C-T Inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese

Abstract

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.

A variably exhaustive and scalar focus particle and pragmatic focus concord in Burmese

“…We then discuss the semantics of the sentence-final mood marker ta/da, which commonly co-occurs with scalar uses of hmá -as in (2) above -but less often with exhaustive uses of hmá, in Section 6. This apparent correlation appears similar to so-called "focus concord" effects in other languages, which many scholars have analyzed as an agreement-like morphosyntactic dependency between verbal heads and focus particles (see e.g., Hagstrom 1998, Ikawa 1998, Watanabe 2002, Kishimoto 2005, Aldridge 2018. In contrast, we propose that this apparent correlation in Burmese is best explained as an interaction between the semantics of hmá and the independent pragmatic requirements of ta/da.…”

“…Another well studied example is focus concord in Old Japanese, which is termed kakari-musubi in the Japanese literature (Whitman 1997, Hagstrom 1998, Watanabe 2002, Yanagida 2006, Aldridge 2018, Narrog 2019, and references there). Regular finite clauses end with a form known as "conclusive" (Japanese shuushi; SS) as in (54a), but the use of certain focus particles such as zo trigger the use of the adnominal verb ending (rentai; RT) as in (54b).…”

“…Focus particles enter into a morphosyntactic dependency with a high, clausal head, requiring a particular verbal inflection to be realized. This is in fact the dominant approach to focus concord phenomena -see for example Kishimoto 2005, Hagstrom 1998, Slade 2011for Modern Colloquial Sinhala and Ikawa 1998, Watanabe 2002, Kuroda 2007, Aldridge 2018 for Old Japanese -although individual accounts vary as to the specific type of morphosyntactic dependency involved: for example, an Agree relationship, (covert) movement, or other. Specifically for the behavior of Burmese hmá, where we have argued above for a unified analysis for exhaustive and scalar hmá, a syntactic account might take the following form: The presence of hmá scoping under negation triggers or correlates with the presence of ta/da, whereas the non-ta/da default mood marker is used otherwise.…”

Subject/non-subject movement asymmetries in Late Archaic Chinese

“…Specifically, I propose that wh-movement is triggered by an uninterpretable focus feature. I follow Aldridge (2018) in proposing that if a phase head enters the derivation with both an interpretable and uninterpretable feature, the uninterpretable feature is inherited by a lower head. 9 This is because uninterpretable features act as probes and begin seeking goals to agree with as soon as they enter the derivation, as per standard assumptions since Chomsky (1993).…”

“…This analysis builds onRichards' (2007;2012) proposal that unvalued features must be spelled out in the domain of the phase head Aldridge (2018). proposes that uninterpretable features which do not seek a value are also inherited under certain circumstances, though they need not be spelled out in the domain of the phase.…”