On the Syntactic Realization of Verum Focus in English:
A Case Study of VP Preposing
Shohei Nagata and Masatoshi Honda(Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba)
1. Background: Verum Focus
In the literature, Höhle (1992) proposes verum focus (or polarity focus) as anindependent focus category that emphasizes the truth value of a propositional content(See Lohnstein (2016)). For example, verum focus can be expressed by the so-calledemphatic do in English (cf. Laka (1990)):(1)

I wonder whether Carl has finished his book. ― Carl did finish his book.
(Gutzmann and Castroviejo (2011:144), with slight modifications)Here, the truth value of the (discourse-given) proposition is in focus, and the emphatic
do serves to highlight the affirmative value. In general, the presence of do, or
do-insertion, has been considered a clue to understanding how verum focus isgrammatically encoded in English (e.g. López and Winkler (2000) for polarity focus in
VP ellipsis). Leonetti and Escandell-Vidal (2009) further attempt to extend the notionof verum focus to VP preposing in English:(2)

As members of a Gray Panthers committee, we went to Canada to learn and[learn we did]. …
(Ward (1990:743), with modifications)

In short, they argue that the auxiliary (do) in VP preposing encodes verum focus.
Within the generative framework, VP preposing has been investigated mainly interms of A-bar movement and the ECP satisfaction (Chomsky (1986) and Haegeman(2012)). However, less attention has been paid to whether and how verum focus
concerns the syntax and information structure of VP preposing. Thus, this study aims
to (i) show that VP preposing exhibits some phonological and interpretive properties ofverum focus and (ii) propose an approach on the basis of Laka’s (1990) SigmaP (Σ P).
2. The Data: VP Preposing and Verum Focus
Previous studies have stated two basic properties of VP preposing. First, VP
preposing requires an antecedent VP (Ward (1990)); this property has bee n argued toderive from VP topicalization (e.g. Emonds (1976)). Second, VP preposing also showssome phonological/interpretive properties corresponding to verum(/polarity) focus.
On the phonological side, Krifka (2001) observes that in VP preposing, the main
accent (and therefore focus) is on do (cf. (2)). Furthermore, he argues that thephonological property can be seen as an indication of verum focus in VP preposing.
On the interpretive side, Ward (1990:742-743) notes that VP preposing “mayserve to affirm a speaker ’s belief in a salient proposition explicitly evoked in the
discourse.” This discourse-related property can be seen as a reflex of verum focus(Krifka (2001) and Leonetti and Escandell-Vidal (2009)). In addition, there is a clear
piece of evidence for verum focus in VP preposing. One of the defining properties ofverum focus is its inability to occur when the truth value of the propositional content ispresupposed in the previous discourse (Leonetti and Escandell-Vidal (2009:184)). An
example of this is shown below:(3)

I am so proud of Andy for getting a hundred on his exam. # And get a hundred
he did!
(Ward (1990:752))

3. Proposal
To explain the phonological/interpretive properties of verum focus in VP
preposing described in Section 2, this paper assumes, following Laka (1990), that
English has SigmaP ( Σ P) under TP, which hosts either the affirmative feature or thenegative features (note: the affirmative feature is an empty morpheme Aff, while thenegative feature is realized as sentential negation not):(4) a.
b.

[ CP … [ TP [ T’ do [ ∑ P [ ∑ ’ Aff / Neg (= not) [ v P … ]]]]]][ CP [ vP t i learn] [ TP wei [ T’ did [ ∑ P [ ∑ ’ Aff <[ vP t i learn]>]]]]](= (2))

Following and slightly modifying Laka’s system, we further assume that the emphaticdo (cf. (1)) is analyzed as a combination of the auxiliary do, inserted at the T head, andthe empty Aff morpheme at the Σ head which is assigned a focus feature [+F] (cf.
López and Winkler (2000)); furthermore, the focalized affirmative morpheme isinterpreted as verum(/polarity) focus at LF and its phonological content (stress) is
realized on the auxiliary do at PF.
This paper extends Laka’s proposal in (4a) to VP preposing, as shown in (4b);that is, the Σ head licenses the topicalization of vP that has an antecedent in theprevious discourse (cf. (2)). The proposed analysis directly accounts for Krifka’s(2001) observation that the main accent falls on the auxiliary do in VP preposing.
Furthermore, the derivation in (4b) necessarily involves the focalized empty Aff feature,
which is interpreted as verum focus at LF. This roughly means that the empty Affmorpheme emphatically asserts the affirmative value. If the antecedent vP alreadypresupposes its truth value as true in the previous discourse, it will be impossible to(re)assert the affirmative value (cf. (3)).
4. Implications for VP Preposing from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective
This paper proposed that VP preposing in English syntactically encode s verum
focus by means of do-insertion, more specifically, the empty Aff morpheme at the(focus-assigned) Σ head. From a cross-linguistic perspective, VP preposing in
English falls under the class of the so-called predicate clefts (Aboh (2006) for a review
of predicate clefts). Further, the question is whether grammatical marking of verum
focus is one of the core properties of predicate clefts. We will provide some arguments
for such a view, referring to predicate clefts in languages such as Spanish (Vicente(2007)), Russian (Aboh and Dyakonova (2009)), and Japanese (Ishihara (2010)).
Selected References
Aboh, E. O. (2006) “When Verbal Predicates Go Fronting,” ZAS Papers in Linguistics
46, 21-48. / Gutzmann, D. and E. Castroviejo Miró (2011) “The Dimensions of Verum,”
Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, ed. by O. Bonami and P. C. Hofherr,
143-165. / Höhle, T. N. (1992) “Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen,” Linguistische
Berichte, Sonderheft 4, 13-56. / Laka, M. I. (1990) Negation in Syntax: On the Natureof Functional Categories and Projections, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. / Leonetti, M.
and V. Escandell-Vidal (2009) “Fronting and Verum Focus in Spanish,” Focus andBackground in Romance Languages, ed. by A. Dufter and D. Jacob, 155-204, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam. / Lohnstein, H. (2016) “Verum Focus,” The Oxford Handbookof Information Structure, ed. by C. Féry and S. Ishihara, 290-313. Oxford University
Press, Oxford. / López, L. and S. Winkler (2000) “Focus and Topic in VP -Anaphora
Constructions,” Linguistics 38, 623-664. / Ward, G. L. (1990) “The Discourse
Functions of VP Preposing,” Language 66, 742-763.

On Sentence Fragments of NPIs in Japanese–––A Direct Generation Analysis–––Kento Nagatsugu
Kyushu Kyoritsu University
In this poster presentation, I argue that sentence fragments of negative polarity items (NPIs) inJapanese, particularly WH-mo and sika, are directly generated, not being derived from full sentences
via deletion. Sentence fragments are non-sentential expressions with sentential interpretations, which
are exemplified by the short answer in (1B).
(1) A: What did you eat for lunch?
B: Pizza.
There have been two kinds of analysis on sentence fragments: the Deletion Analysis (DA) (e.g. Morgan(1973) and Merchant (2004)) and the Direct Generation Analysis (DGA) (e.g. Culicover andJackendoff (2005)). According to DA, sentence fragments have covert full-fledged syntactic structures
and are derived from full sentences by deletion, if a certain kind of formal identity is establishedbetween the underlying structures and the antecedent sentences. It is recently assumed that sentence
fragments undergo Focus Movement to the left periphery before deletion of TP takes place. According
to DGA, on the other hand, they are directly generated as what they are and they have no covert
syntactic structures. The aim of this presentation is to support DGA through an investigation of -sika
and WH-mo expressions in sentence fragments.
Generally, NPIs must co-appear with a negative element (Neg), such as -nai, in the same clause.
From the standard view, they must be in a certain syntactic relation with a Neg. According to DA, it isbasically predicted that an NPI can be legitimate as a sentence fragment iff its antecedent sentence
contains a Neg in a certain appropriate position.
Sentence fragments with -sika are not acceptable, as seen in (2) below.
(2)

A: Dare-o
mi-ta-no?
who.ACC
see-PAST-C‘Did anyone come?’

B: ??Jon-sika.
John-only‘Only John.’

Whether the impossibility of sentence fragments with -sika is predicted by DA, however, depends on
what analysis of the NPI is adopted. If it must be c-commanded by a Neg, (2B) violates this condition,
since the sentence fragment is displaced to the left periphery by Focus Movement. Hence, sentence
fragments with -sika themselves do not constitute counterevidence against DA.
Sentence fragments of WH-mo expressions, on the other hand, are well-formed, as shown by
examples (3) and (4) below. Note that acceptability of a WH-mo fragment is independent of whichpolarity its antecedent sentence has. As demonstrated by example (4), a WH-mo fragment is wellformed even if its antecedent sentence is positive. This fact is problematic for DA, since the analysis
does not allow polarity mismatches between fragments and their antecedent sentences (cf. Watanabe(2004)). Thus, DA fails in explanation of WH-mo fragments.
(3)

(4)

A: Nanika
mi-ta-no?
B:
something see-PAST-C‘Did you see anything?’
A: Nanimo
mi-nakatta-no? B:

Nanimo.
anything‘Nothing.’
Nanimo.

anything
see-NEG.PAST-C‘Didn’t you see anything?’

anything‘Nothing.’

I propose a DGA of Japanese NPI fragments, in which WH-mo fragments are licensed without
syntactic negation, within the framework of Culicover and Jackendoff (2005). The basic idea is that
NPIs are generally required to be licensed by semantic negation, but they differ in sensitivity tosyntactic negation. That is, some NPIs (e.g. -sika) must be licensed by a Neg in syntax, while the others(e.g. WH-mo expressions) need not to. I assume that WH-mo expressions are a kind of negative concord
item (NCI) in the sense of Ladusaw (1992). More precisely, what is required for WH-mo expressions
is to be interpreted within the scope of a semantic negation and they have no need to have a syntactic
relation with a Neg. In the present framework, sentence fragments can have negative interpretations
without syntactic negation. Therefore, the semantic condition on WH-mo expressions can be satisfied
without explicit Neg, if they are generated as sentence fragments. Sentence fragments with -sika canalso be semantically licensed, but they cannot be well-formed without explicit negation.
A remaining problem is that in full sentences WH-mo expressions are unacceptable without
explicit Neg. With a natural assumption that polarity marking is obligatory in full sentences, WH-mo
expressions are cannot be semantically licensed in sentences without explicit negation (such sentences
are zero-marked for positive polarity). Thus, the asymmetry between sentence fragments and full
sentences is just attributed to the “non-sentencehood” of sentence fragments.
References
Culicover, P. W. and R. Jackendoff (2005) Simpler Syntax, OUP. / Ladusaw, W. (1992)“Expressing
Negation,” Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, ed. by C. Baker and
D. Dowty, 237-259, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. / Merchant, J. (2004) “Fragments andEllipsis,” Linguistic & Philosophy 27, 661-738. / Morgan, J. (1973) “Sentence Fragment and Notion‘Sentence’,” Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, ed. by B. B. Kachru,
R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli and S. Saporta, 719-751, University of Illinois Press, Urbana,IL. / Watanabe, A. (2004) “The Genesis of Negative Concord: Syntax and Morphology of Negative
Doubling,” LI 35, 559-612.

On the Modality Expressed by the Japanese Particle Nanka
in Spoken Discourse
Miki Sugisaki (Graduate School of Humanities, Japan Women’s University)
In Japanese grammar, nanka, literally means “some, any, something, anything”(Daijirin 1995). One of a way, nanka is used, for example, as a predicative modifierattached before a predicate verb as in nanka samui, “I feel cold.” However, nanka isalso uttered in statements such as nanka densha-de hen-na hito-ga ite, which means“there was a strange person on the train.” In this case, nanka is not accompanied by apredicate verb. When nanka is used in this way, its meaning becomes more abstract.
The latest research shows this kind of nanka works as a filler similar to “like” or “well,”and explains that nanka expresses the speaker’s uncertainty and vagueness (Lauwereyns
2002; Heffernan 2012). However, nanka cannot be simply defined as a filler because it
tends to occur with the emotional expressions kanji (“feeling”) and ki-ga-suru (“seemto”) to reveal the speaker’s subjective feeling. Thus, as part of revealing the speaker’s
modality, this study examines how nanka shows the speaker’s cognition or attitude
towards an event, especially considering co-occuring expressions.
The data used in this study is the “Mister O Corpus,” in which the subjects arefemale teachers and students, 22 pairs of native Japanese speakers. Each pair is asked totalk about the topic: “What has surprised you most?” From this data, 395 expressions
using nanka are analyzed for recurring patterns.
The analysis of this data indicates that nanka is uttered to show the speaker’s
modality in three different ways. First, nanka indicates the speaker’s interpretation ofsomething:(1)odaiba-toka-mo nanka kon-de-so-toka omo-u-to ika-nai-desu-ne“I don't go to Odaiba because it seems crowded.”In (1), nanka works as a cue to convey the speaker’s subjective interpretation in thiscase. Next, nanka shows the speaker’s subjective image through onomatopoeia:(2) chari-o koi-de, nanka kekko-sasso-to sa-tte i-tta-n saaaa-tte shaaaa-tte
ma-ga-tte-ttara,“(I) pedaled a bicycle breezily, (I) turned at the corner smoothly.”In this example, after uttering nanka, the speaker is trying to describe the event that she
experienced. Onomatopoeia imitates the natural sounds of a thing, making thedescription more expressive and interesting. When using nanka with onomatopoeia, thespeaker conveys that her image of the event is subjective, as if she is saying, “I don’tknow, it might be inaccurate, but my image is....” Finally, nanka shows the speaker’s
hesitation when it is uttered to begin the narration of an episode:(3)

a, ii-no-kana saikin-zya-naku-tte-mo, nanka watashi-ga kyonen-no
nigatsu-nioosutoraria-ni i-tta-n-da“Well, if it is not a recent story, is it all right? I went to Australia last February.”In this case, nanka is mostly uttered with particular phrases as in ii-no-kana, “I wonder
if…” or “I wonder if it is okay with you…” The speaker shows that she does not want
to force her story on the listener.
These three usages of nanka reveal the speaker’s feeling. By using nanka, thespeaker tries to convey her emotions and attitude when describing an event. As a result,the listener receives a vivid account of what is being narrated as well as of the speaker’s
feelings. As can be seen, nanka has a wide variety of meanings depending on the
speakers’ interpretations, images, and feelings of hesitation. Viewed in this light, nanka
does not seem to simply correspond to the filler words “like” or “well.” Rather, it plays
an important role in representing the speakers’ modality in social interaction in
Japanese.

References
Daijirin. Second Edition. 1995. Matsumura, Akira (ed.). Tokyo: Sanseido.
Heffernan, Kevin. 2012. Similarities in the syntactic development of two discourse
markers: Japanese nanka and English like. Kwansei Gakuin University
Humanities Review 17. 147-157.
Lauwereyns, Shizuka. 2002. Hedges in Japanese conversation: the influence of age,sex, and formality. Language Variation and Change 14. 239-259.