NINJAL December 9, 2017

Ga/No Conversion and Feature Inheritance Masao Ochi Osaka University ([email protected]) 1. Introduction (1) Taro-{ga/no} yonda hon Taro-NOM/GEN read book ‘the book that Taro read’ Ø  Ga/No Conversion is much more extensive in Hichiku Japanese (HJ) (spoken in the western part of Kyushu island) than in “standard” Japanese (SJ). (2) Basu-{ga/no} kita. bus-NOM-GEN came ‘The bus has come’

[✓HJ; *SJ]

(3) How should we understand the case alternation? Points of this presentation (4) Proposal 1 (Ochi 2017) The two Case values (-ga and -no) originate in the same syntactic head (see also Hiraiwa 2001, 2005).1 (5) [XP [TP …. DP-{ga/no ...... ] X ]

(where X is D or C)

(6) Japanese adnominal clauses are TPs (Murasugi 1991). (7) a. b. (8)

Probing by X (no Feature Inheritance; FI): pronounced as no Feature Inheritance (FI) from X to T, and probing by T: pronounced as ga a. [XP [TP [vP DP ..... ] T ] X]

(-no)

Agree b. Feature Inheritance (from X to T) [XP [TP [vP DP .... ] T ] X]

(-ga)

Agree FI (9) Proposal 2 Feature Inheritance (FI) may occur from X (= D or C) to weak v, skipping T, in which case we obtain -no: -ga is a marker indicating that T probes (via FI).

1

Alternatively, X = N if Japanese is an NP language (Bošković 2005).

[XP [TP [vP DP ...

v] T ] X]

Agree

(-no)

FI

(10) Proposal 3 Standard Japanese (SJ) and Hichiku Japanese (HJ) have the same specifications for the FI involving D, but different specifications for the FI involving C, as summarized below. (11)

Standard Japanese (SJ) Probing by X (→ no)

FI & probing by T (→ ga)

FI & probing by weak v (→ no)

D

✓

✓

✓

Ctemporal all other Cs, including Cnull

* *

✓ ✓

✓ *

(12) Hichiku Japanese (HJ): Nominative/Genitive Conversion occurs in root clauses as well as in a variety of embedded clauses in the dialects spoken in the western part of Kyushu island (including Saga, some parts of Fukuoka, most parts of Kumamoto and Nagasaki). Probing by X (→ no)

FI & probing by T (→ ga)

FI & probing by weak v (→ no)

D

✓

✓

✓

Ctemporal Cnull all other Cs

✓ * ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

2. Data 2.1 Standard(?) Japanese 2.1.1 Adnominal clauses Ø   Genitive argument is limited to the highest clause in the adnominal domain in SJ (13) Taro-ga Hanako-{ga/*no} yonda to omotteiru Taro-NOM Hanako-{NOM/*GEN} read that think ‘the book that Taro thinks that Hanako read’

2

hon book

2.1.2 Temporal adjunct clauses (14) Temporal adjunct clauses allow NGC but they lack a nominal head. (H.Takahashi 2010; Miyagawa’s (2012) Genitive of Dependent Tense) Ø   Point 1: Lack of ambiguity (15)

a. Taro-ga Hanako-ga kuru to iu jikan made Taro-NOM Hanako-NOM come that say time until Jiro-wa soko-ni ita. (ambiguous) Jitro-TOP there-DAT was ‘Jiro was there until the time that Taro said Hanako would come.’ b. Taro-ga Hanako-ga kuru to iu made Taro-NOM Hanako-NOM come that say until Jiro-wa soko-ni ita. (unambiguous) Jitro-TOP there-DAT was ‘Jiro was there until Taro said Hanako would come.’

Ø   Point 2: GNC is restricted to internal arguments (16)

ame-{ga/no} yamu made mati-masyoo. rain-NOM/GEN stop until wait.let us ‘Let’s wait until the rain-{ga/no} stops.’

(17)

Hanako-{ga/??no} hashiru made mati-masyoo. child NOM/GEN run until wait.let us ‘Let’s wait until Hanako-{ga/??no} runs.’

2.2 Ga/No Conversion in Hichiku Japanese (Kato 2007, Nishioka 2014 etc.) 2.2.1 Adnominal clauses (omitted) 2.2.2 Matrix clauses (18) Unaccusatives Basu-{ga/no} kita. bus-NOM-GEN came ‘The bus has come’

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

(19) a. Unergatives along with sentence-final particles (SFPs) Taroo ga/no odor-ta to yo/bai. Taro NOM/GEN dance-PST SFP SFP ‘Taro-{ga/no} danced.’

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

b. Unergatives in the progressive form (Sakai 2013, Ochi and Saruwatari 2014) Taroo-{ga/no} odor-to-ru. Taro NOM/GEN dance-TE-be.PRS ‘Taro-{ga/no} is dancing.’ 3

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

2.2.3 Embedded clauses (20) Complement clause

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

a. Taroo-ga/no 100 metoru oyoida to-ni(-wa) bikkurisita. Taroo-NOM/GEN 100 meter swam COMP-DAT(-TOP) was surprised ‘I was surprised that Taro-{ga/no} swam 100 meters.’ (Nishioka 2014) b. Hanako-{ga/no} odoru ka wakara-n. Hanako-NOM/GEN dance Q know-Neg ‘I don’t know whether Hanako-{ga/no} will dance.’ (21) Adjunct clauses

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

a. Hanako-ga/no odoru toki/made, kaijo-ni oru-ne. Hanako-NOM/GEN dance when/until hall-at be-C ‘When/until Hanako-{ga/-no} dances, I’ll be at the hall.’ b. Hanako-{ga/-no} odoru ken, kaijo-ni oru-ne. Hanako-NOM/GEN dance because hall-at be-C ‘Because Hanako-{ga/-no} will dance, I’ll be at the hall.’ (Ochi and Saruwatari 2014) 3. Distinct distributions of ga and no (both in HJ and SJ) (22) a. NP-ga: external to (weak) vP (i.e., in the domain of TP) b. NP-no: internal to weak vP (see Watanabe (1996), Miyagawa (2011), Nambu and Nakatani (2014) for SJ; see also Kato (2007) and Nishioka (2014) for HJ) [XP (DP-no) ... [TP DP-ga [vP DP-no .... v ] T ] ... X ] (23) ‘adjacency’ effects for SJ (see Harada 1971, Watanabe 1996, Miyagawa 2011) a. kinoo kodomo-tachi-ga/??no oozei kyooshitsu-de sawaida koto yesterday children-NOM/??GEN many classroom-at clamor fact ‘the fact that many children-{ga/??no} clamored in the classroom yesterday’ b. kinoo kyooshitsu-de oozei kodomo-tachi ga/no sawaida koto yesterday classroom-at many children NOM/GEN clamor fact ‘the fact that many children-{ga/no} clamored in the classroom yesterday’ (24) Scope: Hichiku Japanese a. Zenin-ga ko-n. All-NOM come-Neg ‘All didn’t come.’

(all>not: *not>all)

b. Zenin-no ko-n. All-GEN come-Neg ‘All didn’t come.’

((?)all>not: not>all)

4

(Saruwatari 2016, pp. 83-84)

4 Analysis (25)

[XP [TP ... DP-{ga/no} ...... ] X ]

[where X (= D or C)]

(26) Feature Inheritance (Richards 2007, Chomsky 2008 etc.) [CP C [TP T [vP .... DP ... ] ] ] FI

Agree

(27) Miyagawa (2010, 2017) Application of Feature Inheritance is parameterized. Grammatical features originating on a phase head (e.g., C) may be inherited by a non-phase head (e.g., T) in some languages and retained by the phase head in others. (28) Japanese (in principle) exercises both options for the phase heads D and C. 4.1 Case alternation in adnominal clauses (both SJ and HJ) (29) the two Case values (-ga and -no) originate in the same head, X (= D) (30)

a. [DP [TP [vP DP ... ] T ] N ] D]

(-no)

Agree b. [DP [TP [vP DP ... ] T ] N ] D]

(-ga)

Agree FI (31) Japanese adnominal clauses are TPs (Murasugi 1991). (32) In Old Japanese, both -ga and -no served as possessive markers (in noun phrases) and subject markers (of nominalized clauses). Their (complementary) distributions are conditioned by several factors, including a relationship between the speaker and the entity denoted by the noun to which they are attached (see below). Crucially, this point holds across nominal (i.e., ga/no as possessive markers) and clausal (i.e., ga/no as subject markers) domains (Yanagida and Whitman 2009, Nomura 2011, Uchibori et al. 2010). (33) Yanagida and Whitman (2009) a. -ga: restricted to personal nouns whose referent is someone close to the speaker (e.g., imo ‘sister, wife, lover’, or a pronoun with a specific human referent. b. -no: nonspecific animate nouns (e.g., pito ‘other people’) and with inanimate nouns. (34) Uchibori, Maki, and Jin (2010) -ga (anti-honorific); -no (honorific) (35)

a. wa-ga ko I-GEN child ‘my child’ 5

b. hito-no ko person-GEN child ‘the person’s child’ (36)

(cited from Uchibori, Maki, and Jin 2010)

a. tada wa-ga tatetaru just I-NOM paid due respect (ADN) ‘the fact that I paid due respect (to him)’

koto fact

b. imijiku hito-no shiritaru gen nare domo very well person-NOM know(ADN) word be although ‘although (it is) the word which people know very well’ (cited from Uchibori, Maki, and Jin 2010) Ø   “mixed” patterns (with a stative predicate): D retains F and transfers F at the same time? (37) Taro-{ga/no} totemo yoku eigo-{ga/no} wakaru koto Taro-NOM/GEN very well English-NOM understand fact ‘the fact that Taro{-ga/no} understands English{-ga/no} well’ (38) [DP D [NP N [TP T [vP

Taro .... English .... ]

(for DP-no DP-ga)

(39) When Feature Inheritance (FI) takes place, transferring some feature(s) F from a phase head to a non-phase head, such features remain active on a phase head “for a while,” before being eliminated from it at the completion of a phase cycle. Ø  EPP in Japanese (40) T in Japanese has the EPP when ‘activated’ by FI. ⇒ Probing by T (= -ga) dislocates a DP into the domain of T a. kinoo kodomo-tachi-ga/??no oozei kyooshitsu-de sawaida koto yesterday children-NOM/??GEN many classroom-at clamor fact ‘the fact that many children-{ga/??no} clamored in the classroom yesterday’ b. kinoo kyooshitsu-de oozei kodomo-tachi ga/no sawaida koto yesterday classroom-at many children NOM/GEN clamor fact ‘the fact that many children-{ga/no} clamored in the classroom yesterday’ 4.2 Case alternation in clausal domains (HJ, *SJ) (41)

a. [DP [TP [vP DP ... ] T ] C]

(no)

Agree b. [DP [TP [vP DP ... ] T ]

C]

(ga)

Agree FI

6

4.2.1

Root clauses

(42) Unergatives require an “articulated” clause ending for the genitive subject to be licensed, but unaccusatives do not. (43) Unaccusatives Basu-{ga/no} kita. bus-NOM-GEN came ‘The bus has come’

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

(44) a. Unergatives along with sentence-final particles (SFPs) Taroo ga/no odor-ta to yo/bai. Taro NOM/GEN dance-PST SFP SFP ‘Taro-{ga/no} danced.’

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

b. Unergatives in the progressive form (Sakai 2013, Ochi and Saruwatari 2014) Taroo-{ga/no} odor-to-ru. Taro NOM/GEN dance-TE-be.PRS ‘Taro-{ga/no} is dancing.’ (45) [CP [TP [vP Taroo

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

dance] T ] to yo/bai]

to (= no in SJ): Fin (see Saito 2013 for SJ) bai: Force (Kido 2013) Ø   Unergatives in HJ with a “bare” ending (see Saruwatari 2016) (46)

a. Taroo-{ga/*no} odor-ta. Taro NOM/GEN dance-PST ‘Taro-{ga/*no} danced.’ b. Taroo-{ga/no} odor-ta to yo/bai. Taro NOM/GEN dance-PST SP SP ‘Taro-{ga/no} danced.’

4.2.2

Embedded clauses

(47) Unergatives in HJ adjunct clauses

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

a. Hanako-ga/no odoru toki/made, kaijo-ni oru-ne. Hanako-NOM/GEN dance when/until hall-at be-C ‘When/until Hanako-{ga/-no} dances, I’ll be at the hall.’ b. Hanako-{ga/-no} odoru ken, kaijo-ni oru-ne. Hanako-NOM/GEN dance because hall-at be-C ‘Because Hanako-{ga/-no} will dance, I’ll be at the hall.’ (Ochi and Saruwatari 2014)

7

(48) Unaccusatives in HJ adjunct clauses

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

a. Hanako-{ga/no} kaeru toki/made, uti-ni otte-ne. Hanako-NOM/GEN come.home when/until home-at be-C ‘Please be at home when/until Hanako-{ga/no} comes home.’ b. Hanako-ga/-no kuru ken, uti-ni otte-ne. Hanako-NOM/GEN come because home-at be-C ‘Please be at home because Hanako-{ga/no} will come.’ c. Hanako-ga/-no kuru nara, uti-ni Hanako-NOM/GEN come if home-at ‘Please be at home if Hanako-{ga/no} comes.’

otte-ne. be-C

Ø  “Seemingly Reduced” embedded clause in HJ [Note: {ga/*no} in SJ] (49) a. unaccusatives in the adjunct te-clause in HJ: [ga/no] Hanko-{ga/no} ki-te minna-wa yorokon-da. Hanako-NOM/GEN come-TE everyone-TOP rejoice-PAST ‘Everyone was glad as Hanako-{ga/no} came.’ b. unergatives in the adjunct te-clause in HJ: [ga/*?no] Hanako-{ga/*?no} odot-te minna-wa yorokon-da. Hanako-NOM/GEN dance-TE everyone-Top rejoice-PAST ‘Everyone was glad as Hanako-{ga/*?no} danced.’ (Ochi and Saruwatari 2014) (50) -te is a T head (see Nakatani 2013; also Hayashi and Fujii 2015) (51) a. Feature Inheritance is obligatory for Cnull (cf. Chomsky’s (2015) discussion of Cnull) b. The Adjunct te-clause is headed by Cnull. (52)

[DP [TP [vP DP ... ] T ]

Cnull ]

(ga)

Agree FI (obligatory) (53) But then why is genitive allowed with unaccusative predicates (see (43) for the matrix clause and (49a) for the embedded -te clause)? (54) Proposal: Feature Inheritance to weak v2 Feature Inheritance (FI) may occur from X (= D or C) to weak v, skipping T, in which case we obtain -no: -ga is a marker indicating that T probes (via FI). [XP [TP [vP DP ...

v] T ] X]

Agree (55)

2

(-no)

FI

a. Basu-{ga/no} kita. bus-NOM-GEN came ‘The bus has come’

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

See also Otsuka (2016) for the idea that a strong phase head ‘activates’ a weak phase head.

8

b. [CP [TP [vP [VP bus come] v] T ] Cnull] c. FI from Cnull to T ⇒ ga FI from Cnull to weak v ⇒ no 4.3 Progressive form (based on Ochi and Saruwatari 2014) (56) Genitive subject is licensed in the progressive form in HJ in the absence of an overt complementizer. (57)

Taroo-{ga/no} odor-to-ru. Taro NOM/GEN dance-TE-be.PRS ‘Taro-{ga/no} is dancing.’

(58)

toru (-teiru for standard Japanese) = -te (= T head) + oru ‘be/exist’ (iru for standard Japanese).

(59)

CP TP vP

[Note: {ga/*no} in SJ]

(for the genitive subject)

Cnull

T FI

VP

vweak

TP

V iru vP T ‘be’ te Taro v’ VP

Agree

v

dance 4.4 Temporal adjunct clauses Ø  Standard Japanese (H. Takahashi 2010; Miyagawa 2012) (60)

ame-{ga/no} yamu made mati-masyoo. rain-NOM/GEN stop until wait.let us ‘Let’s wait until the rain-{ga/no} stops.’

(61)

Hanako-{ga/??no} hashiru made mati-masyoo. child NOM/GEN run until wait.let us ‘Let’s wait until Hanako-{ga/??no} runs.’

9

(62) SJ

Probing by X (→ no)

FI & probing by T (→ ga)

FI & probing by weak v (→ no)

*

✓

✓

Ctemporal (63) Hichiku Japanese

a. Hanako-ga/no kuru made, kaijo-ni oru-ne. Hanako-NOM/GEN come until hall-at be-C ‘Until Hanako-{ga/-no} comes, I’ll be at the hall.’ b. Hanako-ga/no odoru made, kaijo-ni oru-ne. Hanako-NOM/GEN dance until hall-at be-C ‘Until Hanako-{ga/-no} dances, I’ll be at the hall.’ (Ochi and Saruwatari 2014) (64) HJ

Probing by X (→ no)

FI & probing by T (→ ga)

FI & probing by weak v (→ no)

✓

✓

✓

Ctemporal

4.5 Another instance of non-local FI? Ø  English ECM as ‘optional’ raising (Lasnik 1999) (65) a. Mary made John out to be a liar. b. Mary made out John to be a liar. (66) Mary believes him to be a fool. (67) FI from v to V (raising to the matrix VP) a. [C [Mary T [vP v [VP believe [TP to be [him a fool ]]]] FI

Agree

b. [C [Mary T [vP v+believe [VP him [VP tbelieve [TP to be [ a fool ]]]] (68) FI from v to the infinitival T (raising to the embedded TP) a. [C [Mary T [vP v [VP believe [TP to be [him a fool ]]]] FI

Agree

10

b. [C [Mary T [vP v+believe [VP [VP tbelieve [TP him to be [ a fool ]]]]

4.6 Implications from Mongolian syntax (69) Öčügedür yesterday

Ulaɣan{-ø/-ut} qudaldun-abu-ɣsan/*-ab-čai Ulagan-NOM/-GEN buy-take-Past.Adn/-take-Past.Con

nom-bol ene nom. book-TOP this book ‘The book which Ulagan bought yesterday is this book.’ Ø   Point 1: The sentence-final particle siu (corresponding to yo in Japanese) forces the predicate to be in the adnominal form (Maki et al. (2016)). (70) Öčügedür yesterday

Ulaɣan-ø nom-ø qudaldun-abu-ɣsan/*-ab-čai-siu Ulagan-NOM book-ACC buy-take-Past.Adn/-take-Past.Con-Prt

Ø   Point 2: Genitive in Mongolian indicates that the adnominal T probes (see Yiliqi et al. 2017; see also Saito 2004 for Japanese). (71) angqi-du Baɣatur-{ø/un} Ulaɣan-eče beye-{ø/*yin} öndür class-in Bagatur-NOM/GEN Ulagan-than body-NOM/*GEN tall bai-qu učir be-Pres.Adn fact ‘the fact that Bagatur is taller than Ulagan in the class.’ 5. Non-local Feature Inheritance in the adnominal clause Ø   D-licensed genitive object (Miyagawa 1993, Ochi 2001) (72) Taro-no tenisu ka sakkaa-no dekiru kanoosei-o osiete. Taro-GEN tennis or soccer-GEN can probability tell me ‘Tell me the probability that Taro-{no} can play [tennis or soccer]-{no}. [tennis or soccer > probability; probability > tennis or soccer] (73) [DP Taroi-GEN [tennis or soccer]j-GEN [NP [TP ti tj ] probability] D ]

(74) Is there any indication that some instances of genitive object are licensed by weak v (via FI) in the adnominal clause? (see also Miyagawa 2013) Ø   NPI licensing (Kishimoto 2001): an indeterminate pronoun may function as a negative polarity item (NPI) when it is bound (at LF) by the particle mo.

11

(75) Subject/object asymmetry with V+mo a. *Do-no hito-ga hon-o kai-mo which-GEN person-NOM book-ACC buy-Q ‘No one bought a book.’ b. Sono hito-ga do-no that person-NOM which-GEN ‘That person didn’t buy any book.’

si-nakat-ta. do-NEG-PAST

hon-o kai-mo book-ACC buy-Q

si-nakat-ta. do-NEG-PAST

Ø   subject wh-NPI in the adnominal clause (76) a. do-no ko-mo hik-anai kyoku which-GEN child-Q play-NEG tune ‘a tune that no child plays’ b. *do-no ko-ga hiki-mo si-nai kyoku which-GEN child-NOM play-Q do-NEG tune ‘a tune that no student plays’ c. ??do-no ko-no hiki-mo si-nai kyoku which-GEN child-GEN play-Q play-NEG tune ‘a tune that no student plays’ (77) Both (76b) and (76c) are degraded as they are Case licensed outside vP (TP and DP, respectively). The latter sounds better, presumably because the no-subject stays in a position lower (internal to vP) than the ga-subject in overt syntax. Ø  object wh-NPI in the adnominal clause (78) baseline data, with a state predicate sono seito-ga do-no tango-mo wakar-anai that student-NOM which-GEN word-Q understand-NEG ‘the fact that that student does not understand any word’

koto fact

Ø   Unlike the genitive wh-NPI subject, the genitive wh-NPI object is fine in the V+mo clause. (79) a. *sono seito-ga do-no tango-ga wakari-mo that student which-GEN word-NOM understand-Q ‘the fact that that student does not understand any word’

si-nai koto do-NEG fact

b. sono seito-ga do-no dtango-no wakari-mo that student which-GEN word-GEN understand-Q ‘the fact that that student does not understand any word’

si-nai koto do-NEG fact

Ø  Complex predicates (80) a. do-no kyoku-o hik-e-mo which-GEN tune-ACC play-can-Q ‘a student who cannot play any tune’ b. *do-no kyoku-ga which-GEN tune-NOM

hik-e-mo play-can-Q 12

si-nai seito do-NEG student si-nai seito do-NEG student

‘a student who cannot play any tune’ c. do-no kyoku-no hik-e-mo si-nai seito which-GEN tune-GEN play-Q do-NEG student ‘a student who cannot play any tune’ (81) FI from D to weak v, and probing by weak v [DP [NP [TP [ [vP student [which word]-GEN understand-mo v] do-NEG T ] N ] D ] Agree

FI

6. Conclusion (82) -ga and -no originate in the same set of syntactic heads, D and C. (83) Feature Inheritance (FI) may occur from X (= D or C) to weak v, skipping T, in which case we obtain -no: -ga is a marker indicating that T probes (via FI). (84) Standard Japanese (SJ) and Hichiku Japanese (HJ) have the same specifications for the FI involving D, but different specifications for the FI involving C. References Bošković, Željko (2005) “What will you have, DP or NP?” Proceedings of NELS37, 101-114. Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” in Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero and Maria-Luisa Zubizaretta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133–166, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” in Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honor of Adriana Belletti, ed. by E. D. Domenico, C. Hamann and S. Matteini, 3-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hayashi, Shintaro and Tomohiro Fujii (2015) “String Vacuous Head Movement: The Case of V-te in Japanese,” Gengo Kenkyu, 147, 31-57. Harada, S.-I. (1971) “Ga-no Conversion and Idiolectal Variations in Japanese,” Gengo Kenkyu 60, 25-38. Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “On Nominative–genitive Conversion,” A Few from Building E39: Papers in Syntax, Semantics, and Their Interface, 66–125, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39, Cambridge, MA. Hiraiwa, Ken (2005) Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Kato, Sachiko (2007) “Scrambling and the EPP in Japanese: From the Viewpoint of the Kumamoto Dialect in Japanese,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55, 113-124, Cambridge, MA. Kido, Yasuhito (2013) “Fukuoka hōgen ni okeru ‘bai’ ‘tai’ no tōgoteki bunpu” [Syntactic distribution of ‘bai’ and ‘tai’ in Fukuoka dialect]. Proceedings of the 147th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 254-259. Kishimoto, Hideki (2001) “Binding of Indeterminate Pronouns and Clause Structure in Japanese,” Linguistic Inquiry 32. 597-633. Kishimoto, Hideki (2017) “Remarks on Nominative-genitive Conversion in Japanese,” Nanzan linguistics 12, 1-27, Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University. Lasnik, Howard (1999) “Chains of Arguments,” Working Minimalism, ed. by Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 189-216, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Wurigumula Bao and Megumi Hasebe (2016) “Scrambling and Genitive Subjects in Mongolian,” English Linguistics 33, 1–35. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1993) “Case-checking and Minimal Link Condition,” Papers on Case and Agreement 2, 213–254, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.

13

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2012) Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order, Routledge Leading Linguists Series, Routledge, New York. Miyagawa, Shigeru (2013) “Strong Uniformity and Ga/No Conversion,” English Linguistics 30, 1-24. Miyagawa, Shigeru (2017) Agreement Beyond Phi, MIT Press. Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, and Acquisition, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Nakatani, Kentaro (2013) Predicate concatenation: A study of the V-te V predicate in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Nishioka, Nobuaki (2014) “On the Positions of Nominative Subject in Japanese: Evidence from Kumamoto Dialect,” paper presented at 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL10), May 2, 2014, MIT. Nomura, Takashi (2011) Hanasi Kotoba no Nihonsi [Japanese History of the Spoken Language], Yoshikawa Kobunkan. Ochi, Masao (2001) “Move F and Ga/No Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10, 247–286. Ochi, Masao (2017) “Ga/No Conversion,” in Handbook of Japanese Syntax, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda, Mouton de Gruyter. Ochi, Masao and Asuka Saruwatari (2014) “Nominative Genitive Conversion in (In)Dependent Clauses in Japanese,” paper presented at the 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL10), May 2, 2014, MIT. Otsuka, Tomonori (2017) On Weak Phases: An Extension of Feature-Inheritance, Kyushu University Press. Richards, Marc (2007) “On Feature Inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563-572. Saito, Mamoru (2004) “Genitive Subjects in Japanese: Implications for the Theory of Null Objects,” Non-nominative Subjects, ed. by Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao, 103-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Saito, Mamoru (2013) “Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure: From Morphology to Pragmatics,” Nanzan Linguistics 9, 119-145. Sakai, Mika (2013) “Gendai Kumamoto-shi Hoogen no Syugo Hyooji [Subject Marking in Modern Kumamoto City Dialect], Ms., Osaka University. Saruwatari, Asuka (2016) Nominative and Genitive Cases in Japanese: From Dialectal and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, Ph.D. thesis, Osaka University. Takahashi, Hisako (2010) “Adverbial Clauses and Nominative/Genitive Conversion in Japanese,” Proceedings of the sixth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6), 357-371, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA. Uchibori, Asako, Hideki Maki, and Yin-Ji Jin (2010) “The Origin of the Ga/No Conversion in the history of the Japanese Language,” paper presented at the 141st meeting of Linguistic Society of Japan. Watanabe, Akira (1996) “Nominative–genitive Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A Cross-linguistic Perspective,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 373–410. Yanagida, Yuko and John Whitman (2009) “Alignment and Word Order in Old Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18, 101-144. Yiliqi, Hideki Maki, Lina Bao and Megumi Hasebe (2017) “Subjects of Stative Predicates in Prenominal Sentential Modifiers in Mongolian,” a poster presented at the 155th meeting of Linguistic Society of Japan.

14