Abstract
This paper reconsiders the syntax of Multiple Scrambling in Japanese taking its prosodic patterns into consideration. Specifically, the paper examines cases of Multiple Scrambling in which scrambled phrases form a phonological unit and cases in which they do not. The first part of the paper aims to show that each of these prosodic possibilities has distinct syntactic properties and hence is associated with different syntactic structures. After establishing that there are two types of Multiple Scrambling, the second part of the paper identifies the underlying syntax for these. It is argued that multiple applications of single scrambling underlie the prosody in which scrambled phrases belong to separate phonological units, whereas VP-movement, as originally proposed by Koizumi (J East Asian Linguist 9:227–285, 2000), leads to the prosody in which scrambled phrases are phrased phonologically together. The paper shows that the VP-movement approach accounts for various properties of Multiple Scrambling with the prosody in question when furnished with the ideas of remnant movement and an articulated VP-structure which leads to the possibility of VP-movement as well as vP-movement. It is also shown that the proposed VP-fronting analysis has broader empirical coverage than alternative approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Most of the previous literature only mentions the prosodic structure of MSed sentences in connection with the observation that long-distance MS improves if MSed phrases form a prosodic unit (Koizumi 2000: 239; Fukui and Sakai 2003: 335; see also Agbayani et al. 2015). As far as I am aware, Hirotani (2005) is the only work which takes the variable prosodic structures of MSed sentences into consideration. She conducted an auditory comprehension experiment on sentences involving long-distance MS. She compared prosody in which scrambled phrases are phrased together to prosody in which they belong to separate prosodic phrases, and found that they are more likely to be interpreted to be coming from the same clause under the first prosody. MSed sentence (ia) can, in principle, be derived from either (ib) or (ic) but the interpretation in (ib) is preferred when YP and ZP form a prosodic unit.
In this paper, I focus on the possibilities of whether MSed phrases form a phonological unit or not. When they do not, the second of the MSed phrases (sono hon-o in (3b)) may be phrased together with the rest of the sentence or not. I ignore this variation since, as far as I can see, this difference does not matter in the following discussion.
Here the term VP refers to what is traditionally called verb phrases and it does not distinguish between syntactic categories of vP and VP. The structure of verb phrases is discussed in Sect. 3.4.3.
In Agbayani et al. (2015), the domain of downstep is referred to as a phonological phrase. They adopt the analysis and terminologies of Itô and Mester (2012, 2013), in which phonological phrases are proposed as a prosodic category which subsumes the Minor Phrase and the Major Phrase. Different researchers (e.g. Pierrehumbert and Beckman 1989) use the term intermediate phrase to refer to the Major Phrase. See Ishihara (2015) for the summary of different terminologies used by major studies of Japanese phonology and the relationship among them.
The contrast in (10) cannot be reduced to a PF-precedence requirement since the bound variable reading obtains under reconstruction effects:
In this paper, judgments regarding idiomatic expressions are about the availability of the idiomatic interpretation. All of the relevant sentences are acceptable with literal meanings.
(16) and (17) are based on Richards (1999). He presents (16b) as acceptable. I find it degraded, though I agree that there is a contrast between SS of the dative and SS of the accusative.
See also footnote 1, where Hirotani’s (2005) work was mentioned.
See also Ishihara (2016). He argues for the same line of analysis based on experimental findings regarding downstep.
See Takano (2008) for major approaches to this alternation.
(36) and (39) are based on Yatsushiro (1996). She makes the same observation using different quantifiers.
This derivation involves a violation of the Proper Binding Condition (PBC), which requires that a trace left by movement be bound by an antecedent (Fiengo 1977; Saito 1985, 1989). The standard VP-fronting does not tolerate violations of PBC for traces of internal arguments (Hoji et al. 1989):
The question then arises why MS with an unbounded trace of internal arguments is not excluded due to a violation of the PBC, which is often presented as an argument against the verb phrase fronting approach. Arano (2017) argues that the insensitivity to the PBC under VP-fronting involved in MS is predicted under Takita’s (2010) approach to PBC effects. Adopting Fox and Pesetsky (2005), he argues that PBC effects in Japanese are reduced to linear-order preservation effects. Oversimplifying, the gist of the account is that Japanese has a condition that internal arguments should precede the verb in the final output. In (ic), DO ends up following the verb and this is excluded. In (44), on the other hand, the stranded DO precedes the embedded verb as a consequence of V-movement out of VP, hence no PBC effects arise.
That (45b) is ambiguous may be unexpected given the generalization known as Barss’s generalization. (i) is the formulation from Heck and Assmann (2014: 529) (see Barss 1986; Sauerland 1999; Sauerland and Elbourne 2002; van de Koot 2005; Neeleman and van de Koot 2010; Heck and Assmann 2014; Ruys 2015) for attempts to derive this effect):
It prohibits scope reconstruction into a fronted predicate undergoing remnant movement. It is exemplified by (ii). In contrast to (iib), (iia) is unambiguous, vindicating the generalization.
Given Barss’s generalization, (45b) should be unambiguous since the reading in which the subject scopes over IO requires reconstruction of IO into a moved VP. There are two ways to deal with the issue. One is to deny the validity of Barss’s generalization. Thoms and Walkden (2019) in fact argue against the validity of the generalization based on participle preposing (Samko 2014). If scope reconstruction into a predicate undergoing remnant movement is allowed, ambiguity in (45b) is not surprising.
Alternatively, Barss’s generalization can be related to reconstructability into islands. Longobardi (1987) observes that reconstruction of an extracted quantifier is impossible inside weak islands ((iii) and (iv) are from Cresti (1995)).
Reading (iiia) is appropriate when there are a certain number of people each of whom the hearer should talk to. In reading (iiib), on the other hand, the identity of people the hearer talks to is not important. Rather, what is important is the number of people the hearer talks to, e.g., to get a certain number of opinions for a poll. The second reading arises when n-many people is reconstructed under the modal should. Crucially, this reading is unavailable when the modal is embedded within a wh-island, as in (iv). Based on the contrast between (iii) and (iv), let us assume that (v) is correct.
Given that moved elements generally form islands (i.e., the traditional freezing effects), Barss’s generalization falls under (v). This line of reasoning predicts that if moved elements show no freezing effects, reconstruction into them would be allowed in principle. I would like to suggest that this is what happens in (45b) given that scrambling shows no freezing effects (Saito 1985).
(48) illustrates the formation of the matrix VP which consists of a matrix dative and an embedded accusative that involves the following steps of movement: movement of the accusative to the VP-edge, movement of the embedded CP out of the matrix VP, and movement of the matrix V out of the matrix VP. The constituent in question can, however, be formed differently, as illustrated below:
(i) involves movement of the embedded subject out of the matrix VP and long-distance movement of the embedded V to the matrix T. Following Koizumi (2000), I assume that this derivation is not possible since cross-clausal head-movement is not allowed.
Note that the presence of a dative argument does not block the binding of the anaphor by an external argument.
See Funakoshi (2020) for empirical evidence that focus particles make verbs stay inside verb phrases.
I remain agnostic as to the precise structure of verb phrases. In the main text, I present it as VP and vP. But there may be additional structure (e.g. VoiceP) above them. In that case, V moves out of VoiceP in MS, but V moves up to Voice in the standard VP-fronting.
The question arises whether the possibility of vP-movement is available in cases of MS involving IO and DO. I do not address this issue here. If it turns out that it has to target VP, not vP, then this may follow from the economy condition which prohibits unnecessary pied-pi** (see Chomsky 1995; cf. Takano 2002:footnote 6, p. 295): vP is structurally bigger than VP but either movement leads to the same string. Therefore, VP-movement would be chosen.
It is worth noting that this kind of economy consideration seems to be necessary anyway under the verb phrase fronting approach. Saito (1985) shows that Japanese does not allow long-distance scrambling of adjuncts. Given the possibility of remnant movement, it should be possible to derive it via movement of vP/VP which only contains an adjunct. The same logic in fact applies to scrambling of subjects given that subjects also resist long-distance scrambling (Saito 1985). To block this kind of derivations, such an economy condition needs to be invoked.
A reviewer asks why the English counterpart of (57b) is ungrammatical.
Movement involved here is an example of what Funakoshi (2012, 2014) dubs headless XP-movement. It is movement of XP out of which X has been moved. As Funakoshi (2012, 2014) observes, such movement is subject to cross-linguistic variation. Funakoshi (2012, 2014) argues that headless XP-movement is allowed in languages which admit multiple specifiers. Arano (2018) argues that it is allowed in OV languages. In either of the analyses, the contrast between Japanese and English in question is predicted. Japanese allows multiple specifiers and is an OV language, whereas English does not allow multiple specifiers and is a VO language.
I would like to thank a reviewer for suggesting that I check this prediction.
See, for example, Kayne (1994). He proposes a version of c-command in which the distinction is made between category and segment and the latter is ignored for c-command relations.
Long-distance scrambling in Japanese shows A\(^\prime \)-properties and it does not affect scope or license bound variable reading (Saito 1992; Tada 1993). Based on this, one may suggest that IO in (62) c-commands the subject but does not take scope over it because IO is in an A\(^\prime \)-position. However, there is independent evidence that oblique movement can affect scope. Consider (i), in which the dative and the accusative are quantificational.
In (ia), the dative takes scope over the accusative, which shows that the former is structurally higher than the latter. (ib) is derived from (ia), ending up with the order of DO-IO-Subj-V and with the unit prosody. Crucially, this sentence is ambiguous. The oblique movement approach derives (ib) in the following way. First, DO undergoes oblique movement, adjoining to IO. Second, the surprising constituent just created moves to the edge of the clause.
Note that it is oblique movement of DO that changes the scope relationship between DO and IO. Therefore, the lack of scope ambiguity observed in Sect. 2 should not be due to the nature of adjoined positions in oblique movement.
Agbayani et al. (2015) assume that IO and DO cannot form a syntactic constituent because Japanese lacks V-to-T movement. Therefore, marking both IO and DO for scrambling is the only way to scramble the string of IO DO.
Under the prosodic scrambling analysis, MS may be expected not to be subject to syntactic constraints since it takes place in phonology. Agbayani et al. argue that this prediction is borne out by looking at scrambling which violates Adjunct islands, Complex NP Constraint, and Left-Branch Condition. They observe that in all of these cases, SS that violates a constraint is worse than MS that violates the same constraint. Based on this contrast, they conclude that MS is not subject to syntactic constraints. However, this is a somewhat hasty conclusion since there being a contrast between SS and MS does not necessarily mean that MS violating syntactic constraints is fully acceptable. In fact, I checked their examples as well as (multiple) scrambling out of non-islands with six speakers and all of them found MS out of islands to be worse than (multiple) scrambling out of non-islands. That is, (ib) is worse than (ii). This means that MS shows a residual island effect, which is expected under syntactic approaches to MS. Furthermore, the same speakers found improvement even with SS if it targets a phonologically long phrase. That is, (ib) was found to be as acceptable as (iii). (One of the reviewers reported that (ib) sounds better than (iii) for him/her. I leave the issue of potential speaker variation for future research).
The same pattern is replicated in cases of Adjunct Islands. Furthermore, Shiobara (2017) argued that the length of moved elements matters in Left-Branch Extraction. This state of affairs suggests that what makes scrambling out of islands better is the phonological length of the scrambled elements. In the cases of MS, scrambled phrases form a phonological unit (also a syntactic constituent under the approaches by Takano (2002) and Koizumi (2000)) and what is fronted is typically longer than in the case of SS, as in (ia) vs. (ib); the suggestion is that this is the reason why MS sounds better than SS out of islands. In other words, MS itself does not have special status; what matters is the length of the relevant elements. This is an interesting but different issue, which I address in work in preparation, where I pursue the idea that the improvement effects in these scrambling cases are due to a psycho-linguistic constraint in Japanese which is known as the long-before-short preference (Dryer 1980; Hawkins 1994; Yamashita and Chang 2001; Yamashita 2002), a result of which is that in some cases a long constituent is more acceptable than a short constituent under scrambling. This line of analysis predicts that even SS out of islands improves if it targets a long constituent and this seems to be borne out, as shown in (iii). In other words, improvement is not due to a special status of MS.
References
Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston, and Toru Ishii. 2015. Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33: 47–77.
Arano, Akihiko. 2017. Multiple scrambling, headless vP-movement, and Cyclic Linearization. In NELS 47: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society: Volume 1, ed. Andrew Lamont & Katerina Tetzlof, 55–64. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Arano, Akihiko. 2018. On the distribution of headless vP/VP-movement. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 24, ed. Ava Irani & Milena Šereikaitė, volume 1, Article 3.
Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence: On reconstruction and its implications. Cambridge, MA: Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in linguistics, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cresti, Diana. 1995. Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122.
Dryer, Matthew Synge. 1980. The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in universal grammar. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25: 123–196.
Fiengo, Robert. 1977. On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 35–61.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its application. Cambridge, MA: Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fukui, Naoki, and Hiromu Sakai. 2003. The visibility guideline for functional categories: Verb raising in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113: 321–375.
Fukui, Naoki, and Margaret Speas. 1986. Specifiers and projection. In MIT working papers in linguistics, ed. Naoki Fukui, Tova R. Rapoport, & Elizabeth Sagey, volume 8, 128–172. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2012. On headless XP-movement/ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 519–562.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2014. Syntactic head movement and its consequences. College Park: Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2020. Verb-raising and VP-fronting in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 37: 117–146.
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heck, Fabian, and Anke Assmann. 2014. Barss’ generalization and the strict cycle at LF. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 92: 527–560.
Hirotani, Masako. 2005. Constraint on prosodic structures in grammar and parser: Scrambled and unscrambled sentences in Japanese. In University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 30: Papers on prosody, ed. Shigeto Kawahara, 53–90. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Seattle: Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
Hoji, Hajime. 2003. Falsifiability and repeatability in generative grammar: A case study of anaphora and scope dependency in Japanese. Lingua 113: 377–446.
Hoji, Hajime, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hiroaki Tada. 1989. NP-movement in Japanese. Ms., University of Southern California, Ohio State University, and MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–138.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out (MaP, FI, MSO). The Linguistic Review 24: 137–167.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2015. Syntax-phonology interface. In Handbook of Japanese phonetics and phonology, ed. Haruo Kubozono, 569–618. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2016. Japanese downstep revisited. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34: 1389–1443.
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. In Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics (FAJL 4), 97–111.
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, ed. Toni Browsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Takahito Shinya, and Mariko Sugahara, 280–303. London: Equinox.
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124: 20–40.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Amherst: Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 25–79.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2000. String vacuous overt verb raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 227–285.
Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1970. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only. Part 2. Annual Bulletin 4: 127–152.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1–47.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1987. Extraction from NP and the proper notion of head government. In The syntax of noun phrases, ed. Alessandra Giorgi and Giuseppe Longobardi, 57–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nakamura, Masaru. 1989. Reflexives in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 95: 206–230.
Neeleman, Ad., and Hans van de Koot. 2010. A local encoding of syntactic dependencies and its consequences for the theory of movement. Syntax 13: 331–372.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1983. Prosodic structure above the word. In Prosody: Models and measurements, ed. Anne Cutler & D. Robert Ladd, 123–140. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/Tokyo: Springer.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Mary E. Beckman. 1989. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Poser, William J. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. Cambridge, MA: Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 1999. Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In Working minimalism, ed. Samuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 127–158. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ruys, E.G. 2015. A minimalist condition on semantic reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 453–488.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A\(^{\prime }\)-movement. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. Mark R. Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch, 182–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69–118.
Saito, Mamoru. 1994. Additional-wh effects and the adjunction site theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 195–240.
Samko, Bern. 2014. A feature-driven movement analysis of English participle preposing. In Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 31), ed. Robert E. Santana-LaBarge, 371–380. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Sauerland, Uli. 1999. Scope reconstruction without reconstruction. In Proceedings of the seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 17), ed. Kimary Shanin, Susan Blake, & Eun-Sook Kim, 582–596. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF-movement, and the derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136: 35–74.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, & Alan Yu, 435–484. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd edition.
Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Koichi Tateishi. 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In Interdisciplinary approaches to languages: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. Carol Georgopoulos & Roberta Ishihara, 519–543. Dordrecht: Springer.
Shiobara, Kayono. 2017. A phonological approach to left branch condition: Evidence from exceptions in Japanese. In Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 8: Proceedings of FAJL 8, ed. Ayaka Sugawara, Shintaro Hayashi, & Satoshi Ito, 143–152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Sohn, Keun-Won. 1994. Adjunction to argument, free ride and a minimalist program. In Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics, vol. 1, ed. Masatoshi Koizumi and Hiroyuki Ura, 315–334. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A\(^{\prime }\) partition in derivation. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of movement. Storrs: Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Takano, Yuji. 2002. Surprising constituents. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 243–301.
Takano, Yuji. 2008. Ditransitive constructions. In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 423–455. New York: Oxford University Press.
Takita, Kensuke. 2010. Cyclic linearization and constraints on movement and ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, Nanzan University.
Thoms, Gary, and George Walkden. 2019. vP-fronting with and without remnant movement. Journal of Linguistics 55: 161–214.
van de Koot, Hans. 2005. Explaining Barss’s generalization. In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 16, 177–195.
Yamashita, Hiroko. 2002. Scrambled sentences in Japanese: Linguistic properties and motivations for production. Text 22: 597–633.
Yamashita, Hiroko, and Franklin Chang. 2001. “Long before short’’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81: B45–B55.
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 1996. On the unaccusative construction and nominative case licensing. Generals paper: University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Yoshiki Fujiwara, Teruyuki Mizuno, Yuya Noguchi, Hiromune Oda, Ian Roberts, Hiroaki Saito, Mamoru Saito, Adrian Stegovec, Kensuke Takita, Yuta Tatsumi, and especially Željko Bošković for their judgments, comments, and discussion. I am also grateful to two anonymous JEAL reviewers for their invaluable comments that were very helpful in improving the paper. I also thank the audience at ECO-5, and NELS 47, and WAFL 13, where portions of the paper were presented. This research is partially supported by the Fulbright Program for graduate study (IIE Grant ID\(\#\): 15142639). Any errors are, of course, my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arano, A. Reconsidering multiple scrambling in Japanese. J East Asian Linguist 31, 265–303 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-022-09240-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-022-09240-8