A Selective History of the Scientific Evolution and Importance of Simplest Merge
Samuel D. Epstein
University of Michigan

Hisatsugu Kitahara
T. Daniel Seely
Keio University Eastern Michigan University

This paper briefly and selectively explores the theory of human phrase structure
generation and representation from Chomsky's (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax(Aspects) to Chomsky's (2013) “Problems of Projection” (POP). Generally, our goal is toreveal the continuity of Chomsky’s always central goal: explanation via simplification. Our
primary focus concerns labeling, projection, and the evolution of Simplest Merge in the quest
for third factor reduction of Universal Grammar (UG).
Our central more specific point is that Merge, in its simplest form, Merge (X, Y) !
{X, Y}, as recently developed in POP, eliminates both the mother node (i.e. projection) ofstandard Phrase Structure (PS) rules and representations, as well as the empty symbol delta(i.e. Δ) postulated in Aspects, (and in Chomsky's (1993) “A Minimalist Program for
Linguistic Theory” as a symbol generated internal to the application of Generalized
Transformation). As a result, the POP system attains far greater depth of explanation, while,as Chomsky notes, concomitantly minimizing UG, thereby reducing the set of currently (andperhaps perennially) scientifically unanswerable questions regarding the evolution of UG.
To the best of our knowledge, Collins (2002) was the first within the generative
tradition to propose that labels be eliminated from the representation of syntactic objects andthus that the output of Merge (X, Y) is {X, Y} and not {Z, {X, Y}} (see Chomsky (1995)
who considers, but ultimately rejects the elimination of labels; see also Seely (2006) who
argues that Collinsonian label absence is the automatic consequence of reducing Merge to its
simplest form, thereby eliminating Merge’s projection phase, which in turns eliminates
syntactically represented labels). Now notice, under the POP system, Merge, formulated in
the simplest form, does not encode a label. There is no labeled categorial node appearing“above” X and Y present in the proposed NS mental representation. The categorial status of
the set {X, Y} is representationally unidentified. That is, projection (or labeling) is no longer
stipulated in the system as a defining property of Merge. Eliminating linear order (until SM isreached) we create a set. The categorial status of this set is identified by minimal search, andat CI it then satisfies Full Interpretation (a bare output condition); a “higher node” or the“label” of an object formed by Merge is not represented in NS but is identified/computed byapplication of third factor minimal search — an (ideal) expectation under SMT.
This labeling-as-minimal-search analysis has many consequences (beyond thosepresented in POP itself), some of which are just beginning to be explored. Epstein, Kitahara,
and Seely (2014), for example, argue that POP’s account of obligatory exit from intermediate
positions in A’-movement, as in *you think [CP who [John likes ] (cf. who do you think John
likes), where the embedded CP fails to be labeled at CI if who remains there, carries over to
A-movement as well. They argue, for A-movement, as in *seems [TP a man [to like John]](cf. a man seems to like John), the embedded TP fails to be labeled at CI if a man remains
there. A host of technical mechanisms that have been proposed over the years to account forsuch A- and A'-movement ‘obligatory departure’ phenomena are eliminated in favor of thesingle, simple labeling analysis. Chomsky (2014) extends the labeling-as-minimal-searchanalysis to the unification of the EPP and the ECP, reducing both to independently motivatedproperties of (third factor) labeling.
The 50 years since Aspects have brought many technical changes, but also everdeeper scientific insight into the human language faculty. Following Einstein’s dictum that“…nature [of which the human language faculty is a part, SDE, HK, TDS] is the realizationof the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas.” the postulation of Simplest Merge, after 60
years of generative syntactic research is of monumental importance. What in Aspects were
two separate subsystems: (i) construction specific, category specific, language(s) specific and
UG specific PS rules, generating word order, constituency and projection and (ii)Transformations, accounting for ‘displacement,’ have now been reduced to a single,(maximally) simple, and necessary operation, namely, Merge (X, Y) ! {X, Y}. This
represents extraordinary progress in that the entire PS and Transformational components
have been reduced to a single simple, linguistically unconstrained operation, rendering
explanation of the radically simplified theory of UG, conceivable and perhaps tractable sothat the evolutionary ‘great leap forward’ of humans roughly 75,000 years ago, might one
day be explained. And what was (while perhaps descriptively adequate) syntax-internal (andultimately stipulative) constraints on rule application or (non-explanatory) level-orderedfilters, have now been arguably reduced in many cases to what are, by hypothesis, third
factor laws of nature.
There have been many important discoveries since Aspects, and the current research
program seems to us more intriguing and exciting than ever, particularly for those who areinterested in scientific explanation via the (scientifically standard) postulation of abstract,
formal and “simplest conceivable” theories.
Selected References
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. "A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory," The View from
Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth
Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. [Reprinted in The
Minimalist Program, Noam Chomsky, 1995, 167-217, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2014. Problems of projection: Extensions. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Collins, Chris. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist
Program, ed. by Samuel D. Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 42-64, Blackwell, Oxford.
Einstein, Albert. 1934. "On the Method of Theoretical Physics," delivered at Oxford, June 10,
1933. In Ideas and Opinions, NY, Bonanza Books (1954, 274).
Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T. Daniel Seely. 2014. "Labeling by Minimal
Search – Implications for Successive Cyclic A-movement," Linguistic Inquiry 45,
463-481.
Seely, T. Daniel. 2006. Merge, derivational c-command, and subcategorization in a label-freesyntax. In Minimalist Essays, ed. by Cedric Boeckx, 182-217, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.

	
  

2

A Syntactic Analysis of Mental Property Adjectives and Its Implication for Pedagogical Grammar
Takahiro Honda
Kobe Women's University
Based on Stowell’s (1991) analysis, this paper discusses the syntax of a class of adjectival predicates
involving the attribution of mental properties (MPs) such as (1), and then points out a problem in thecurrent classroom instruction:(1)a. It was kind of John to help Mary.
b. John was kind to help Mary.
c. To help Mary was kind of John.

Stowell proposes a syntactic structure for (1), as in (2), where the MP adjective selects John as asentient argument, and then the complex adjective kind (of) John selects the infinitive as an event
argument.
(2)[CP C [TP T … [AP [A′ kindi [AP (of) Johnj ti]] [Event PROj to help Mary]]]]He claims that the sentient argument can be raised to the subject position because an infinitive does notneed to be Case-marked, hence the grammaticality of (1b).

On the other hand, if the sentient argument

is assigned genitive Case by the MP adjective, the event argument is raised to the subject position, as in(1c). Moreover, he assumes that (1a) is derived by means of extraposition.
Under Minimalism (Chomsky (2001 et seq.)), however, it is unclear why the event argument canagree with T and be raised to SPEC-T in (1c) if infinitives really do not require Case-marking.
In order to explain all the derivations in (1), Honda (to appear) proposes that the event argument in (2)can be either a CP or a DP where a phonetically null D selects a CP. In addition, I assume that CPs do
not have any Case features or φ-features and thus cannot agree with T. Therefore, when the event
argument is a CP, the matrix T can agree with the sentient argument, and (1b) is derived. This isbecause the event argument, which has no features to agree with T, does not intervene between the matrix
T and the sentient argument. On the other hand, if the event argument is a DP, it agrees with the matrix
T, since it is closer to the T than the sentient argument, which is licensed by the of-insertion rule, and (1c)is derived. (1a) is derived if not the DP but the D, which heads the event argument clause, agrees withthe matrix T.

Only the D is extracted and raised to SPEC-T in (1a).

I assume here that the expletive itis the overt realization of a D-feature as the expletive there is (see Sabel (2000)).
As seen above, infinitives as well as sentient arguments can be the arguments of MP adjectives inEnglish.
(3)

In contrast, Japanese MP adjectives cannot select event arguments, as in (3).
?* [(Taroo-ga)

Hanako-otasukeru no]-ga[(Taro-Nom) Hanako-Acc help
‘It was kind (of Taro) to help Hanako.’Nominalizer]-Nom

yasasikat-ta.
kind-Past

When we observe school grammar books in Japan, however, most of them do not mention this contrast.
They only focus on the relation between MP adjectives and their sentient arguments and point out that theadjective in (1) is used to describe the properties of the human argument whereas the adjective in (4) is
not.
(4)

It was important for John to help Mary.

Additionally, sentences like (1c), which clearly show the argumenthood of the infinitive, are rarely
introduced.
Since most Japanese learners of English have little chance to develop their awareness of theidiosyncrasy of MP adjectives in English in the current classroom instruction, there is a strong possibility
that they believe that English MP adjectives show exactly the same syntactic behavior as Japanese onesdo.

Thus, I assume that the students are unlikely to realize the relation between MP adjectives and theirevent arguments, which prevents them from acquiring the syntax of MP adjective sentences correctly.
This assumption is partly validated by the fact that we can find no examples like (1) in the JEFLL corpus(Tono (2007)), which is a collection of more than 10,000 Japanese secondary school students’ English
compositions, while a considerable number of sentences like (4) appear in the corpus. We can also findsentences like (5) in the corpus, which indicates that the students know the adjectives per se.
(5)

John was kind.

Therefore, I claim that it is necessary to show the students ungrammatical sentences like (3) and makethem realize that the argument structures of MP adjectives are different between English and Japanese sothat they can use sentences like (1) in addition to sentences like (5).

Furthermore, the syntactic analysis

here can give a more detailed explanation of the difference between (1) and (4) than the current
pedagogical grammar can.
References
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael
Kenstowicz, 1–52, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Honda, Takahiro (to appear) “Kyoji It to That Setsu ni tsuite (On the Expletive It and That-Clauses),”
Gengo no Shinso (The Deep/True Phase of Language: Essays Presented to Professor Yukio Oba on
the Occasion of His Retirement form Osaka University), ed. by Sadayuki Okada, Eihosha, Tokyo.
Sabel, Joachim (2000) “Expletives as Features,” WCCFL 19, 411–424.
Stowell, Timothy (1991) “The Alignment of Arguments in Adjective Phrases,” Perspectives on Phrase
Structure: Heads and Licensing, Syntax and Semantics 25, ed. by Suzan D. Rothstein, 105–135,
Academic Press, San Diego.
Tono, Yukio (2007) Nihonjin Chukosei Ichiman nin no Eigo Corpus “JEFLL Corpus” (10,000 Japanese
Junior and Senior High School Students’ English Corpus “The JEFLL Corpus”), Shogakukan,
Tokyo.

A Syntactic Analysis of That-Relative Clauses
Takashi Ikeda
Aichi Prefectural University
Graduate School of International Cultural Studies
This presentation will show that the antecedent of that-relative clauses moves
to a specific area, i.e. Spec of FocusP in Rizzi's (1997) split-CP sysytem. The current
analysis assumes that the antecedent of a that-relative clause moves up to Spec of CP
from the base-generated position within the relative clause, which is called Promotion
Analysis (Aoun and Li (2003)). However, by specifying the landing position of theantecedent in split-CP, my proposal makes it possible to explain why certain antecedentallow that-relatives only.
Aoun and Li (2003:97) represent the promotion analysis as follows:(1) [DP D [CP NP/DPi[C [IP…ti…]]]]
In order to support this proposal, Aoun and Li (2003:98) present empirical evidence.
They are based on the distribution of idiom chunks and binding as follows:(2) a. The careful track {that/φ/*which} she’s keeping of her expenses pleases me.
b. The headway {that/φ/*which}Mel made was impressive.
c. The portrait of himselfi {that/φ/*which} Johni painted is extremely flattering.
(2a) originally contains an idiom “keep track of” and (2b) “make headway”. Therefore,
idioms are generated inside the relative clauses. After that, their nouns are moved to thesurface positions. (2c) shows that portrait of himself was moved from inside its relative
clause because an anaphor himself has to be bound by its antecedent John. Regarding
the antecedent of a wh-relative clause, it is base-generated outside the relative clause.
Hence, the derivation of idiom chunk and the binding condition cannot be sufficed.
In a promotion analysis, the position of an antecedent is expected to occupy the
spec of CP. According to Rizzi (1997) and Radford (2004), CP has more than one
projection as follows:(3) a.
b.

He had seen something truly evil－prisoners being ritually raped, tortured andmutilated. He prayed that atrocities like those, never again would he witness.
[ForceP that [TopP atrocities like those [Top φ] [FocP never again] [Focus would] [TP hewould never again witness atrocities like those]]]]Radford (2004: 326)
The italicized expression that indicates the declarative Force, atrocities like those
occupies the initial position of the sentence to mark it as Topic, and a preposed negative
expression never again is in the spec of FocusP.
Radford (2004) argues that the ungrammaticality of main clause questions suchas (5) can be accounted for, employing two claims from Rizzi (1997) that a preposedinterrogative wh-expression “ end up in Spec of Foc in main questions” and “There canbe … only one structural Focus position per clause”. Examine the following sentences:(5) a. *What never again will you do?
b.

*What will never again you do?

Radford (2004: 329)
1

If Radford's and Rizzi’s claims are correct, the ungrammaticality of (5) mentioned
above is attributed to the violation of the rule stated above. Both of (5a) and (5b) havean interrogative wh-expression which moves to the spec of FocusP. Thus, there is noroom for another constituent.
The fact that there can be only one spec for Focus is significant when theposition of the antecedent is examined. Examine the following sentences:(6) a. *This is the very book that only very rarely will students enjoy.
b. * [ForceP [FocP [the very book] [only very rarely] [Focus will][TP students will enjoyc.
(7) a.

the very book only very rarely]]]
This is the very book that students will enjoy only very rarely.
Syntax is the kind of subject [which only very rarely will students enjoy][ForceP whichi[Forceφ][FocP only very rarely] [Focus will][TP students will enjoy only
very rarely ti]]]Radford (2004:327) ((7b) is slightly modified)(6a) is an inversed sentence of (6c). According to the present analysis, it isungrammatical because in (6a) both the very book and only very rarely occupy the specof FocusP. As (3b) shows, negative expression occupies the spec of FocusP, and as (5)shows, there is only one spec for FocusP. This causes ungrammaticality in (6a). On theb.

other hand, in (6c), only the very book is in the spec of FocusP. In the case of awh-relative clause in (7), the sentence is grammatically correct. It is because theantecedent is base-generated outside the relative clause, and the wh-operator which does
not move into the spec of FocusP; there is no conflict in the spec of FocusP.
The same explanation can be applied to other types of antecedent which require
only a that-relative clause.
(8) a. *This is the most difficult book that only very rarely would I read.
(9) a. *These are all of the books that never again would I read.
Both the antecedent of the superlative in (8) and the universal quantifier in (9)designate the comparison with other entities. Hence, the antecedent is assumed to carry
contrastive focus and is raised to the spec of FocusP.
[Selected References] Aoun, Joseph and Yen-Hui, A, Li (2003) Essays on the
representational and derivational nature of Grammar: The diversity of
WH-Construction, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Kiss, É. Katalin (1998)“Identificational Focus versus Information Focus” Language 74, 245-273. Radford,
Andrew (2004) Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left
periphery,” in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, 281-337.
2

Sluicing with Coordinated Remnants
Hiroko Kimura

Hiroki Narita

Nihon Institute of Medical Science

Nihon University

1. Introduction
Various studies have been proposed for “single sluicing” (SS) (1) and “multiple sluicing”(MS) (2). This study investigates another, less studied case exemplified by (3), which we willrefer to “coordinated sluicing” (CS).
(1)

He is writing something, but you can’t imagine what.

(Ross (1969)) (SS)(2) ? Someone talked about something, but I forgot [who] [about what].

(MS)

(3)

(CS)

Someone talked about something, but I forgot [who] and [about what].

2. CS involves Elided Clausal Structure
We will first present several arguments for the view that CS involves ellipsis of TP/IP,
which means that CS is a sub-type of sluicing. Among others, one argument comes fromselectional restrictions on wonder; it selects only interrogative CP as shown in (4)-(5) (cf. Ross
(1969)). With this in mind, let us consider (6), where CS is the complement of the verb wonder.
(4) * Paul wonders [NP the time] and [NP the place].
(5)Paul wonders [CP when he is supposed to meet Mary] and [CP where he should go].

(6)

Paul is supposed to meet Mary, but I wonder [when] and [where].

(CS)(6) shows that CS should involve some clausal structure, part of which stays phonologicallyunrealized.
3. The Elided Structure of CS: Mono-clausal or Bi-clausal?
Having established that that CS involves elided clausal structures, we will then investigate thestructure of the missing part in (3), comparing two possible analyses in (7) and (8).
(7)… but I forgot [CP whoi [TP … ei …]] and [CP about whatj [TP … ej …]](bi-clausal)(8)… but I forgot [CP whoi and about whatj [TP … ei … ej … ]](mono-clausal)(7) illustrates a bi-clausal analysis, where the conjunction (and) combines two instances of SS.
(8) illustrates a mono-clausal analysis, where both the remnant phrases (who and about what)
are somehow related to the positions inside one and the same missing TP. Two possible sources
can be provided for (8): the first possibility is that (8) is derived from MS exemplified in (2),followed by phonological insertion of a dummy and; the other possibility is that (8) is rather
derived from the so-called “coordinated wh-question” exemplified by (9) (see Merchant (2007),
Gribanova (2009), and Larson (2013) for discussion), followed by ellipsis of TP (or maybe C’).
(9)

What and when did Ivy eat?

We will present empirical arguments for the bi-clausal structure approach in (7). One suchargument comes from the acceptability of examples like (10).
(10) a.

Someone bought something yesterday, but I forgot who and what.

(CS)

b.

Someone bought something yesterday, but I forgot what and who.

(CS)

In (10), the two remnant wh-phrases are both argument DPs, but it is known that neither MS nor
coordinated wh-question can involve two DPs.
(11) a. * Who and what did (he) eat?
b. * What and who ate?
(12) a.?* Someone saw something, but I can't remember who what.
b. * Someone saw something, but I can't remember what who.
Given this restriction, the acceptability of (10) is surprising to the mono-clausal approach. In the
bi-clausal approach, by contrast, there is no wonder why CS does allow two argument
wh-remnants, because they are derived from SS independently of each other.
4. Further Issues
We showed that CS is coordination of two instances of SS. In this section, we will proceed toconsider a couple of differences between CS and SS. Among others, we will point out that there
are cases of CS in which deletion of TP is obligatory, which is in significant contrast to thegeneral optionality of deletion in SS, as shown in (13).
(13) He is writing something, but you can’t imagine what (he is writing).
(14) a.
b.

Someone bought something, but I forgot who and what.
Someone bought something, but I forgot who and what he bought.

c. * Someone bought something, but I forgot who bought {it/something} and what.
(14) shows that TP-ellipsis is optional in the second conjunct but obligatory in the first conjunct.
We will argue that the asymmetry can be attributed to the way in which the clausal antecedent ischosen for each instance of sluicing. We will provide this and several other observations on the
difference between CS and SS, arguing that the study of CS yields a set of novel insights into
the nature of coordination, as well as the way in which linguistic computation evaluates theparallelism between the antecedent clause and the sluiced clause.
Selected References: Ross, J (1969) “Guess Who?” CLS 5, 252-286. Gribanova, V (2009)“Structural Adjacency and the Typology of Interrogative.” Linguistic Inquiry 40. Larson, B(2013) “Varieties of Coordinated Questions in Twi.” 44th Annual Conference on African
Linguistics. ACAL. Georgetown University. Washington, DC. Merchant, J (2007) Spurious
coordination in Vlach multiple wh-fronting. MALC Handout.

The Repetitive Coordinator-ka and the Syntax of Alternative Questions in Japanese
Ryoichiro Kobayashi (ryoichiro.k@sophia.jp)
Graduate School of Languages and Linguistics, Sophia University
This study investigates the clausal disjunction (DJ) in Japanese and English, and aims to propose a
unified account of the theory of DJ (Kobayashi forthcoming) and the syntax of alternative questions(Alt-Q) in Japanese. Since Larson (1985), it has been observed that the distribution of either is taken to
mirror the scopal properties of DJ (Schwarz 1999). When either is adjacent to nominals (1a), theinterpretation is ambiguous between Narrow/Wide Scope readings (NSR/WSR), while the scope is
explicitly marked as WSR when either is displaced (1b), in which deletion takes place.
(1) a.(NSR/WSR): Mary is looking for either [[a maid] or [a cook]].
b.(WSR-only): Mary is either [looking for [a maid]] or [looking for [a cook]].
Although the R(epetitive)C(oordinator)-ka in Japanese has been assumed to be optional (Kishimoto2013), I argue that RC-ka functions as an overt scope-indicator in disjunction, in parallel with either.
Previous studies concluded that sentences like (2a) cannot have WSR Clausal-Connective
readings (2c) since the structure before deletion (2b) is ungrammatical (cf. Miyama 2014).
(2) a. Taro-ga [ringo

ka

mikan

T.-nomDJorange RC-ka-acc buy-past

apple

b. *Taro-ga [ringo-o kat-ta] ka[mikanka]-oka-oc. [Taro-ga [ringo(-o kat-ta)]] ka [(Taroo-ga)[mikan-o kat-ta]]‘Taro either bought an apple or an orange.’

kat-takat-ta]
(ka

da)

RC-ka

cop

Following Kuroda’s (1965) insight, I argue that sentences like (2a) are derived from clausal DJ (2c)when they obtain WSR, through deletion + PF-reanalysis (3) (Fukui and Sakai 2003). After deletion,
string-adjacent ringo-ka-mikan are reanalyzed as a nominal PF-constituent through Morphological
Merger (Halle and Marantz 1993). The case assignment pattern (3b) further supports the PF-reanalysis
account since case particles can only be assigned to nominal elements (Kuroda 1978 inter alia).
(3) a. Narrow Syntax: [Taro→b. Phonology:[vP ringo kat-ta][Taro-ga [[NP ringo]ka [vP mikan

kat-ta]].

ka [NP mikan (ka)]]-o

kat-ta].

When RC-ka is stressed and immediately followed by deaccenting (RC-KA) (Watanabe 2000),
DJ obligatorily obtains exclusive-or interpretations. I propose that this is due to WSR of theunderlying clausal DJ. The prediction is borne out that TP-adverbs, kyoo/kinoo ‘today/yesterday’ arelicensed only when RC-KA is present (4) or when sentences obtain WSR in clausal DJ.
(4) a.*Taro-ga [kyoo ringo

ka

kinoo

mikan

ka]-dochiraka-okat-tab. Taro-ga [kyoo ringo

ka

kinoo

mikan

KA]-o

kat-taT.-nom today apple DJ yesterday orange RC-KA-acc
buy-past
Following Miyama’s (2014) observation that nominal DJ are always base-generated when dochiraka‘which-ka’ is present, I propose that RC-ka functions in parallel with either, as in (5).

(5)
These speculations on RC-ka enable us to take a fresh look at Japanese Alt-Qs. In English, it has
been observed that Alt-Qs become available when whether (overt)/Q (covert) operators move to [Spec,C] (6), which is subject to the island constraints. Uegaki (2014) argues, however, that Japanese Alt-Qs
are always disjoined Pol(arity) Q(uestion)s with ka/no ‘Q’ (8), since (7) cannot have Alt-Q readings.
(6) (Q/whether)i Did ti [[John eat beans] or [John eat rice]]?
(7) Taro-ga [koohii ka ocha]-oT.-nomcoffee DJ

tea-acc(Han and Romero 2004:530)

non-da-ka/no?
(*Alt-Q;OKPol-Q)

drink-past-Q(8) [Pol-QTaro-ga koohii-o non-da-kaQ/noQ](soretomo) [Pol-Q(T.-ga) ocha-o non-da-kaQ/noQ]?
OK

Alt-Q:‘[Pol-Q Did Taro drink coffee] or [Pol-Q (did he drink) tea]?’(Uegaki 2014:52)

I propose that Alt-Qs in Japanese can also be derived in a similar manner as in English (6): They become
more prominent with RCs (9) since Alt-Qs are obligatorily clausal/WSR (Han and Romero 2004:538).
(9) a.Taro-wa [[koohii ka ocha

RC-ka/KA](-o)

non]-da-no?

(OKAlt-Q;OKPol-Q)

b.Taro-wa [TP[koohii (-o non-da)] ka [ocha-o non-da] RC-ka]]-(desu)-ka?(?Alt-Q;OKPol-Q)
I argue that they are also sensitive to island constraints (*Alt-Q Taro-wa [CP [Hanako ka Masako KA]-ga ki-ta
kadooka] sittei-ru-no?), and they are also subject to the Focus Intonation Pattern (Ishihara 2002).
(10) a. Taro-wa [[Hanako ka Masako↑KA↓]-ga ki-ta↑ka] sittei-ru(-no)? (*Alt-Q;OKPol-Q)
b. Taro-wa [[Hanako ka Masako↑KA↓]-ga ki-ta ka] sittei-ru↑(-no)? (OKAlt-Q;?Pol-Q)
Pol-Q:‘Does T. know whether H. or M. came?’/Alt-Q:‘Which person, H. or M., does T. know came?’

Another point to consider is a Weak Presupposition (for p/¬p), which makes Alt-Qs more prominent(van Rooy and Šafářová 2003). Those who reject (9) may accept that they allow Alt-Qs, given (11).
(11) e.g. “One of the speaker’s friends, Taro, either had coffee (p) or had tea (¬p), but he/she
does not know which. He/she asks another friend, (9)...”
Given these observations, I argue for (12) A Unified Analysis for Disjunctions:a. WSR DJ are always derived from clausal DJ through Deletion (English) / Deletion+
PF-reanalysis (Japanese), where RC-ka/either function as overt scope-indicators (5).
b. Clausal-DJ/RC-KA function in parallel with displaced-either (4) (C[-Q]), while theyalso serve as whether/Q-operators, obtaining Alt-Qs in interrogatives (9) (C[+Q]).
Given (12), we can capture the scopal properties (WSR/NSR) of DJ in English/Japanese only with
Merge-based Syntax + PF-deletion, which contributes to the simplification of UG.
[Selected References] Larson, R. K. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. NLLT, 3(2),217-264. | Schwarz, B. (1999). On the syntax of either...or. NLLT,17(2). | Uegaki, W. (2014).
Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions. Proceedings of SALT,24.

Cross-Linguistic Variations in Realization Patterns of Speech Act:A Competition-Theoretic Approach
Kazuya Nishimaki (University of Tsukuba)
1. Realization Patterns of Speech Act In (1), I tell you guarantees that the speaker performs a speech act ofconveying to the addressee the information that someone is an idiot.
(1) I tell you, he is an idiot.

(Stubbs (1983: 157))

Hirose (1995: 227) points out that I tell you roughly corresponds to the particle yo in Japanese, as the following
translation pair shows:(2) Ame da yo. ‘It is raining, I tell you.’
Yo is an uninflected bound morpheme that occurs sentence-finally, marking a clausal type, e.g. a declarative.
Henceforth, we call a particle like yo a sentence-final particle (SFP). The correspondence in (2) means that
English and Japanese realize the same speech act by different forms; I tell you takes a phrasal form, whereas yo
is a morphological realization using a bound morpheme. Note another difference between these two
expressions. A cartographic approach to clausal structures has revealed that CP has a Force (or Speech Act)
projection whose head encodes illocutionary force. Rizzi (1997: 283) states that speech act may be encoded ateither its specifier or head. Extending Rizzi’s analysis of the topic-focus system in English, we may assume
that I tell you occurs at the specifier to be licensed by agreeing with the null head. On the other hand,according to Tenny (2006: 256), the SFP yo heads a Force projection. The above observation shows that thedifferences in question involve the distinction between two grammatical modules: morphology and syntax.
To treat cross-linguistic variations and inter-modular issues in a parallel fashion, Ackema and Neeleman (2004)
develop Competition Theory. Adopting this theory, we aim to give a unified account of the relevant
differences, which have been separately discussed in the literature. We do not assume that they reflect somesemanticopragmatic difference between the phrase I tell you and the SFP yo. Instead, our claim is that theyreflect a macroparametric distinction between English and Japanese.
2.

Competition Theory

Assuming that morphology and syntax are in a competing relationship,Competition Theory hypothesizes that languages are classified into two types according to whether syntacticphrases or morphological words are preferred in phonological realization of morphosyntactic structures. For
example, English, using a phrasal causative (e.g. to make John eat), is a syntax-preferring language, while
Japanese, using a compound form for a causative (e.g. tabe-saseru ‘(lit.) to eat-make’), is amorphology-preferring language.
3.

Explanation

The observed differences naturally follow from Competition Theory.

English, a

syntax-preferring language, utilizes phrasal options for realizing speech act. We assume that an illocutionary
morpheme like the SFP yo is absent from English, which temporarily uses syntactic phrases to encode
illocutionary force; phrases like I tell you are reanalyzed into lexical units to occupy a Force specifier. Sincethey are not illocutionary markers, they are available for other purposes. For example, I tell you can function
as an intensifier, as Bolinger (1972: 93) observes. In contrast, Japanese, a morphology-preferring language,
selects a morphological realization with special illocutionary markers, which are listed in the lexicon as such.
The syntax-preference enables English to encode illocutionary force by various syntactic options.
Compare the English wh-question in (3a) with the Japanese counterpart in (3b).
(3) a.
b.

What did Mary buy?
Mary-ganani-okai-masi-taka.

M.-Nomwhat-Acc buy-polite-past Q(Hasegawa (2005: 49))

According to Hasegawa (2005), English uses wh-movement to encode interrogative force, which Japanesemarks with the interrogative morpheme ka. Thus, Competition Theory can nicely capture the correspondence
between English syntactic options and Japanese SFPs.
Interestingly, there is another CP domain where a functional projection is realized syntactically in English
and morphologically in Japanese. Based on Cinque (1999), Tenny (2006) proposes that CP hosts an
Evidentiality projection, which encodes a source of an utterance. English employs syntactic strategies forevidentiality and not evidential markers:(4) a.

I hear Mary won the prize.

b.

Ernie looks like he’s sick.

Anderson (1986: 276) states that the phrase I hear in (4a) expresses an evidentiality of hearsay when hear isunstressed. Winans et al. (2014) observe that the copy-raising in (4b) requires the speaker to have perceived
Ernie directly. In contrast to English, Japanese morphologically realizes evidentiality with a bound SFP:
(5) Kazi da

na.

fire

seem

Cop.Pre‘It seems that a fire is occurring.’
According to Endo (2010: 81), the SFP na in (5) guarantees that the utterance is based on the speaker’s indirectperception, e.g. hearing the siren of a fire engine.
The present analysis suggests that realization patterns of functional projections in CP domains differ
between syntax-preferring and morphology-preferring languages; in the former, functional projections are
realized by temporarily-derived elements at specifiers, whereas in the latter they have realizations with special
morphemes at heads.
Selected References: Ackema, P. and A. Neeleman (2004) Beyond Morphology, Oxford University Press.
/Hasegawa, N. (2005) “The EPP Materialized First, Agree Later,” Scientific Approaches to Language 4, 33-80,
Kanda University of International Studies. /Hirose, Y. (1995) “Direct and Indirect Speech as Quotations of
Public and Private Expression,” Lingua 95, 223-238. /Rizzi, L (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left
Periphery,” Elements of Grammar, ed. by L. Haegeman, 281-331, Kluwer Academic Publishers. /Tenny, C.
(2006) ‘Evidentiality, Experiencers, and the Syntax of Sentience in Japanese,’ Journal of East Asian Linguistics
15, 245-288. /Winans, L. et al. (2014) Children’s Comprehension of Syntactically Encoded Evidentiality, paper
presented at NELS 45.

A Distributed Morphology Approach to Genitive Compounds in Frisian
Tatsuhiro Okubo
University of Tsukuba
1. Introduction
Frisian has two types of N(oun)N(oun) compounds: one is ordinary NN compounds and the other isgenitive compounds. These two types are shown in (1) and (2), respectively (Hoekstra (2002: 228)).
(1)
(2)

a.

kening-s-dochter lit. king-s-daughter ‘king’s daughter’b.

bern-e-boek lit. child-e-book ‘children’s book’a.

koken-s-flier lit. kitchen-s-floor ‘floor of the kitchen’b.

lodd-e-fiem lit. shovel-e-handle ‘handle of the shovel’

The two types appear to be the same because both consist of two Ns and link morphemes -s and -e. However,they are different in meaning. Hoekstra (2002: 232-235) points out that two Ns in NN compounds show
various relations including a part-whole relation, while those in genitive compounds in (2) show only apart-whole relation. Hoekstra hence ascribes the semantic difference to the difference in nature between link
morphemes in (1) and (2). Link morphemes in (2) are genitive morphemes, while those in (1) are not. In
addition, Hoekstra distinguishes the genitive morphemes from possessive morphemes, showing that the latterones only occur with proper names and kinship terms (e.g. Fryslân-s marren ‘Frisia’s lakes,’ mem-s/memm-e
eagen ‘mother’s eyes’)
Although the morphemes in (1) and (2) are different, the reason why their forms are the same is unclear.
In this presentation, I aim to explain the semantic difference between the two types of compounds and the factthat the morphemes in (1) and (2) are formally identical.
2. Expletives in Words
It has been said that some compounds consist of two words and a meaningless element that links them.
This element is called a linking element (LE):(3)

a.

English: parks department, children’s hour, frontiersmanb.

French: moulin à vent lit. mill-LE-wind ‘wind mill’(Lieber (2009: 369))(Ralli (2008: 25))

Lieber (2009: 369) notes that the elements of the first constituents in (3a) like -s and -’s do not carrygrammatical meanings like a plural or a possessive meaning, although their forms are identical to plural orpossessive inflection. In addition, forms of LEs are varied. For example, in French, the preposition à ‘in, to’functions as an LE, as shown in (3b).
Given that LEs are meaningless and their forms are diverse, Okubo (2014) views LEs as expletives,
based on the framework of Distributed Morphology (Embick and Marantz (2008)). According to Okubo,parks department in (3a) has the following structure:(4)a.

parks departmentb.

[[[√PARK n, -Ø] f, -s] [√DEPARTMENT n, -Ø]]In (4b), park is combined with an EPP-like feature f that is later realized as the LE -s. Given X0 status ofcompounds, Okubo argues that checking off of the feature by an LE validates the X0 status of the entire
construction.

3. Proposal
Based on Okubo’s proposal, with respect to Frisian NN compounds, I suggest the following structure:(5)a.

kening-s-dochter (= (1a))

b.

[[[√KENING n] f, -s] [√DOCHTER n]]

The structure consists of kening and dochter. The former N is combined with f, which is checked off by -s. As
a result of this checking, the whole expression keningsdochter is validated as a compound. The structure in(5b) has no elements other than the two Ns and -s, so that relations between the two Ns are varied. For
example, the English NN compound water mill can be interpreted in various ways, such as ‘mill powered bywater,’ ‘mill producing water,’ and ‘mill located near the water.’ Moreover, Downing (1977: 828) displays atleast 12 relationships (e.g. time, purpose, source, etc.) found in English NN compounds.
In contrast to Frisian NN compounds, Frisian genitive compounds show only a part-whole relation.
This fact means that -s or -e in the compounds are not LEs and then, they are not realizations of f.
Alternatively, I suggest that the morphemes become a part of stems (cf. Shimada, Nagano, and Okubo (toappear)). This is corroborated by the fact that the prenominal genitive construction existed in Old Frisian andsome of it could develop into genitive compounds (Hoekstra (2002: 244)). With respect to the part-whole
relation, I propose that the part-whole relation is possible because Frisian genitive compounds have √PART
proposed by Adger (2013), which ensures a part-whole relation, as shown in (6):(6)

a.

lodde-fiem (= (2b))

b.

[[√FIEM n] [[√LODD n] √PART]]In (6b), the part-denoting functional head √PART selects the two Ns. The head establishes a part-whole relation
between the two Ns. Due to its presence, the form of [√LODD n] becomes lodde-. If this is caused by √PARTand genitive compounds must have the functional head, the non-heads of genitive compounds necessarily
have forms ending in -s or -e. This prediction is borne out by the contrast in (7):(7)

a.

kokenfaam, kokensâlt, kokenrêding… ‘kitchen maid, kitchen salt, kitchen ware…’b.

kokensdoar, kokensflier, kokensfinster… ‘door, floor, window…of the kitchen’

As in (7a), koken does not take an LE in NN compounds. However, if it is used in genitive compounds, it
must take a form ending in -s.
References
Adger, D. (2013) A Syntax of Substance, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. / Arad, M. (2003) “Locality
Constraints on the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew Denominal Verbs,” NLLT 21, 737-778. /Downing, P. (1977) “On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns,” Language 53, 810-842. /Embick, D. and A. Marantz (2008) “Architecture and Blocking,” LI 39, 1-53. / Hoekstra, J. “Genitive
Compounds in Frisian as Lexical Phrases,” JCGL 6, 227-259. / Lieber, R. (2009) “IE, Germanic: English”
The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, ed. by R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 357–369, Oxford University Press,
Oxford. / Okubo, T. (2014) “Expletives in Words: Linking Elements as Markers of Wordhood,” Lingvisticae
Investigationes 37, 225-239. / Ralli, A. (2008) “Compound Markers and Parametric Variation,” STUF 61,
19–38. / Shimada, M., A. Nagano, and T. Okubo (to appear) “Priscianic Formation in Compounding and theStem-Formation Process of Upgrading,” Language Sciences.

Skepticism on Control in Japanese

Koji Shimamura—University of Connecticut, Storrs/Mie University.
Synopsis: I argue that the prima facie cases of Obligatory Control in Japanese in (1) are notControl at all, contra Nemoto (1993) and Fujii (2006, 2010) among others. Instead, I proposethat they are derived by embedding the bouletic modal (i.e. -(y)oo) whose attitude holder
must be construed as the first person (i.e. speaker in a given context—𝛼! ) and shifting it inaccordance with the context of the matrix subject under the so-called monster operator(Schlenker 2003, Sudo 2012, Sauerland and Yatsushiro 2014; pace Kaplan 1977/1989).
The Semantics and Syntax of the Modal -(y)oo: In the matrix clauses, -(y)oo functions as amodal that expresses volition, and its attitude holder must be the first person—either singularor plural as in (2a) or (2b) (Narrog 2009). In the literature, (2b) must be used with thepresence of the addressee ℎ! , so ‘we’ there is inclusive; however, if an appropriate context isprovided, we can also understand ‘we’ as the set of the speaker and some non-speech act
participant (non-SAP). Thus, (2b) can be a soliloquy—exclusive ‘we’. But the common
denominator of the examples in (2) is that the volitional attitude (let’s say “bouletic”) must be
ascribed to 𝛼! . I thus propose (3) for the structure and (4) for the semantics of -(y)oo, where-(y)oo takes the set of contexts < 𝑘, 𝑡 > and introduces a new context as triplet <𝛼!(!! ) ,ℎ!(!! ) , 𝑤 ! >. Crucially, the agent in Spec-vP can be independently merged, so that contrary to
the literature, we can have some non-SAP as the agent while keeping 𝛼! the attitude holder
as in (5). The source of 𝛼!   as the attitude holder is the lexical property of -(y)oo, expressed
here as 𝑦𝑜𝑜!     𝑖! !,! . Therefore, the denotation of (2a) is, for instance, (6), where c signifies
the context of actual utterance by default (Sudo 2012). For (2b) with some non-SAP or theaddressee, I simply assume that a pluralizer, -tati, is attached to the agent.
Deriving Control-like Cases: Following Sauerland and Yatsushiro (2014), I propose that
there is a monster operator that is materialized as the reporting marker ‘to’—the head of
RepP (Report Phrase) and it only scopes over what is incorporated into it as in (7a), which
only depicts the result of the head movement by the modal head into Rep0. The job of Rep0 isthen to take the context pronoun of 7! (let’s assume that every constituent has a context
pronoun), and replace the parameter 𝑐 of   . for the modal with the value 7! with respect
to g as shown in (7b) (Sudo 2012). Then, (1a), for instance, will be syntactically analyzed as(8), where the embedded agent is pro that is coreferential with the matrix Eri, and it will beinterpreted as in (9). Importantly, only 𝛼! of -(y)oo is shifted under the context of Eri, i.e.
g(14), but all the other materials will be interpreted relative to c. For (1b), I assume thatcovert -tati as an associate morpheme (Madigan 2008) is attached to pro.
Consequences: One consequence: Note that the self-ascription by -(y)oo is concerned onlywith  𝛼! as the attitude holder and the embedded agent is just pro, so that we predict that dese reading does not have to hold only in the Control-like cases. This state of affairs is in stark
contrast with what Fujii (2006) observes. However, a careful choice of contexts allows
non-de se reading. One such case is (10) with the following scenario: Taro will run for anelection. One day, he was completely drunken and watching someone giving a very goodspeech for the election. Sympathized with the person on TV, Taro yelled out to TV, “Do(your) best for the election.” Unbeknownst to him, the person on TV was in fact Taro himself. NB,
the relevant construal allows long-distance wh-dependency as shown in (11), so that the embedded
clause is indirectly quoted.

(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)

(6)
(7)

Prima facie Subject Controla.
Eri-wa [keeki-otabe-yoo-to]
kime-ta.
eat-MOD-REP(ORT) decide-PST
Eri-TOP cake-ACC‘Eri decided to eat a cake.’Prima facie Split Controlb.
Eri-wa Aoi-ni[ie-nikaer-oo-to]it-ta.
Eri-TOP Aoi-DAT home-DAT return-MOD-REP say-PST‘Eri told Aoi that they should go home.’a.
Boku-wa ie-ni
kaer-oo.
I-TOP
home-DAT return-MOD‘I will go home.’b.
Boku-tati-wa gakkoo-ni
ik-oo.
I-PL-TOP
school-DAT go-MOD‘We will go to school.’[ModP [vP AGT [VP OBJ V] v] yoo]
𝑦𝑜𝑜!     𝑖! !,! = λ𝑝!!,!! . for all worlds 𝑤 !   that comply with what 𝛼!(!! ) desires in 𝑤!(!! ) ,p(<𝛼!(!! ) , ℎ!(!! ) , 𝑤 ! >) =1
CONTEXT: I’m going to make my wife make tea for you:Ima,tuma-gaotya-oire-mas-yoo.
now
wife-NOM tea-ACC put-POL-MOD‘My wife shall make tea (for you) soon (under my decision/authority).’(2a) !,! = 1 in 𝑐 iff for all worlds 𝑤 ! that comply with what 𝛼! desires in 𝑤! ,𝛼! goes home in 𝑤 !
a.
Rep0
Mod0

to (Rep0 = Op)

𝑦𝑜𝑜!
7!
b.
Rep
= 𝑦𝑜𝑜  7!   𝑡𝑜 !,! = 𝑦𝑜𝑜  7! !(!! ),!
[vP (Matrix) Eri1 [VP [RepP [ModP [vP pro1 [VP cake eat]-v]-yoo]-REP] decide]-v](1a) !,! = 1 in 𝑐 iff for all contexts 𝑐 ! ∈ 𝐷𝑂𝑋!"#,!(!"! ) ,for all worlds 𝑤 ! that comply with what 𝐸𝑟𝑖 desires in 𝑤!! ,Eri eats cake in 𝑤 !
(Dare-to-wa kizukazu)
Taroo1-wa [RepP pro1 ganbar-oo-to]it-ta.
do.his.best-MOD-REP say-PAST(who-REP-TOP notice.NEG) Taro-TOP
Lit. ‘Taro1 said e1 to do his best.’(Dare-to-wa kizuk-azu)
Taroo1-wa [RepP pro1 dono
senkyo-de(who-REP-TOP notice.NEG) Taro-TOP
which election-in
ganbar-oo-to] it-ta-no.
do.his.best-MOD-REP say-PAST-Q
Lit. ‘Which election did Taro1 say e1 to do his best for?
! !,!

(8)
(9)

(10)

(11)

References (selected) Sudo, Y. 2012. On the semantics of phi features on pronouns. PhD thesis, MIT.

The Lack of Head Movement in Ellipsis Constructions
under E-feature Movement
Takaki Rumi
Kyushu University
This research presents a unified mechanism of one of the striking phenomena
concerning ellipsis, which has not been given a satisfactory account: the lack of head
movement in ellipsis constructions. In English VP-ellipsis, an auxiliary remains as
illustrated in (1).
(1) John likes apples, but Mary doesn’t.
In sluicing, however, an auxiliary cannot remain even though in an interrogative fullfledged sentence T-to-C movement occurs.
(2) A:John has invited someone from his office.
B: Really? Who (*has)? 	
 If we assume that the head movement of T-to-C occurs and the complement of C is deleted,the auxiliary has should appear contrary to fact. Concerning this lack of head movement,
Lasnik (2001) argues that if the matrix interrogative C contains the relevant strong
feature and the matching feature of T moves to C to check it, the T head is phonologicallydefective and it causes a PF crash. The option to save that crash is either pied-piping or adeletion of a category including T. However, he does not offer any reason why the former
option, pied-piping, cannot be chosen as for sluicing.
As an alternative, apparently, one could argue that, following the CP cartographic
approach, the auxiliary moves to the Fin head and if we assume that the complement of
the Foc is deleted, we could have the structure in (2). However, if we assume that, wecannot account for the following data in Hungarian.
(3) a. kivancsi vogyok, hogy JÁNOS ment-e elcurious I.am COMP János went-Q PV‘I wonder if it was János who left’b. * kivancsi vogyok, hogy JÁNOS-e ment elcurious I.am COMP János-Q went PV(van Craenenbroeck and Lipták (2008: 140))
As shown in (3a), the finite verb has to bear an interrogative suffix -e, which is argued to
be located in the left-peripheral focus domain by van Craenenbroeck and Lipták (2008).
It shows that the verb raises to the head hosting the interrogative suffix. If the suffix
attaches to some element other than the finite verb, the sentence becomes ungrammaticalas illustrated in (3b).
However, when the deletion applies, it seems that the head movement is bled and thesuffix attaches to the preverbal element as shown in (4).
(4) János meghívott egy lányt, de nem tudom hogy ANNÁT *(-e)
John invited
a girl but not I.know that Anna-Q‘John invited a girl, but I don’t know if it was Anna’(Merchant and van Craenenbroeck (2013: 720))
If we assume that the complement of the Foc head is deleted in (4), the Foc head should beoutside of the ellipsis site and the finite verb with -e should appear. Given that head
movement actually occurs when the deletion does not happen, it is clear that the lack ofhead movement is attributed to the deletion.
However, if we assume that the E-feature is originally located in the Foc head in (4),we cannot explain why the head movement is bled by ellipsis since nothing prevents theverb from undergoing the head movement. A similar case is illustrated in (5) as for Dutch.
In this example, the verb eet raises out of the VP due to the V2-requirement. However,when deletion occurs, it becomes ungrammatical. Therefore, the head movement needs tobe suppressed before the head start to move.
(5)*Jan eet appels en ik eet ook __John eats apples and I eat also
‘John is eating apples and I am too’(Merchant and van Craenenbroeck (2013: 717))
In this approach, I propose that the E-feature first appears in a lowest phase based on
the suggestion by Chomsky (2008) that a phase drives any operation, and it moves to thehigher relevant head successively to check its uninterpretable focus feature. I call it Efeature movement. Further, we also assume when a head carries the E-feature once, itcannot undergo head movement since the head has to stay in situ to be a marker thatshows its complement is deleted. As a result, only E-feature movement occurs.
Applying this mechanism, we also account for the reason why French, in which thehead movement of V-to T is obligatory, does not have VP-ellipsis.
(6) *Claudine est une bonne étudiante, et Marie (*est) __ aussi‘Claudine is a good student, and Mary is too’In (6), in the elliptical clause, est cannot appear when deletion applies. In this example,
since the lowest phase v has an E-feature, the head movement is suppressed and only Efeature moves finally to a higher head T and its complement is deleted. As a result, only
the example without est becomes grammatical. On the other hand, since English does nothave V-to-T movement in the first place, E-feature moves to a higher head T and thedeletion of its complement occurs. Moreover, since English has an operation called dosupport, VP-ellipsis in English is allowed.
Thus, we will show that our approach can successfully give a unified account for thedata concerning the lack of head movement in elliptical constructions
Selected References
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in
Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa
Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van and Anikó Lipták (2008) “On the Interaction between Verb 	  	 Movement and Ellipsis: New Evidence from Hungarian,” Proceedings of the 26th West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 138-146.
Lasnik, Howard (2001) “A Note on the EPP,” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 356-362.
Merchant, Jason and van Craenenbroeck (2013) ”Ellipsis Phenomena,” The Cambridge
Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by Marcel den Dikken, 701-745, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

On the English Dative Alternation: Arguing for the Multiple Meaning Approach
Shiro Takeuchi
University of Tsukuba
It has long been debated whether or not the double object variant, as exempliﬁed in (1a), andthe to variant, as in (1b), have the same or distinct meanings.
(1) a.
Mike gave Mary a book.
b.
Mike gave a book to Mary.
Those who assume that both variants denote the same meaning advocate “the single meaning
approach”; those who assume that the variants denote different meanings advocate “the multiple
meaning approach.” It is said that the currently dominant approach is the latter (Beck & Johnson(2004), Goldberg (1992, 1995), Harley (2003), Pinker (1989), to name a few). The multiple
meaning approach entails that the double object variant denotes caused possession, and that the tovariant denotes caused motion. Caused possession entails that the subject referent causes a
recipient NP to possess a theme NP; caused motion entails that the subject referent transferrers atheme NP to a goal NP.
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2008) (henceforth, RH & L (2008)) challenge this view. They
classify relevant verbs into two types: give-type verbs and throw-type verbs. They claim that givetype verbs denote only caused possession in either variant, and that throw-type verbs denotecaused possession and caused motion. As for give-type verbs, RH & L (2008) argue for the single
meaning approach.
This paper examines give-type verbs and argues against RH & L (2008) that their behavior
supports the multiple meaning approach.
RH & L (2008) claim that it is information structure and heaviness that determine the preferenceof one variant to the other. For example, in accounting for the different acceptability of thesentences in (2), they argue that sentences like (2b) become acceptable when the theme NP isgiven information, as illustrated in (3).
(2) a.
Interviewing Richard Nixon gave Norman Mailer a book.
(Oehrle (1976: 44))b. * Interviewing Richard Nixon gave a book to Norman Mailer. (RH & L (2008: 151))(3) A:
It is very difﬁcult to get an idea for a book simply from an interview.
B:
Well, interviewing Nixon gave an idea for a book to Mailer. (RH & L (2008: 157))
On the basis of these kinds of examples, RH & L conclude that give-type verbs denote one and thesame meaning in either variant.
However, the explanation of the sentence in (3) uttered by Speaker B cannot straightforwardly
apply to the sentences in (2), since the value of the theme NPs differs. In (2), it is a book; in (3), it
is an idea for a book, which is “internal conceptual or emotional material” like thoughts,
meanings, and feeling (Reddy (1979: 289)).
Note that sentence (2b) is distinctly odd even when the theme NP is given. Observe (4):(4) A:
It is very difﬁcult to write a book simply from an interview.
B: ??Well, interviewing Richard Nixon gave a book to Norman Mailer.
Thus one must provide an explanation for the differential acceptability of sentences like those in(2).

Consider also the sentences in (5), which should be dealt with in a parallel fashion to those in(2), since the value of the theme NP, house or fortune, is not internal conceptual or emotional
material, either.
(5) a.
Working hard for 20 years gave Mike a {house / fortune}.
b. * Working hard for 20 years gave a {house / fortune} to Mike.
(6) A:
It is very difﬁcult to {build a house / make a fortune} simply by working hard.
B: ??Well, working hard for 20 years gave a {house / fortune} to Mike.
The fact observed in (6) parallels that in (4).
If we assume that the double object variant denotes caused possession and the to variant
denotes caused motion, we can straightforwardly account for the fact that sentences like (2) and(5) exhibit different acceptability. That is, the gerund phrase in the subject position caused therecipient NP to have things like books, houses, and fortunes ((2a) and (5a)); in other words, therecipient NP wrote a book, built a house, or made a fortune by interviewing someone or working
hard for certain years. On the other hand, the same gerund phrase could not cause the theme NP tomove along a path to the goal NP ((2b) and (5b)); in other words, interviewing or working itself
could not physically move books, houses, or fortunes.
We can thus conclude that give-type verbs are accounted for not by the single meaning
approach, but by the multiple meaning approach.
As for the sentence in (3) uttered by Speaker B, I argue that it is licensed by the Conduit
Metaphor (e.g. Reddy (1979)), which “involves communication traveling across from the stimulus
to the listener” (Goldberg (1992: 63)). I argue that it is licensed in the same way as sentences likethose in (7):(7) a.
This understanding gave meaning to her suffering.
(The Attack of the Blob)b.
Caring conveys a feeling of compassion and empathy.
(The Abc’s of Values)
I claim that the sentences in (2b) and (5b) are not licensed by this metaphor, since books, houses,and fortunes are not material that can be conveyed or made to be known.

References
Beck, S. and K. Johnson (2004) “Double objects again,” Linguistic Inquiry 35, 97-123.
Goldberg, A. (1992) “The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English
ditransitive construction,” Cognitive Linguistics 3, 37-74.
Goldberg, A. (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Harley, H. (2003) “Possession and the double object construction,” Linguistic variation yearbook
2, 31-70, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Oehrle, R. (1976) The grammatical status of the English dative alternation, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (2008) “The English dative alternation: The case for verb
sensitivity,” Journal of Linguistics 44, 129-167.
Reddy, M. (1979) “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conﬂict in our language about
language,” Metaphor and thought, ed. by A. Ortony, 284-324, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

Japanese EPP Revisited: Negative Polarity and Degree Anaphora
Hideharu Tanaka (Osaka University)
Synopsis This paper addresses the application of the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) to
Japanese, which requires some DP to occupy [Spec, TP]. There are two competing hypotheses,
H1 and H2; H1 states that Japanese obligatorily applies the EPP (e.g., Miyagawa 2001), while
H2 states that it does not (e.g., Kuroda 1988). In this paper, we provide new arguments for H2 inlight of negative polarity items (NPIs), which can be licensed in the sister domain of Neg(ation).
Specifically, we demonstrate a need for the overt configuration in (1b), where the Neg head nai‘not’ c-commands not only the internal argument (IA) but also the external argument (EA), andsuggest that H2 is preferred, as it ensures the possibility of (1b) without new stipulations.
(1) a. H1 → Obligatory shift to [Spec, TP] b. H2 → Optional shift to [Spec, TP]
TP
TP
EA1
VP

Neg

T

VP

Neg

T

t1

EA
IA
V
IA
V
Data We begin by clarifying what phrases in Japanese correspond to NPIs in English, such asanyone. Some previous studies assume that, for example, the focus particle mo ‘also’ can form
NPIs with wh-pronouns, such as dare-mo ‘who-also’ (e.g., Aoyagi and Ishii 1994). However,Kataoka (2007) claims that dare-mo is licensed if it c-commands Neg in the same clause, which
is a different license condition from that for NPIs. Moreover, Watanabe (2004) shows that daremo is not an NPI, as it lacks the properties of NPIs in (2) that are attested cross-linguistically:(2) a. NPIs can be licensed by non-negative markers, such as Cond(itional) markers.
b. NPIs can be licensed by relevant markers even across finite-clause boundaries.
c. NPIs cannot be modified by “approximators” such as almost.
d. NPIs cannot be used as fragment answers.
Then, does Japanese have real NPIs? We claim that one candidate for NPIs is anaphoric degreephrases (ADPs), such as sonnani-ookuno-NP ‘that-many-NP’ (cf. Matsui 2011). There are twoarguments for this. First, ADPs, like dare-mo, can be licensed by Neg, as shown in (3):(3) a.

John-ga{sonnani-ookuno-hito-o/dare-mo}
John-Nom that-many-people-Acc/anyone‘John did not hit {that many people/anyone}.’b. * John-ga{sonnani-ookuno-hito-o/dare-mo}
John-Nom that-many-people-Acc/anyone‘John hit {that many people/anyone}.’nagura-nakat-ta.
hit-Neg-Past
nagut-ta.
hit-Past

Second, ADPs, but not dare-mo, hold the properties in (2a-d), as shown in (4a-d), respectively:(4) a.

[John-ga {sonnani-ookuno-hito-o/*dare-mo} nagutta]-ra Tom-ga naku-daroo.
John-Nom that-many-people-Acc/who-also
hit-Cond Tom-Nom cry-will‘Tom will cry if John hit {that many people/anyone}.’b.

Boku-wa [John-ga {sonnani-ookuno-hito-o/*dare-mo} nagutta]-to omottei-nai.
I-Top
John-Nom that-many-people-Acc/who-also
hit-C
think-not‘I do not think that John hit {that many people/anyone}.’c.

John-ga[hobo {dare-mo/*sonnani-ookuno-hito-o}] nagura-nakat-ta.
John-Nom almost anyone/that-many-people-Acc
hit-Neg-Past‘John did not hit almost {anyone/that many people}.’d.

Q1: Dare-o nagutta-no?
who-Acc hit-Q‘Who did you hit?’
A1: Dare-mo.
who-also‘Anyone.’Q2: Nan-nin-no-dansei-onagutta-no?
what-Cl-Gen-men-Acc hit-Q‘How many men did you hit?’
A2:* Sonnani-ookuno-dansei.
that-many-men‘That many men.’Thus, we emphasize that ADPs, but not dare-mo, can be utilized to choose between H1 and H2;
if an ADP is licensed by Neg, then it follows that it remains in the sister domain of Neg, but thesame is not true with dare-mo under Kataoka’s (2007) view, as it needs to c-command Neg.
Claim We now argue for H2, namely that Japanese does not obligatorily apply the EPP. The
point is that there is no asymmetry between the subject ADP and the object ADP in their distribution in negative clauses; the former can also be licensed by Neg. This is illustrated in (5) (cf.
(3a)), suggesting that the subject ADP can stay in the sister domain of Neg, as predicted by H2:(5)

Sonnani-ookuno-hito-ga John-onagura-nakat-ta.
that-many-people-Nom John-Acc hit-Neg-Past‘That many people did not hit John.’

One might claim that this fact does not suffice to exclude H1, as long as we can assume that the
subject in [Spec, TP] can be reconstructed into its base position within the sister domain of Neg.
However, such reasoning makes wrong predictions cross-linguistically. That is, if EPP movement can be undone at LF for the purpose of NPI license, English should show no subject-object
asymmetry, either. The fact contrary to this prediction is illustrated in (6):(6) a. Mary did not invite anyone.
b. * Anyone did not invite Mary.

(Kataoka (2007: 78))

Thus, provided that English obligatorily applies the EPP, we need to adopt H2, not H1, to ensurethat Japanese subjects can stay in their base positions without moving to [Spec, TP] at all.
Conclusion If H2 is correct, then it is one issue how to reinterpret the evidence that has been
piled up for H1 (e.g., Miyagawa 2001, Kishimoto 2001). We discuss this issue from the viewpoints of semantics and pragmatics, and attempt to analyze the relevant data in different ways.
References Aoyagi, H. and T. Ishii (1994) “On Agreement-inducing vs. Non-agreementinducing NPIs,” NELS 24, 1-15. Kataoka, K. (2007) “Neg-o C-togyo-suru Hutei-go + Mo
(The Indeterminate Word + Mo that C-commands Neg),” Gengo Kenkyu 131, 77-131. Kishimoto, H. (2001) “Binding of Indeterminate Pronouns and Clause Structure in Japanese,” LI
32, 597-633. Kuroda, S. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47. Matsui, A. (2011) “On the Licensing of Understating NPIs: Manipulating the Domain of Degrees for Japanese A(n)mari andSonnani,” SALT 21, 752-769. Miyagawa, S. (2001) “EPP, Scrambling, and Wh-in-situ,” Ken
Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by M. Kenstowicz, 293-338, MIT Press, Cambridge. Watanabe,
A. (2004) “The Genesis of Negative Concord: Syntax and Morphology of Negative Doubling,”
LI 35, 559–612.

How to Say Why to, and Why
Hidekazu Tanaka / Okayama University
Whilst most English wh-phrases are compatible with an infinitive clauseheaded by to, the adjunct wh-phrase why is not (Shlonsky and Soare (2011)).
(1)

I asked Bill

who to serve
what to serve the guests
when to serve spiced aubergines(2)

I asked Bill??why to serve spiced aubergines.

Shlonsky and Soare (2011, S&S) develop a cartographic account of thecontrast. They argue that infinitive clauses are truncated, as struck out in(3), and do not have the functional layer (IntP), which licenses why. Hence,(2) is in principle ungrammatical, since why has no specifier to move into.
(3)

ForceP>IntP>TopP>FocP>WhP>FinP

Other wh-phrases move, according to Shlonsky and Soare, to the
WhP-specifier, which is not spliced in infinitive clauses, and thus can
co-occur with an infinitive clause. Infinitives are thus too small to license
why, but big enough to license all other wh-phrases.
By bringing in a novel set of data, the present talk shall point out
empirical flaws in S&S’s account. Our alternative account is based on thefeature composition of to, which has *, an uninterpretable feature at the
PF-interface. The uninterpretable feature gets checked off when to* moves toC ((4b)). This only happens when the C searches its domain. Assume withRizzi (1990) that why is base-generated/externally merged directly in the
CP-specifier. The C that merges with why thus does not search its domain,
TP. The infinitive marker to* does not move to C, and the derivation crashes
at PF.
(4)

a.

CP

why

b.

CP

C’
C

C’
TP
…to*…

C[wh]

TP
…to*…what…

The empirical advantage of the proposal is that alleged ungrammaticality
disappears when the infinitive marker to* is elided, which suggests that theimpossibility of (2) should be treated in the same way as island repair(Merchant (1999), Ross (1969)). The sentence in (5) becomes grammaticalwhen the infinitive marker is dropped. Were it not for the ellipsis, theexample remains ungrammatical.
(5)

I asked Bill [WhP when to serve spiced aubergines ] and [IntP why <*toserve spiced aubergines> ].

The grammaticality of (5) constitutes a problem for S&S’s cartographic

account: the coordination marker, and, under the well-establishedassumption (Akmajian and Heny (1980)), can only put together the same
categories. If infinitive clauses project only up to WhP, why , which follows
the coordination marker can only be as large as WhP, but (5) is nonethelessgrammatical. The grammaticality of (5) naturally follows from ourassumption that to* carries a PF uninterpretable feature. When theuninterpretable feature is elided, the derivation converges.
What is elided in (5) is not a TP (sluicing), but is a VP (VP-deletion).
The infinitive marker to is elided independently of the VP-deletion, which
gives an illusion of sluicing. The infinitive marker to can delete when its
complement VP is elided. This point is shown by (6), which is grammaticalwith or without the infinitive marker (Tanaka (2011)).
(6)

None of us can cook aubergines, unless someone shows us how (to).

The interpretation of this sentence does not include the negative quantifierin the subject position of the antecedent clause. (6) thus cannot mean what(7) would mean.
(7)

None of us can cook aubergines, unless someone shows us how none of
us can cook aubergines.

What is elided in (6) does not include the subject negative quantifier, and (5)must be a case of VP-deletion. The infinitive maker to* can delete
independently of the VP-deletion, giving an illusion of a TP-ellipsis, sluicing(Tanaka (2011)). (8), then, shows that eliding to* salvages the potentiallyproblematic why-to sequence.
(8)

No one will cook aubergines, unless someone tells us why (to*).

Note that (8) is also a case of VP-deletion, since the subject negative
quantifier is included in the interpretation of the ellipsis site. When to*remains unelided, the sentence is ungrammatical.
The more recent studies on ellipsis posit that VP-deletion requires asyntactically identical antecedent (Merchant (2014), Tanaka (2011)). The
dropping of to* in (6) and (8), which does not require syntactically identicalantecedent, must be a PF phenomenon. Thus, the grammaticality of (8)supports our thesis that to* has a PF-uninterpretable feature.
Time permitting, I will explore some consequences of the present
proposal: i) what Yoshida (2010) refer to as Antecedent Contained Sluicing in(9) must also be a case of VP-deletion, coupled with PF-deletion of to; ii)
so-called island repair must be treated at PF.
(9)?John doesn’t love anyone without knowing who.

References
Akmajian, A. and F. Heny. 1980. An introduction to the principles oftransformational syntax. MIT Press.
Merchant, J. 2001. Syntax of silence. OUP.
Merchant, J. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. LI44. 77-108.
Ross, J. 1969. Guess Who? CLS5, 252-286.
Shlonsky, U. and G. Soare. 2011. Where’s ‘why’? LI42. 651-669.
Tanaka, H. Syntactic identity and ellipsis. TLR28, 79-110.
Yoshida, Masaya. 2010. Antecedent contained sluicing, LI41:348-356.

Effects of orthography on loanword adaptation of English diphthong // to Japanese
Kanako Tomaru (Sophia University)
BACKGROUND:
Japanese has imported many words from English. The process of importing, or adapting, words
from one language into another is called loanword adaptation. The language that provides the words
is called the source language, and the language that imports the words as loanwords is called theadapting language. In loanword adaptation, phonetic structures of original words of the source
language are often changed to conform to the phonetic structures of the adapting language. When
adapting words from English, for example, Japanese changes the original phonetic form of English
words by either (1) inserting vowels into consonant clusters (e.g., strike  ｽﾄﾗｲｸ //), (2)assigning Japanese consonants to English consonants (e.g., thanks  ｻ ﾝ ｸ ｽ //) or (3)representing English vowels, which have wider variation than Japanese, by Japanese five vowels (e.g.,
English // and // tend to be represented by Japanese //: cat ｷｬｯﾄ // and cut  ｶｯﾄ //).
Studies on loanword adaptation (Yip, 1993; Kenstowicz, 2005; Kaneko and Iverson, 2009; among
others) suggest that changes in phonetic forms of source language involve multiple factors, including
orthography of the source language.
PRESENT RESEARCH:
In this study, the effects of orthography on the adaptation of the English diphthong // into
Japanese are investigated. In Japanese loanwords from English, either (1) a single two-mora vowel or(2) a sequence of two vowels are assigned to the following English diphthongs: //, //, and //.
(1) English //  Japanese //:hole  ﾎｰﾙ //home  ﾎｰﾑ //(2) a. English //  Japanese //:flight  ﾌﾗｲﾄ //night  ﾅｲﾄ //b. English //Japanese //:out  ｱｳﾄ //crown  ｸﾗｳﾝ //On the other hand, English // does not show such a straightforward adaptation. It can be adapted
as either a single vowel (single-vowel form) (see 3-a), or a sequence of two vowels (two-vowel form)(see 3-b):(3) a. English //  Japanese // or /e/:sale  ｾｰﾙ //cake  ｹｰｷ //change  ﾁｪﾝｼﾞ //range  ﾚﾝｼﾞ //b. English //  Japanese //:eight  ｴｲﾄ//aid  ｴｲﾄﾞ//away  ｱｳｪｲ//1

This study suggests that variation of the assigned form for English // is caused by the orthographyof the source word. That is, a single vowel is assigned when the diphthong is spelled with one letter,and a sequence of two vowels is employed when the diphthong is spelled with two letters. For the
acoustic analysis, the present study recorded loanwords produced by a male speaker of Japanese to
examine whether the loanwords are actually produced as they are written in Japanese katakana (asabove). Additionally, the present study further analyzed the relationship between katakanatranscription and pronunciation of some exceptions such as hate ﾍｲﾄ /heito/, take ﾃｲｸ /teiku/, andstraight ｽﾄﾚｰﾄ //. The analysis found that these exceptions accept both ways, i.e., singlevowel form and two-vowel form. For example, hate ﾍｲﾄ is frequently produced as ﾍｰﾄ /heto/ in
actual pronunciation; ｽﾄﾚｰﾄ // can also be spelled as ｽﾄﾚｲﾄ /i/.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the observational analysis, the study suggests that adaptation of English /ei/ is strongly
affected by orthography of a source word. However, it is easily influenced by factors related to thesocial usage of words, including “heard impression of a loanword should be similar to a source word”
and “highly familiar loanwords should be unaccented.”

REFERENCES:
Dupoux, Emmanuel, K. Kakehi, Y. Hirose, C. Pallier and J. Mehler (1999) “Epenthetic Vowels inJapanese: A Perceptual Illusion?,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 25, 1568-1578.
Kaneko, Emiko, and Gregory K. Iverson (2009) “Phonetic and Other Factors in Japanese On-line
Adaptation of English Final Consonants,” Studies in Language Sciences 8: Papers from the Eighth
Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Language Science, ed. by Shunji Inagaki and
Makiko Hirakawa, 179-196, Kurosio Publications, Tokyo.
Yip, Moira (1993) “Cantonese Loanword Phonology and Optimality Theory,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics, 2, 261-291.
Kenstowicz, Michael (2005) “The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean Loanword Adaptation,” paper
presented at First European Conference on Korean Linguistics, Leiden University, Leiden.

2

A Voice-Bundling Parameter Account for Romance Anti-causatives
Masaki Yasuhara (University of Tsukuba)
Several languages such as Greek exhibit two types of anti-causatives, those in active form and those in
non-active form (henceforth, ACT and NACT, respectively), as shown in (1).
(1) a. To ktirio
gremiseapo
mono tu.
the building collapsed.ACT
byitselfb. To ktirio
gremistikeapo
mono tu.
the building collapsed.NACT byitself(Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2004))
The two types of anti-causatives can be distinguished morphologically. The anti-causative in (1a) has ACT
morphology whereas that in (1b) has NACT morphology. Alexiadou (2010) argues that NACT
anti-causatives have a more complex vP structure than ACT anticausatives; the former involve an additional
layer on top of the vP structure of the latter.
Yasuhara (2014) extends Alexiadou’s analysis and explains the existence of two types of Greek
anti-causatives from the point of view of Voice-Bundling parameter (Pylkkänen (2008)). This parametergroups languages into two types, Voice-Bundling languages and non-Voice-Bundling languages. Voice isthe head introducing an external argument and Cause is the head introducing a causing event. Voice andCause are bundled together in Voice-Bundling languages, as in (2a), whereas they are separate in
non-Voice-Bundling languages, as in (3a).
(2)
Transitive
Anti-causatives
a.
b.
VP
x
[Voice, Cause] VP(Voice-Bundling)(3)
Transitive
Anti-causative I
Anti-causatives IIa.
b.
Cause P
b’
VP
x
Voice
Cause
VP
Cause
VP
(non-Voice-Bundling)
In Voice-Bundling languages, Cause is combined with Voice, so the presence of Cause requires theoccurrence of an external argument. In non-Voice-Bundling languages, on the other hand, Cause isindependent of Voice, so the presence of Cause does not require the occurrence of an external argument.
Yasuhara argues that Greek is a non-Voice-Bundling language and that NACT morphology is an overt
realization of Cause (i.e., (1a) includes structure (3b)) whereas ACT morphology reflects its absence (i.e.,(1b) includes structure (3b’)).
The purpose of this paper is to show that the Voice-Bundling parameter provides a natural account for
Romance anti-causatives as well. Romance languages such as Italian, French and Spanish also have two
types of anti-causatives, those with a reflexive clitic and those without it (e.g. Folli (2002), Labelle andDoron (2010), Teomiro (2013)). Hereafter, we will call them marked and unmarked anti-causatives,
respectively.
(4) a. Il
cioccolato si
èfuso. (marked anti-causative)
the chocolate REFL ismeltedb. Il
cioccolato è
fuso. (unmarked anti-causative)
the chocolate ismeltedItalian (Folli (2002))

I propose that Romance languages belong to non-Voice-Bundling languages and that the reflexive clitic inmarked anti-causatives in Romance languages is an overt realization of the Cause head (i.e., the structure in(3b)) whereas this head is absent in unmarked anti-causatives (i.e., the structure in (3b’)).
If this proposal is on the right track, we can predict that NACT/marked anti-causatives andACT/unmarked ones exhibit a different aspectual meaning because only the former involve a causing and a
result event in the vP structure (i.e. (3b)) (cf. Hale and Keyser (1993)). Specifically, we predict that
NACT/marked anticausatives encode a telic interpretation. This prediction is confirmed by the following
data.
(5) a. * To ktirio
gremisese ena simio alla den gremise
entelos.
the building collapsed.ACT in one spot
but NEG collapsed.ACT completely
b. To ktirio
gremistike
se ena simio alla den gremistikeentelos.
the building collapsed.NACT in one spot but NEG collapsed.NACT completely
Greek (Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2004), with slight modifications)(6) a. La casa
èbruciata, ma
non è
bruciata.
the houseisburnedbut
notis burnedb. * La casasièbruciata,
ma nonèbruciata.
the house
REFL isburnedbut notisburnedItalian (Folli (2002), with slight modifications)
The ACT anti-causative cannot go along with a complete change of state interpretation, as indicated by the
incompatibility with the adverb entelos “completely,” whereas this adverb is compatible with the NACT
anti-causative. This contrast suggests that ACT and NACT anti-causatives are associated with atelic andtelic interpretations, respectively (cf. Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2004)). The same is true of Italiananti-causatives in (6). The achievement of a final state can be negated in (6a) but not in (6b). This factindicates that the reflexive clitic encodes a telic interpretation. The same observation is true of marked andunmarked anti-causatives in other Romance languages such as French and Spanish (Labelle and Doron(2010), Teomiro (2013)).
To sum up, this paper has argued that the existence of two types of anti-causatives in Romance languages
can be attributed to their non-Voice-Bundling property. The morphology of marked anti-causatives reflects
the Cause head whereas unmarked ones do not involve it. Although Greek and Romance languages use
different morphological devices, they share the mechanism for making a distinction between two types ofanti-causatives.
References
Alexiadou, A. (2010) “On the Morphosyntax of (Anti)Causative Verbs,” in M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron and I. Sichel (eds.)
Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press. / Alexiadou, A. and E. Anagnostopoulou(2004) “Voice Morphology in the Causative-Inchoative Alternation: Evidence for a Non-Unified Structural Analysis of
Unaccusatives,” in A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds.) The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. / Folli, R. (2002) Constructing Telicity in English and Italian. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Oxford. / Hale, K,
and S. J. Keyser (1993) “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations,” in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser(eds.) The view from building 20: Essays in lingusitics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. /Labelle, M. and E. Doron (2010) “Anticausative Derivations (and Other Valency Alternations) in French,” Probus 22, 303-316. /Pylkkänen, L. (2008) Introducing Arguments, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. / Teomiro García, II. (2013). “Low Applicatives andOptional "se" in Spanish Non-Anticausative Intransitive Verbs,” Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 8(1):140-153,
Universitat Politècnica de València. / Yasuhara, M. (2014) “The Typology of Anti-Causatives Denoting Externally Caused Event
from the Viewpoint of the Voice-Bundling Parameter: Evidence from Japanese Anti-Causatives.” Paper presented at 7th Formal
Approach to Japanese Linguistics. NINJAL/ICU.