On the Long-Distance ECM in Japanese: Against Ura (2007)

Abstract

Based on the observation on a special type of ECM construction in a certain variety of Kansai Japanese, Ura (2007) argues that the dialect allows a true instance of long-distance case assignment whereby an object NP in an embedded clause is assigned an accusative case by the main verb, as in Boku wa John-ni sono koto-o dekiru (te) omou ‘I think (that) John [DATIVE] can do that [ACCUSATIVE]’. According to his analysis, such an unorthodox operation is made possible by the deletable complementizer in this dialect, which renders the phase of the embedded finite clause ‘weak’, thereby exempting it from the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). From this, Ura suggests the generalization that no language allows long-distance ECM (LD-ECM) unless its complementizer is deletable.

This paper investigates the acceptability of the corresponding construction with sixty speakers of non-Kansai Japanese and adduces two types of counterexample to Ura’s generalization: (i) LD-ECM is disallowed even though the complementizer is deletable, and (ii) LD-ECM is allowed even though the complementizer is not deletable. These counterexamples indicate that there is no strong correlation between the deletability of a complementizer and the acceptability of LD-ECM. We thus reject Ura’s analysis utilizing the ‘strength’ of a phase and present an alternative analysis in which the accusative NP in an embedded clause, typically focused with heavy stress, undergoes covert movement to the Spec of CP and gets its accusative case licensed there. The proposed analysis can capture the marked nature of the LD-ECM construction without altering the definitions of such general notions as locality and minimality.