The primary goal of this paper is to examine the validity of the claim, made by S.-Y. Kuroda in his 2003 Lingua paper, that facts involving clausal disjunction provide evidence for the biclausality of Japanese causatives. I point out two facts that appear to cast doubt on this claim, but ultimately argue that they do not affect its validity. In the course of the discussion, it is also shown that the double-o constraint needs to be satisfied only in one of the conjuncts when the complement of the causative morpheme consists of conjoined VPs.
(S. Yatabe, "Setsu-reberu de no sengen-teki tôi-setsuzoku o meguru jijitsu wa hontô ni Nihongo shieki-kôbun ga fukubun-kôzô o motsu shôko ni natte iru ka (Do facts involving clausal disjunction really constitute evidence for the bi-clausal nature of the causative construction in Japanese?)", in Nihon Gengogakkai Dai-140-kai Taikai Yokô-shû (Proceedings of the 140th Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan), Linguistic Society of Japan, Kyoto, 2010, pp. 278-283.)