Multiple Nominative Constructions in Japanese and Economy

In a derivational theory of syntax, problems of choice arise when there are two or more potentially possible steps at a single stage of a derivation. Chomsky (1995, 2000) proposes that, if Attract/Move and Merge are both possible, Merge is chosen (Merge-over-Move). It is also assumed in the literature that, where there are two or more elements that can potentially be moved, the one closest to the target is moved (Attract/Move Closest). Discussing multiple-nominative constructions in Japanese, I argue that among the principles of this kind, there is one that minimizes the size of the element to be moved, and I show a new piece of evidence for Merge-over-Move.

A simple clause in Japanese can contain more than one nominative DP. Here, for simplicity, I consider only sentences with two nominative DPs, referring to them as the NDP₁ and the NDP₂. Multiple-nominative constructions (MNCs) are of at least two types: those that involve a relation of inalienable possession between the nominative DPs ((1), the MNC₁) and those that do not ((2), the MNC₂) (Takahashi 1994, Tateishi 1994).

(1)

1. a. Taro-ga   te-ga    naga-i.

   Taro-NOM arm-NOM long-PRES

   'Taro's arms are long.'

2. b. Taro-ga   mabuta-ga  hare-ta.

   Taro-NOM eyelid-NOM swell-PAST

   'Taro's eyelids swelled.'

3. c. Taro-ga   imooto-ga byooki-de {nakunat-ta/sin-da}.

   Taro-NOM sister-NOM illness-by {die-PAST/die-PAST}

   'Taro's sister died of illness.'

(2)

1. a. Haru-ga   tai-ga         uma-i.

   spring-NOM sea bream-NOM tasty-PRES

   'Sea breams are tasty in spring.'

2. b. Nihon-de  itiban Tokyo-ga   kootuu-jiko-ga

   Japan-LOC first   Tokyo-NOM traffic accident-NOM

   oo-i.

   many-PRES

   'In Japan, traffic accidents most often occur in Tokyo.'

3. c. Kono bangumi-ga  yuumei-na haiyuu-ga yoku

   this   program-NOM famous    actor-NOM often

   shutuen-su-ru.

   appearance-do-PRES

   'Famous actors often make their appearances on this program.'

I assume that the MNC₁ is derived from a source in which the NDP₁ is contained in Spec,D of the NDP₂, as the possessor of the latter, and that the MNC₂ is derived by inserting each NDP into a different position (Takahashi 1994, Tateishi 1994). I will make a specific proposal about the overt structure of both the MNC₁ and the MNC₂, and I will consider why only the proposed structures can be derived, other possible options being blocked.

1 The MNC₁ and Attract/Move Smallest

1.1 The Positions of the Two NDPs

NDPs in the MNC₁ have been shown to be subjects (Doron and Heycock 1999, Heycock 1993, Kuno 1978, Ura 1996). Here, I show a piece of evidence for this that has not been discussed in the literature. The subject of the matrix predicate can control the embedded pro while a genitive DP usually cannot (3a). In the MNC₁, both the NDP₁ and the NDP₂ can do so, thus showing themselves to be subjects (3b-c).

(3)

1. a. [[Taro-no_i] musuko]-ga_j [[pro_{*i/j}

   [Taro-GEN son]-NOM

   ryuugaku-si-tei-ru]        aida-ni] sin-da.

   study abroad-do-ASP-PRES while    die-PAST

   'Taro's son_j died while he_j was studying abroad.'

2. b. Taro-ga_i musuko-ga_j fukoo-ni-mo [[pro_{?i/j}

   Taro-NOM              unfortunat ely

   ryuugaku-si-tei-ru] aida-ni] sin-da.

   'Unfortunately, Taro's_i son_j died while he_{i/j} was studying abroad.'

3. c. Taro-ga_i fukoo-ni-mo [[pro_{i/j} ryuugaku-si-tei-ru] aida-ni] musuko-ga_j sin-da.¹

Given the subjecthood of the NDPs, previous studies (Kuno 1978, Tateishi 1994, Ura 1996) propose that the NDPs are both immediately dominated by S or a projection of T/Agr. I make a different proposal: that only the NDP₁ overtly occupies Spec,T, while the NDP₂ overtly occupies the predicate-internal (subject) position (4).²

(4) [_T˝ NDP₁-ga [_T´[_VP/AP NDP_2...