scope over Neg, while a QP which c-commands XP-sika before QR cannot be interpreted in the scope of Neg.

In the case of SO-construction where the subject NP asymmetrically c-commands the object NP, the c-command relation between XP-sika and another QP, when they co-occur in the same clause, is unambiguous. On the other hand, in the case of OS-construction, the two kinds of c-command relation at LF between the subject NP and the object NP are possible. Thus it is expected that, in the latter case, the scope relation between the QP and Neg can be ambiguous as indicated in (), which is the case as seen later in this subsection.

22

() XP-sika/-DAT-sika QP1-NOM V-nai (i) LF1: XP-sika >> QP1 before QR → ok Neg > QP1, * QP1 > Neg

(ii) LF2: QP1 >> XP-sika before QR → * Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg() QP1-ACC/-DAT XP-sika V-nai

(i) LF1: XP-sika >> QP1 before QR → ok Neg > QP1, * QP1 > Neg(ii) LF2: QP1 >> XP-sika before QR → * Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

However it is observed that, if we force the dislocated object to be interpreted as a Deep DL through the BVA interpretation or resumption, then, only one type of scope relation is possible, corresponding to the c-command relation between the XP-sika and the QP. The possible/impossible scope interpretation are as indicated below.

() a. XP- DAT -sika [ ... soko ... ]-NOM QP1-ACC V-naiWhen BVA(XP-sika, soko) obtains, XP-sika must c-command QP1 before QR.(i) LF1: XP-sika >> QP1 before QR → ok Neg > QP1, * QP1 > Neg

b. XP-DAT-sika QP1-ga soko-DAT V-naiWith resumption, XP-sika must c-command QP1 before QR.(i) LF1: XP-sika >> QP1 before QR → ok Neg > QP1, * QP1 > Neg

() a. QP1-ACC/-DAT [NP .. soko .. ]-sika V-naiWhen BVA(QP1, soko) obtains, QP1 must c-commands XP-sika before QR.(ii) LF2: QP1 >> XP-sika before QR → * Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

b. QP1-ACC/-DAT NP-sika soko-ACC/DAT V-naiWith resumption, QP1 must c-commands XP-sika before QR.(ii) LF2: QP1 >> XP-sika before QR → * Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

Let's see the examples below, which are in the OS-construction. It is observed that the scope relation between the QP and Neg is ambiguous.

() a. Mitubisi-ni-sika [muttuizyoo-no-ginkoo]QP1-ga yuusi-si-na-katta.Mitsubishi-DAT-all:but six:or:more-GEN-bank-NOM finance-do-Neg-Past'To any bank but Mitsubishi, six or more banks did not finance.'ok Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

b. Mitubisi-sika Tokyo-ginkoo-ga [itutuizyoo-no-torihikisaki]QP1-ni suisensi-na-katta.Mitsubishi-all:but Bank:of:Tokyo-NOM five:or:more-GEN-client-DAT recommend-Neg-Past(Roughly) 'Any company but Mitsubishi, Bank of Tokyo did not recommend to five or more clients.'ok Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

(Cf.) a. [Muttuizyoo-no-ginkoo]QP1-ga Mitubisi-ni-sika yuusi-si-na-katta. six:or:more-GEN-bank-NOM Mitsubishi-DAT-all:but finance-do-Neg-Past'Six or more banks did not finance to any bank but Mitsubishi.'* Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

b. Tokyo-ginkoo-ga [itutuizyoo-no-torihikisaki]QP1-ni Mitubisi-sika suisensi-na-katta.Bank:of:Tokyo-NOM five:or:more-GEN-client-DAT Mitsubishi-all:but recommend-Neg-Past

23

(Roughly) 'Bank of Tokyo did not recommend any company but Mitsubishi to five or more clients.'* Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

However, if we force the XP-sika to be interpreted as a Deep DL by the BVA interpretation or resumption, the scope relation is disambiguated.

() XP-sika as a Deep DLa. Mitubisi- sika [soko-ni yuusisiteiru-ginkoo]-ga [itutuizyoo-no-torihikisaki]QP1-ni

Mitsubishi-all:but it-ACC finace-bank-NOM five:or:more-GEN-client-DAT suisensi-na-katta.recommend-Neg-Past(Roughly) '[Any company but Mitsubishi]i, banks which financed iti did not recommend to five or more clients.'ok Neg > QP1, * QP1 > Neg when BVA(Mitubisi-sika, soko) obtains.

b. Mitubisi-ni-sika [muttuizyoo-no-ginkoo]QP1-ga soko-ni yuusisi-na-katta.Mitsubishi-DAT-all:but six:or:more-GEN-bank-NOM it-DAT finance-Neg-Past'To any bank but Mitsubishi, six or more banks did not finance.'ok Neg > QP1, * QP1 > Neg when the sentence is felicitous with resumption.

These examples show that a QP which is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR cannot take scope over Neg.

See, next, the following examples in the OS-construction. It is observed that the scope relation between the QP and Neg is ambiguous.

() [Muttuizyoo-no-ginkoo]QP1-o Mitubisi-sika suisensi-na-katta. six:or:more-GEN-bank-ACC Mitsubishi-all:but recommend-Neg-Past'Six or more banks, any compay but Mitsubishi did not recommend.'ok Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

(Cf.) [Muttuizyoo-no-ginkoo]QP1-ga Mitubisi-sika suisensi-na-katta. six:or:more-GEN-bank-NOM Mitsubishi-all:but recommend-Neg-Past'Six or more banks did not recommend any bank but Mitsubishi.'* Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg

However, if we force the QP1 to be interpreted as a Deep DL by the BVA interpretation or resumption, the scope relation is disambiguated.

() QP1 as a Deep DLa. [Muttuizyoo-no-ginkoo]QP1-o [soko-ni kooza-o motteiru-kigyoo]-sika suisensi-na-katta.

six:or:more-GEN-bank-ACC it-DAT account-ACC having-company-all:but recommend-Neg-Past'Six or more banks, any company but one which has bank an account there did not recommend.'* Neg > QP1, ok QP1 >Neg when BVA(QP1, soko) obtains.

b. [Muttuizyoo-no-ginkoo]QP1-o Mitubisi-sika soko-o suisensi-na-katta. six:or:more-GEN-bank-ACC Mitsubishi-all:but it-ACC recommend-Neg-Past

24

'Six or more banks, any company but Mitsubishi did not recommend it.'* Neg > QP1, ok QP1 > Neg when the sentence is felicitous with resumption.

These examples show that a QP which c-commands XP-sika before QR cannot be interpreted in the scope of Neg.5.4. Summary

In this section, we have demonstrated that XP-sika is not subject to the 'Neg-c-command' condition in (), and proposed instead the condition in () on the basis of the observations of scope interactions between Neg and a QP in the sentences where the QP are related to the same verb as XP-sika.14

() XP-sika must be in the NegP-Spec position at LF.

6. Consequences: XP-sika and rokuna-N

I will provide a discussion in support of the hypotheses proposed in this paper. Some predictions can be made under the analyses here, and I will show that those predictions are borne out.

I argued in section 4 that rokuna-N obeys the Neg-c-command condition as stated in ().

() Rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF.

I then argued in section 5 that, given the Scope Rigidity Principle in (), XP-sika is subject to the condition in ().

() The Scope Rigidity Principle (SRP)The c-command relation between maximal projections XP1 and XP2 cannot be altered through LF movement. (Huang 1982, Hoji 1985)

() XP-sika must be in the NegP-Spec position at LF.

As the consequences of the analysis under () combined with the SRP, a QP which c-commands XP-sika before QR cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, while a QP c-commanded by XP-sika before QR must be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF.

Now given the assumption that rokuna-N undergoes QR at LF (see section 4.1), 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 (). We thus deduce that rokuna-N, which is subject to the condition in (), cannot occur in the position c-commanding XP-sika before QR.

14 [The distributional characteristics of XP-sika, which have been pointed out in the literature, for instance, its one-to-one relation with Neg and so-called 'Clause-mates condition' of XP-sika and Neg, are also given an account by the analysis proposed here, though we do not discuss them in this paper. Please refer to Kataoka 2004: Chapter 5, xxx for the relevant discussions. <==You should perhaps give a brief summary of the account. You might place such remarks in a later (possibly the last) section, but for now, you can have them here.

25

6.1. Prediction 1 : XP-sika and rokuna-N in a S(ubject)-O(bject) constructionGiven the assumption that the subject asymmetrically c-commands the object in a non-

scrambling sentence, the first prediction we make is ().

() Prediction 1: Rokuna-N cannot occur as the subject of a non-scrambling sentence where XP-sika occurs as the object in the same sentence, with both being related to the same Neg.

() SO-constructiona. ok XP-sika(subj) rokuna-N-ACC V-Negb. * rokuna-N-NOM XP-sika(obj) V-Neg

Under the analyses proposed here, when rokuna-N is the subject in a non-scrambling sentence with XP-sika as the object, possible candidates for the LF representation are the followings. () a. PF: Rokuna-N-NOM XP-sika(obj) V-Neg

b. LF1: *[IP rokuna-N2 [IP [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP t2 [V' t1 V]] [Neg -nai]]]]]* Condition for rokuna-N, ok Condition for XP-sika, ok SRP

c. LF2: *[IP [NegP XP-sika1 [Neg' [VP rokuna-N2 [VP t2 [V' t1 V]]] [Neg -nai]]]ok Condition for rokuna-N, ok Condition for XP-sika, * SRP

In order for the SRP to be satisfied, the rokuna-N must be in a higher position than the XP-sika at LF, and consequently higher than Neg, which will result in the violation of the condition for rokuna-N as in (b). In order for the condition for rokuna-N to be satisfied, the rokuna-N must be in a lower position than the XP-sika, which violates the SRP as in (c). Hence, there is no legitimate LF representation.

This prediction is borne out, as illustrated in (), which should be compared with acceptable (a), where the subject XP-sika c-commands the object rokuna-N.

() *[Rokuna-sensei-ga] [Taro-sika] Mitubisi-ni syookaisi-nai (koto) good-professor-NOM Taro-all:but Mitsubishi-DAT introduce-Neg (Comp)

() a. [Mori-sensei-sika] [rokuna-kaisya-o] Taro-ni syookaisi-nai (koto) Mori-professor-all:but good-company -ACC Taro-DAT introduce-Neg (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 Consition for rokuna-N, ok Condition for XP-sika, ok SRP

The status of (a) 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 given in (b), with all the conditions in question satisfied.6.2. Prediction 2: XP-sika and rokuna-N in a O(bject)-S(ubject) construction

The second prediction is regarding the scrambling construction. Given the structural ambiguity of the construction, two distinct c-command relations between rokuna-N and XP-sika are possible when they co-occur in the same clause and are related to the same Neg.

26

() a. PF: XP-sika(obj) rokuna-N-NOM V-Negb. a Surface OS case: rokuna-N-NOM >> XP-sika(obj)

c. a Deep OS case: XP-sika(obj) >> rokuna-N-NOM

(where α >> β means α c-commands β.)() a. PF: rokuna-N-ACC XP-sika(subj) V-Neg

b. a Surface OS case: XP-sika(subj) >> rokuna-N-ACC c. a Deep OS case: rokuna-N-ACC >> XP-sika(subj)

It is thus expected that both (), which is the scrambled counterpart of (), and (), which is the scrambled counterpart of (), can be acceptable since () can be analyzed as a Deep OS case, where rokuna-N is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR, and () can be analyzed as a Surface OS case, where rokuna-N is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR.

() OS-constructiona. ok rokuna-N-ACC XP-sika(subj) V-Negb. ok XP-sika(obj) rokuna-N-NOM V-Neg

This point is shown in the following examples.

() [Taro-sika] [Rokuna-sensei-ga] Mitubisi-ni syookaisi-nai (koto) Taro-all:but good-professor-NOM Mitsubishi-DAT introduce-Neg (Comp)(Roughly) ‘No good professors introduce anyone but Taro to Mitsubishi.’

() [Rokuna-kaisya-o] [Mori-sensei-sika] Taro-ni syookaisi-nai (koto) good-company -ACC Mori-professor-all:but Taro-DAT introduce-Neg (Comp)(Roughly) ‘All professors but Prof. Mori do not introduce any decent company to Taro.’

Now, if we ‘force’ () to be an instance of Deep OS, 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 the general condition that downward movement are never allowed as stated in () above (See section 3.2). Thus we predict (), since ‘resumption’ forces () to be an instance of Deep OS, according to the generalization III in () in section 3.1.3.

() Prediction 2: ‘Resumption’ makes () unacceptable.() * Rokuna-N-ACC XP-sika(subj) soko-ACC V-Neg

The prediction is borne out, as indicated in (a), whose LF representation should be (b).

() a. *[Rokuna-kaisya-o] [Mori-sensei-sika] Taro-ni soko-o syookaisi-nai (koto) good-company -ACC Mori-professor-all:but Taro-DAT there-ACC introduce-Neg (Comp)

b. LF: [IP rokuna-N1-ACC [IP t1 [NegP XP-sika2 [Neg' [VP t2 [V' soko-ACC V]] [Neg -nai]]]]* Condition for on rokuna-N

27

In (), the rokuna-N must be a Deep DL due to the resumption, and then c-commands the XP-sika before QR and cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF due to the SRP.

On the other hand, the example in () can still be acceptable with resumption as observed below, which is expected under our analyses.

() [Taro-sika] [rokuna-sensei-ga] Mitubisi-ni soitu-o syookaisi-nai (koto)Taro-all:but good-professor-NOM Mitsubishi-DAT that-guy-ACC introduce-Neg (Comp)(Roughly) 'All students but Taro, no good professors introduced him to Mitsubishi.'

In (), the XP-sika must be a Deep DL due to the resumption, and then c-commands the rokuna-N before QR. The rokuna-N therefore can be in the c-command domain of the XP-sika, and, consequently, in the c-command domain of Neg.

These observations show that the predictions made under the proposed analyses are borne out.6.3. Summary

[In the previous section, I claimed, as consequences of the discussions here <==Redo.] , that a QP which c-commands XP-sika before QR cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, while a QP c-commanded by XP-sika before QR must be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF. We thus predict xxx, combined with the condition for rokuna-N. I have shown in this section that these predictions made under this analysis combined with the condition for rokuna-N are indeed borne out. . Thus they are These results therefore provide supporting evidence for the hypotheses put forth here regarding rokuna-N and XP-sika, namely (xx) and (xxx), repeated here..

7. Further consequences and implications

In this section, I will examine dare-mo/nani-mo, another kind of Neg-sensitive elements in Japanese which have also been frequently discussed in the literature.

() a. (Gakusei-ga) dare-mo sinbun-o yoma-nai / *yomu (koto)(student-NOM) anybody newspaper-ACC read-Neg/read (Comp)'The fact that no students read newspapers.'

b. Hanako-wa tanzyoo-bi-ni (tomodati-o) dare-mo syootai-si-nai /*syootai-suru. Hanako-TOP birthday-on (friends-ACC) anybody invite-do-Neg / invite-do'Hanako did not invite any friend on her birthday.'

() a. So-no-hako-no-naka-kara-wa nani-mo dete-ko-nak-atta.that-GEN-box-GEN-inside-from-TOP anything get:out-come-Neg-Past'Nothing came out of that box.'

b. Taro-wa kudamono-o nani-mo tabe-nai / *taberu.Taro-TOP fruits-ACC anyone eat-Neg / eat Taro does not eat any fruit.

Though most of the studies in the Japanese syntax have treated them as so-called NPIs, which must be c-commanded by Neg at LF, the following discussion, which is based on the conclusions drawn in this paper, suggests that they must c-command Neg at LF as well as XP-sika.

The expression dare-mo/nani-mo can occur by itself or can be accompanied with a noun phrase attached by a case marker (CM). I treat them as a constituent, and will hereafter refer to them as (N-

28

CM) dare-mo/nani-mo.15

7.1. (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo as a Deep DLIt is shown below that (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo can be a Deep DL in the OS-construction, which

is argued to be outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF. This suggests that (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo need not be c-commanded by Neg at LF.

First they can be a binder to establish the BVA interpretation with a dependent term in the subject NP.

() [Kono-yootien-no-kodomo-o dare-mo]i [soitui-no sensei-]ga kawaigara-nai (koto)this-kindergarten-GEN-child-ACC DARE-MO that-kid-GEN teacher-NOM take:good:care:of-Neg (Comp)'The fact that no child of this kindergarten, his teacher takes good care of.'

Please make sure that (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo can give rise to a BVA interpretation and that the BVA interpretation is based on the relevant c-command relation at LF (See footnote 5.).

() a. [Kono-yootien-no-kodomo-ga dare-mo]i soitui-no sensei-ni natuka-nai (koto)this-kindergarten-GEN-child-NOM DARE-MO that-kid-GEN teacher-DAT take:to-Neg (Comp)'The fact that no children of this kindergarten take to his teacher.'ok BVA(kono-yootien-no-kodomo-ga dare-mo, soitu)

b. Soitui-no sensei-ga [kono-yootien-no-kodomo-o dare-mo]i kawaigara-nai (koto)that-kid-GEN teacher-NOM this-kindergarten-GEN-child-ACC DARE-MO take:good:care:of-Neg (Comp)*'The fact that hisi teacher does not take good care of [any child]i in this kindergarten.'

?* BVA(kono-yootien-no-kodomo-ga dare-mo, soitu) (WCO)c. Soitui-no sensei-ni [kono-yootien-no-kodomo-ga dare-mo]i natuka-nai (koto)

that-kid-GEN teacher-DAT this-kindergarten-GEN-child-NOM DARE-MO take:to-Neg (Comp)'The fact that no children of this kindergarten take to his teacher.'ok BVA(kono-yootien-no-kodomo-ga dare-mo, soitu) (reconstruction)

Next, they can be felicitously interpreted in the OS-construction with resumption.

() Yakuza-o daremo kono-mati-no-hito-ga soitu-o kowagara-nai (koto)gangsters-ACC DARE-MO this-town-GEN-people-NOM that-guy-ACC fear-Neg (Comp)'No gangsters do people in this town fear that guy.'

() Kudamono-o nani-mo Taro-ga sore-o tabe-nai (koto)fruit-ACC NANI-MO Taro-NOM it-ACC eat-Neg (Comp)'No fruits does Taro eat it.'

The observation above that they can occur as a Deep DL show that they can be outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF.7.2. (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo and XP-sika

It is argued in section 5.2. that a QP which is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR cannot be outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF, while a QP which c-commands XP-sika before QR

15 Kawashima & Kitahara 19xx xxx

29

cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF. Now, if (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo is an element that must be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, it is predicted that they cannot occur in a position which c-commands XP-sika before QR, while they can occur in a position which is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR. However, it is observed that they can occur, contrary to the prediction, in a position c-commanding XP-sika, but cannot occur in a position c-commanded by XP-sika.7.2.1. SO-construction

Let's see the cases in SO-construction.

() (Gakusei-ga) dare-mo manga-sika yoma-nai (koto)(student-NOM) DARE-MO comics-all:but read-Neg-(Comp)'The fact that no students read any book except comics.'

This example is acceptable under the following interpretation.

() It is the case for every student x that x does not read any book except comics.

Given the assumption that the subject NP asymmetrically c-commands the object NP in the SO-construction, the example shows that (N-CM) dare-mo can occur in a position which c-commands XP-sika before QR. This furthermore suggests that, given the conclusion drawn in this paper, (N-CM) dare-mo can be outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF.

Let's see the next example, where the (N-CM) dare-mo is c-commanded by the XP-sika before QR.

() *?Mori-sensei-sika ie-ni (gakusei-o) dare-mo syootai-si-nai.Professor:Mori-all:but house-DAT (student-ACC) DARE-MO invite-do-Neg

This example is unacceptable/marginal, and cannot be given the reading indicated below, which is an expected interpretation if it is compositionally interpreted.

() It is the case for everyone x but Professor Mori that x does not invite any student.

This shows that (N-CM) dare-mo cannot occur in a position which is c-commanded by XP-sika before QR, and it furthermore suggests that (N-CM) dare-mo cannot be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF.7.2.2. OS-construction

The following example is a counterpart in OS-construction of the example (), and the one involving resumption.

() (Gakusei-o) dare-mo Mori-sensei-sika ie-ni syootai-si-nai.(student-ACC) DARE-MO Professor:Mori-all:but house-DAT invite-do-Neg

() (Gakusei-o) dare-mo Mori-sensei-sika ie-ni soitu-o syootai-si-nai.(student-ACC) DARE-MO Professor:Mori-all:but house-DAT that:guy-ACC invite-do-Neg

30

These can be acceptable under the following interpretation.

() It is the case for every student x that all professors but Professor Mori does not invite x to his house.

As observed in (), (N-CM) dare-mo can occur as a dislocated element with resumption, i.e., as a, Deep DL, which means that (N-CM) dare-mo can occur in a position c-commanding XP-sika before QR. The acceptable status of the example () also shows that (N-CM) dare-mo can be outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF.7.3. An alternative analysis

The observations in the previous subsection show that (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo need not be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF.16 Therefore we should not regard them to be subject to the Neg-c-command condition.

(N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo, combined with sentential negation, induces a reading of universal negation in the same way as any(-) in English. If they were elements with an existential force, as is generally assumed for any(-), they should be in the scope of Neg, in order to give rise the relevant interpretation, at the semantic level where the interpretation is given compositionally. They, furthermore, should be in the c-command domain of Neg at LF, given the general assumption that the syntactic relations in the LF representation should be reflected in the semantic representation.

However, since they can be outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF, it is reasonable to assume that they are elements with a universal force that should take scope over Neg to give rise to the interpretation of universal negation. Thus I would like to put forth the following analysis.

() (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo must c-command Neg at LF.

It can be said that (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo are elements, as well as XP-sika, that must must c-command Neg at LF rather than being c-commanded by Neg.7.4. (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo and rokuna-N

If the analysis that (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo must be outside the c-command domain of Neg at LF is in the right way, it follows that rokuna-N cannot occur in a position which c-commands (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo, since rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF. I will show that the predictions drawn from this consequence are borne out, which provides supporting evidence for the analysis put forth here.7.4.1. SO-construction

In the SO-construction, where the subject NP asymmetrically c-commands the object NP, it is predicted that rokuna-N cannot occur as the subject with (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo as the object. The examples below show that this prediction is borne out.

() *Rokuna-otoko-ga kono-mura-no-zyosei-o dare-mo suki-ni-nara-nai.

16 Though I do not provide the examples with (N-CM) nani-mo, the same is observed. Please refer to Kataoka 2004: Chapter 6 for the relevant examples and discussions.

31

good-man-NOM this-village-GEN-woman-ACC DARE-MO fall:in:love-Neg() Kono-mura-no-zyosei-ga dare-mo rokuna-otoko-o suki-ni-nara-nai.

this-village-GEN-woman-NOM DARE-MO good-man-ACC fall:in:love-Neg'No women in this village fall in love with a decent man.'

7.4.2. OS-constructionThe followings are the OS-counterparts of () and (), and they both are acceptable.

() Kono-mura-no-zyosei-o dare-mo rokuna-otoko-ga suki-ni-nara-nai.this-village-GEN-woman-ACC DARE-MO good-man-NOM fall:in:love:Neg'No decent men fall in love with any woman in this village.'

() Rokuna-otoko-o kono-mura-no-zyosei-ga dare-mo suki-ni-nara-nai. good-man-ACC this-village-GEN-woman-NOM DARE-MO fall:in:love:Neg'No women in this village do not fall in love with a decent man.'

This is as expected, since, in the OS-construction, the two kinds of LF representation are possible in terms of the c-command relation between the subject and the object. Now, if we force them to be a construction in Deep OS by making them involve resumption, it is predicted that the example () should be unacceptable since, then, the rokuna-N must c-command the N-CM dare-mo before QR, while it is expected that the example () will still be acceptable with resumption. See the examples below.

() Kono-mura-no-zyosei-o dare-mo rokuna-otoko-ga soitu-o suki-ni-nara-nai.this-village-GEN-woman-ACC DARE-MO good-man-NOM that-guy-ACC fall:in:love:Neg'No decent men fall in love with any woman in this village.'

() *Rokuna-otoko-o kono-mura-no-zyosei-ga dare-mo soitu-o suki-ni-nara-nai. good-man-ACC this-village-GEN-woman-NOM DARE-MO that-guy-ACC fall:in:love:Neg

The prediction is borne out as observed. Thus it is concluded that (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo, as well as XP-sika, must c-command Neg at LF.7.5. Summary

In this section, I have discussed examined the structural condition on another type of NES, namely, (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo. , on the basis of the conclusions drawn from the discussions in this paIt has turned outper. That leads us to conclude that they are the same kind of NES as XP-sika in terms of the c-command relation with Neg at LF, i.e., (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo must c-command Neg at LF rather than being c-commanded by Neg. <==Given this conclusion, the way you state () and () below is a little strange; furthermore those two conditions are not exactly the same despite the fact that you have just mentioned that (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo and XP-sika are subject to the same condition.

8. Concluding remarks.

I have shown that the following conditions hold for NSEs in Japanese.) Rokuna-N must be c-commanded by Neg at LF.() XP-sika must be in the NegP-Spec position at LF.() (N-CM) dare-mo/nani-mo must c-command Neg at LF.

32

It is concluded that not all NSEs are subject to the Neg-c-command condition, and that there are at least two types of NSEs in terms of the c-command relation with Neg at LF. As it stands, this is just a brief summary of the results of this paper. "Concluding remarks" should contain remarks on why these results are significant, what implications they may have, etc.

Appendix: Judgmental fluctuation and variation

Some remarks are in order for judgmental variation in this paper. As stated in footnotes 7 and 8, there are some speakers who accept the Neg >QP reading for the examples in (), and most of those speakers also find the examples in () acceptable. () and () are repeated here.

() a. [Itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni [ soko-no torihiki-ginkoo]-ga yuusisi-na-katta. 5:or:more-GEN-company-DAT it-GE-dealing:bank-NOM finance-Neg-Past'To five or more companies, its own bank did not finance.'when BVA(QP1, soko) obtains, ok QP1 > Neg, * Neg > QP1

b. Mosi [itutuizyoo-no kigyoo]QP1-ni [ soko-no torihiki-ginkoo]-ga yuusisi-na-kereba, .... if 5:or:more-GEN-company-DAT it-GE-dealing:bank-NOM finance-Neg-if'If, to five or more companies, its own bank does not finance, ....'when BVA(QP1, soko) obtains, ok QP1 > Neg, * Neg > QP

() a. *[Rokuna-kaisya-o]i [sokoi-o sitteiru-sensei]-ga gakusei-ni syookaisi-na-katta. good-company -ACC it-ACC know professor-NOM student-DAT introduce-Neg-Past'No good companies, the professor who knows it introduced to students.'* BVA(rokuna-kaisya, soko)

b. *[Rokuna-ginkoo-o]i [sokoi-no bengosi]-ga Mitubisi-ni suisensi-na-katta. good-bank -ACC it-GEN attorney-NOM Mitsubishi-DAT recommend-Neg-Past'No good banks, its attorney recommended to Mitsubishi.'* BVA(rokuna-ginkoo, soko)

[The proposed analysis maintains that the Deep DL cannot be inside the c-command domain of Neg at LF, and hence predicts these examples to be unacceptable, combined, for () with the condition for the BVA interpretation, for () with the Neg-c-command condition for rokuna-N. [H.H]<==The original was very hard to read. The revised version does not sound so good, either. Redo.] [Since those results contradict the predictions, we must say that some or all of the hypotheses would be falsified. I would like to provide an account for this judgmental variation instead. <==Redo.]

Let us consider the examples below.

() Rokuna-ginkooi-o sokoi-no torihikisaki-ga [S nitigin-ga suisensi-nai ]-to good-bank -ACC it-GEN client-NOM Bank:of:Japan-NOM recommend-Neg Compguti-o kobosi-ta. complaint-ACC make-Pastok/? BVA(rokuna-ginkoo, soko)

() UFJ-ginkoo-sikai sokoi-no-torihikisaki-ga [S nitigin-ga suisen-si-nai ]-to UFJ-Bank -all:but it-GEN client-NOM Bank:of:Japan-NOM recommend-Neg Comp

33

guti-o kobosi-ta. complaint-ACC make-Past* BVA(UFJ-ginkoo-sika, soko)

It is observed that the BVA interpretation is not impossible in () compared with the impossibility of (). Both of these examples are in the long-distance OS-construction, and it is said that, at LF, the dislocated NP in the long-distance OS-construction should necessarily be in its theta-position of the embedded clause (Saito 1992, Ueyama 1998), i.e., they should be 'reconstructed' at LF. Thus the BVA interpretation should not obtain in both cases if the relevant c-command relation at LF is required, since, in both cases, the dislocated NP could not c-command the dependent term at LF.

According to Ueyama 1998, another possible strategy for the BVA interpretation is the one for which the PF-precedence relation is required ('co-I-indexation' in the terms of Ueyama 1998) (See footnote 3). For instance, 'do-no-N' is among those QP of that kind.

() [ Hukeiki-no tame-ni dono-kigyoo-gai toosansita-to site-mo], recession-GEN cause-by any-company-NOM go:bankrupt-Comp even:if[sokoi-no syatyoo-ga sekinin-o tora -nebanaranai]-no-wa toozen-da. it-GEN president-NOM responsibility-ACC take-must Comp-TOP natural-Cop'Even if any companyi goes bankrupt, it is natural that itsi president should take the responsibility.'ok BVA(dono-kigyoo, soko)

As to rokuna-N, I put forth, in section 4.1, the assumption that it is a quantificational element which gives rise to a BVA interpretation based on the relevant c-command condition at LF, providing the examples which show WCO effects and reconstruction effects (See the examples in ()). However, if that were the only way for a BVA with rokuna-N, the BVA could not be established in (), since the Surface-OS is the only option for the long-distance OS-construction, and therefore the rokuna-N could not c-command the dependent term in the matrix subject at LF. The acceptable status of the relevant reading in (), furthermore, suggests that the relevant BVA can be based on the PF-precedence relation, since, at PF, the rokuna-N precedes the dependent term soko, and, at LF, the rokuna-N is c-commanded by Neg by occupying the position in the embedded clause, satisfying the necessary conditions. Thus it is possible that, for some speakers, rokuna-N is among those QPs which can give rise to a BVA interpretation based on the 'co-I-indexation', and that the BVA interpretation in (), but not the one in (), may possibly be based on the 'co-I-indexation'.

Now, if rokuna-N is a QP which can give rise to BVA through 'co-I-indexation', the judgmental variation in the examples of () (and ()) can be given an account. For those speakers who accept the readings in question, the rokuna-N and the QP are the kind of QPs which are sensitive to the PF-precedence relation. If those examples are interpreted as a case of Surface-OS, which is possible for those sentences, the necessary condition for BVA is met at PF, and the Neg-c-command condition for rokuna-N is satisfied at LF through 'reconstruction'.

I also would like to report that the number of speakers who accept the counterparts of () and () which involve resumption is rather small. If we accept the analysis above, it is compatible with this fact; if the sentence involves resumption, the theta-position in the embedded clause is occupied by the

34

resumptive element so that the sentence cannot be interpreted as a case of OS-construction. Thus we can give an account for the judgmental variation in question by treating it as a variation

of interpretational bases for BVA.

References

Aoyagi, Hiroshi and Ishii, Toru. 1994. "On NPI Licensing in Japanese." Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Vol.4.

295-311 Ed. by Noriko Akatsuka. CSLI Publications

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. "Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structure." Linguistic Inquiry.

Vol.VI. Number 3. 353-375.

Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1991. "On Non-Argument Quantifiers: Floating Quantifiers and the Narrow Scope

Reading." Metropolitan Linguistics. Vol. 11. 52-78. Tokyo Metropolitan University.

Hayashishita, J.-R. 1997. "On the Scope Ambiguity in the Scrambling Construction in Japanese." ms.

University of Southern California.

_______. 1999. "Two ways of Deriving Distributive Readings." in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn

Linguistics Colloquium: 201-216. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Vol.6.1.

_______. 2004. "Syntactic Scope and Non-Syntactic Scope." Doctral Dissertation, University of Sourthern

California.

Hoji, Hajime. 1985. "Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese." Doctral

Dissertation, University of Washington.

_______. 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, Hajime & Ayumi Ueyama. 1998. "Resumption in Japanese." ms. USC.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. "Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar." Doctral Dissertation.

MIT. Cambridge.

Imani, Ikumi. 1993. Hiteeryokabun-o Zenken-ni Motu Jyokenbun-ni-tuite (On Conditional Clauses including

quantifiers and negative element). Nihongo-no Jyoken-Hyogen, ed. T. Masuoka, 203-222. Tokyo: Kurosio

Publishers.

Kataoka, Kiyoko. 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, Kiyoko. to appear "‘Neg-sensitive’ Elements, Neg-c-command and Scrambling in Japanese."

Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Vol.14

Kato, Yasuhiko. 1985. Negative Sentences in Japanese. Sophia Linguistica Working Papers in Linguistics.

Number 19. Sophia University. Tokyo, Japan.

_______. 1994."Negative Polarity and Movement." MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24 (Formal

Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1).101-120

________. 2002. "Negation in English and Japanese: Some (A)symmetries and their Theoretical Implications."

Proceedings of the Sophia Symposium on Negation. Sophia University, Tokyo 1-21.

Kawashima, Ruriko, and Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1992. "Licensing of Negative Polarity Items and Checking

Theory: A Comparative Study of English and Japanese." Proceedings of the Formal Linguistic Society of

Midamerica. 3. 139-54

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. "Subjects in Japanese & English." PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

35

Klima, Edward S. 1964. "Negation in English." In J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.), The Structure of Language.

N.Jersey: Prentice-Hall.246-32

Kuno, Susumu. 1980. "The Scope of the Question and Negation in Some Verb-Final Languages." CLS 16. 155-

169.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. "Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese," Linguisticae

Investigationes 12. 1-47, also in Kuroda (1992) Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, 315-357.

Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Garland Publishing, Inc., New

York and London

Masuoka, Takashi. 1989. "Modaliti-no-koozoo to Gimon/Hitei-no-Sukoopu (The Structure of Modality and the

Scope of Question and Negation)."

May, Robert. 1977. "The Grammar of Quantification." PhD Dissertation. MIT.

________. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. The MIT Press.

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP." Linguistic Inquiry.

Volume 20, Number 3, 365-424

Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. The University of Chicago. Chicago

Saito, Mamoru. 1992. "Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese" Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1. 69-118.

Saito, Mamoru. 2003.

Sells, Peter. 2005.

Takubo, Yukinori. 1985. "On the Scope of Negation and Question in Japanese." Papers in Japanese

Linguistics. 10. 87-115.

Ueyama, Ayumi. 1998. Two Types of Dependency. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California,

distributed by GSIL Publications, USC, Los Angeles.

益岡隆志 1989. 「モダリテイの構造と疑問・否定のスコープ」仁田義雄・益岡隆志編くろしお出版

東京　 193-210.

36