AGAINST THE NON-RAISING ANALYSIS OF JAPANESE RAISING-TO-OBJECT

DOI 機関リポジトリ Web Site

この論文をさがす

説明

In this paper we argue that data for non-raising analysis presented in Hiraiwa (2001) should not be considered real counterexamples against the raising analysis of Raising-to-Object (henceforth, RTO) construction in Japnese. Hiraiwa shows intriguing examples: a certain lower clause element can be placed before the accusative DP, from which he insists that the accusative DP may remain in the same lower clause. Hiraiwa adopts Case-licensing by a long-distance Agree operation. Putting aside the technical adequacy of Agree across a CP boundary, there still remains another possibility for explaining the data at issue: the non-phasehood. Kanno (2008) proposes that the raising construction should be counted as a non-phase. If the lower clause of RTO is not a phase, Case-licensing can be accomplished within the same clause as v/V by Agree, avoiding the controversial portion of crossing a CP boundary. In this way, Hiraiwa's example is a strong counterexample against the raising analysis of RTO. On the other hand, Tanaka (2002) regards Hiraiwa's examples as marginal sentences, and insists on the raising analysis out of CP. His argumentation is valid and convincing, but there remains an unexplained fact that the examples Hiraiwa presents sound acceptable for some native speakers including Hiraiwa and the author. Then it is worth exploring whether Hiraiwa's data are adequate to raising analysis of RTO or not, in a more detailed way. Through examining the data, we will reach the conclusion that Hiraiwa's examples are not real counterexamples against the raising analysis.

収録刊行物

キーワード

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ