Case valuation after scrambling: Nominative objects in Japanese

This paper provides new evidence for the claim that nominative objects in Japanese undergo overt movement without remaining at their base-generated positions, based on a variant of the construction which has not received as much attention as its complex predicate counterpart. It is then argued that the overt movement is scrambling. Departing from the general assumption, this paper investigates the hypothesis that an application of scrambling affects Case valuation, which was originally investigated by Fukui & Nishigauchi (1992) and Fukui (1995) (cf. Kuno 2002). Under the proposal, a nominative object is scrambled from its original position to the edge of vP, where nominative Case can be assigned. When scrambling does not take place, the object stays in-situ and receives accusative Case at its base-generated position. In other words, the Case alternation is contingent on the application of scrambling, which captures the optionality of the Case alternation in terms of that of scrambling. It is also proposed that the proposed mechanism of the Case alternation be restricted in such a way that the landing site and the base-generated position are included in the same transferred domain. Given this restriction, it is also possible to correctly capture cases where scrambling does not affect case valuation. The proposed analysis crucially adopts the hypothesis proposed by Chomsky (2001), where the transferred domain is the complement of a phase head. To the extent that the proposed analysis is successful, this paper lends support to this characterization of transferred domains.


Introduction
One of the characteristic properties of Japanese is that it allows several cases of Case alternation. Accusative-Nominative alternation such as (1) is one such case. An object can be marked with nominative Case ga when a transitive verb is accompanied by the potentialsuffix(rar)e (Kuno 1973).
(3) Takano (2003: 825; with his judgement) a. John-wa migime-dake-o tumur-u koto-ga deki-ru. John-top right.eye-only-acc close-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'Johncancloseonlyhisrighteye.'(i)can > only (ii)?*only > can b. John-wa migime-dake-ga tumur-u koto-ga deki-ru. John-top right.eye-only-nom close-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'Johncancloseonlyhisrighteye.'(i)*can > only (ii)only > can Although this variant has been discussed by Kuno (2002), Takano (2003), and Hiraiwa (2005: 186), it has received less attention and its syntactic behavior remains to be relatively unexplored, compared to its complex predicate counterpart. 1 In contrast to the complex predicate type such as (1) and (2), the matrix predicate is a morphologically independent verb deki 'can' and takes a verbal complement headed by the nominalizer koto in (3). The reason why this paper focuses on the variant given in (3) is that in the complex predicate type, the potential suffix and the verb constitute a complex predicate, which limits the application of some syntactic tests that otherwise could have been applied. Since the variant in (3) is free from such a morphological integrity problem, it willbepossibletorevealanysyntacticpropertieswhichwecouldnotfindbasedonthe complexpredicatetype.Infact,takingacloserlookatthevariantin(3),thispaperwill provide novel pieces of evidence which show that the NO overtly undergoes movement from its base-generated position, as independently argued by Kuno (2002).
Investigating the nature of the overt movement of the NO is another goal of this study, which pursues the hypothesis that the relevant movement is scrambling, contrary to the general assumption that nominals have to retain their Case after scrambling. Departing from this general assumption, this paper proposes that the construction under investigation involves scrambling of an object to the position where nominative Case can be assigned. On the other hand, when scrambling does not take place, accusative Case is assigned to the object at the base-generated position. In other words, the relevant Case alternation is contingent on the application of scrambling. The precursor of the analysis is Fukui & Nishigauchi (1992) and Fukui (1995), where scrambling is involved in the socalled Nominative Genitive Conversion, wherein a genitive subject is scrambled to the point where genitive Case can be assigned. This paper revives this idea in analyzing NOs.
Before beginning a detailed discussion, an important issue will be mentioned here. Recall that Tada (1992) observes that the narrow scope reading of the NO is unavailable in (2b). Contrary to Tada, Nomura (2005) claims that the relevant narrow scope reading is allowedunderanappropriatecontext(seeNomura2005fordetails).FollowingNomura, this paper takes the position that the relevant narrow scope reading is available in (2b). Similarly,IfindthenarrowscopereadingoftheNOavailablein(3b)aswell,contraryto Takano (2003).
Therestofthispaperisorganizedasfollows.Carefullyexaminingsyntacticbehaviors of the variant given in (3), Section 2 argues that the NO overtly moves out of the kotophrase.Section3criticallyexaminestheovertmovementapproachespreviouslyundertaken by Tada (1992), Koizumi (1994) and Nomura (2005). Section 4 puts forward the hypothesis that the movement of a NO is scrambling, and then illustrates how to derive the Case alternation under investigation, with the discussion about why Case alternation takes place in a limited way. Section 5 summarizes the paper.

Structural asymmetries between NOs and AOs
This section investigates the syntactic behavior of NOs and AOs, taking a closer look at cases like (3), which have been discussed in Kuno (2002), Takano (2003), and Hiraiwa (2005). Two novel pieces of evidence will be provided in favor of the claim that NOs are outside of the koto-phrase,unlikeAOs.Thefirstonecomesfromcoordination.Letusconsider the contrast between (4a) and (4b).
The other argument involves the adverb mattaku 'at all,' which should be licensed by the clause-matenegation.(5b)isungrammaticalbecausetheadverb,whichisinthematrix clause, cannot be licensed by negation in the koto-phrase. In (5a) and (5c), on the other hand,theclause-materequirementissatisfied.  Since the adverb mattaku should be licensed by negation in the embedded clause, the adverb is a hallmark of the left edge of the koto-phrase, which guarantees that the AO and the NO are in the koto-phrase in (6a) and (6b), respectively. The ungrammaticality of (6b) supports the claim that NOs are not included in the koto-phrase. As shown in (6c), when theNOprecedestheadverb,theexamplebecomesgrammatical,whichshowsthattheNO is outside of the koto-phrase. 2 The novel pieces of evidence presented in this section indicate that the variant under investigation cannot be handled under one previous analysis, which was proposed by Takahashi (2010). He proposes that the wide scope interpretation of the NO dake-phrase in(2b)resultsfromanapplicationofthecovertoperationQuantifierRaising(seeSaito 2010 for a similar approach). His analysis is crucially based on the assumption that the NOstaysatitsunderlyingpositionliketheAOatovertsyntax,butthisassumptioncannot be maintained with the variant, as shown in this section. Kuno (2002) also investigates the relevant variant and claims that the NO undergoes overt movement out of the koto-phrase. The novel data presented in Section 2.1 is compatible with the overt movement approach but the relevant data can be also captured by base-generatingtheNOasanelementofthematrixclause,withoutappealingto movement.The 2 Kuno (2002) presents a similar argument, based on the manner adverb ryuutyooni 'frequently' as a hallmark of the left edge of the koto-phrase, as shown below.

Taroo-top fluently
Korean-nom speak-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'TaroocanspeakKoreanfluently.' My informants suggest that (ib) is not significantly degraded, compared to (ia). One possible explanation for the speakers' judgement is speculated as follows: they allow the relevant manner adverb to be base-generatedinthematrixclausesothatitcanmodifythematrixverbdeki. Thus, the NO can follow theadverb,evenifitmovestothematrixclause.Incontrast,thisoptionisnotavailablewiththeadverb mattaku because it should be in the same clause as negation in the embedded clause in (6b). The argument based on the adverb mattakuinthetextdemonstratesthepointinaclearerway. latter approach is pursued by Takano (2003). He proposes that (i) a NO is base-generated asaprolepticobjectinthematrixclauseand(ii)thattheobjectpositionoftheembedded predicate is occupied by pro, as illustrated in (7). (7) a. John-wa migime-dake-ga 1 [PRO pro 1 tumur]-e-ru. John-top right.eye-only-nom close-can-pres 'John can close only his right eye.' b. John-wa migime-dake-ga 1 [PRO pro 1 tumur-u] koto-ga deki-ru. John-top right.eye-only-nom close-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'John can close only his right eye.' Kuno (2002) does not discuss the base-generation approach but it is still important to examine which approach is more plausible. This is the topic of the rest of this section.
(i) a. Taroo-wa sono sigoto-ga Hanako-ni makase-ru koto-ga deki-ru. Taroo-top that job-nom Hanako-dat leave-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'Taroo can leave the job to Hanako.' b. ??Taroo-wa Hanako-ni sono sigoto-ga makase-ru koto-ga deki-ru. Taroo-top Hanako-dat that job-nom leave-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'Taroo can leave the job to Hanako.' According to the reviewer, the contrast above seems to suggest that the NO is indeed base-generated as a matrixelement.Firstofall,myinformantsfindnorobustcontrastin(i),butevenifthereisacontrastin(i), it is not clear that the degraded status of (ib) necessarily prefers the base-generation analysis to the overt movement analysis. Under the base-generation approach, it is likely that the degraded status of (ib) is due to the movement of Hanako-ni across the base-generated NO. Under the overt movement analysis, on the other hand, the same movement (the movement of Hanako-ni) is involved in (ib). Thus, the base-generation approach and the proposed analysis will end in a draw.
UnderTakano'sapproach,theNOisbase-generatedasaprolepticobjectinthematrix clause, which is higher than the binder Hanako-ni, as illustrated in (8b). It is necessary to scramble Hanako-ni across the NO in order to obtain the surface order, as illustrated in (8c). As (8b) shows, zibun is not c-commanded by the antecedent at the base-generated position, which leads to the expectation that (8a) would involve binding failure. One might suggest that binding relation between zibun and its antecedent can be established after the binder moves to a higher position than zibun in (8c). However, this suggestion is notmaintainable.Letusconsider(9).
c. [Hanako-ni] 1 sensei-wa t 1 mondai-o tok-ase-ta. Hanako-dat teacher-top question-acc answer-cause-past 'The teacher made Hanako answer the question.' In (9a), zibun is not c-commanded by its antecedent Hanako-ni. Even if Hanako-ni undergoes scrambling, the binding failure cannot be repaired, as shown in (9b). If scrambling could create a new binding relation between zibun and its antecedent, (9b) would be grammatical,contrarytofact.(9c)confirmsthatthescramblingofHanako-ni poses no problem if binding relation is not involved. The availability of zibun-binding in (8a) suggests that zibun in the NO is bound by its antecedent at the base-generated position and that the NO moves out of the koto-phrase followed by the movement of Hanako-ni, as illustrated below. (10) Taroo-ga [Hanako-ni 1 ] 2 [zibun 1 -no migite-dake-ga] 3 [t 2 t 3 age-sase-ru koto]-ga deki-ta.
This section has presented novel pieces of evidence in favor of the claim that the NO is outside of the koto-phrase at overt syntax, and then addressed the issue as to whether the relevant dislocation results from overt movement or base-generation, which has not been addressed by Kuno (2002). The section concludes that it is difficult to maintain the base-generation approach, based on the behavior of zibun-binding.

Overt movement approaches
In Section 2, it was shown that the relevant variant can be handled through neither Takahashi's (2010) nor Takano's (2003) approaches. The aim of this section is to critically examine another type of approach, where the NO undergoes overt movement for the purpose of Case checking, pursued by Tada (1992) and Koizumi (1994), among others. As reviewed later, Koizumi's analysis is more plausible than Tada's analysis, but it will bearguedthattheformeranalysisisalsodifficulttomaintain.Thisisbecause Koizumi's analysis is crucially based on the assumption that T's EPP is obligatorily satisfied in Japanese like English, but this assumption needs to be reconsidered, along the lines of Fukui (1986) and Kuroda (1988 In the structure above, [Spec, AGRoP] is higher than the potential predicate, which leads to the wide scope reading of the NO. The narrow scope reading of the AO is successfully captured because the AO stays within VP. The scope asymmetry between the NO and the AOin (2)isthusexplained. Although Tada's analysis successfully captures the wide scope nature of the NO, his analysis faces some problems, pointed out by Koizumi (1994). One of them is given below.
(12) Koizumi (1994: 220) Underhis(=Tada's)analysis,nominativeCaseislicensedbytwodifferent categories: nominative Case of subjects is licensed by Tense (+AGRs), and nominative Case of (nominative) objects is licensed by [+stative] predicates (+AGRo).Tenseisafunctionalcategory,while[+stative]predicatesarelexical categories (verbs, adjectives, and adjectival nouns). These two categories have nothingincommon,exceptfortheallegednominativeCaselicensingability.It is not clear at all why nominative Case should be licensed by two distinct sets of categoriesasdifferentasTenseandstativepredicates.Thisfactalone,ofcourse, does not render the analysis untenable, but it surely makes it dubious. Koizumi (1994) solves this problem by proposing that the Case of the NO is licensed by T in the same way as nominative subjects. This proposal is technically implemented by arguing that the NO overtly moves to [Spec, TP]. One of his arguments is based on scope interactionwithnegation.Letusconsiderthefollowingexample.
Koizumi's analysis crucially assumes that Japanese T plays a significant role in syntactic computation in a way similar to English T, which induces φ-feature agreement and triggers A-movement for the EPP requirement. However, this assumption should be carefullyexamined.IthasbeencontroversialwhetherJapanesehasA-movementsuchas passivizationandraisinginEnglishandotherlanguageswhichexhibitφ-featureagreement. Concerning passivization, one could analyze the so-called passive construction in Japanese such as (14a) in the same way as its English counterpart, which is widely analyzed in terms of A-movement, as illustrated in (14b). (14) a. Taroo-ga Hanko-ni hihans-are-ta. Taroo-nom Hanako-dat criticize-pass-past 'Taroo was criticized by Hanako.' b. Taroo-ga 1 Hanko-ni t 1 hihans-are-ta.
However, this is not the only possible analysis of the Japanese passive. Some researches arguethatexamplessuchas(14a)involveaclausalcomplementandthatthedislocated subject is the argument selected by the passive morpheme (Kuroda 1965/79, among many others). Additionally, given that scrambling is widely available in Japanese, it will be also plausible to analyze the dislocation of the nominative subject is scrambling. In fact, carefullyexaminingreconstructioneffects, Hoji(2008)arguesthattherelevantdislocationin Japanese passive is analyzed as scrambling. The optionality of the dislocation of Taroo-ga in (14)isstraightforwardlyexplainedunderthescramblinganalysisbecausescrambling is also optional.
From a conceptual perspective, there is no reason to claim that T's EPP is obligatorily satisfied in Japanese either. Recall that EPP was originally proposed as a structural requirement in order to capture the appearance of expletive elements in some languages like English (Chomsky 1981; see also Bever 2009; Chomsky 2009 for relevant discussion). As one of the reviewers points out, since EPP is just the name of a phenomenon in those languages, not a principle, nothing conceptually forces this structural requirement to hold universally. In fact, McCloskey (2001) and Bobaljik & Wurmbrand (2005), among others, argue that EPP does not hold universally. Recently, Chomsky (2015) also suggested that Italian lacks EPP. Turning to Japanese, given the absence of expletive elements, it is plausible to argue that T has no EPP requirement in the language. In fact, Fukui (1986) and Kuroda (1988) take a similar stand and pursue the hypothesis that Japanese subjects do not have to move to [Spec, TP] but can stay insitu, unlike English.
One of the arguments for subject raising in Japanese in the literature is presented by Kishimoto (2001). His argument is based on the syntactic distribution of indeterminate pronouns in cases like (15), where they concur with the particle mo, which is originally studied by Kuroda (1965/79).
Hanako-wa [Taroo-ga nani-o kat-ta to mo] omowa-nakat-ta. Hanako-top Taroo-nom what-acc buy-past that part think-not-past 'Hanako did not think that Taroo bought anything.' Kishimoto (2001: 600) observes that there is a subject/object asymmetry when mo is attached to a verb, as illustrated below.
(16) a. *Dare-ga warai-mo si-nakat-ta. who-nom laugh-part do-not-past 'Nobody laughed.' b. Taroo-wa dare-ni ai-mo si-nakat-ta. Taroo-top who-dat see-part do-not-past 'Taroo did not meet anyone.' Kishimoto claims (i) that mo is combined with a verb and they move to v together and (ii) that the scope of mo is the vP. He argues that the ungrammaticality of (16a) results from theexistenceofsubjectraisingto[Spec,TP]outofthedomainofmo.
However, it is necessary to reconsider the generalization that subject indeterminate pronouns cannot be licensed by mo attached to the verb. In fact, Kuroda (1965/79) provides thefollowingexample,wheretheindeterminatepronounoccupiesthesubjectposition.
(18) Takano (2003: 803) ?Watasi-wa dare-ni [koi to mo] itte-inai. I-top who-dat come that part said-have.not 'I haven't said to anyone to come.' In (18), dare-niisanobjectofthematrixverbwhile mo is attached to the complement. It is obvious that the former does not fall under the scope of mo.Nevertheless,theexampleisacceptable.Totheextentthatthenatureofindeterminatepronounsisnotclearly understood,itseemstobedifficulttoemploythemasadiagnosticforexploringthesyntactic position of a subject in Japanese (see also Yamashita 2009 for a prosodic analysis of the relevant construction).
However,suchellipsisanalysisisnotplausible.Letusconsidertheungrammaticalityof(22a). If it were possible to derive (19) via ellipsis as illustrated in (21), (22a) would be analyzed as (22b) in a way similar to (21). It is not clear why the ellipsis strategy available for (21) is not available for (22b). On the other hand, under the non-ellipsis approach, the ungrammaticality of (22a) is easily captured in terms of coordination of non-constituents. It is obvious that Taroo-ga, Hanako-ni, nattoo-o and tabe do not make a constituent in (22a). Thus, it is more plausible to claim that (19) should be analyzed as (20) without recourse to ellipsis, which indicates that Japanese subjects do not have to move to [Spec, TP].
AsimilarargumentholdswithNOs.ThefollowingexampleshowsthattheNOdoesnot undergo movement to [Spec, TP], contrary to Koizumi (1994). (23) Hanako-wa gakuhu-ga surasurato yom-u koto-ga deki, piano-ga Hanako-top score-nom easily read-pres nmlz-nom can piano-nom ryooote-de hik-u koto-ga deki-ru yooni natta. both.hands-with play-pres nmlz-nom can-pres comp happened 'It happened that Hanako was able to read scores easily and play the piano by both hands.' It is plausible to claim that (23) involves vP-coordination as illustrated in (24a) Alternatively, (23) could be analyzed as (24b), which involves TP coordination with ellipsistakingplaceontherightedgeofthefirstconjunct.However,recallthatsuchanellipsis analysis is not plausible, as discussed in (22a). 5 Nomura (2005) also pursues the analysis where the NO is licensed by T. Deviating from Koizumi, he proposes that the NO is allowed to stay at its base-generated position, in addition to the option of moving to [Spec, TP]. Under Nomura's analysis, the grammaticality of (23) can be accommodated but given the data presented in Section 2, where it was shown that the NO overtly moves out of the koto-phrase from its underlying position, it is not plausible to allow the NO to stay in its base-generated position.

Proposal
The aim of this section is to provide an alternative analysis of the construction under discussion. Before presenting details of the proposal, the gist of it is provided below. Given thatJapanesedoesnotexhibitφ-featureagreement,thispaperadoptstheapproachwhere a nominal is assigned Case on the basis of its structural position without appealing to 5 Yatsushiro (1999) also casts doubt on Koizumi's proposal that the landing site of NOs is [Spec, TP]. She argues that the NO is contained within the fronted VP in (i).
(i) Yatsushiro (1999: 96) [Eigo-ga hanas-e]-sae 1 Kai-ga t 1 sita. English-nom speak-can-even Kai-nom did 'Even to be able to speak English, Kai managed.' YatsushiroarguesthatunderKoizumi'sanalysisthefrontedVPwouldbeexpectedtobeunabletocontain the NO eigo-ga because it would have to move to [Spec, TP]. However, it is not clear how successful her argument is. It seems that nothing prevents the example (i) from being analyzed as (ii), where the NO undergoes scrambling to the sentence-initial position from [Spec, TP], across the fronted VP.
(ii) Eigo-ga 1 [t 1 hanas-e]-sae 2 Kai-ga t 1 t 2 sita. agreement (see Kuroda 1978;Saito 1982;Fukui 1986; Zushi 2016 among others), instead of the Agree-based approach to Case (Chomsky 2000). Investigation of the internal structure of the koto-phrase is also an important step for a better understanding of the relevant construction. It will be argued that the koto-phrase taken by deki involves restructuring in the sense of Wurmbrand (2001). That is, the verb phrase within the relevant koto-phrase is just VP, not vP.ThispointwillbeexploredintermsoftheNegativeConcordItems.The most important point of the proposed analysis is to challenge the general assumption that scramblingdoesnotaffectCasevaluation.Itwillbearguedthatscramblednominalscan receive Case at the landing site of scrambling in principle and that this is indeed involved in the relevant construction.

Case
Under the standard approach to Case in the minimalist program, Case valuation is obtained asaby-productofφ-featureagreement(Chomsky2000).Itiscontroversialwhetherthis Agree-based approach is plausible to some languages which do not exhibit φ-feature agreement such as Japanese. The literature includes another view of Case, whereby a nominal is assigned Case based on its structural position without appealing to agreement (see Kuroda 1978;Saito 1982;Fukui 1986 among others). Zushi (2016) investigates the latterapproachundertheminimalistprogramandproposesthatCasevaluationisexecuted in non-agreement languages such as Japanese via the following mechanisms, which are adopted in this paper.
(25) Zushi (2016: 48) a. Whenanominalismergedwithalexicalhead,itsCasefeatureisvaluedas accusative. b. When a nominal is merged with a phase head (v or n), its Case feature is valued as nominative or genitive. c. Otherwise, the Case feature of a nominal is valued as dative.
This paper also follows Zushi (2016) with respect to the structure of stative predicates, most of which are adjectives and nominal adjectives. Assuming that adjectives and nominal adjectives must combine with a phase head to take arguments, which is originally due to Baker (2003) and Kayne (2009), she proposes that a theme argument of a stative predicate occupies an edge position of v, not the complement position of the predicate. Thus, (26a) has the structure given in (26b). The internal argument is assigned nominative Case ga under the mechanism given in (25b).
Before showing how the construction under investigation is derived, let us take a closer look at the internal structure of the koto-phraseinthenextsubsection.

On the internal structure of the koto-phrase
The nominalizer koto can be employed not only with the stative verb deki but also with non-stative verbs such as kokoromi 'try' as shown in (28a), where the koto-phrase is marked with accusative Case o, not nominative Case ga, in contrast to the construction under investigation, repeated as (28b). 6 (28) a. Taroo-wa issyookenmei benkyoos-uru koto-o kokoromi-ta. Taroo-top hard study-pres nmlz-acc try-past 'Taroo tried to work hard.' b. Taroo-wa migime-dake-ga tumur-u koto-ga deki-ru. Taroo-top right.eye-only-nom close-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'Taroo can close only his right eye.' Inwhatfollows,itwillbeshownthatdespitetheabsenceoftheapparentdifference,the koto-phrasein(28a)hasadifferentinternalstructurefromthatin(28b),basedonthe Japanese wh-mo expression appearing under a negative context such as dare-mo 'whopart' and nani-mo 'what-part. ' Following Watanabe (2004), let us call these items negative concord items (NCIs) in this paper. The contrast between (29a) and (29b) shows that the NCI requires negation.
(29) a. Taroo-wa dare-ni-mo awa-nakat-ta. Taroo-top who-dat-part see-not-past 'Taroo did not see anyone.' b. *Taroo-wa dare-ni-mo at-ta. Taroo-top who-dat-part see-past Lit.'Taroosawanyone.' c. *Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga dare-ni-mo au to] iwa-nakat-ta. Taroo-top Hanako-nom who-dat-part see that say-not-past 'Taroo did not say that Hanako would see anyone.' It has also been observed that the NCI and negation should be involved in the same clause, as shown in (29c). 6 One of the reviewers points out that there is another type of koto-phrase, where tense is realized. The relevantexampleisgivenin(i).
As has been discussed, this paper takes the view that Japanese does not employ the Agree-based approach to Case valuation. However, this leaves the possibility that Agree still plays a role in other syntactic dependencies in Japanese where φ-feature is not involved. This paper adopts the hypothesis that the dependency between the relevant NCI and negation is captured via Agree. Along the lines of Yamashita (2003) and Maeda (2004), this paper also argues that the clause-mate requirement in question is derived from the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), proposed by Chomsky (2000;. 7 Given that phases play an important role in the syntactic computation under the current minimalist program, it is desirable to reduce the clause-mate requirement to the PIC, originally proposed by Chomsky (2000), as given in (30) (31), on the other hand, the non-phase head X is allowed to probe into the domain of H (i.e. YP), although YP is still inaccessible to the next higher phase head Z. In fact, the latter definition is supported by the so-called quirky NO in Icelandic such as in (33). "X" in (32) is T in the followingexample,wheretheNOagreeswithT.
Taroo-only come-past LetusconsiderthetimingofTransferoftheVPwithinthekoto-phrase. Given the PIC formulated in (31), it is reasonable to assume that when a given phase becomes part of another phase, the complement of the lower phase head gets transferred and becomes inaccessible. In (37), when the koto-phraseismergedtoanedgepositionofthematrix vP, the VP complement gets transferred, which makes the VP inaccessible. The kotophrase in (37) itself is still accessible to further syntactic computation because it occupies an edge position of the matrix vP. However, the VP within the koto-phrase is no longeraccessibleatthematrixvP-phase level. Thus, negation, which is outside of the matrixvP,isexpectedtofailtoprobeintotheVPcontainingtherelevantNCI,asisthe case in (36), which calls for an alternative structure in order to capture the restructuring effectabove.
Wurmbrand (2001) proposes that some restructuring predicates which she calls "lexicalrestructuringpredicates"combinewithabareVP,whichlacksanembedded syntactic subject. It is claimed in this paper that what is selected by koto in (35b) is also a bare VP without a vP-layer within the koto-phrase. Under this analysis, nai can probe into the VP within the koto-phrase due to the absence of a vP-layer within the koto-phrase. Given the absence of the vP-layer within the koto-phrase, since NegP involves only one phase, the NCI is accessible to negation, which leads to the welcome result, as illustrated in (38).
The grammaticality of (35b) also suggests that the relevant koto is not a complementizer as a phase head. If so, the NCI in (35b) would fail to be licensed by negation, contrary to fact. One might say that koto takes a TP because it is sometimes assumed in the literature that the morpheme attached to the verbal stem (i.e. (r)u) is a realization of present tense. In fact, this paper has glossed and continues to gloss the morpheme as "present" for the sake of convenience. However, this is not the only way of analyzing the morpheme in question. Alternatively, it is also plausible to analyze the morpheme as part of a verbal conjugation. In other words, the morpheme is just required for morpho-phonological reasons, without any semantic meaning (see Kusumoto 1999 for relevant discussion). Under this view, the relevant morpheme is required to make the verb an adnominal form when it appears before the noun koto. This paper adopts the latter view, which is compatible with Wurmbrand's claim that the relevant restructuring predicates take a bare VP. 8 Under the proposal, it is obvious that what is directly selected by the relevant verbs (kokoromi and deki) is a koto-phrase. One of the reviewers raises a question regarding how to ensure that the koto-phrase selected by kokoromi involves a vP while that selected by deki involves a VP, and not vice versa. As both of the verbs take a koto-phrase, it is reasonablethattheyarelexicallyspecifiedinsuchawaythattheysyntacticallytakeanominal argument (i.e. an argument with [+N]). In addition to this syntactic selection, they are alsolexicallyspecifiedconcerningsemanticselection.Forexample,theverbkokoromi is lexicallyspecifiedinsuchawaythatittakesapropositionasasemantictype.VPcorresponds to a predicative event while vP, which involves an embedded subject, corresponds toaproposition.Letusalsoassumethatthenominalizerkoto itself does not make any semantic contribution: if a given syntactic object X is merged with koto, the larger syntactic object {koto,X}hasthesamesemantictypeasX.Forexample,thesemantictypeof vP (i.e. a proposition) is inherited to the koto phrase where koto takes a vP. Suppose that kokoromi is merged with such a koto-phrase. Since kokoromi needs to take a proposition, no type mismatch will arise between the verb and the koto-phrase. On the other hand, if kokoromi is merged with the koto-phrase where koto takes a VP, type mismatch will arise because the relevant koto-phrase is interpreted as a predicative event, which kokoromi does not want.
Note that the koto-phrase in (35a) involves o while that in (35b) involves ga, which indicates that the former stays at the complement of the verb and the latter occupies an edge position of vP. One might say that the asymmetry in (35) is somehow due to the positionaldifferencesofthekoto-phrases in the structure. However, this is not the case. Interestingly, the passive counterpart of (35a), whose koto-phrase is marked with ga, is also ungrammatical, as shown in (39).

Case valuation after scrambling
It has been widely assumed that a noun phrase never changes its Case marker as a result of scrambling. That is, a scrambled phrase retains its Case marker assigned before scrambling. It is true that this is well-established empirically but theoretically speaking, nothing prevents nominals from receiving Case after scrambling in principle. In fact, Fukui & Nishigauchi (1992) and Fukui (1995) pursue the hypothesis that an application of scrambling can change its Case marker of a noun phrase, on the basis of Nominative/Genitive Conversion such as (40a) and (40b), which was originally discussed by Harada (1971 It has been argued that nominative Case marker ga can alternate with genitive Case marker no under several syntactic contexts such as relative clauses and noun complements (see Maki & Uchibori 2008 for an overview). Particularly, under Fukui's (1995) analysis, the converted form in (40b) is derived in such a way that the subject of the relative clause undergoes scrambling out of that embedded clause and is merged to the nominal projection, where it receives genitive Case no, as illustrated in (40c). Under the mechanism of Case valuation adopted in this paper given in (25b), the relevant landing site is the edge of nP. AsimilaranalysishasbeensuggestedtotheconstructionexploredinthispaperbyKuno (2002).Asbrieflymentionedearlier,KunoclaimsthattheNOovertlyundergoesmovement ("focus raising" in his words) out of the koto-phrase, as shown in (41) The moved object receives nominative Case at the landing site under the assumption that the stativity of deki percolates onto the VP node. The percolated stativity is responsible for assigning nominative Case, even though the moved object is not a sister of deki.
Given that the theoretical status of percolation is not clear enough under the current syntactic theory, it would be desirable to eliminate the mechanism of percolation. In addition, Kuno does not address the issue on how to regulate Case alternation due to an applicationofscrambling.Forexample,evenifanaccusativeobjectundergoes scrambling, it retains accusative Case at the landing site, as shown below. (42) Kono-hon-o/*ga Taroo-ga yon-da. this-book-acc/nom Taroo-nom read-past 'Taroo read this book.' In what follows, I also would like to pursue the hypothesis that scrambled phrases can receive Case at the landing site in a more sophisticated way. In doing so, I address the issue as to why scrambling can affect Case alternation in such a restricted way under the conceptions of minimalist program, without appealing to the mechanism of percolation.
This paper takes the view that the operation of valuation can freely apply. Although the application itself is optional, if unvalued features remain at the end of a derivation, the derivation will be illegitimate. Even if a nominal occurs in the appropriate configuration of Case valuation, Case valuation does not have to apply. If Case feature of the nominal is valued later in the course of a derivation, the Case feature will not make the derivation illegitimate. Thus, the object does not have to receive accusative Case at the base-generated position, although it is possible. The object can undergo scrambling with its Case feature unvalued, as illustrated in (44). Then, the scrambled phrase receives nominative Case ga at the landing site of scrambling (i.e. an edge position of vP) because the structural requirement for Case valuation is appropriatelysatisfied. 9 One of the advantages of the proposed analysis is that nominative subjects and nominativeobjectsarebothlicensedinastructurallyunifiedway:bothofthemarelicensedat an edge position of vP. Recall Koizumi's criticism of Tada's analysis given in (12). Under the latter, there are two sources for nominative Case assignment: stative predicates and T. The proposed approach overcomes this problem by unifying the two modes of nominative Case assignment.
Since the landing site of scrambling is higher than the predicate deki 'can,' it is correctly expected that the NO can take wide scope over deki. Since scrambling is optional, the object can remain at the base-generated position in (44). Since the base-generated position is the only position for Case valuation with the object, it should receive accusative Case there, which leads to the accusative counterpart given in (45). 10 (45) Taroo-ga migime-dake-o tumur-u koto-ga deki-ru. Taroo-nom right.eye-only-acc close-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'Taroo can close only his right eye.' 9 The koto-phrase can undergo scrambling, leaving behind the NO, as shown below.
close nmlz-nom Taroo-top right.eye-only-nom can-pres 'Taroo can close only his right eye.' Onemightsaythat(i)issupposedtobeexcludedinawaysimilarto(ii),bytheProperBindingCondition (PBC) because the unbound trace within the koto-phrase is a trace of scrambling under the proposed analysis.
(ii) Saito (1985: 167) *[Mary-ga t 1 yonda to] 2 sono hon-o 1 John-ga t 2 itta (koto). Mary-nom read that that book-acc John-nom said fact '(the fact that) John said that Mary read that book.' It is true that the unbound trace in (i) is created by scrambling under the proposed analysis; however, thereisadifferencebetweentheunboundtracein(i)andthatin(ii):theCasefeatureisunvaluedinthe former whereas the Case feature is valued in the latter. At this point it is speculated that the trace whose Case feature is not valued is exempt from the PBC. This is independently supported by the following examples.
(iii) Goodall (1997: 133) a. John said he would return the books, and [returned t 1 ] 2 they 1 were t 2 last Thursday. b. [How likely t 2 to win] 1 is John 2 t 1 ?
Since the nature of the PBC effect is controversial under the minimalist program, further investigation of this issue is left for future research. See also Takita (2009) and Takahashi (To appear) for more recent approachestothePBCeffect. 10 Under the structure given in (44), deki does not c-command the base-generated position of the dake-phrase.
Letusassumethatinorderforascopebearingelementtotakescopeoveranotherscopebearingelement, theformerhastoc-commandthelatter.Itisexpectedthatdeki cannot take scope over the dake-phrase because the former fails to c-command the latter. One speculative solution is as follows. Given that deki takes the koto-phrase with the aid of v, it would not be implausible to say that what functions as a predicate in the relevant construction is a unit of v and deki (i.e. {v, deki}) not deki itself and that the relevant unit plays an important role in other computation such as scope calculation. Since the relevant unit c-commands the lower copy of the dake-phrase,thenarrowscopereadingofitcanbecorrectlyexpected.Thisspeculation would be the case with other stative predicates given in (26a). Further investigation of this issue is left for future research.
Theanalysisgivenin(44)isextendedtothecomplexpredicatecounterpartsuchas(2b), repeatedas(46a),whosederivationisgivenin(46b),wherethepotentialsuffixe occupies the complement position of v, in a way similar to deki in (44). 11,12 (46) a. John-ga migime-dake-ga tumur-e-ru. John-nom right.eye-only-nom close-can-pres 'John can close only his right eye.' Under the proposed approach, the Case alternation is contingent on application of scrambling. Thus, the optionality of Case alternation is due to that of scrambling. The optionality of scrambling itself is not a problem. It is true that the optionality of scrambling used to be a problem under the early minimalist program, where the application of movement is restricted in such a way that it is subject to Last Resort: movement is obligatory. However, under the recent "Free Merge" theory of movement (Chomsky 2013;2015), where movement/Internal Merge freely applies, the optionality of scrambling ceasestobeaproblem.RatherJapanesescramblingisareflectionofthenotionofFree Merge in a straightforward way, as suggested by one of the reviewers.
As has been discussed so far, scrambling plays a crucial role in triggering Case alternation in Japanese. In what follows, it will be argued that employing the structure-based approach to Case valuation is also important to the availability of Case alternation. As one of the reviewers points out, even though some languages such as Italian and German also have many restructuring phenomena, Case alternation is not allowed in those languages. LetustakeGermanasanexample.RecallthatWurmbrand(2001)arguesthatrestructur-inginvolvesaconfigurationwheretheembeddedpredicateinvolvesbareVP-structure, not full vP-structure. The so-called easy-to-please construction is one of them, given below. 11 Onereviewerobservesthat(43)isslightlydegradedthanthecomplexpredicatecounterpartunlesssome emphasis is put on the NO. Another reviewer also observes that a pause is required after the NO in (43). Theseeffectsseemtobecompatiblewiththeproposedapproachbecausescramblinghastheeffectoffocalization more or less, which requires a pause after the fronted phrase. However, if scrambling is involved inthecomplexpredicatecounterpartaswell,aquestionarisesastowhyitdoesnotexhibitsucheffects obligatorily. Anotherreviewerpointsoutasimilarasymmetrybetweenthevariantandthecomplexpredicatecounterpart.She/heobservesthattheNOmustreceiveexhaust-listinginterpretationinthefollowingexample, contrarytothecomplexpredicatecounterpart(seealsonote4).
(i) Taroo-wa sono sigoto-ga Hanako-ni makaser-u koto-ga deki-ru. Taroo-top that job-nom Hanako-dat leave-pres nmlz-nom can-pres 'Taroo can leave the job to Hanako.' The obligatory exhaust-listing interpretation with the variant could also be challenging for the unificationapproachpursuedinthispaper.Itisspeculatedthatthecomplexpredicatecounterpartcanhavean alternative derivation where scrambling of the NO is not involved. Consequently, the latter derivation is freefromthefocuseffectsmentionedabove.Onepossibilityisthatsuchanalternativederivationinvolves "head-head merger," proposed by Saito & Hoshi (1998). This approach directly merges the verb tumur with the potential predicate e in (46a), without appealing to scrambling. More detailed investigation of this issue will be needed, and it is left for future research. 12 Nomura(2005)alsoproposesthattheNOconstructionwithacomplexpredicateinvolvesrestructuring: thecomplementofthematrixpredicateisabareVP,inawaysimilartotheproposedanalysis.However, NomuraproposesthattheAOcounterpartdoesnotinvolverestructuring:thecomplementofthematrix verb is a vP.Nomura'sanalysisoftheAOcounterpartcannotbeextendedtothevariantunderinvestigation becausethereisdifficultytocapturethegrammaticalityof(35b),repeatedbelow.
(i) Taroo-wa [dare-ni-mo purezento-o age-ru koto]-ga deki-nai. Taroo-top who-dat-part present-acc give-pres nmlz-nom can-not 'Taroo can't give a present to anyone.' RecallthatsincetheexistenceofvP-phase within the koto-phrase prevents negation from probing into the VP within the vP, the NCI would not be licensed by negation, contrary to fact.
(47) Wurmbrand (2001: 27) Dieser Text ist schwer zu lessen. this text.nom is hard to read 'Thistextishardtoread.' There is no case assigner within the embedded VP. Dieser Text has to undergo Agree with T, followed by movement to [Spec, TP], and nominative Case is assigned to Dieser Text. It is crucial that the object cannot appear with accusative Case, as shown below.
(48) Wurmbrand (2001: 37) *weil den Traktor leicht zu riparieren ist since the tractor.acc easy to repair is 'since the tractor is easy to repair' The ungrammaticality of (48) shows that Case alternation is not allowed even under therestructuringcontextinGerman,unlikeJapanese.Asthereviewerabovepointsout, thedifferencewithrespecttothe(un)availabilityofCasealternationboilsdowntothe difference concerning the way of case valuation: the structure-based approach vs the Agree-based approach. If German adopted the former approach, the object could receive accusativeCasein-situin(48)andtheexamplewouldbegrammatical,contrarytofact.

A constraint on Case alternation
LetusconsidertheimportantissuewhichKuno (2002) Under the proposed analysis so far, nothing would prevent kono-hon from receiving nomi-nativeCase,contrarytofact.Letusassumethatonceanunvaluedfeatureisassigneda value, it cannot undergo another process of valuation. On this assumption, in order for the scrambled object to receive nominative Case at the edge of vP, the Case feature of the object should remain unvalued when the object stays at the base-generated position. When Transfer applies to the complement of v, the unvalued Case feature (uCase) of the object will be transferred to the interfaces, as illustrated below. (50)

vP vP
Taroo v' VP v kono-hon [uCase] V -----> Transfer I would like to propose that the interfaces check whether a Case feature is valued or not in each transferred domain. Under this proposal, once a nominal is sent to the interfaces with its Case feature unvalued, the Case feature is not legible at the interfaces, even thoughtheCasefeatureofthenominalisvaluedatthenexttransferreddomain.Thus,the unvalued Case feature within the VP makes the derivation illegitimate. To circumvent this problem, the object has to be given a value of its Case feature at the base-generated position. In this case, the object cannot receive nominative Case after it undergoes scrambling because it has already received Case. It is thus guaranteed that the scrambled nominal does not receive Case after scrambling in (49). LetusturntotheissueastohowTransferappliesto(44).AsdiscussedinSection4.2, Transfer does not take place within the koto-phrase because of the absence of a vP-layer. AtthematrixCP-phaselevelthescrambleddake-phrase and the kokto-phrase are transferred together. Since the interfaces check whether a Case feature is valued or not in each transferreddomain,asproposedearlier,itisconfirmedattheinterfacesthattheCasefeature of migime-dake has been valued. 13 The proposed analysis also captures the unavailability of Accusative-Nominative alternation in the koto-phrase under kokoromi, as shown below. (51) Taroo-wa migime-dake-o/*ga tumur-u koto-o kokoromi-ta. Taroo-top right.eye-only-acc/nom close-pres nmlz-acc try-past 'Taroo tried to close only his right eye.' In order for the argument of the lower verb to receive nominative Case, it has to move to the edge of vP. One possibility is moving to the edge of vP within the koto-phrase. Recall that under the proposed approach, the koto-phrase selected by kokoromi has a vP, in contrast to deki. In this case, the unvalued Case feature makes the derivation illegitimate in the same way as (50). Even if the relevant argument moves to the edge of vPinthematrix clause, the problem cannot be circumvented because the base-generated position and the landing site are transferred separately.
The discussion about the locality constraint on the NCI leads to the conclusion that koto is not a C as a phase head, as argued in Section 4.2. If koto were a phase head, the underlying position of a nominal and its landing site would be transferred separately. One reviewer points out that the koto-phrase under discussion behaves differently from the koto-phrase where tense is realized in (52b).
(52) a. Taroo As shown in (52a), the koto-phrase selected by deki does not allow Nominative-Genitive Conversion, in contrast to (52b). Since n is responsible for assigning Genitive case, the koto in (52a) is not n as a phase head either. 13 As discussed in Section 4.2, the koto-phrase selected by kokoromi 'try' involves a vP-phase, which is supported by failure to license a NCI (see (35a) and (39)). It is predicted that the object which is base-generated within the koto-phrase selected by kokoromi could not receive nominative Case at the landing site of scram-blingduetotheexistenceofthevP-phase, even though the koto-phrase occupies the edge of vP. Recall from the discussion in (39) that the subject of the passive construction appears at the edge of vP.Thisexpectation isborneoutby(i),wheretheexamplewithnominativeCaseisdegraded.
(i) Hanako-ni purezento-o/*ga age-ru koto-ga kokoromi-rare-ta. Hanako-dat present-acc/nom give-pres nmlz-nom try-pass-past Lit.'ItwastriedtogiveapresenttoHanako.' Another crucial point of the analysis is that the koto-phrase occupies an edge position of vP, which enables the koto-phrasetoescapefromthetransferreddomainatthematrixvPphase. If the koto-phrase were at the complement of v, it would undergo Transfer separately from the edges of vP and the same problem discussed in (50) would arise. Since this paper adopts the idea that base-generating a theme argument at an edge position of vP is available for stative predicates, not for non-stative predicates, the proposed analysis correctly captures the generalization that the investigated Case alternation is available only for the former.
One of the theoretically important points of this paper is to adopt the assumption that the transferred domain is the complement of a phase head, following Chomsky (2001) among others. This assumption plays a crucial role in the above discussion in that the basegenerated position and the landing site of scrambling are transferred separately and the unwantedCasealternationin(49)iscorrectlyexcluded.Alternatively, Chomsky(2000) andBošković (2016)amongothershavearguedthatthephaseitself,notthecomplement of a phase head, is transferred. Under the latter approach, the base-generated position and the landing site of scrambling are included in the same transferred domain, which under-minesanexplanationfortheunwantedCasealternationin(49).Totheextentthatthe proposed analysis is on the right track, this paper lends support to the former approach.
As has been argued, Case alternation is available only when the underlying position of a nominal and its landing site of scrambling are included in the same transferred domain. In whatfollows,thederivationofothercasesofCasealternationwillbeexaminedinterms ofthisconstraint.LetusconsiderthederivationofNominative-GenitiveConversion.Recall that under the analysis put forward in this paper along the lines of Fukui & Nishigauchi (1992) and Fukui (1995), the subject of a relative clause moves out of that clause via scrambling and is merged with nP. The transfer-domain-mate restriction has two implications for the analysis of relative clauses. One is that relative clauses cannot be merged with the complement of n. If the relative clause were merged with the complement of n, the former would be included in the transferred domain at nP. Thus, the landing site and the original position wouldbeindifferenttransferreddomains,whichblockstherelevantCasealternation. Ontheotherhand,iftherelativeclauseisexemptfromthetransferreddomainatthe nP-level, as illustrated in (53b), the base-position and the landing site are included in the same transferred domain. Another implication is that Japanese relative clauses involve no CP-layer, which is independently argued by Murasugi (1990). Otherwise, Transfer would apply to the complement of C within the relative clause, including the base-position of the subject. Since the landingsiteofthescrambledsubjectwouldbetransferredinthedifferentdomain,the relevant Case alternation would be blocked, contrary to fact. 14 b. Taroo-wa dareka-ni 40izyoo-no sigoto-ga makase-ru Taroo-top someone-dat more.than.40-gen job-nom leave-pres koto-ga deki-ru. nmlz-nom can-pres 'Taroo can leave someone more than 40 jobs.' c. Taroo-wa dareka-ni 1 40 izyoo-no sigoto-ga 2 [t 1 t 2 makase-ru] koto-ga deki-ru.
However,contrarytothisexpectation,thereisnosignificantcontrastbetween(60a)and (60b):itisdifficulttoobtainthewidescopereadingof40izyoo-no sigoto in (60b) in a waysimilarto(60a).Itistruethattheproposedanalysisoffersnoclearanswerforthe difficultytoobtaintherelevantwidescopereadingin(60b);however,otheralternative approaches also fail to do so. Under Koizumi (1994) and Nomura (2005), (60b) could have the derivation where the NO moves to [Spec, TP], which is followed by the movement of the dative argument, in the way illustrated in (60c). A-movement can yield a new scope relation that is otherwise unavailable, as shown in (61), where someone can take wide scope over likely.ItisexpectedthattheA-movementoftheNOcouldyieldthewide scope of it.
(61) Someone 1 is likely to t 1 win the race. Tada's (1992) analysis also has a similar prediction because the landing site of the NO ([Spec, AGRoP] under his analysis) is higher than the underlying position of the dative argument, in a way similar to the proposed analysis.

Conclusion
Taking a closer look at the variant given in (3), this paper has argued that the NO does notstayatitsbase-generatedpositionbutovertlyundergoesmovement.ExtendingFukui & Nishigauchi's (1992) and Fukui's (1995) analysis of Nominative/Genitive Conversion to the Case alternation under investigation, it has been proposed that the overt movementisscrambling.Specifically,thederivationofaNOinvolvesscramblingofanobject from its base-generated position to an edge position of vP, where it receives nominative Case, as illustrated in (62). Although scrambling itself is optional, in order for the object to be assigned nominative Case, scrambling takes place obligatorily, because what can be assigned at the base-generated position is accusative Case, not nominative Case. This is an explanationfortheobligatorynatureofthemovement.