More on the Emergence of Prenominal Unaccusative
Past Participles in the History of English
Bai Chigchi
Nagoya University
The aim of this paper is to explain how English unaccusative past participles became
available as prenominal modifiers (henceforth, prenominal unaccusative participles). First, I
will sort out the types of unaccusative verbs on the basis of Levin and Rappaport’s (1995)
discussion, as regards their formation of prenominal participles. Then, based on Chigchi’s(2015) close examination of data from Visser (1963) and thorough investigation of thehistorical corpora listed below and of Oxford English Dictionary (OED), I will make amodification to Chigchi’s (2015) account, providing a more in-depth analysis of what brought
about the emergence of prenominal unaccusative participles.
In Present-day English (PDE), all the types of past (passive) participle as shown below canappear in prenominal position.
(1) a. murdered people (transitive participle)
b. melted cheese (ergative participle)
c. fallen leaves (unaccusative participle)
Transitive participles like (1a) and ergative participles like (1b) have been available asprenominal modifiers since Old English (OE), with the latter increasing throughout Middle
English (ME) and early Modern English (EModE), while prenominal unaccusative participles
like (1c) began to frequently appear in EModE. Visser (1963: 1227ff.) provides a list of
prenominal participles based on intransitive verbs, but a careful examination of the relevant
examples reveals that few of the OE and ME participles listed there qualify as unaccusative
participles, while most of the Modern English (ModE) pariciples do. Moreover, Chigchi’s(2015) investigation utilizing the quotation search function of OED shows that 22 out of the
54 PDE unaccusative verbs examined have been attested as prenominal participles only after
the 16th century. The result of Chigchi’s (2015) investigation of the historical corpora,summarized below, also indicates that prenominal unaccusative participles were not founduntil EModE.
Table1. The distribution of the (first) occurrences of prenominal transitive participles
Period OE
M1
M2
M3
M4
E1
E2
E3
L1
L2

L3

Token 1561 172
88
406
403
224
373
405
347
441
412
Type
274
96
15
75
39
78
114
141
111
120
112
Table2. The distribution of the (first) occurrences of prenominal unaccusative participles
Period OE
M1
M2
M3
M4
E1
E2
E3
L1
L2
L3
Token
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
13
5
18
8
Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
4
0
* ‘Token’ here refers to the total number of participles attested (in each sub-period) and ‘type’
refers to the number of distinct lexemes (or base verbs).
1

Chigchi (2015) argues that the emergence of unaccusative participles was due to a change
in the licensing condition on the formation of prenominal participles from ‘the base verb must
be a transitive verb (in ME)’ to ‘the base verb must be a theme assigner (in EModE)’. His
analysis, however, fails to explain why a few intransitive participles were attested in ME. I
follow Chigchi (2015), on the one hand, in claiming that the availability of unaccusative
participles as prenominal modifiers is ascribed to the fact that a large number of ergative
verbs increasingly emerged throughout ME and EModE. On the other hand, however, I will
here argue that the licensing condition changed, at some point in ME, from ‘the base verb
must be an affectedness assigner’ to ‘the base verb must bear an internal argument’.
Assuming that aspectual prefixes expressed the total affectedness on the object of a transitive
verb (Elenbaas (2007: 117ff.)) and that it is such a notion of affectedness that licensed
prenominal participles, it is reasonable to argue that affectedness came to be expressed bytransitive verbs after the loss of those prefixes in ME, so that ergative verbs under theircausative transitive variants would easily form prenominal participles, assigning affectedness
to the modified noun as their internal argument. Note, however, that ergative verbs have bothcausative transitive and unaccusative intransitive variants, each occurring with the modified
noun interpreted as their internal argument, much as in the case of unaccusative verbs. It thenfollows that when ergativity was established with a given verb, its participle as a prenominal
modifier would be ambiguous in interpretation between two different formations, one basedon the causative transitive variant and another based on the unaccusative intransitive variant.
As long as the formation based on the unaccusative intransitive variant came to be a possible
interpretation, which could be due to the increasing emergence of ergative verbs, it would
become possible for unaccusative participles to appear in prenominal position, by analogy.
Selected references: Chigchi, Bai (2015) “Eigoshi-ni okeru Meishizenyishushoku-no
Hitaikaku Kakobunshi-no Shutsugen-ni tsuite” (On the Emergence of Prenominal
Unaccusative Past Participles in the History of English); Elenbaas, Marion (2007) The
Synchronic and Diachronic Syntax of the English Verb-particle Combination; Levin, Bethand M, Rappaport, Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface;
Simpson, John A. and Edmund S. C. Weiner, prepared (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary,
Second Edition on CD-ROM Version 3.0 (2002); Visser, Fredericus Th (1963) An Historical
Syntax of the English Language, Part One.
Corpora: Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of
Middle English 2nd Edition; Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Ariel Diertani (2010)
Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English; Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini andLauren Delfs (2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English; Taylor,Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk and Frank Beths (2003) The York-Toronto-Helsinki
Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose.

2

Successive cyclic wh-movement without successive cyclic crashing
Samuel D. Epstein
Hisatsugu Kitahara
T. Daniel Seely
University of Michigan
Keio University
Eastern Michigan University
Chomsky (2013, 2015) discusses two sets of shared prominent features: (i) phi for subject
N and predicate T, (ii) phi for object N and root R, and (iii) Q for a wh-expression andinterrogative CQ. When extending the labeling analysis to copular constructions (e.g., XP
copula {XP, YP}, see Moro (2000)), Chomsky (2013) notes "[m]ere matching of mostprominent features does not suffice" and suggests "[w]hat is required is not just matching but
actual agreement, a stronger relation, which holds in the indirect question andsubject-predicate examples but not small clauses." Following Chomsky, we assume thatmatching of those prominent features is not enough; they must agree via valuation, meaning
one values the other.
Under this assumption, if features are to count as a label, then valuation must hold between
the two heads X and Y of {XP, YP}. Between N and T/R, it is generally accepted thatunvalued phi on T/R gets valued by agreeing with inherently valued phi on N. But what about
the wh-question case? Chomsky (2013, 2015) proposes that conversely it is the(c-commanding) interrogative CQ that values uQ on a wh-expression. Important evidence thatinterrogative CQ values uQ on the relevant wh-expression comes from Japanese. Saito (2013)
argues that a wh-expression is an operator without specific quantificational force, and its
quantificational force gets determined by its associated CQ particles such as ka and mo, as
illustrated in (1a,b), respectively:(1) a. Taroo-wa [[Hanako-ga nani-otabeta] ka] sitteiru
Taroo-Top Hanako-Nom what-Acc ate Q know
'Taroo knows what Hanako ate.'b. [[Nani-otabeta hito]mo] manzokusita
what-Acc ate
person also was.satisfied'For every x, x a thing, the person that ate x was satisfied.'
Saito proposes that in (1a), the disjunctive meaning of the particle ka turns the wh-expression
nani 'what' into a wh-quantifier, whereas in (1b), the conjunctive meaning of the particle moturns the wh-expression nani 'what' into a universal quantifier. Extending Saito's analysis of(1a,b) to English, we expect a particular CQ’s valuation of uQ on a wh-expression to affect ordetermine aspects of the interpretation of that wh-expression. That is, the unvalued Quantifierfeature (uQ) on a wh-expression gets valued by some inherent property borne by theinterrogative CQ, as argued by Chomsky (2013, 2015), and corroborated for Japanese by Saito(2013).
However, the analysis that interrogative CQ values uQ on a wh-expression resurrects along-standing problem concerning the status of uQ at lower phase levels. Recall that
Chomsky (2007, 2008) eliminated the unvalued features postulated to implement
wh-movement (e.g., [uQ], [uWh], see Chomsky 2000). Chomsky (2008) noted that "[w]eneed not postulate an uninterpretable feature that induces movement, and can thus overcome along-standing problem about crash at the lower phase levels in successive-cyclic movement."
The long-standing problem is that uQ on a wh-expression necessarily gets transferred at thelower phase levels, as in e.g. “Which dog do you think the boy likes?” (see Epstein 2007 fordetailed discussion). If unvalued features are intolerable to the interface systems, then thepresence of uQ at the lower phase levels should induce a serious problem (but see Epstein andSeely 2006 for an alternative analysis).
A solution we would like to suggest here is that uQ on a wh-expression is tolerable to theinterface systems i.e. its appearance does not induce crash. First, one crucial difference
between uPhi on T/R and uQ on wh-expression is that uPhi on T/R should not appear at CI
regardless of whether it gets valued or not, whereas uQ on a wh-expression should appear at
CI after it gets valued (crucially to capture the types of semantic interpretations noted in e.g.
(1a,b)). That is, uPhi is a [-CI] feature, whereas uQ is a [+CI] feature (in the sense of Epstein
et al. 2010), and we suggest that the latter, but not the former, is tolerable (even if unvalued)
to the interface systems, i.e., the appearance of uQ at CI does not induce crash. On the path to
the SM interface systems, uQ, being [+CI], must be deleted, just like any other [+CI] features.
On the path to the CI interface systems, uQ, being [+CI], remains. So, what can we say about
the status of uQ at the lower phase levels? Given that uQ means unvalued Q(uantification),
we propose that a wh-expression bearing uQ is interpreted as a variable, and as such it does
not induce crash when it is sent to the CI interface at the lower phase levels. It is a legitimate
CI object in and of itself. By contrast, a free variable is a gibberish problem, not a crashproblem (since crash concerns only the legitimacy of individual features (or bundles offeatures), not coherence, see Epstein et al. 2010). What is important is whether it will bebound by CQ later in the derivation. When a wh-expression bearing uQ moves to a higher
position, and it gets valued, and that information is sent to the CI interface systems, that is thepoint where this lower copy of wh-expression bearing uQ becomes a bound variable. The
phenomenon of successive cyclic wh-movement is in fact unbounded, like binding condition
C effects. Phasally speaking, we could say that the CI systems start interpreting materials as
they come in, but elements like variables, phase internally unbound, are set aside, and the CI
interface systems wait for further information. If the relevant information comes in, great; if
not, then gibberish.
Selected References
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step, ed. by R. Martin, D.
Michaels and J. Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? ed.
by U. Sauerland and H. Gärtner, 1-29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory ed. by R.
Freidin, . Otero and M.-L. Zubizarreta, 136-166. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of Projection, Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of Projection: Extensions, In Structures, strategies and beyond:Studies in honor of Adriana Belletti, ed. by E. D. Domenico, C. Hamann and S. Matteini,3-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Epstein, S. D. and T. D. Seely. 2006. Derivations in Minimalism, Cambridge Universisty
Press.
Epstein, S. D. 2007 On I-(nternalist) Functional Explanation in Minimalism. Linguistic
Analysis 2003/7.
Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara, and T. D. Seely. 2010. Uninterpretable Features: What are they
and what do they do? Exploring Crash Proof Grammars, ed. by M. Putnam, 125-142.
John Benjamin’s.
Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Saito, M. 2013. Japanese Wh-Phrases as Unvalued Operators," unpublished manuscript,
Nanzan University. [An expanded version of this paper, entitled Japanese Wh-Phrase as
Operators with Unspecified Quantificational Force, is to appear in Language andLinguistics 18.1 (2017).]

Japanese postverbal elements: movement vs. no movement
Kaori Furuya
University of North Texas
In colloquial speech Japanese allows elements to appear postverbally. It is also known thatpostverbal elements optionally omit (Case) markers, as in (1) (Endo 1996, Takita 2014, a.o.).
(1) kodomo-ga yonda-yo, kono hon (-o).
child-Nom read-Prt this book-ACC‘(lit.) A child read, this book.’
Much debate has focused on whether postverbal elements in SOV languages are derived via
movement, compatible with the Linear Correspondence Axiom proposed by Kayne (1994).
This paper argues that the postverbal DP in (1) itself undergoes no movement, in line with
Takita (2014). However, apart from him it analyses the construction as a cleft with deletion.
Following Taguchi (2009), Takita (2014) argues that a right-dislocated DP without a marker
is a topic in a single clause while the remaining undergo leftward movement. Thus the DP withno marker does not induce an extraction violation in the coordination construction and islands.
In contrast, Takita (2011, 2014) maintains that dislocation involves clausal movement when
the dislocated element is accompanied with Case-markers. Takita’s two analyses are in (2a,b).
(2) a. [ … ]i [Bare Topic ti ](with no Case marker, monoclausal)
b. [Clause1…] [Clause 2 [ ti ]j XP-markeri tj…] (with a Case marker, biclausal)
Despite of the presence/absence of a marker, however, insertion of a copula (along withthe second occurrence of the same verbs) is grammatical in (3), in favor of a biclausal analysis.
(3) kodomo-ga yonda-yo, kono hon (-o)
child-Nom
read-Prt this book-ACC‘(lit.) A child read, this book (is/read).’(da-yo/yonda-yo).
Cop-Prt/read-Prt

Moreover, a wh-word is possible in the postverbal domain in (4) (Kuno 1978, a.o.), which
is likewise problematic to (2a) since a wh-word is a focus, not “old” information (Partee 1991).
(4) kodomo-ga yonda-no, nan(i)/dono hon (-o) (na-no/yonda-no).
child-Nom read-Q what/which book-Acc Cop-Q/read-Q(lit.) child read?, what/which book is/read?’
The examples indicate that the dislocated DP lies in a biclausal structure as a focus (not a topic).
I propose that the construction with/without a Case marker is biclausal. Clause2 is the asimplex or (pseudo-)cleft construction in (5a,b) with the schema in (5c), where everything but
the focused XP may be deleted.
(5) a. kodomo-ga yonda-yo, [Clause 2 (sore-wa) kono hon (-o)(da-yo)].
child-Nom
read-Prt
that-Top this book-ACC Cop-Prt‘(lit.) A child read, (that is) this book.’b. kodomo-ga yonda-yo, [Clause 2 (kodomo-ga yonda-no-wa) kono hon (-o) (da-yo)].
child-Nom read-Prt
child-Nom read-Prt-Top this book-ACC Cop-Prt‘(lit.) A child read, (it is) this book (which the child read).’c. … [Clause2 ([DP subject-wa]/[(pseud-)cleft…-no-wa]) XP(-marker) (Cop)]Given the analysis in (5c), the seemingly optional marker comes from the distinct propertiesof the (pseudo-)cleft constructions, as Hiraiwa & Ishihara (2012:145) argue in (6).
(6) a. [Naoya-ga tabeta no]-wa ringo-o mit-tui da.
Naoya-Nom ate Prt-Top
apple-acc 3-Cl
Cop
‘It was three apples that Naoya ate.’b. [Naoya-ga tabeta no]-wa ringo-Ø mit-tui da.
Naoya-Nom ate Prt-Top apple
3-Cl Cop‘What Naoya ate was three apples.’Cleft

Pseudo-cleft.

Hiraiwa & Ishihara argue that the cleft requires the Case marker while the pseudo cleft allows
its omission. Given the distinction, the optionality of the marker in (1) is attributed to the
distinct properties of the two cleft constructions.
Furthermore, according to Hiraiwa & Ishihara (2012: 145), clefts allow multiple foci, unlike
pseudo-clefts. With this in mind, consider the right-dislocation with/without the markers in (7).
(7) a. kodomo-ga ageta-yo [tomodachi-ni ringo-o
mit-tu (da-yo)].
child-Nom gave-Prt child-to
apple-Acc 3-Cl
Cop-Prt‘(lit.) child gave, to a friend, three apples’.
b. *kodomo-ga ageta-yo [tomodachi- Ø ringo- Ø
mit-tu (da-yo)].
child-Nom gave-Prt
child-toapple-Acc 3-Cl
Cop-PrtThe sentences involve the multiple elements postverbally. The postverbal DP with the markerin (7a) is grammatical. On the other hand, the DP without the maker in (7b) is ungrammatical.
This distinction is also compatible with Hiraiwa & Ishihara’s analysis of (pseudo)clefts.
Furthermore the current analysis with/without (pseudo-)clefts accounts for thepresence/absence of the island effects mentioned previously. Hiraiwa & Ishihara (2012) argue
that movement is involved in clefts (which prohibit the omission of the markers). This explains
why the postverbal DP with the marker in (pseudo-)clefts shows an island violation, unlike inthe simplex construction, shown in (5c).
The current paper investigates Japanese right dislocation of a DP with/without theaccusative Case marker. In line with Takita (2014), the present paper argues that the postverbal
element itself does not undergoes movement. However apart from him, it argues that the rightdislocated element(s) is/are focused in a biclausal + deletion analysis rather than a topics
analysis. Moreover the second clause is a simplex or complex (pseudo)cleft construction.
Hence, (i) the focus reading, (ii) the presence/absence of the Case marker and (iii) that of islandeffects are readily accounted for without appealing to leftward movement as in (2b).
References:Endo, Y. 1996. Right dislocation. In Koizumi, M., Oishi, M., Sauerland, U. (Eds.), MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 29: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2,
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1--20.
Hiraiwa, K., Ishihara, S. 2012. Syntactic Metamorphosis. Syntax 15: 142-180.
Kayne, R.S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kuno, S. 1978. Danwa-no Bunpoo (Grammar of Discourse). Taishuukan, Tokyo.
Partee, B. 1991. Topic, Focus and Quantification. In Proceedings from SALT 1, edited by S.
Moore and A. Zachary Wyner. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Taguchi, S. 2009. Japanese ECM as embedded bare topicalizaiotn. Proceedings of North East
Linguistic Society 38, 415--426.
Takita, K. 2014. Pseudo-right dislocation, the bare-topic construction, and hanging topic
constructions. Lingua 137-157.

A Relabeling-Analysis of English Possessives
Jason Ginsburg
Sandiway Fong
Osaka Kyoiku University University of Arizona
English possessive DPs have been widely studied; e.g., see Bernstein and Tortora (B&R)(2005), Barker (1998), and references therein. Genitive possessive pronoun constructions inEnglish are partially irregular, as exemplified in (1). Note that of-insertion is regular but there isvariation in the deployment of the double genitive.
(1) a. my friend/the friend of mine/*the friend of mine’s
b. your friend/*the friend of your/the friend of yoursc. his friend/the friend of his/*the friend of his’(s)d. her friend/*the friend of her/the friend of herse. their friend/*the friend of their/the friend of theirs
We propose an account in the recent Minimalist framework of Chomsky (2013), extending
Cechetto and Donati’s (C&D) (2015) relabeling proposal for relative clauses.
In C&D, the term “relabeling” specifically refers to internal Merge of a noun to relabel aclause as a nominal, e.g. as in the free relative interpretation of “what you bought” in “I likewhat you bought”, cf. “I wonder what you bought”. (Chomsky’s framework permits either α or
β to contribute the label of {α,β} when two syntactic objects α and β Merge.) We propose that a
PP is the target of relabeling in the relevant possessive pronoun examples in (1).
Our proposed structures are given in (2-6). We adopt a standard analysis of the DP in (2). In(2b), the determiner the bears unvalued Case (uCase) and labels the resulting phrase when
Merged with the nominal friend. (We use DP, rather than D, for clarity of exposition, andassume Case is visible at the DP level.) We propose that (3a) receives the derivation shown in(3b-e). In (3b), following Chomsky (1986), we assume ‘s is a relational determiner that allows a
DP to be Merged to its edge, cf. John’s friend; also, ‘s values Case for the edge DP, withstrikethrough marking valued Case. In (3c), the preposition of Merges and values Case for thecomplement DP, followed by internal Merge of friend – the relabeling step in (3d). We assume
Merge is free; the impossibility of (4a) is predicted as the nominal friend in (4b) cannot value
Case for DP his friend. In (3e), the is externally Merged, and we assume that an irregularspellout rule produces his from he+‘s. In the regular case, e.g. John’s in (5a) – assuming thederivation in (5b), the default rule for ‘s invokes no spellout change. However, as the data in (1)indicates, the presence of the pronominal double genitive cannot be predicted either
syntactically or phonologically (see B&R). As pronouns are high-frequency words, we assumecontext-sensitive word-specific spellout rules override the generic rule to produce hers fromshe+’s, (also yours and theirs) but mine from I+’s (cf. *mine’s). Spellout context-sensitivity isrequired to distinguish (6a) from (6b); i.e. the rule for pronoun+‘s must take into account
whether or not the complement of ‘s is a copy.
(2) a. the friendb. [DP [D the] [N friend]]uCase(3) a. the friend of his
b. [DP[DP he]uCase[D[D ‘s][N friend]]]uCasec. [PP[P of][DP[DP he][D[D ‘s][N friend]]]uCase](Merge head of)
d. [N[N friend][PP[P of][DP[DP he][D[D ‘s][N friend]]]](relabel)e. [DP[D the][NP[N friend][PP[P of][DP[DP he][D[D ‘s][N friend]]]]uCase(Merge external D)
f. the friend of he’s => the friend of his(Spellout: he+‘s = his)(4) a. *the friend hisb. [N[N friend][DP[DP he][D[D ‘s][N friend]]]uCase](relabel)(5) a. a friend of John’sb. [DP[D a][NP[N friend][PP[P of][DP[DP John][D[D ‘s][N friend]]]](6) a. her friend/*friend of her
b. *hers friend/friend of hers
Although (5a) (=7a) and (7b) are both acceptable, they have different derivations, viz. (5b)and (7c), respectively, and these different structures can correspond to different
interpretations. There is clearly a possession-type relation between John and picture in (7c) thatis missing from (7d) (cf. Barker 1998).
(7) a. a friend of John’s (=5a)
b. a friend of Johnc. [DP[D a][NP[N friend][PP[P of][DP John]]]]c. A picture of John’s hangs in the gallery
d. A picture of John hangs in the gallery
Given that Merge is free, we also need to explain the ungrammaticality of spurious
relabelings such as (8a) and (8b). (8a) can receive the same explanation as (4a); i.e. thederivation in (8c) crashes because Case remains unvalued for the inner the. However, wecannot appeal to Case to explain (8b); instead we simply note that the (and a) can never be
stranded in English.
(8) a. *the friend theb. *the friend of thec. [the [N[N friend][DP[D the][N friend]]uCase]]d. [the [N[N friend][PP[P of][DP[D the][N friend]]uCase]]]A reviewer points out, under the proposed account, that (9a) should be possible with thesemantics given by the paraphrase in (9b). We will explain how (9b) can be formed throughparallel Merge but not (9a).
(9) a. *Mary’s friend of yoursb. the friend of Mary(’s) and yours
References
Barker, C. 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. NLLT 16:679-717.
Bernstein, J.B. and C. Tortora 2005. Two types of possessive forms in English. Lingua 115:1221–
1242.
Cecchetto, C. and C. Donati 2015. (Re)labeling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130:33-49.

On the emergence of utterance-initial discourse-pragmatic marker: ni-shite-mo ‘even if,
by the way’ in present-day Japanese
Yuko Higashiizumi
Tokyo Gakugei University
Some recent work in historical pragmatics on the development of discourse-pragmatic
markers in Japanese has been concerned with one of the regular developmental paths
that utterance-initial discourse-pragmatic markers, such as dakedo ‘but’, demo ‘but’,
datte ‘because’, and dakara ‘so’, are taking. Onodera (2014 and elsewhere) suggests
that, in the history of Japanese, discourse-pragmatic markers tend to be recruited fromlinguistic items at the right periphery (RP) to those at the left periphery (LP). In thecurrent study, I will report on the recent use of the utterance-initial or LP phrasal
connective ni-shite-mo ‘even though, by the way’, which has thus far received little
attention, and will show that it is undergoing a developmental process similar to theabove-mentioned utterance-initial discourse-pragmatic markers. I will then discuss thedevelopment in light of constructionalization and constructional change (Traugott andTrousdale 2013; Traugott 2016).
In present-day Japanese, the phrase ni-shite-mo, i.e., a combination of “ni (dative
particle) + shite (the conjunctive form of the verb suru ‘do’) + mo (focus particle)” isusually attached to a noun or a finite clause and functions as the clause-final connective,
meaning ‘even though’ or ‘even if’, as in examples (1) and (2).
(1) Uten-ni-shite-mo
kono kiroku-wa waru-sugiru.
rainy.day-ni-shite-mo
this record-TOP bad-too‘Even though (it is/was a) rainy day, this record is too bad.’(2) Makeru-ni-shite-mosaizen-o tsukuse.
lose-ni-shite-mo
best-ACC do‘Even if (you may) lose (the game), do (your) best.
(Daijirin)
However, the phrase is used utterance-initially, functioning as an utterance-initial or LPdiscourse-pragmatic marker, as in example (3).
(3) “Ni-shite-mo,
reizooko-made iru-no?”Ni-shite-mo
refrigerator-to need-NML‘By the way, (do you really) need a refrigerator?
(BCCWJ: OB6X_00153)
It appears that the clause-initial use of the phrase ni-shite-mo as in example (3) is
consistent with the tendency of discourse-pragmatic markers to be recruited from RP
linguistic items, as in examples (1) and (2). The current study will investigate the use of
the phrase ni-shite-mo as an utterance-initial discourse-pragmatic marker, analysing
written conversations in historical texts (conversations in novels in the Taiyo Corpus(1895–1925)) and the Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese (BCCWJ)(2001–2005), and present-day spoken conversations (Meidai Kaiwa Corpus). I will
suggest that the path from RP linguistic item to LP discourse-pragmatic marker involves
the ellipsis of anaphora (e.g. Matsumoto 1988), triggered by analogy based on structuraland functional similarity to the existing forms.
References
Matsumoto, Yo. 1988. From Bound Grammatical Markers to Free Discourse Markers:
History of Some Japanese Connectives. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of
the Berkeley Linguistics Society BLS 14, 340–351..
Onodera, Noriko O. 2014. Setting Up a Mental Space. In Kate Beeching, and Ulrich
Detges (eds.), Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery Crosslinguistic
Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, 92–116. Leiden andBoston: Brill.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2016. Grammaticalization and Constructionalization I–IV. Papers
presented at University of Ghent, May 23–27, 2016.
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization andConstructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Left Periphery of DP and Information Focus:
A Case Study of Double Genitives in English
Masatoshi Honda(Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba )1. Introduction
Since Chomsky (1970), much generative research has been devoted to symmetryin phrase structure building and phrase-internal displacement across phrasal domains(e.g. Abney (1987)). Such research has indicated parallelisms between the clausal andnominal domains concerning grammatical functions (e.g. subject and object) andmovement operations (e.g. passivization).
Recently, the important issue has been raised of whether the parallelism between
the clausal and nominal domains extends to information packaging. The so-called
cartographic approach hypothesizes that the CP domain splits into discourse-related
projections such as topic and focus (Rizzi (1997)), and some researchers haveattempted to extend the split CP hypothesis to the DP domain (e.g. Giusti (1996), Aboh(2004), and Corver and van Koppen (2009)). They claim that the DP domain includes afunctional projection for contrastive focus (CFoc), which “represents a subset of theset of contextually or situationally given elements for which the predicate phrase canpotentially hold” (É. Kiss (1998:245)).
With the above as our background, we explore the further possibility that the DP
domain includes a functional projection to encode new information focus (IFoc). Morespecifically, this study suggests that the (preposed) possessum in English double
genitives (cf. (3b)) has some phonological/interpretive properties of IFoc.
2. Information Focus in the CP Domain and the DP Domain
Rizzi (1997) originally hypothesizes that the CP domain includes only one CFoc
projection, but Cruschina (2011) assumes an additional projection for IFoc in the CP
domain, primarily on the basis of the non-contrastive focus fronting data in Sicilian
and Sardinian, both of which are regional Romance languages in Italy:(1) A. Chi
scrivisti?
[Sicilian]
what
write. PAST.1SG‘What did you write?’
B. a.
Scrissin’articulu.
b.
N’articulu scrissi!
write. PAST.1SG an article
an article write. PAST.1SG‘I wrote an article.’“I wrote an article.”(Cruschina (2011:58), with slight modifications)
While the answer with the post-verbal IFoc in (1Ba) simply provides a neutral IFoc
reading, the one with the fronted IFoc in (1Bb) is associated with emphasis, or the
pragmatic effects “yielded by the relevant new information when it combines andinteracts with the previous knowledge of the participants in the communication context….” (Cruschina (2011:58)). The point here is that the CP domain has a functional
projection dedicated to IFoc, which an inverted constituent may occupy (cf. 1Bb).
Cruschina (2011) further attempts to extend IFoc fronting to the preposing of QPs (cf.
affective operators, in Klima’s (1964) term), which is widespread in Romance:
(2)
Tutto
ha
mangiato a cena.
[Italian]
everything have. PRES.3SG eat.PP
at dinner‘He ate everything at dinner.’(Benincà (1988:141-142))

If we follow the parallelism between the clausal and nominal domains, Cruschina’s(2011) proposal will suggest that the DP domain includes IFoc, too.
This parallel view can be supported by Kayne’s (1993) argument that English
double genitives are derived by preposing the possessum (QP) within the DP domain.
Unlike the definite possessive DP with the possessor-possessum order in (3a), thedouble genitive with the possessum-possessor order in (3b) behaves as an indefinite.
(3) a.
John’s three sistersb.
three sisters of John’s(Kayne (1993:5))
Abel (2006), furthermore, argues that the possessum of English double genitives shows
focus effects. On the phonological side, the possessum, in general, receives a focal
stress, and on the interpretive side, the double genitive functions to bring a referent
into a prominent position in discourse; furthermore, the focus effect does notnecessarily imply contrast.
3. Proposal
The core of my proposal is that the possessum of double genitives moves into
[Spec, IFoc] within the DP domain. Adapting Kayne’s (1993) analysis, this study
proposes the following derivation:(4) [DP [IFOCP [QP/NP three sisters] [IFOC’ of [AGRP [DP John] [AGR’ -’s <[QP/NP three sisters]>]]]]]First, the possessor is generated at [Spec, AGRP], and the possessum (QP) at thecomplement of the AGR head. Second, the possessum undergoes movement t o [Spec,
IFoc]. Third, I assume that of, inserted at the IFoc head, is a functional element whichindicates the preposing of the possessum (cf. linker, in den Dikken’s (1998, 2006)term). As a result, the entire DP behaves as an indefinite, which may introduce a newreferent into the discourse.
The proposed analysis is supported by two pieces of evidence. First, as observedby Kayne (1993:4), a double genitive can occur in the post-copular position of theexistential-there construction. Second, according to my informant, double genitives
can be used as answers to wh-questions when the focal stress is on the possessum; theprimary stress on the possessor is felicitous only when the possessor receives
contrastive focus. We also argue that these two properties still hold for demonstrative
double genitives and their emotional usage (cf. Narita (1986) and Barker (1998)).
4. Conclusion and Implications for Information Packaging within the DP Domain
From a cross-linguistic perspective, the preposed possessum of English double
genitives is peculiar in that it conveys new information focus; the preposing of thepossessum in Romance languages, on the other hand, yields a contrastive focus
interpretation of the possessor (e.g. Bernstein (2001)). Further research will be needed
to find more empirical support for IFoc movement in the DP domain.
Selected References
Abel, J. (2006) “That Crazy Idea of Hers: The English Double Genitive as Focus
Construction,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51, 1-14. / Bernstein, J. B. (2001)“Focusing the “Right” Way in Romance Determiner Phases,” Probus 13, 1-29. /Cruschina, S. (2011) Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections,
Oxford University Press, Oxford. / Kayne, R. S. (1993) “Toward a Modular Theoryof Auxiliary Selection,” Studia Linguistica 47, 3-31.

Contrastive Topics and the Dual Character of Imperatives
Shun Ihara (Graduate School of Osaka University)
Introduction and the Puzzle The dual character of imperatives (command and permission) has beena long lasting puzzle (Han 2000, Schwager 2006, Portner 2007, Kaufmann 2012, among others). This
study explores the semantic/pragmatic relation between the character of imperatives and so-called
contrastive topics (CTs). It is widely known that the Japanese morpheme ‘-wa’ is used to mark CTs (Kuno
1973, among others), as shown in (1).
(1)

dekakeru-mae-ni shukudai-wa
yar-e.
go.out-before-at homework-CT do-IMP ‘(At least,) do your HOMEWORK before going out.’⇝ There are some alternatives that is unlike or to be contrasted with doing homework (e.g. clean
the room, practice the piano, …), and it is not necessary for the addressee to do them.

The command imperative in (1) obtains a command-reading in a context where the mother asks her son
to do his homework before he goes out. By using CT-wa, (1) conveys that there is one or more alternatives
that is “unlike” or to be “contrasted” with doing shukudai ‘homework.’ Furthermore, we can get apermission interpretation (as underlined in (1)) as a conventional implicature (CI). Interestingly, however,when CT-wa occurs in permission imperatives, no such CI is conveyed. The permission imperative with
CT-wa in (2) expresses that there is one or more alternatives that is unlike or to be contrasted with drinking
mizu ‘water’, however, we cannot get any permission interpretation as a CI.
(2)mainichi hatarak-e!
everyday work-IMP‘Work everyday!’[…weeks past…]
getsuyoobi-wa yasum-e!
Monday-CT
take.a.day.off-IMP ‘On Mondays, take the day off!’⇝ There are some alternatives that is unlike or to be contrasted with Monday.

The central question in this research is how the CI in imperatives with CTs comes about: (i) why docommand imperatives with CT-wa convey permission-reading as a CI?; (ii) how can we provide an
account for the fact that permission imperatives with CT-wa do not convey a permission-reading as a CI?
Since almost all studies of CTs in Japanese have focused exclusively on declaratives, these accounts havenot been typically presented in a formal linguistic theory.
Deriving the Permission-reading of Imperatives with CT-wa Current theories of imperatives like
Portner (2011) or Kaufmann (2012) argue that the effect of imperatives derives due to the same operator
occurring in different contexts, so that the utterance of an imperative has different effects on thesubsequent development of the common ground. Following their accounts, I assume that imperatives(including both command and permission imperatives) are related to necessity ‘  ’, while typicalpermissions (e.g. “You can open the window.”) are related to possibility ‘  ’. When a command
imperative with CT-wa is uttered, the alternatives are evaluated by an exhaustive operator given in (3)and all non-weaker alternatives are negated (Chierchia, Fox & Spector 2012). 𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐀𝐀𝐀𝐀𝐀𝐀 (𝑝𝑝) in (3) statesthat 𝑝𝑝 is true and that the only members of ALT that are true are those entailed by 𝑝𝑝 (i.e. Nothing is truein ALT besides 𝑝𝑝 and what follows from 𝑝𝑝).
(3)

⟦𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄􏹒􏹒􏹒􏹒􏹒􏹒 (𝑝𝑝)⟧𝑤𝑤 = 1 iff ⟦𝑝𝑝⟧𝑤𝑤 = 1 and ∀𝜙𝜙 ∈ ALT(𝜙𝜙(𝑤𝑤)) = 1 → (⟦𝑝𝑝⟧ ⊆ 𝜙𝜙))(4)

[Op [ 􏹚􏹚􏹚􏹚􏹚􏹚 [ 𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄􏹒􏹒􏹒􏹒􏹒􏹒 [TP ⟦𝑝𝑝: [… [𝑋𝑋-𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤]􏹔􏹔􏹔􏹔 … ]⟧]]]](where Op is an alternative-generating operator (Tomioka 2010))(Chierchia, Fox & Spector 2012)
I argue that CT-wa operates at the level of the imperative speech-act, in line with Tomioka (2010). Let us
assume the following LF for imperatives with CT-wa.

The necessity operator ‘  ’ in (4) briefly corresponds to the directive force operator developed in
Kaufmann (2012), which are represented in the left-periphery of clauses with imperatives. Consequently,
the relevant alternative to [𝑝𝑝] will be of the form [𝜙𝜙], hence deriving [ ¬ 𝜙𝜙] (= [ ¬ 𝜙𝜙]) as a CI. For
example, the possible alternatives of the utterance in (1) can be represented as in (5).
(5)

The set of alternatives generated in (1):{[clean(addr,room)], [ practice(addr,piano)], [ clean(addr,kitchen)], …}(i.e.: It is necessary for addr to {clean the room, practice the piano, clean the kitchen, …}.)

When (1) is uttered by the speaker, these alternatives are negated and a CI is derived as shown in (6).
(6)

CI of the utterance in (1):{¬ [ clean(addr,room)], ¬ [practice(addr,piano), ¬ [clean(addr,kitchen)], …}= {[¬ clean(addr,room)],[¬ practice(addr,piano)],[¬ clean(addr,kitchen)], …}(i.e.: It is possible for addr not to {clean the room, practice the piano, clean the kitchen, …}.)

Explaining the Puzzle (ii) Following the assumption that command and permission imperatives areboth related to the same operator, it is expected that we can get a permission-reading from permission
imperatives with CT-wa as well as command imperatives. As I have noted, however, the example
provided in (2) shows that permission imperatives with CT-wa do not convey a permission interpretation.
This can simply be explained by focusing on the function of imperatives. Portner (2011) suggests that
permission imperatives arise when the imperative adds a property which is inconsistent with the To-do
List (TDL). I argue that the CI of a permission-reading is blocked by the properties of the addressee’s
TDL. For instance, the addressee’s TDL before and after the second utterance in (2) is illustrated in (7).
((7a) indicates the addressee’s TDL after the first utterance in (2).)(7)

Addressee’s To-do List (TDL) before/after the second utterance in (2):a. TDLaddr = {work(addr,Sun), work(addr,Mon), work(addr,Tue), work(addr,Wed),work(addr, Thu), work(addr,Fri), work(addr,Sat)}b. TDLaddr = {work(addr,Sun), work(addr,Mon), ¬ work(addr,Mon), work(addr,Tue),work(addr,Wed), work(addr, Thu), work(addr,Fri), work(addr,Sat)}The illustration in (7) shows that the second utterance in (2) adds the property (= ‘take the day off on
Monday’) which is inconsistent with the TDL in (7a). Due to this, the previous property, namely to workon Monday, is no longer required, which leads to the situation where ‘taking the day off on Monday’ ispermitted. The crucial point here is that when permission imperatives are uttered, the alternativerequirements are already in the addressee’s TDL. In the current example, the expected CI is ‘it is possible
for the addressee not to work on {Sunday, Tuesday, …}’, as provided in (8).
(8)(The expected) CI of the second utterance in (2):{¬ [ work(addr,Sun)], ¬ [work(addr,Tue), ¬ [work(addr,Wed)], …}Since the contents in (8) are inconsistent with the addressee’s TDL in (7a), these are blocked by those of(7a) and are thus not conveyed.
REFERENCES: Chierchia, G., F. Danny & B. Spector. 2012. Scalar Implicature as a Grammatical Phenomenon.

Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3. / Haida, A. & S. Repp. 2012. ‘Only’
in Imperatives. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16. / Kaufmann, M. 2012. Interpreting Imperatives. / Kuno,
S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. / Portner, P. 2007. Imperatives and Modals. NLS 15. / Portner,
P. 2011. Permission and Choice. Discourse and grammar: from sentence types to lexical categories. / Schwager,
M. 2005. Exhaustive Imperatives. Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium. / Tomioka, S. 2010.
Contrastive Topics Operate on Speech Acts. Information Structure from Theoretical, Typological and Experimental
Perspectives.

Resolving Prefixation into Compounding and Inflection
Haruki Isono (University of Tsukuba), Hiroko Wakamatsu (University of Tsukuba),
Ryohei Naya (University of Tsukuba, JSPS Research Fellow)
1.

Morphological Status of Prefixes and Word Formation

Prefixes have been discussed in terms of their morphological status: Are they (bound) lexical morphemes,that is, lexemes, or functional morphemes, that is, phonological realizations of grammatical features? This
question arises partly because prefixes show different properties from suffixes. For instance, prefixes
entirely lack category-changing functions (Nagano (2011)). The question is directly related to thedelineation of prefixation. When a prefix is a lexeme, the process of attaching it does not belong to derivation
but to compounding. Thus, if many prefixes have the lexeme status, prefixation plays a lesser role inderivational morphology than is generally assumed.
In this respect, Nagano (2013a, 2013b: 121) argues that many English prefixes (e.g., anti-, circum-, multi-,
super-) are lexical, but negative prefixes (e.g., de-, non-, un-) and aspectual prefixes (e.g. be-, en-, re-) are
functional.
The lexeme status can be confirmed, for example, by coordination reduction (CR).
Uncontroversial compounds allow CR (e.g., book-__ and newspaper-stands / book-binders and __-sellers(Kenesei (2007: 274)). Likewise, the prefixes in (1) can undergo CR. However, negative and aspectual
prefixes do not allow CR, as in (2).
(1)
super-__ and supra-national / anti-federalist and __-nationalist (opinions) (Kenesei (2007: 274))(2) * Mary un- and re- tied her laces.
(Sadler and Arnold (1994: 208))
Given these examples, Nagano (2013a) eliminates “lexical prefixes” like those in (1) from derivational
morphology; it is compounding that they participate in.
Nagano’s study contributes to a more precise delineation of prefixation. However, there is another set ofcontroversial morphemes she does not explicitly address: morphemes that are formally identical toprepositions, such as out-, over-, and up- (see e.g. Kastovsky (2013), Olsen (2014: section 3.3.2)). CR
reveals that many of them behave in the same way as lexemes. For example, up- and over- allow CR:(3)
a. Geographically, the research focuses on two geographical areas, up-and low-country.
(Dulna Karunarathna (2014) Imaging the Role of Women in Changing Social-Cultural Contexts, p. i)b.

I now know how much I overate and drank in my previous life!
(http://www.sterlingclinics.co.uk/ian-lost-6st-in-23-weeks/)

However, not all of the relevant morphemes behave in the same way; out- used in a comparative sense (i.e.
‘surpass’ or ‘better’) resists CR:(4) * Mary out-ran and -swam Bill.
(Sadler and Arnold (1994: 208))
This indicates that out- is a functional morpheme. In that case, what grammatical features does it realize andhow is the realization implemented? We aim to answer these questions within Emonds’ (2000, 2005)
theoretical assumption.
2.

Theoretical Assumption

Emonds (2000) assumes that grammatical features (e.g., those of gender, number, and comparison) can bealternatively realized by a functional morpheme in a different syntactic position from theirs. In this case, themorpheme is inserted at PF, that is, after Spell-Out. For example, the feature [PAST] in I (or T) can bephonologically realized by -ed under V (Emonds (2000: 127)). He calls this type of realization “Alternative

Realization (AR)” and considers that AR corresponds to inflectional morphology. Emonds (2005: 259)
briefly argues that the aspectual prefix re- is also an example of an AR: It alternatively realizes a featurecomplex, including [AGAIN] in a post-verbal complement. In addition, Emonds (2005: 280) analyzes mis‘badly’ (e.g., misbehave), a close relative of negative prefixes (Plag (2003: 99)), as an AR of [MANNER,
EVALUATIVE, NEGATIVE] in a post-verbal phrasal position.
3.

ProposalGiven the dichotomy of prefixes, only functional prefixes can be subject to AR. In fact, negative prefixes
can be analyzed as ARs of [NEGATIVE], and aspectual prefixes as ARs of some grammatical features related
to aspects like [AGAIN], as assumed in Emonds (2005). Since out- in (4) is functional, it can also be
analyzed as an AR of certain grammatical features in some post-verbal phrasal position. More precisely, we
propose that the comparative out- is an AR of a feature set, including [MANNER, COMPARATIVE,
EVALUATIVE, POSITIVE], being inserted at PF.
If out- is inserted after Spell-Out, then we can predict that the verbs with comparative out- do not undergo
pre-Spell-Out processes, such as zero-nominalization (or V-to-N conversion) (cf. Naya (2016: 60)). Thisprediction is correct: The noun outrun, for example, lacks the ‘surpass’ sense (e.g., ‘an act of running betteror faster than someone’) but rather has the spatial meaning of ‘[t]he act or fact of running out’ (OED).
4.

Consequence

Our study has an important consequence to the division of labor in morphology. Given that AR
corresponds to inflectional morphology, the insertion of functional prefixes is also inflectional. Combinedwith Nagano’s (2013a) analysis of certain prefixes as lexemes, this indicates that prefixation can be resolved
into compounding and inflection. That is, prefixation has no role in derivational morphology. This further
leads us to conclude that the process derivation bears an exclusively category-changing function.
References
Emonds, J. E. (2000) Lexicon and Grammar: The English Syntacticon, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. / Emonds,
J. E. (2005) “The Computational Lexicon,” English Linguistics 22, 232-266. / Kastovsky, D. (2013) “English
Prefixation: A Historical Sketch,” Historical English Word-Formation and Semantics, ed. by Jacek Fisiak andMagdalena Bator, 9-30, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. / Kenesei, I. (2007) “Semiwords and Affixoids: The
Territory between Word and Affix,” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54, 263-293. / Nagano, A. (2011) “TheRight-Headedness of Morphology and the Status and Development of Category-Determining Prefixes inEnglish,” English Language and Linguistics 15, 61-83. / Nagano, A. (2013a) “Fukugo to Hasei no Kyokai to
Eigo no Settoji (The Boundary between Derivation and Compounding, and English Prefixes)” Seisei Gengo
Kenkyuu no Ima (The Current Stage of the Studies in Generative Grammar), ed. by Masayuki Ikeuchi and
Takuya Goro, 145-161, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo. / Nagano, A. (2013b) “Morphology of Direct Modification,”
English Linguistics 30, 111-150. / Naya, R. (2016) “Deverbal Noun-Forming Processes in English,” English
Linguistics 33, 36-68. / Olsen, S. (2014) “Delineating Derivation and Compounding,” The Oxford Handbookof Derivational Morphology, ed. by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 26-49, Oxford University Press,
Oxford. / Plag, I. (2003) Word-Formation in English, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. / Sadler, L.
and D. J. Arnold (1994) “Prenominal Adjectives and the Phrasal/Lexical Distinction,” Journal of Linguistics
30, 187-226.

The Because X Construction: Not Constructionalized Yet?
Masaru Kanetani (University of Tsukuba)This talk deals with a new usage of because that has recently emerged (henceforth, thebecause X construction), exemplified in (1a), from the perspective of constructionalization(cxzn) (Traugott and Trousdale (T&T) (2013)). Sentence (1a) conveys in essence the same
meaning as a sentence like (1b) (henceforth, the causal because-clause construction):(1) a. I cannot go out with you today because homework.
b. I cannot go out with you today because I have a lot of homework.
Kanetani (2015) posits an instance link and inverse subpart link between these constructions(cf. Goldberg (1995)). In order for the Goldbergian inheritance links to be posited, theconstructions need to be established as grammatical constructions. Therefore, the specificresearch question I set out is whether the because X construction is constructionalized or not.
T&T (2013:22) define cxzn as “the creation of formnew-meaningnew (combinations of)signs”. One could see the form of an expression like because homework as a product of theomission of a full clause, just like reduced clauses introduced by other adverbial subordinators,
exemplified in (2):(2) When in difficulty, consult the manual.
(Quirk et al. (1985:1079))
In (2), the implied subject and verb that follows are definite; hence, they are recoverable. If
the word homework in (1a) were a reduced clause, the omitted words should also berecoverable. Unlike (2), however, they are not “uniquely recoverable” in the sense of Quirk
et al. (1972:536); nor will it be almost impossible to determine whether the word that follows
because is the subject, object, or another element of a corresponding clausal counterpart. As
Schnoebelen (2014) reports, interjections, as well as nouns and adjectives, frequently appear
in the X-slot, as in (3):(3) Admittedly, not in the UK yet because aargh!
(Twitter)
Even with situational information, it will be particularly difficult for one to uniquely recover aclause from an utterance like this. Therefore, arguing against the view of the because X
construction as a reduced clause, I claim that the construction has undergone a syntacticchange. Turning to the meaning pole of the construction, I argue that the construction ispragmatically distinct from the causal because-clause construction. That is, based on
Kanetani’s (2016) claim that the word in the X-slot functions as expressing the speaker’s
thought, I consider the because X construction a speaker-oriented construction, in that the
speaker does not observe the first part of the Gricean Maxim of Quantity; that the hearer must
make more effort to understand the meaning of the utterance.
In short, the because X construction is characterized as follows. Formally, the word in
the X-slot is not a reduced clause but is a product of a syntactic change. Semantically, it iscomparable to the causal because-clause construction. Pragmatically, the speakers do notmake their contribution as informative as is required, leaving the interpretation to the hearers.

Cappelle (to appear) proposes a view of a construction as a tripartite, not bipolar,
structural unit, claiming that pragmatic information should be stored separately from semantic
information in a construction, if the construction has “pragmatic information [that] isconventionalized and therefore has to be learned and stored”. Such a treatment ofconstructions requires us to read the meaning pole in T&T’s (2013) definition of cxzn (i.e.
meaningnew) as either (i) semanticnew, (ii) pragmaticnew, or (iii) semanticnew-pragmaticnew, of
which the because X construction exemplifies the second case for the reasons mentioned
above. A question arises as to whether such a partial change in the meaning pole paired witha formnew could be treated as a case of cxzn. The answer to this question is inextricably
linked to the answer to the research question of this talk. I argue that the because X
construction is not constructionalized yet, but is on the way to cxzn (or, at the stage ofpre-cxzn constructional change (cf. an anonymous reviewer’s comment)) along the processthat T&T (2013:91f.) propose. I also point out that this conclusion, nevertheless, is notincompatible with the inheritance links that Kanetani (2015) posits. According to T&T, it is“only when morphosyntactic and semantic neoanalyses … have been shared in population of
speakers and a new conventional symbolic unit … has been created” (p.92) that cxzn occurs.
At a stage prior to this, in which the hearer’s interpretation and analysis of a construct does
not match the speaker’s analysis, a tenuous link is created by the hearer “between a construct
and a different part of the constructional network than intended” (ibid.:91). Thus, I claimthat it is “tenuous” links of this kind that Kanetnai (2015) posits between the causal
because-clause construction and the because X construction.
References
Cappelle, Bert (to appear) “What’s Pragmatics Doing outside Constructions?,” in Ilse
Depraetere and Raphael Salkie (eds.) Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, xx-yy,
Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kanetani, Masaru (2015) “On the New Usage of Because,” Studies in Language andLiterature [Language] 68, 63-80.
Kanetani, Masaru (2016) “A Note on the Because X Construction: With Special Reference to
the X-Element ,” Studies in Language and Literature [Language] 70, 67-79.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1972) A Grammarof Contemporary English, Longman, London.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985) A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, London.
Schnoebelen, Tyler (2014) “Innovating Because Innovation,” a blog post on January 15, 2014<https://corplinguistics.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/innovating-because-innovation/>
Traugott, Elizabeth E. and Graeme Trousdale (2013) Constructionalization andConstructional Changes, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Eliminating the Discourse-based Parameter
Ryoichiro Kobayashi (Sophia University/JSPS)
Synopsis: This paper aims to reduce Zero-topic Parameter (Huang 1984) to the cross-linguistic
differences of the Lexicon. Following Tsao (1977), Huang proposes Zero-topic parameter, whichallows discourse-prominent languages like Mandarin and Japanese to make use of the Zerotopic operator (Op) that binds a null variable. However, such parameter should be abolishedunder the thesis that the source of cross-linguistic variation is limited to the Lexicon and Linearization (Borer 1984, Fukui 1986). The aim here is two-fold: First I show that linguistic-antecedentless null arguments are available in Spanish as well, and claim that the Zero-topic Op isuniversally available but restricted by the presence of φ-features on probing heads. Second, I
propose a formal, but not functional, analysis of the cross-linguistic distribution of pro in three
types of languages, English (φ-defective), Spanish (φ-rich) and Japanese (φ-less).
Null variable is pro: In Japanese, gaps without linguistic antecedents are licensed (1), which is
impossible in English. Abe (2009) claims that a base-generated null variable (=[e]) is bound by,
and gain its reference from Op, which is identified with the prominent referent in the discourse.
The gap cannot be elided argument, since it lacks an overt antecedent (Hankamer and Sag 1976).
(1) a. [e] kita.
(Context: Students heard footsteps from outside just before the class.)‘[e] came.’b. [Optopici [[ei] came]] (=The teacheri came.)(Abe 2009)
Although little is said about such discourse-related Op in φ-rich languages, such gaps are alsoavailable in Spanish (2). Nevertheless, it is only available in the subject position unlike in Japanese. Thus, the distribution of the discourse-bound null argument is identical to that of pro in
Spanish and in Japanese. For this reason, I assume that the gaps in (1) and (2) bound by Op is pro.
(2) [e] viene.
(Context: Students heard footsteps from outside just before the class.)come.3sg‘(The teacher) comes.’(Maia Duguine p.c.)
Huang’s (1984) generalization on pro has received much attention. A number of studies has
been conducted to account for the cross-linguistic distribution of it (see Zushi 2003). Many ofthem, however, fall short of providing a formal explanation on why pro is licensed in languages
with rich φ-agreement. They are essentially functional in that they assume a language to allow
pro as long as the content of it is recoverable from the overt φ-morphemes. If such arguments
are to be justified, it is not obvious why pro is not allowed in English/French/German with someovert φ-morphemes appearing on T (e.g. the 3rd person singular -s in English does not allow pro).
Obviated AC: Following Chomsky’s (2015) strong/weak distinctions of T, I propose that the
Activation Condition (Chomsky 2000) is obviated as in (3) when the probe is strong.
(3) Activation Condition (revised): The goal must have [uF] in order to Agree with weak heads.
In English, [uφ] on T fails to Agree with its goal since pro universally lacks [uCase] (see below).
Weak T in English is constrained by (3), thus [uφ] is left unvalued, which crashes at the interfaces, as in (4). The same applies to V in both English and Spanish-type languages since it is
weak (5) (Chomsky 2015). Thus pro is not licensed in object positions in both types of languages.
(4) Weak T: …C… [TP T[uφ, NOM] [v*P pro[vφ] …]]…
(e.g. English-type languages)|_______↑*φ-agree since there is no [uCase] on pro(5) Weak V: …v*… [VP V[uφ, ACC] pro[vφ] ]…
(e.g. Spanish-type/English-type languages)|_______↑*φ-agree since there is no [uCase] on pro

Since T is strong in Spanish, the agreement is possible due to the obviation of AC with theStrong T though pro does not have [uCase], as illustrated in (6).
(6) Strong T: …C… [TP T[uφ, NOM] [v*P pro[vφ] …]]…
(e.g. Spanish-type languages):|_______↑okφ-agree
In Japanese-type languages, no such problem arises since there is no φ-agreement in the firstplace. pro in these φ-less languages are freely available as long as Merge is free (Chomsky 2004).
pro is Caseless: I propose that pro universally lacks [uCase]. It is true that pro appears in theCase position, [Spec, TP], where other nominals receive their Case value. However, this is notproblematic to my argument for the following two reasons: First, the Case-filter per se statesthat it is defined on the NP with phonetic content, thus pro or PRO is not constrained straightforwardly (Chomsky 1981:49). Second, in the current minimalist program, Case is also considered as a feature that is to be licensed. As long as there is [uCase] on a nominal in Narrow Syntax,
it must be valued and deleted before Transfer. Therefore, it naturally follows that if there is no[uCase], then there is no need for the valuation to occur.
Further empirical evidence is from European Portuguese. It is observed by Roberge (1990:46)
that there is no restriction on the content of [e] in the subject position in infinitivals, as in (7).
gastado esse dinheiro para nada](7) a. Acreditam [FIN que [pro] têm
think.3plthat [pro] have.3pl spend.past this money for nothing‘They think [that they have spent this money for nothing].’b. Acreditam [INF [e] terem
gastado esse dinheiro para nada]
think.3pl[e] to.have.3pl spend.past this money for nothing‘They think [[e] to have spent this money for nothing].’If [e] is not a controlled PRO, but pro, then there should be no restriction on its content. Indeed,this prediction is borne out as in (8a), in which the matrix and embedded subjects are distinct.
No PRO enters φ-agreement with T, while pro does in Romance languages. Moreover, the infinitival T shows φ-inflectional morphemes depending on the φ-features of its subject pro, whichlends credence to the current analysis that the gap is pro, not PRO, in the caseless position (8b).
(8) a. Afirma[pro terem
lhe roubado este livro]
affirm.3sg (they) to.have.3pl
you stolen be book
Lit. ‘He affirms [they to have stolen this book from him].’b. Ele diz[pro semos pobres]
he say.3SG (we) to.be.1pl poor
Lit. ‘He says [we to be poor].’
The empty category here cannot be PRO. Nor can it be derived via ellipsis, since there is noantecedent that licenses it. Given these observations, I conclude that they are pro. I take it as
crucial evidence for my argument that pro lacks [uCase] to be valued in Narrow Syntax.
Summary: I have shown that the Discourse-based parameter can be reduced to the presence/absence of φ-features on probing heads in the lexicon. Although the notion of T’s strength needs
further discussions, I hope to have shown that the obviation of AC has several consequences.
Selected References: Abe, J. 2009. Identification of null arguments in Japanese. In The dynamics of the Language Faculty, 135-162. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers. | Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On
the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. LI, 531-574.

Second Language Acquisition of Demonstrative Distance Relations
Simone Lechner, University of Hamburg
This paper investigates transfer effects in the acquisition of deictic contrast relations indemonstratives in spoken language, focusing on the acquisition of demonstratives in L1
English, Japanese and German speakers learning L2 German, English and Japanese. In
spoken language, German demonstrative pronouns are arguably distance-neutral (Ahrenholz
2007: 39, cf. Himmelmann 1997), although they are distance-oriented (Diessel 1999: 38-39),
i.e. the occurrence of demonstrative pronouns is limited to diese/r/s (which is sometimes
replaced by stressed determiner der/die/das). English has a two-way system in terms of
distance (proximal (this/that) and distal (these/those)) (cf. Huddleston and Pullum 2002) andis also distance-oriented. Finally, Japanese has a tripartite, person-oriented system thatdifferentiates between proximal to the speaker (kono/kore), proximal to the addressee anddistal to the speaker (sono/sore), and distal to both the addressee and the hearer (ano/are)(Diessel 1999: 39). German and English demonstrative pronouns have the same form inadnominal and pronominal position, whereas Japanese demonstrative pronouns differ in
inflection depending on whether they occur in adnominal (kono/sono/ano) or pronominal(kore/sore/are) position (cf. Diessel 2013). Based on Diessel's (1999:2) broad definition ofdemonstratives, locative adverbs are also taken into account. German and English both have abilateral system distinguishing between proximal (Eng. here, Ger. hier) and distal (Eng. there,
Ger. da/dort), whereas Japanese again has a tripartite system. Japanese locative adverbs(koko/soko/asoko) have the same lexical stem as Japanese demonstrative pronouns.
This study focuses on L1 English, L1 Japanese and L1 German speakers aged 20-25 inadvanced stages of acquiring L2 German, L2 English and L2 Japanese. One of the main
purposes of this study is to critically re-examine claims made in Lado's (1957) Contrastive
Hypothesis, which suggests that elements in the L2 that are different from the L1 will be
more difficult to acquire, while elements that are similar to the L1 will be easier to acquire.
Although Lado's hypothesis is fairly old and has been extensively criticised in the past, more
recent studies have identified typological proximity as an important predictor for potential
language transfer (Jarvis and Pavlenko 2010, Ringbom 2007). The claims made in theContrastive Hypothesis are compared to the possibility that it is the complexity of thelinguistic feature in question that most accurately predicts potential transfer effects, i.e. thatfor example a more complex system with more spatial dimensions in the speaker's L1 makes
it easier to acquire a less complex system with less spatial dimensions in the L2. The
proposed bilateral approach to transfer effects is especially promising when attempting todisambiguate genuine transfer effects from developmental stages of language acquisition.
The investigated sample consists of n=180 informants aged 20-25 with comparable
socioeconomic and educational backgrounds in similar stages of language acquisition (n=30
L1 German and n=30 L1 Japanese speakers with L2 English, n=30 L1 Japanese and n=30 L1
English with L2 German, n=30 L1 German and n=30 L1 English speakers with L2 Japanese).
Data consists of three elicitation tasks focusing on distance relations when using
demonstratives, as well as a grammatical judgment task.
Tables 1 through 3 show preliminary results for the first experiment for the 15 informantsfrom each sample group evaluated so far. Preliminary results indicate significant differences(χ=6.039, p <0.05) in the use of distal and proximal demonstrative pronouns by L1 Japaneseand L1 German learners of English as an L2. Interference effects seem more likely for
German learners of English, whereas the Japanese deictic demonstrative system facilitates the(target-like) acquisition of the English system. In this instance, typological proximity does
not seem to be the strongest predictor for transfer, suggesting that the complexity of thefeature in the L1 plays a more pronounced role. Moreover, L1 German learners of English
use a greater range of expressions to convey differences in relative distance.
proximal(this)
15dem.

distal(that)
0dem.

det. (the)dem./ det. +locative adverb
0Japanese
L10(n=15)
GermanL1 10
2
03(n=15)
Table 1: Experiment 1 for L2 English (Situation 1, proximal to speaker and hearer)
proximal(this)
12dem.

distal(that)
3dem.

det. (the)dem./ det. +locative adverb
0Japanese
L10(n=15)
GermanL1 4
3
3
4(n=15)
Table 2: Experiment 1 for L2 English (Situation 2, distal to speaker, proximal to hearer)
proximal(this)
0dem.

distal(that)
15dem.

det. (the)dem./ det. +locative adverb
0Japanese
L10(n=15)
GermanL1 3
2
2
6(n=15)
Table 3: Experiment 1 for L2 English (Situation 3, distal to speaker and hearer)

locative adverb
only
0
0

locative adverb
only
0
1

locative adverb
only
0
2

References:
Ahrenholz, B. 2007. Verweise mit Demonstrativa im gesprochenen Deutsch: Grammatik,
Zweitspracherwerb und Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Diessel, H. 2013. "Pronominal and Adnominal Demonstratives." In: M. S. Dryer and M.
Haspelmath (eds.). The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
(Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/42, Accessed on 2016-11-09.)
Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Himmelmann, N. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase. Zur Emergenz syntaktischer
Struktur. Tübingen: Narr.
Jarvis, S. and A. Pavlenko. 2010. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition.2nd
Ed. New York: Routledge.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers.
University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
Ringbom, H. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning (=Second
Language Acquisition 21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

The Passivization of the Gesture Expression Construction andthe Formulation of Subjects in terms of Aboutness
Suguru Mikami (Tohoku University)
Abstract: The central goal of this talk is to capture the apparently contradictory behavior of the Gesture
Expression Construction (henceforth, GEC) with respect to its passivization (cf. Kogusuri (2011)). Morespecifically, adopting Rizzi’s (2006) formulation of subjects in terms of aboutness, I argue that (i) the
expression nominal in the postverbal position originally fails to be passivized due to its inherent nonreferential property, but (ii) the nominal can be considered eligible for passivization once its referentiality
is enhanced by contextual information (cf. Mikami (2013)). This analysis not only proves that theapparent contradictory behavior follows from the general property of subjects; it also holds promise forclarifying the interface between syntactic/semantic structures and discourse.
Core Puzzle: In this talk, I investigate the GEC, as exemplified by (1) and schematized in (2):(1) a.
She smiled her thanks.
b.
She nodded approval.
(Kogusuri (2011: 149))(2) a.
Syntactic Structure: [S NPi [VP V ([bound pronoun]i’s) NPj ]]b.
Meaning: ‘Xi express (Xi’s) [emotion/attitude]j by V-ing.’
This construction usually takes an unergative verb as its main predicate (cf. Levin (1993)), and the verb
expresses the gesture that the referent of the subject makes; and the postverbal position is occupied by anon-subcategorized NP, often termed the expression nominal, which describes the expression conveyed
by the gesture. According to Massam (1990), the expression nominal contains a bound pronoun,irrespective of whether the pronoun is expressed overtly or covertly. No element containing a boundpronoun is allowed to be passivized, as the ungrammaticality of (3) shows (cf. Zubizarreta (1985)). Thus,
it has widely been accepted that the expression nominal fails to be passivized due to the presence of abound pronoun, as shown in (4):(3) *Hisi role was played by Johni. (cf. Johni played hisi role.)(Zubizarreta (1985: 256))(4) a. * A cheerful welcome was beamed by Sandra.
(Levin (1993: 98))b. * Grateful thanks were smiled by Rilla.
(Massam (1990: 108))
Contrary to the general consensus, however, Kogusuri (2011) points out that the nominal can be
successfully passivized when no element encoding the agent participant is realized as a possessor
pronoun and a by-phrase:(5) a.
On the day of departure, Glyndwr’s men assembled, a few mounted, and wagons wereready to roll. Final goodbye were waved.
(Kogusuri (2011: 149))b.
… as the time [of fitting out] neared when the last line is cast off, the goodbye are waved,
the screw makes the water boil under the stern, and the passage to Alaska is under way.
(Kogusuri (2011: 163))
A reasonable question arises from the above discussion: What makes it possible for the nominal
expression to be passivized in acceptable cases like (5)? This talk attempts to account for such acontradictory behavior of the GEC in terms of the general property of subjects.
Theoretical Assumptions: Rizzi (2006) proposes a new formulation of subjects, using two notions ofaboutness and D-linking:(6) a.
Subject: +aboutness, -D-linkingb.
Topic: +aboutness, +D-linking(Rizzi (2006: 122))
According to this formulation, subjects are required to bear an aboutness feature, as is the case with

topical elements. In this talk, focusing on the referential aspect of aboutness (cf. Sornicola (2006)), I
define subjects as referential elements (cf. Mikami (2013)). Furthermore, following Osawa (2009), I
assume that contextual information can contribute to enhancing the acceptability of a sentence. It follows
that even though intrasentential information renders a construction unacceptable, contextual information
can override the constraint violation and license the construction pragmatically.
Proposal&Analysis: Assuming the formulation of subjects in terms of referentiality and the function ofcontext for promoting acceptability, I analyze the passivized GEC as a pragmatically licensed
construction. More specifically, I argue that (i) the expression nominal originally fails to be passivized
due to its inherent non-referential property, but (ii) the nominal can serve as a subject in the passivization
process once its referentiality is supplemented by contextual factors. This analysis succeeds in viewing
the contradictory passivizability of the GEC observed between (4) and (5) as merely an apparent
phenomenon and giving a principled explanation for the apparent contradiction in terms of the generalproperty of subjects. Under Rizzi’s formulation of subjects, it is only referential elements that havepotential for serving as subjects (cf. Mikami (2013)). Given that the expression nominal contains a boundpronoun, which is required to be bound by its antecedent (cf. Massam (1990)), it follows that theexpression nominal is inherently non-referential. That is, the referent of the nominal is not identified until
the establishment of a binding relation between the nominal and its antecedent. Unfortunately, however,when the GEC is passivized without any appropriate context, the expression nominal cannot gainreferentiality, because the nominal in the subject position is prohibited from being bound by its
antecedent in the by-phrase, as schematized in (7b):(7) a. * A cheerful welcome was beamed by Sandra.
(= (3a))b.
[S (one’si) a cheerful welcome [[VP was beamed ] by Sandrai ]]×In this configuration, the expression nominal is judged inappropriate for a subject due to its nonreferential property. In contrast, once enough information to identify the referent of the expression
nominal is introduced in discourse, the nominal can be considered eligible for passivization, as observedin (5), repeated here as (8):(8) … as the time [of fitting out] neared when the last line is cast off, the goodbye are waved, thescrew makes the water boil under the stern, and the passage to Alaska is under way.
(= (5b))This sentence describes a typical scene when a ship sets sail for Alaska, and one could easily judge thereferent of the expression nominal from context, even though no information about the relevant agent is
explicitly mentioned. The establishment of this kind of cross-sentential binding, combined with thedeletion of the inappropriate syntactic chain for binding, constitutes a pragmatic “repair strategy” tooverride the syntactic violation, whereby the expression nominal enhances its referentiality; hence, thenominal is pragmatically judged appropriate for a subject.
Selected References: Kogusuri, T. (2011) “On the Passivization of the Gesture Expression Construction,”
Tsukuba English Studies 29. / Massam, D. (1990) “Cognate Objects as Thematic Objects,” The
Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35. / Mikami, S. (2013) “The Prepositional Subject Construction in
English and the Formulation of Subjects in terms of Aboutness,” JELS 30. / Osawa, M. (2009) A Unified
Approach to Pragmatically Licensed Constructions in English, Doctoral dissertation, University ofTsukuba. / Rizzi, L. (2006) “On the Form of Chain: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects,” Wh-movement:
Moving on, MIT Press. / Sornicola, R. (2006) “Interaction of Syntactic and Pragmatic Factors on Basic
Word Order in the Languages of Europe,” Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages ofEurope, Mouton de Gruyter.

Pragmatic Constraint on There Speak Construction and Its Peculiarities
Takashi MINO
Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University
This study discusses deictic there construction with the verb speak:(1) A: I can’t decide which clothes to buy. Should I just get everything?
B: There speaks a rich person.
As observed by Lakoff (1987) and Breivik (1990), the deictic there construction is known
to allow verbs of existence or motion. However, the construction permits the unergative
verb speak, which expresses a volitional action on the subject’s part.
The main purpose of this study is to propose the following pragmatic constraint on
this there speak construction, which cannot be predicted from the central deictic there
construction.
(2) Pragmatic Constraint on There Speak Construction
There speak construction is only grammatical when there is a precedingutterance that a subject should say.
This constraint can adequately account for the grammaticality of (3):(3)

He gave her a sideways look. ‘Cold,’ he said succinctly. ‘Damp.’ Her mouth
twitched. ‘You're no romantic,’ she chided. ‘I haven't the time for romance,’
he said shortly. ‘There speaks a workaholic,’ she observed with faintdisapproval.
[BNC]
In (3), the there speak construction serves as a comment to an utterance made by thehearer, which denotes a statement that workaholics should say, I haven’t the time forromance. This utterance is required for the construction, as shown by (4):(4) A: Do you know where Yuhei is? I want to talk with him about his brother.
B: I saw him two minutes ago. Oh, he is over there. *There speaks a workaholic.
This there speak construction is ungrammatical because it lacks a preceding utterance thata workaholic should say. Therefore, even if a person associated with a subject is really
speaking, we cannot use this construction without help of preceding remarks that the
subject should say.
The function as a reply to a preceding remark is closely related to three characteristics.
First, subjects should be specific in that they are sufficiently evoked within the context.
This is because without specification the speakers cannot describe the unique characterswell.
(5) A: I have nothing to do all afternoon.
B: a. *There speaks a man.

b. There speaks a lazy person.
c. There speaks a man without a care in the world.
A man in (5a) is very abstract and cannot be rationally linked with the preceding utterance,
while the nouns in (5b) and (5c) are specific enough to associate these with the foregoingremarks. In other words, the subjects should be specific nouns expressing an evaluation
to the hearers well.
Second, the there speak construction often has negative connotations in theconversation. In (6), the man is worried about money, but he is made fun of because thespeaker thinks that he is very stingy.
(6)“And I’ve decided to get myself a car.” “What!” He puts down his glass sosuddenly the drink spills over. ”You said you were going to buy yourself acomputer.” ”That too.” “Jill, you’re crazy. Squandering your money this way.
It’s going to vanish in no time.” “There speaks the accountant’s son!” “No,I’m serious.”(Moving On)
As is clear from this passage, the there speak construction conveys an ironical implication
to the hearer. If someone does not say anything special, the speaker does not have to use
the there speak construction. Also, it is not natural to praise someone by referring to his
remarks. Rather, we tend to be cynical about some strange comments which interlocutors
make. This usage is similar to that of epithets such as bastard and jerk.
Finally, based on these points, it can be said that the function of this construction is tocharacterize and evaluate the hearers. Normal deictic there constructions describe theexistence or motion of an entity. However, this there speak construction enables speakers
to introduce a unique entity associated with the interlocutor into the conversation andlabel him/her as the subjects indicate
To sum up, the there speak construction is very different from the central deictic there
construction in the aforementioned four respects. It can be used only when there is apreceding remark that the subject should mention; by using this construction, the speakers
characterize the hearer with an implication of the speaker’s negative attitude toward thehearer.
References: Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous things What
Categorizations Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. /Breivik, Leiv. 1990. Existential there: A synchronic and diachronic study (2nd ed.).Oslo:
Novus Press. Data Sources: British National Corpus (BNC) (http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/)/ Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (http://www.americancorpus.org/)
Google Books Corpora (http://googlebooks.byu.edu/)

How do relational adjectives change into qualitative adjectives?
Akiko Nagano
Tohoku University
Like many other European languages, English has the relational-qualitative distinction in
N-to-A derivation. RELATIONAL ADJECTIVES (RA) are attributive-only, nominal adjectives
whose function is classification, while QUALITATIVE ADJECTIVES (QA) are canonical adjectives
whose function is property predication (Beard 1977; 1991; 1995, Levi 1978, McNally &Boleda 2004, Fábregas 2007; 2014, Fradin 2007; 2008, Bisetto 2010, Rainer 2013,
Shimamura 2014, Nagano 2016, among others). Just as complex event nominals, simplex
event nominals, and result nominals, the three nominalization classes in V-to-N derivation,
can be distinguished from one another by a set of criteria (Grimshaw 1990, among others), thetwo adjectivalization classes can be distinguished by the following set of criteria:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.

RA
Always denominal
Attributive only
Strictly adjacent to the modified noun
Argument-saturating capacity
Incompatible with an indefinite degree
modifier
Comparative forms are difficult.
Coordinated with a bare-nominal modifier

QA
Not necessarily derivative
Predication possible
Adjacency to the noun is not required
No argument-saturating capacity
Gradable by an indefinite degree
modifier
Comparative forms possible
Coordinated with a non-derived basic
adjective
Nominalization is difficult.
Nominalization possible
Prefixal negation by non-. Un- is difficult.
Prefixal negation by un- is possible.
Quantifying and spatiotemporal prefixes Quantifying
andspatiotemporal(e.g. mono-, pre-) possible
prefixation is difficult.
Adverbial form by –ly (if any) functions as Corresponding -ly adverbs do nota frame adverb sentence-initially.
function as frame adverbs.

In this paper, I will offer a new empirical generalization about form-meaning
correspondence found in English denominal QAs and seek an explanation for it that is
adequate not only theory-internally but also in light of general human psychology. The
generalization in question is given in (1) below, along with concrete examples of its key
concepts in (2).
(1)(2)

Qualitative adjectives of the RESEMBLE class do not have a relational counterpart,while those of the REPRESENT class have one.
a. RESEMBLE QAJohn is childish for a full professor. (Fábregas 2014: 284)

b.

c.

= “John is similar to a child from the standard of a full professor.”
REPRESENT QAPeter’s utterance is ungrammatical. […] Peter surely isn’t trying to beungrammatical, and yet… (Clark 2004: 378)
= “Peter’s utterance does not represent grammar.”
RA counterpart of REPRESENT QA
three grammatical components= “three components of grammar”

According to Beard (1977, 1995) and Levi (1978), QAs are different from RAs in that while
the latter are derived solely from nouns through the process of transposition, the former are
derived by the incorporation of a noun with another, predicating constituent. The
generalization in (1) means that QAs that are derived based on the predicative element
RESEMBLE or BE SIMILAR TO do not have a relational usage. They are non-ambiguous. For
example, childish is used solely in the sense “be similar to a child.” In contrast, QAs whose
semantics should be paraphrased as “REPRESENT THE BASE N” rather than “RESEMBLE/BE
SIMILAR TO THE BASE N” have a relational usage. That is, one and the same derivative can beboth relational and qualitative if the QA usage is of the REPRESENT type. Thus, grammatical is
ambiguous between the senses “be representative of grammar” and “of grammar.”
Discussing the event-result distinction in deverbal nominalizations, Alexiadou &Grimshaw (2008) and Naya (2016) distinguish two analyses of V-to-N derivation: one-stepanalysis (V > event N; V > result N) and two-step analysis (V > event N > result N). In thispaper, I will argue that English N-to-A derivation makes use of both one-step and two-stepderivational paths. QAs of the RESEMBLE type are formed in the one-step manner (N > QA),
while those of the REPRESENT type are formed in the two-step manner (N > RA > QA).
Specifically, I will argue that one cohort of N-to-A affixes, which includes -ish used in (2a),are semantically rich, being inherently endowed with an LCS of resemble or be similar to.
Such an affix incorporates the base into the LCS variable position, directly turning it into a
QA. On the other hand, there is another cohort of N-to-A affixes which are semanticallysparse. The suffix –al in (2b, c) is one of them. They do not contribute any semantic content,
but rather they are formal markers of the process of transposition (Beard 1995). Using
transposition to manipulate the base noun’s referential index, it is possible to transpose a nounfirst into an RA and further transpose the output into a QA. In this case, the resultant QAs
always have a relational counterpart. Also, the predicative element REPRESENT is not
introduced by the relevant affix (such as –al) but rather accrues from the RA > QA
transposition. Why do RAs produce QAs of the REPRESENT type? On this point, I will refer toa type of everyday inference called PSYCHOLOGICAL ESSENTIALISM (Lakoff 1987). Roughly,
human beings have a strong tendency to infer an entity’s attributes from its classification. If
someone belongs to the class called “mother,” she is supposed to have attributes generally or
culturally attached to this class and behave accordingly. If RAs are forms of class membership,
as is widely assumed, QAs transposed from them can be seen as forms of classrepresentativeness. [References omitted. Please refer to the upcoming conference hand-out.]

Oblique-referential Descriptions and Third-person Pronouns in English
Koichi Nishida (Yamaguchi Prefectural University)
1. Introduction. In reference to Recanati (1993), this presentation discusses three types of contexts
where referential terms can be used “oblique-referentially” to show that the referential opacity
involved in oblique-referential terms is understood in terms of reference that takes place outside of
the current speaker’s dialogue domain. This study builds on Miki’s (1996:640) following statement:“What descriptions (i.e. referential terms) count as opaque ... depends crucially on what is assumed
to be shared as mutual knowledge. Likewise, what descriptions are regarded as transparent depends
crucially on whether the descriptions are made from the perspective of the ongoing interchange.”
2. Recanati’s paired notions of “oblique-attributive” and “oblique-referential.” We first review
at least four different readings which Recanati (1993:390) says examples like (1) can have:(1) John believes that the winner will go to Hong Kong.
Recanati argues that besides the attributive and referential readings given by the speaker of thissentence, the winner in the complement allows oblique-attributive and oblique-referential readings
given by the person referred to by the matrix subject: in the former, the matrix subject doesn’t know
who the winner is, and believes that whoever it is, he or she will go to Hong Kong. In the latter, thematrix subject, but not the speaker, knows who the winner is, and uses the winner to refer to that
person; oblique-referential terms are those whose referents are transparent to the matrix subject, but
are opaque to the speaker. They carry reference for which the speaker relies on someone else.
The oblique-referential reading is also available from attributive vocatives which are used on
the basis of what Clark and Carlson (1982) call “addressing by attribution,” as exemplified in (2):(2) Schwartz, to history students: Any of you who needs a syllabus, raise your hand.
In (2), the speaker doesn’t know who are the addressees of his imperative at the time of his
utterance, so any of you who needs a syllabus is opaque to him. As a matter of self-awareness,
however, it is transparent to each of those history students who needs a syllabus. As Clark andCarlson note, speakers who use attributive vocatives do not call the addressees directly, but instead,describe the attributes that the addressees in their minds are expected to have. This process called“addressing by attribution” is responsible for introducing other oblique-referential terms, too.
3. Non-anaphoric third-person pronouns in media dialogue. The oblique-referential use is also
found with non-anaphoric third-person pronouns typically used in media dialogue where the author
purports to talk with readers by addressing each of them in the second-person singular, as in (3-5):
(3)
(4)
(5)

Wedding Essentials, Ontario ed., ’15, p.77. / Marie Claire, Nov. ’14, front cover. / Tiger Beat, Sep. ’13, p.99.

In (3), his in the first sentence is anaphoric to a smitten groom, but him in the third sentence is not;it stands for the reader’s groom. This is due to the fact that it is part of the author’s mock dialogue tothe reader, which makes a separate domain from the preceding text. The same is true of him in theelliptical title of (3) and he in the interrogative title in (4). Non-anaphoric third-person pronouns
standing for the reader’s intimate partner typically occur in media dialogue whose topics include
personal relations such as love, marriage and gifts, i.e., topics with which the author can talk witheach reader about his or her intimate partner. The non-anaphoric nature of the pronouns in questionis evidenced by (5), where the referent of him in don’t forget to introduce him to your BFFs is founddeictically rather than anaphorically as the person each reader is paired with in the two of you.
The you in media dialogue has much less to share with the speaker, or author, than theattributive vocative in (2), and provides a stronger example of addressing by attribution. Since (3-5)
come from women’s magazines, the interested reader can take the you as transparently referring toherself, who is described as “whoever you are, you are expected to have a set of attributes as a
typical reader of this magazine, e.g., a woman interested in marriage or career” (cf. Talbot (1992)).
In using the third-person pronouns paired with the attributive you, the author can only purport
to refer to the person who he believes is the one to whom the reader refers. They may be equivalent
to your man, your sweetheart or your husband, but no exact paraphrase is available for the author
because it is up to the reader, and more importantly, they are substitutes for you in the reader’s next
direct discourse. Since you is an only pronoun for addressing in English, the terms that can replace
you outside of the ongoing interchange have to be pronouns in another person, too (cf. Kuno
(1972)). In (4), “You got the big job. Can he deal?” is the author’s precursor to the next utterance ofthe reader of this article, i.e., “I got the big job. Can you deal?” The pronouns in question areopaque to the author, but are oblique-referential to each reader of the relevant media dialogue.
4. Theoretical implications and concluding remarks. The pronouns with the reader’s partner
reading differ from definite descriptions in the believe-complement as to the structure in which they
are used, but share a common contextual setting, which is captured by the following principle:(6) The oblique-referential reading is assigned to referential terms whose reference is
exercised by other people than the one who uses them in the ongoing interchange.
This implies that referential opacity belongs to evidentiality, for it comes from the speaker who uses
another person as the information source of referential terms and lets that person rather than himself
engage in reference assignment of those terms (cf. Aikhenvald (2006)). Addressing by attribution isa dialogue-based method to express evidentiality by address terms and other terms paired with them,allowing the speaker to use the terms without knowing the validity of the reference he makes.
References: Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2006) Evidentiality, Oxford University Press, New York. /Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson (1982) “Hearers and Speech Acts,” Language 58,
332-373. / Kuno, Susumu (1972) “Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse,”
Linguistic Inquiry 3, 161-195. / Miki, Etsuzo (1996) “Evocation and Tautologies,” Journal of
Pragmatics 25, 635-648. / Recanati, François (1993) Direct Reference: From Language to Thought,
Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. / Talbot, Mary M. (1992) “The Construction of Gender in a Teenage
Magazine,” Critical Language Awareness, ed. by Norman Fairclough, 174-200, Longman, Harlow.

Possessional Adjectives as Transposed NPs
Kazuya Nishimaki (University of Tsukuba)
1. Possessional Adjectives: Phrase-Based Derivatives Derived adjectives involving the suffix -ed, e.g.
blue-eyed, are morphologically problematic. The problem is that these adjectives, which we call Possessional
adjectives following Beard’s (1995) terminology, are based on phrases in violation of No Phrase Constraint,
which states that derivatives have no phrasal base. Their phrase-basedness is seen from their semantics. For
example, blue-eyed means “having a blue eye/blue eyes (Plag (2003: 153)),” which implies that it is analyzed as[A0 [NP blue-eye]ed]. Their phrase-basedness can also be found in their phrasal stress patterns. Shimamura(2007: 376) points out that their main stress is on right-hand nouns:(1) [short-témper]ed, [low-héel]ed, [long-lég]ged
The aim of the present paper is to solve this problem by analyzing Possessional adjectives as transpositional
derivatives in the sense of Marchand (1966, 1969). We claim that they are adjectivizations of NPs, which
retain their properties after category-shifting.
2. Transpositional and Semantic Derivation Marchand (1966, 1969) distinguishes between two types ofderivation: transpositional and semantic. The crucial distinction is that transpositional derivation is a processof pure category-shifting, which leaves bases intact except for their categorial labels, whereas semantic
derivation involves semantic addition to bases. Transpositional and semantic derivation are illustrated bynovel writer (X is a novel writer) and writer (X is a writer), respectively. According to Marchand (1966: 138),
novel writer is merely the nominalization of the underlying sentence someone writes a novel; on the other hand,
writer contains the additional elements of content ‘habitual’ and ‘literature’ because it denotes the habitual agent
performing literary writing.
3.

Transpositional Analysis

Relying on the notion of transposition, we propose that Possessional

adjectives derive from the transposition from NPs into A0s. Thus, we assume that blue-eyed has the NP blue
eye transposed into an A0. Due to the transposed status, Possessional adjectives inherit properties from theirunderlying NPs. Therefore, they exhibit phrasal properties even if their categorial label is A0.
Note that the present analysis is independently motivated; we can nicely explain other phenomena thanphrasal semantics and stress patterns by analyzing Possessional adjectives as transpositional derivatives. Suchphenomena include the parallelism between Possessional adjectives and another type of transpositional
derivative, i.e. a gerundive synthetic compound like city-destroying. Marchand (1969: 18-19) points out that it
transposes a VP, e.g. to destroy a city, into an N0. The parallelism immediately follows, given that
Possessional adjectives and gerundive synthetic compounds constitute a natural class as transpositional
derivatives. For instance, both types are parallel in retaining the same idiomatic reading as their underlying
categories. Observe that the following whistle-blowing has the same reading as its underlying VP idiom toblow the whistle meaning ‘to betray’:(2) It took internal whistle-blowing and investigative journalism to uncover the rot.
(Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary of English7, s.v. whistle-blowing)
Idiomatic Possessional adjectives are exemplified by hard-headed, which shares the idiomatic reading with the1underlying NP hard head to mean ‘stubborn’ (see Beard (1995: 345)). These retained idiomatic readings arenatural consequences of transposition, which has no semantic effect.
Another parallelism is that both types depend on their underlying categories in licensing theirco-occurring items. The following contrast shows that infinitival clauses can occur with gerundive synthetic
compounds but not with non-deverbal nouns like trip:(3) a.

city-destroying to prove a point(Roeper (1987: 294))

b. * the trip in order to prove a point(Ito and Sugioka (2002: 77))

It is widely held that the infinitival clauses illustrated in (3) are licensed by verbal argument structures.
Plausibly, in (3a), the argument structure comes from the underlying VP. On the other hand, the following
examples indicate that Possessional adjectives pattern with their underlying NPs regarding the license of degree
adverbs like very:(4) a.
b.
(5) a.
b.

The knives are mostly rectangular, with very sharp edges [...].

(Alone with the Hairy Ainu)

This tool has a (* very) single edge.
Silk-screen printed images are not always very sharp-edged [...] .

(Charts & Graphs)

This is a (* very) single-edged tool.

In (4a), the NP sharp edges licenses very because it contains the gradable sharp, which very modifies. In
contrast, in (4b), very is not licensed because it has nothing to modify in the NP single edge; single isnon-gradable. The contrast along the same line is observable in the Possessional adjectives given in (5).
Under the present analysis, all these phenomena are given a unified account as reflecting properties ofunderlying categories, to which transposition applies. Notice here that they are reminiscent of inflection; itsdistinctive feature is entire inheritance from bases without semantic effect. This points to the possibility thattranspositional derivation is inflectional rather than derivational (see Nagano (2015)). Also, the present
analysis means that transpositional suffixes like -ed and -ing are pure category-changers; their only and mainfunction is to change one category into another, which is required by syntactic contexts.
This paper has shown that Possessional adjectives can be best analyzed as transpositional derivatives.
Their phrasal properties reflect their transposed status. An independent motivation for our transpositional
analysis comes from the parallelism between Possessional adjectives and gerundive synthetic compounds,
which demonstrates that both share categorial status as transpositional derivatives. Their behaviors strongly
suggest that transpositional derivation is more inflectional than derivational.
References: Beard, R. (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology, State University of New York Press. / Ito,T. and Y. Sugioka (2002) Word Structure and Word Formation, Kenkyusha. /Marchand, H. (1966) “Affixal
Negation in English and Other Languages,” Language 42, 134-142. /Marchand, H. (1969) The Categories andTypes of Present-Day English Word-Formation, C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. /Nagano, A. (2015)“Relational Adjectives in English,” Viewpoints and Issues in Modern Morphology and Phonetics・Phonology,
ed. by T. Nishihara and S. Tanaka, 2-20, Kaitakusha. /Plag, I. (2003) Word-Formation in English, Cambridge
University Press. /Roeper, T. (1987) “Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation,” Linguistic
Inquiry 18, 267-310. /Shimamura, R. (2007) “The Adjective-Noun Expression within the Word Revisited,”
Language Beyond, ed. by M. Sawada, L. Walker and S. Tara, 367-395, Eichosha,.
2

Specific Features of INTELLIGENCE Metaphors in Terms of
EATING Concepts in Japanese and English
Yuichiro Ogami
Setsunan University / Osaka University of Pharmaceutical Sciences (part-time)
1. Introduction
This paper discusses metaphors in Japanese and English which represent mental
activities concerning human intelligence, such as ‘thinking’, ‘considering’ or‘understanding’, in terms of concepts of eating behavior, such as ‘chewing’, ‘swallowing’ or‘digesting’. On this issue, Matsui (2010) examines a variety of ‘UNDERSTANDING
metaphors’ in the two languages, and claims that conceptual metaphors in Japanese andEnglish have many traits in common. To be sure, we can find many common ideas inJapanese and English metaphors. However, the commonalities and differences between
expressions of metaphors in the two languages remain as matters to be discussed further.
This paper shows the actual conditions of the Japanese and English metaphors in question,and reveals the distinguishing features of the two languages’ EATING-INTELLIGENCE
metaphor systems.
2. Discussion
Kövecses (2010) gives ‘THINKING IS COOKING’, ‘ACCEPTING IS
SWALLOWING’, ‘CONSIDERING IS CHEWING’, ‘UNDERSTANDING IS DIGESTING’and ‘MENTAL WELL-BEING IS PHYSICAL NOURISHMENT’ as conceptual metaphorsthat provide the submappings of the IDEAS ARE FOOD metaphor (Kövecses 2010: 83-84).
To clear up the problem, I rearrange the metaphors in the list and classify the submappingsof the IDEAS ARE FOOD metaphor into three distinctive types:
TYPE A: which represent THINKING in terms of COOKING
TYPE B: which represent ACCEPTING in terms of EATINGTYPE C: which represent INTELLECTUAL PROCESS in terms of EATING PROCESS
I focus on TYPE C above and describe the correspondence between the concepts of eatingprocess and intellectual process in English as shown in Figure 1 (examples are shown in
the presentation).
EATING PROCESSINTELLECTUAL PROCESSCHEWING⇓DIGESTING⇓
ABSORPTIONTHINKING/CONSIDERING⇓
THINKING~UNDERSTANDING~ACQUIRING⇓ACQUIRING

Figure 1. EATING-INTELLIGENCE metaphors in English

In this way, concepts of chewing, digestion and absorption are mapped on to concepts ofintellectual processes in English.
Following the same process, I then map the correspondence between concepts ofthe eating process and the intellectual process in Japanese EATING-INTELLIGENCE
metaphors (cf. Nabeshima 2004). These concepts may be arranged as in Figure 2(Examples will be shown in the presentation).
EATING PROCESSINTELLECTUAL PROCESSSOSYAKU⇓ENGE⇓
SYOUKA⇓KYUUSYUU

THINKING/CONSIDERING⇓UNDERSTANDING⇓
UNDERSTANDING~ACQUIRING⇓ACQUIRING

Figure 2. EATING-INTELLIGENCE metaphors in Japanese
As presented here, the Japanese metaphors in question map concepts of chewing (sosyaku),
swallowing (enge), digestion (syouka) and absortion (kyuusyuu) on to intellectual processes.
In addition, we can find metaphors in Japanese which represent the result of each aspectof the eating behavior shown above: ‘sosyaku suru’ → ‘kamikudakeru’ (be crunched),‘nomikomu’→‘hara-ni otiru’ (falling into stomach), ‘syouka suru’→‘konareru’ (be digested),‘kyuusyuu suru’ →‘mi-ni tuku’ (nourished). In this way, concepts derived from eatingprocesses are closely linked to intellectual processes in Japanese.
3. Conclusion
From the discussion here, we can conclude that although metaphors in Japaneseand English are often based on the same ways of thinking, they also have distinctive
characteristics in regards to how they embody certain concepts. Phases and degrees ofintellectuality are more precisely described in terms of eating processes in Japanese thanin English. Further studies will cultivate a better understanding of the metaphoricalembodiment of the concepts of human intelligence in Japanese and English.

Selected References
Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A practical Introduction 2nd ed, Oxford University Press. /Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about themind, University of Chicago Press. / Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We LiveBy, University of Chicago Press. / Matsui, M. 2010. Eigo-to Nihongo-ni okeru “rikai”-nogainen metafaa. Bulletin of Yamagata Prefectural Yonezawa Woman’s Junior College, 46,
19-28. / Nabeshima, K. 2004. “Rikai”-no metafaa –nintigengogaku-teki-bunseki–. Osakadaigaku gengobunkagaku, 13, 99-116.

The Early Acquisition of Clefts in Child Japanese
Akari Ohba (Ochanomizu University)
1. Introduction: This study reports our experimental results and shows that children
acquiring Japanese were able to comprehend cleft sentences correctly with felicitous previous
contexts with pictures, contrary to the results of previous studies (Bever 1979, Lempert andKinsbourne 1980, Dansako and Mizumoto 2007 a.o.).
2. Previous Studies: It has been reported that children acquiring English have problems with
object clefts. In object clefts (OCs), an object is focused (ex. It is a rabbit that the bearchased.) In subject clefts (SCs), a subject is focused. Dansako and Mizumoto (2007) havereported that Japanese children also have problems with OCs. Japanese clefts allow two types,
Case-marked and non-Case-marked clefts, and the presence or absence of movement in eachtype has been discussed by Hoji 1987, Cho et al. 2008, Hiraiwa and Ishihara 2012 among
others. Recently, Aravind, Freedman, Hackl and Wexler (2016) reported that
English-speaking children become successful with SCs and OCs when felicitous previous
contexts were given with pictures. We examined Japanese children’s comprehension of
non-Case-marked clefts following Dansako and Mizumoto (2007). In our first experiment,
we adopted Aravind et al.’s (2016) methods to examine children’s performance of true clefts
with matched and mismatched contexts. In our second experiment, we examined whether
children could reject false cleft sentences with previous contexts and pictures.
3. Experiments: We tested 37 children (4;2-6;4) in total using the Truth Value Judgement
Task (TVJT). In Experiment 1, we tested 11 children (4;3-6;4). Following Aravind et al.
(2016), a child was given two pictures in sequence in each story, as shown in (1) and (2).
(1) Subject Cleft (SC) with matched contexts
Matched context: Look! Someone is chasing the pig.
Test sentence: Butasan-o oikake-teiru no wa lionsanda.
Pig-Acc chasing
C Top lion
Cop?
‘It’s a lion that is chasing the pig.’(2) Object Cleft (OC) with mismatched contexts
Mismatched contexts: Look! Someone is poking the panda.
Test sentence: Kumakun-ga tutui-teiru no wa pandasan da.
?
Bear-Nom poking
C Top panda
Cop‘It’s a panda that the bear is poking.’
In the first picture, one of the two animals was hidden with agray box, and a child heard a matched or mismatched context for the test sentence which wasthen given in the second picture. In the second picture, the child could see who was hidden in
the gray box. The child was then asked to judge whether the true SC or true OC was true or
false. Since the children performed well with true clefts in Experiment 1, we expected theywould be able to correctly reject false clefts. We conducted Experiment 2 with 26 children(4;2-6;4) using the TVJT. As in Experiment 1, we used two pictures in each story. 3 false SCs
and 3 false OCs were tested presenting a context with the first picture and a false test
sentence with the second picture, as shown in (3) and (4).
(3) Subject Cleft (False)
Context: Look! Someone is chasing the pig.
Test sentence: Lionsan-o oikake-teiru no wa butasan da.
Lion-Acc chasing
C Top Pig
Cop?
‘It’s a pig that is chasing the lion.’(4) Object Cleft (False)
Context: Look! A bear is poking someone.
?
Test sentence: Pandasan-ga tutui-teiru no wa kumasan da.
Panda-Nom poking
C Top bear
Cop
‘It’s a bear that the panda is poking.’

4. Results and Discussion: In Experiment 1, the children performed quite well with true SCs
and true OCs with the matched contexts: 90.9% for SCs and 97.7% for OCs as in Table 1.
Table 1: The percentages of children’s correct responses in Experiment 1(M=Matched, Mis=Mismatched, SCs=subject clefts, OCs=object clefts)
M, SCsMis, SCs
M, OCsMis, OCs
4-year-olds (N=4)
75% (3/4)
75% (6/8)
93.8% (15/16) 91.7% (11/12)
5-year-olds (N=5)
100% (5/5)
90% (9/10)
100% (20/20)
100% (15/15)
6-year-olds (N=2)
100% (2/2)
50.0% (2/4)
100% (8/8)
66.7% (4/6)
Total (N=11)
90.9% (10/11) 77.3% (17/22) 97.7% (43/44) 90.9% (30/33)
The results of Experiment 2 are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: The percentages of children’s correct responses in Experiment 2
False, SCs
False, OCs
4-year-olds
71.8%
89.7%
(N=13)(28/39)(35/39)5-year-olds
100%
97.0%
(N=11)(33/33)(32/33)6-year-olds
100%
100%
(N=2)
(6/6)
(6/6)
Total
85.9%
93.6%
(N=26)(67/78)(73/78)
Considering the overall results, the children remarkably rejected false SCs and false OCs
quite well (SCs: 85.9% (67/78), OCs: 93.6% (73/78)), which are much higher percentages
than the previous studies in English and Japanese (Bever 1979, Lempert and Kinsbourne
1980, Dansako and Mizumoto 2007). Statistical analyses (using t-tests) do not reveal
significant differences between SCs and OCs (p=0.26 for 4-year-olds, p=0.34 for 5-year-olds).
Although there is no statistically significant difference of the cleft-types, the correct
responses for false SCs of 4-year-olds (71.8%) is a little lower than that of the OCs (89.7%).
The percentage for SCs with mismatched contexts in Experiment 1 (77.3%) was also not highcompared to OCs with mismatched contexts (90.9%). These results may be due to the word
order of SCs in Japanese, which is similar to scrambled sentences in that the first NP contains
an accusative case. As Otsu (1994) reported, Japanese children tend to misinterpret thescrambled object NP as an agent when the scrambled sentence is given without a felicitous
previous context. Given that the contexts of false clefts and clefts with mismatched contexts
in Experiment 1 and 2 are mismatched, the relatively low performance for SCs can be
explained by Otsu’s analysis. Thus, the 4-year-olds’ lower percentages of SCs may not be dueto the lack of the knowledge of clefts but due to the problem of sentence-initial object NPwith the accusative case marker in Japanese. Regarding false OCs, even 4-year-olds correctly
rejected false OCs 89.7% (35/39) of the time. This result is much higher than Dansako and
Mizumoto (2007)’s Japanese 4-year-olds’ results of OCs, i.e. 41.7% (15/36).
To conclude, the children of all ages performed quite well with not only SCs but also OCs
contrary to previous studies. Therefore, our experiments have shown that Japanese children
comprehended clefts well when they were given matched contexts with pictures and we
conclude that children have knowledge of clefts early in Japanese.
Selected References
Aravind, A. et al. (2016) “Subject-Object Asymmetries in the Acquisition of Clefts.” BUCLD
40, 1-17. Cho, S., J. Whitman and Y. Yanagida (2008) “Clefts in Japanese and Korean.”
CLS 44:1, 61-77. Dansako, M. and G. Mizumoto (2007) “Youzi no Bunretubun no Rikai ni
tuite (On the Comprehension of Cleft Constructions in Japanese).” Kyushu University Papers
in Linguistics 28. Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2012) “Syntactic Metamorphosis; Clefts,
Sluicing, and In-Situ focus in Japanese.” Syntax 15-2, 142-180. Hoji, H. (1987) “Japaneseclefts and chain binding/reconstruction effects.” Paper presented at WCCFL 6.

Meta-Pragmatic Roles of the First-Person Pronoun in Japanese:
A Comparative Study of Japanese and English Language Use in Interaction
Miyabi Ozawa
Japan Women's University
One of the biggest differences between Japanese and English discourse is the use of
the first-person pronoun. Although English generally requires the first-person pronoun
when referring to the speaker, Japanese does not, due to structural restrictions andpragmatic usage in discourse. The fact that Japanese does not always require the firstperson pronoun suggests that the use itself involves certain meanings. Based on thisconsideration, this study compares the first-person pronoun in the subject position in
Japanese and English, and tries to reveal the meta-pragmatic roles that the Japanese
first-person pronoun itself involves. The term "meta-pragmatic" in this study refers toemphasis on elements of communication indicating the communicative framework, asshown in Koyama (2016).
Previous studies which compare the properties of the subject in languages including
Japanese and English have shown that Japanese does not need the subject itself, while
English does. As one of the causes of the occurrence and non-occurrence of subject,
Ikegami (1980) discusses the different degree of agentivity between Japanese andEnglish: while Japanese tends to suppress the human individual, English tends to focus
on it and represent it prominently. In addition, Ide (2006) and Fujii (2016) claim that inJapanese, the speaker is buried in the context or ba (field) as one of the elements,
assuming each element involving the interlocutor in the ba is shared knowledge. Because
the speaker and the interlocutor share the internal perspective, the speaker’s reference isunderstood and does not have to be indicated.
The data used in this study is “Conversation” in Japanese and American English in
the Mister O Corpus1, in which two native speakers talk about a surprising experience for
5 to 8 minutes. This study shows that the total number of first-person pronouns used in
English is more than 7 times greater than in Japanese. In English, the speaker always
refers to the first-person pronoun from an objective perspective, ownng the metapragmatic role of indexing the speaker as a narrator or referring to the speaker as acharacter in the story she is narrating. In Japanese, on the other hand, the speaker has
an internal perspective shared with the interlocutor, and does not usually use the firstperson pronoun as it is understandable. However, the first-person pronoun is sometimes
used, owning different meta-pragmatic roles from English.
This study introduces the following types of meta-pragmatic roles observed inJapanese data: presentation of an episode, distinction of the subject, and contrast
between the subject and the interlocutor and/or the character(s) in the story. The example

below includes the first-person pronoun “watashi,” which involves these three roles.
(1) Nanka-ne, konaida Waseda-to-sa atashi nomikai it-te ki-ta jyan
“Well, I recently went to a nomikai (a gathering) with students at Waseda
University, right?”

The utterance in excerpt (1) occurs at the beginning of the speaker’s episode, and it isconsidered that the speaker uses the first-person pronoun “watashi” to begin her episode.
In addition, when seeing the whole discourse, it is shown that she uses it to distinguishherself from others as the subject, as well as to contrast herself with the interlocutor, who
didn’t go to the gathering. This suggests that the first-person pronoun in excerpt (1)indexes the context as well as shows the speaker’s intention.
Comparing Japanese and English interactions, this study considers in particular
how the Japanese first-person pronoun behaves in discourse owning meta-pragmaticroles.
Note
1. The “Mister O Corpus” is a cross-linguistic video corpus collected for the projects
entitled “Empirical and Theoretical Studies on Culture, Interaction, and Language inAsia” under a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (No. 15320054 directed by Sachiko Ide). The corpus consists ofthree types of interaction—conversations, narratives, and problem-solving tasks—in
Japanese and American English.
References
Fujii, Yoko. 2016. A Predicate-oriented Language and Pragmatics of Ba. Paper presented
at The Third International Workshop on Linguistics of BA. Waseda University
Ide, Sachiko. 2006. Wakimae no goyouron [Pragmatics of wakimae]. Taishukanshoteh.
204-229.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1991. ‘Do-language’ and ‘Become-language’: Two contrasting types of
linguistic representation. In Yoshihiko Ikegami (ed.), The Empire of Signs 8.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 285-326.
Koyama, Wataru. 2016. Metacomyunikeishonron no shatei- Metagoyouronteki huremu toshakaigengokagaku no zentai [The Status of Metacommunication in
Sociolinguistics: The Use and Utility of Metapragmatics]. The Japanese Journal of
Language in Society. 19-1. 6-20.

ELSJ Spring Forum

Abstract

Tokyo, 2017

Soramimi - reinterpretation of English song lyrics by Japanese speakers
Johannes Scherling, University of Graz, Austria; Niamh Kelly, American University of Beirut, Lebanon.

Misheard lyrics or mondegreens occur when a listener perceives different words from thoseactually produced by the singer (e.g., Wright, 1954; Kentner, 2015). This auditory illusion often
happens when the lyrics are not in the native language of the listener. Soramimi are well known
in Japan for the popular TV-show Soramimi Hour, in which viewers submit their own
collections of misheard lyrics, which are then illustrated with humorous videos. In the current
investigation, we argue that this reinterpretation of English song lyrics by native speakers ofJapanese is a result of their perception of the English lyrics through Japanese phonology.
The phonotactic structure of Japanese has strict constraints on legal sound combinations.
Japanese only allows open syllables, i.e. CV or V, and does not permit consonant clusters, or
consonant codas except for /n/ (Tsujimura, 2014; Kubozono, 2015). Any word of foreign originthat enters the Japanese language must adhere to the phonotactics of Japanese and is, byextension, processed through the filter of Japanese phonotactics. An example is the English
word baseball [ˈbeisˌbɔɫ], which is adapted into Japanese as be-subo-ru [beːsuboːɾɯ], the extra
vowels being inserted in order to avoid consonant clusters that are acceptable in English but
not in Japanese. The rhythm of Japanese is mora-timed (e.g., Kubozono, 2015). The mora is aunit of syllable weight, whereby CV is a light syllable – one mora – and CVV or CVC (in somelanguages) is heavy, consisting of two moras. In Japanese, CVN (where N denotes a nasal
sound) counts as a heavy syllable (e.g. Kubozono 2015; Tsujimura 2014).
This difference in phonotactics and rhythm not only affects the syllable structure of the word,
but it also affects how native speakers perceive both native and foreign words. Japanese
speakers have been shown to parse strings of sounds in terms of moras rather than syllables(Otake et al., 1993; Kubozono 2015). Furthermore, /n/ is perceived by Japanese speakers (inits non-syllabic form) as a separate mora unit (Loveday, 1996; Scherling, 2015). Kubozono(1999) gives examples of speech errors by Japanese speakers which demonstrate the existenceof syllable-internal mora boundaries for these speakers. Nonce words are also affected by the
speaker’s native language phonotactics; an experiment by Dupoux et al. (1999) found thatJapanese speakers tended to perceive epenthetic vowels that were not present in nonce words,
because they were perceiving it through Japanese phonotactics.
Based on the above research, we hypothesised that the Japanese renderings of English lyrics
are fundamentally based on adapting the English to Japanese phonotactics. In order to test this,we examined 20 examples of soramimi. Both the original English lyrics and their Japanesecounterparts were transcribed into IPA. Based on an approach in Otake (2007), all examples
were categorised as deletions, insertions or substitutions of sounds. This allowed us todetermine how the English lyric structure compared with the Japanese soramimi structure. An
example is from the song Follow Me by Savatage:
Lyric

I knocked on every door

Anata nee, buri dou(Darling, how about a yellowtail?)/anataneebɯɾidoɯ/IPA[anɑktɑnɛvɹido:]

Changes

4 substitutions; 1 deletion; [ɑ] of on reanalysed as word-final [a],[n] of on reanalysed as onset, [ɛ] of every reanalysed as word-final[e], [v] reanalysed as onset [b].

ELSJ Spring Forum

Abstract

Tokyo, 2017

Initial results show that the soramimi tend to (1) substitute English sounds with the closest
Japanese alternatives, for example, reduced vowels (e.g., [ə]) in English become full vowels
such as [e] or [a] in Japanese, while English [u] or [w] become Japanese [ɯ], (2) insert vowels
to break up consonant clusters or to avoid consonant codas, and (3) parse coda consonants that
follow a long vowel in English as syllable onsets in Japanese.
The result in (1) supports the theory of perceptual assimilation, “a process that applies during
speech perception and that maps non-native sound structures onto the phonetically closest
native ones” (Peperkamp et al., 2008: p.131). The results in (2) and (3) highlight the importanceof syllable structure and mora weight in the reinterpretation of English lyrics. Results indicate
a preference for reanalysis of word boundaries over insertion, meaning that a consonant at theend of a word in the English version tends to get used as the beginning of a following word inJapanese. We argue this is due to the fact that inserting more vowels would both change thesound sequences too much and also affect the rhythm of the lyrics. Further examples are
currently being analysed and will be subjected to statistical analysis.
Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Kakehi, K., Mehler, J. (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: aperceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 25, 1568–1578.
Kentner, G. 2015. Rhythmic segmentation in auditory illusions - evidence from crosslinguistic mondegreens. Proceedings of 18th ICPhS, Glasgow.
Kubozono, Haruo. (1999). Mora and syllable. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed.
Natsuko Tsujimura, 31–61. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kubozono, Haruo. (2015). Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology.
Berlin/Boston/Munich: Mouton.
Loveday, Leo. (1996). Language Contact in Japan – A Socio-linguistic History. New York:OUP.
Otake, Takashi (2007). Interlingual near homophonic words and phrases in L2 listening:
evidence from misheard song lyrics. Proceedings of 16th ICPhS, Saarbrücken.
Otake, Takashi, Giyoo Hatano, Anne Cutler & Jacques Mehler. (1993). Mora or syllable?
Speech segmentation in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 32. 258–278.
Peperkamp, Sharon, Inga Vendelin & Kimihiro Nakamura. (2008). On the perceptual originof loanword adaptations: experimental evidence from Japanese. Phonology 25: 129-164.
Scherling, Johannes. (2013). Holistic loanword integration and loanword acceptance - A
comparative study of anglicisms in German and Japanese. Arbeiten aus Anglistik undAmerikanistik, Band 38(1). Tübingen: Narr.
Scherling, Johannes. (2016). The Creative Use of English in Japanese Punning. World
Englishes 35 (2): 276–92.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. (2014). The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. 3rd edition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wright, Sylvia. (1954). The Death of Lady Mondegreen. Harper's Magazine.

How the recipient recognizes the Quasi-Internal Monologue in Dialogues:
Cross-Linguistic Study in Japanese and English
Hiroko Shikano (Graduate School of Humanities, Japan Women’s University)
In daily life, one might likely hear a family member talking to himself/herself when others arepresent: “Wonder if the rain has stopped.” In this kind of situation, the speaker’s full or partial internalmonologue reveals one’s inner feeling, and her internal monologue is not particularly directed to arecipient; the line which lies between discourse and internal monologue is defined as “quasi-internalmonologue (Noda 2006).” When the recipient hears the speaker’s quasi-internal monologue, she has achoice whether s/he responds to a previous utterance or simply pretends that nothing has been heard.
Since the internal monologue is a voice of someone’s mind which is spoken out loud enough for thosepeople who listen by any chance, it is worth to study how the recipient responds to the speaker’s
quasi-internal monologue, if one has a choice to reply. Therefore this study attempts to show how therecipient recognizes the quasi-internal monologue out of discourse in Japanese and American English.
In order to show the clear differences between discourse and internal monologue, allutterances that are suspected to be internal monologues are run through thescientific computer software, called PRAAT. PRAAT is an acoustic intonation analyzer
that investigates aspects of speech sounds, like the amplitude of waveforms. For those
waveforms that are flat in structure are considered to be internal monologues. Therefore,
after running utterances through PRAAT, only internal monologues are identified,exclusively extracted, and analyzed for this study. In addition to the above, quasi-internalmonologues are examined, for the purpose of double checking the criteria of an internalmonologue, based on the following explicit features: utterance of the quasi-internalmonologue falls, volume becomes soften or murmured, and speed becomes slow (Moriyama,
2001; Mimaki, 2013). The data for this study uses video corpus data in Japanese and American English.
They are collected for the purpose of investigating cross-linguistic comparative studies in Japan. All
video data are recorded and transcribed in respective languages. The subjects for this video corpus are
all female teachers and students. Each pair, either teacher-student or student-student, is asked toarrange 15 picture cards and make a coherent story, task-solving, but told that there are no “correct”
stories and no time constraints.
The results suggest that quasi-internal monologues are uttered based on two forms: question toothers and internal arguments within the self for both languages. The data below is a sample excerpt
includes an internal argument in Japanese:→1 S2: a, de, kore-de ii?

“Aa, and, is this good?”1

2 S1: de, kore-ga, koc-chi-de “And, this goes here.”→3 S2: de, ii-no-ka-na↓
4 S1: kon-na kanji?
5 S2: un“And (I wonder if) this is good↓”“Like this?”“Yes.”

In line 1, S2 asks the recipient, kore-de ii? (“Is this good?”), as a means of saying, Are we done?
However, in line 3, the speaker expresses her internal argument within the self for not having
confidence about the card arrangements by using the quasi-internal monologue of de, ii-no-ka-na↓(“And (I wonder if) this is good↓”). For internal argument forms, both Japanese and American
English speakers utter quasi-internal monologues as if they were questioning to themselves, but there
is a major difference between the two languages with regard to the recipients’ reply. Japaneserecipients either respond or do not respond to quasi-internal monologues, whereas American English
recipients reply to quasi-internal monologues as if they were hearing the utterance. In the latter
category, internal argument means that the speaker uttering a quasi-internal monologue is trying tonegotiate within herself. For speakers in both languages, quasi-internal monologue as internalargument receives the recipient response but for Japanese speakers, the recipients reply either in amonologic way or with the token acknowledgement of un or, in English, “yeah.” For American
English, the quasi-internal monologue, again, receives a substantial response from the recipient.
Since full and partial quasi-internal monologues sound monologic for both languages, theutterances are equivocal and not specifically directed to the listener; when the speaker’s utterancesounds monologic, it is plausible that the listener does not feel the speaker’s utterance is imposing andinterrogative. In Japanese interaction, the quasi-internal monologues reveal the speaker’s innerthoughts without any imposing and interrogating of the other. On the other hand, in American English
interactions, the quasi-internal monologues work as a form of utterance and response.
Partial References
Mimaki, Yoko. 2013. Poraitonesu no danwabunseki – Shotaimen komyunikeshon no sugata to shikumi.
Kuroshio shuppan.
Moriya, Michiyo. 2008. Nihongo niokeru “kyouou shukanteki” tokucho to bunpou genshou – ninchi
genogaku no kanten yori. Souka Daigaku Nihongo Nihon bungaku 18. 37-48.
Noda, Harumi. 2006 Gijidokuwa ga shutsugen suru toki. In Takashi Masuoka, et al. Nihongo Bunpo
no Shinchihei 2 Bunronhen. Kuroshio Shuppan. 193-213.

2

English Perfect Aspect and Mandarin Double Le Construction: A Focus Approach

Chen Wang

Queen Mary University of London

This paper studies the mechanism that underlies two seemingly different structures: the perfectaspect in English and the Double Le Construction (DLC) in Mandarin. I will argue that thehave+past participle form is a complex expression consisting of focus (Schwarzschild 1999)
and perfectiveness (Smith 1997). In this system of perfect, the auxiliary have is a focus marker,
which stresses the termination of an event or state, as represented by the perfective inflectionof the predicate, while in Mandarin these functions are carried by the two versions of le.
Syntactically, this focus phrase (FocP) selects a perfective aspect (AspP) and gives a perfectreading. The auxiliary have then undergoes head movement to T for feature checking. The
basic diagram for a perfect aspect sentence is shown in (1).
Focus-Termination-event/state(1) [TP havei +T [FocP ti [AspP Perf.-en [VP ]]]I will provide three arguments in favour of this proposal. First, as is observed in Michaelis(1994), perfect aspect is not acceptable in cleft structures, as shown in (2). I argue this isbecause the cleft structure is also a focus structure, and the existence of multi-foci makes thecomputation of semantics harder.
(2) ?? It is/was John who has/had broken the cup. (cf. It was John who broke the cup.)
Further, perfect in English is not compatible with certain adverbs, especially manner andlocative ones, as in (3) and (4). Following Cinque (1999), I assume manner and locative adverbs
adjoin to phrases above VP when focused. These phrases can be quantificational in nature when
they scope over the perfective aspect phrase and thus separate it from the FocP. (3) and (4) thenbecomes ungrammatical since has exclusively selects a perfective AspP.
(3) John [FocP has [QP [AspP closed the window] (? quickly)]]. (cf. John closed the window
quickly.) (For sake of simplicity the raising of has to T is not shown here.)(4) John [FocP has [QP [AspP peeled three potatoes] (? in the garden)]]. (cf. John peeled threepotatoes in the garden.)On the other hand, resultative adverbs and locative arguments are allowed because they scoperather low inside the VP and do not intervene between FocP and AspP, as in (4) and (5).
(4) John [FocP has [AspP [VP closed the window tightly]]].
(5) John [FocP has [AspP [VP put three potatoes in the bucket]]].
At last, there are restrictions on the interpretation with perfect sentences compared with thosein simple past. For example in (6), the wide scope reading of the indefinite is banned.
(6) Everyone (#has) watched a film, namely Titanic. (Not in experiential reading).
I suggest this is a case that demonstrates Beck’s Effect (B&K 1997) or Linear Crossing
Constraints (Tanaka 1997), which claims that some focus phrases can become barriers to covert
but not overt scrambling. Examples are also found in Korean and Japanese, which are typical
wh-in-situ languages.
(7) a. *Minsu-man nuku-lul po-ass-ni?
b. Nuku-luli Minsu-man ti po-ass-ni?
Minsu-FOC who-ACC see-Past-Q.
Who-ACC Minsu-FOC see-Past-Q(8) a.*Dare-mo nani-okawa-nakatta-no? b. Nani-odare-mo ti kawa-nakatta-no?
anybody what-ACC buy-NEG.PAST-Q. what-ACC anbody buy-NEG.PAST-Q
The wide scope reading of film in (6) depends on the quantifier raising of the object, which,based on my account should not be available in this occasion as the focus projection headed by
the auxiliary is an intervener.
As a comparison, I propose that the structure with both word-final and sentence-final le in
Mandarin Chinese, namely the Double Le Construction, is functionally equivalent to the perfectaspect in English, as in (9).
(9) Zhangsan chi le san-ge pingguo le.

Zhangsan eat LE three-CL apple LE.
Zhangsan has eaten three apples.
Syntactically, I will show that DLC, compared with the word-final le cases, has a more
restricted distribution, just like those of English perfect shown above: it is banned in cleft
constructions, as in (10); it does not co-occur with manner and location adverbs, as in (11); it
does not allow a wide scope interpretation of an existentially quantified internal argument, asin (12), although judgements may be affected by dialectal variations.
(10) Shi Zhangsan da-sui le Lisi de beizi (??le).
COP Zhangsan hit-break LE Lisi DE cup. LE.
(11) Zhangsan zai huayuan li (feikuai-de) xiao le san-ge tudou (?le).
Zhangsan in garden in (quick-De) peel LE three-CL potato LE.
(12) Mei-ge xuesheng dou kan le yi-bu dianying (*le), ji
Titanic.
Every-CL student all watch LE one-CL film
LE namely Titanic.
Following Wang (2016), I assume sentence-final le is a focus marker, although it differs fromhave in that it is a head-final particle t. This is a cross-linguistic argument that perfect is formedby perfective aspect and focus.
A few predictions are borne out from this focus-based analysis. For example, it provides anaccount for a puzzle of perfect aspect in Mandarin. Unlike in English, where have+not+V-ed
is a principled form for the negation of perfect, Mandarin does not allow the co-occurrence ofnegative perfective marker mei-you and sentence-final le, as in (13). This restriction is
unexpected if sentence-final le is not related to perfectivity (Soh&Gao 2006). I argue that thisdifference between Mandarin and English is the result of the different status of negation in the
two languages. Following Ernst (1995), I assume not in English is the specifier of an
independent projection NegP, while mei in Mandarin is just a prefix realizing [+NEG] on you.
In the English perfect not is merged higher than have. It appears linearly after the auxiliary in
the final order because have raises to T to check tense feature, which means not will notintervene between FocP and AspP, as shown in (14). But in Mandarin if sentence-final lemerges with a perfective AspP with negative feature, it will create a reading that focuses on a
non-existent termination of event. That is why sentence-final le is banned in (13).
(13) [FocP [AspP Spec (Zhangsan) Asp (mei-you) [VP lai Beijing]] (*le)].
ZhangsanNEG-YOU
come Beijing LE.
Zhangsan has not come to Beijing.
(14) [TP Spec (John) T (hasi) [NegP Spec (not) (NEG) [FocP ti [AspP [VP come to Beijing]]]].
However, in the case of (15), the time phrase san-nian (three years) is pre-posed above theperfective projection, making it closer to FocP. Instead, the interpretation stresses the time spanof the lasting state of not coming to Beijing. This shows that unlike have in English, sentencefinal le does not exclusively select perfective aspect, but is a more general focus marker.
(15) [FocP [XP Spec (Zhangsan) X (san-nian) [AspP mei-(you) lai Beijing] le].
Zhangsanthree-year
NEG-YOU come Beijing LE.
Zhangsan has not come to Beijing for three years.
Overall, this analysis argues for a universal mechanism that forms perfect aspect with focus
and perfectiveness. The flexibility in the interpretation of perfect aspect may just come fromthe flexibility of focus interpretation.
References[Beck & Kim. 1997. JEAL 6: 339-384]/ [Cinque. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford
University Press.]/ [Ernst. 1995. NLLT 13: 665-707.]/ [Michaelis. 1994. JL 30: 111-157]/ [Smith. 1997.
The Parameter of Aspect. Kluwer/ [Schwarzschild. 1999. NLLT 7: 141-177]/ [Soh & Gao. 2006.
Proceedings of the 2004 TLSC: 107-122.]/ [Tanaka. 1997. JEAL 6: 143-188.]/ [Wang. 2016. IACL24]