Abstract
This paper argues against syntactic verb movement in Japanese, through a case study of Non-Constituent Coordination (NCC) in Japanese and a dialectal variation of Korean. I provide novel data observing the scope relation between heads and QPs inside NCC, showing that verb movement does NOT take place. The arguments are also supported by the observations on Korean data. Moreover, I defend Fukui and Sakai’s (2003) gapping analysis of NCC, providing counterexamples to Kawazoe’s (2005) arguments. This study opens a new window by providing two novel syntactic diagnostics for head movement in head-final languages. As a theoretical implication, it insists on the importance of re-examining the existence of head movement in head-final languages, for there is no overt phonological evidence for children to acquire string-vacuous movements.
Highlights
This study provides arguments against syntactic verb movement in Japanese, through a case study of Non-Constituent Coordination (NCC) in (1)
It is rather straightforward to conclude that the gapping approach correctly predicts the scope between heads and QPs, and heads and NCC, since there is no syntactic movement of verb heads
We have seen that the gapping approach can, but the verb-raising (Koizumi 2000) analysis cannot fully explain the nature of NCC.4
Summary
This study provides arguments against syntactic verb movement in Japanese, through a case study of Non-Constituent Coordination (NCC) in (1). I have shown that syntactic verb raising does not occur in Japanese or Korean NCC. Ziro-NOM M.-to 1-time each:other-GEN teacher-ACC introduce-PAST (12) Judgment unchanged from Kawazoe (2005:52(59)): (10a) VP1: *Taro-ga dansigakusei hito-ri-o otagai-no sensei-ni syookaisi-ta Taro-NOM male:student 1-CL-ACC each:other-GEN teacher-to introduce-PAST ‘Taro introduced one male student to each other’s teacher.’. VP2: *Ziro-ga Mary-ni ik-kai otagai-no sensei-o syookaisi-ta Ziro-NOM Mary-to 1CL each:other-GEN teacher-ACC introduce-PAST ‘Ziro introduced each other’s teacher to Mary once.’. Given these observations, Kawazoe concludes that the gapping analysis fails, for there must be otagai in each conjunct.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
