The debate has not yet been settled as to whether Japanese causative structures are 'bi-clausal' or 'mono-clausal'. Within LFG, Ishikawa (1985) and Matsumoto (1996) claim that Japanese morphological causatives are bi-clausal at f-structure, mono-clausal at c-structure.

In this paper, I argue that the recent LFG approach to complex predicates (Alsina 1996, Butt 1995, Andrews and Manning 1999, etc) holds good in Japanese causative and other related constructions; i.e., mono-clausal at f-structure and bi-clausal at c-structure, pace Ishikawa and Matsumoto. I demonstrate that several phenomena (ex. (in)separability of the word, passivization, honorification, the interpretation of pronominals) supposedly support the one-word analysis by Ishikawa and Matsumoto are in fact to be handled elsewhere in grammar such as phonology, syntax and pragmatics. Most importantly, examining the facts about the interpretation of adverbs (ex (1)), I corroborate the assumption that c-structure as well as f-structure should participate in calculating semantic interpretation. (cf. Andrews and Manning)

Ishikawa and Matsumoto do not assume phrase structure is to be taken into account for semantic interpretation. Hence, how they account for examples like (2) remains unclear. The proposed analysis differs from Andrews and Manning's in treating distinctively serial verbs and other complex predicates. One of the biggest reasons for this is that the former, which is formed at lexicon, do not exhibit such ambiguity. (ex. (1)), while the latter, which is formed at syntax, do. (ex. (2), (3)) In our account, irrespective of the sorts, all we have to say is that adjuncts necessarily scope within the domain in which grammatical relations are shared. (cf. Andrews and Manning 1999, Yokota 1999)

We now can no longer depend on 'less motivated movements' like Quantifier Raising in GB / Minimalism, or the lexicalized version of Quantifier Retrieval in HPSG. (cf. Manning et al. 1999) Note that the latter approach will face difficulties in accounting for the absence of ambiguity in (1).

Previous studies within non-derivational framework including HPSG and LFG have challenged the scope ambiguity as shown in (2) and (3). However, none of them can handle it in natural and consistent manner like ours. Though Manning et al. (1999), who argue for the mono-clausal analysis, have pointed out that there exists ambiguity like (3), they do not discuss the way to handle it for reasons of complexities. Gunji (1999), on the other hand, argues for a bi-clausal, or VP-complement, account. However, he would not be able to account for the possible interpretations given in (i) and (ii) of (3) without assumptions like preposing or long-distance scrambling of 'terebi-sika', which seems to be undesirable in the theory.

Examples:

(1) Taroo-ga Saburoo-o yukkuri osi-taosi-ta. [unamiguous]
Taro-Nom Saburo-Acc slowly push-topple-past
'Taro slowly pushed and toppled Saburo.'

(2) a. Ken-ga damatte Naomi-o suwar-ase-ta. [ambiguous]
Ken-Nom silently Naomi-Acc sit-Caus-Past
'Ken silently made Naomi sit / Ken made Naomi sit silently.'

b. Damatte Ken-ga Naomi-o suwar-ase-ta. [unambiguous]
silently Ken-Nom Naomi-Acc sit-Caus-Past
'Ken silently made Naomi sit.'

(3) Ken-ga Naomi-ni terebi-sika mi-sase-na-katta. [ambiguous]
Ken-Nom Naomi-Dat TV-only watch-Caus-Neg-Past

(i) Ken-ga Naomi-ni terebi-sika [mi]-sase-na-katta.
'Ken didn't cause Naomi to watch other things.'

(ii) Ken-ga Naomi-ni [terebi-sika mi]-sase-na-katta.
'Ken didn't cause Naomi to do other things.'

Selected references:

Alsina, Alex. 1996. The Role of Argument Strcture in Grammar. CSLI Publications.
Andrews, Avery D. and Christopher D. Manning. 1999. Complex Predicates and Information Spreading in LFG. CSLI Publications.
Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo. 1995. "The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu," NLLT 13, 181-254.
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. CSLI Publications.
Gunji, Takao 1999. "On Lexicalist Treatments of Japanese Causatives," in Levine, R. and Green, G. eds (1999), 119-160.
Ishikawa, Akira. 1985. Complex Predicates and Lexical Operators in Japanese. PhD. diss. Stanford University.
Kuno, Susumu 1983. Shin nihon bunpoo kenkyuu [The New Study of Japanese Grammar]. Taishukan Publishers.
Levine, Robert and Green, Georgia (1999) Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Manning, Christopher D., and Ivan A Sag, and Masayo Iida. 1999. "The Lexical Integrity of Japanese Causatives," in Levine, R. and Green, G. eds. (1999), 39-79.
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese. CSLI Publications and Kuroshio Publishers.
Yatabe, Shuichi 1998. “Nihongo ni okeru hiteizi ryookasi no skoopu no kettei [The determination of scopes of negation and quantifiers in Japanese],” Proceedings of Sophia Linguistic Society No.13, 117-136.
Yokota, Kenji 1999. "Light Verb Constructions in Japanese and Functional Uncertainty," CSLI on-line proceedings of LFG-99.