(A) Case for labeling: labeling in languages without ɸ-feature agreement

Saitō, Mamoru

doi:10.1515/tlr-2015-0017

Cited by 29 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The proposal is based in part on Saito's (2016) analysis of case in modern Japanese, specifically his adoption of Bošković (2007) analysis of subject movement motivated by the need of the DP to value its case feature rather than being attracted by a probe on T. In this section, I provide additional support for this proposal by showing that subjects can appear in positions other than [Spec, CP] only when other mechanisms are available to license them. The distribution of subjects in relative clauses additionally provides evidence that the nominative subject position is [Spec, CP].…”

Section: Other Subject Positions In Ojmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…And if the language does not have an unvalued ɸ-probe, then according to (3) there is no need for the feature responsible for valuing nominative case to be inherited by T. I adopt Saito's (2016) proposal that subjects in Japanese undergo movement in order to value their case features, but there are no unvalued ϕ-features on the licensing head. Accordingly, C-T Inheritance does not take place, and the DP undergoes movement to [Spec, CP] in order to value its case feature.…”

Section: (4) [F] > [Uf] > [Uf: ] Top Foc Subjmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to this, subject movement to value nominative case is not driven by an uninterpretable probe on the phase head like [uϕ], because Japanese lacks subject/verb agreement. Following Saito (2016), I propose that subjects undergo movement agnostically in order to value their own case features. Since there is no probe on C driving this movement, inheritance does not take place, and the subject moves to [Spec, CP], with the result that it precedes the focused constituent in surface word order.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To account for the high position of the subject, I adopt a recent proposal by Saito (2016) that C/T in Japanese lacks [ϕ: ], and nominative case is valued simply as a result of the subject DP being located in a position where it can value its case feature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

C-T Inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese

Aldridge¹

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an analysis of movement to the left periphery in Old Japanese within the framework of C-T Inheritance. Particular attention is given to the fact that nominative subjects precede focused constituents in focus concord constructions known as kakari-musubi (KM). I propose that this order is ensured by the nature of the features motivating these respective movements. Following Richards (2007), I propose that uninterpretable features -particularly those seeking a value -must be spelled out as soon as they are valued. Consequently, these features must be inherited so that they are in the domain of the phase head when spell out takes place. Building on earlier analyses of KM constructions as involving agreement between a focus particle and the verbal inflection which covaries with that particle (Ikawa 1998; Watanabe 2005; Kuroda 2007, and others), I propose that focused constituents must move to [Spec, TP], since their movement is motivated by an unvalued focus feature. In contrast to this, subject movement to value nominative case is not driven by an uninterpretable probe on the phase head like [uϕ], because Japanese lacks subject/verb agreement. Following Saito (2016), I propose that subjects undergo movement agnostically in order to value their own case features. Since there is no probe on C driving this movement, inheritance does not take place, and the subject moves to [Spec, CP], with the result that it precedes the focused constituent in surface word order.

show abstract

Section: Other Subject Positions In Ojmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: (4) [F] > [Uf] > [Uf: ] Top Foc Subjmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

C-T Inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese

Aldridge¹

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I will not pursue this interesting suggestion any further, however. For similar roles of suffixal Case in rendering SO invisible to LA, see Saito (2016).…”

Section: Labeling Withoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

<φ, φ>-less Labeling

Shim¹

2018

Lang. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypothesizing that every syntactic object reaching the interfaces must be labeled, Chomsky (2013Chomsky ( , 2015 introduce an independent label-identifying operation, Labeling Algorithm (LA). This newly proposed LA, which is an instance of Minimal Search, is assumed to search for not only the categorial feature of heads but also any agreeing features shared by two heads to determine the label of a given syntactic object. This paper argues, however, that postulation of the latter type of search by LA (i.e., locating agreeing features) adds a computational burden to the grammar by forcing LA to perform two different types of search, namely, a "comparison search" in addition to the widely agreed-upon Minimal Search. This paper also addresses some conceptual and empirical problems that arise from the paired form of the non-categorial label, <φ, φ>, whose introduction results from the problematic comparison search by LA. To solve these problems, I present an alternative analysis in which LA searches only for the categorial feature of heads. Consequently, neither comparison search nor the paired form of the label, <φ, φ>, becomes necessary in the analysis.

show abstract

The Hypothesis of Categorization Origins of Merge and Labeling in Evolinguistics: Its Implications to the Labeling System in Syntax and East Asian Linguistic Study

Hoshi

2024

Studies in East Asian Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(A) Case for labeling: labeling in languages without ɸ-feature agreement

Abstract: This paper explores the labeling mechanism in Japanese and other languages that lack φ-feature agreement. It is proposed in

Cited by 29 publications

References 19 publications

C-T Inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese

C-T Inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese

<φ, φ>-less Labeling

The Hypothesis of Categorization Origins of Merge and Labeling in Evolinguistics: Its Implications to the Labeling System in Syntax and East Asian Linguistic Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About