On the pseudo-small clause construction in Japanese: New evidence for A-movement out of a CP and its theoretical implications

Abstract

This paper provides new evidence for the availability A-movement out of a CP and considers its theoretical implications. The discussion concerns what I call the "pseudo"-small clause construction in Japanese, which has not received much attention in the literature. The pseudo-small clause construction shows a puzzling constraint on major subjects originating in complement clauses: the major subjects must receive accusative Case from a matrix predicate despite the availability of nominative Case within the complement clauses. To explain this constraint, it is proposed that (i) pseudo-small clauses are phasal CPs and (ii) the major subjects originating in the pseudo-small clause complements must undergo movement into a matrix theta-position, which takes place across the CP phase. It is also suggested that (i) Tense in Japanese moves to C, (ii) Standard Japanese has null complementizers, and (iii) the ban on A-movement out of a CP is explained in terms of the locality of Agree.

Reconsidering the Optionality of Raising in Japanese Exceptional‐Case‐Marking Constructions

“…When the ECMed subject remains within the ReportP complement, the former must receive accusative Case via Agree (however, see Taguchi 2015, Abe 2016). Given that two major arguments for the optional‐raising analysis and Agree have been called into question in this article, which has shown that the relevant phenomena can be reanalyzed without assuming the optionality of raising or Agree, it is worth considering if Agree is in fact operative for Case licensing in Japanese (for discussion, see Fukui 1986, Kuroda 1988, Hiraiwa 2001, 2005, Nomura 2005, Ura 2007, Saito 2016, M. Takahashi 2011, Kitahara 2017, M. Takahashi 2017).…”