The Structure of Free Relatives and Decomposition of Wh Operators
Norimasa Hayashi
Kyushu University
This study discusses the derivation of free relatives (FRs). Since Bresnan and Grimshaw(1978), many analyses have been proposed in the literature, and more recently, Checcetto and Donati(C&D) (2015) give a unified account of the structures of FRs and embedded interrogatives.
C&D (2015) suggest that FRs in (1a) and embedded interrogatives in (2a) have the structure
shown in (1b) and (2b), respectively.
(1) a. I like what you like.
b. I like [DP what [CP C you like what]](2) a. I wonder what you like.
b. I wonder [CP what [C’ C you like what]]
According to C&D, in (1b), what projects in the set {what, CP} because what is a head: H. Therefore,
the structure becomes DP. In (2b), C projects and the embedded structure becomes CP, because Cprobes what. In this way, C&D derive the different interpretations of what you read in (1a) and (2a).
However, the well-formedness of (3), where the wh operator what books is not H but a phrase,
poses a problem for their analysis. Following C&D, what books cannot project. However, since givecannot take an interrogative as its complement, (3) should be predicted to be ill-formed, incorrectly.
(3) Give me what books you have on the subject.
(Declark (1991: 546))
Another problem is concerned with Bulgarian and Greek data. Izvorski (1998) observes that inthese languages an affix derived from the definite article attaches to interrogative wh operators toderive FR wh operators. Since C&D assume that interrogatives and FRs involve the same wh
operators, these facts are not explained in their analysis.
We propose an alternative analysis. First, following Kuroda (1969), we decompose wh
operators into two parts: the operator part, which has the unvalued quantificational-feature:[uQuant]-feature, and the restriction part. Hence, interrogative wh operators have the following
structure, where SOME becomes the restriction of what in the semantic interpretation.
(4) whatint → Operator[uQuant] + SOME
Based on Izvorski’s observation, we assume that FRs have wh operators with D, which values the[uQuant]-feature in the operators, as shown in (5).
(5) whatFR → Operator[uQuant] + D + SOME
We adopt the labeling algorithm proposed by Chomsky (2015). Following this, a set formed from H
and a phrase, H serves as the label. When both members are phrases, the agreement feature provides
the label. Finally, taking into consideration the phrase-phrase set, we can assume that the H-H set
should be labelable by the agreement feature.
(6a), which shows the structure of the FR in (1), is derived as follows. First, the operator
merges with D. The [uQuant]-feature is valued by D, which explains the definite interpretation of FRs.
This agreement between [uQuant] and D provides the set with the label. Therefore, this set

pair-merges to SOME, which is shown by a dotted line. Following Chomsky (2004), we assume thepair-merged element becomes invisible. Hence, the pair counts as H, and SOME can serve as thelabel when merging with the CP. Consequently, the matrix like can select the head SOME. Replacing
D with ever, which is derived from Q: every, yields an ever FR: I like whatever you like. The[uQ]-feature is valued by ever, so that the wh operator receives a universal interpretation. This isshown in (6b). Although C&D claim that externally headed relatives are involved in ever FRs, theiraccount is problematic, since the wh operator what is usually not used in headed relatives in English.
(6) a.
b.
like SOME
like SOME
SOMEi
CP
SOMEi
CP
SOME <D, D> you like SOMEi
SOME <Q, Q> you like SOMEi
Operator[uQ] D
Operator[uQ] everNote that in interrogatives, the operator cannot pair-merge to the restriction, since the operator
must agree with C for the <Q, Q> label. In contrast, the operator is unnecessary in FRs, since thematrix V selects the restriction. The only requirement is to value its [uQ]-feature. Therefore, after thevaluation, the operator is allowed to become invisible.
Finally, we show the derivation of the problematic example in C&D’s analysis in (7), where D
in the wh operator selects books as its complement. The derivation is almost the same as (6a), and theapparent phrase <SOME, {Operator, {D, books}}> can serve as the label because of pair-Merge.
(7)give SOME
SOMEiCPSOME <D, D> you have SOMEi on the subject
Operator[uQ] D
D books
References
Bresnan, Joan Wanda and Jane Grimshaw (1978) “The Syntax of Free Relatives in English,”
Linguistic Inquiry 9, 331-391. / Cecchetto, Carlo and Caterina Donati (2015) (Re)labeling, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA. / Chomsky, Noam (2004) “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy,” Structures andbeyond, ed. by Adriana Belletti, 104-131, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. / Chomsky,
Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in
Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 3-16,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam. / Declark, Renaat (1991) A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar ofEnglish, Kaitakusha, Tokyo. / Izvorski, Roumyana (1998) “Non-Indicative Wh-Complements ofPossessive and Existential Predicates,” Proceedings of NELS 28, 159-173. / Kuroda, S.-Y. (1969)“English Relativization and Certain Related Problems,” Modern Studies in English: Readings inTransformational Grammar, ed. by Reibel, David et al.: 264-287, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Copy Raising, Evidentiality and Island Effects
Masatoshi Honda (Graduate School, University of Tsukuba)
1. Introduction“Copy raising (CR)” is used to refer to a sentence like (1b), which apparently involves raisingout of the finite CP with the pronominal element left behind (e.g. Potsdam and Runner (2001)).
(1) a.
b.

Johni seems ti to be happy.
Johni seems {as if / as though / like} hei is happy.

[Raising][Copy Raising]

The CR sentence in (1b) shows that the matrix subject is coreferential with the pronominal subject
in the embedded clause introduced by the comparative complementizer.
In the literature, (at least) the following two issues have been addressed concerning thederivation of copy raising: First, how does the matrix subject meet the theta-criterion requirement
under the assumption that seem cannot assign any theta role to the external argument (see Potsdam
and Runner (2001) for more details)? Second, how is the referential dependency between thematrix and the embedded subjects licensed? On these two issues, among the proposed approaches
is the base-generation one (e.g. Landau (2011), Potsdam and Runner (2001); cf. Fujii (2005) andTakano (2013) for the movement approach). A recent study by Landau (2011) proposes that thematrix subject base-generated at [Spec, TP] establishes a dependency relation with the embedded
pronominal subject through predication (i.e. merger with a null operator OP).
(2)

Johni seems [PP as [CP OPi [C’ if [TP hei is happy]]]].

The configuration in (2) shows that the matrix subject is semantically licensed as the subject of theclausal predicate derived by OP. However, there remain two questions: First, why is predication
required in copy raising? Second, does the null operator at [Spec, CP] create an island?
In this study, combining Asudeh and Toivonen’s (2012) observation with evidentiality (Section2), I propose an alternative analysis in which the null operator in (2) plays a crucial role inencoding an evidential meaning and creates a weak island (Section 3).
2. Evidentiality and Island Effects
According to Aikhenvald (2004:3), evidentiality is defined as “a linguistic category whose
primary meaning is source of information.” In this connection, Asudeh and Toivonen (2012) makean interesting observation that the speaker cannot utter a CR sentences when s/he does not haveany source from which s/he infers the propositional content.
(3) a.

b.

A and B walk into Tom’s kitchen. There’s no sign of Tom, but there are various
things bubbling away on the stove and there are several ingredients on the counter,apparently waiting.
{# Tom seems like he’s cooking. / It seems that Tom is cooking. / Tom seems to becooking.}(Asudeh and Toivonen (2012:331), with slight modifications)This fact implies that only the CR sentence carries an (inferred-)evidential meaning (see also
Gisborne (2010) for a similar argument).
Furthermore, the evidential meaning that CR sentences carry affects the acceptability of theirinterrogative counterpart (cf. (5a)). Previous studies have not come to a consensus on whether theembedded clause allows wh-extraction in copy raising (Inada (1984), Asudeh (2002); cf. Rooryck(2000)), but according to my informants, a wh-question with CR is acceptable if the hearer also
has a certain source from which s/he infers a possible answer to the wh-question. Furthermore,wh-interrogatives with CR show weak island effects (cf. (5a, b)), which is similar to the pattern
traditionally known as the argument-adjunct asymmetry (cf. (4a, b)).
(4) a. ? Whati do you wonder whether John bought ti?
b. * Howi do you wonder whether John solved the problem ti?
(Hoekstra and Sybesma (2004:191))(5) a. ? Whoi did he seem/sound {as if / like} he was talking to ti ?
b. * Whyi did he seem/sound {as if / like} he was talking to Mary ti?
3. Proposal
In order to explain the properties observed in Section 2, I propose the following derivation byslightly modifying the derivation in (2):(6) [TP John[vEvid]i [vP seems [PP as [CP OPi[uEvid] [C’ if [TP hei is happy]]]]]]
Here, I make the following assumptions: First, the raising predicate seem possesses the valued
evidential feature [vEvid] and assigns it to the matrix subject John. Second, the null operator at[Spec, CP] carries the unvalued evidential feature [uEvid], and it is valued by establishing a
predication relation with the matrix subject having the [vEvid] feature. As a result, theconfiguration in (6) receives an (inferred-)evidential interpretation; in short, the matrix subject isinterpreted as the source of information from which the speaker infers the propositional content
expressed by the as if clause.
I, then, assume that the empty operator occupying [Spec, CP] creates an island (or a barrier inthe Barriers framework). Thus, the argument-adjunct asymmetry in (5) is accounted for in termsof, say, the ECP satisfaction. (5a) meets the ECP requirement because the trace is identified
through head government, which is not the case in (5b) as the trace is not antecedent-governed(see Rizzi (2004 and his subsequent work) for the recent treatment of weak island effects in termsof featural relativized minimality).
The proposed analysis can be easily accommodated within the movement approach (e.g.
Fujii (2005), Takano (2013)).
4. Theoretical Implications
In the literature, evidentiality has been discussed within the cartographic framework (e.g.
Cinque (1999)), with emphasis on sentence final particles/morphemes and adverbs. In this respect,
copy raising is of interest in that it syntactically encodes evidentiality with recourse to predication(i.e. the dependency between the matrix subject and the embedded pronominal subject).
Selected References / Aikhenvald, Y. A. (2004) Evidentiality, OUP. / Asudeh, A. (2002) “Richard
III,” CLS 38, 31-46. / Asudeh, A. and Toivonen, I. (2012) “Copy Raising and Perception,” NLLT
30, 321-380. / Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective,
OUP. / Fujii, T. (2005) “Cycle, Linearization of Chains and Multiple Case Checking,”
Proceedings of ConSole XIII, 39-65, Leiden University. / Gisborne, N. (2010) The Event Structureof Perception Verbs, OUP. / Landau, I. (2011) “Predication vs. Aboutness in Copy Raising,” NLLT
29, 779-813. / Potsdam, E. and Runner, J. (2001) “Richards Returns: Copy Raising and Its
Implications,” CLS 37, 453-468. / Rizzi, L. (2004) “Locality and Left Periphery,” Structures andBeyond: Cartography of Syntactic Structures (Vol. 3), ed. by A. Belletti, 223-251, OUP. / Rooryck,
J. (2000) Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages,
Routledge. / Takano, Y. (2013) “Movement of Antecedents and Minimality,” Nanzan Linguistics 9,
193-214.

Orthographic influence on L2 vowel quality:
the case of English reduced vowels by native speakers of Japanese
Takayuki Konishi & Mariko Kondo
Waseda University
1. Introduction
Japanese learners of English often have difficulty with the production and perception of English
vowels because English has more vowels than Japanese. In particular, the reduced vowel schwa/ə/ which occurs in unstressed syllables is difficult because vowel reduction and centralization
associated with speech rhythm do not occur in Japanese.
Previous studies (Lee et al., 2006 and Konishi & Kondo, 2015) showed that even highly
proficient Japanese learners of English could not reduce vowels to schwa like native English
speakers. However, these two studies only assessed the Euclidian distance of canonical schwas
from the center of the vowel space, and did not look at the influence of the phonological context(e.g. preceding segment, whether the syllable is open or closed) or orthographic context.
Although it has not been specifically examined in previous studies, it is likely that the qualityof weak English vowels produced by Japanese learners is influenced by spelling. In Japanese
loanwords from English, the pronunciation of the vowels follows the spelling of the original wordrather than the actual pronunciation of the original vowels. For example, the schwa sounds ofbanana /bənɑnə/ and tomato /təmeɪtoʊ/ are transcribed as バナナ /banana/ and トマト /tomato/
because when the five Japanese vowels are transcribed into Roman alphabet, the letters <i, e, a, o,u> are pronounced as /i, e, a, o, u/ respectively. So, it is likely that this spelling-to-soundrelationship will influence L2 English pronunciation of schwa by Japanese learners.
Therefore, this study will investigate the influence of spelling on the first and second formants(F1 and F2) of L2 English reduced vowels produced by Japanese learners. Only vowels in
unstressed positions spelled with <e, a, o> were analyzed because vowels spelled with <i> and<u> are normally reduced to lax /ɪ/ and /ʊ /, not /ə/.
2. Analysis and results
The data for the analysis was extracted from the J-AESOP corpus, which is part of the AESOP
multi-national L2 English learner corpus (e.g. Visceglia et al., 2009). Recordings of 72 Japaneselearners of English and 15 native speakers of English were analyzed. The Japanese learners weredivided into Advanced and Beginner groups based on their English proficiency scores. The datacomprised five words read in a carrier sentence, and five other words selected from script readingof The North Wind and the Sun (Table I). Only the content words were chosen. Schwa sounds ofsuffixes and rhotic schwa [ɝ] were excluded.
Table I. Words used for the analysis<a>apartment, hospital,
available, agreed, attempt<e>apartment, elevator
department store, traveler<o>considered,confess

First, Welch’s Two Sample t-tests were conducted for F1 and F2 of the native English speakers
and Japanese learners. The results showed there were significant differences both for F1 (t(62.971)= -4.8238, p < .001) and F2 (t(44.228) = 3.1239, p < .005). Therefore, separate One-way Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted for the native speaker group and the Japanese learner group,
setting F1/F2 as the dependent variable and letter (<a, e, o>) as the independent variable. For the1

Japanese learner group, level (Advanced/Beginner) and the interaction between letter and level
were added as independent variables. For the native speaker group, the main effect of letter was
significant for both F1 (F(2,13) = 9.553, p < .003) and F2 (F(2,13) = 9.303, p < .004). In the posthoc Tukey’s HSD, a significant difference for F1 was observed between <a> and <e> (p < .002),
and between <e> and <o> (p < .004). There was also a significant difference for F2 between <a>and <e> (p < .002) (Figure 1). For the Japanese learner group, the main effect of letter was
significant for both F1 (F(2,67) = 65.191, p < .001) and F2 (F(2,67) = 92.048, p < .001). Theinteraction between letter and level was also significant for both F1 (F(2,67) = 4.918, p < .02) andF2 (F(2,67) = 4.268, p < .02). However, the main effect of level was not significant for either F1(F(1,67) = 0.799, p = .375) or F2 (F(1,67) = 1.178, p = .282). Post-hoc Tukey’s HSD showed thefollowing significant differences: for F1 of the Advanced group, between <a> and <e> (p < .001);
for F1 of the Beginner group, between <a> and <e>, <a> and <o>, and <e> and <o> (p < .001);
for F2 of the Advanced group, between <a> and <e> (p < .003), and <a> and <o> (p < .001); andfor F2 of the Beginner group, between <a> and <o>, and <e> and <o> (p < .001) (Figure 1).
The distribution of the formants of the Advanced learner group was more similar to the native
speaker group than that of the Beginner group. The distribution of schwa with <e> and <o> of
Advanced group merged, indicating little influence of spelling. In contrast, the distribution of
schwa of the Beginner group was influenced by the spelling. In Japanese, /e/ is mid-front, /a/ is
low-mid and /o/ is mid-back. Although native speaker group’s F1 and F2 differed significantly forsome pairs, any difference only occurred in either F1 or F2, not in both F1 and F2 at the same time,
as occurred in both learner groups. English <a> is mid-front (which differs from the English /ɑ/position) and <e> is low-back (which is also different from the English /e/ position). So, the vowel
quality of native speakers differed much less than that of either of the learner groups.

Figure 1 Distribution of formants with different letters (x-axis: F2 / y-axis: F1)
left: Native English speaker group / center: Advanced learner group/ right: Beginner group

References
Konishi, T. & Kondo, M. (2015) Developmental Change in English Stress Manifestation by Japanese Speakers.
Proc of ICPhS XVIII, Glasgow, Scotland
Lee, B., Guion, S. G. & Harada, T. (2006). Acoustic analysis of the production of unstressed English vowels by
early and late Korean and Japanese bilinguals. SSLA, 28(03), pp 487-513.
Visceglia, T., Tsen g, C. Y., Kondo, M., Meng, H. & Sagisaka, Y. (2009). Phonetic Aspects of Content Designin AESOP (Asian English Speech cOrpus Project). In 2009 Oriental COCOSDA International Conferenceon Speech Database and Assessments. 60 - 65. IEEE.

2

A Monster in English
Sumiyo Nishiguchi
Tokyo University of Science
This paper analyzes the following sentences:(1) a. I am coming now.
b. I found it. The book was here.
The motion verb come is used for movement toward the addressee in (1a), even though,from the perspective of the speaker, her movement is rather going or leaving from her
location. Coming is a description from the viewpoint of the addressee (Fillmore 1997). In(1b), the past tense is used for the current location of the book. This paper claims theexistence of the Kaplanian monster, the context change function that maneuvers the context
of utterance (Kaplan 1977, 1989).
Oshima (2006) considers the deictic verbs come and go to be indexicals that pick reference
directly from the context. According to Fillmore (1997), come indicates motion towards thelocation of either the speaker or the addressee. If come is an indexical, it is polysemous
between the speaker’s location and the hearer’s.
(2) a. Mary is coming here. (toward the speaker’s location)b. I am coming. (toward the hearer’s location)(3) a. [[come]]<ac,hc,tc,lc,wc>,<ai,hi,ti,li,wi> = λe.come(e) ∧ goal(e) = lcb. [[come]]<ac,hc,tc,lc,wc>,<ai,hi,ti,li,wi> = λe.come(e) ∧ goal(e) = li
Another possible analysis would be a binding approach in which come carries with itan additional deictic parameter that is treated as a free or bound variable in the object
language. (2b) would be something like (4) where the goal argument of come is bound by
the addressee.
(4) I am telling you 1 λx.I am coming to x1 .
Instead, we assume that there is a context shifter called monster, OP, which changes thecontext location to the hearer’s location.
(5) [[OP come]]<ac,hc,tc,lc,wc>,<ai,hi,ti,li,wi> = [[come]]<ac,hc,tc,li,wc>,<ai,hi,ti,li,wi>=λe.come(e) ∧ goal(e) = li
Kaplan (1977, 1989) claimed that indexicals such as I, you, here, now, and yesterday are
directly referential, meaning that their reference is fixed by the context of utterance. Except
for direct quotations such as in (6a), I can refer only to the speaker or writer in (6b).
(6) a. Baali said “I am an idiot.”b. Baali said that I am an idiot.
Kaplan’s claim has prompted much debate on whether contexts can be shifted. Schlenker(2003) and Anand and Nevins (2004), among others, have argued that context shifters,
referred to as monsters, exist in languages such as Amharic and Zazaki. Further, Anand andNevins (2004) and Anand (2006) claimed the existence of three kinds of Kaplanian monsters
selected by different attitude verbs in Slave. In (7), context (c) and index (i ) are tuples:< a, h, l , t, w >—author (a), hearer (h), location (l ), time (t), and world (w ). There arethree kinds of monstrous operators: (a) OP ∀ maneuvers all indexicals in its scope so thatthe person, locative, temporal, and world parameters are all overwritten by the index; (b)OP per only applies to first and second person pronouns, namely, the agent a and the hearerh; and (c) OP auth shifts the reference of the first person, or the author, exclusively. Given
that the location parameter is overwritten in the case of come, the monster in English is the
fourth type (d) that maneuvers the location parameter and the temporal parameters, as theexample in (2b) indicates.
i,i(7) a. [[OP ∀ φ]]c,ig = [[φ]]g<ai,hi,lc,tc,wc>,ib. [[OP per φ]]c,ig = [[φ]]g<ai,hc,lc,tc,wc>,ic. [[OP auth φ]]c,ig = [[φ]]g(Anand and Nevins 2004, Anand 2006)<ac,hc,li,ti,wc>,id. [[OP loc,time φ]]c,ig = [[φ]]gRegarding the example in (2b), there is a parallel one in Japanese.
(8) Koko-ni at-ta. (Japanese)
here-loc be-past‘It was here’
The past tense can be used when the speaker suddenly finds something that was lost (Teramura 1984, among others). Such ‘fake’ past has also been analyzed as evidence of thecontext shift (Nishiguchi 2006).
(9) [[OP PAST]]c,i = [[PAST]]<ac,hc,lc,ti,wc>,iAs in (9), the temporal parameter of the context is overwritten using the monstrous
function so that the interpretation of the past tense marker differs.

References
Anand, P.: 2006, De De Se, PhD thesis, MIT.
Anand, P. and Nevins, A.: 2004, Shifty operators in changing contexts, SALT 14, pp. 20–37.
Fillmore, C.: 1997, Lectures on Deixis, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
Kaplan, D.: 1977, 1989, Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics,
and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals, Oxford University Press, New
York, Oxford.
Nishiguchi, S.: 2006, Fake past and a monster, Stony Brook Occasional Papers in Linguistics,
Vol. I.
Oshima, D. Y.: 2006, Go and come revisited: What serves as a reference point?, BLS 32.
Schlenker, P.: 2003, A plea for monsters, Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 29–120.
Teramura, H.: 1984, Nihongo no Shintakusu to Imi II, Kuroshio, Tokyo.

Labeling and Feature Sharing in Wh-In-Situ Questions
Jun Omune
Kansai Gaidai University
In the current framework of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky (2013, 2015)), Merge, which freely
applies, takes two objects, say α and β, and forms the simplest set {α, β}. Although this conception of Merge
does not yield labels (and projections), the interpretive systems (i.e. the SM and CI systems) require labels forinterpretations. To label a syntactic set, minimal search, conforming to a third-factor principle (i.e. Minimal
Computation), locates one head (e.g. C or T) and selects it as a label, where the other possible head is invisible
or simply does not exist. For example, { , v*P} is labeled as v*P because the lower copy
is, by definition,
invisible. In addition, labeling by minimal search locates a pair of matched features <valued, unvalued> in theso-called Spec-Head relation (see Chomsky (2013, 2015), and EKS (Epstein, Kitahara and Seely) (2017)) andselects its shared-prominent feature (e.g. <Q, Q> and <Phi, Phi>) to be a label when identifying the label of asymmetric structure {XP, YP}. This shared-prominent-feature option is called agreement. According to EKS(2017), wh-phrases bear uQ (unvalued Q), and CQ bears lexically/inherently valued Q. Given these basic
assumptions, the structure and derivation of who did John hit are as follows:(1){α who[uQ], {β <Tdo, CQ>, {John, { , {, {<Rhit, v*>, {δ, {γ,}}}}}}}}i.
Merge externally forms {γ Rhit, who[uQ]} and internally forms {δ who [uQ], {γ Rhit,}}.
ii.
Merge externally forms {John, {v*[uPhi], {δ who[uQ], {γ Rhit,}}}}.
iii. Rhit inherits features from v*, and labeling by minimal search takes place: δ and γ are labeled
as <Phi, Phi> and RP, respectively (who[uQ] is assumed to bear a set of lexically/inherently
valued phi-features).
iv. Pair-Merge internally forms <Rhit, v*> with v* affixed: such a v* becomes invisible, and thephase-hood is activated on. Thus, the complement ofgets transferred.
v.
Merge externally and internally forms {α who[uQ], {β CQ, {John, {T, {, {<Rhit, v*>, {δ, {γ,}}}}}}}}.
vi. T inherits features from CQ, and labeling takes place: α and β are labeled as <Q, Q> and CQP,
respectively (note that the Q feature on CQ does not disappear even after feature inheritance).
Importantly, this <Q, Q> is interpreted as a wh-question by the interpretative systems.
vii. Pair-Merge internally forms <Tdo, CQ>, and Transfer applies.
However, these premises readily raise a problem of feature sharing in echo questions as in (2):(2)
a.
A: I hit ASIMO.
b.
A: John kissed Mary.
B: You hit what? (echo-question)
B: John kissed who? (echo-question)
Given that feature sharing holds for a pair <vF, uF> in the Spec-Head relation, the uQ of QP, which is a whphrase, remains unshared with a Q-feature. This uQ violates Full Interpretation and causes a derivation to
crash.
(3)
The uQ of QP remains unshared with Q in a structure of a wh-in-situ question such as follows:{CQ, {you, {T, {, {<Rhit, v*>, {γ QPwhat [uQ], {RP,}}}}}}}.
To solve the problem of feature sharing in echo questions above, I propose the following structure andderivation of the echo question:(4){α C, {you, {T, {, {<Rhit, v*>, {β QPwhat [uQ], {γ, {δ
, {ε CQ,}}}}}}}}}i.
Merge externally forms {ε CQ, QPwhat [uQ]} and internally forms {δ QPwhat [uQ], {ε CQ,}}.
ii.
Labeling by minimal search takes place: δ and ε are labeled as <Q, Q> and CQP,
respectively.
1

iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

The complement of CQ gets transferred.
Merge forms {you, {v*, {β QPwhat, {γ Rhit, {<Q, Q>, {CQP CQ,}}}}}}.
The relevant computations in the v*P phase occur.
Merge forms {α C, {you, {T, {, {<Rhit, v*>, {<Phi, Phi> QPwhat, {RP, {<Q, Q>,{CQP CQ,}}}}}}}}}.
vii. T inherits features from C, and labeling takes place: α is labeled as CP.
viii. Transfer applies.
Step (i) is remarkable. This application of external and internal Merge is logically available under freely
applying Merge. This merger leads to the shared-prominent-feature agreement between uQ and Q in step (ii)(note that CQ is a phase head, and labeling occurs when phase-by-phase Transfer applies). Therefore, theproblem in (3) is solved. Interestingly, the structure in (4) has two C heads, C for declaratives and CQ forinterrogatives. The labels given by these two C heads seem to cause the interpretation of echo questions.
The problem of feature sharing in (3) could occur in quiz-show questions, as wh-phrases remain in situ.
(5)
They thought JFK was assassinated in which Texas city?
(Chomsky (2013: 44))
We can explain this case as well by assuming that the relevant parts of the structure and derivation of (5) areessentially similar to those of (4). Thus, the problem in (3) does not occur in wh-in-situ questions.
In an in-situ language, such as Japanese, wh-phrases can remain in situ in wh-questions:(6)
Taro-wa dare-otatakimashi-ta ka?
Taro-TOP who-ACC hit-PASTCQ‘Who did Taro hit?’
The analyses above suggest that in Japanese, CQ and a wh-phrase externally merge in a wh-question. The
relevant part of the set-theoretic notation for the structure of this construction is as follows:(7){α {β Taro-wa, {δ QPdare [uQ], {ε,}}, tatakimashi-ta}, Cka [Q]}As in (4), CQ first externally merges with QP[uQ], and QP[uQ] then internally merges with ε, which is going to
be labeled as CQP. Given that agreement effects are the instantiation of the Spec-Head relation, this internal
merger is essential to share Q-features between the head ka and the head of dare. Because of this feature
sharing, δ is labeled as <Q, Q>. Crucially, Cka further internally merges with β as illustrated in (7). In otherwords, the matrix CQ generates within v*P phase and moves to {β Taro-wa…}. Since CQ is the closest head
for labeling α, the entire structure or set α is labeled as CQP, which leads to the interpretation of generalquestions. The interpretation of wh-questions is yielded by the label <Q, Q> (i.e. δ).
The analyses in (4) and (7) suggest that CQ does not internally merge with the matrix α in English because
it causes the agreement failure. In (4), for example, the external argument you must share phi-features with T
inheriting uPhi from C. It seems that sharing the prominent feature Q makes the uPhi of CQ inactive as asecondary effect of <Q, Q>. If this assumption is on the right track, then T cannot inherit the active uPhi from
CQ after CQ has internally merged. In contrast, in a language without the phi-agreement such as Japanese, CQ
can internally merge, as external arguments do not share phi-features with T.
Selected References
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33–49.
Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in
Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3–16,
John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara and T. Daniel Seely (2017) “Successive Cyclic Wh-Movement
without Successive Cyclic Crashing,” paper presented at ELSJ 10th International Spring Forum.

2The Verbal Noun Use of English Borrowed Prepositions in Japanese Recipe Names
Yuichi Ono (University of Tsukuba)

1.

Introduction
Shimada and Nagano (2014) consider the following example of the borrowed
preposition on in Japanese recipe names taken from Cookpad (http://cookpad.com/), a
popular Japanese Internet recipe site:(1) Biinzu on toosuto(lit.) beans on toast‘toast topped with beans’
The head of the compound is the NP in the final position, namely, “toast.” Shimada
and Nagano (2014) analyze the uses of on in (1) as “verbal nominals,” as illustrated in(2), rather than as an “English preposition,” as in (3). In this example, the borrowed
preposition on functions as a Japanese verbal nominal with the meaning “nose(-ta),”modifying the following heads.
(2) [Modifier + on] + Head
(3) Modifier + [on + Head](on = Verbal Nominal)(on = English Preposition)

The preposition in in example (4) below functions similarly with the meaning of“iri(-no).” However, a closer look at the examples involving in highlight another typewhere the preposition in is used as an English preposition with a locative complement,
as given in (5) below:(4) Chiizu in hanbaagu(lit.) cheese-in hamburger‘hamburger with cheese inside’(5) Butanikukaraage in syanhai(lit.) fried-pork in Shanghai‘fried-pork in Shanghai’This paper validates the assumption through psycholinguistic analyses for positing
two types of inherent structures behind English prepositional borrowings in Japanese byreferring to the unique behavior of borrowed with.
2.

Contrasts between verbal nominal and English prepositional uses of in
The analysis proposed by Shimada and Nagano encourages us to predict that theother structural variances will remain acceptable as far as the complement-verb
relationship is held within the compound. This prediction seems to be correct at least
intuitively, as is evident from example (6) below from Cookpad, when compared to thecase in (7). The point here is that the example (6) was actually produced as an
acceptable recipe title by a young Japanese contributor who likes cooking and posted on
the recipe site. Note that the judgments for (7) are my own.
(6) Tonkatsu in chiizu1[Head + in + Modifier](lit.) pork cutlet in-cheese‘pork cutlet containing cheese’1

https://cookpad.com/recipe/4504455

(7) a. *Chiize tonkatsu in/*in tonkatsu chiize[Mod + Head + in / in + Head + Mod]b. ?Tonkatsu chiizu in/?in chiize tonkatsu[Head + Mod + in / in + Mod + Head]

However, this pattern does not apply to example (5). Since English prepositions
have a rigid structure—that is, a preposition followed by a (locative) complement—the
marginal status given to (7b) should be lower in the case involving English preposition
because of the difficulty in parsing. Moreover, any structure other than the [Head + in +Mod (= Place)] should be worse.
In order to examine whether the predicted contrasts between verbal nominal andEnglish prepositional uses are real, Ono (2017) conducted a survey on acceptability
judgement. A total of 101 students (men: 15, women: 86) participated in thisquestionnaire survey. Statistically significant difference was observed for theacceptability between the two structures in many cases.
3.

Unique behavior of with
The borrowed preposition with shows a unique characteristic. We obtained 5,847
instances of in on Cookpad. Of these, 3,499 instances (59.8%) were of the structure[Mod + in + Head], while 2,079 instances (35.6%) were [Head + in + Mod]. In the caseof with, however, the number of instances of [Mod + with + Head] were only 56 (4.7%)
out of 1,192 instances. Almost all of the instances (1,113; 95.1%) were of the structure[Head + with + Mod]. This fact might force us to assume that there is only one English
structure available in the case of with, since the frequency of the former is less than 5%
and the statistically exceptional data might be discarded. Thus, the tentative description
on with might be that there is NO possibility to use with as [Head + with + Mod].
However, the existence of the small number of “acceptable” instances encourage
linguists to examine the possibility for positing the two structures, as observed for in
and on mentioned above. Specifically, the question is whether or not the exceptional use
of with in (9) below can be analyzed as “Verbal Nominals” as analyzed for in and with.
Then, the question is whether we can assume that the exceptional example like (8) is theone involving verbal nominal use with the meaning of soe(-te):(8) toofu with okonomiyaki (shiifuudo)2 [Modifier + with + Head](lit.) tofu with okonomiyaki (seafood)‘okonomiyaki with tofu (and seafood) into it’
Another similar acceptability judgement survey conducted on the same
participants demonstrated that the contrast was real and the same parallelism wasobserved between with and in/on. On the basis of these findings, this paper raises aquestion about what is the mechanism of blocking the use of [Mod + with + Head] inthe case of with given the assumption of similarity between them.
References
Ono, Yuichi (2017) “The Verbal Noun Use of English Prepositions Borrowed into
Japanese Recipe Names,” talk given at Tsukuba Morphology Meeting (TMM),
June 27, University of Tsukuba.
Shimada, Masaharu and Nagano, Akiko (2014) “Borrowing of English Adpositions inJapanese,” abstract for the LAGB Annual Meeting 2014, Linguistic Association ofGreat Britain.

2

https://cookpad.com/recipe/2251417

The Role of the Past Tense Morpheme in Japanese Epistemic Conditionals
Mari SAKAGUCHI
Notre Dame Seishin University
It has been argued that the Japanese language does not have an
explicit marker of counterfactuality in the antecedent clause (Arita 2006,2009). On the other hand, it is proposed that some languages such as English
and Modern Greek convey counterfactuality by past tense morphology in theconsequent clause (Iatridou 2000).
In this paper, I will adopt as a working hypothesis that in Japanese, thepast tense morpheme in the consequent clause is also playing a role to signal
counterfactuality(Ogihara2014).
Throughinvestigating
theinterpretations between the subordinate clauses (i.e. the antecedents) andthe main clauses (i.e. the consequents) of the conditional sentences, I willpropose that Japanese conditionals are ambiguous between epistemic
readings and counterfactual readings of the type discussed in Dancygier(1998) and Arita (2009). They can be disambiguated by the past tense –ta
form, i.e. either by putting –ta on the modals themselves or by putting –ta on
the propositions that the modals select. They can also be disambiguated bynoni/-ni endings or the semantic or pragmatic interpretation of the
proposition. I will make the following proposals for the consequent clausesof Japanese conditionals.
1) Modals which can be made into past tense, may signal
counterfactuality.
2) Modals that cannot be made into past tense morphologically, but which
may select a past-tensed proposition, can signal counterfactuality.
3) In –nara conditionals which express simultaneous events, anagreement–like phenomenon of tense marking is observed.
1) is illustrated by the sentence 1'). "Hazu-da" is one of the deontic modals
that can be made into past tense.
1') Taroo-wa [mosi mania-tta-nara ] [ku-ru] hazu-da-tta-top if in time -pst-NARA come-pres HAZU-cop-pst“ If (he) was in time, Taroo would have come.”
2) is illustrated by the example 2'). "Daroo" is treated as one of the epistemic
modals that cannot be made into past tense, but may select a past-tensed
proposition.
2’) Mosimo Einstein-ga ik-itei-tara [a-e-ta/*a-e-ru] daroo.

if-nom live-asp-TARA see-po-pst/*see-po-pres DAROO“If Einstein were alive, (I) could have seen (him).”3) is illustrated by the example 3'):3') Mosi [John-ga san-nen-mae ki-ta]-nara, [Mary-wa kare-oIf
nom 3-years-ago come-pst-NARA -top go he-acc*yurus-u/yurusi-ta] daroo.
*forgive-pres/ forgive-pst DAROO“If John came 3 years ago, Mary would have forgiven him.”
What looks like a counterexample (3” below) to the claim in 3) actuallyshows that the events described by the antecedent and the consequent are
not simultaneous. The event in the antecedent precedes the event in theconsequent in time sequence. Time adverbials are shown explicitly in 3”’).
3”) Keiki-ga kaihukusi-ta-nara, kojinshoohi-wa nobi-ru-daroo. (Arita 1999)3”’) Kyonen keiki-ga kaihukusi-ta-nara, korekara kojinshoohi-wa

nobi-ru-daroo.
“If the economy had recovered last year, from now on individual
consumption will grow.”
Thus the claim in 3) still stands.
Section 1 discusses morphological restrictions on modals in theconsequent clause. Section 2 analyzes the time relations in the two types ofconditionals. Section 3 presents concluding remarks.
References
Arita, Setsuko （ 1999 ） ”Proto-type kara mita Nihongo no Zyookenbun”(Japanese conditional sentences as proto-types”) Gengo Kenkyu 115,
pp.77-108.
Arita, Setsuko (2009) “Tense and Settledness in Japanese” pp.117-149. In
Pizziconi, Barbara, and Mika Kizu (eds.) Japanese Modality: Exploring
its Scope and Interpretation. Palgrave. Macmillan
Dancygier, Barbara (1998) Conditionals and Prediction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Iatridou, Sabine (2000) “Grammatical Ingredients of Counterfactuality”
Linguistic Inquiry 31.2. pp. 231-270.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki (2014) "The Semantics of "-ta" in Japanese Future
Conditionals" pp.1-21. In Crnic, Luka and Uli Sauerland (eds.)The Art andCraft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, Vol 2, MITWPL .

How Speakers Use “Nanka” in Quasi-Internal Monologues
during Interactional Discourses
Hiroko Shikano
Jichi Medical University
Miki Sugisaki
Graduate School of Humanities, Japan Women’s University
Japanese speakers often use the word nanka in social interactions. According to Daijirin(1995), nanka literally means “some, any, something, and anything.” Obviously, in social
interactions, nanka carries more meaning than it does in its dictionary definition; it can reveal a
speaker’s feeling of uncertainty, it can indicate vagueness, or it can introduce new information to arecipient (Uchida 2001).
In addition, nanka, helps clarify a statement’s modality, is often used in a form of internalmonologue. Regarding the internal monologue, there are two possible situations in which aspeaker produces his or her internal monologue. The first situation is that the monologue is utteredwhen the person is literally alone in a room. In the second situation, the person is surrounded byother participants at the point in time when the monologue is produced. In this second situation,
the monologue is called “a quasi-internal monologue” (Noda 2006). Here is an artificial quasiinternal monologue in which nanka is uttered: “nanka, are doko yat-ta kana (‘Nanka,’ where didthat thing go?).” Upon hearing this quasi-internal monologue, a recipient might respond, “ojiichan ga yon-de-ta-yo (Grandpa was reading (a newspaper.)).” This interaction seems to be seen
easily even the prior speaker’s vocal sound was not obviously directed to the possible recipient.
The (quasi-)internal monologue occurs within one’s mental state where the utterance floats fluidly
in and out of the speaker’s thinking and speaking areas (Vygotsky 1962). Shikano (2016) statesthat the quasi-internal monologue works as a communicative function even in the presence ofothers. Therefore, in this study, the use of nanka in quasi-internal monologues is discussed.
The data for this study came from a Japanese TV program called Tsurube no kazoku ni
kanpai (Tsurube’s Toast to Families) from NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai). In this study, fifteen
episodes, each of which run about 75 minutes, were analyzed. Each episode follows a host andfifteen different guests who travel to a rural area of Japan. When they arrive at a designatedcountry, they wander around town having conversations with the local people.
In our analysis of the data, the following linguistic features of nanka were observed within
the context of a quasi-internal monologue:(1) Nanka often occurred with the sentence final particle –kana, which is often used toform a question. Within sentences that use –kana to form a question, the speaker reveals one’s
disorganized thoughts. This kind of quasi-internal monologue leaves space for the recipient topresume what the speaker is thinking about. In other words, the recipient tries to construct what
the speaker is referring to. Because of the nature of monologue, use of a quasi-internal monologue
reduces the speaker’s utterance’s implied expectation that the recipient will respond. Quasiinternal monologue serves as a way of presenting one’s own thoughts without imposing on others.

(“Nanka yat-ton no chau kana (I wonder if (he) should be doing something.)”)(2) Nanka presents the speaker’s own idea or indicates a suggestion in the quasi-internalmonologue. When nanka is produced in a quasi-internal monologue, it is used to express the
speaker’s inner feelings, or just simply it marks a direct quotation, accompanied with the final
particles –tte or –toka. These quasi-internal monologues externalize the speaker’s dilemma for hisor her desire. (“nanka chot-to koohii demo non-n-de mitai-na, nan-tut-te (I don’t know why, butsomehow (I) prefer to take a sip of coffee or something like that.)”)(3) Nanka is expressed together with monologic interjections such as “aa (ah),” “waa(wow),” and adjectives such as “natsukashii (good old),” or “kirei (nice).” In these situations,speakers tend to dismiss the polite forms –desu or –masu since the speaker’s inner feelings are
accidently externalized unconsciously that the utterances are not directed to a particular recipient.
Within the context of interjections, the speaker monologically and subjectively expresses his or
her own perspectives, inner feelings, or opinions. (“waa, sugoi kirei-na, nanka ii-nioi ga suru
(Wow, very nice, somehow smells nice.)”)The results indicate that nanka is used in quasi-internal monologues to reveal the speaker’s
uncertainty about his or her desires, inner feelings, or opinions that they want to create acomfortable environment in which they could continue traveling. Quasi-internal monologues thatused nanka revealed the speaker’s comments or thoughts without imposing them on the recipient.
In addition, the utterance itself (nanka) became oblique to the recipient, even though it was
directed at the recipient, which is why, in quasi-internal monologues, the utterance no longer
requests the recipient’s reply. Furthermore, it is up to the recipient whether or not he or she replies.
References
Abe, Jiro. 1999. Iwayuru shinnai-hatsuwa ni tsuite – hatuwa doushi to shite mita “omou” [On'Inner Speech': Omou as a verb of saying]. Journal of Tsukuba applied linguistics studies. 6.
85-100.
Matsumura, Akira. (ed.) 1995. Daijirin. 2nd ed. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Noda, Harumi. 2006. Gijidokuwa ga shutsugen suru toki [When quasi-internal monologue
occurs]. In Takashi Matuoka (eds.), Nihongo bunpo no shin-chihei 2 bunron-hen [A newhorizon in Japanese grammar: style]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers. 193-213.
Shikano, Hiroko. 2016. Gijidokuwa ni okeru shijishi “are” wo mochiita toki no hanashi-te noshiten [The speaker’s viewpoints in the use of demonstratives “are” in quasi-internalmonologues]. Journal of Japan Women’s University. 22. 15-26.
Uchida, Lala. 2001. Kaiwa ni mirareru “nanka” to bunpouka –“maeoki –hyougen” no “nanka” wakuchiguse ka [Nanka in ordinary conversation and its grammaticalization: is nanka only "a habitof saying" to make introductory remarks?]. The Academic Reports, the Faculty of Engineering,Tokyo Polytechnic University. 24(2)1-9
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1962. Though and language. 2nd. ed. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

A Generative Analysis of Reduced Relative Clauses in English
Katsuya Sugiura (National Institute of Technology, Akita College)
1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to attempt to reveal the syntactic structure of reduced relative clauses inEnglish within the framework of generative grammar. I examine the noun phrase postmodified by the present
participle of a verb, its object/argument and an adjunct, as shown in (1). I refer to the bracketed part in (1)as reduced relative clause, and the underlined part in (1) as head noun.
(1)a.
Look at the boys [playing tennis over there].
b.
Tell me about a man [living in Tokyo].
This paper proposes two arguments. First, reduced relative clauses are Aspect Phrase (AspP) whether theyexpress an ongoing/habitual action or a state, and the aspect that they represent is determined by whatfeature(s) the AspP has. Second, they are AspP that is selected by NP that is in turn selected by DP with thehead noun being located in the specifier of NP.
There are many generative analyses of reduced relative clauses, but just a few of them give their close
derivation. This paper adopts Thompson’s (2001) analysis which argues for the AspP analysis of reduced
relative clauses because they disallow the overt complementizer and sentence-level adverbs. Her analysis is
insufficient in that she does not reveal what role the Asp plays and does not give the close derivation of
reduced relative clauses. This paper provides new analyses to solve these problems.
2.

The Function and Role of Asp
Following Van Valin and Lapolla (1997: 40), I assume that aspect expresses “the internal temporal
structure of the event itself.” That is to say, it shows whether the event is completed, or is ongoing, or isrecurring. Based on the assumption that AspP bears this role, I assume the clausal structure in (2). AspP
expresses whether the event represented by vP is ongoing or not, habitual or not, and completed or not.
(2)
[AspP Asp [vP Subj [v′ V-v ]]]Next, I examine the function of the present participle suffix -ing. I suggest that -ing merges in the head ofAsp, bearing the [+progressive] feature. After it merges and the Subject noun raises into the upper position,-ing lowers onto the verb in PF under adjacency without undergoing agreement. It is traditionally assumed
that inflectional suffixes adjoins to the host by undergoing agreement, but this paper distinguishes -ing fromother inflectional suffixes such as -(e)d and -(e)s because the latter suffixes are involved in agreement andCase assignment, while the former suffix is not.
Next, I claim that an ongoing action is realized because the AspP has the [+progressive] feature when -ing
adjoins to the verb. I assume that stative verbs bear the [+stative] feature and adverbs expressing frequency
or habit bear the [+habitual] feature. Following Mizuno (1999: 320, 321), I assume that adverbs expressing
frequency or habit are licensed in the head of Asp and adjoins to Asp. Thus, at the time when -ing adjoins to
the action verb such as play, the syntactic structure of reduced relative clauses is (3).
(3)[[XP Subji ][AspP [Asp′ F-Adv[+habitual] [Asp′ tj ] [vP ti [v′ V-v-ingj[+progressive]]]]]](F-Adv=Frequency Adverbs)
The aspect that the reduced relative clause represents is determined by what feature(s) the AspP has, which1I illustrate below with the examples in (1) and (4).
(4)

a.

His grotesquely amusing account presents the entire family [frequently communingwith ghosts].
(cf. Collins, brbooks, BB-Ym02210, biog)b.
But many more are known only in a heavily condensed form [often consisting of no
more than a few lines of text].
(cf. Collins, brbooks, BB-Bm89-693, culture)
In (1a), the AspP playing tennis over there represents an ongoing action because it has the [+progressive]feature, which is carried by the present participle of an action verb play. In (4a), where there is an adverb
expressing frequency before the present participle in the reduced relative clause, the AspP frequently
communing with ghosts represents a habitual and ongoing action because it has the [+habitual] and[+progressive] features; the former feature is carried by frequently; the latter feature is carried by communing.
In (1b), where the reduced relative clause consists of the present participle of a stative verb and its argument,
the AspP living in Tokyo expresses an ongoing state because it has the [+stative] feature, which is carried bya stative verb live. In (4b), where a stative verb occurs with an adverb expressing frequency in the reduced
relative clause, the AspP often consisting of … denotes that a state often occurs. This is because the AspP
has the [+habitual] and [+stative] features; the former is carried by often; the latter is carried by consist of…. I assume that the suffix -ing does not make semantic contribution when it adjoins to stative verbs.
3. A Head Noun Raising AccountFollowing Cecchetto and Donati (2015: 77-79) in assuming that NPs can merge in the complement of
unaccusative and passive verbs in past participle reduced relative clauses since it is not the Case position, asin (5), I claim that NPs can merge in the specifier of vP because it is also not the Case position.
(5)
the [NP philosopher [VP admired philosopher (by Marx) ]](cf. Cecchetto and Donati’s (2015: 77))
Extending Radford’s (2016: chapter 7) analysis to the reduced relative clause, I propose that it has astructure in (6) wherein D takes NP as its complement, which in turn selects AspP.
(6)[DP D [NP NPi [NP′ Ø ] [AspP [Asp′ F-Adv[+habitual] [Asp′ tj ] [vP ti [v′ V-v-ingj[+progressive]]]]]]]The derivation of the reduced relative clause proceeds as follows. An NP which merges in the specifier ofvP moves to the specifier of the external NP to become the head noun postmodified by the reduced relative
clause AspP. This movement is triggered by AGREE between the determiner and the NP. The determinerserves as Probe because it bears an uninterpretable N feature which is related to categorial selection, and the
NP serves as Goal because it has an interpretable N feature.
4. Conclusion
This paper discussed the derivation of reduced relative clauses and the function and role of the Asp. It wasclaimed that the movement of the head noun NP to the specifier of the external NP is allowed because thespecifier of vP is not the Case position.
References
Cecchetto and Donati (2015), (Re)labeling. Mizuno (1999) “On the LF-Movement of Adverbs,” EL 16: 2.
Radford (2016) Analyzing English Sentences. Thompson (2001) “Temporal Dependency and the Syntax of
Subjects,” Journal of English 37. Van Valin and Lapolla (1997) Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function.
2

Eliminating String-Vacuous Movement: C-Deletion and Phasehood InheritanceShin-ichi Tanigawa
Nagasaki University
Adopting the framework of Chomsky (2013, 2015), this paper proposes an analysis in which
string-vacuous movement of subjects is eliminated due to C-deletion and phasehood inheritance. It
is argued that this analysis captures peculiar properties of subjects observed in three constructions
in which string-vacuous movement of subjects has been postulated.
Chomsky (2015) proposes for null-that-clauses C-Deletion and Phasehood Inheritance,
according to which C is deleted and phasehood is inherited from C to T. This analysis is extended towh-subject constructions by Tanigawa (2017), as illustrated in (1b).
(1) a.
b.

Who saw Mary?
[βC[uφ][ Q][α

who[φ][uQ]T[uφ][Q]

[v*P

t who

see Mary]] ]In (1b), the wh-subject, which bears an unvalued Q-feature [uQ], does not undergo string-vacuous
movement from SPEC-T to SPEC-C. Instead, it remains in SPEC-T, while a valued Q-feature [Q] isinherited from C to T with unvalued φ-features [uφ]. This feature inheritance empties C, which
elucidates the deletion of C and β and the inheritance of phasehood from C to T.
Building on Tanigawa’s (2017) analysis, this paper proposes that C-deletion and phasehood
inheritance take place in other types of Aˊ-movement, Negative Inversion (hereafter, NI) and
Topicalization (hereafter, TOP). Regarding NI, this paper assumes that unmarked examples of NI
such as (2a) have a derivation in (2b), in which negative elements bearing an unvalued focus feature[uFoc] move up to SPEC-C and the head C is endowed with a valued focus feature [Foc].
(2) a.
b.

Only to Mary did John give any flowers.
[β

only to his girlfriend [uFoc]

C[Foc] =did[αJohn[φ]T[uφ]give …

tonly]]

Based on this assumption, this paper proposes that negative subjects such as in (3a), even though
they are assigned [uFoc], remain in SPEC-T due to the inheritance of [Foc] from C to T.
(3) a.
b.

Only John gave any flowers to Mary.
[βC[uφ][ Foc][αonly John[φ][uFoc]

T[uφ][Foc]t onlygive any flowers …

]]

Consequently, as shown in (3b), C and β undergo deletion, and phasehood is inherited from C to T.
The significant advantage of this analysis is that it provides a straightforward account for thedifference between (2a) and (4) in the application of Subject-Auxiliary Inversion (hereafter, SAI).
(4)*Only Mary does like John.

In the proposed analysis, SAI must be suspended in (4) due to the disappearance of C, the target of
the inverted auxiliary. In addition, the proposed analysis is appealing in that it deals with thelicensing of negative polarity items (hereafter, NPIs) by only-subjects. Progovac (1993) claims that
only-phrases license NPIs if they occupy SPEC-C, i.e. Aˊ-position, as in (2a). In fact, as shown in(5), only-objects, which do not undergo overt movement to SPEC-C, do not license NPIs.
(5)?*John gave only his girlfriend any flowers.

(Progovac (1993:176))

In this respect, a question arises as to why the only-subject in (3b) can license any even though it islocated in SPEC-T. This problem is handled successfully by phasehood inheritance, according towhich the head T is reanalyzed as the phase head and accordingly, SPEC-T is reanalyzed as thephase edge, i.e. the derived Aˊ-position. In light of the proposed analysis, only-subjects count as
proper NPI licensers by occupying the derived Aˊ-position.
This paper applies the same line of analysis to TOP. As is well-known, Japanese is a
topic-prominent language, in which clause-initial elements are not necessarily subjects but
topical/thematic elements, while English is a subject-prominent language, in which subjects countas unmarked clause-initial elements. Assuming that subjects in Japanese can remain in the
VP-internal position, this paper proposes that the topic-prominent property of Japanese is attributed
to the mandatory feature inheritance of a valued topic feature [Top] from C to T, and that phasehood
inheritance from C to T reanalyzes SPEC-T as the derived topic position, as in (6b).
(6) a.

Kono syasin-wa

John-ga

totta.

This picture-TOP

John-NOM

took‘This picture, John took.’
b.

[γ

[β

kono syasin-wa[uTop][αJohn-gat obj.

totta]

T[Top]]

C[ Top]]

In (6b), what is hosted in SPEC-T is not the subject but the object bearing an unvalued topic feature[uTop], which undergoes agreement with [Top] inherited from C to T.
As for the subject-prominent property of English, this paper adopts the standard assumption that[uφ], which is inevitable in English, is inherited from C to T. Yet, this paper departs from traditional
analyses in that [Top] as well as [uφ] is inherited from C to T when subjects bear [uTop], as in (7b).
(7) a.
b.

He loves her.
[βC[uφ][ Top][αhe[φ][uTop]

T[uφ][Top]t subj.

love her]]

The analysis in (7b) successfully explains the difference in binding between (8a) and (8b) byadopting Watanabe’s (1993) CP-recursion structure.
(8) a.

Johni thinks that himself i, Mary likes.

b.

*Johni thinks that himself i likes Mary.

(9) a.

[γ

C1[uφ] [Top]+C2[βhimself[uTop]b.

[γ

C1[uφ][ Top] +C2

[β

tC1

[α

tC1

[α

Mary[φ]himself[φ][uTop]

T[uφ]T[uφ][Top]likelike Mary]]]]]]

This paper assumes that the embedded TOP employs a CP-recursion structure in which C1
head-raises to C2 after discharging relevant features to T. In (9a), C1 retains [Top], and the
topic-object himself moves up to SPEC-C1. In (9b), C1 discharges [Top] to T, which makes the
topic-subject himself remain in SPEC-T. Provided that embedded anaphors are accessible to theirmatrix antecedents only from the phase edge, (9a) but not (9b) observes Binding Condition A.
Selected References
Chomsky, N. (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33–49. / Chomsky, N. (2015) “Problemsof Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies and Beyond, 3–16. / Progovac, L. (1993)“Negative Polarity,” Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 149–180. / Tanigawa, S. (2017) “In Defense of
the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis for Wh-Subjects,” Studies in English Literature 58, 57–76. /Watanabe, A. (1993) “Larsonian CP Recursion, Factive Complements and Selection,” NELS 23,
523–537.

Be on the point of -ing and its variant forms in Early Modern English
Takuto Watanabe
Kumamoto Gakuen University
Be on the point of is said to be a calque of the French phrase être sur le pointde and attested as early as the 13th century. However, its form in early English
is unstable as indicated by OED (s.v. point, n.1), Poutsma (1926: 728) and Mossé
(1938: 162). It shows variation in the choice of the preposition (on, upon, at, etc.),
the presence or absence of the before point, and the pattern of complementation (ofdoing or to do). This study deals with the rivalry between those variant forms in
Early Modern English and reveals its details with the data obtained from searching
the EEBO corpus (Davies (2017)). It also aims to tackle the question why be on/upon
the point of doing became the norm while other forms, especially the to do-variants,
died out.
There are three main results from the corpus search. First, the choice of the preposition is diﬀerent depending on the pattern of complementation. In the of doingvariants, the most frequent preposition is upon as in (1a–b); meanwhile, in the to
do-variants, it is at as in (2a–b).
(1)

a. and they were euen vpon the point of opening his chamber doore
where he laye (1570)
b. whether it be likely, that hannibal was vpon point of flying out of Italie,
when the romans pressed him to fight (1617)(2)

a. johan launoy who was in the steple / seinge hym selfe at the poynt tobe brent / cryed to them without / raunsome raunsome: and oﬀred his
cote / whiche was full of florens to saue his lyfe: (1523)
b. i now desyre your graunt, that i may open Fyrst tale which nowe is at
poynt to be spoken (1534)

Second, variants with the are more frequent than those without it, regardless of thepattern of complementation (Fig. 1). Third, the to do-variants are frequent up to
the end of the 16th century, but in the 17th century, the of doing-variants gradually
become dominant (Fig. 1). These details of the rivalry have not been reported in theprevious literature.
The rise of upon the point of doing in the 17th century may be explained in termsof the emergence of complex prepositions, which became productive in Early Modern
English (Akimoto (1999), Hoﬀmann (2005)). As shown in Fig. 2, the overall frequencyof the word sequence upon the point of gradually rises throughout the Early Modern
English period and that of upon the point of doing, in tandem, begins to rise in
the early 17th century. The figure also shows the rise of two complex prepositions
with a structure similar to upon the point of, which, according to Hoﬀmann (2005),
were established 1500–1700. This data may suggest the possibility that as complex
prepositions gained more and more popularity, the to do-variants were taken over by

6

4.5
4

5

3.5

4

3
2.5

3

2

2

1.5
1

1

0.5

0

PREP point to do

PREP the point to do

on behalf ofon top of

PREP point of doing

PREP the point of doing

upon the point of (all tokens)upon the point of doing

Fig. 1 Frequency of PREP (the) point
to do and PREP (the) point of doing in
EEBO (per mil)

1690s

1680s

1670s

1660s

1650s

1640s

1630s

1620s

1610s

1600s

1590s

1580s

1570s

1560s

1550s

1540s

1530s

1520s

1510s

1500s

1490s

1480s

1470s

1690s

1680s

1670s

1660s

1650s

1640s

1630s

1620s

1610s

1600s

1590s

1580s

1570s

1560s

1550s

1540s

1530s

1520s

1510s

1500s

1490s

1480s

1470s

0

Fig. 2 Frequency of upon the point of,
on behalf of, and on top of in EEBO (permil)

upon the point of doing and finally abandoned. In other words, the decline of the to
do-variants was, at least in part, caused by change in the grammatical structure ofEnglish.

References
Akimoto, M. (1999). Collocations and idioms in Late Modern English. In L. J.
Brinton and M. Akimoto (Eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite
Predicates in the History of English, pp. 207–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davies, M. (2017). Early English Books Online. Part of the SAMUELS project.
Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/.
Hoﬀmann, S. (2005). Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A
Corpus-Based Study. London: Routledge.
Mossé, F. (1938). Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en
germanique. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
OED = The Oxford English Dictionary on CD-ROM. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Poutsma, H. (1926). A Grammar of Late Modern English, Part II, Section II. Groningen: P. Noordhoﬀ.

Correlations between proficiency and masked priming facilitation in
Japanese learners of English
Clay Williams, Akita International University
Measuring susceptibility to masked priming in word recognition tasks is a common methodof gleaning information about how subjects decode and recognize individual words.
Williams (2012) used a masked priming lexical decision paradigm to determine the efficacy
of an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program at an English-medium university innorth-eastern Japan. In a pre/post EAP coursework test design, he demonstrated that theintensive English instruction positively impacted students’ susceptibility to masked
phonological prime facilitation effects (i.e., in the pretest, they showed no such effects, but
after the EAP program, they did), thereby indicating improvements in the efficiency ofphonological decoding during word reading; however, the impact on semantic priming was
decidedly more muted, with no priming facilitation ever apparent. These effects wereinterpreted to validate the work being done by the EAP program, but called into question
why semantic priming effects seemed relatively unaffected by formal study. Such results,
however, leave open the question of whether or not these patterns are merely a result of
proficiency level, or if they are more broadly indicative of L1-influenced reading patterns
in Japanese learners of English. In order to test this, the current study recreated Williams’(2012) research methodology, conducting pre/post EAP coursework masked priming
lexical decision tests with 29 Japanese EAP students at an English-medium university inJapan. The subjects for this study reported TOEFL iBT scores 10-20% higher than that of
the learners in Williams’ original study. By cross-comparing the relative degree of priming
facilitation found between the two studies, it was possible to ascertain whether or not a
direct correlation between relative proficiency and priming facilitation could be measured.
The relative levels of both semantic and phonological priming facilitation showed nostatistically significant difference between groups, indicating that the slow development(vis-à-vis learners of English from other L1 backgrounds) of priming facilitation effects inphonological masked priming and the complete absence of facilitation in semantic masked
priming may be fixed characteristics of Japanese learners which stem from L1 literacy
interference.

Some Comparative Notes on
Ditransitive Verbs and Argument Structure
Hsiao-hung Iris Wu (iriswu@ntnu.edu.tw)
National Taiwan Normal University

This study investigates the syntactic encoding of ditransitive constructions from acomparative view; specifically, by examining the peculiar properties observed in Hakka
ditransitives, we explore the current theories on ditransitives and discuss the possible
implications on linguistic variation.
In generative grammar, the proper derivation of ditransitive constructions havelong been a subject of heated debate. Most of the controversies stem from the fact thatcomplements of ditransitive verbs in many languages display an ordering alternation
and apparently two distinct structures are allowed: the prepositional dative (1a) (hf.
Dative alternant) and the double object constructions (1b) (hf. DOC alternant).
(1) a. John gave an apple to Marry.
b. John gave Mary an apple.
In Hakka, interestingly, there is yet another order that is used productively. As
shown in (2), Hakka exhibits a ‘reversed’ order of DOC (hf. RDOC), in which the direct
object (i.e. the theme) immediately precedes the indirect object (i.e. the goal).
(2) a. gi bun
ngai
rhid gi bid(DOC)
he BUNme
one CL pen‘He gave me a pen.’b. gi bunrhid
gi bid ngai
(RDOC)
he BUNone
CL pen me
Lit. ‘He gave a pen me.’I argue that the RDOC should be analyzed as a Dative variant with a covert dative
marker based on its similarities to the regular Dative alternant: just as has been widely
observed with the Dative construction, in RDOC the goal argument is not limited toanimate entities as in (3) (Green 1974); it cannot be associated with a causative
meaning (4) (Oehrle 1976); the theme argument needs to c-command the goalargument (5) (Barss & Lasnik 1986).
(3) a. #John sent Boston a letter.
(DOC)
b. John sent a letter to Boston.
(Dative)c. apogi
qien
toibed(RDOC)
grandmasendmoney Taipei‘Grandma sent money to Taipei.’(4) a. Nixon’s life gave Mailer a book.
(DOC)
b. #Nixon’s life gave a book to Mailer.
(Dative)c. #lia-siicin m-voi bun
teuna-tung gi (RDOC)

this-thing
Neg-will BUN
headacheheIntended: ‘This matter won’t give him a headache.’(5) a. I gave every check to its owner.
b. ??I gave his check to every worker.
c. ngaigigin
bun
mui-zhag geu-e gigai
zhungin leIalready BUN
every-CL dog
itsowner Asp
‘I gave every dog to its owner.’d. *ngai gigin
bun
gigai
geu-e mui-gai zhungin leIalready BUN
hisdog
every-CL owner Asp
Given the Hakka RDOC is shown to involve the Dative structure, I further argue that it
favors the prepositional dative analysis (Marantz 1993, Bruening 2001), instead of thesmall clause analysis (Harley 2002) in that this representation enables us to capture
the rise of the RDOC ordering. Precisely, the verbs allow the RDOC order since they
introduce the structure like (6), in which the dative marker can be incorporated to thehigher verb that subcategorizes and theta-marks it (Baker 1988). Hence the apparent
missing dative marker gets properly licensed.
(6) Mary gave the bottle to the baby.

However, such incorporation (and hence the possibility of having a covert dative
marker) is not possible under a small-clause structure since, under this view, the verb
won’t behave as a proper governor for an empty category in the dative marker position.
This result has interesting implications on the typological variations and theongoing debate of the proper characterization of English ditransitive constructions. To
name one, it should be pointed out that the RDOC pattern can be observed in English
too, according to Yáñez-Bouza & Denison’s (2015) corpora study, as exemplified in (7).
(7) a. ?Jim gave £5 the driver.
b. Jim gave it him.
The pattern was more widespread in late Modern English, while there is clear dialectal
variation within present-day British English (Hughes et al. 2012, Gerwin 2013).

On the Historical Development of Floating Quantifiers in English
Xia Siyang
Nagoya University
In Present-day English (PE), subject-oriented floating quantifiers (SFQs) must occur in a position
preceding a main verb, as illustrated in (1a). Furthermore, object-oriented floating quantifiers(OFQs) are not allowed in ordinary transitive constructions, as illustrated in (1b).
(1) a.

My friends (all) rely (*all) on Mary.

b. * John saw the men all.
Adopting the adverbial analysis of FQs, Xia (2017) proposes a licensing condition on the
distribution of FQs in PE, according to which an FQ serving as a matching goal enters into a
Multiple Agree (MA) relation with a functional head as a probe and its host DP as another matchinggoal within the same phase domain. Based on this condition, the grammaticality of (1) is accounted
for as follows.
(2) a.

[TP My friendsi T [v*P [QP all] [v*P ti [v*’ rely [VP [FQ*all] [VP tV on Mary]]]]]]

b. * [TP Johni T [v*P ti [v*’ saw [VP the menj [V’ [QP all] [V’ tV tj]]]]]]In (2a), the FQ adjoined to v*P enters into an MA relation with the probe T and the host DP in[Spec-v*P], so it is allowed to appear in the position between the subject and the main verb. On theother hand, the FQ following the main verb is ungrammatical, because the FQ is in the domain of v*,
and hence it cannot establish an MA relation with T and the host DP without violating the Phaseimpenetrability Condition. In (2b), the FQ cannot enter into an MA relation with V as a probe,
because the FQ, which is adjoined to V’, is not in the search domain of V, violating the licensing
condition.
However, as we will see shortly, SFQs appeared in a position following a main verb and OFQs
were allowed in transitive constructions in early stages of English. This paper aims to account for thehistorical changes in the distribution of SFQs and OFQs within the framework of the minimalist
program, in terms of the loss of V-movement (SFQs) and object movement (OFQs) in the history ofEnglish.
The investigations based on the historical corpora listed below have revealed the historicalchanges in the distribution of SFQs and OFQs. In the case of SFQs, the V-FQ order was predominant
over the FQ-V order until the end of Middle English (ME). The V-FQ order began to decline in the
16th century and was lost in the 18th century. As for OFQs, they were productive until Early Middle
English (EME) but were lost in Late Middle English (LME).
First, it follows immediately from the availability of V-movement to T that the order was allowedin early English where an FQ appears after a main verb.
(3) a. ac ðurh gecynde anre godcundnysse hi wyrcað ealle æfre an weorc;

but through kind one godhead

they workallafter a work

‘but through the kind of one godhead they all work after a work’(coalex,Alex:30.1.363)

b. [CP [PP ðurh gecynde anre godcundnysse] C [TP hii [T’ wyrcað [v*P [QP ealle] [v*P ti [v*’ tV[VP tV æfre an weorc]]]]]]]In (3b), the FQ successfully enters into an MA relation with the probe T and the host DP in[Spec-v*P], just as in PE. Since early English had V-movement to T unlike PE, the main verb moves
to T past the FQ, deriving the V-FQ order. According to Haeberli and Ihsane (2016), the loss of
V-movement starts in the middle of the 15th century and was completed during the 18th century. Thus,
the demise of the V-FQ order in the 18th century is accounted for as a direct consequence of the lossof V-movement.
Second, the possibility of OFQs from OE to EME seems to be related to the fact that object
movement, like that observed in other modern Germanic languages than PE, was available in these
periods. According to Tanaka (2017), object movement, which was allowed until the 14th century,
targets the specifier of Top in the left periphery of v*P.

Then, the structure of (4a) involving an

OFQ will be as in (4b).
(4) a. Þa scufon þa hæþenan þa halgan into þam mere, to middes þam ise ealle unscrydde
then shoved the heathens the saints into the mere, to middle the ice

all unclothed‘Then the heathens shoved all the saints into the mere, into the middle of the ice, unclothed’(coaelive, ÆLS[Forty_Soldiers]:145.2568)
b. [CP Þa [C’ scufon [TP þa hæþenani [T’ T [TopP þa halganj [Top’ Top [PP into þam mere][PP to middes þam ise][v*P tj [v*P [QP ealle] [v*P ti [v*’ tV [VP tV tj [PartP unscrydde]]]]]]]]]]]]In (4b), the FQ successfully enters into an MA relation with the probe Top and the host DP moved to[Spec-v*P]. Object movement was lost in the 14th century, which led to the loss of OFQs in LME
because V became the only probe entering into an Agree relation with objects thereafter.
References: Haeberli, Eric and Ihsane, Tabea (2016) “Revisiting the Loss of Verb Movement in the
History of English,” Natural Language and Linguist Theory 34, 497-542. / Tanaka, Tomoyuki (2017)“Object Movement and Left Periphery in the History of English,” JELS 34, 193-199. / Xia Siyang(2017) “A Syntactic Analysis of Floating Quantifiers in English,” IVY 50, 20-51.
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) The PennParsed Corpus of Modern British English / Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren 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.

Expressiveness from a Bayesian perspective
Akitaka Yamada, Georgetown University
Introduction. Real number intervals have been argued to be an appropriate denotation for
expressive meanings (Potts 2007; McCready 2014; cf. Potts and Kawahara 2004). In opposition
to their INTERVAL-UPDATE ALGORITHM, this study incorporates Bayesian insights and proposesa STATISTICAL-LEARNING ALGORITHM. What is stored in the structured discourse context are
the parameter values of a statistical model (not, an interval) that reflect our belief of the strengthof expressiveness and is subject to a dynamic change. This view solves two problems of theprevious studies; the issues of (i) the ignorant state and (ii) the record of the expressiveness.
Previous analyses. Taking Thai honorification as his principal example, McCready (2014)
develops an analysis that the appropriateness of expressiveness is determined by thecompatibility of (i) an interval proposed by the sentence (a subinterval of [0,1]) and (ii) aninterval given by the context (also a subinterval of [0,1]); the degree of expressiveness isreflected in the magnitude of the interval; e.g., High ⊑[.6, 1), Mid ⊆ [.3, .7], Low ⊑[0, .4]. If
there is an overlap, the sentence is judged as appropriate; if not, the use of expressive
construction serves as a proposal to modify the context to a new one, so the construction would
be appropriate. For example, suppose the given context is [.9, 1.0] and (a) the sentence gives[.0, .1]. Since there is no overlap between the two, the use of the sentence is consideredinappropriate (e.g., saying a casual word in a very formal setting) and the fact that one uses thesentence with [.0, .1] updates the context interval; he calculates the averages [(.9+.0)/2, (1+.1)/2]= [.4, .45]. But (b) if the sentence gives [.5, .95], the context value does not change.
Problems. Although the basic idea that the expressive construction dynamically updates the
structured discourse context seems on the right track, his implementation has two problems. The
first problem concerns the ignorant state. When one has a context interval of [.0, 1.0], context
changes will no longer take place, because any interval is compatible with this range. This iscontrary to our intuition. Suppose you are invited to a party but you have no prior knowledge on
the formality. It may be casual but it may be formal. The context interval of [.0, 1.0] depicts sucha situation. But as the party goes, you will soon realize the appropriate degree of formality andtry to fit your speech level to an appropriate range; the context interval does change even after
the ignorant state. The second problem is about the record of the expressiveness in the discourse.
Under his theory, once the context interval is updated at the time of ti, the information on what
expressiveness had been maintained before ti becomes inaccessible. This makes it difficult for us
to capture the distinction between global shift and the local shift of formality: people locallychange the speech level for a particular purpose. For example, showing a conversation between amother and a young daughter in Korean, Portner et al. (in manuscript) point out that theunderlined utterance in (1) is temporarily marked with a formal speech style despite the fact thatthe person X had been using a casual style until her previous line. In this case, a temporary
excitement or a praise to her daughter affects her style. Researchers have discussed that this kindof local shift is triggered by several factors and, therefore, not uncommon; e.g., anger, power
management (Brown 2015), face-threat (Brown 2011a,b), sarcasm (Brown 2013). Notice that it
is unlikely that the mother globally shifts the speech level; e.g., soon, she should go back to her
original tone. This suggests that the participants somehow know the record of use of theexpressiveness in the context. Since McCready’s updating algorithm is not designed toremember the history of previously established norm, we cannot differentiate (i) the case where
we temporarily arrived at a particular interval from (ii) the case where the participants keep using
the new level for the rest of their conversation.
(1) X (mother): ‘Inho, will you find mom’s book for me?’ Y (daughter): ‘Yes. (. . . ) Mom,found it! Inho found it!’ X: ‘Wow! Inho did really well!’ (Portner et al. manuscript)
Formal Proposal. To overcome the concerns, this paper proposes a different mode of update
algorithm with the following assumptions adopted from Bayesian statistics. For illustration sake,let us consider honorifics for our primary example. Let 𝕪𝕪 = (𝑦𝑦1 , … , 𝑦𝑦𝑛𝑛 )𝑇𝑇 be outcomes in the
discourse (𝑦𝑦𝑛𝑛 ∈ {0,1}), where 1/0 respectively means the presence/absence of the honorificmarker. Most naively, we can assume that 𝕪𝕪 is i.i.d. generated from a Binom(n, 𝜃𝜃) (n.b., we canof course propose a more complicated model). Here, 𝜃𝜃 is a random variable from, e.g., aBeta(𝛼𝛼1 , 𝛼𝛼2 ) and represents our subjective belief of the strength of the honorification in the
discourse. Due to its conjugacy, the nature of the update is from Beta(α1 , α2 ) to Beta(α1 +∑ 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 , α2 + 𝑛𝑛 − ∑ 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 ). The change in expressiveness is understood as a dynamic Bayesian update.
Explanation. How does this proposal account for the problems above? First, even though westart with a non-informative prior, we will get a skewed posterior; i.e., we will be more and more
confident in an appropriate range for θ, as the conversation goes (= as we have more
observations) because the context update occurs, even when the utterance is compatible with thecontext. For example, Fig. 1(a) shows the density curve for the non-informative uniform
distribution (i.e., α1 = α2 =1). Once we observe an utterance with, for example, an honorificmarker, our belief on the expressiveness (= θ) changes, reflected by the posterior density given in
Fig. 1(b) (i.e., α1 = 1 + 1 = 2, α2 =1), in which we vaguely assume that it is a formal situation.
Thus, this model captures the transition from ignorant state to non-ignorant state. Second, theparameters α1 , α2 keep track on the history of the expressiveness. Fig. 1(a), Beta (1,1) shifts to
Fig. 1(b), Beta(1+1,1), by observing one honorific marker in the discourse and Fig. 2(a), Beta
(99,2), also changes to Fig. 2(b), Beta (99+1, 2) by observing one utterance without an honorificmarker. But, unlike in Fig 1(b), the new instance does not change your confidence too much as
shown in Fig. 2(b); i.e., you still think you are still in a formal setting, because you have alreadyencountered many more honorific markers in advance (you already have a large value for α1 ).
This is because the parameters of Beta reflect the previous history of expressiveness.

0.5

10

Fig. 1(a)Fig. 1(b)Fig. 2(a)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.0

θ

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0

θ

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0

θ

θ

1.0

0.5

15
10
5
0

0.8

20

0.6

1.0

0.4

1.0

25
20

0.2

30

0.0

1.5

1.0

1.5

Fig. 2(b)Brown, L. (2011a) Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning. John
Benjamins. Brown, L. (2011b) Korean honorifics and ‘revealed’, ‘ignored’ and ‘suppressed’
aspects of Korean culture and politeness. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Kádár, D. (eds.), Politenessacross Cultures. Brown, L. (2013) ‘‘Mind your own esteemed business’’: Sarcastic honorifics
use and impoliteness in Korean TV dramas. J. Polit. Res. 9 (2). Brown, L. (2015) Revisiting‘‘polite’’ --yo and ‘‘deferential’’ --supnita speech style shifting in Korean from the viewpoint ofindexicality. Journal of Pragmatics. McCready, E. (2014). A semantics for honoriﬁcation withreference to Thai. In 28th paciﬁc asia conference on language, information and computation.
Potts, C., & Kawahara, S. (2004). Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions.
Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 14. Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension.
Theoretical Linguistics 33. Portner, P., Pak, M., & Zanuttini, R. (manuscript) The addressee atthe syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from politeness and speech style.

Break a Branch off a Tree: An Account Based on Further Specification
Masaki Yasuhara
Ibaraki University
Rappaport and Levin (2010) observe that verbs can be classified into manner and result verbs.
Manner verbs such as scrub can take a non-subcategorized object when it is accompanied by a secondary
predicate, as in (1).
(1) a.
b.

Cinderella scrubbed her knees sore.
Cinderella scrubbed the dirt off the table.
(Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012))

Result verbs such as explode, on the other hand, do not permit a non-subcategorized object even if it
co-occurs with a secondary predicate, as in (2).
(2) a.*b.*

The bomb exploded the watermelons into the air.
The ice melted the floor clean.
(Rappaport and Levin (2001))

Result verbs such as break, tear, rip, and split, however, are problematic to this generalization because it cantake a non-subcategorized object when it is followed by a secondary predicate such as off the tree, as in (3).
(3) a.

John broke the branch off the tree.
(Meaning: The branch came off the tree.)b.

# John broke the branch.
(Unacceptable in the meaning that “the branch came off something.”)

In (3a), the object NP the branch is not thematically selected by the verb but by off the tree.
Resultative constructions based on manner verbs such as (1) are argued to include a small clause(SC) structure (e.g., Hoekstra (1988)). The directional phrase or result phrase serves as a secondary
predicate and licenses the non-subcategorized object.
(4) [vP Cinderella v [VP scrub [SC her knees sore ]]]The sentence in (1a) includes two events: the event of Cinderella scrubbing something (i.e., a causing event)and that of her knees becoming sore (i.e., a result event), the latter of which is introduced by a small clause.
In this way, manner verbs allow an extra event to be added. The unacceptability of the resultative
constructions in (2) can be explained by assuming that result verbs cannot be combined with an extra event
because they already have a maximally complex event structure (i.e., a causing event and a result event)(Rappaport and Levin (1998)).
The purpose of this paper is to show that there is a small clause that does not add an extra event.
This type of small clause denotes an event that is coextensive with that of the verb in question, so it will becalled a “coextensive small clause” hereafter. This is exemplified by (5a).
(5) a.

John hit the stone against the wall.
(Meaning: John held the stone and hit the wall with it.)b.

# John hit the stone.

(Unacceptable in the meaning that “John held the stone and hit something with it.”)In (5a), the object NP the stone is not subcategorized by the verb but is licensed by the directional phrase
against the wall. I assume that the sentence in (5a) includes the following small clause structure.
(6) [vP John v [VP hit [SC the stone against the wall ]]]Importantly, the event denoted by the small clause is coextensive with (i.e., further specifies) that of the verb.
The lexical meaning of the verb hit is to bring an object into contact with another, and the small clausedesignates that the stone comes into contact with the wall. Thus, the small clause adds no extra event to theevent of hitting in (5a).
A coextensive small clause is compatible with result verbs because it adds no extra event. One of
the lexical meanings of result verbs such as break is a physical separation of an object, so it inherently
implies motion. When an object breaks apart, for example, the pieces of the object move apart as well.
Break is compatible with a non-subcategorized object followed by a secondary predicate when they denotean event that further specifies the event of a physical separation denoted by the verb, like (3a). The structureof this sentence is (7).
(7) [vP John v [VP break [SC the branch off the tree ]]]In (2), on the other hand, the event denoted by the object NP and the secondary predicate adds an extra eventto the maximally complex event structure of the result verbs, so these sentences are unacceptable.
The analysis presented in this study is compatible with the Unique Path Constraint (Goldberg(1991)). This constraint prohibits the co-occurrence of a change of state expression and a change of location
expression in a single clause when they denote distinct events, as illustrated by (8).
(8) * Sam kicked Bill black and blue out of the room.

(Goldberg (1991: 368))

Sentence (3a) also contains a change of state expression (i.e., break) and a change of location expression(i.e., off the tree) but is acceptable because the event expressed by the small clause that is headed by off thetree further specifies the event denoted by the verb break, and hence no violation of this constraint occurs.
References
Beavers, J. and A. Koontz-Garboden (2012) “Manner and result in the roots of verbal meaning,” Linguistic
Inquiry 43(3): 331–69.
Goldberg, A. (1991) “It can't go up the chimney down: Paths and the English resultative,” BLS 17, 368−78.
Hoekstra, T. (1988) “Small clause results,” Lingua 74, 101−39.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (1998) “Building verb meanings,” in M. Butt and W. Geuder (Eds.), The
Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 97–
134.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (2001) “An event structure account of English resultatives,” Language77, 766−797.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (2010) “Reflections on manner/result complementarity,” in E. Doron, M.
Rappaport Hovav, and I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 21−38.

A Split Analysis of Categorization
Changguk Yim (Chung-Ang University)
Categorization is associated with two loci: categorizers and functional heads ccommanding them. As for verbalization, in particular, the categorial feature for them [−N,+V] is split into distinct heads: The loci of verbalization are the categorizer v with [+V] andVoice with [–N].
Distributed Morphology (DM) proposes the Categorization Assumption in (1), whereby
Roots must merge with category-defining functional heads (or categorizers) such as v, n, anda, to acquire a category. On this view, categorizers are the only locus that is responsible forcategorization. A split analysis of categorization is offered in which, implementing thecategorial feature system in (2) into DM, it is not the case that categorizers alone are responsible
for categorization. Rather, categorization is involved with two loci: categorizers and additional
functional heads c-commanding them.
In the DM literature, there is little work that has explored the features of categorizers relative
to the features of other functional morphemes. Following the standard assumption that just as
morphemes are sets of features, so categories are defined featurally, the categorial featuresystem in (2) is assumed to be involved with categorization. Under the standard DM, it should
be said that those categorial features are only housed on categorizers: For example, it is theverbalizer v alone that bears [−N, +V]. Rather, it is argued in this analysis that those verbal
categorial features are split onto the verbalizer v with [+V] and the Voice head with [−N].
Given that in English, only the [−N] categories are Case-assigners, the noun and adjectivein (3) employ of-insertion since they lack [−N], to salvage the rumor and her son, which would
otherwise violate the Case Filter (Chomsky 1981, 1995). In contrast, the same rescue does nottake place in the nominal and adjectival ECM constructions in (4). Given this sharp contrast in
the availability of of-insertion, Chomsky proposes the Inherent Case assignment in (5) whereby
the sentences in (4) are ruled out because the noun and adjective do not θ-mark the ECM-ed
NPs, John and Bill, so that of-insertion is unavailable. However, this account incorrectlypredicts the possibility of of-insertion in the English passive, as in (6), for the passive participle
does θ-mark its complement NP, as in the case of the NP and AP in (3). Chomsky thus argues
that while nouns and adjectives have the categorial feature bundles ([+N, +/−V]) in (2a,c),passive participles get “neutralized” in the sense that they bear only [+V], with no marking for[N]. As a consequence, there emerges a three-way contrast here in (7).
Recall that it is usually assumed in DM that what bears the categorial feature for verbs ([−N,+V]) is the verbalizer v alone in (8a). But this poses empirical difficulties with “neutralization”
of passive participles. In passive verbal structure (8b), if [−N, +V] were in v alone, structural
Case should be available in the passive, contrary to fact, as in (6). This indicates that v mustnot bear [−N] as in (8c). But notice that past/perfect participles can assign structural Case in(9). This suggests that the feature at stake resides in VoiceACTIVE in (10a). This amounts to sayingthat the [−N] feature responsible for Case is associated with VoiceACTIVE responsible for an
external theta-role (Burzio’s Generalization). In the passive, in contrast, VoicePASS should lack[−N] because passive participles are neutralized in (6, 10b). Under the present split analysis,
verbalization involves two loci; v[+V] and VoiceACTIVE[−N].
A significant consequence of the current analysis is that it nicely captures the sharp contrast
between deverbal nominalization (11a) and verbal gerunds (11b). Unlike verbal gerunds in(11b,12b), in deverbal nominalization (11a,12a), non-agentive as well as agentive possessives
are possible. On the assumption that -ize and -ation diagnose the presence of the categorizers
v and n, respectively, (11,12) can be accounted for by the structure shown in (13): In (13b),
Voice[−N] licenses structural Case to the Earth, unlike in (13a) in which of-insertion must takeplace. In addition, due to SpecVoice in (13b), verbal gerunds only license agentive possessives,

unlike in (13a) SpecDP is taken to be allowed for various interpretations other than agentives.
Also entertained is the possibility to extend the split analysis put forth here to other lexical
categories such as nouns, adjectives, and prepositions. As was already supposed for the analysis
of deverbal nominalization and verbal gerunds, nominalization is associated with D and n, eachof which bears [−V] and [+N], respectively. As for adjectives, in (14b), on the assumption that
Deg is the locus for three degree forms of adjectives; positives, comparatives, and superlatives(see von Stechow 2008, Matushansky 2013), this head bears [+N] and a [+V]. As for
prepostions, Sveninous (2007) proposes the “Split-P hypothesis” in which p, analogous to
Voice for verbalization, introduces external arguments (“Figure”) and P, analogous to thecategorizer v, takes internal arguments (“Ground”). In (14c), Fig and p bear [−N] and [ −V],
respectively.
To sum up, it is not categorizers alone that participate in categorization. Rather,categorization is involved with additional functional morphemes as well as categorizers.
One of the most important theoretical contribution the current analysis makes is that it explores
the feature bundles of categorizers, being a less-studied domain, relative to other wellstudied functional domains such as Tense for verbs and Number/Gender for nouns.
(1) Roots are acategorial. They cannot appear without being categorized. They are categorizedby combining with category-defining functional heads (Embick & Marantz 2008:6).
(2) a. [+N, −V] = N
b. [−N, +V] = V
c. [+N, +V] = A
d. [−N, −V] = P(3) a. John’s belief of the rumor
b. Mary is proud of her son.
(4) a. *my proof [of John to be here]b. *I am proud [of Bill to be here](5) Inherent Case is assigned by α to NP only if α θ-marks NP. (Chomsky 1995:104)(6) *it/there was built of the snowman(7) a. V = [−N, +V]
b. passive participle = [+V]
c. N, A = [+N, +/−V](8) a. [vP [v[−N, +V] √]]b. *[vP [PartP -en [v[−N, +V] √]]]
c. [vP [PartP -en [v[+V] √]]]
(9) Elsa and Anna had built themACC.
(10) a. [VoiceP VoiceACTIVE[−N] [vP [PartP -en [v[+V] √]]]] b. [VoiceP VoicePASS[−N] [vP [PartP -en [v[+V] √]]]](11) a. Martians’ colonization *(of) the Earthb. Martians’ colonizing (*of) the Earth(12) a. last year’s mobilization of the troops
b. *last year’s colonizing the Earth(13) a. [DP Martians’ [D[−V] [nP n[+N] -ation [vP v[+V] -ize [√COLON [the Earth]]]]]]
b. [DP Martians’1 [D[−V] [nP n[+N] -ing [VoiceP t1 [Voice[−N] [vP v[+V] -ize [√COLON [the Earth]]]]]]]](14) a. [DP [D[−V] [nP n[+N] √]] b. [DegP Deg[+N] [aP a[+V] √]] c. [FigP Fig[−N] [pP p[−V] √]]References
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39:1-53.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the piece of inflection. In
The view from building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser, 111-176. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Marantz, Alex. 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacyof your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4,
Alexis Dimitriadis, Hikyoung Lee, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander
Williams, 201-225.
Matushansky, Ora. 2013. On the derivation of synthetic comparatives and superlatives inEnglish. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, ed. by Ora
Matushansky & Alec Marantz, 59-78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Svenonius, Peter. 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Argument
Structure, ed. by Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Giorgos Spathas, 63-103.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

[Guest speaker from The English Linguistic Society of Korea (ELSOK)]

Adnominal Adjectives and Definiteness Marking in Old English
Hee-Cheol Yoon (Duksung Women’s University)

1. Double Inflectional Paradigms for Old English (OE) Adjectives:(a) Weak Adjectives after a Demonstrative or a Possessive(b) Strong Adjectives Elsewhere(1) a. mid þære yfelan sceonesse beswac Ϸone ærestan wifmon
with the evil suggestion deceived the first woman(BlHom 5:1)

b. & ic hit mid yfelre bysene inc forgylde
and I it with evil example to-you-two recompense(BlHom 189:25-6)

2. Determinerless Weak Adjectives (DWA): Poetry and Vocatives in Prose(2) a. syððan Beowulfe brade rice on hand gehwearf
afterwards to-Beowulf broad kingdom onto hand passed (Beo 2207-8a)b. goda lareow eall ðis ic geheold of minre geoguðe
good master all this I kept from my youth(OGsp Mark 10:20)

3. Properties of DWA(a) Marking Definiteness without Accompanying a Definite Determiner(b) Representing Syntactic Archaism in OE Poetry: Fulk (2007), Yoon (2014a)(c) Vocatives Less Prone to Change due to Exgrammaticality: Yoon (2015)

4. Strong Adjectives as a Default Adjectival Marker(a) Paradigms from Those of PIE Demonstratives and Relative Pronouns(b) Strong Adjective Endings for Inflected Possessives(3) we scyolon ure yfelnysse behreowsian mid urum fif andgitum

we must our evilness repent with our five senses(ÆCHI 9:67-8)(c) Confusion in Adjective Paradigms: Mitchell (1985)(4) he underfehð us into ecere reste fram ðisum andweardum geswince
he accepts us into eternal rest from this present toil(ÆCHII 5:215-6)

5. Weak Adjectives as a Definiteness Marker(a) Weak Adjectives: Germanic Innovation Based on N-Stem Nouns(b) Cognate with the PIE Individualizing Particle *-Ne: Probable Descent from a
Definite Article: (Ringe 2006)

6. Syntax of Weak Adjectives(a) DWA: a Clitic (X0) Undergoing Encliticization onto the Adj Head
(5) [AdjP Adjective [nP [n’ Weak Adjective Inflection [NP NP ]]]](b) Determiner + Weak Adjective, þu/ge + Weak Adjective: Bleaching ofDefiniteness in Weak Adjectives and Introduction of Alternative Markers(6) [DP Determiner/þu/ge [AdjP Weak Adjective [NP NP ]]](7) ‘Ge Galileiscan weras,’ cwædon hie, ‘hwæt stondaþ ge her’
you Galilean men said they what stand you here

(BlHom 123:20-1)(c) Definiteness Marking in OE after Bleaching of Weak Adjectives(8) a. demonstrative > definite article > case/non-genericb. specifier (XP) > head (X0) > affix(van Gelderen 2007)(9) Possessive-Demonstrative Construction: a Precursor of the Emergence ofa Definite Article (Yoon 2014b)…… 7 swetnesse heora þære heofonlican lare
and sweetness (of) their that heavenly doctrine(Bede 62:1-2)