2.1. The limits of negative scope

We begin by observing one simple fact about Japanese: that negative polarity items (NPIs), including nani-mo ‘anything’, nani-hito-tu ‘a single’, -sika ‘only’, and kanarazusimo zen'in/zenbu ‘necessarily all’, are licensed by the negative head nai, irrespective of whether they occur in subject or object position.Footnote ³

1. (1)

   1. (a) Ken-ga {nani-mo/is-satu-mo hon-o} yoma-nakat-ta.Ken-nom anything-q/single-cl-q book-acc read-neg-past‘Ken did not read {anything/a single book}.’

   2. (b) {Dare-mo/Hito-ri-mo gakusei-ga} hon-o yoma-nakat-ta.anyone-q/single-cl-q student-nom book-acc read-neg-past‘{No one/Not a single student} read the book.’

These NPIs are licensed only in the scope of negation. Thus, the following examples are excluded due to the absence of licensing NPIs.

1. (2)

   1. (a) *{ Dare-mo/Hito-ri-mo gakusei-ga} hon-o yon-da. anyone-q/single-cl-q student-nom book-acc read-past‘{Anyone/A single student} read the book.’

   2. (b) *{ Dare-mo/Hito-ri-mo gakusei-ga} [Ken-ga ko-nakat-ta] to it-ta. anyone-q/single-cl-q student-nom Ken-nom come-neg-past that say-past‘{Anyone/A single student} said that Ken did not come.’

Since NPIs are legitimate in a negative context, the data in (1) illustrate that the subject as well as the object will fall under the scope of negation in Japanese. By contrast, English NPIs (like anything, anyone, etc.) are not allowed to occur in subject position, although they can appear in object position (see Klima Reference Klima, Jerry and Jerrold1964, Laka Reference Laka1990, and many others).

1. (3)

   1. (a) John did not read any book.

   2. (b) *Anyone did not read the book.

In English, passivization affects the possibility for NPI licensing, as shown in (4).

1. (4)

   1. (a) John did not read any book.

   2. (b) *Any book was not read by John.

Again, this contrast in acceptability is not observed in Japanese.

1. (5)

   1. (a) John-ga is-satu-mo hon-o yoma-nakat-ta.John-nom single-cl-q book-acc read-neg-past‘John did not read a single book.’

   2. (b) Is-satu-mo hon-ga yom-are-nakat-ta.single-cl-q book-nom read-pass-neg-past‘Not a single book was read.’

These data therefore illustrate a notable typological difference between English and Japanese: in the latter, negation extends its scope over the subject, whereas in the former, the scope of negation does not fall over the subject.Footnote ⁴ (Note that there are cases in which NPIs are not licensed by negation: for discussion of such cases, see appendix.)

In the literature, there have been a number of proposals that attempt to account for the observed differences in NPI licensing. Such proposals are divided into two types. One, advanced by researchers including Takahashi (Reference Takahashi1990), Kawashima & Kitahara (Reference Kawashima and Hisatsugu1992), Aoyagi & Ishii (Reference Aoyagi, Ishii and Noriko1994), Kato (Reference Kato, Masatoshi and Hiroyuku1994), and Sohn (Reference Sohn1995), attributes the absence of subject–object asymmetry in Japanese to the lower position of subjects. The other, put forth by Kishimoto (Reference Kishimoto2005, Reference Kishimoto2007), takes overt Neg-raising to be responsible for the wide-scope property of negation in Japanese.

On the first approach, the absence of subject–object asymmetry in NPI licensing follows from the assumption that Japanese has a clause structure such as shown in (6b), which minimally differs from that of English (6a) in terms of the position of overt subjects (abstracting away from word order).

1. (6)

   1. (a) English: [_TP Subj T [_NegP Neg [_VP Subj V Obj]]]

   2. (b) Japanese: [_TP [_NegP [_VP Subj Obj V] Neg] T]

In Japanese the subject remains within VP, as in (6b). Thus, an NPI in subject position is located low enough to be licensed by a negative head, either via Spec-head agreement (Aoyagi & Ishii 1994, Watanabe Reference Watanabe2004) or via c-command (Kato Reference Kato, Masatoshi and Hiroyuku1994). By contrast, the English subject position is outside the scopal domain of negation (6a). On this view, the position of a Neg-head is invariant between English and Japanese, and the difference in NPI licensing is reduced to the differing position of the subject in TP or VP.Footnote ⁵

In the second analysis, the presence or absence of subject–object asymmetry in NPI licensing depends on the position of a Neg-head (see Kishimoto Reference Kishimoto2005, Reference Kishimoto2007). On this view, the typological difference between English and Japanese emerges from a difference in the overt position of a Neg-head, rather than that of the subject, as shown schematically in (7).

1. (7)

   1. (a) English: [_TP Subj T [_NegP Neg [_VP Subj V Obj]]]

   2. (b) Japanese: [_TP Subj [_NegP [_VP Subj Obj V] Neg] Neg-T]

Here the surface subject position is invariant; the difference in NPI licensing derives from the assumption that in Japanese, unlike English, there is a Neg-head located in a structural position high enough to license a subject NPI.

Given these analyses, the theoretical question that arises is which one is more appropriate for treating the differences in negative scope observed between English and Japanese. The two types of analysis make different predictions. The second takes the clause-wide scope of negation in Japanese to be generated by way of overt head raising of nai ‘not’. This predicts that if overt Neg-raising does not occur, negative scope will not extend over subjects. On the other hand, the first analysis takes the lower subject located in Spec of VP to be responsible for the licensing of subject NPIs in Japanese. On this analysis, it is predicted that subject NPIs are legitimate regardless of whether a negative head is located in NegP or a higher projection, since VP is located below NegP. Here, we argue – pursuing the Neg-head raising analysis a little further – that the predictions made by this Neg-raising analysis are borne out: namely, the scope of negation changes in accordance with overt Neg-head raising to T.

Throughout this discussion, NPIs are used as a heuristic to measure the extent of negative scope in a clausal constituent. This follows because the legitimacy of NPIs is assessed with reference to their overt position (see e.g. Hornstein Reference Hornstein1984, Laka Reference Laka1990). Nevertheless, one might suspect that a different analysis is possible, given Scope Splitting theory – one prominent approach to negative scope – which claims that the surface and interpretative positions of negation are sometimes dissociated (see e.g. von Stechow 1992/93, Zeijlstra Reference Zeijlstra2004), as illustrated in (8).

1. (8)

   1. (a) John can find her no job.

   2. (b) [John [NOT [can find her [no job]]]]

In (8a), negation can take scope over the modal can, obtaining a ‘neg>can>∃’ interpretation. Under the scope splitting view, this interpretation is derived by virtue of an invisible negative operator NOT which checks the feature of a negative determiner – hence, taking scope over the modal. If the same mechanism is applicable to NPI licensing in Japanese, the need for Neg-head raising might be obviated. It should be noted, however, that Japanese does not have negative determiners, which means that the language does not have a scope splitting construction like (8). In addition, modal negation is always expressed by nai (or one of its variants, including zu and masen) placed to the right of the modal. These facts make it extremely difficult to determine whether there is any scope splitting construction in Japanese.

Even if the scope splitting view is appropriate for scope assignment in (8a), there is good reason to believe that an abstract operator NOT which takes scope over the modal does not serve to license an NPI, as shown by (9).

1. (9) *John can find anyone no job.

The unacceptability of (9) results from the NPI anyone not being c-commanded by the NPI no job (see Barss & Lasnik Reference Barss and Lasnik1986). Given that an NPI needs to fall under the scope of negation associated with an overtly realized negative head, it is reasonable to assume that NPIs are licensed by an overtly realized negative head, rather than an abstract operator.

Furthermore, non-NPI quantifiers in English often fall within the scope of negation even when they appear in the subject position, where NPIs are not licensed. For example, (10a) can have a ‘not>everyone’ as well as an ‘everyone>not’ interpretation, despite the fact that everyone occupies the Spec of TP.

1. (10)

   1. (a) Everyone did not work.

   2. (b) [_TP everyone did [_NegP not [_VPeveryone work]]]

These facts follow straightforwardly if the scope of everyone can be determined with reference to a VP-internal position as well as with reference to the head member of its chain, as advocated by some researchers (see e.g. Aoun & Li Reference Aoun and Li1989, Reference Aoun and Yen-hui Audrey1993; Hornstein Reference Hornstein1995).Footnote ⁶ In English, the negator not stays in place throughout the derivation, since it does not count as a functional predicative head (see section 2.2). Nevertheless, in (10a) a ‘not>everyone’ interpretation is possible because the lower copy everyone in VP is c-commanded by not. On the other hand, the upper copy everyone in TP c-commands not, so the reverse ‘everyone>not’ interpretation is also obtained. This suggests that even if everyone is located outside the scope of negation, a ‘not>everyone’ interpretation is possible. This being the case, it turns out that it is NPIs – rather than non-NPI quantifiers – that can serve as useful diagnostics in measuring the extent of the scope of negation in syntax, since the head member of the chain must be located within the syntactic scope of negation in order to receive an appropriate interpretation.

2.2. Overt Neg-head raising and the genesis of functional predicates

One major claim in the present paper is that the Neg-raising analysis, whereby a negative element undergoes head raising, makes a number of correct predictions about negative scope. Prior to this discussion, we first delineate some of the ingredients of the Neg-raising analysis of Kishimoto (Reference Kishimoto2007) and the predictions that follow from it.

The analysis proposed by Kishimoto (Reference Kishimoto2005, Reference Kishimoto2007) takes the negative head nai, expressing sentential negation, as a (light) functional predicate that undergoes overt head raising. Accordingly, head raising makes it possible to extend negative scope over TP. One piece of evidence in favor of this analysis comes from the distribution of adverbial particles.

To begin with, (11) shows how lexical predicates like the adjective takumasii ‘sturdy’ or the verb yomu ‘read’ can be suffixed with an adverbial particle mo ‘also’.

1. (11)

   1. (a) John-wa {takumasi-i/takumasiku-mo ar-u}.John-top  sturdy-pres/sturdy-also be-pres‘John is {sturdy/also sturdy}.’

   2. (b) John-ga hon-o {yom-u/yomi-mo su-ru}.John-nom book-acc  read-pres/read-also do-pres‘John {reads/also reads} books.’

The sentential negative marker nai inflects like an ordinary lexical adjective. As illustrated by (12b), however, nai cannot accept mo even if the dummy verb aru – which can support a stranded tense morpheme separated from a lexical adjective – is inserted.

1. (12)

   1. (a) John-ga hon-o yoma-na-i.John-nom book-acc read-neg-pres‘John does not read books.’

   2. (b) * John-ga hon-o yoma-naku-mo ar-u. John-nom book-acc read-neg-also be-pres‘John also does not read books.’

This shows that nai does not behave as a full-fledged lexical adjective, notwithstanding its adjectival inflection. As seen in (11) and (12), acceptability varies depending on the type of host element to which the adverbial particle is attached.

We turn now to the details of the analysis. First, note that Japanese is an agglutinative language whereby bound predicative elements like tense attach to a lexical predicate to form a morphologically complex predicate. It is reasonable to assume that this requirement can be fulfilled either by morphological merger or by syntactic movement (see Halle & Marantz Reference Halle, Marantz, Kenneth and Samuel1993; Bobaljik Reference Bobaljik, Heidi and Colin1994, Reference Bobaljik1995). That the predicative elements in (11) and (12) behave the way they do is due to these two options.

Specifically, the sentential negative marker nai does not permit the suffixation of an adverbial particle, as shown in (12b). Assuming that the particle is head-adjoined to the negative head (cf. Aoyagi Reference Aoyagi1998, Reference Aoyagi, Masatake and Enoch1999), Kishimoto (Reference Kishimoto2007) argues that (12b) is unacceptable because the negative nai suffixed with the adverbial particle undergoes overt head raising from its base Neg position to T, as shown in (13).Footnote ⁷

1. (13)

   

Note that when a negative head with mo is head-raised, a complex head [_T [_Neg Neg-mo] ar-u] is derived. In Japanese, an adverbial particle has the property of marking the right boundary of a head [ __#], which means that no X⁰-element can be syntactically head-adjoined to the right of an adverbial particle. Structures in which an adverbial particle like mo intrudes inside a single lexical item are thus ill-formed, as represented in (14).

1. (14)

   1. (a) *[_N kaigai-mo-ryokoo] ‘overseas-also-travel’

   2. (b) *[_P ni-mo-tuite] ‘about’

The noun kaigai ‘overseas’ in (14a) can be followed by mo when used independently, as in kaigai-mo ‘overseas also’, but the addition of the particle is not possible as part of a lexical compound, as in *[_N [_Nkaigai- mo]-[_Nryokoo]]. (14b) represents a case in which a complex form ni+tui-te (to+attach-te) has been reduced to a single lexical item ni-tuite ‘about’ by grammaticalization. Despite its morphological complexity, this expression constitutes a single syntactic unit. Hence, mo cannot be placed inside it.

Similarly, under the Neg-raising analysis, (12b) is ruled out by virtue of an illegitimate structure akin to those in (14); that is, (12b) has a structure like that in (13), which involves the illicit embedding of mo resulting from the overt raising of Neg-mo. If the Neg-head is raised to a higher position via overt head raising, it will naturally acquire wider scope than if it stayed in situ without undergoing movement.

Given the morphological constraint imposed on adverbial particles, it is easy to see that lexical adjectives and verbs are not raised to a higher head position. Nevertheless, tense is affixed to a main predicate (11) if no adverbial particle intervenes. In such a case, it can be reasonably assumed that morphological merger takes place between tense and the predicate via linear adjacency. This means that two heads residing in distinct syntactic head positions can be fused into a complex morphological form with no syntactic movement. When an adverbial particle intervenes between a main predicate and tense, however, linear adjacency is disrupted. In this case, a grammatical sentence can only be formed if a dummy verb is inserted to the left of the tense morpheme – an operation to save a stranded affix. (As seen in (11), the supportive verb used to yield a well-formed string for an adjectival predicate is aru ‘be’, while suru ‘do’ is used when the main predicate is a verb.)

If a negative head accompanies the intervening particle, as in (12b), tense is not linked to any predicative element via adjacency. In this case, dummy verb insertion is needed to save the stranded tense morpheme, but this syntactic operation is not applicable here. This is because the complex head formed via Neg-head raising to T does not provide any syntactic break into which a dummy verb can be placed. In theory, a dummy verb could be inserted to the right of tense before Neg-head raising (assuming this could take place before head raising), but once the negative head is raised, an illicit complex head would be formed (by virtue of the illegitimate embedding of an adverbial particle). Thus, a negative-tense sequence – containing a negative head with an adverbial particle that undergoes overt head raising to T – necessarily results in unacceptability. The present analysis also predicts that if Neg-mo is not raised to T, the sequence naku-mo ar-u – whereby dummy verb insertion takes place in support of the stranded tense – should be well-formed. This prediction is in fact borne out; we return to a discussion of it in section 3.

As illustrated above, the difference in acceptability in (11a–b) and (12) depends on whether or not overt head raising is induced. (12b) is excluded in the presence of overt Neg-raising: the negative word nai to which the adverbial particle is added undergoes overt head raising, resulting in a violation of the morphological constraint imposed on adverbial particles.Footnote ⁸ The examples in (11) are well-formed because no overt head raising applies to the lexical predicates to which mo is suffixed. In (11), mo appears at the right periphery of a lexical unit without violating the morphological constraint. These data suggest that morphologically complex predicates can be formed with or without syntactic head raising, and that overt raising can be assessed according to whether an adverbial particle can be added to the right of a head.Footnote ⁹

If nai, which lacks lexical content, undergoes head raising, a parallelism between English and Japanese emerges. In English, the aspectual verbs have and be – which can be assumed to serve as functional predicates lacking lexical content – undergo overt head raising (i.e. functional predicate raising) while lexical verbs do not (Emonds Reference Emonds1978, Pollock Reference Pollock1989, Roberts Reference Roberts1998, and others).Footnote ¹⁰ Technical details aside, it is generally assumed that aspectual verbs in English can undergo overt predicate raising owing to their semantic lightness (Pollock Reference Pollock1989; Chomsky Reference Chomsky and Robert1991, Reference Chomsky, Kenneth and Samuel Jay1993, Reference Chomsky1995; Roberts Reference Roberts1993, Reference Roberts1998).Footnote ¹¹ If, as is often suggested, semantic lightness is a prerequisite for the creation of functional predicates, the existence of overt predicate raising in Japanese is not surprising.

In English, the aspectual verb have is subject to overt head raising, but its lexical counterparts – experiential and causative have – are not (see Radford Reference Radford1997, Reference Radford2004). The relative order of have and not therefore differs between (15a) and (15b–c).

1. (15)

   1. (a) John has not finished his homework yet.

   2. (b) John did not have his students take all the classes.

   3. (c) John did not have his son examined by the doctor.

Since the aspectual verb have in (15a) serves as a functional category specifying aspectual meaning, it is a grammatical element and as such does not possess the same properties as a lexical verb.

As often noted (e.g. Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer Reference Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer1991, Hopper & Traugott Reference Hopper and Traugott1993), contentful lexical words are often grammaticalized as function words; hence there is a cross-linguistic tendency for grammaticalized words to retain some of their original morphological properties. Given that aspectual have has the same inflection as lexical have, we can plausibly hypothesize that the former has been derived from the latter with the loss of its lexical property.

1. (16) [+lexical]→[−lexical]

This is tantamount to saying that aspectual have is amenable to overt head raising, as it has come to serve as a ‘deverbal’ functional predicate – a consequence of grammaticalization.Footnote ¹²

Note that the Japanese negative nai inflects just like an ordinary adjective, suggesting that it probably originated as an adjective. However, nai functions as a sentential negator (i.e. a functor). The morphological fact suggests that nai's status as a functional predicate is a consequence of having lost its original lexical property. If the analogy holds between English and Japanese, we can hypothesize that in Japanese, the negative element undergoes head raising because it serves as a ‘deadjectival’ predicate syntactically.

We assume here that a lexical predicate can take on the status of a ‘functional predicate’ as an intermediate stage of developing into a modal.Footnote ¹³ Historically, English modals (such as shall, will, can, and may) evolved from lexical verbs, but in modern English they do not inflect like verbs (see e.g. Roberts Reference Roberts1983). This suggests that modals no longer belong to a class of lexical or functional predicates – base-generated below TP – but are directly inserted into T-head positions rather than undergoing head raising to T from a lower functional predicate position.

In Japanese, it is relatively easy to see whether a given predicative head is a lexical or functional word, since Japanese has a grammatical distinction between verbal and adjectival clauses, determined by the properties of the lexical predicate serving as the head of the clause. If, as hypothesized above, a negative head is a functional category lacking lexical specification, it should not determine the category of the clause containing it, since a negated predicate is construed as having the structure main lexical predicate+grammatical marker (nai). If, on the other hand, a negative marker is a full lexical predicate, it should determine the class of the clause, which will then have the structure complement predicate+lexical predicate (nai). Consequently, we can readily discern whether a negative element acts as a functional or lexical head by checking the categorial status of the clause containing it.

As discussed by Kishimoto (Reference Kishimoto2007), whether or not an ordinary negative head has the syntactic status of a lexical adjective can be ascertained by embedding the negative clause under hosii ‘want’ and omou ‘think’. First, verbal clauses can be legitimately embedded under the desiderative predicate hosii ‘want’ when the embedded verb takes the -te form. On the other hand, adjectival clauses cannot be so embedded, even when the predicate takes the -te form. This is illustrated in (17).

1. (17)

   1. (a) John-wa [Mary-ga ki-te] hosikat-ta.John-top Mary-nom come-te want-past‘John wanted Mary to come.’

   2. (b) * John-wa [Mary-ga  itumademo kawaiku-te] hosikat-ta. John-top Mary-nom forever cute-te want-past‘John wanted Mary to be cute forever.’

Second, the grammatical status of a clause embedded under hosii does not change when the clause is negated, as illustrated in (18).

1. (18)

   1. (a) John-wa [Mary-ga ko-nai-de] hosikat-ta.John-top  Mary-nom come-neg-te want-past‘John wanted Mary not to come.’

   2. (b) * John-wa [Mary-ga kawaiku-naku-te] hosikat-ta. John-top  Mary-nom cute-neg-te want-past‘John wanted Mary not to be cute.’

In (18), the categorial status of the negative clause is determined by the first lexical predicate embedded under nai, and not by nai itself. This fact indicates that nai is behaving as a functional rather than a lexical predicate. The data illustrate that a complement clause embedded under hosii ‘want’ is acceptable only if the lexical predicate locally c-commanded by hosii is a verb.

The categorial status of a clause can also be checked by embedding it under omou ‘think’. When the complement of this verb is a small clause, only an adjective is allowed to occur in it irrespective of whether it is negated or not.Footnote ¹⁴

1. (19) John-wa [Mary-o {kawaiku/kawaiku-naku}] omo-u (koto-ga ar-u).John-top  Mary-acc cute/cute-neg think-pres fact-nom be-pres(Lit.) ‘(There is a time when) John thinks Mary {to be cute/not to be cute}.’

If the small-clause complement of the verb omou contains a negated verb, the resultant sentence is unacceptable.

1. (20) ?* John-wa [hon-o ure-naku] omo-u (koto-ga ar-u). John-top  book-acc sell.can-neg think-pres fact-nom be-pres(Lit.) ‘(There is a time when) John thinks books not to sell well.’

The embedded predicate immediately preceding omou ‘think’ is required to have adjectival inflection. The negated verbal predicate in (20) indeed possesses adjectival inflection, owing to the presence of the adjectivally-inflecting nai. Nevertheless, the clause in (20) is excluded, because it is classified as verbal. The data show that the syntactic status of nai can be discerned by embedding the negated clause under hosii and omou.Footnote ¹⁵

Several remarks need to be made at this point. First, Japanese adjectives are stative, while verbs are generally non-stative, excluding a few cases like aru ‘be’, dekiru ‘can do’, and iru ‘need’ (see Kuno Reference Kuno1973). At first sight, then, it might look as though the semantic factor of ‘stativity’ plays a role in determining the difference in acceptability between (17a) and (17b). But this is not the case. This can be seen when a verb like au ‘get right’ is turned into a stative by adding -te iru (-te be); nevertheless the verb can still be embedded under hosii.

1. (21) John-wa [sono-kotae-ga {at-te (i-te)/*tadasiku-te}] hosikat-ta.John-top  that-answer-nom get.right-te be-te/right-te want-past‘John wanted that answer to be correct.’

The verbal predicate at-te iru ‘be correct’ and the adjective tadasii ‘correct’ are both stative, describing cognitively identical states of affairs. Nevertheless, the contrast in acceptability persists. This shows that the crucial distinction is determined by lexical category rather than by a semantic factor like stativity.

Second, one might argue that the data regarding embedding under hosii and omou do not necessarily establish the status of negative nai as a functional element. In view of the fact that adverbial modifiers like only do not change the category to which they adjoin (e.g. both John and only John belong to the same DP category), it might be argued that the negative element nai serves as an adjunct (just like only) rather than a functional predicate. This alternative is not a plausible one, however, since a lexical negative head affects the status of a clause, as will be discussed below. Moreover, a functional negative head undergoes head raising to a higher position. It has generally been observed that such movement cannot take place from an adjunct position (cf. the Head Movement Constraint: see Baker Reference Baker1988, Travis Reference Travis1984). In order to undergo raising, then, the negative element must be in a head position selected by a higher head, rather than serving as an adjunct. In light of these considerations, it is fair to say that the diagnostics given above do indeed serve to distinguish the categorial status of a negative head.

Finally, it should be noted that even though semantic lightness can motivate the decategorization of a lexical head, it does not necessarily do so. For instance, a dummy verb arguably lacks semantic content, but nevertheless retains its lexical status (with no decategorization). This can be seen by the fact that an adjectival clause embedded under hosii ‘want’ is acceptable if the dummy verb aru is inserted between the adjective and -te.

1. (22) John-wa [Mary-ga itumademo kawaiku at-te] hosikat-ta.John-top  Mary-nom forever cute be-te want-past‘John wanted Mary to be cute forever.’

Here, the dummy verb aru, as its name implies, does not have contentful meaning. Nevertheless, the acceptability of (22) indicates that it can turn an adjectival clause into a verbal one, suggesting that aru is specified as [+lexical]. Since a bound tense morpheme needs a lexical predicate to ensure its morphological well-formedness, there is a sense in which a dummy verb must be lexical.

Given that the sentential negative form nai does not determine the type of clause in which it appears, it clearly does not behave like a true adjective, despite its adjectival inflection. The above data suggest that a functional predicate without lexical status will undergo overt head raising, and in Japanese the negative element nai serves as such a head.

Let us now proceed to consider briefly how overt head raising is motivated theoretically in the ‘feature checking’ system of syntactic movement (see Chomsky Reference Chomsky1995, Reference Chomsky, Roger, David and Juan2000, Reference Chomsky and Michael2001; Lasnik Reference Lasnik, Hector and Paula1995a, Reference Lasnik, Shosuke and Michio1995b). Since a deadjectival negative head forms an inseparable lexical unit with a tense morpheme (12b), functional predicate raising must target T. With regard to the question of motivating overt Neg-raising, we assume following Kishimoto (Reference Kishimoto2007) that in Japanese, when a negative head is generated in a context selected by tense, the two heads both appear in an initial array with [+T], which induces the raising of the functional predicative head. In other words, in a configuration where NegP is located immediately below TP, both the Neg-head and tense occur with the feature [+T]. (The assumption is that [+T] is an ‘uninterpretable’ feature that motivates head raising to T, which exists independently of semantic features (like [+past]) that determine a tense interpretation.) Once formal features are deleted under matching as a result of overt Neg-head raising (23a), the derivation of a ‘negative-tense’ sequence is rendered legitimate.

1. (23)

   

On the other hand, main predicates are not functional, hence do not enter into the initial array with [+T]. As a consequence, they do not instantiate overt head raising, as in (23b).

The present analysis assumes that if nai is not selected by tense, no overt Neg-head raising will take place. This leads to the prediction that no Neg-head raising will occur if a negative head appears in a structural position that is non-adjacent to T. The following double negative clause confirms the correctness of this prediction.

1. (24) John-wa hon-o yoma-naku-mo/wa na-i.John-top book-acc read-neg-also/top neg-pres‘It is not necessarily the case that John does not (also) read books.’

It is reasonable to suppose that the double negative construction in (24) contains two instances of NegP located above VP, as shown in (25).

1. (25) [_TP [_NegP [_NegP [_VP V] Neg] Neg] T]

The well-formedness of (24) – in which an adverbial particle occurs to the right of a lower negative marker – shows that this negative head is not moved to a higher one. This is because the lower negative head is not assigned [+T] since T does not select it. In (25), it is the higher of the two negative heads that is selected by tense. Thus, the higher head is assigned [+T], leading to the prediction that it should be head-raised. This prediction is borne out.

1. (26) * John-wa hon-o yoma-naku-wa naku-mo/wa ar-u. John-top book-acc read-neg-top neg-also/top be-pres(Lit.) ‘It is (also) not necessarily the case that John does not read books.’

The sequence *yoma-naku-wa naku-mo/wa ar-u is unacceptable, where a particle like mo or wa is added to the right of the higher negative head – even if aru is inserted to support the stranded tense. This suggests that the higher negative head – the one contiguous with tense – is head-raised. The non-raising of lower negation is comparable to the non-raising of the English aspectual verb be in (27).

1. (27)

   1. (a) John has not been studying English for a long time.

   2. (b) *John has been not studying English for a long time.

As seen by the position of not relative to the aspectual verbs, only the higher aspectual has can be raised, whereas the lower aspectual been must remain in place. This also shows that only a functor head selected by T may undergo overt head raising.

Note that when an adverbial particle is added, a negative head takes the naku form irrespective of whether it is in an upper or a lower NegP in the double negative construction. This indicates that overt head raising is not contingent on the morphological form of nai – in this case, naku – and that the negative head comes to bear [+T] when a NegP projected from it serves as a complement to T.

In most cases, the Japanese negative head nai counts as a [−lexical] functional category, but sometimes it can also function as a negative operator while retaining a [+lexical] specification, as will be discussed below. This suggests that the question of whether a negative word serves as an operator is independent of the ‘lexical versus non-lexical’ distinction. The very fact that nai can serve as a negative operator – regardless of whether it counts as a functional or a lexical head – provides crucial empirical evidence that the scope of negation extends over TP when the negative head undergoes overt functional predicate raising.

2.3. The creation of negative scope

As previously discussed, the negative head nai usually takes scope over TP; hence no subject–object asymmetry is observed in ordinary negative clauses with regard to the licensing of negative polarity items (NPIs). This raises the theoretical issue of how the scope of nai extends over subjects located in Spec of TP, which is not c-commanded by the negator nai adjoined to T. It is then necessary to address the question of how the negative element nai embedded under T can take scope over TP. We propose that a negative head in the T-head position undergoes LF raising to a higher Neg-head position, with the result that the ordinary negator nai comes to take scope over TP.

Let us first discuss the question of how syntactic scope is assigned in the present perspective. In general a word-internal unit is invisible to the syntax (see e.g. Chomsky Reference Chomsky1995), and does not acquire scope (see e.g. Di Sciullo & Williams Reference Di Sciullo and Williams1987). This is true in particular in Japanese, since derivational negative affixes do not license NPIs – including prefixes like mu- (e.g. mu-imi ‘meaningless’, mu-kansin ‘indifference’), mi- (e.g. mi-hattatu ‘undeveloped’, mi-keiken ‘unexperienced’), and hi- (e.g. hi-kooritu ‘inefficiency’), as well as suffixes like -nasi (e.g. dai-nasi ‘mess’, kata-nasi ‘spoil’, soko-nasi ‘limitless’, oto-nasi ‘silent’).Footnote ¹⁶

1. (28)

   1. (a) Sono-kokoromi-wa sukosimo {*mu-imi-da/mu-imi-de-na-i}.that-attempt-top in.the.least  no-meaning-cop/no-meaning-cop-neg-pres‘That attempt {is/is not} meaningless in the least.’

   2. (b) Kare-wa sono-toki tittomo {*oto-nasi-dat-ta/oto-nasi-de-wa-nakat-ta}.he-top that-time at.all  sound-less-cop-past/sound-less-cop-top-neg-past‘He {was/was not} silent at all at that time.’

Such negative affixes are not capable of licensing NPIs, suggesting that they do not acquire syntactic scope. In contrast, a sentential negator adjoined to the tense morpheme via overt predicative head raising will take scope beyond the boundary of the derived complex tense form. The question then is why.

A number of researchers (e.g. Laka Reference Laka1990, Ouhalla Reference Ouhalla1990, Zanuttini Reference Zanuttini1997) have argued that a higher NegP (i.e. higher negation) can be projected above TP. Given that NegP (the lower Neg) can also exist below TP (see e.g. Pollock Reference Pollock1989, Chomsky Reference Chomsky and Robert1991), we can state that a single clause potentially has Neg projections in two different constituent positions, as represented in (29).

1. (29) [_NegP [_TP [_NegP [_VP V] Neg] T] Neg]

The premise is that both the higher and the lower NegPs are locations where a negative head with syntactic scope can be accommodated. We propose that when a negative head residing in the T-head position takes scope, it is excorporated covertly out of the tense morpheme and into the higher Neg-position, as illustrated in (30) (see Roberts Reference Roberts1991).

1. (30)

   

On this view, LF movement as indicated in (30) is an operation that moves a negative head to its legitimate scope position. In other words, the negator nai in T is not in a position where scope can be assigned, so covert excorporation out of T is required. The hypothesis that a Neg-head must be located above TP in order to license a subject NPI receives some justification from the English examples in (31).

1. (31)

   1. (a) What did anyone not buy?

   2. (b) What didn't anyone buy?

In (31a), anyone serves only as a ‘free choice’ item. By contrast, anyone in (31b) is licensed as an NPI because a negative element occurs in a position that c-commands it. This suggests that a Neg-head residing in an operator position above TP will extend its scope over subjects. In view of the fact that head raising is an instance of local movement (due to the Head Movement Constraint – see Baker Reference Baker1988, Travis Reference Travis1984), we postulate that, in Japanese, a negative head located in the T-head position (as a result of overt Neg-head raising) will be moved to the head position of the higher NegP at LF.

Arguably, NegP is licensed whenever it is hosted by a negative head in the LF output; otherwise, NegP might not even be projected in clause structure. Further, we postulate that a negative head with syntactic scope will be marked with a quantificational [+Neg] feature, and made legitimate by virtue of residing in the NegP head position at LF – i.e. in either the higher or the lower one. Since the LF Neg-head raising (excorporation) at issue should be semantically motivated, we can reasonably postulate that a NegP head position (unfilled in overt syntax) has a formal feature [+N], which by necessity must be checked against a negative head with the semantic feature [+Neg] at the LF level.Footnote ¹⁷

1. (32)

   1. (a) [_NegP [_TP [_NegP Neg] Neg-T] Neg-φ]

             [+Neg][+N]

   2. (b) *[_NegP [_TP [_NegP Neg] Neg-T] φ]

             [+Neg] [+N]

As shown in (32a), once a negative head located in TP is head-raised into a higher NegP, sentential negation is made legitimate by deleting [+N]. As a consequence, negative scope – which can be defined in terms of c-command – is realized; that is, the Neg-head now takes scope over TP. If LF raising of the negative is not implemented, the derivation crashes (32b), with a failure to satisfy the requirement of a negative head having the [+N] feature.

The process of overt functional predicate raising plus subsequent LF excorporation provides an account of negative scope in Japanese. NPIs need to be included in the scope of nai for licensing. Recall that if the negative head nai is moved to the higher NegP in LF (33), both subject and object – which are contained within TP – will be c-commanded by nai, hence fall under its scope.Footnote ¹⁸

1. (33) [_NegP [_TP SUBJ [_NegP [_VP OBJ V] Neg] Neg-T] Neg]

This explains why negative sentences in Japanese do not display a subject–object asymmetry in the licensing of NPIs. Theoretically, LF excorporation is possible even with a negator comprising mo, as in (34).

1. (34)

   

Still, the derivation does not converge in (34). This is due to the fact that the illicit embedding of mo occurs when Neg-mo is raised to T via overt Neg-raising, as discussed earlier. Thus, the derivation in (34) whereby overt Neg-raising applies to Neg-mo is not legitimate.

On the view held here, the scope of the negative head nai extends over TP only when it is raised to T via overt functional predicate raising and subsequent LF excorporation into the higher NegP head position. This analysis follows a line of inquiry pursued by Lechner (Reference Lechner2005, Reference Lechner and Mara2006), who suggests that head raising creates a change in scope relations. By contrast, English not is not raised to a position above TP – even though the contracted form n't can occur in an operator position over TP in certain syntactic contexts (31b) (see Laka Reference Laka1990).

1. (35) [_TP SUBJ [_NegP not [_VP V OBJ]]]

As illustrated in (35), the subject is located in Spec of TP, and the object is within VP. In ordinary English declarative clauses, a subject–object asymmetry is thus observed with regard to NPI licensing.

Finally, under the present analysis, affixal negation can be taken as a case where a negative head does not possess the semantic feature [+Neg]. We submit that affixal negative markers (e.g. mi-, mu-, -nasi, etc.) do not possess the feature [+Neg], which in turn renders LF Neg-head excorporation impossible. Such constructions therefore lack the ability to generate syntactic scope (see also section 3.3).

3.1. Idiomatic negative predicates

In Japanese, the negator nai often combines with various types of elements to derive idiomatic expressions, which can appear only in a negative form. Some idiomatic negative expressions comprised of verb+nai provide empirical evidence that functional predicate raising is responsible for the scope expansion of nai over TP.Footnote ¹⁹ A partial list of such negative predicates is given in (36).

1. (36) A list of negative adjectives with the morphological form: verb+nai tamara-nai (bear-neg) ‘cannot stand’, yarikire-nai (finish-neg) ‘cannot stand, unbearable’, doozi-nai (upset-neg) ‘not upset’, niekira-nai (decisive-neg) ‘indecisive’, warikire-nai (satisfy-neg) ‘not satisfied’, kamawa-nai (care-neg) ‘not care’, kudara-nai (worth-neg) ‘worthless, uninteresting’, tumara-nai (interest-neg) ‘boring, uninteresting’, kakase-nai (lack-neg) ‘necessary’, kakasa-nai (miss-neg) ‘never lack’, soguwa-nai (fit-neg) ‘unsuitable’, yuruga-nai (shake-neg) ‘firm, solid’, hakarisire-nai (measure-neg) ‘immeasurable’, norikire-nai (ride-neg) ‘not in full swing’, miatara-nai (see-neg) ‘cannot find’, suma-nai (end-neg) ‘sorry’, simara-nai (close-neg) ‘loose’, anadore-nai (despise-neg) ‘cannot despise’, itatamare-nai (bear-neg) ‘unbearable’, aiire-nai (tolerate-neg) ‘cannot be compared’

All the expressions in (36) are idiomatic and require the presence of a negative element, hence do not have corresponding affirmative forms.Footnote ²⁰

Before proceeding, note that some of the expressions in (36) can also be used in a literal sense. For instance, the negative predicate yarikire-nai ‘unbearable’, which contains the verb yarikireru ‘can finish’ and nai, could literally mean ‘cannot finish’. When used in the literal sense, the expression turns out to be a simple negated predicate, so it can have an affirmative counterpart yarikireru ‘can finish’. The negative expression warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’, which will play an important role in the discussion below, also has a literal use in the meaning ‘not divisible’ (in an ‘arithmetic’ sense). Needless to say, non-idiomatic predicates take regular negators, and are not relevant for testing the hypothesis advanced here. Thus, we are only concerned with the idiomatic usage of negative predicates.

Despite their surface similarity with the morphological form verb+nai, the idiomatic negative expressions in (36) are in fact divided into two distinct groups. Some of these negative predicates constitute simple lexical words, and do not generate negative scope. Others have a compositional syntactic structure, where nai functions as a negative operator that generates syntactic scope while standing as a syntactically independent element.

More specifically, negative predicates such as kudara-nai ‘worthless’ and yarikire-nai ‘unbearable’ are completely lexicalized expressions in which nai does not possess the ability to create syntactic scope. The examples in (37) are therefore unacceptable owing to their failure to license NPI adverbs.

1. (37)

   1. (a) * John-ni-wa {sukosimo/tittomo} sono-zyugyoo-ga kudara-nakat-ta. John-dat-top  in.the.least/at.all that-class-nom worth-neg-past‘That class was worthless to John {in the least/at all}.’

   2. (b) * John-wa {sukosimo/tittomo/ikkooni} yarikire-nakat-ta. John-top in.the.least/at.all/at.all finish-neg-past‘John was unbearable {in the least/at all/at all}.’

NPI adverbs including sukosimo ‘in the least’, tittomo ‘at all’, ikkooni ‘at all’, and amari ‘much’ are predicate modifiers used to intensify or weaken the extent or degree of an activity or state described by the predicate. If nai acquires syntactic scope, it should therefore be able to license these predicate modifiers. The data in (37) suggest instead that kudara-nai and yarikire-nai are unanalyzable adjectival expressions whose components are invisible to the syntax.

Negative predicates like yuruga-nai ‘not be shaken, be firm’ and doozi-nai ‘not upset’ behave differently from kudara-nai and yarikire-nai in that they can license NPI adverbs, as can be seen in (38).Footnote ²¹

1. (38)

   1. (a) John-no zisin-wa {sukosimo/tittomo/ikkooni} yuruga-na-i.John-gen confidence-top in.the.least/at.all/at.all shake-neg-pres‘John's confidence is not shaken {in the least/at all/at all}.’

   2. (b) John-wa {sukosimo/tittomo} sonna-koto-ni doozi-na-i.John-top in.the.least/at.all that-matter-dat upset-neg-pres‘John is not upset about that matter {in the least/at all}.’

In the present perspective, negative nai's ability to license the NPI adverbs in (38) comes from the fact that it serves as a syntactic negative operator, specified for the [+Neg] feature. Since nai has syntactic scope in (38), the internal structure of the complex negative expression should be transparent to the syntax.

It is noteworthy that nai can be replaced with the complex negative form nai-de iru ‘be not to’, as seen in (39). This provides a good indication that the negative predicates yuruga-nai and doozi-nai do have analyzable internal structure.

1. (39)

   1. (a) John-no zisin-wa imadani yuruga-nai-de i-ru.John-gen confidence-top yet shake-neg-te be-pres‘John's confidence has not been shaken yet.’

   2. (b) John-wa imadani sonna-koto-ni doozi-nai-de i-ru.John-top yet that-matter-dat upset-neg-te be-pres‘John has not been upset about that matter yet.’

According to Kuno (Reference Kuno1973) and Masuoka & Takubo (Reference Masuoka and Takubo1989), -nai-de is a special negative form that can only be attached to a verb.Footnote ²² The acceptability of the examples in (39) means that the verb stems yuruga- and doozi- are visible to the syntax, the complex negative expressions having a transparent verb+negator (nai) structure. By contrast, since nai-de iru replacement is not possible with kudara-nai ‘worthless’ and yarikire-nai ‘unbearable’, these predicates count as a ‘single lexical form’ with no internal structure analyzable in the syntax.

1. (40)

   1. (a) * Kono-kotoba-wa kudara-nai-de i-ru. that-word-top worth-neg-te be-pres‘This word has been worthless.’

   2. (b) *John-wa imadani yarikire-nai-de i-ru.John-top yet finish-neg-te be-pres‘John has been unbearable.’

A comparison of the data above reveals that the negative element nai can encode scope syntactically if nai-de iru can be substituted for it.

If the negative head nai embedded in a complex predicate is visible to syntactic processes and can assign scope, its syntactic position will determine how far its scope extends within the clausal constituent. Taking advantage of this property of scope-taking negative words, we next show that the negative head nai does not expand its scope domain unless it undergoes overt functional predicate raising.

3.2. Lexical negative adjectives

Under an analysis whereby a functional predicate raises to T, we would expect that when the negative head nai is categorized as a lexical adjective, it should not be susceptible to overt head raising. While a negative head in most cases counts as a functional predicate, we can find cases in which nai retains its lexical status among the set of idiomatic negative predicates. The negative predicate warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ provides a case in point.

1. (41) John-(ni)-wa sono-kettei-ga warikire-na-i.John-dat-top that-decision-nom satisfy-neg-pres‘John is not satisfied with that decision.’

Here the negator nai counts as a lexical adjective which is capable of encoding scope, as noted by Kishimoto (Reference Kishimoto2007). The fact that the clause headed by warikire-nai is adjectival can be confirmed by embedding it under hosii ‘want’ and omou ‘think’. As shown in (42), a clause headed by warikire-nai cannot function as a complement to hosii, but the same clause can be legitimately embedded under omou.Footnote ²³

1. (42)

   1. (a) * John-wa [Mary-ni sono-kettei-ga warikire-nai-de] hosikat-ta.John-top  Mary-dat that-decision-nom satisfy-neg-te want-past‘John wanted Mary to be unsatisfied with that decision.’

   2. (b) John-wa [sono-kettei-o warikire-naku] omot-ta.John-top  that-decision-acc satisfy-neg think-past‘John thought that decision to be unsatisfactory.’

In this respect, warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ behaves like an adjective without internal structure like tumara-nai ‘uninteresting, boring’, as a clause headed by tumara-nai is construed as adjectival by the same diagnostics.

1. (43)

   1. (a) * John-wa [Mary-ni sono-bangumi-ga tumara-nai-de] hosikat-ta. John-top  Mary-dat that-program-nom interest-neg-te want-past‘John wanted Mary not to be interested in that program.’

   2. (b) John-wa [sono-bangumi-o tumara-naku] omot-ta.John-top  that-program-acc interest-neg think-past‘John thought that program to be uninteresting.’

The predicates warikire-nai and tumara-nai differ in their syntactic structure, however. With the complex negative predicate warikire-nai, the negator nai can be detached from the verb.

1. (44)

   1. (a) Sore-wa watasi-ni-wa warikire-na-i mondai-da.that-top I-dat-top satisfy-neg-pres problem-cop‘That is a problem which I cannot be satisfied with.’

   2. (b) Sore-wa watasi-ni warikire-ru mondai-de-wa na-i.that-top I-dat satisfy-pres problem-cop-top neg-pres‘That is not a problem which I can be satisfied with.’

Example (44b) demonstrates that nai stands as an independent syntactic element, just like an ordinary negative expression. In contrast, tumara-nai never allows nai to be separated from the verb.

1. (45)

   1. (a) Sore-wa watasi-ni-wa tumara-na-i mondai-da.that-top I-dat-top interest-neg-pres problem-cop‘That is a problem which I am not interested in.’

   2. (b) * Sore-wa watasi-ni tumar-u mondai-de-wa na-i. that-top I-dat interest-pres problem-cop-top  neg-pres‘That is not a problem which I am interested in.’

In addition, these predicates differ with regard to the availability of a nai-de iru form.

1. (46)

   1. (a) Watasi-ni-wa imadani sono-kettei-ga warikire-nai-de i-ru.I-dat-top yet that-decision-nom satisfy-neg-te be-pres‘I have not been satisfied with that decision yet.’

   2. (b) * John-wa imadani tumara-nai-de i-ru. John-top yet interest-neg-te be-pres‘John has not been interested yet.’

As shown in (46), the negative predicate warikire-nai can be turned into warikire-nai-de iru, but *tumara-nai-de iru is unacceptable. The data thus indicate that while tumara-nai is a single adjectival expression with no internal structure, warikire-nai is an adjectival predicate with an analyzable internal structure composed of a verb and nai.

1. (47)

   

Since warikire-nai in its entirety counts as an adjectival expression, nai must be the lexical head that determines the categorial classification of the clause; that is, the predicate sequence has a complement predicate+lexical negative (nai) structure.

Turning now to Neg-raising, note that warikire-nai readily allows the addition of an adverbial particle to its right.

1. (48) John-ni-wa sono-kettei-ga warikire-naku-mo ar-u.John-dat-top that-decision-nom satisfy-neg-also be-pres‘John is also not satisfied with that decision.’

Since it is the impossibility of adding an adverbial particle to the right of nai that signals overt Neg-head raising, (48) suggests that the negator nai appearing in warikire-nai does not undergo this process. If this is the case, the negative head should be expected to have narrower scope than an ordinary sentential negator that does undergo overt head raising. This expectation is indeed fulfilled.

1. (49)

   1. (a)  ?*Dare-hito-ri gakusei-ni sono-kettei-ga warikire-na-i (rasii). any-single-cl student-dat that-decision-nom satisfy-neg-pres seem‘(It seems that) a single student is not satisfied with that decision.’

   2. (b) Karera(-ni)-wa nani-hito-tu sonna-kettei-ga warikire-na-i (rasii).they-dat-top any-single-cl that-decision-nom satisfy-neg-pres seem‘(It seems that) they are satisfied with none of such decisions.’

The lexical negative in warikire-nai (49) stands in contrast with the ordinary negative expression nai, a functional predicate that undergoes overt head raising, in that negative scope does not extend over subjects.

The ordinary negator nai, by contrast, does not tolerate the addition of an emphatic adverbial particle to its right, as illustrated with the verb wakaru ‘understand’.

1. (50) * John-ni-wa sono-imi-ga wakara-naku-mo ar-u. John-dat-top that-meaning-nom understand-neg-also be-pres‘John also do not understand that meaning.’

Sentence (51), in which an NPI appears in the subject position, is acceptable.

1. (51) Dare-hito-ri gakusei-ni sono-imi-ga wakara-nakat-ta (rasii).any-single-cl student-dat that-meaning-nom understand-neg-past seem‘(It seems that) not a single student understood that meaning.’

The dyadic stative predicate wakaru ‘understand’ can take either a dative-nominative or a nominative-nominative case pattern, just like warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’. With both predicates, the first dative/nominative phrase can be bound by the reflexive zibun ‘self’, which has subject orientation (see Shibatani Reference Shibatani1978, and others).

1. (52)

   1. (a) John_i(-ni)-wa zibun_i(-zisin)-ni-taisite das-are-ta hanketu-ga imadani warikire-na-i.John-dat-top self-own-toward issue-pass-past verdict-nom yet satisfy-neg-pres‘John is not satisfied yet with the decision that was issued to himself.’

   2. (b) John_i(-ni)-wa zibun_i(-zisin)-ni-taisite das-are-ta situmon-no imi-ga imadani wakara-nakat-ta.John-dat-top self-own-toward issue-pass-past question-gen meaning-nom yet understand-neg-pres‘John did not understand the meaning of the question directed to himself yet.’

It is often assumed that subjects located in TP can be the antecedent of the reflexive zibun ‘self’ (see Katada Reference Katada1991). If so, the dative/nominative subject of a dyadic stative predicate should be located in the Spec of TP, and the nominative object within VP, as shown in (52) (see Kuno Reference Kuno1973, Shibatani Reference Shibatani1978).

1. (53) [_TP SUBJ-dat/nom [_VP OBJ-nom V] T]

The low degree of acceptability of (49a) indicates that the scope of negation with warikire-nai does not extend over TP, which contains the dative/nominative subject.Footnote ²⁴ On the other hand, the acceptability of (49b), which has a nominative object NPI, shows that this object – located within VP – falls within the scope of nai. The scope facts suggest that the negative head nai in warikire-nai does not undergo overt Neg-head raising and has the structure in (54).Footnote ²⁵

1. (54) [_TP  …  [_NegP [_VP  …  warikire] -na] -i]

On the analysis being outlined here, the absence of overt Neg-head raising in warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ stems from the negative head serving as a lexical adjective with the feature [+lexical]. If so, warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ must have a structure in which the lexical negative adjective nai embeds a verbal complement under it.

Here, we can reasonably postulate that the negator nai in warikire-nai is categorized as a full adjective because it does not submit to the process of decategorization – the grammaticalization of an adjective into a functional predicate. In effect, nai preserves its lexical status by entering into an idiomatic expression. It is instructive here to compare warikire-nai with the corresponding non-potential form warikira-nai ‘not decide’ with its compositional meaning, as the two have different properties.

1. (55) John-wa monogoto-o anna-huu-ni {warikira-nakat-ta/warikit-ta}.John-top matter-acc that-way-in  decide-neg-past/decide-past‘John {did not decide/decided} on matters in that way.’

Note that the negator nai in warikira-nai is an ordinary negative expression, so an affirmative form warikiru ‘decide’ does exist. A clause headed by warikira-nai counts as verbal, as can be seen by the examples in (56).

1. (56)

   1. (a) * John-wa [monogoto-o warikira-naku] omot-ta. John-top  matter-acc decide-neg think-past(Lit.) ‘John thought matters not to be decisive.’

   2. (b) Mary-wa [John-ni monogoto-o anna-huu-ni warikira-nai-de] hosikat-ta.Mary-top  John-dat matter-acc that-way-in decide-neg-te want-past‘Mary wanted John to decide on matters in that way.’

If a clause headed by warikira-nai is verbal, nai must be a functional predicate devoid of its original adjectival property. With a non-stative predicate like warikira-nai, the negative head is expected to resist the suffixation of an adverbial particle, patterning with an ordinary negative head. This expectation is borne out, as illustrated by the unacceptability of (57).

1. (57) * Ken-wa monogoto-o anna-huu-ni warikira-naku-mo ar-u. Ken-top matter-acc that-way-in decide-neg-also be-pres‘Ken also does not decide on matters in that way.’

This, in turn, leads to the prediction that with warikira-nai, the negator will extend its scope over TP via functional predicate raising, and that there will be no subject–object asymmetry with regard to NPI licensing. This prediction is also fulfilled.

1. (58)

   1. (a) Dare-hito-ri gakusei-ga monogoto-o anna-huu-ni warikira-na-i (rasii).any-single-cl student-nom matter-acc that-way-in decide-neg-pres  seem‘(It seems that) not a single student decides on matters in that way.’

   2. (b) Ken-wa nani-hito-tu monogoto-o anna-huu-ni warikira-na-i (rasii).Ken-top any-single-cl matter-acc that-way-in decide-neg-pres  seem‘(It seems that) Ken does not decide on a single matter in that way.’

The data indicate that the subject of warikira-nai ‘not decide’ – which is morphologically related to warikire-nai – falls under the scope of negation. These facts suggest that the scope extension of nai over TP obtains in just those cases where particle-suffixation is not allowed for the negative head.

In Japanese, potential verb forms are productively derived by the addition of -(r)e or -(r)are to the base verb. In an ordinary potential form derivation, no categorial change takes place; for example, kikeru ‘can hear’ is derived from kiku ‘hear’ and both forms are categorized as verbs. Accordingly, it cannot be the case that the idiomatic predicate warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ is derived from warikira-nai ‘not decide’ via regular morphological derivation, since the former is adjectival and the latter verbal.Footnote ²⁶ In addition, warikire-nai and warikira-nai do not select the same kind of object, as evidenced by (59), where the object permitted by warikire-nai is not acceptable with warikira-nai.

1. (59) ?* Ken-wa sono-hanketu-o {wariki-ru/warikira-na-i}. Ken-top that-verdict-acc  decide-pres/decide-neg-pres‘Ken {decides/does not decide} on that verdict.’

This difference in selectional restrictions would not be expected if warikire-nai were derived from warikira-nai by normal means. In a nutshell, the two negative predicates warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ and warikira-nai ‘not decide’ display distinct properties, despite their morphological affinity.

1. (60)

   

The data thus suggest that warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ has become frozen as an idiom while retaining the original lexical property of nai, whereas warikira-nai ‘not decide’ (which is not an idiom) is associated with the regular grammaticalized negative marker that has undergone decategorization.

The most important observation is that the nominative object of warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ falls under the scope of negation, while the dative/nominative subject does not. The subject–object asymmetry with regard to NPI licensing (49) thus indicates that nai in warikire-nai does not take scope over TP. In fact, if the negative head is indeed lexical, it would not be expected to undergo overt functional predicate raising, which in turn implies that it would not raise to the head position of the higher NegP (above TP) in LF either. Note that if the subject NPI were located below the lower NegP, as proposed by some researchers (e.g. Kawashima & Kitahara Reference Kawashima and Hisatsugu1992, Kato Reference Kato, Masatoshi and Hiroyuku1994, Sohn Reference Sohn1995), this would come as a surprise. Under the proposed analysis, by contrast, it is naturally anticipated that the negative head nai in warikire-nai will not extend its scope over a subject located in TP if it is a lexical adjective that syntactically takes a verbal complement.

3.3. Negative clitics

In the preceding section, it was argued that the negative head nai in warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’ is a lexical predicate that does not undergo overt head raising. This is not the only type of negator found in idiomatic negative predicates, however. As discussed below, the negative nai appearing in other idiomatic predicates like niekira-nai ‘be indecisive’ and norikire-nai ‘not in full swing’ is not an independent head, even though it assigns negative scope syntactically. On the other hand, the negative expression kamawa-nai ‘not care’ contains a negator that counts as a functional predicate, indicating that an ordinary negator may also sometimes be associated with idiomatic negative expressions.

The negative element nai in the predicate niekira-nai ‘be indecisive’ is of particular interest in the present context, since it provides yet another case in which negative nai that does not undergo overt Neg-head raising serves as a negative operator. In this section, it is suggested that the negative head in niekira-nai does not constitute an independent head in overt syntax, but rather behaves like a clitic attached to the verb. By comparing the forms niekira-nai ‘not decisive’ and kamawa-nai ‘not care’, it will be shown that the clitic variant of nai attached to the verb niekira- does not take scope over TP – owing to the absence of overt functional predicate raising.

The predicates niekira-nai ‘not decisive’ and kamawa-nai ‘not care’ can only be used in negative form, hence belong to the class of idiomatic negative predicates.Footnote ²⁷ These predicates are both identified as verbal, since they pattern accordingly. Thus clauses headed by niekira-nai and kamawa-nai can be embedded under hosii, which only allows verbal complements.

1. (61)

   1. (a) Watasi-wa (doosenara) [Mary-ga saigo-made niekira-nai-de] hosikat-ta.I-top  if.possible  Mary-nom last-until decisive-neg-te want-past‘I wanted Mary to be indecisive until the last moment (if possible).’

   2. (b) Watasi-wa [Mary-ga sonna-koto-ni kamawa-nai-de] hosikat-ta.I-top  Mary-nom that-thing-dat care-neg-te want-past‘I wanted Mary not to care about that thing.’

The same clauses cannot be embedded under omou, which does not permit verbal clauses as its complements.

1. (62)

   1. (a) ?* John-wa [Mary-o niekira-naku] omot-ta. John-top  Mary-acc decisive-neg think-past‘John thought Mary to be indecisive.’

   2. (b) * John-wa [sonna-koto-o kamawa-naku] omot-ta. John-top  that-thing-acc care-neg think-past(Lit.) ‘John thought that thing not to be cared.’

Moreover, the components of both of these predicates are visible to the syntax, as confirmed by the fact that nai-de iru can replace nai.

1. (63)

   1. (a) John-wa imadani niekira-nai-de i-ru.John-top yet decisive-neg-te be-pres‘John has not been decisive yet.’

   2. (b) John-wa imadani sonna-koto-ni kamawa-nai-de i-ru.John-top yet that-matter-nom care-neg-te be-pres‘John has not been caring about that matter yet.’

The data thus indicate that the negator nai in both predicates should be classified as a functional deadjectival element with a [–lexical] feature.

Despite their similarities, however, there is good reason to believe that niekira-nai and kamawa-nai have different syntactic structures, as shown below. First, the negator in niekira-nai ‘not decisive’ cannot be detached from the verb.Footnote ²⁸

1. (64)

   1. (a) Sore-wa niekira-na-i taido-da.that-top decisive-neg-pres attitude-cop‘That is an indecisive attitude.’

   2. (b) * Sore-wa niekiru taido-de-wa na-i. that-top decisive attitude-cop-top neg-pres‘That is not a decisive attitude.’

By contrast, the negative element nai in kamawa-nai is permitted to occur in a position separate from the verb, as shown in (65).

1. (65)

   1. (a) Sore-wa John-ga mattaku kamawa-na-i mondai-da.that-top John-nom at.all care-neg-pres problem-cop‘That is a problem which John does not care about at all.’

   2. (b) Sore-wa John-ga kama-u (yoona) mondai-de-wa na-i.that-top John-nom care-pres  that problem-cop-top neg-pres‘That is not a problem that John cares about.’

Second, niekira-nai does not allow the negative head to be omitted – even in rhetorical questions that express a negative meaning without an overt negation marker.

1. (66) * Sonna-toki-ni John-no taido-ga niekire-ru daroo ka? that-time-at John-gen attitude-nom decisive-pres will qu‘Will John's attitude be decisive at that time?’

Normally, in rhetorical questions with negative implications, the negative element nai can be omitted, as exemplified in (67).

1. (67) John-ni sono-hanketu-ga warikire-ru daroo ka?John-dat that-verdict-nom satisfy-pres will qu‘Will John be satisfied with the verdict?’

Note that, unlike niekira-nai, the negative predicate kamawa-nai can be used without nai in rhetorical questions, as shown in (68).

1. (68) John-ga sonna-koto-ni kama-u daroo ka?John-nom that-matter-dat care-pres will qu‘Will John care about that matter?’

These facts follow naturally if the negator nai in kamawa-nai is counted as an independent category, while nai in niekira-nai is analyzed as inseparable from the verb stem morphologically.Footnote ²⁹

Imperative formation provides us with further confirmation of the different syntactic statuses of these two predicates. In Japanese, a negated verb can be turned into an imperative form by replacing nai with the invariant particle na (the verb assuming the non-past conclusive form).

1. (69)

   1. (a) Sonna-huu-ni {yom-u/otikom-u} na!that-way-in  read-pres/discourage-pres neg.imp‘Do not {read/be discouraged} in that way!’

   2. (b) Koko-ni i-ru na!here-in be-pres neg.imp‘Do not be here!’

The syntactic operation that derives negative imperative forms by replacing nai with na is category-sensitive, in that it is only possible with verbal predicates (and the imperative is addressed to a sentient entity). Negated adjectives, by contrast, cannot be turned into negative imperative forms by na-replacement.

1. (70) {* Kawaiku/*Kawai-i} na! cute/cute-pres neg.imp‘Do not be cute!’

Note that semantic ‘stativity’ is not a relevant factor here, since stative predicates can easily be turned into imperative forms so long as they are verbal, as exemplified in (69b). Negative imperatives cannot be derived from adjectives taking verbal complements, even though they have the nai-ending, as illustrated by the adjectival predicate warikire-nai ‘not satisfied’.

1. (71) * Sonna-kettei, warikire-ru na! that-decision satisfy-pres neg.imp‘Do not be satisfied with that decision!’

If na-replacement simply targeted nai, there would be no reason for the impossibility of na-substitution in (71). Rather, because warikire-nai forms an adjectival expression, a negative imperative cannot be derived via na-replacement.

Recall that niekira-nai ‘not decisive’ is a verbal predicate to which na-replacement could in principle be expected to apply. Nonetheless, a negative imperative form cannot be derived from it, as illustrated in (72).

1. (72) * Anna-huu-ni niekir-u na! that-way-in decisive-pres neg.imp‘Do not be decisive in that way!’

Given that the particle na cannot replace part of a lexical unit, it is to be expected that niekira-nai should not tolerate na-substitution. It goes without saying that it is possible to derive negative imperative forms from verbal negative predicates like kamawa-nai ‘not care’ and warikira-nai ‘not decide’.

1. (73)

   1. (a) Sonna-koto-ni kama-u na!that-matter-dat care-pres neg.imp‘Do not care about that matter!’

   2. (b) Sonna-kantan-ni warikir-u na!that-easily decide-pres neg.imp‘Do not decide that easily!’

Since these predicates are verbal expressions accompanied by an ordinary negator (i.e. by nai as a decategorized functional predicate), they can be turned into negative imperative clauses.

Essentially, then, although the negative predicate niekira-nai belongs to the class of verbs in the same way as kamawa-nai, we can nevertheless observe a number of properties that distinguish the two. These are summarized in (74).

1. (74)

   

As shown here, there are a number of signs indicating that while kamawa-nai involves an ordinary negator (i.e. a decategorized functional predicate), the components of niekira-nai form a fairly tight unit in the syntax, resistant to syntactic operations like Neg-detachment.

Despite the fact that the negative element of niekira-nai is tightly connected to the verb stem, it still assigns syntactic scope by virtue of possessing the feature [+Neg]. Even though niekira-nai is an intransitive predicate that does not take an object, the potential for syntactic scope assignment can be confirmed with NPI adverbs, as in (75).

1. (75) John(-no taido)-wa {tittomo/sukosimo/amari} niekira-na-i.John-gen attitude-top  at.all/in.the.least/much decisive-neg-pres‘John('s attitude) is not decisive {at all/in the least/much}.’

The NPIs in (75) are, accordingly, interpretable. More importantly, the unacceptability of (76), in which an NPI appears in the subject position, suggests that the scope of nai in niekira-nai does not extend to TP.Footnote ³⁰

1. (76) {?* Dare-mo/?*Hito-ri-mo gakusei-ga} niekira-nakat-ta. anyone-q/single-cl-q student-nom decisive-neg-past‘{No one/Not a single student} was decisive.’

On the other hand, the well-formedness of (77) confirms that the negative head nai in kamawa-nai does take scope over TP.

1. (77) { Dare-mo/Hito-ri-mo gakusei-ga} sono-koto-ni kamawa-nakat-ta. anyone-q/single-cl-q student-nom that-thing-dat care-neg-past‘{No one/Not a single student} cared about that thing.’

The extent of the scope of a negative head in a clause correlates with the admissibility of an adverbial particle to the right of it. Whereas niekira-nai naturally allows the addition of a particle to its right, kamawa-nai does not, as illustrated in (78).

1. (78)

   1. (a) John-no taido-wa niekira-naku-mo ar-u.John-gen attitude-top decisive-neg-also be-pres‘John's attitude is also indecisive.’

   2. (b) ?* John-wa sonna-koto-ni kamawa-naku-mo ar-u. John-top that-thing-dat care-neg-also be-pres‘John also does not care about that thing.’

Thus, the negative expression kamawa-nai contains a functional Neg-head nai that undergoes overt head raising.Footnote ³¹ By contrast, niekira-nai does not, since nai forms a single unit with the verb in the syntax, resisting syntactic operations like Neg-detachment which might otherwise apply to an independent negative head. Still, nai in niekira-nai serves as an operator that assigns syntactic scope. This peculiar behavior can be explained if the negator nai in niekira-nai, unlike nai in kamawa-nai, is analyzed as a clitic attached to the verb, rather than an independent functional head.

To lend concreteness to this proposal, we follow Keyser and Roeper (Reference Keyser and Roeper1992) in assuming that a verb can have an abstract clitic position inside its head projection. Niekira-nai ‘not decisive’ has such a syntactic structure, as shown in (79).

1. (79)

   

In (79), the negative clitic is head-adjoined to the verbal head, which results in a complex minimal structure consisting of a verb and clitic. Since niekira-nai has a highly idiomatic meaning, we suppose that it is moving toward becoming a single lexical head, and the negator is acquiring clitic status accompanied by lexicalization, which reduces an independent head to a clitic or an affix; see Brinton & Traugott (Reference Brinton and Traugott2005).

Despite the lexical integrity of niekira-nai in the syntax, the negative clitic nai is able to assign syntactic scope. Thus, a negative clitic with the specification [+Neg] must be excorporated out of the host verb and moved into the lower NegP in LF, as shown in (80).

1. (80)

   

The negative head at issue is not selected by tense, so nai and tense enter into an initial array without the [+T] feature motivating overt functional predicate raising to TP. Thus, a negative clitic adjoined to its host is never raised to the head position of the higher NegP, where it would take scope over TP. Now, given that the lower NegP can be projected with the formal feature [+N] in its head position, we can see how the negative clitic is excorporated and moved into the head position of NegP for the purpose of feature checking, as shown in (81)

1. (81) [_TP NPI-nom [_NegP [_VP NPI-Adv niekira-na] na] i]

         [+Neg][+N]

The raising of nai here must be local, in that the clitic nai can only move into the lower NegP (located just above VP). Since nai cliticized onto a verb takes syntactic scope by virtue of appearing in the lower NegP at LF, its scope domain is limited to VP. Subject NPIs therefore fall outside the scope of nai, whereas adverbial NPIs are inside its scope.

By contrast, the negative head nai in kamawa-nai, which is less idiomatic than niekira-nai, is a well-behaved negator. This is a decategorized functional head which projects NegP. Since nai is a functional predicative head selected by tense, both nai and tense enter into an initial array with the formal feature [+T]. This entails that the negative head of kamawa-nai will undergo syntactic head raising to T, as well as subsequent LF raising into the higher NegP, giving the LF structure shown in (82).

1. (82) [_NegP [_TP NPI-nom [_NegP [_VP kamawa] na] na-i] na]

        [+T][+T] [+Neg][+N]

In (82), the scope of the negative head nai extends over TP, thereby licensing the subject NPI. Examples like (77) are thus well-formed.

Crucially, both niekira-nai and kamawa-nai contain decategorized negative elements, even though their syntactic status differs. Because the negative head of niekira-nai is cliticized to the verb, it is not raised to the higher NegP, hence its negative scope does not include TP. The subject therefore falls outside the scope of negation, and a subject NPI is not licensed by this negative predicate. Kamawa-nai, on the other hand, contains an ordinary functional negator that undergoes overt Neg-head raising. Here, the scope of nai extends over TP, and there is no asymmetry between subjects and objects with regard to NPI licensing.

Finally, it should be mentioned that even the ‘regular’ negator nai can sometimes be construed as a lexical affix – i.e. one which tolerates the addition of an adverbial particle to its right. The following example illustrates the point.

1. (83) ? Sono-ryoori-wa mibae-ga waru-i-dake-de-naku, oisiku-naku-mo ar-u. that-dish-top looking-nom bad-pres-only-cop-neg delicious-neg-also be-pres‘That dish not only looks bad, but is also not delicious.’

Sentence (83) represents a marked affixal use of negative nai. The addition of an adverbial particle to a certain type of negated predicate (most typically, a stative one) is allowed if a preceding linguistic context is furnished, as in (83). In this example, oisiku-naku serves as a single lexical predicate (with a negative affix) describing a ‘bad-tasting’ meal, by way of comparison with mibae-ga warui ‘bad-looking’ in the preceding sentence. Speakers can generally make sense out of this kind of affixal negation only if there is a linguistic context facilitating its use; otherwise the negative marker will be understood as an ordinary sentential negator.

That nai in (83) is not an ordinary negator can be ascertained by the fact that it does not project syntactic negative scope.

1. (84) * Sono-ryoori-wa mibae-ga waru-i-dake-de-naku, {tittomo/sukosimo/amari} oisiku-naku-mo ar-u. that-dish-top looking-nom bad-pres-only-cop-neg  at.all/in.the.least/much delicious-neg-also be-pres‘That dish not only looks bad, but is also not delicious {at all/in the least/much}.’

NPI adverbs such as tittomo ‘at all’, sukosimo ‘in the least’, and amari ‘much’ function as verbal modifiers. They would be licensed if the negative nai in oisiku-naku projected syntactic scope. The unacceptability of (84) suggests that the negative expression nai here has been reduced to an affix (with no feature [+Neg]) that forms part of the predicate and behaves like affixal negation generally – much like un- in unhappy, which does not license NPIs either.Footnote ³²

On the view held here, the affixal nai of oisiku-naku in (83) – conditioned by the presence of a context facilitating an affixal use – does not assign syntactic scope, owing to the unavailability of the feature [+Neg]. In addition, this nai does not serve as a functional predicate syntactically. Hence, it comes as no surprise that – with no overt head raising – the addition of an adverbial particle is permitted here to the right of nai. However, this type of affixal negation is not relevant for the present discussion, since it does not create syntactic scope. Note that warikire-nai and niekira-nai, discussed above, differ crucially from this affixal use of nai in that the negative element of these predicates assigns syntactic scope, and the addition of an adverbial particle to its right is readily permitted without a special context that facilitates the affixal use of nai.

The unique property of niekira-nai is that the negative head which cliticizes to the verb functions as an operator that can license NPI adverbs. This enables us to confirm the verb's structural position in overt syntax. The scope facts provide us with a clear indication that the main verb to which nai is attached does not undergo head raising into TP. This in turn is to be expected if overt head raising to T operates only on independent functional predicative heads in Japanese. If main verbs were head-raised to T, the scope of nai in niekira-nai would extend over TP. The fact is, however, that its negative scope does not spread over TP. Again, if the lack of subject–object asymmety with regard to NPI licensing were attributed to the position of the subject, the facts surrounding niekira-nai would not be expected. Since subjects fall outside the scope of nai that is not head-raised to T, we can reasonably assume that they are located in Spec of TP.