Consider the following sentences, with the judgments in accordance with what has been given in the literature.

(1)　a.　John loves himself.
　　b.*John thinks Mary loves himself.
(2)　a.　John recommended himself for that position.
　　b.*John thought that Mary had recommended himself.
(3)　a.　Mary, who had firmly believed that Chomsky would recommend her, was shocked to death when she found out that Chomsky recommended Bill instead. (where her=Mary)
　　b.*Mary, who had firmly believed that Chomsky would recommend herself, was shocked to death when she found out that Chomsky recommended Bill instead.

The judgments on (1)-(3) by 9 native speakers of English who I have recently consulted with are as follows, in terms of the average scores computed as in the handout posted in [21051] (on the scale of -2 to +2).

(4)　The judgments on (1)-(3):
　　a.　(1a): +2
　　b.　(1b): -2
　　c.　(2a): +1.78
　　d.　(2b): -1.56
　　e.　(3a): +2
　　f.　(3b): -1.44

By the 'criteria' stipulated in the handout posted in [21051], the hypothesis that a reflexive in English that appears in an argument position is a local anaphor has been corroborated, at least insofar as the limited date gathered re. (1)-(3). The conclusion is consistent with the judgments that have been reported and widely accepted in the literature.

It has been assumed in many works on Japanese syntax that zibunzisin is a local anaphor, hence on a par with a reflexive in English (in terms of their formal properties). When we check the native speakers' reactions to the Japanese examples corresponding to (1b), (2b), and (3b), however, a very different result obtains. The judgments by 23 native speakers of Japanese on the Japanese analogues of (1b), (2b), and (3b), are as follows.

(5)　The judgments on the Japanese analogues of (1b), (2b), and (3b): (SD=standard deviation)
　　a.　On the JP analogue of (1b): +0.35 (SD: 1.31)
　　b.　On the JP analogue of (2b): -0.13 (SD: 1.39)
　　c.　On the JP analogue of (3b): +0.62 (SD: 1.53)

The hypothesis that zibunzisin (that appears in an argument position) is a local anaphor has thus been falsified, fairly blatantly, by the 'criteria' alluded to above. What is noteworthy is the fact that the speaker judgments on the Japanese analogues of (1b), (2b), and (3b) vary considerably while those on English (1b), (2b), and (3b) are fairly uniform. The figures next to SD in (5) is the standard deviation. I should also note that only two speakers among the 23 speakers judged all of the Japanese analogues of (1b), (2b), and (3b) as "-2," in sharp contrast with the result that six or more speakers (among the nine) judged all of English (1b), (2b), and (3b) as "-2."

The numbers of informants are fairly small, especially for the English sentences. But the readers of this posting are encouraged to check the judgments of their friends about the sentences given above and also the sentences in (1'b), (2'b), and (3'b), which correspond to (1b), (2b), and (3b), respectively, and see for themselves how strikingly different the native speakers' reactions to these examples are.

(1'b)　ジョンはメリーが自分自身に惚れていると思い込んでいた。（ジョン=自分自身)
　　John-wa Mary-ga zibun-zisin-ni horete iru to omoikonde ita. (John = zibun-zisin)
(2'b)　ジョンはメリーが自分自身を推薦したとばかり思っていた。（ジョン=自分自身)
　　John-wa Mary-ga zibun-zisin-o suisensita to bakari omotteita. (John = zibun-zisin)
(3'b)　チョムスキーが自分自身を推薦すると思い込んでいたジョンは、チョムスキーがビルを推薦したと知って愕然とした。(自分自身=ジョン)
　　Chomsky-ga zibunzisin-o suisensuru to omoikondeita John-wa Chomsky-ga Bill-o suisensita to sitte gakuzen to sita. (John = zibun-zisin)

As noted in the handout posted in [21051], when a given example is claimed to be unacceptable for a grammatical reason, we should not expect any lexical/pragmatic adjustment to improve the status of such an example in any significant way, which is basically what we seem to observe in the case of examples like (1b), (2b), and (3b) in English, assuming that the pragmatics for (1b), (2b), and especially the one for (3b), favor the intended 'long-distance' reading. In the case of the Japanese analogues of (1b), (2b), and (3b), it is perhaps the case that the lexical and pragmatic factors do significantly affect the acceptability judgments. The fact that many speakers find the Japanese analogues of (1b), (2b), and (3b) not so bad is totally unexpected under the hypothesis that zibunzisin is a local anaphor; 11 out of 23 speakers gave "+2" to (3'b), presumably finding them to be fully acceptable. In case one might wonder, the non-linguist informants' judgments and the linguist informants judgments on (1'b), (2'b), and (3'b) are not very different from each other.

At this point, a proponent of the hypothesis that zibunzisin is a local anaphor might suggest that when the relevant examples are judged acceptable, zibunzisin is taken to be 'emphatic' or something other than a regular local anaphor. In order to defend such a thesis, one would have to show under what linguistic or pragmatic contexts, zibunzisin 'of this type' can be excluded so that we can identify an environment in which a local anaphor zibunzisin can reliably be used as such. Until such a demonstration is done, there does not seem to be much merit in using zibunzisin in our syntactic experiment that addresses formal properties of the language in question. As noted in my Mayfest abstract in [21482], we can also expect a reaction that makes reference to the existence of a 'contrast', which might go as follows. The average score on (3'b) is +0.62; but an example in which zibunzisin has its antecedent in its local domain must be close to +2. Hence there is a significant contrast between the two and that is what we are interested in capturing. As also briefly noted in my Mayfest abstract, one would maintain such a position only if one were not concerned with making one's hypothesis falsifiable, as far as I can tell. What makes the contrast significant is the status of the unacceptable example, and its unacceptability is claimed to be due to grammar (or some formal property of the language in question). Therefore, when the average response to such an example is +0.62, i.e., when the negative prediction made under the hypothesis in question is clearly disconfirmed, the contrast itself does not have much significance at least for a research that aims at discovering formal properties of the language in question and ultimately of UG.

One might think that what is presented above constitutes an exceptional case where it goes so directly against what has been assumed widely in the literature, even if the results reported above get replicated in other instances of essentially the same experiments. It, however, seems to be the case that many other hypotheses that have been widely accepted in the field get falsified or fail to be corroborated once we conduct an experiment on them, 'with the attitude of falsification'. For example the claims/hypotheses on (i) the locality of so-called numeral floating quantifiers (see the WCCFL paper posted in [18703]) and (ii) the Proper Binding Condition effects in so-called raising-to-object construction in Japanese (see the handout posted in [21051]) are among them. If we use the kind of paradigms that have been given in the literature, even hypotheses that have to do with (iii) subjacency effects with respect to scrambling out of a complex NP and (iv) 'long-distance scrambling' not exhibiting so-called A-properties seem to get falsified. The claims/hypotheses noted above are among those that have been very widely accepted. Except for (i), there has not been much controversy, at least in the published works, as to the validity of the claims/hypotheses in question. I.e., they are not like some other empirical claims for which apologetic remarks such as "the relevant judgments are very subtle" are given. It is therefore not difficult to imagine what would happen to the empirical claims that are accompanied by such an apologetic remark once we conduct an experiment on them.

I will be presenting a paper at MayFest at U. of Maryland in May. Here is the abstract I sent to the organizers of the workshop.

***
Scrambling, PF and LF adjunction, and null operator movement in Japanese
Hajime Hoji
USC

　　　 In Ross 1967 and in subsequent works, 'scrambling' is included among the stylistic rules, and that conception had not been seriously challenged (at least with respect to Japanese) (with a few exceptions such as works by S.-I. Harada) until the mid 1980s when it was specifically argued, e.g., in Saito 1985, that 'scrambling' (in Japanese) is a syntactic operation and is not a semantically vacuous movement. Observationally, it was agreed upon in the 1980s that some instances of the so-called 'scrambled NP' in Japanese (and other 'scrambling languages') exhibit A-properties and others A'-properties. Various attempts have since been made to express so-called A and A'-properties of 'scrambling'.
　　　 We adopt the following thesis, put forth in Ueyama 1998, according to which the movement operations involved in the OS construction (i.e., sentences of the 'object subject order') in Japanese are not uniform, contrary to the thesis that seems to have been pursued for the past two decades by M. Saito, and a given example of the OS construction in Japanese can correspond to two distinct numerations, and hence two distinct derivations and representations. The OS order can come about as the result of the PF movement of a non-subject NP over the subject, but it can also come about with the 'base-generation' of the non-subject (such as the object) at the sentence-initial position, being related to 'its theta position' through a Predication relation with a lambda predicate containing 'the theta position' as the open position. One might suggest that the former is akin to Heavy NP shift in English, to the extent that it is analyzed as an instance of PF movement, and that the latter is not unlike what happens in the tough sentences in English.
　　　 We assume that UG allows of PF adjunction and LF adjunction, as an optional operation; and these are indeed the two operations that are claimed to take place under Ueyama's (1998) analysis of the OS constructions in Japanese.. Adopting Fukui's (1986) thesis that Japanese lacks 'active functional categories' (which would be responsible for obligatory displacement), we further maintain that these two are the only displacement operations available in Japanese. One can then naturally wonder what might be the Japanese analogues of what is considered in Chomsky 1977 as involving wh-movement, and later considered as an instance of a null operator movement construction (such as the cleft, relative, topicalization, and comparative constructions) and how the properties of their 'Japanese analogues' can be accounted for under the general characterization of Japanese being pursued here. We will try to present a description and a basic analysis of each of these 'constructions' in Japanese and defend the thesis that they do not involve the kind of movement involved in such constructions in English as those just noted. The relevant empirical considerations here have to do with clause-boundedness, the Subjacency effects and reconstruction effects. We will note that at the moment we seem to be able to obtain clear results in regard to the relevant tests only if we consider reconstruction effects of bound variable anaphora and quantifier scope, and furthermore, the binding reconstruction and the scope reconstruction must be of a certain type, as discussed in some depth in Hoji 2003. We will also address the issues concerning 'resumption', in relation to these, and go over empirical evidence for Ueyama's (1998) proposal, differentiating it from other analyses of 'scrambling' (e.g., Saito 2003). Among the crucial generalizations is that 'resumption' is possible in the position of the theta position corresponding to the 'scrambled NP' only in the OS construction that exhibits A-properties, presenting a serious challenge to an A-movement analysis (or its variants) of such cases, as discussed in Ueyama 1998: chap. 2 and 2003.
　　　 There has been little doubt, at least since the mid 1950s, that INFL (and COMP) (and what have subsequently been argued to 'underlie' them) play(s) a crucial role in the characterization of the formal aspects of English; cf. the Affix Hopping analysis in Chomsky 1955, 1957, the works on complementation since Lees 1960, Rosenbaum 1967, and the subsequent works. It is, however, not clear at all that INFL and COMP (or the relevant features (claimed to be) associated with them) play any crucial role in characterizing the properties of Japanese, at least in a way remotely resembling the role played by the relevant categories or features in English. Ueyama's (1998) proposal re. 'scrambling' in Japanese alluded to above and its extension to be attempted in this presentation have been developed under the general view of Japanese, proposed in Fukui 1986, that Japanese lacks 'active functional categories' altogether, predicting, among other things, the absence of any obligatory displacement in Japanese.
　　　 One might point to various arguments in the literature for the existence of formal features (strong features, the EPP feature, or the like) in Japanese. However, once we put such proposals to a minimally rigorous empirical test, checking its negative predictions, it is not clear if any such argument/hypothesis/claim remains not to be refuted/falsified/invalidated. We will provide illustration of some concrete examples. One might also wonder how valid the empirical bases are for the claims defended in this presentation, pointing to judgments reported in the literature in support of the hypotheses/claims contrary to the thesis pursued here. Among the key notions in assessing a given hypothesis and in dealing with judgmental fluctuation are falsifiability, corroboration (not in the sense of Popper), and negative predictions, and the recognition that a contrast detected in a minimal pair should be counted as significant only if the negative prediction made by the hypothesis in question is not disconfirmed. I will try to go over what is meant by this and also try to make some remarks on what role can be profitably served by research on Japanese (and other languages that share with Japanese the crucial properties noted above), given the basic correctness of the general thesis pursued here.

(I plan to post some relevant materials at my HP (http://www.gges.xyz/hoji/), including some empirical paradigms to be discussed in my presentation, the references, etc., as the time of the workshop approaches.)
***

What is meant by falsifiability, corroboration (not in the sense of Popper), and negative predictions in the above abstract is discussed in my Kyodai handout; see [21051].

A slightly revised version of the main handout for my talk at the Kyodai Workshop is placed here.

If you would like to obtain a copy of the supplementary handout to which the above document makes reference to, please let me know by email.

[Revised on 2/14/2005, further revised (only very slightly) on 2/17/2005.]
The following is a draft of the abstract of my talk at the Korean/Japanese Syntax and Semantics Workshop
2/21-22/2005
Kyoto University

"A Major Object Analysis of the so-called Raising-to-Object Construction in Japanese (and Korean)"

Abstract
Empirically, this talk is concerned with examples such as (1).

(1) 　　 John-wa 　Mary-o 　Itariazin　 da 　to 　 omotteita.
　　　　 John-TOP 　Mary-ACC 　Italian 　 be 　 that 　 thought
(2) 　a. 　'John believed about Mary that she was Italian.'
　　b.　 'John believed Mary to be Italian.'

I have the following three goals in mind for this presentation.

(3) 　a.　 To argue for and defend a Major Object analysis of the so-called Raising-to-Object (henceforth simply RtoO) Construction in Japanese (and Korean), as in Hoji 1991, according to which NP-o that corresponds to Mary-o in (1) is 'base-generated' in the matrix clause and is not part of the embedded CP at any stage of derivation, and (1) corresponds more closely to (2a) than to (2b), in terms of the relevant formal properties.
　　b.　 To give a brief illustration of how we/I have been trying to conduct syntactic experiments, and what 'criteria' can be profitably placed in determining when a hypothesis is falsified and when it is corroborated (the latter not in the Popperian sense).
　　c.　 To explore (further) consequences of the proposed analysis alluded to in (3a).

I have concrete things/results to say/report about (3a) and (3b), and feedback from the workshop participants would be much appreciated. As to (3c), I have specific issues I have been concerned with, but without clear answers yet, and I am hoping to be able to make some progress in regard to those issues through the discussion at the workshop.
　　　I will try to do (3a) by examining (i) what negative predictions the proposed analysis makes, in conjunction with an independent hypothesis, and (ii) how the predictions are borne out. An answer to (ii) brings us to (3b), whose main points have to do with when a hypothesis is to be considered as being falsified and when it is to be considered as being corroborated (not in Popper's sense). I wish to adopt the following 'criterion' for evaluating our hypotheses. A hypothesis is falsified if examples that are predicted to be unacceptable (under a specified interpretation) are judged acceptable (under the specified interpretation), and it is corroborated if it is not falsified and a sufficiently compelling degree of contrast is detected between (i) the examples that are predicted to be unacceptable and (ii) those that are not so predicted by virtue of being minimally different from the former in regard to the grammatical or formal factor that is hypothesized to be responsible for the status of the former. A concrete way to execute this idea will be introduced, along with a way to conduct relevant syntactic experiments in which judgments are solicited from informants.
　　　The experiments whose results I will report in this presentation include those on (4).

(4) 　a.　 the distribution of negation-sensitive elements (often referred to in the literature as "negative polarity items") in Japanese
　　b.　 the effects of Proper Binding Condition in the 'scrambling construction' and RTO

The result on the experiment on (4a) corroborates the Major Object hypothesis, and that on the experiment on (4a) fails to corroborates, if not simply falsifies, a hypothesis that RtoO necessarily involves syntactic movement of the relevant o-marked NP in RtoO and its trace is subject to the Proper Binding Condition.
　　　In addition to providing support for the Major Object analysis of the so-called RtoO in Japanese (and arguably in Korean), I suggest in this talk that it is necessary for us to bind ourselves by the criteria of the sort alluded to above in regard to falsification and corroboration, if we want to be taken seriously by linguists outside generative grammar, and perhaps more importantly by researchers in the neighboring disciplines and beyond, in regard to the claim that we are engaged in an empirical science with progress in mind.

Under this thread, I will make postings on what has often/sometimes been called the raising-to-object construction in Japanese.

The syllabus of my graduate course in the fall of 2004 contains the following.

***
　　It has always been a concern and almost an obsession for (many if not most) researchers in the generative tradition working on Japanese to be able to find evidence for overt syntactic movement in Japanese. It would not be very difficult to speculate on the reasons for this. After all, the most interesting and exciting aspects of generative grammar have been built around phenomena of syntactic movement (sometime called displacement)—i.e., linguistic intuitions that a linguistic object appears in a position other than its 'canonical position'—mostly in English in the early stages of generative grammar and in other languages as well in more recent years.
　　What counts as evidence for the existence of overt syntactic movement in particular (and for any syntactic claim in general for that matter), however, is not an easy question to answer. Scrambling has been discussed extensively for the past 20 years in the context of the above concerns. It has often been argued that the movement involved in the so-called scrambling construction in Japanese may correspond either to what is involved in wh-questions in English (so-called A'-movement) or to what is involved in the passive and the raising-to-subject constructions in English (so-called A-movement). In this course, we will read and discuss works on constructions in Japanese and Korean that have been discussed in connection with the passive and so-called the raising-to-object (or ECM or the major object) constructions. We will be specifically concerned with what counts as evidence for a particular syntactic claim or a proposed generalization, and how it can be tested.
　　The requirements for the course for those who are taking it for a letter grade are given in (1).

(1)　a.　Active participation in the class discussion.
　　b.　Active participation in the web discussion, including timely response to questions that are specifically mentioned as 'obligatory'.
　　c.　A term paper.

The format of the term paper will be specified during the course of the semester, reflecting the way we analyze the papers we read. For each paper we read, you should answer the questions in (2), (3) and (6), and try to answer the questions in (4) and (5). We will generate an evaluation sheet which we can use to record our evaluation of each paper, with respect to the points below and additional points to be introduced later.

(2)　Main claims
　　What are the main claims of the paper?
(3)　Empirical generalizations
　　a.　What empirical generalizations are put forth or adopted in the paper?
　　b.　What is your assessment of them if you are in a position to evaluate them yourself?
(4)　Empirical Predictions
　　a.　What empirical predictions are made?
　　b.　How can they be tested, i.e., what syntactic experiments can be conducted to test the predictions, if they are indeed testable?
　　c.　What are the results of the experiments?
(5)　Argumentation and demonstration of the points
　　Is the argumentation in the paper solid?
(6)　Citation
　　Does the paper cite the relevant literature properly and accurately?
***

The WCCFL 2004 paper "What Gets Mapped to the Tripartite Structure of Quantification in Japanese" has been placed here.

The abstract of the paper is given below.

***
What Gets Mapped to the Tripartite Structure of Quantification in Japanese
Hajime Hoji and Yasuo Ishii
Abstract

The paper endorses the view, advocated in Gunji & Hasida 1998 and Takami 1998, that the association between a 'floating' numeral-classifier in Japanese (such as 3-nin '3-classifier') and its 'host NP' is not grammatically constrained, unlike the 'standard' view that is suggested in Kuroda 1980 and argued for in Miyagawa 1989. It also supports the thesis, defended in Fukushima 1991, Gunji & Hasida 1998, and Kobuchi-Philip 2003, among others, that a numeral-classifier (#-CL) can be base-generated as an adverbial and a 'floating' numeral-classifier is indeed an adverbial. Miyagawa and Arikawa's (2003) account of 'long distance association' between a 'floating' #-CL and 'its host', in defense of the 'standard' view, is shown to make a wrong prediction. Some empirical materials are then considered where the #-CL and the 'host NP' together serve as the intended 'binder' of a 'dependent element' in terms of bound variable anaphora. It is suggested that both the #-CL and the 'host NP' in such cases must c-command the 'dependent element' prior to the application of LF movement. The Isomorphism Principle of Reinhart (1976) and Huang (1982) enables us to put forth testable predictions by making reference to surface forms, and a few of them are considered. The suggested analysis is based on the hypothesis that, in such cases as alluded to above, an adverbial #-CL and the 'host NP' get mapped to an operator and its restriction of the tripartite structure of quantification, and some consequences of the hypothesis are discussed.

[This is directly related to the issues addressed in my JK paper; see the Passive board.]

(i) a. disconfirmation
b. confirmation
c. corroboration
d. falsification

As I understand it, Popper's use of the terms is as follows. Suppose a hypothesis H makes a testable prediction P. P gets confirmed or disconfirmed. If confirmed, the result corroborates H. If disconfirmed the result falsifies H.

Turning our attention to a negative prediction P (as discussed in my JK13 paper as well as in the WCCFL2004 handout (and the paper, to be placed here soon)) and a hypothesis H that gives rise to P, we can use (i) in the same way as above.

Now, if the factor that crucially contributes to P is removed, we no longer predict P, hence whatever was predicted to be impossible, say G, is no longer predicted to be impossible. Suppose G is indeed found possible in such cases. Since H does not predict G, this result does not corroborate H, according to the way Popper uses the terms in (i), as pointed out to me by A. Ueyama (p.c. May 2004). But I was using corroboration in such a way that this result corroborates H. I was in fact not using corroboration when P gets confirmed... I noticed this, I think for the first time, when one of the students in EALC 547 used corroborate in the 'standard Popperian' way.

As A. Ueyama (p.c. May 2004) pointed out, it is perhaps advisable to keep to the standard uses of these standard terms. If we do, how would we call the significance of obtaining G as the result of removing the factor that crucially contributes to a negative prediction P? We may use the term plausibility enhancement.

Incidentally, it is perhaps the case that plausibility enhancement is not needed in, and is not part of, the Popperian discourse, and here we are perhaps looking at a fundamental difference between (i) a natural science and (ii) a linguistic science (well, to be more precise, that part of linguistic science where 'interpretations' (i.e., the speaker intuitions about the 'meanings') of linguistic forms constitute the core part of the data to account for).

One of the most serious problems in the practice in generative grammar at the moment, it seems to me, is that linguistic intuitions that only have the significance of plausibility enhancement are often erroneously taken to be corroboration for the theory in question.

Re. (21):
Add "Tree for (20b)" next to "(21)."

Re. (23):
Add "Tree for (22b)" next to "(23)."

Re. the line right before (24):
The necessary conditions for ...
==>
Among the necessary conditions for ...

Re. (30):
The c-command relation between ...
==>
The c-command relation (and the lack thereof) between ...

Re. the paragraph right before (34):
... the negative prediction in (31) would be ...
==>
... the negative prediction in (31), and hence in (32), would be ...

The handout of Hoji&Ishii WCCFL 2004 "What Gets Mapped to the Tripartite Structure of Quantification in Japanese" is placed here.

The obvious errors in the handout that we corrected orally during our presentation have been corrected in this version.

We did not get to discuss its content before the presentation.

We plan to discuss it now.

Here is the WCCFL abstract by Hoji and Ishii, "What Gets Mapped to the Tripartite Structure of Quantification in Japanese."

Acknowledgment for the JK 13 paper

Many people have helped me shape the idea presented in this paper. The two individuals to whom I am most deeply indebted in this particular regard are Yuki Kuroda and Satoshi Kinsui.

As noted in the paper, the analysis pursued here is an attempt to articulate and slightly modify the proposal in Kuroda 1979. Furthermore, it was Yuki Kuroda who first pointed out to me in the late 1980s that the movement involved in the niyotte passive might be an instance of scrambling. In the subsequent years when I reminded him of this on a few occasions, however, he did not remember it, and hence I do not know whether he would agree with the analysis presented in this paper.

In the late 1980s, I was working fairly intensively on reconstruction effects in Japanese as part of a larger paradigm of bound variable anaphora in Japanese. But that was several years before we had Ueyams's (1998) theory and the relevant empirical paradigms in support of it; and mainly for that reason, it was not possible to attain a high level of repeatability in regard to the predicted contrasts under the hypothesis that should/could have been pursued. As it turned out, I had to wait until after I had finished Hoji 2003 (the Lingua "Falsifiability" paper) to work on the Japanese passives.

One of the things that kept my interest in Japanese passives was the thesis (presented in its essentials in Matsushita 1930, according to Kinsui 1997) and defended in Kinsui 1997 in more specific terms that "[n]iyotte passive sentences happened to come into the Japanese language when the translation word niyotte expressing means and way, was assigned to Dutch door—a marker of path, means and way and of the agent in a passive sentence—in the literal translation of Modern Dutch texts." (Kinsui 1997: abstract) If the movement involved in the niyotte-passive were an instance of A-movement, as I initially (i.e., in the late 1980s) thought, the introduction of the niyotte-passive into Japanese in the early to mid 19th century could be understood as an introduction of some element in Japanese that would result in A-movement, being accompanied by, or as the result of, the introduction of the use of niyotte noted above. However, if a defining property of the Japanese language is the complete absence of formal agreement features (or whatever formal properties that are responsible for obligatory 'displacement' of an element, e.g., active functional categories in the terms of N. Fukui's works), as I came to believe in the mid 1990s (shortly after or around Hoji 1995 (NELS), I think), the A-movement account of the niyotte-passive is difficult to maintain.

Given that the movement in the niyotte-passive is not an instance of A-movement, two possibilities come to mind as to the nature of the 'historical change' noted above. One is that the introduction of the agentive NP-niyotte was accompanied by, or triggered, the introduction of the argument-reducing use of -rare on the basis of the analogy of the intransitivizing suffix such as -e in war-e '(something) break', as opposed to war 'break (something)'. Such a view would be supported if the subject of the passive sentences in Japanese, until the introduction of the niyotte-passive, always had to be an NP that expresses an experiencer/affectee theta role, as would be expected under the view that the only Japanese passive available until then was with the argument-taking -rare. As discussed in Kinsui 1997, however, it seems that there were passives in Japanese whose subject NPs do not express an experiencer/affectee theta role, before the introduction of the niyotte-passive.

Although the JK 13 paper does not address the nature of the 'historical change' in question—neither did I discuss it in my JK 13 presentation although the relevant discussion had been included in an earlier draft of the JK 13 talk and also in the presentation at the UCLA workshop in February, 2003—I would like to maintain, following (the essentials of) Kinsui 1997, that the only change that took place is the introduction of the use of NP-niyotte as expressing an agent (in the passive sentence), and that the argument-reducing -rare was in the Japanese lexicon before the 'historical change' in question took place, along with the other intransitivizing suffixes. (According to Satoshi Kinsui (p.c., February, 2003), the essentials of this view are found in earlier literature by some traditional grammarians. He has kindly provided me with information on the relevant references, which I will try to present on a separate occasion.) A more complete description of the passive with the argument-reducing -rare and the unaccusatives would have to make reference to the 'control properties' of the 'suppressed external argument' in the case of the former and not in the case of the latter, but I will not get into that here. (Thanks to Yuki Takubo (p.c., December 2003) for reminding me of this point.) Assuming that the agentive NP-ni always signals the subject argument of the embedded VP without tense, and hence the use of the agentive NP-ni in a passive sentence necessarily means the use of the argument-taking -rare, which takes an NP and a VP as its arguments, we would now take the position that before the introduction of the NP-niyotte as expressing an agent (in the passive sentence), the passive with the argument-reducing -rare was expressed without the agent overtly expressed. This seems to be basically in accord with what is discussed in Kinsui 1997, and is the second possibility that comes to mind in regard to the nature of the historical change in question.

An earlier version of the analysis in the paper was presented in my graduate syntax course at USC in the spring of 2003 and at a workshop at UCLA, February, 2003. It was during the latter that I came to take the view I do in regard to the historical change noted in the preceding paragraph, and I thank the participants there, especially Satoshi Kinsui, for their help. (Had I read Kinsui 1997 more carefully and understood it better, I would perhaps not have taken the detour that I did.) Yongjoon Cho and Seonkyung Jeon helped me begin to understand passives in Korean in the graduate course at USC, but my understanding is still very much at a preliminary stage and I can only hope that I will someday be able to discuss Korean passives, and acknowledge their contribution in a more concrete way.

Starting with the preparation of the JK 13 presentation and all the way through the very last stage of the preparation of the paper, Teru Fukaya and Ayumi Ueyama have offered generous support, without which I would not have finished the paper. Teru Fukaya has gone through a countless number of drafts of the paper and gave me detailed comments on every single version, which resulted in much improvement. At the last stage of the conference presentation as well as that of the writing of the paper, Ayumi Ueyama provided me comments that were instrumental in putting the materials in 14 pages, saving the paper from becoming totally unreadable. I have also benefited from comments and questions from Yukiko Tsuboi, Kiyoko Kataoka, and Yuki Takubo at various stages.

Shortly before the JK 13 presentation, Satoshi Kinsui and Yuki Takubo gave me comments on the draft version of the presentation that they kindly allowed me to present. I would like to thank their helpful comments although most of their comments were not incorporated in the actual JK presentation because of the radical reorganization within less than 24 hours before the presentation, or in the present paper. Right after the JK presentation, Bill McClure gave me insightful and thoughtful comments. Since his comments were on the methodological aspects of my JK presentation (see Discuss-Passive[14027]), however, they are not reflected on the present paper.

I would also like to thank J.-R. Hayashishita for discussion on the reconstruction paradigms of passives in Japanese and the raising construction in English and Hagit Borer for being critical over the years of the view that the raising construction in English does not exhibit (genuine) reconstruction effects. Ringe (Hayashishita)'s quantifier scope paradigms, with and without resumption, have given me confidence that the contrast I had been trying to establish about Japanese passive sentences is indeed a reflection of something grammatical. The space limit certainly did not help me present compelling arguments that would convince Hagit of my view on A-reconstruction (in English). The relevant arguments would have to address empirical as well as methodological issues. Empirically, they would have to address the nature of quirky binding (see Ueyama 1998, Ueyama 2002: 2.2.2, and Hoji 2003: 2.2.2.2) and how it may manifest itself in English, in relation to notions such as salience, as well as issues of A-reconstruction having to do with anaphor-binding and cases involving X⁰ categories. Methodologically, we would have to consider how the notion of a minimal pair is commonly understood and made use of in the field, and what I believe to be the crucial aspect of the minimal pair from the view point of putting our hypothesis to severe tests, in relation to notions such as negative predictions, and negative propositions; see section 1 of my JK 13 handout posted in Discuss-Passive[13660] and the discussion under the thread there.

The research reported here has been supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 15320052, Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora.

The regular disclaimers apply.

Here is my JK 13 paper "Reconstruction Effects in Passive and Scrambling in Japanese." Because of the page limit, I was not able to include various materials, empirical, conceptual and methodological, in the paper. Virtually no reference is made to the issues re. negative propositions and negative predictions, with which the bulk of the JK presentation was concerned.

Among the issues that I wanted to include but was not able to are:

--the resumption paradigms and some of their complications
--the absence of A-reconstruction in English

In general, in many of the places in the paper, a full empirical demonstration of a point at issue is not provided. In some places, I have tried to note what should be added to make the empirical demonstration complete, but not for every single point of the paper.

Within a month or so, I will try to post what can reasonably be posted here in relation to my JK paper. If you want me to address a particular issue or would like to comment on any part of the paper, please send them to me.

If you do not see postings on the JK paper within a month or so, it might be a while for me to get back to it here.

J.-R. Hayashishita's recent paper "On Adnominal 'Focus-Sensitive' Particles in Japanese" (to appear in the JK 13 volume) is placed here.

(2) An interpretation alpha is based on a formal relation R.
==>
(2) A formal relation R is a necessary condition for an interpretation alpha.

A deduced proposition should be stated strictly in terms of concepts and relations in the theory of grammar. A prediction, on the other hand, should be stated in terms of notions/concepts that express linguistic intuitions. And it is important to distinguish them clearly; otherwise, it can become difficult to tell what statement in the theory is meant to capture what linguistic intuitions, making it difficult, and in fact impossible, strictly speaking, to test the predictions of one's hypotheses.

There is a third type of statement, which makes reference to both types of concepts noted above. Without this type of statement, we cannot make predictions on the basis of propositions deduced from the hypotheses. The third type of propositions/statements is what expresses how theoretical concepts and relations are connected to our linguistic intuitions. (19) in the JK handout, for example, is the third type of statement.

(19)BVA(X,Y) can obtain if {X_i, t_i} is a chain formed by A-movement, where X is a QP and Y is a dependent term.
　　　　... X_i [... Y ... t_i ... ] ...

Except for a few places, the distinctions among the three types of statements are made clearly.

A typical way in which the first two types of concepts are mixed in a statement in actual practice in the field is something like the following:

"In such and such sentence, we have a clear intuition that A and B cannot be coindexed, thus confirming our prediction."

Coindexation is a theoretical concept and we do not have judgments about whether two expressions can or cannot be coindexed with each other.

(81) ...
(i) A-ga₁ NP-niyotte [ ... B ... ]-ni ec V-rare
==>
(i) A-ga₁ NP-niyotte [ ... B ... ]-ni {soko/sore}-ga V-rare

(49)
FD(t, B) that must be based on FD(t, B) cannot be established in (i), with the t being the trace of A.

==>

BVA(A, B) that must be based on FD(t, B) cannot be established in (i), with the t being the trace of A.

　　Among what has been known since the works by Sag and Williams in the mid 1970s is that VPE (VP ellipsis) in English does not allow readings such as indicated in (2) for (1).

(1)　　John fed his cat; Bill did too.
(2)　a.　John fed John's cat; Bill fed Mike's cat.
　　b.　John fed Mike's cat; Bill fed Bill's cat.
　　c.　John fed Mike's cat; Bill fed John's cat.
　　d.　John fed Bill's cat; John fed John's cat.

If his in (1) is used to refer to John, as indicated in the interpretation in the first conjunct in (2a), the second conjunct in (1) can only mean (3a) or (3b).

(3)　a.　Bill fed John's cat.
　　b.　Bill fed Bill's cat.

If his in (1) is used to refer to someone other than John, as indicated in the first conjunct of (2b), (2c), and (2d), that person must be the person whose cat Bill fed. Hence the unavailability of the readings in (2b-d) for (1).
　　In Hoji 1998, it is pointed out that such a restriction on the interpretive possibilities is missing in the case of the Null Object Construction in Japanese (NOC), and that is taken as evidence that NOC, at least, need not be an instance of surface anaphora. Given the hypothesis that the restriction in question is due to the syntactic (i.e., structural) parallelism that must hold between the ellipsis site of a certain type and 'its antecedent' (and this type of ellipsis is called surface anaphora), and given the hypothesis that do the same thing, do that, and do it in English are not of this type of linguistic object, it follows that the restriction noted above is not observed with these expressions. In my "Surface and Deep .." paper, this point is not made. Neither was it made in my Sytax+ presentation at USC on 10/29/3003.
The paradigms below indicates that the expectation just noted is in fact fulfilled.

(4)　　John fed his cat with chopsticks; Bill did the same thing.

It seems that, given an appropriate context, (4) is compatible with any of the readings in (2). As in the case of NOC (see Hoji 1998: 3.3), (4) also seems compatible with (5).

(5)　　John fed John's cat with chopsticks; Bill fed a cat with chopsticks.

The felicitous use of do the same thing might tend to require some additional materials such as with chopsticks. But that does not seem to be a requirement imposed by grammar since we can think of an appropriate context in which such additional materials are not needed to get the reading in question.

As noted on the "Downloadable" page at this HP, "[t]his paper is an attempt to articulate what was behind my 1998 LI paper on null objects in Japanese." The LI paper argues against the view that the null object construction (NOC) in Japanese is or can be an instance of VP ellipsis, analogous to null VP in English. The handout posted in [14083] (hence the part of my "Surface and Deep ..." paper that deals with English) can thus be understood as an attempt to demonstrate that the NOC in Japanese and do that, do the same thing, and do it in English share a great deal of properties, in sharp contrast to VP ellipsis in English (that should indeed be considered as an instance of surface anaphora) (and CM-comparative in Japanese).

It is interesting that some researchers are still assuming that the NOC in Japanese can be an instance of surface anaphora.

Given the possibility that VP ellipsis in English can be an instance of deep anaphora, one might argue that the 'unexpected' properties (under the VPE analysis) of the NOC in Japanese are not so unexpected, after all. But it must be recalled that VP ellipsis in English does exhibit properties of surface anaphora, i.e., the Mix reading patterns, and such is not the case with the NOC in Japanese.

If you are interested in getting the basic idea/claim of the paper, without getting into the details of the paradigms in Japanese, here is the handout of a recent talk I gave, based on the "Surface and Deep ..." paper. It is basically the same as the one I used at a workshop at UNICAMP in Brazil in the summer of 2001, and it only deals with English paradigms.

For the recent presentation, I meant to include the methodological remarks along the lines of the JK presentation of 2003 (the handout of which is posted here), but I was not able to fit in the relevant materials in the handout. Neither was I able to include discussion of Jason Merchant's recent proposal on 'fragments' (the paper downloadable at his HP) in the handout.

When I return to this topic, I will address the empirical generalization that has motivated (49) (as discussed in Fiengo&May 1994, Dahl 1974 and Sag 1976, Dalrymple, Shieber, & Pereira 1991, Fox 1998, 2000, and Tancredi 2000) and how the effects of (49) can be derived.

(49) *FD(A, B) if B is c-commanded by an NP C, where A and C have the same (indexical) value and C does not c-command A; cf. Fox 1998 and 2000: chap. 4.

The main methodological point I intended to make in my JK presentation is a general point that underlies the remarks at the end of section 4 of my Lingua paper, repeated here.

***
　　　It is thus possible to find empirical materials that are consistent with (some of) the predictions in (121). This is not surprising. Popper (1959) warns that "it is always deceptively easy to find verifications of a theory." What is predicted by (120) is not (135a) but (135b).

(135)　a.　There are empirical materials that are consistent with (121).
　　b.　There are no empirical materials that are not consistent with (121).

The intent of Popper's remark that "we have to adopt a highly critical attitude towards our theories if we do not wish to argue in circles: the attitude of trying to refute them" seems to be precisely this—in the context of the present discussion.⁸²

FN 82　　The relevant passage is given in (i).
(i)　　[O]bservations, and even more so observation statements and statements of experimental results, are always interpretations of the facts observed; that they are interpretations in the light of theories. This is one of the main reasons why it is always deceptively easy to find verifications of a theory, and why we have to adopt a highly critical attitude towards our theories if we do not wish to argue in circles: the attitude of trying to refute them. Popper (1959: 107, footnote *3)
***

For your easy reference, I repeat (120) and (121).

(120)　Standard Assumption/Hypothesis:
　　Otagai is a local anaphor.
(121)　Predictions made by (120):
　　a.　Otagai requires a linguistic antecedent.
　　b.　Otagai must be c-commanded by its antecedent.
　　c.　Otagai must be c-commanded by its antecedent in its local domain.
　　d.　Split antecedence is not possible for otagai.

　　What has happened, and is still happening, so it seems, with respect to otagai is a fairly transparent case where a given research is concerned with, and seems 'content' with, the demonstration that there are empirical materials that are consistent with the proposal in question. And if those empirical materials are, or appear to be, consistent with what is being claimed/adopted/assumed, they are taken to be evidence for it.
　　My JK presentation was meant to illustrate, by making reference to particular analyses of passives in Japanese, how one might proceed with the attitude of trying to refute the hypothesis one puts forth. To make my point, I emphasized the importance of 'negative propositions' and 'negative predictions'. In so doing, however, I made it sound as if it were not important to obtain confirmation for 'positive propositions' and 'positive predictions. This was pointed out to me by Bill McClure after my presentation. He pointed out that my presentation might have given, or perhaps gave, the audience who is not familiar with my work the impression that I do not care about obtaining confirmation for 'positive propositions' and 'positive predictions'. I do, and that is fairly obvious in my Lingua paper and elsewhere. But I am not content with that; in order to make our hypothesis falsifiable, I want to be able to deduce 'negative propositions' and 'negative predictions' from it. Furthermore, I want to be able to state exactly how one can conduct experiments to test such predictions.

Under this thread, I will place postings on:

"Surface and Deep Anaphora, Sloppy Identity, and Experiments in Syntax," (2003) In Anaphora: A Reference Guide, ed. A. Barss, Blackwell, pp. 172-236.

The following examples are from Lasnik, Howard. 2001, "When Can You Save a Structure by Destroying It?" NELS 31: 301-320, and these appear to pose a problem for the proposal in Fukaya 2003. We will try to address the relevant issues under this posting.

(1) a. (= Lasnik 2001: (51))
Every linguist_i met a philosopher who criticized some of his_i work, but I'm not sure how much of his_i work [every linguist_i met a philosopher who criticized t]
b. (= Lasnik 2001: (52))
Every linguist_i met a philosopher who criticized some of his_i work.
Tell me how much of his_i work [every linguist_i met a philosopher who criticized t]

(2) a. (= Lasnik 2001: (53))
??Every linguist_i met a philosopher who criticized some of his_i work, but I'm not sure how much of his_i work the philosopher criticized t
b. (= Lasnik 2001: (54))
?*Every linguist_i met a philosopher who criticized some of his_i work.
Tell me how much of his_i work the philosopher criticized t.

(3) a. (= Lasnik 2001: (55))
Each of the linguists met a philosopher who criticized some of the other linguists, but I'm not sure how many of the other linguists
b. (= Lasnik 2001: (56))
?*How many of the other linguists did the philosopher criticize

It is perhaps worth noting that Ueyama (1998) arrived at the generalizations in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 of the WECOL handout by focusing on paradigms, without resumption, that involve a certain type of binder-bindee pairs, so to speak, concentrating on the distribution of bound variable construal that is crucially based on a c-command relation at LF. If we included in our discussion bound variable construal that can arise independently of LF c-command, we would no longer be able to maintain the generalizations in question. Hoji 2003 (the Lingua paper) provides a summary of the relevant empirical materials. It is striking that the resumption paradigms, without involving bound variable construal, exhibit the same patterns as the paradigms discussed in Ueyama 1998, with respect to various OS (i.e., so-called scrambling) constructions. It should also be noted that the generalizations included in the WECOL handout constitute just a small portion of the empirical evidence in support of Ueyama's theory of anaphoric relations and her analysis of the OS constructions in Japanese, with other confirming evidence coming from the examination of a wide range of phenomena, including quantifier scope (a series of works by J.-R. Hayashishita) and local disjointness effects (in the sense of principle B of the binding theory). Kiyoko Kataoka's forthcoming dissertation (Kyushu University) discusses what is often called negative polarity items in Japanese, and investigates interactions among negation, the distribution of bound variable construal, quantifier scope, resumption, and the OS (i.e., so-called scrambling) constructions, providing further confirmation of the proposal in Ueyama 1998. Again, the clear generalizations emerge only if we focus on a certain type of interpretations that arise only on the basis of a c-command relation at LF.

Teru Fukaya's WCCFL 22 (2003) paper "Island (In)sensitivity in Japanese Sluicing and Stripping and Some Implications" is placed here.

A very slightly revised version of the JK 13 handout is placed here.