Movement and its Restriction in Terms of Argumenthood
Eriko Hirasaki
Kwansei Gakuin University
Movement is one of the most major topics in linguistics. There are many studies which focus
on the issue as to where a moved element was base-generated or the path/landing site of the movement
was. However, some data indicate that we need some other accounts.
(1) a. How many meni were there ti in that garden?
b. *How many meni did there arrive ti at that station?
(Ura 1994: 227)
The two sentences seem to have no difference in syntactic structure. Therefore, few studies can givea satisfactory analysis of this type of data, and we need a theory with some other point of view. It
should be noted that since noun phrases with a WH-word used in the two sentences are the same, thedifference must be explained without referring to the lexical properties of the nouns. This paper will
give an explanation to some relation between A-bar movement and “Argumenthood” of the nouns.
To be more precise, I will propose that some movements are prohibited because of an uncheckedfeature of a target of the movement. I will show that this proposal enables us to explain the data inquestion.
Relevant data have already been discussed by Postal (1998). Postal (1998) points out that somemovements are restricted because of the base-generated position of the moved element. The following
data exemplify the phenomena at issue.
(2) a. He painted the car green/that color.
b. [No such color]1 would I ever paint my car t1.
c. *[Green/That color]1, he never painted the car t1.
(3) a. He knew that there were (no) such chemicals in the bottle.
b. [No such chemicals]1 did he know that there were t1 in the bottle.
c. *[Such chemicals]1, he knew that there were t1 in the bottle.
(4) a. [What kind of dancer]1, do you want to be t1?
b. [What kind of idiot]1 did they regard him as t1?
c. What1 are you going to become t1?
d. *[A good bodyguard]1, Frank is t1.

(Postal 1998: 27)(Postal 1998: 26)(Postal 1998: 28)

e. *[The best bodyguard in the world]1, I never referred to Frank as t1.
f. *[That kind of surgeon]1, Frank never became t1.
(Postal 1998: 29)
As (2) and (3) show, negative extraction is compatible with NPs designating changes of color or withthe “focus” position of Existential There Constructions, whereas Topicalization is not. (4) shows thatpredicative NPs cannot be a target of Topicalization while they can undergo Question Formation.
According to Postal (1998), Topicalization, NP Clefting, and Nonrestrictive Relative ClauseFormation are not compatible with some certain positions, which will be called Non-Argument

position in this paper, but other extractions such as Question Formation, Restrictive Relative
Formation, Negative Inversion, Pseudo-Clefting are compatible with Non-Argument position. Thereseems to be room for more work to be done in this area because all the movements mentioned here
have basically been treated in the same way since Chomsky (1977).
Here I propose that the (un)grammaticality of the above sentences can be explained byclarifying what Non-Argument positions are. In this paper I will assume that a noun phrase in a NonArgument position does not reduce the adicity of a predicate. The notion of adicity here follows Heim
& Kratzer (1998), whose definition is as follows: Arguments reduce the adicity of the predicate they
combine with; modifiers leave it unchanged (H&K 1998: 64). Along this line, I will treat noun phrases
in Non-Argument position as one kind of modifier, and assume that a certain feature, which I will call
Argument feature (A-feature), remains unchecked if the noun phrase is used as a modifier. A-feature
is assumed to be a feature which all noun phrases have, and this feature is checked if the noun phrase
is used as an Argument of the predicate and refers to an entity. For example, green/that color in (2)does not refer to an entity, the associate of There-Construction and predicative nouns as well. Since
the noun phrases used in the sentences above are not used as an Argument, their A-features remain.
Therefore, assuming A-feature is incompatible with Topicalization, Clefting, and Nonrestrictive
Relatives, the ungrammaticality of the sentences can be explained. Here I argue that theincompatibility can be deduced to LF-Reconstruction. If a movement has LF-Reconstruction, theremaining A-feature of the noun phrase will cause the ungrammaticality. Whether the movements
have LF-Reconstruction can be supported by the existence/absence of Weak Crossover effect, whichis studied by Safir (1986), Lasnik & Stowell (1991), Postal (1993) among many others. According to
Safir (1986), Weak Crossover effects are not found in Nonrestrictive Relatives while they are in
Restrictive Relatives. According to L&S (1991), Weak Crossover effects are absent in Topicalization.
Assuming that movements which have LF-Reconstruction do not have Weak Crossover effect, whichis also suggested by L&S (1991), the phenomena can be deduced to the same point.
References
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal
Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. MA. Blackwell Publishing.
Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687-720.
Postal, P. 1993. Remarks on Weak Crossover Effects. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 539-556.
Postal, P. 1998. Three Investigations of Extraction. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Safir, K. 1986. Relative Clauses in a Theory of Binding and Levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663-689.
Ura, H. 1994. A Short Note on Partitive Case Checking and the Expletive There. English Linguistics
11: 227-236.

How the speakers create the common ground with audience in TED Talks?
Reika Sakurada(Graduate school of Humanities, Japan Women’s University)
The aim of this study is to examine how the American and Japanese speakerdeliver a speech to make common ground with audience in public speaking. Whenpeople communicate with the other, common ground, or the shared knowledge,
facilitates better and smoothly mutual understanding (Clark and Brennan, 1991). In
the context of public speaking, there is nearly empty of common ground between the
speaker and audience because they meet for the first time and each audience has diverse
social background. How does the speaker deliver a speech to gain better understanding
for a large audience who do not share the common ground? This paper deals with “TED
Talks” delivered by American and Japanese speakers as data and examines (1) the
discourse structure and (2) rhetorical expressions. Through the analyses, this paper
focuses on the difference of how the American and Japanese speakers create common
ground and build the relationship with audience in a public speech.
Regarding the discourse structure, many studies in contrastive rhetoric andlinguistic stylistics have pointed out that essay structure takes on different forms
depending on cultures (Kaplan 1989, Leggett 1975, Honna 1989). As seen this, while
many studies dealing with written language have been conducted, not much in available
on spoken language. Regarding the rhetorical expressions in public speaking, manystudies examine them in the political context but there are few research on theexpression in the context of what the speakers deliver their own ideas based on various
range of the theme.
This paper deals with 12 American English and 12 Japanese speeches of “TED
(Technology, Entertainment, Design) Talks” as data; which is a webcast project of a
globally-spreading speaking event, “TED Conference.” The paper focuses on (1) how
the speakers construct episodes, and (2) how they employ rhetorical expressions when
they enhance the interactivity and create common ground.
Results of the analysis (1) reveal that American and Japanese speakers constructspeeches differently. American speakers give some episodes by emphasizing the certaintyof their own thesis statement. They give the thesis statement, or the main point, at the
beginning of a speech. The audience can thereby grasp the essence of the content of the
speech right away. On the other hand, Japanese speakers show the thesis statement at theend of the speech. The speakers give some episodes to co-construct the path to the goalof the speech with audience. Audience does not know the conclusion until the end, theyneed to consider and imagine what the thesis statement is by referring to episodes whichhave already been presented by the speaker as cues.
Next, the results of analysis (2) will be shown. Both American and Japanese
speakers use the method of parallelism and the method of question, their ways and effectshow the difference. Moreover, American speakers use the words “fact” and “evidence”
to highlight certainty of the information. On the other hand, Japanese speakers use thesentence-final particle ne which is a marker in showing a co-responding attitude (Kamio
1990) to attempt to share the emotion and create rapport with audience.
In conclusion, this paper shows the differences how the public speakers convey
their own ideas toward audience who do not have common ground. American speakers
tend to deliver a speech as the “leader” and make common ground by providing
information which shows speaker’s possession and high accuracy. On the other hand,
Japanese speakers deliver a speech as the “partner” with audience and make common
ground by emphasizing assent and rapport. As can be seen, American and Japanese
speakers posit the speaker’s role differently and they have the own fashion of speaking
respectively.
References
Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. A. (1991). In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, &S.D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition.
Washington: APA Books.
Honna, N. 1989. Nihongo no buntai to eigo no buntai [The stylistics in Japanese andEnglish]. Kooza: Japanese language and Japanese language education 5: 363385. Meiji shoin.
Kamio, Akio. 1990. Joohoo-no nawabari riron: Gengo-no kinoo-teki bunseki (Thetheory of territory of information: A functional analysis of language). Tokyo:
Taisyuukan Shoten.
Kaplan, Robert. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language
learning 16, 14. 1-20.
Leggett, A. 1975. Notes on the writing of scientific English and Japanese physics. 21,
11. The Physical Society of Japan.

What to Do with PGs in Japanese: An Anti-Lexicalist Approach
Norio Suzuki Kobe Shinwa Women’s University (former professor)
Synopsis : This paper gives an argument for an inventory of Japanese null arguments (JNAs)
involving pro & parasitic gaps (PGs) (A 2011, Mi 2017) to the (almost) exclusion ofargument-ellipsis (AE) of O (1998). I discuss the word-formation (WF)/lexical-acquisition(LA) of JNAs under Anti-Lexicalism (AL; Mu 2016, B 2015). I follow A (2011) in assuming
the presence of PGs in J in addition to pro. A (2011) observes: “Adopting the functional
determination approach taken by Ch (1982), let us suppose that all instances of NAs in fact
originate from one entity that lacks all features ….” Capitalizing on “one entity that lacks allfeatures,” I take the symbol Φ (meaning ‘one entity that lacks all features’) as the “lexical
precursor cell (LPC)” for pro & PGs (B 2015, Mu 2016 for LPCs as input to narrow-syntax
NS). The WF/LA procedure under AL for JNAs may be one according to which the LPC Φ is
Merged into NS, is derivationally manipulated & acquires lexical features, and then is realized
as either pro or a PG. For acquisition purposes under AL, my analysis is couched in the termsof Y’s (2005, 2011) Elsewhere Condition (EC). I take derivational fragments as micro-cues ofW (2009) & such fragments can count as exceptions for the EC’s serial search procedure.
Proposal : PG constructions in J discussed by A (2011) are judged by the criterion of English
PGs. Turning to JNAs, A (2011) observes: “The bound pro strategy preempts the AE strategy,”
limiting JNAs to pro and PGs, given last resort AE. While he does not discuss PGs, Mi (2017)claims that all JNAs are pro, with possibility of sloppy interpretation due to pro serving as an
E-type pronoun. Look at the following, based on Y (2005):(1) Elsewhere Condition Serial Search (ECSS) for pro & PGs in Japanese(the darkened, derivational fragment as ‘triggering’ micro-cue & as an ‘exception’ for ECSS)
If Φ is in [ … XP … [ … Φ … ] … t …], where XP locally A’-binds Φ, with t as a real gap,
THEN Φ = a PG.
ELSE: Apply R (R: Φ = pro)(i) If Φ is in [ … XP … [ … Φ … ] … t …], where XP locally A-binds Φ, with t as areal gap, then Φ = pro.
(ii) If Φ is in [ … XP … [ … Φ … ]], where XP is a (salient) discourse entity,then Φ = pro, interpreted in terms of XP via the E-type pronoun strategy.
Consequences & Implications : Look at the NS-structures into which the LPC Φ is Merged(NL = nominalizer; (2a) being A’s 2011: (42) & (2b) A&N’s 2009: (27)):(2) a. Dare-o[hazimete Φ atta]
hito-gat kenasita no desu ka?
who-Acc for-the-first-time saw person-Nom criticized NL be Q
b. Zibun-no donna syasin-o [Φ mita] subete-no hito-ga
Mary-ga
self-Gen what picture-Acc saw every-Gen person-Nom M.-Nomt kiniitteiru to itta no?
likeC said Q
1(3) a. [dare-o [hazimete (Φ =>) pro atta] hito-ga t …]

(for (2a))(Dare-o A-scrambled to the position in (3a) A-binds Φ, allowing it to be identified as
pro without inducing a weak crossover (WCO) violation; (1i) above)b. [zibun-no donna syasin-o [(Φ =>) PG mita] subete-no hito-ga Mary-ga t …]
(for (2b); Zibun can refer to subete-no hito ‘everyone’, but not to Mary, showing Φ to behave
like a PG with Condition A reconstruction into Φ possible; Zibun-no donna syasin-o longdistance scrambled to this position is A’-movement, so Φ is A’-bound by it & identified as a
PG; see (1)) As for “?*[Hazimete Φ atta] hito-ga dare-o kenasita no desu ka?” (discussed
by T 2006 & A 2011: (41)), I take its ungrammaticality to be due to the absence of A- or A’movement binder for Φ, A-scrambling of dare-o being barred because of the constraint
prohibiting ‘covert’ scrambling (A&H 2012: n.10), & also to the wh-phrase dare-o serving as
intervener for some null discourse topic acting as identifier for Φ (as pro)). Look at theexample involving a null discourse topic (NDT; ‘Øtopic‘):(4) a. [[Hyaku-peeji-nimoΦ mitanai-noni]Φ hiratojini-sareteita].
one hundred pages-up-to-even full become-Neg although hiratoji-bind-Pass-be-Past‘Although it was less than 100 pages long, it was hiratoji-bound.’(Situation: The clerk working at the secondhand bookstore gets interested in a thin booklet
newly arrived at the store; Yonezawa 2009: 7)
b. (i) [CP Øtopic (‘sono syoosassi’ (the booklet)) [(Φ =>) pro hiratojini-sareteita]](The NDT’s content is sono syoosassi (the booklet); In the absence of A- or A’-movementbinder, Φ is identified as pro (as an E-type pronoun))(ii) [CP Øtopic [[hyaku-peeji-nimo (Φ =>) PG mitanai-noni](pro/E-type pronoun =>) sono syoosassi-wa hiratojini-sareteita]]](E-type pronoun interpretation of pro via the NDT; The adjunct clause ‘[hyaku-peeji- nimo Φ
mitanai-noni]’ is late-Merged into the matrix clause; & as for Φ in the adjunct, theconfiguration ‘[Øtopic [[ … Φ … ] sono syoosassi-wa … ]]’ may serve as the micro-cue
fragment (see (1)) for PG acquisition ‘[ … XP … [ … Φ … ] … t …], where XP locally A’binds Φ,’ so that Φ is identified as a PG)
Selected References Abe/A. 2011. Real parasitic
gaps in Japanese. JEAL 20/ Abe & Hornstein/A&H. 2012. “Lasnik-effects” and string-vacuous ATB
movement. In Ways of structure building/ Abe & Nakao/A&N. 2009. On ATB-movement and parasitic
gaps in Japanese. SICOGG 2009/ Boeckx/B. 2015. Elementary syntactic structures/ Chomsky/Ch.
1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory government and binding/ Miyagawa/Mi. 2017.
Agreement beyond phi/ Murphy/Mu. 2016. Phasal eliminativism, anti-lexicalism, and the status of theunarticulated. Biolinguistics 10/ Oku/O. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in theminimalist perspective. PhD UConn/ Takahashi/T. 2006. Apparent parasitic gaps and null arguments inJapanese. JEAL 15/ Westergaard/W. 2009. The acquisition of word order/ Yang/Y. 2005. On
productivity. In Linguistic variation yearbook Vol.5/ Yang/Y. 2011. Three factors in language variation.
In The biolinguistic enterprise/ Yonezawa, Honobu. 2009. Tsuisoo Godanshoo（「追想五断章」）.
2

A Hybrid Analysis of Multiple Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese
Chyan-an Arthur Wang
Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan
Multiple sluicing is an elliptical construction in which more than one wh-phrase survives in theelided clause (i.e., the sluice). Examples from English and Japanese are shown below:(1) I know that in each instance one of the girls got something from one of the boys. But they didn’t
tell me which from which.
(Bolinger 1978)(2) Dareka-ga
dareka-ni
atta sooda. Dakedo boku-wa dare-ga dare-ni ka soozoodekinai.
someone-NOM someone-DAT met I.heard but
I-TOP who-NOM who-DAT Q cannot.imagine
Lit. ‘I heard someone met someone. But I can’t imagine who who.’(Takahashi & Lin 2012)
With reference from English and Japanese counterparts, this paper aims to investigate multiple
sluicing in Mandarin Chinese (hf. Mandarin), as shown in (3), focusing on its syntactic derivationfrom the generative perspective.
(3) Lisi shuo ta jiandao-le yi-ge dongxi keshi ta bu keng toulu shi shenme zainali
Lisi say 3SG find-PRF one-CL thing but 3SG NEG willing reveal SHI what
where
‘Lisi said he found something, but he was not willing to reveal what where.’
A particular research question is how Mandarin, a wh-in-situ language, derives multiple sluicing
under the condition that not any single wh-word can normally front in forming (multiple) whquestions. Even though there are abundant studies on Mandarin sluicing in the literature (Wang 2002,
2008, 2012; Wei 2004, 2009, 2011; among others), there appears to be only two works (Chiu 2009;
Takahashi & Lin 2012) on multiple sluicing, both of which lack a conclusive analysis and suffer fromempirical challenges. Therefore, by systematically scrutinizing novel data to build the empirical basis,
I propose a novel deletion-based analysis for multiple sluicing. Specifically, I suggest an alternative
based on different movement operations, with which the multiple wh-remnants in a sluice evacuatefrom the elliptical site. The movement operations in question include wh-focalization and whtopicalization whose landing sites are the focus projection and iterative topic projections, respectively,in the left periphery. Depending on their compositional natures, I suggest that wh-remnants in a sluice
can take up different movement operations. In particular, minimal wh-words like shei ‘who’ andshenme ‘what’, which are morphologically atomic, provide no given information and can thus be used
to ask out-of-the-blue questions, so they can only undergo focus movement to the unique syntactic
focus projection and are subsequently marked by the copula shi. This captures the fact that minimal
wh-phrases can occur only once in Mandarin multiple sluicing, as exemplified in (4):(4) *Lisi zhi jide
you renmai-le dongxi dan ta wang-le shi shenme (shi) shei
Lisi only remember have person buy-PRF thing but 3SG forget-PRF SHI what
SHI whoInt. ‘Lisi only remembered someone bought something, but he forgot what who.’On the other hand, complex ones like zai-na-li ‘at-which-place/where’ and shenme-shihou‘what-time/when’ either are discourse-linked or provide a common nominal set in mind (cf. Pan 2014)as can be seen from the way they are composed; hence, they can serve as wh-topics. Given the iterative
nature of topic projections (Rizzi 1997; among others), it is expected to see more than one instanceof complex wh-words undergoing wh-topicalization to the left periphery. Accordingly, more than one
wh-topics can be immune from deletion in Mandarin multiple sluicing, as shown in (5). The proposed
analysis thus captures the restriction on the number of wh-remnants as well as the distribution patternsof multiple sluicing in Mandarin.
(5) Lisi yinggai yijing
mai-leLisi should already buy-PRF

fangzihouse

zhishi ta bu gaosu women (shi) { zainali shenmeshihou / shenmeshihou zainali}
only 3SG NEG tell 1PL
SHI
where when
when
where
‘Lisi should have already bought a house; just that he didn’t tell us {where when/when where}.’In the literature, it has been shown that multiple sluicing observes the so-called clausematecondition, regulating that the two (or more) wh-remnants (and accordingly their antecedent correlates)in multiple sluicing should be local to one another. The locality in question is roughly equivalent tothe clausal boundary. The condition works in English (Merchant 2006; Lasnik 2014) and in Japanese(Takahashi 1994; Nishigauchi 1998; Takahashi and Lin 2012). However, this is not really the case for
Mandarin multiple sluicing since the clausemate condition is not observed, as evidenced in (6):(6) cengjing you yi-ge renx gaosu wo [Lisi zui xihuan mou yi-zhong jiuy],
once
have one-CL person tell 1SG Lisi most likecertain one-CL wine
zhishi wo zao yijing wang-leshi sheix na
yi-zhong jiuy
only 1SG early already forget-PRF SHI who
which one-CL wine
‘Someone once told me that Lisi likes a certain kind of wine the most; just that I already forgot
who which kind of wine.’
The non-observance of the clausemate condition follows naturally from the proposed analysis whichassumes different kinds of movement operations, each of which is independently capable of crossing
clausal boundaries. As such, there is no clausemate effect, as expected.
Selected References
Lasnik, Howard. 2014. Multiple Sluicing in English? Syntax 17.1: 1-20.
Merchant, Jason. 2006. Sluicing. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 4, eds. M. Everaert, H.
V. Riemsdijk, R. Goedemans, and B. Hollebrandse, 234–270. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1998. 'Multiple Sluicing' in Japanese and the functional nature of wh-phrases.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:121-152.
Takahashi, Daiko and Sichao Lin. 2012. Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese.
Nanzan Linguistics 8: 129-145.
Wang, C.-A. Arthur. 2008. Sluicing and Resumption. In The Proceedings of the 37th Meeting of the
NELS, eds. E. Elfner and M. Walkow. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, Univ. of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Reconsidering Subject Raising in Japanese -From a Perspective of AgentivityTakaya Yamaguchi
Graduate School of Humanities, Kobe University
ProposalIn this paper, subject raising in Japanese is reconsidered and I will argue that oblique subject caninvolve subject raising as well as nominative subject. It is well-known that subjects are assigned
different Cases in Japanese. That is, in Japanese, subject is assigned not only nominative Case but
also oblique Case, as in (1). In previous studies, it has been argued that while nominative subject
involves subject raising, oblique subject does not (Kishimoto 2010 and among others). Kishimoto(2010) confirms this proposal by using a focus particle bakari. Kishimoto (2010) argues that thefocus particle bakari takes scope over vP but not TP, and that this property accounts for the fact thatwhile nominative subject is not associated with bakari, oblique subject is. Based on this data, it isclaimed that while nominative subject involves subject raising, oblique subject does not.
This analysis is, however, problematic with respect to Agentivity of subject nominals. Let us
demonstrate this using muriyari ‘forcefully’, an Agent-oriented adverb. This adverb is used only inthe case that there is a (di-)transitive verb or an unergative verb in a sentence. In other words, thisadverb is not used with an unaccusative verb, as in (3). Given the fact that the Agent-oriented adverb
is used only in the cases where the subject nominal with that adverb shows Agentivity, it can beassumed that the Agent-oriented adverb can be adjoined to vP or the upper projection. Otherwise, notonly grammatical sentences but also ungrammatical sentences should be generated. If we follow
Kishimoto’s analysis, however, the linear order of oblique subject in (4) cannot be generated because
oblique subject is generated in Spec of vP and stays in-situ.
To solve this problem, I propose that oblique subject involves subject raising to Spec of the
projection upper than vP and lower than TP. The data in (4) indicate that the subjects in (4) are
assigned the theta role Agent. However, this is problematic in terms of theta-role assignment because
the kara-marked subjects are assigned both Agent and Source. This multiple theta-role assignment is
not allowed by Theta Criterion in (5). This problem can be solved by introducing PRO generated inSpec of VP (see Hasegawa 1990) and the structure shown in (6). In this structure, the theta-role
Agent is assigned to subject nominal, and the theta-role Source is assigned to this PRO.
Consequently the problem of theta-role assignment is solved.
Data(1) a.

Taro-ga

Hanako-ni

booru-o nage-ta.

Taro-

Hanako-

ball-

NOM

GOAL

“Taro threw a ball to Hanako.”

ACC

throw-

PAST

Nominative subject

b.

Taro-kara

Hanako-ni

booru-o nage-ta.

Taro-

Hanako-ball-

SOURCE

GOAL

throw-

ACC

Oblique subject

PAST“Taro threw a ball to Hanako.”(2) a.

Kodomo-ga manga-o

yon-de-bakari i-ru

child-

read- -only

NOM

comic-

ACC

be-

PTCP

PRES

“The child is only reading the comics.”b.

(Kishimoto 2010: 631)

John-kara keeka-o osie-te-bakari i-ru
John-from result-teach- -only be-

ACC

PTCP

PRES

“Only John is telling the results.”(Kishimoto 2010: 650)

(3) muriyari ‘forcefully’a.

*Ken-gamuriyari

oniyome-oKen-forcefully

horrible wife-NOM

kowagat-ta
fear-

ACC

PAST

“Ken was forcefullh afraid of his horrible wife.”b.

*kabin-ga muriyari

koware-ta

vase-

break-

NOM

forcefully

PAST“The vase forcefully broke.”(4) a.

(Yamaguchi 2016: 57)

John-kara muriyari

Mary-nibooru-onage-ta

John-

Mary-

ball-

throw-SOURCE

forcefully

GOAL

ACC

PAST

“John threw a ball to Mary.”b.

John-kara muriyari

Mary-nihimitu-ohanasi-ta

John-

Mary-

secret-talk-

SOURCE

forcefully

GOAL

ACC

PAST

“John forcefully talked to Mary about a secret.”(5) Theta Criterion(i) Each argument bears one and only one θ-role.
(ii) Each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument.
(6) [ Spec [ SBJ-karaTPXPi[AGENT][ ADV [ t [ PRO
vP

vP

i

VP

[SOURCE][ … NP
VP[THEME](Chomsky 1981: 35)
V[THEME][SOURCE]]] v[AGENT]]] X] T].

References
Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Hasegawa,
Nobuko (1990). On VP-internal subject hypothesis. Tadashi Sakamoto and Yasuaki Abe (eds.)
Nihongokyoikukoku Kokusaisinpojiumu Houkokusyo: 249-254. Aichi: Nanzan University. Kishimoto,
Hideki (2010). Subjects and Constituent Structure in Japanese. Linguistics 48: 620-670. Yamaguchi,
Takaya (2016). Nihongo no nizyutadoosi yurai tadoosi ni tsuite “Transitive Verbs Derived from
Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese”. Kobe Working Paper in Linguistics 10: 51-68.

Focus-based Licensing Analysis of NP-ellipsis in English
Shuto, YAMAMURA (University of Tsukuba)

In this talk, I would like to propose that NP-ellipsis (NPE) with an adjectival remnant inEnglish is licensed by focus-based licensing mechanism and also suggest that the assumptionof deleting the complement of the licensing head is plausible under the current labeling theory.
It has been argued that NPE licensing is related to the morphological realization of the
spec-head relation (Saito and Murasugi (1990), Lobeck (1995)). Haumann (2003) argues thatwhile the headless DP in the second conjunct is not possible in English, as in (1), it is attested
in Old English texts, as in (2).
(1)
* John bought the red car and [the green].
(Kester (1996: 58))(2)
se legfamblawenda seað & se fula … þæt wæs helle tintreges muðthat emitting-foam pit & that foul
RSP was hell's torment's mouth‘the pit which foamed up with flame and was so foul … was the mouth of hell's
torment’(cobede,Bede_5:13.432.7.4345/translation in Miller (1891))
This difference is attributed to the presence/absence of the inflectional suffix on the adjective,
and this idea is embodied, for example, by the (in)existence of the features on Agr, as in (3).
(3)
a.
[DP the [AgrP green[Agr′ Agr
[NP …]]]]<sg, masc><sg, masc>b.
[DP se [AgrP ful-a[Agr′ Agr
[NP …]]]]Such inflection-based licensing analyses of ellipsis appears to be successful, but consider
the following example, taken from BYU-BNC (Davies 2004-).
(4)
the gulf between the richer families and the very poor was getting wide.
The second conjunct in (4) is an instance of NPE, in which its missing head noun “families” isrecovered from the antecedent the richer families. NPE like (4) is possible in English when
the adjectival remnant shows a sharp contrast (Günther (2011)). Since the adjective poor does
not have any inflectional ending, so we cannot rely on the inflection-based licensing mechanism.
In this talk, I assume with Corver and van Koppen (2008) that NPE is licensed bycontrastive focus, not by inflection. Their analysis of NPE with an adjectival remnant issummarized as in (5), whereis omitted, and the relevant notions are summarized as in (6).
(5)[DP D [FocP APi[+Op] [Foc′ Foc0[E]/[+Op] [XP tAP [X′ X [NP N]]]]]](6)a.
Foc0 is specified for the [+Op] feature to attract a focused item and the[E] feature (Merchant (2001)) to delete its complement.
b.
A prenominal AP originating in [Spec, XP] has the [+Op] feature to be
attracted by [+Op] on Foc0.
Thus, we can successfully account for the inflection-less NPE like (4), under the focus-based
licensing approach to ellipsis.
In the phase theory, this feature-driven deletion analysis seems plausible, so I basicallyfollow this line of arguments. But the only issue that I would like to note is about the targetof the deletion: why the complement of the licensing head can be marked for deletion? This
will be accounted for under the current labeling theory (Chomsky (2015)), without assuming
specific featural characteristics of the licensing head. Suppose that NPE in (5) can be updated
to that in (7), and my analysis is summarized as in (8).
1[DP D [<Foc, Foc> AP[+Foc] [FocP Foc0 [NP tAP [NP … ]]]]], whereis deleted.
[+Foc]a.
AP with a focus feature (AP) internally merge with FocP to form afocus-presupposition configuration, resulting in a label <Foc, Foc>.
b.
The complement of Foc0 may be deleted, but Foc0 itself has to remain
for later labeling and full interpretation.
[Foc]
In (8a), AP
and FocP correspond to focus and presupposition, respectively, and then the paircorresponds to the traditional configuration which has been assumed to be essential to ellipsis
licensing, namely the spec-head relation. Neither of AP[+Foc] and FocP should be subject toany further operation, to keep the label <Foc, Foc> intact; if there is any further operation tothem, the label collapses and some other interpretation which is not intended will come up (seeChomsky (2015)). However, the deletion of the complement of Foc0 is not problematic. In(7), NP is deleted, but Foc0 remains, so FocP remains as well. Hence, the label <Foc, Foc>
survives and the intended interpretation can be obtained.
This focus-based licensing analysis of ellipsis implies a necessity of reconsidering
instances of NPE in earlier English like (2). Under the inflection-based licensing analysis, itis the instance of NPE licensed by the rich adjectival inflection. Under the focus-based
licensing analysis, however, we may question if it is true, since adjectives do not show a contrast.
Compare the adjectives in (2); legfamblawenda ‘foaming up with flame’ and fula ‘foul,stinking’. They do not show a contrast. Rather, they modify the same noun seað to attributeits property, and the whole nominal phrase functions as subject of the verb wæs, which is in its
past singular form. Thus, the example in (2) may not be an appropriate instance to argue forthe analysis of NPE in earlier English.
(7)(8)

References
Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies andBeyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Eli Di Domenico, Cornelia
Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3-16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Corver, Norbert and Marjo van Koppen (2008) Let's Focus on Noun Phrase Ellipsis, ms.
Davies, Mark. (2004-) BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford
University Press). Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/.
Günther, Christine (2011) “Noun Ellipsis in English: Adjectival Modifiers and the Role ofContext,” English Language and Linguistics 15, 279-301.
Haumann, Dagmar (2003) “The Postnominal ‘And Adjective’ construction in Old English,”English Language and Linguistics 7, 57-83.
Kester, Ellen-Petra (1996) “Adjectival Inflection and the Licensing of Empty categories in DP,”
Journal of Linguistics 32, 57-78.
Lobeck, Anne (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Miller, Thomas (1891) The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English
People Part 1, 2, Oxford University Press.
Saito, Mamoru and Murasugi Keiko (1990) “N′-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,”
Japanese-Korean Linguistics 1, 285-301.
2

A Spanning Approach to Quantifier in Classifier Languages
Yusuke Yoda (Toyo Gakuen University)
This paper argues for atomic CL ( ASSIFIER ), which is one of instances of the CL system within the tenet of DIS TRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY and claims that CL is an position where allomorphs occur and such allomorphs shouldbe accounted for by SPANNING (Svenonius 2016). Japanese is an instance of the classifier languages and has a variety of allomorphs depending on the host nominal. Among them, this paper focuses on atomic CLs (Matsumoto
1991,1993) which alter among three forms depending on features on host nominal (i.e. [ HUMAN, ANIMAL,
INANIMATE ]) as in (1).

(1)

a.

Gakusei san-{nin/*biki/*tsu}

c.

student three-CLb.

Hako mi-{*nin/*biki/tsu}box 3-CL

Inu san-{*nin/biki/*tsu}
dog 3-CLIn all cases of (1) above, Numeral Quantifier, which consists of Q(uantifier) and CL, counts the number of its
host, and CL interprets one of three features on the host nominal. For instance, gakusei ‘student’ is a nominal
which bears the [ HUMAN ] feature, and therefore, the CL’s exponents should be a variant of /nin/. Moreover,phonologically speaking, each of CLs in (1) has allophones as illustrated in (2).
(2)

a. /nin/ ↔ [ ri ], [ nin ]c. /tu/ ↔ [ tsu ], ϕb. /hiki/ ↔ [ piki ], [ hiki ], [ biki ]To sum, Japanese has following three types of dependency.
(3)a. NP-CL dependency
b. NP-Quantifier dependencyc. Quantifier-CL dependency√
However, the existing analysis within the tenet of DM, rt must be categorized to be spelled-out. In other words,√
the host nominals in (1) must be a results of rt + cyclic or categorial determining head (c), which intervenes√√
for the CL to interpret the features on rt. To prevent such state of affairs and to put all the features of rt out
into one single domain, I assume SPANNING proposed by Svenonius (2016). Spannning is based on Extended
Projection and defined as in (4).
(4)

A span in a contiguous sequence of head in a head-complement relation

For instance, this spanning mechanism accounts for Lexical Insertion in the following manner. For the case of“mouse-mice” alternation, < N, n, # > targets the Lexical Matching (i.e. Vocabulary Insertion). In another caselike “piglets”, the same span can lexicalizes multiple exponents as in:(5)a. /pig/ ↔ <√b. /let/ ↔ < n >rt >Furthermore, I assume the [[[[[√

c. /z/ ↔ < # >rt n ] Q ] CL ] Case ] D ] for the nominal structure, where√rt adjoins to n(cf. Wood & Marantz 2016). This is because if, in the hypothetical context, some new technology invents a1

stick-shaped apple, then we are most likely to count it by using hon, which is dedicated to counting the number√of the stick-shaped objects. Under the current approach, < rt, n, CL> constitutes a span and also < Q, CL >constitutes another span for the Vocabulary Insertion since they are all components of one single DP Extended
Projection. The current approach predicts “gakusei 3-nin-ga” (N-Q-CL-CASE) order as a default, but Japanese
has two other orders such as “3-nin-no gakusei” (Q-CL-Linker-N) and “gakusei-ga-3-nin” (N-Case-Q-CL), but*Q-N-(Case)-CL or *CL-N-(Case)-Q. This can be also accounted for within Svenonius’s (2016) proposal, where
he proposes “[t]he edge of a lexical word is interpreted in the input to phonology as a boundary of a phonologicalword” and “[t]he exponents of a span is linearized within the phrase it projects according to the spell-out feature@.” Based on @, in Japanese, N and Q-CL consist of @-span, and therefore, Q and CL are inseparable. Moreover,as Svenonius (2016) and Noyer (1998) note, there are some cases where two sets of @-span can be relocated. For
instance, the English nominal structure must hold the plural marker following N. Thus, it has N-n-# within thesame @-span, whereas in Tongan, the plural marker must precede nominal, so that it has two @-span.
(6)

a. English:√

rt − n − #@b. Tongan:√rt − n@ − #@Japanese is an instance of Tongan type languages and @-span (Q+CL) can optionally be the target of relocation,and thus it has three distinct positions for the host nominal whose number is to be counted.

2