Deriving the similarities between Japanese and Italian: a case study in comparative syntax

This article explores a way of explaining rather surprising similarities between Japanese and Italian, in contradistinction with English. These similarities include (i) the presence of null subjects and quirky subjects, (ii) the absence of expletive elements, (iii) the existence of relatively free word order, (iv) the possibility of long-distance NP movement in restructuring constructions, and (v) the lack of so-called “subject condition effects” with respect to extraction. Capitalizing on the analysis of functional categories in terms of [±L(exical)] and [±F(unctional)] features [Huang, 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA; Fukui, 1995, The principles-and-parameters approach: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In: Shibatani, M., Bynon, T. (Eds.), Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 327], it is proposed that T in Japanese/Italian is specified as [+F, +L] (i.e., a functional category with lexical nature, which induces no feature checking), as opposed to T in English whose feature specification is [+F, −L] (i.e., a “pure” functional category inducing feature checking). It is then demonstrated that the proposed parameter, as it interacts with various principles of universal grammar, gives a unified account for the similarities between Japanese and Italian, while successfully distinguishing these two (types of) languages from English. The parameter also leads to an important modification of the Phase Impenetrability Condition [Chomsky, 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 89], thus opening up a refreshing way of looking at the differences, first noted by Rizzi [1982, Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht], between English and Italian with respect to the wh-island constraint. Implications and advantages of the “tripartite” approach to comparative syntax are also discussed in detail.