Dependent case in Japanese - PowerPoint Presentation

1. Dependent case in JapaneseSatoru OzakiCarnegie Mellon University

2. Big pictureDependent case theory is a good theoryBut it doesn’t work for JapaneseNOM/ACC case alternation on the objectDAT/NOM case alternation on the subjectWhat are the necessary modifications?For Japanese, why is dependent case theory the best theoretical option among others?

3. Intro to dependent case theory (DCT)Theory if case proposed by Marantz (1991), Baker (2015), etc.How is it different from Chomskian theories of case?

4. Big diff: Case assignment is not licensing but an interpretative processLicensing conditionsInterpretative processCase FilterVisibility conditionCase-features are uninterpretableUnvalued phi-features are uninterpretableLinearization (LCA)Case assignmentDistributed Morphology

5. When/where does Case assignment happen?Chomskian Case Theory:Anytime during the derivation when there isAgree(ment) between a Probe and a GoalDependent case theory:During Spell-Out of a category that contains something that can receive case, e.g. DP/NPJust like phi-feature Agree(ment)Just like linearization

6. Different types of casesLexical casee.g. quirky cases in Icelandic, adpositionsDependent casee.g. accusative (ACC), ergative (ERG)Unmarked case (last resort)e.g. nominative (NOM)/absolutive (ABS),genitive (GEN)most specificmost preferredleast specificleast preferred

7. Accusative languagesDependent case: ACC, ERGACC assignmentIf DP1 c-commands DP2 in a TP, assign ACC to DP2.ERG assignmentIf DP1 c-commands DP2 in a TP, assign ERG to DP1.Only applies when there are≧2 argumental DPs in a clauseErgative languages

8. Case availability as a parameterAccusative languagesOnly ACC is availableErgative languagesOnly ERG is availableTripartite languagesBoth ACC and ERG availableRude (1986) (cited by Baker 2015)If ACC is availableIf ERG is availableIntransitivesubjectN/AN/ATransitivesubjectN/AergativeTransitiveobjectaccusativeN/A

9. Applying DCT to JapaneseJapanese is an accusative language (?)Consider:Intransitive Daisuke ga okotta. Daisuke NOM became.angry ‘Daisuke became angry.’Transitive Shoohei ga raamen o tabeteiru. Shohei NOM ramen ACC is.eating ‘Shohei is eating ramen.’

10. Intransitive (Step 1/4): Build v*P

11. Intransitive (Step 2/4): VP spell-outNo cases assigned because no DPs within the VP

12. Intransitive (Step 3/4): Build CPAssuming EPP of subject but this doesn’t matter

13. Intransitive (Step 4/4): TP spell-outWhat case is assigned to Daisuke?Lexical case ✖No lexical assigner.Dependent case ✖No c-command relations.Unmarked case ✔NOM is the unmarked case in a TP.

14. Transitive (Step 1/4): Build v*P

15. Transitive (Step 2/4): VP spell-outWhy doesn’t the object get NOM?Because unmarked case is a last resort. ACC assignment happens at TP spell-out, so the object can wait until then.ACC assignmentIf DP1 c-commands DP2 in a TP,assign ACC to DP2.

16. Transitive (Step 3/4): Build CP

17. Transitive (Step 4/4): TP spell-outWhat case is assigned to raamen?Lexical case ✖No lexical assigner.Dependent case ✔c-commanded by Shoohei.Unmarked case

18. Problematic data: object case alternation (1/2)Most transitive verbs only allow either NOM or ACC on the object,i.e. the choice of object case is not free.taberu ‘eat’: raamen *ga/o tabe-ru ramen *NOM/ACC eat-PRES ‘I eat ramen.’mieru ‘can see’: fujisan ga/*o mie-ru Mt.Fuji NOM/*ACC can.see-PRES ‘I can see Mt. Fuji.’

19. Problematic data: object case alternation (2/2)Desiderative/potential forms of certain verbs allow NOM/ACC alternation:tabe-tai ‘want to eat’:raamen ga/o tabe-ta-i. ramen NOM/ACC eat-DES-PRES‘I want to eat ramen.’mie-tai ‘want to be able to see’:(hachi no yooni) shigaisen ga/*o mie-ta-i.(like bees) UV.light NOM/*ACC can.see-DES-PRES‘I want to be able to see UV light (like bees).’tabe-(ra)reru ‘be able to eat’:serori ga/o tabe-(ra)re-na-icelery NOM/ACC eat-POT-NEG-PRES‘I can’t eat celeries.’

20. Japanese case assignment patternsPattern Can we get it in DCT?NOM ✔NOM-ACC ✔NOM-NOM ✖…We need to be able to generate this

21. Languages vary in how they mark the indefinite object (theme) in ditransitive constructions.Cuzco QuechuaNOM-DAT-ACCSakhaNOM-DAT-NOMA similar problem in Baker (2015)

22. Can the object “wait” until TP spell out?Recall that in the derivation of NOM-ACC, the object was allowed to wait until TP spell out to get ACC, which is preferred over NOM.But if the object is not allowed to wait and must get case immediately, the object should receive NOM.Wait to get ACCDon’t wait, just get NOM

23. v as hard or soft phase headBaker (2015, 149):If v is a hard phase head, then the contents of its VP complement are invisible for the subsequent syntactic derivation after spelling out.If v is a soft phase head, then the contents of its VP complement undergo spell out (e.g. they may get their case features fixed) but they remain active in the derivation.Cuzco Quechuahas a soft v*Sakhahas a hard v*Object must get NOM nowObject can wait for ACC

24. Apply this to JapaneseVerb (stem)s are only selected by one kind of v*.If a verb V is selected by soft v* only, then V+DES is selected by both kinds of v*.Hard v*  NOM on object.Soft v*  ACC on object.

25. DES is selected by a hard v*A stronger conclusion from:If a verb V is selected by soft v* only, then V+DES is selected by both kinds of v*.Why? We have the verb mieru, which is selected by hard v* only:mie-tai ‘can.see-DES;want to be able to see’:(hachi no yooni) shigaisen ga/*o mie-ta-i.(like bees) UV.light NOM/*ACC can.see-DES-PRES‘I want to be able to see UV light (like bees).’

26. “Selectability” by projection

27. Motivation for the soft/hard distinction?Baker (2015) doesn’t have to provide this, but we have to

28. Jacobsen (2018): ACC  intentionalityJacobsen (2018, 17): “The presence of intentional meaning is a necessary condition on the occurrence of accusative o.”“Subject intentionality tests”Deguchi o sagas-e / sagas-e-nai / sagas-ou!Exit ACC look.for-IMP / look.for-POT-NEG / look.for-VOL‘Look for the exit! / I can’t look for the exit. / Let’s look for the exit!’Kotae ga #wakar-e / #wakar-e-nai / #wakar-ou!Answer NOM get-IMP / get-POT-NEG / get-VOL‘#Get the answer! / #I can’t get the answer. / #Let’s get the answer!

29. Motivation for the soft/hard distinctionSoft v* induces an intentional reading on the subject.What about hard v*?(In progress) could be other properties, e.g. stativity.

30. Do intentionality tests apply to desideratives?Problem: the desiderative suffix is an adjectival suffix, but intentionality tests involve attaching verbal suffixesSolution: add (light) verbal suru ‘cause’ after desiderative, e.g. tabe-tai ‘eat-DES, want to eat’  tabe-taku-suru ‘eat-DES-CAUSE, cause to want to eat’Pan o tabetakusuru

31. Problematic data: subject case alternation Certain verbs allow DAT/NOM alternation on the subjectand assigns NOM to the object:hitsuyoo-da ‘need’:Jun ni/ga okane ga hitsuyoo da.Jun DAT/NOM money NOM necessary COP‘Jun needs money.’kikoeru ‘can hear’:Kaoru ni/ga henna oto ga kikoeru.Kaoru DAT/NOM strange sound NOM can.hear‘Kaoru is hearing strange sounds.’dekiru ‘be able to’:Uma ni/ga kuchikokyuu ga deki-naihorse DAT/NOM mouth.breathing NOM be.able.to-NEG‘Horses can’t breathe through their mouths.’

32. Other occurrences of “subject” DAT(Syntactic) causativesWatashi ga kodomo ni heya o sooji-sase-ta.I NOM child DAT room ACC clean-CAUSE-PAST‘I made the kids clean the room.’Expressing desire with te form + hoshii ‘want’Watashi ga kodomo ni heya o sooji-shite-hoshii.I NOM child DAT room ACC clean-do-want‘I want the kids would clean the room.’ni-passivesKentaro ga ie kara oidas-are-ta.Kentaro NOM house ABL kick.out-PASS-PAST‘Kentaro got kicked out from the house.’

33. DAT in DCTBaker (2010, 2015) considers similar psych/possessive verbs in Sakha, Ingush, Tamil with DAT-NOM and DAT-ACC patternsDAT on subject can come from:Dependent case assignment:If NP1 c-commands NP2 in a VP, assign DAT to NP1.PP subject:Certain adpositions assign DAT to its complement as lexical case.

34. Sources of subject DAT (in progress)DAT by dependent caseDAT by adpositionte form + hoshii ‘want’Kodomo ni heya o sooji shite hoshii.I want the kids to clean the room.DAT/NOM alternationJun ni okane ga hitsuyoo da.Jun needs money.Syntactic causativesKodomo ni heya o sooji saseta.I made the kids clean the room.ni-passivesKentaro ga ie kara oidasareta.Kentaro got kicked out from the house.

35. Sources of subject DAT (in progress)Experiencer subjects do not raise out of [Spec; VP] positionEPP-movement to [Spec; TP] is unnecessary for non-finite VPsDAT by adpositionte form + hoshii ‘want’Kodomo ni heya o sooji shite hoshii.I want the kids to clean the room.DAT/NOM alternationJun ni okane ga hitsuyoo da.Jun needs money.

36. Sources of subject DAT (in progress)Causativization and passivization are valency operations, which are syntactic alternationsDAT by dependent caseSyntactic causativesKodomo ni heya o sooji saseta.I made the kids clean the room.ni-passivesKentaro ga ie kara oidasareta.Kentaro got kicked out from the house.

37. Why is DCT better than Agree-based theory?Inherent advantages of using DCTJapanese doesn’t have overt agreementDCT covers a wide variety of language alreadyTheoretical advantagesElimination of Case-features from narrow syntaxBetter explanation between object case and semantic property of agent

38. Case-features and uninterpretabilityThe ideal definition of uninterpretability:A feature is uninterpretable iff it is unvalued.Case-features break this definition whileeverything else don’tPhi-featuresWh-featuresEPP-features…

39. Explaining the “ACC  intentionality” observationIn an Agree-based theory,v* is responsible for selecting an agentV is responsible for case assignment to objectThis separation of roles makes it difficult to explain Jacobsen’s observation “verbs that assign ACC have an intentional agent”“Inheritance” from v* to V does exist, but is very stipulative (Tonoike 2019)

40. Explaining the “ACC  intentionality” observationIn our DCT-based approach, this receives a nice explanationSoft v* induces intentionality, while hard v* does notA syntactic property is linked with a semantic property

41. Selected referencesBaker, Mark, and Nadezhda Vinokurova. Two modalities of case assignment in Sakha. In Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28:593—642, 2010.Baker, Mark. Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge University Press, 2015.Jacobsen, Wesley M. Transitivity. In Masayoshi Shitabani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda, editors, Handbook of Japanese Syntax, pages 55—96. De Gruyter Mouton, 2018.Marantz, Alec. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pages 234—253. Ohio State University, 1991.Rude, Noel. Topicality, transitivity and the direct object in Nez Perce. In International Journal of American Linguistics, 52:124—153. 1986.Tonoike, Shigeo. Minimarisuto nichieigo hikaku tougoron (Minimalist Japanese-English comparative syntax). Kaitakusha, 2019.