2014 Volume 31 Issue 1 Pages 114-129
In this paper, I will argue against the feature “copying” mechanism proposed by Ohtaka (2013). She argues that the embedded subject in the RTO (Raising-to-Object) construction in Japanese moves to the embedded SpecTP to obtain a subject “status.” However, following Saito (2009, 2011), I will argue that the subject can obtain a subject “status” at SpecvP. Furthermore, following Goto (2010), I will argue that, when feature inheritance does not take place, the [EPP] feature on T become inactive. Thus, there is no reason to move to the embedded SpecTP, so we need no feature “copying” mechanism. Instead, I will account for the RTO construction by the “goal”-driven movement proposed by Bošković (2007, 2011), and argue that the embedded subject moves to the matrix SpecVP via the embedded SpecCP, skipping the embedded SpecTP.
