Simplest Merge and Labeling Subsume Phases
Samuel D. Epstein
University of Michigan

Hisatsugu Kitahara
T. Daniel Seely
Keio University Eastern Michigan University

Chomsky (2000) argues that the “last resort” character of movement is deducible from
(1a-d):(1) a. postulating Move as the composite operation that combines Merge and Agreeb. postulating lexical array LA
c. postulating lexical subarray SA (extracted from LA)
d. Merge over Move (deducibly from (1a) and computational efficiency)
In this paper, we suggest (1a-d) lose all empirical support under: (i) simplest Merge(Chomsky 2004, 2005) and (ii) labeling as minimal search (Chomsky 2013).
First consider simplest Merge, defined in (2):(2) Merge(α,β)=>{α,β}Under (2), Chomsky argues that Merge and Move are unified; they are just two possible
instantiations – External Merge EM and Internal Merge IM – of Merge(α,β)=>{α,β}. Thus,
Move can no longer be expressed as the composite operation that combines Merge and Agree(1a), since Merge and Move are the very same operation, namely (2). Consequently, Merge
over Move (1d) is not maintainable.
Next, consider the (enduring) A-movement/Expletive/Case phenomena which motivated(1b,c), as illustrated in (3a,b). In (3a,b), (i) TP is replaced by α, (ii) there is taken to be acomplex syntactic object (arguably, of the form {D, pro} in the sense of Uriagereka 1988, seealso Chomsky 2013), and (iii) t(race) is used only for expository purposes:(3)a. * There is likely [α a dog to be t outside].
b. There is likely [α t to be a dog outside].
If, as in (3a), a dog moves to form the embedded clause α and remains there at CI, thenminimal search finds no label of α, because α is of the form {XP,YP}, and there is no phi or
Q feature, shared by the heads of "Spec-T" and "T-bar" (Chomsky 2013). The fact that α has
no label bars (3a) by Full Interpretation (FI). Now, if there is instead first inserted to form theembedded clause α, then α is (similarly) a “label-less” set {XP,YP}; but if there
subsequently undergoes A-movement, as in (3b), then, given "chain"-theory, minimal searchfinds the only visible head T (= to) as the label of α (= TP) satisfying FI at CI. Notice thisanalysis also predicts that “label failure” arises if there is merged in to form the embedded
clause α, and it stays there at CI, as in e.g. “*there is likely there to be a man in the room”

(see Lasnik 1992 for earlier analyses).
Given this labeling analysis, consider now (4a,b), which, along with (3a,b), motivated thevery concept phase:(4) a.
b.

There is a possibility [CP that a dog will be t outside].
A possibility is [CP that there will be a dog outside].

With (1a-d) eliminated, the concept phase, defined in terms of LA/SA, is no longer available.
This analysis predicts that there need be no derivational competition between there-insertionand A-movement. Each is available. Thus, (4a,b) are generable with no problem. There is noneed to postulate LA or SA or even phase to account for the central data (such as (3b) and(4a)), in which paradoxically, Move-over-Merge seems to apply.
In conclusion, simplest Merge and labeling appear to subsume the concept “phase,”
reducing the number of postulates in the narrow syntax and arguably eliminating some formof “look-ahead” calculation needed to pre-syntactically select the lexical material that will –when subsequently assembled by iterative Merge application – make up exactly a CP/v*P(see Epstein 2007 for relevant discussion). The analysis in turn entails the elimination of thenotion phase itself, where a phase of the derivation is defined as a syntactic object derived
from an SA, extracted from LA. If there are no phases as such, then there must be anotherway to induce ‘chunked’ derivation but without defining phases in terms of SA or LA. In theremainder of this paper, we briefly discuss two possibilities of inducing (and perhaps
explaining) strict cyclic derivation without defining phases in terms of SA or LA.
Selected References
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on
minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The
cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3, 104-131, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design, Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1-22.
Chomsky, N. 2013. “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Epstein, Samuel D. 2007. On i(internalist)-functional explanation in minimalism. Linguistic
Analysis 33, 20-53.
Lasnik, H. 1992. Case and expletives: Notes toward a parametric account. Linguistic Inquiry
23, 381-405.
Uriagereka, J. 1988. On government. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Does Modern Chinese Allow Genitive Subjects?
Ling-Yun Fan, Can Wang, and Hideki Maki
Gifu University
1. Introduction
Harada (1971) originally pointed out that Japanese allows genitive subjects. Maki et al(2010) then point out that Mongolian, another Altaic language, also allows genitive subjects.
Maki et al (2008) and Maki et al (2013) then show that non-Altaic languages such as Bengali
and Urdu also allow genitive subjects. All these languages possess rich case markers, one ofwhich is the genitive case marker. These facts indicate that Altaic and Indo-European
languages allow genitives subjects, and at the same time, raise the question of whether
languages surrounded by these two language families, which belong to a language family
different from them, may also allow genitive subjects. The purpose of this paper is then toinvestigate whether Chinese, a language from the China-Tibetan language family, possess
genitive subjects. This investigation has not been conducted, as Chinese does not have richcase markers. However, it has a morphological genitive/possessive marker de ‘of,’ although it
does not have a morphological nominative case marker. We will then examine if Chinese
allows genitive subjects marked with de in this paper.
2. Data
In Chinese, within nominal expressions, de ‘of’ marks the possessor of a given noun, as
shown in (1).
(1)

Zhangsan de shu
Zhangsan DE book
‘Zhangsan’s book’

In relative clauses, de ‘of’ must appear between a head noun and the relative clause, as shownin (2).
(2)

sandian huoche daoda *(de) zhan
3 o’clock train
arriveDE station‘the station where the train arrived at 3 o’clock’

Note that de ‘of’ does not appear at the end of a simple sentence, or after the subject of asimple sentence, as shown in (3) and (4).
(3)

Sandian huoche dao
leBeijingzhan(*de).
3 o’clock train
arrive ASP Beijing Station DE‘The train arrived at Beijing Station at 3 o’clock.’(4) * Sandian huoche de dao
leBeijingzhan.
3 o’clock train
DE arrive ASP Beijing Station‘The train arrived at Beijing Station at 3 o’clock.’1Let us now examine whether Chinese allows genitive subjects. The data in (5)-(10) showthat relative clauses in Chinese may actually have a genitive subject.
(5)

zuotianhuoche dao
Beijingzhan
de shijian
yesterday train
arrive Beijing Station DE time‘the time when the train arrived at Beijing Station yesterday’(6)

zuotianhuoche de dao
Beijingzhan
de shijian
yesterday train
DE arrive Beijing Station DE time‘the time when the train arrived at Beijing Station yesterday’(7)

zuotianZhangsan mai naben shu de liyou
yesterday Zhangsan buy that book DE reason‘the reason why Zhangsan bought that book yesterday’(8)

zuotianZhangsan de mai naben shu de liyou
yesterday Zhangsan DE buy that book DE reason‘the reason why Zhangsan bought that book yesterday’(9)

xingqiliu Zhangsan meiyou mai de shu
Saturday Zhangsan not
buy DE book‘the book which Zhangsan did not buy on Saturday’(10)

xingqiliu Zhangsan de meiyou mai de shu
Saturday Zhangsan DE not
buy DE book‘the book which Zhangsan did not buy on Saturday’

3. Discussion
This study is the first that found genitive subjects in Chinese. Let us then consider what
the present study may suggest. First, if the present study is correct, not only Altaic and IndoEuropean languages, but also part of China-Tibetan languages, allow genitive subjects.
Second, given Hiraiwa’s (2001) generalization shown in (11), the element de in front of
the head noun of a relative clause is not COMP.
(11)The Nominative-Genitive Conversion (NGC) Universal
Nominative-Genitive Conversion is possible only in a language L which employs the
C-T-V AGREE strategy in relativization; consequently, NGC is not observed in thelanguages which use overt wh-movement strategy or overt complementizer strategy
in relative clause formation. (Hiraiwa (2001: 113))

Rather, it seems to be a marker that shows that the predicate within the relative clause towhich it is attached, is in the adnominal form. Since a relative clause without de isungrammatical, it seems plausible to assume that it functions as an adnominal form indicator.
Third, examples such as (8), which has a transitive verb with an overt object, show that
the Transitivity Restriction on genitive subjects, which prohibits co-occurrence of an
accusative DP with the genitive DP (Watanabe (1996)), is not operative in Chinese, just like
Mongolian and Turkish, and unlike Japanese.
Fourth, (8) again suggests that even an SVO language may have genitive subjects.

2

The Historical Development of English Middles
FENG Shuang
Graduate School of Nagoya University
1. Introduction
There are two types of English middles: Type I involves a facility adverb(FA) like easily or an event adverb (EA) like like mysteries, and Type II
involves a modal that attenuates the need for an adverb, as shown in (1a, b),
respectively. Both types have a modal interpretation in that they denote thepossibility of the event and the implicit agent’s ability to carry out the event.
(1) a. These novels read *(easily)/ *(like mysteries).
b. Dirt will/could rub off when it is dry.
This paper attempts to account for the historical development of English
middles, by applying the analysis of Massam (1992) that they have a modal
operator in T to be specified by a modal or an adverb.
2. Historical Data
I have collected the historical data on English middles from OED on CDROM by utilizing its quotation search function. The result is summarized inTable 1, which represents the numbers of their tokens and the percentages ofeach type. This shows that middles emerged in the 16th century, in which
only Type II was available; then, Type I appeared in the 17th century andincreased its frequency thereafter.
Table 1. The Distribution of Middles in the History of English
16c
17c
18c
19c
1901-1950
Type I019(35%)
31(55%)
79 (54%)20(62%)
Type II
6(100%)
35(65%)
25(45%)
66 (46%)12(38%)
It is worthwhile to note that the emergence of middles coincides with theestablishment of modal auxiliary system discussed by many linguists. For
example, Roberts (1993) argues that modals were reanalyzed from main
verbs generated in V to auxiliaries generated in T in the 16th century. This
paper proposes to relate the two events in terms of Massam’s (1992) analysis
mentioned above: once modals became T-elements in the 16th century, they
began to specify the modal operator of middles by directly merging in T.
3. Three Stages in the Development of English Middles
By examining the collected data, the development of English middles canbe divided into three stages.
A. Stage I (16c)
Only Type II was attested in which the modal operator is specified by amodal merged in T (see (2)).

(2) I …weare satten of Bruges, but it wyll soyle. (1530 Palsgr.724)
B. Stage II (17c)Many Type II middles involving an adverb appeared in Stage II. Thismeans that the modal operator is specified by a modal in combination withan FA (see (3a)) or an EA (see (3b)).
(3) a. Grape will keep better in a vessel... (1626 Bacon S. 627)
b. A kind of steel…which would polish almost as white and bright assilver. (1626 Bacon S.849)
On the other hand, a few examples of Type I where an FA occurs without amodal also appeared (see (4)): FAs took on the function of specifying themodal operator by themselves, so that a modal became optional in middles.
(4) The rinde or skin peeles off most easily. (1634 SIR T. H.Trav. 183)
C. Stage III (18c-)
Examples of Type I began to be attested where an EA occurs without amodal (see (5)): EAs took on the function of specifying the modal operator bythemselves.
(5) If they handle moist or clammy ...they are fit to bag. (1727 B. Fam. D.)
According to Matsumoto (1996), FAs, which are related to the implicit
agent of middles, are adjuncts of VP1, while EAs, which refer to the state of
the patient during or after the event, are adjuncts of VP3.
(6) …[νP [VP1 FA [VP1 V1…[VP2 V2… [VP3 EA [VP3 V3…]]]]]]
This paper assumes with Massam (1992) and Matsumoto (1996) that in theabsence of a modal, an FA or EA moves to T at LF to specify the modal
operator in middles.
(7) [TP DPi [T’ [T Op] [vP [VP1 FA [VP1 [VP2 [VP3 EA [VP3 V ti]]]]]]]]
Summarizing, the development of English middles can be characterized
in terms of the change in the manner of specifying the modal operator in T:
from the direct merger of a modal in T, which is the most basic strategy, tothe covert movement of an adverb, which is a later development. The change
in Stage III could be viewed as an extension in the manner of specifying themodal operator: the latter can now be licensed by EAs which contribute todispositional modality (related to the disposition of the patient), as well as by
FAs which contribute to the modality of possibility/ability.
References
Massam, Diane (1992) Null Object and Non-thematic Subjects. Journal of
Linguistics 28, 115-137.
Matsumoto, Masumi (1996) Modality in the English Middle and theJapanese Potential. JELS 13, 51-60.
Roberts, Ian (1993) Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History ofEnglish and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

A QR-based Approach to the Internal Reading of Tigau
Yoko Fujii
Osaka University
Introduction: I argue that an internal reading of relational adjectives such as different and its
Japanese counterpart Tigau is best captured by Quantifier Raising (QR hereafter) of the relevant
plurality rather than probe-goal agreement proposed by Tonoike (2013). Tonoike claims that afeature value [+distributive] of a relational adjective needs to be assigned to a closest plurality via aphase head so that the internal reading would obtain. The derivations are illustrated in (1).
Problem: The data of Japanese causatives in (2), however, will be problematic for it. Following
Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), I assume that complement clauses of causative constructions are
vPs. Accordingly, (2) has the structure in (3) at some stage of the derivation. Since the plurality

Taro-to-Hanako is in the lower spec vP position, it is still accessible to syntactic operations in (3).
Tonoike’s analysis therefore predicts that feature-valuation would succeed but this prediction is notborne out due to the marginal acceptability of the internal reading of (2).
Proposal and Analysis: My proposal is that a plurality has to take scope over a relational adjectivein order to obtain the internal reading. When a plurality c-commands a relational adjective,
distribution of a NP modified by the adjective can take place over the relevant plurality, which will
be interpreted as an internal reading. According to Takahashi (2010), QR is phase-bound and a vP
will count as a phase only when its head values case of an internal argument. Given thisassumption, let us first consider (1b). In (1b), the two rats is marked as accusative case so a vP
becomes a phase. Although it is a phase, QR of the plurality the two rats to the vP will be possible.
By the plurality c-commanding a trace of the subject after QR, the required scope-shifting isachieved, as shown in (4). This is how the current analysis captures the internal reading of (1b).
Note here that both (5a) and (5b) have internal readings in contrast to (2). In (5ab), without any
internal argument, none of vPs are phases. Since QR of Taro-to-Hanako will be possible, it can takescope over the subject. On the other hand, in (2), the internal argument LGB is marked as
accusative case, which means a vP, the lower one I assume, is working as a phase. As a result, theplurality Taro-to-Hanako cannot QR beyond the phase boundary and it cannot take scope overTigau-sensei. Thus, My proposal accounts for the lack of an internal reading of (2) in the light of theunavailability of QR of the plurality. If this analysis is on the right track, the example (6) should
allow an internal reading unlike (2) and it actually does. The lower vP is a phase in (6) as well, but
it does not block QR of the plurality to that vP. Therefore, the inverse scope can be realized.
Consequence: Concerning case-valuation in Japanese causatives, Takahashi assumes that thecase-feature of the lower v is obligatorily absorbed by the causative affix –sase and it is the matrix v
that licenses the case-feature of the embedded object. One implication from my analysis, however, isthat not the matrix v but the lower v licenses the case-feature. Otherwise, only the matrix vP would
be a phase, which would make QR possible in (2) in almost the same way as in (1b). Therefore, if
two vPs in Japanese causatives should be related to each other in case-valuation, I suggest that notcase-absorption but feature-inheritance from the matrix v to the lower v takes place.
In sum, by adopting QR and examining how phases affect it, my proposal accommodates the datalike (2) which should be problematic for the previous analysis.
Examples:(1) a. [Bob and Alice v* [attend different classes]]
[+d]

[+d]

[+d]

b. [Different cats v* [chased the two rats]]
[+d]
(2)

[+d]

[+d]

??Tigau-sensei-ga
different teacher-Nom

Taro-to-Hanako-ni

LGB-o

kaw-ase-ta.

T.-and-H.-Dat

LGB-Accbuy-cause-past‘Different teachers made Taro and Hanako buy LGB.’(3) [vP tigau-sensei-ga [VP [vP Taro-to-Hanako-ni [VP LGB-o [V kaw]]] [V ase]]](4) [TP Different catsj [vP the two ratsi vP tj(5) a. Tigau-sensei-ga
different-teacher-Nom

chased [VPVti ]]]

Taro-to-Hanako-ohashir-ase-ta.

T. and H.-Acc

run-cause-past‘Different teachers made Taro and Hanako run.’b. Tigau-sensei-ga
different-teacher-Nom

Taro-to-Hanako-ni

hashir-ase-ta.

T. and H.-Dat

run-cause-past‘Different teachers made Taro and Hanako run.’(6) Tanaka-sensei-ga

tigau-gakusei-ni

LGB-to-Barriers-o

kaw-ase-ta.

Tanaka-teacher-Nom different-student-Dat LGB-and-Barriers-Acc buy-cause-past‘Prof. Tanaka made different student buy LGB and Barriers.’
References:
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) “Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame,”

Nanzan Linguistics 1: 1-19.
Takahashi, M. (2010) “Case, Phases, and Nominative/Accusative Conversion in Japanese,” Journalof East Asian Linguistics 19: 319-355.
Tonoike, S. (2013) “An Agree-based Analysis of the Internal Reading of Different,” JELS 30:
222-228.

On the differences between the φ-features and the θ-features
Chihiro Fujimori
Hirosaki University
In this paper, I’d like to distinguish the φ-features from the θ-features in terms of what motivates
movement for valuation/licensing and where the motivations are.
First, I’d like to deal with Kitada’s (2013) claim. He argues, extending Chomsky’s (2008)
Feature Inheritance (FI), in which all of the uninterpretable features are introduced on the phaseheads, that the uninterpretable θ-features, proposed in Hornstein (1999), should also be introduced on
the phase head v, and that there should arise four types of inheritance possibility, depending onwhether the θ-features on the phase head v are inherited or not.
(1) [vP [v’ v[Ag][Th] [VP [V’ V … ]]]] ([Ag] = Agent θ-feature, [Th] = Theme θ-feature)(2) a. [vP [v’ v[Ag] [VP [V’ V[Th] … ]]]] b. [vP [v’ v [Th] [VP [V’ V[Ag] … ]]]]
c. [vP [v’ v [VP [V’ V[Ag][Th] … ]]]] d. [vP [v’ v[Ag][Th] [VP [V’ V … ]]]]
Particularly problematic I believe are the FI patterns in (2b-d): in (2b) [Ag] is transmitted to V
while [Th] stays on v; and in (2c-d) both [Ag] and [Th] are on the same head. It has been longassumed that the Thematic Hierarchy (TH) regulates the relative height among θ-roles, specifically
Ag>Th. The FI patterns in (2b-d) obviously violate TH. Furthermore, Kitada’s analysis also
violates the Uniformity of Theta-Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH). He argues that in the active
cases, the FI pattern in (2a) takes place, while, in the passive cases, the FI pattern in (2b) takes place.
Given that passive sentences are derived from their active counterparts, it is quite mysterious that
actives and passives have different argument structures. Thus, I will assume that, although Kitada’s
FI-θ mechanism should be maintained, TH and UTAH force [Th] on v to be transmitted to V
whenever it arises, and [Ag] on v to stay on v whenever it arises. This means that the θ-features, aswell as the φ-features, reside in phase heads, probing and moving some elements for licensing.
Since Hornstein (1999), the movement into θ-positions has been hotly debated in the literature.
Under this analysis, a DP can bear multiple θ-roles in the course of the derivation. Given theθ-features, this means that a DP can check/value multiple θ-features.
(3) a. John hoped to leaveb. [IP John<θ-leave><θ-hope>[VP John<θ-leave><θ-hope> [hopes [IP John<θ-leave> to [VP John<θ-leave> leave]]]
This is totally different from checking/valuation of φ-features: once the uninterpretable/unvalued
Case feature of a DP is checked/valued, the DP cannot move further to check/value other φ-featureson the higher heads (what Bošković (2007, 2008) calls “the freezing effect”).
(4) *Johni is likely [TP ti is smart]
If the θ-features should also be treated in the same manner as the φ-features, once the θ-features on a
DP are checked/valued, the θ-checked/valued DP could not move further, contrary to Hornstein’s
claim. Therefore, we have to deal with them in a different way. Here, I will assume that theuninterpretable/unvalued Case feature on DPs motivates movement of DPs for valuation, asBošković (2007, 2011) argues, while the θ-features on the probing heads motivate movement of DPs
for licensing, as Hornstein (1999) argues. This means that the uninterpretable/unvalued Casefeature of DPs function as a probe, while the θ-features on the probing heads function as a probe.
The current analysis can account for the data shown by Polinsky and Potsdam (2002). They
point out that in Tsez, in which the predicate agrees with the Absolutive element, when –oqa ‘begin’and –iča ‘continue’ are introduced, an unusual agreement pattern between the predicates andErgative elements occurs, and argue that there is an unpronounced Absolutive element triggering theagreement on the predicates (what is called “backward control”).
(5) a. kid-bāziya
b-išr-ay-oq-sigirl.II-Erg cow.III.Abs III-feed-INF II-begin-Past.Evid‘The girl began to feed the cow’b. Δi[kid-bāiziya
b-išr-a]y-oq-si
II.Abs girl.II-Erg cow.III.Abs III-feed-INF II-begin-Past.Evid
However, as the gloss in (5) indicates, the subject has been Case-checked/valued as Ergative in theembedded clause. Given Bošković’s (2007, 2011) claim, since there are no uninterpretable/
unvalued Case feature on the subject, no further movement should occur, contrary to the fact. Here,I will assume that [Ag] on the matrix v functions as a probe, moving the embedded subject to thematrix SpecvP. This means that Bošković’s claim that the motivation for movement resides only ingoals is too strong. I will also assume, following Potsdam and Polinsky (2012), that the Case of thesubject reflects its clause membership; i.e., when the subject is marked as Ergative, it is in theembedded clause; when the subject is marked as Absolutive, it is in the matrix clause. If thisanalysis is correct, once the embedded subject moves into the matrix clause to check/value [Ag],since it is a member of matrix clause, its Case should be realized as Absolutive.
References
Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal
theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589-644.
Bošković, Željko (2008) “On the operator freezing effect,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
26: 249-287.
Bošković, Željko (2011) “On valued uninterpretable features,” Proceedings of NELS 39.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) "On phases," in Formal issues in linguistic theory: essays of Jeanronger
Vergnaud, ed. by R. Freidin et al, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hornstein, Norbert (1999) “Movement and control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.
Kitada, Shin-ichiro (2013) “Feature inheritance and four types of argument structure,” Journal of
English Linguistics Society 30: 97-103.
Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam (2002) “Backward control,” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245-282.
Potsdam, Eric. and Maria Polinsky (2012) “Backward raising,” Syntax 15: 75-108.

Stack-Based Agree
Jason Ginsburg (Osaka Kyoiku University), Sandiway Fong (University of Arizona)
Introduction: Under the standard Phase Theory view (cf. Chomsky 2001, etc.), Agree is
a complex operation in which an uninterpretable feature (uF) functions as a probe thatsearches through its search domain for a matching interpretable goal (iF). Probe-goal search
is a computationally expensive operation that requires a probe to evaluate all of the featuresin its search domain until it finds a matching goal (if present). We propose that a novel“search-free” stack mechanism for Agree relations can replace standard probe-goal search.
Proposal: We propose that all derivations are obligatorily funneled through a stack data
structure, which is a last-in, first-out (LIFO) list with a unique Top of Stack (TOS). For
example, Merge α (a head/label) with β. Push the non-head β onto the stack, where it
becomes the TOS. A probe on α peers into the stack and Agrees with the TOS β, if agreement
is possible (e.g., α has a uF and β has a matching iF). Crucially, when a stack is populated bymore than one element, only the TOS is visible to a probe. If all the features of the TOS arechecked, then the TOS is popped off, and the next element in the stack, if present, moves tothe top position, thus becoming available to future Agree operations.
Example Derivation: The simplified derivation of I eat food is shown in (1). When V
and its DP complement are Merged (1a), the DP is pushed onto the stack where it remains,due its uCase feature. When v* is Merged, the VP complement is pushed onto the stack. The
head v* then Agrees, via the stack, with the VP, assuming a uV on v* is checked, and the VP
is popped, since it contains no uFs. As a result, the DP ‘food’ becomes the TOS. Next, a uPhi
feature on v* peers into the stack and Agrees with the DP, resulting in checking of uCase of
the DP and of uPhi of v*. The DP no longer has any uFs, and thus is popped off the stack.
Then, when the subject DP is Merged, it too is pushed onto the stack, where it remains due toits uCase feature (1b). When the matrix T is Merged (1c), it finds and Agrees, via the stack,with the subject DP. The uCase feature on the subject is checked and the subject is popped
off the stack. In this manner, all agreement relations are confined to a probe and the TOS.
Economy: We created a computer model that evaluates and compares the cost of searchin a derivation computed via typical probe-goal search versus the proposed stack-based
Agree mechanism. In the standard search model, a cost of 1 is added for each node that aprobe checks in its search domain. For example, when v* Merges with VP, a uPhi probe on
v* searches into its complement VP until it finds a matching iPhi on a DP. Each node that it
checks incurs a cost of 1. Assuming that phi-features of the DP are visible on D, a cost of 4 isincurred. For stack-based Agree, each time that a probe peers into the stack, a cost of 1 isincurred. For example, when v* Merges with VP, v* peers into the stack and Agrees with theVP, which is popped, followed by Agree between v* and the DP, which is also popped, thus
incurring a cost of 2. (2) shows the costs of a simple and a complex sentence (2a-b). In (2b),the matrix T undergoes a triple agreement relation (Chomsky 2001); checking of uPhi on‘there’ via Agree(T,there), checking of uCase on the participle via Agree(T,ed), and checkingof uCase and uPhi via Agree(T,several prizes). The cost incurred via stack-based search islower than for standard search. Our model shows that stack-based Agree is less costly thanfor standard probe-goal search, and this cost differential increases for complex sentences,such as (2b). We propose that, from the perspective of Minimalism (Chomsky 1995), themore economical stack-based Agree method is preferable to the standard probe-goal search.
Conclusion: In this paper, we demonstrate in detail how stack-based Agree works withrespect to these and other related examples and demonstrate why it is economical.
(1) (a)(b)

Stack: [D food[uCase]](c)

Stack: [D I[uCase]]

Stack:(2)

Cost (Standard)

Cost (Stack)(a) I eat food.

159(b) There are likely to be awarded several prizes.

49

16

References:
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA: 1-52.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in Language, ed. by M.
Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Contrastive Frame Semantics: Sit, Lie and Stand in English, Russian, and Japanese
Ganna Gladkova and Toshio Ohori (University of Tokyo)
Frame semantics (FS) has found its application in large-scale lexicographic projects,
the best known of which is FrameNet (FN). However, it is still not clear to what extent
English-based frames are usable as semantic interlingua for handling apparently
corresponding lexemes across languages (Ohara, 2009: 180). We present a case study of
posture verbs, a group shown to vary greatly across languages in grammatical peculiarities
and semantic structures (Newman, 2002), and attempt to provide a unified FS-based accountof posture verbs that would generalize over English, Russian and Japanese data.
The first challenge to FS comes from the aspectual properties of posture verbs. The
English verbs sit, lie and stand have both dynamic and stative uses, and they are attributed toframes CHANGE_POSTURE and POSTURE respectively by the Berkeley FN (cf. she came and sat
by my side vs. she sat there for a while). This view is reflected in the “pre-state – change-ofstate – resulting-state” event scenario in FN (Fillmore & Baker, 2010: 331).
However, Japanese equivalents of posture verbs have only dynamic use (change of
posture), while the static one is expressed with -te iru.
(1)
[Raikyaku ga]PROTAGONIST [isu ni]GOAL suwatta.
guest-NOM
chair-LOC sit-PAST.
‘The guest sat down in the chair.’On the other hand, in Russian each of English posture verbs has three ways of verbal
encoding. Besides change of posture and resulting state, Russian lexicalizes movement to theintended location.
(2)[Tetki]PROTAGONIST [so svoimi baulami]COTHEME [dolgo]TIME sadilis’ [v avtobus]GOAL.
women-NOM
with their bag-PL
long
sit-PAST in bus.
‘The women took a long time getting in the bus because of their big bags.’
In order to capture this variation, we propose a revised event scenario for a
multilingual FS-based system, incorporating stages that are lexicalized in at least one of thetarget languages.
Pre-state
English:Russian:Moving tochange posture

Changing
posturePosture--sadit’sya, lozhit’sya,
vstavat’---sit, lie, standsit, lie, standsest’, lech’,sidet’, lezhat’,
vstat’
stoyat’Japanese:suwaru, tatsu,--yokoninaru
Figure 1. Lexicalizations of posture scenario in English, Russian, and Japanese
The second challenge for FS is the question of what generalizations one could makeover the semantic constraints on the arguments of posture verbs in different languages. In FS
terms, the BEING_LOCATED frame must specify which kinds of objects can become the THEME
element.
Berkeley FN has come up with a mechanism for associating frame elements withsemantic types; currently it is used to link to general WordNet classes, and there are proposals
for more detailed ontologies. However, acceptability of posture verb arguments cannot befully accounted for with an ontological hierarchy. For example, a glass can be said to “stand”
on the table in our three target languages, but a plate “sits” in English, while Japanese allows
only an existential predicate in such cases. In Russian a plate “stands” on the table, but afrying pan “lies” – and so would a plate, if it were placed in that frying pan.
We propose to model the semantic constraints on the PROTAGONIST element in the
POSTURE frame and THEME element in the BEING_LOCATED frame with a set of principles as
outlined below.
Table 1. Principles for lexical selection
Schematic principles
English(1) Creatures whose bodies allow different posturessit, lie,stand(2) Saliently vertical FIGURE
stand(3) Saliently horizontal FIGURE
lie(4) Small animals with four legssit(5) Birds in a perched position
stand(6) Figures that lack orientational saliencysit(7) Objects placed in a CONTAINER--(8) Objects with a base--(9) Objects that have physical “legs”
standRussiansit, lie,
stand
stand
lie
sit
sit
lie
lie
stand
stand

Japanese
sit, lie,
stand
stand
---------------

Since some nouns fall under several categories, our approach has the advantage ofmodeling the options of a speaker trying to decide on a non-prototypical case. For instance, it
is not clear to a Russian speaker whether a turtle “sits” (4) or “lies” (3), and both
combinations occur in corpora. If one of the criteria applies with priority in response tocontextual factors, constraints are re-ranked. This allows us to explain, e.g., why a flamingo isallowed to “stand” both in both Russian and Japanese ((2) overrides (5)), and all three target
languages accept that birds “sit” on eggs ((1) overrides (5)).
References
Fillmore, C.J., and Baker, C. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine and
H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. (pp. 313–340).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newman, J. (Ed.). (2002). The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ohara, K. H. (2009). Frame-based contrastive lexical semantics in Japanese FrameNet: Thecase of risk and kakeru. In H.C. Boas (Ed.) Multilingual FrameNets in Computational
Lexicography: Methods and Applications (pp. 163–182). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

An Analysis of the Hito-N Construction in Japanese with Special Reference
to the Cognate Object Construction in English
Ikuko Hasebe, Noboru Kamiya, and Masatoshi Honda(University of Tsukuba, Chiba University, and Kanda University ofInternational Studies)
The aim of this presentation is to provide an analysis of the hito-N
Construction in Japanese (henceforth, HNC), exemplified in (1).
(1) a.
Penki-ohito-hake
nuru.
Paint-Acc HITO-brush paintLit. ‘(to) spray a brush of paint’b.
Hito-asekaku.
Hito-sweat sweat
Lit. ‘(to) sweat a sweat’Two outstanding characteristics of the construction are: (i) a noun phrase,
accompanied by the singular numeral hito-, changes an atelic event into atelic event in (1a, b) (Ito, Sugioka, and Yumoto (2013)), and (ii) the nounphrase is associated with the manner of the event denoted by the verb in (1a),and it is some sort of “product” of the event in (1b). Ito et al. propose that
hito-N phrases are “measuring phrases.” It will be argued below that the twointerpretations come from the syntactic position of the relevant nounphrases. Specifically, paying attention to the analysis of the Cognate Object
Construction (henceforth, COC) in English by Nakajima (2006), who claims
that cognate objects with “manner” reading like a century’s growth in (2b)below play a role of an adjunct in syntax while cognate objects with “product”
reading like a sound sleep in (2a) take a position of an argument, we willclaim that the noun phrase accompanied by hito plays a role of an adjunct in(1a), while the one in (1b) takes a position of an argument in syntax. In
Nakajima’s framework, the syntactic structures of (2a) and (2b) are given in(2a’) and (2b’), respectively. Notice that a cognate object is always
accompanied by a, representing a singular numeral, and that because of this,the COC describes a [+ bounded] event in (3b). Tenny (1994) argues that an
object argument is allowed to be a delimiter of an event.
(2) a. The baby slept a sound sleep. “product”
b. The tree grew a century’s growth within only ten years. “manner”(3) a. Mary laughed {for an hour/*in an hour}. (Tenny (1994:39))
b. Mary laughed a mirthless laugh {for an hour/in an hour}.
(Nakajima (2006: 680))(2)a’ [vP Subject [VP [V’ V …] Adjunct]]]b’ [VP [V’ V Subject] Adjunct]What is crucial for us is the fact that the HNC and the COC share “manner”
reading and “product” reading, and in both, the [+ bounded] interpretation
may be attributed to the singular numerals, hito- and a, respectively. Unlike
Ito et al. (2013), who propose an analysis of the HNC in terms of lexical
semantics, we provide syntactic structures with the HNC, taking theparallelism between the two constructions into account.
However, an important difference between the two constructions is found.
Although unergative verbs such as sleep in (2a) can appear in the COC with“product” reading, they are not suitable for the HNC. Instead, manytransitive or unaccusative verbs such as kaku “sweat” in (1b) and (ame-ga)
furu “rain” are compatible with this construction.
In order to explain the difference between the two constructions in bothlanguages, let us introduce the notion of the “boundedness parameter,”originally developed in Kageyama (2001). In his framework, a language iscalled a [+ bounded] language, where speakers’ viewpoint indicates a strong
tendency to the boundaries of events denoted by verbs (i.e., endpoints ofevents like a result or a goal), while a language which implies a weaktendency to the boundaries is a [0 bounded] language. In English, a [+bounded] language, the boundaries of events can be added to atelic events
only by making use of cognate objects as delimiters in syntax, giving rise tochange of telicity. On the other hand, in Japanese, a [0 bounded] language,
the introduction of measuring phrases in syntax is not sufficient to createboundaries. The events denoted by unergative verbs obtain boundaries only
by nominalization of the verbs themselves (e.g., hito-nemuri “a sleep”), amorphological operation. If our analysis is on the right track, it can beconcluded that the similarity and difference of the two constructions areclosely associated with both their syntactic structures and semantic (ormorphological) parameters. We will also briefly discuss other constructions
and phenomena similar to the HNC, including quantifier float.
References
Ito, T., Y. Sugioka, and Y. Yumoto. (2013) “Mono Meishiku-ni Fuka Shite
Dousakaisyaku-wo Hikidasu ‘Hito’ nitsuite (On ‘Hito’ Giving Rise to
Interpretation of Activity through Adjunction to Entity Nouns),” the paper
presented at MLF 2013, held at Keio University, on September, 8th.
Kageyama, T. (2001) “Polymorphism and Boundedness in Event/Entity
Nominalization,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 17, 29-57.
Nakajima, H. (2006) “Adverbial Cognate Objects,” LI 37: 674-684.
Tenny, C. (1994) Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.
Kluwer.

Meaning and Linguistic Context: The Case of By Now
Shinya Hirasawa
The University of Tokyo
This study argues that the description of the meaning of the English idiom by now (now: speechtime (ST)) necessarily involves the description of frequent linguistic contexts (FLCs) in which thephrase appears.1 I admit that it would be possible to abstract away from contextual data and posit auniversal meaning of by now, which is more or less activated across all relevant contexts. But this,to my mind, would be a false economy. Such a context-independent description would not reflect
the linguistic knowledge native speakers seem to have about the idiom.
A COCA search reveals that there are at least five FLCs that accommodate by now.2
FLC 1: Collocation with inferential expressions (117 out of 224 randomly sampled affirmative
sentences with by now)
When by now collocates with inferential expressions (e.g. must, should, probably, no doubt, I
guess), the clause suggests that the inference is based on the fact that, at ST, the amount of time has
passed that the speaker expects to be sufficient to actualize the event in question.
(1)

Samantha:
Darrin:Samantha:

What time is it?
Eight o’clock.
The Tates’ kitchen must be a disaster area by now.
(Bewitched, Season 2, Episode 17, Maid to Order)

FLC 2: Collocation with universal quantifiers (29/224)
When by now collocates with universal quantifiers (e.g. all, every) or similar expressions (e.g.
entirely), the clause strongly suggests that the event in question has unfolded gradually up to ST.
(2)

By now, all the children have come out of their bedrooms.

(COCA)FLC 3: Collocation with expressions associated with knowledge (29/224)
When by now collocates with expressions associated with knowledge, it is implied that thatknowledge or familiarity has increased little by little up to ST.
(3)“I always have tea,” he said. “You should know that by now.”(Rebecca Brown, The Gifts of the Body)

FLC 4: A negative conditional clause (70 out of 156 instances of not … by now)
A negative conditional clause with by now means “if the event in question has not yet happened,even though the amount of time has passed that I expect to be sufficient to actualize it.”1
2

The idiomatic status of by now is discussed in Hirasawa (2012).
COCA: the Corpus of Contemporary American English.

(4)[…] if he hasn’t slipped away by now, you shouldn’t have any trouble.
(Paul Auster, Man in the Dark)

FLC 5: A negative interrogative sentence (44/156)
A negative interrogative sentence with by now means “Hasn’t the event in question happened eventhough the amount of time has passed that I expect to be sufficient to actualize it?”(5)[…] “Why are you doing this to me?”
“Because I hate you,” his ex-lover said. “Haven’t you figured that out by now?”(Paul Auster, The Brooklyn Follies)

Admittedly, it is possible to generalize across these contexts and define the meaning of by now
as now, after the passage of a long time. Note the incompatibility of by now and only in (6):(6) ?? It’s been only six or seven hours since I started climbing, and by now I’ve drunk sevenbottles of water.
But the acceptability of (7) cannot be explained in terms of time passage alone.
(7)

It’s been 60 hours since I started climbing, and by now I’ve drunk seven bottles of water.

The numerical expression drink seven bottles of water readily evokes the image of bottles being
emptied one by one. This quantitative increase is perceived to be similar, if not identical, to what is
at issue in FLCs 2 and 3, and this similarity is what makes (7) sound fairly natural. Used without
such perceptible similarity to a FLC, by now sounds simply wrong.
(8)* Susan left the store at 5:30 and by now she is home.

(Hirasawa 2012)

Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that by now should be used in a context that is perceived to be
similar (or, ideally, identical) to one or more of the FLCs presented above.
One of my native-speaker informants said that the incongruity created by only in (6) was
cancelled out if seven bottles of water was replaced by all the bottles of water that I brought fromhome. For this particular speaker, knowledge about FLC 2 is deeply entrenched and has
considerable power over the use of by now.
These data are not predictable from the context-independent, universal meaning of by now. It is
inappropriate, therefore, to stand aloof from the description of its usage. As Taylor (2012) suggests,
meaning and linguistic context are after all two sides of the same coin.
References
Hirasawa, Shinya (2012) The Meaning of By Now. JELS30: 278-284.
Taylor, John (2012) The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: OUP.

Interactive Alignment in World Englishes
Yoshihito Izawa
Keio University
Usage-based model proposes that our grammar emerges from accumulated experience. It
follows that individual grammar is to some extent idiosyncratic, and this idiosyncrasy canbe expanded to the level of community, such as face expressions in Asian English:
I know your face is bigger than mine.
Please give me some face, will you?

Honna (2013: 26)

These expressions have not literal but cultural aspects, and they could bring about
miscommunication. This is of great significance in time of World Englishes, which was
first proposed by Kachru (1985). Today there are numerous variations around the world;at the same time, people need to communicate with each other. The question here is thus
described: What enables us to achieve mutual understanding successfully? In discussing
this issue, interactive alignment of Garrod & Pickering (2009) is thought-provoking. We
humans usually construct the joint attentional frame in interactions; on this point,alignment theory proposes that participants’ mental representations are synchronizedthrough various interactive channels, and it automatically facilitates mutual
understanding. With respect to discourse analysis, the linguistic trigger to alignparticipants is defined as similar expressions, such as repetition of others’ utterances. That
is to say, linguistic similarity generates participants’ representational similarity. In
addition, the similar expressions activate the same representational scheme. From theseperspectives, this study examines the linguistic alignment in interaction, and reveals themechanism of effective exchange across variations. In particular, this study puts a greatemphasis on two interaction types: native-native and native-nonnative.
Examples are collected from dialogue corpora, such as VOICE (the ViennaOxford International Corpus of English). It includes 7% native and 93% nonnative
speakers, and covers interactions in various genres. For example, the following
conversation is extracted from VOICE, in which two nonnative speakers communicate in
the question-answer session:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:

the question is (.) can the wave of the strip interfere (.)
hh in the performance of the (.) special system? (1)you’re talking er the wave er
the wave
wave defect or at the beginning of the (1)yeaher er at the head end of the <un> x </un> is not on attention
the end of the (.) th- the the en- the end (.) of the <un> x </un> of the<un> x </un> strip (.)
okay

Two participants synchronized their representations through the reproduction of phrases
such as the wave or the end of. As seen above, nonnative English speakers can align,
namely synchronize their representation by the mere language reuse. The precedingutterances are the resource of priming, and the speakers use it. Even when the participants
are misaligned, the reuse can function as repair. On the other hand, native, possibly
advanced speakers, tend to adopt not mere reproductions but transformed phrases. The
following business meeting is observed in native-nonnative interaction:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S3:

h- how is the bonus taxed? we pay full tax for it or
it’s just normal payment yeahokay
there’s no <1> difference </1>
<1> so we </1> also it’s also covers some social insurance and other stuff (.)<2> or it’s only the </2><2> don’t the </2> social versicherung taken off for bonus of extra pays (.)
it’s just tax (.)

In this case, S3 is a native speaker, and others are nonnative. They frequently use thesimilar expression it’s just (only), and probably align their representations. However, S3
does not reproduce others’ utterances, and rephrases social insurance into social
versicherung, in which German is used. To be sure, native speakers make an interactivealignment through similar language; however, they often transform preceding expressions
into modified ones. In this sense, they are aligned but not subject to the priming. Rather,
they rebuild the representational alignment in the coordination process. The possible
reason of transformation is under discussion, and one possibility could be traced back toenhancing speaker’s dominance.
Interaction can be defined as a cline involving linguistic and nonlinguisticalignment, and linguistic alignment is not a necessary condition for successful interaction.
However, the more participants produce similar patterns, the more facilitated interactions
get. When there is a cultural difference, ad-hoc linguistic alignment will be significant; inother words, it can function as a basic device to control interaction. In the presentation,
the possible relation between linguistic alignment and interaction will be discussed,
referring to exchange across variations.
References
Garrod, S. & Pickering, M. (2009). “Joint Action, Interactive Alignment, and Dialog”.
Topics in Cognitive Science (1). 292-304.
Honna, N. (2013). Kokusai Gengo toshite no Eigo: Bunka wo Koeta Tsutaeai. Fuzambo
International.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English
language in the outer cirlce. In Quirk, R. & Widdowson, H. (eds.) English in
the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge
University Press. 11-30.

On the Syntactic Complex Verbs in Japanese and Korean
Yasuhito Kido1, Masahiko Dansako2, and Yoko Isse3
Fukuoka University1, 3 and Kyushu University2
Our goal is to provide an account of the nature of syntactic complex verbs in Korean. We argue that
Korean complex verbs where V2 is constituted only as sijakhata “start” show syntactic behaviors similar to
Japanese ones. As discussed by Kageyama (1993), Japanese has two types of complex verbs; namely,
lexical complex verbs (LCVs) and syntactic complex verbs (SCVs). This dichotomy is supported by a
substitution of VP for soo su “do so,” by a substitution of V1 for the expression of Sino-Japanese plus light
verb, suru, and by an application of honorification to V1. These tests cannot be applied to LCVs, but to
SCVs. For instance, (1) and (2) are examples of soo su substitution.
(1) a. Taroo-ga
ki-okiri-taos-u.
b. *Hanako-mo soo si-taos-u.
Taroo-NOM tree-ACC cut-fall-Pres.
Hanako-also so do-fall-Pres.
‘Taroo cuts down the tree.’(LCV)(2) a. Taroo-ga
naki-hazime-ru.
Taroo-NOM cry-start-Pres.
‘Taroo starts to cry.’(SCV)b. Hanako-mo soo si-hazime-ru.
Hanako-also so do-start-Pres.
‘Hanako also starts to do so.’According to Saito (2013), LCVs have one-layered v*P/vP, while SCVs have two-layered v*P/vPs.
Assuming soo-su is substituted for VP, this contrast can be successfully explained. Substitution operation isinapplicable to a portion of VP as in (3a), because LCVs comprising V1+V2 complex constitute a single VP.
In contrast, in the case of SCV in (3b), substitution can be applied to VP1, because V1 and V2 projectseparate VPs.
(3) a.

TP
NP
T′
Hanako-moi v*PTtiv*′ -uVPv*
ADVVsoo V1
V2
sitaos

b.

TP
NP
T′
Hanako-moi v*P2T
v*2′-ru
VP2
v*2
v*P1
V2
ti
v*1′ hazime
VP1
v*1
ADV
V1
soo
si-

Next, focusing on SCVs, as suggested by Tsukamoto (2012), it is difficult to express the same meaning asJapanese by using Korean V1+V2 complex:(4) a. Taroo-ka
wul-kisijakh-ess-ta.
Taroo-NOM cry-NMNZ start-Past-Decl‘Taroo started to cry.’b. Taroo-ga
naku-koto hazime-ta.
Taroo-NOM cry-NMNZ start-Past‘Lit., Taroo started to cry.’In (4a), suffix ki, a nominalizer, which is glossed as NMNZ, is attached to a verb stem, wul “cry,” and it isfollowed by sijakhessta. This sentence can be literally translated into Japanese in (4b), which does notcorrespond to Japanese SCV. However, this does not necessarily mean that Korean complex verbs do nothave the same syntactic configuration as Japanese SCVs. In this paper, we attempt to investigate whether
or not three tests described above can be applied to Korean complex verbs where V2 is sijakhata. First, it ispossible to substitute VP1 for gurokke hata “do so” as in (5):(5)

Hanako-ka
gurokke ha-ki
sijakh-ess-ta.
Hanako-NOM so
do-NMNZ start-Past-Decl‘Hanako started to do so.’

Second, VP1 can be turned into Sino-Korean plus light verb, hata, as in (6):(6)

Taroo-ka
bermok-ha-ki
sijakh-ess-ta.
Taroo-NOM logging-do-NMNZ start-Past-Decl‘Taroo started to do logging.’

Third, Japanese and Korean show distinct syntactic behaviors regarding honorification. Although si in (7a),a bound morpheme representing politeness, can be attached to V2, honorification to V1 in (7b) is
inapplicable contrary to o-kiri-ni nari hazimeru “HONORIFIC-cut-DAT become start” in Japanese. Thissuggests that V2, hazimeru, selects v*P/vP to its complement, while V2, sijakhata, does not.
(7) a. Yamada-sensayng-nim-i
namu-lul jalu-ki
sijakha-si-ess-ta.
(V1-NMNZ V2-HON)
Yamada-teacher-HON-NOM tree-ACC cut-NMNZ start-HON-Past-Decl
b.* Yamada-sensayng-nim-i namu-lul jalu-si-ki sijakh-ess-ta.
‘Dr. Yamada started to cut down the tree.’(*V1-HON-NMNZ V2)

Therefore, as noted above, we propose the following structure of Korean complex verbs using (7a) as anillustration. This configuration shows that Japanese and Korean have the same syntactic property in that V1
and V2 have different maximal projection respectively. However, they have a crucial difference in thenumber of v*P/vP. While Japanese SCVs consist of two-layered v*P/vPs, Korean complex verbs have
one-layered v*P as in (8):
(8)

CP
TP

C
NP
T′ -taDr.Yi-i v*P2Tti
v*2′ -ess
VP 2
v*2
VP1
V2 -siNP
V1 sijakhanamu-lul jalu-ki
As discussed by Kang (1988), it is well-known that suffix ki in Korean plays a role not only innominalizing verbs, but in turning verbs into gerunds. When ki is used as a nominalizer, the nominalized
verbs become nouns so that accusative case lul needs to be assigned to them. On the other hand, when theverbs attached to ki are used as gerunds, because they still retain the function as verbs, they do not have toassign accusative case. This distinction is observed in (4a). In the case of complex verbs where sijakhata is
V2, crucially, they can take both nominalized verbs and gerunds by attaching ki to a stem of verbs. The factthat sijakhata can select such gerunds to its complement semantically is fairly unique. This phenomenon is
not observed in any other verb. This paper provides an account for the intriguing nature of the relation
between sijakhata or hazimeru and each complement by comparing Japanese to Korean (syntactic)
complex verbs.
(798 words)
References
Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpoo to Gokeisei. [Grammar and Word Formation], Hituzi Syoboo, Tokyo.
Kang, Myung-Yoon (1988) Topics in Korean Syntax: Phrase Structure, Variable Binding and Movement,
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Saito, Mamoru (2013) “Conditions on Japanese Phrase Structure: From Morphology to Pragmatics.”
Nanzan Linguistics 9, 119-145.
Tsukamoto, Hideki (2012) “Nihongo to Tyoosengo ni okeru Hukugoodoosi. [On the Complex Verbs inJapanese and Korean]” Keitairon to Toogoron no Soogosayoo -Nihongo to Kankokugo no Taisyoo
Gengogaku Kenkyuu- [The Interaction between Morphology and Syntax: The Contrastive Linguistics
in Japanese and Korean], Hituzi Syoboo, Tokyo, 201-243.

A scale in scalar adjectives in corpus
Kiyama Naoki (Osaka University)
This study examines from the perspective of cognitive semantics how adjectival scale in English is coerced,
using a corpus-based quantitative approach. As many researchers have revealed (Kennedy and McNally 19992005), gradable adjectives can be classified into four types of scales: Open scale, lower closed scale, upper
closed scale and closed scale patterns:(1) Open scale patterna.
Her brother is completely ??tall/??short.
b.
The pond is 100% ??deep/??shallow.
c.
Max is fully ??eager/??uneager to help.
(2) Lower closed scale patterna.
The pipe is fully ??bent/straight.
b.
The room became 100% ??loud/quiet.
c.
That author is completely ??famous/unknown.
(3) Upper closed scale patterna.
We are fully certain/??uncertain about the results.
b.
This product is 100% pure/??impure.
c.
The treatment is completely safe/??dangerous.
(4) Closed scale patterna.
The room was 100% full/empty.
b.
The flower was fully open/closed.
c.
The figure was completely visible/invisible.

(Kennedy and McNally 2005, 355)

In Kennedy and McNally’s observation, adjectives with closed scale patterns in (2), (3) and (4) have aparticular endpoint in their scales. This is why closed scale adjectives occur with premodifiers that refer toeither the rightmost or leftmost end of the scale. For example, in (3b), when the room is quiet, there is not
one person speaking, whereas loudness does not have a set limit. As long as the room is quiet, listeners areable to know that there is no sound no matter the context. On the other hand, loudness is dependent on acontext. The noise in the zoo or an air conditioner could be loud depending on the standard both situations
are being measured against. Based on these observations, the factor that determines whether an adjective
has open scale or closed scale is whether the standard of comparison is context-dependent or independent.
Adjectives with open scale have a context-dependent (or absolute) standard, and those with closed scale havea context-independent (or relative).
Though Kennedy and McNally (2005) recognizes that absolute adjectives are readily used in a ‘relativelike’ interpretation, as in very empty or very full, “[t]here is no clear “rule” . . . in exactly what situations
context overrules the default interpretation of an adjective (Kamoen et al. 2011, 3141)”. As Kamoen et al.
(2011) concludes, “exceptions occur quite often and the default scale structure/type of comparison standard
associated with each adjective is quite weak (ibid, 3148)”. Thus it is worth investigating the situations whensemantic shifts do occur.
The survey on BNC written corpus suggests that it is the speaker’s attitude toward the world that aﬀects
the choice in premodifiers. If we focus on the way the speaker perceives the situation, it is very likely formodality-like verbs to co-occur with the imprecise-interpretation of closed scale adjectives. This hypothesis
is supported by the frequencies and other statistics of linking-verbs. This presentation defines closed scale
adjectives with totality modifiers like absolutely as the Rigid usage, those with degree modifiers, e.g. very,as the Loose usage.
Table 1 shows the frequency in BNC. The column with ‘‰’ shows their relative frequencies standardized
by 1000. The second rightmost column (DISTANCE) is the absolute value of the subtraction of the relative
frequencies of Rigid and Loose usage.
1

Rigid Loose Rigid（‰） Loose（‰） DISTANCE TEST
be
3534
1379
889.06811.6577.40 Rigid
appear
20
1
5.03
0.59
4.44 Rigid
prove
14
1
3.52
0.59
2.93 Rigid
fall
5
0
1.26
0.00
1.26 Rigid
keep
7
2
1.76
1.18
0.58 Rigid
get
4
14
1.01
8.24
7.23 Loosebecome
79
48
19.87
28.25
8.38 Loose
sound
19
25
4.78
14.71
9.93 Loose
look
66
46
16.60
27.07
10.47 Loose
seem
115
79
28.93
46.50
17.57 Loose
feel
51
72
12.83
42.38
29.55 Loose
Table 1: Selected frequency diﬀerences between Rigid and Loose usage
Based on the relative frequency (‰) in Table 1, the co-occurrence of Rigid usage with be, which expresses
a strong assertion of the speaker, is significantly larger than that of Loose use (5). On the contrary, Loose
usage prefers modality-like linking-verbs such as feel, seem, look and sound (6).
(5)

a.
b.
c.

The main body of a report will be perfectly acceptable at 10pt and . . .
Once again the air was almost alive because he was here.
Most river dolphins are almost blind.

(G00-1436)(HGD-2050)(ABC-675)

(6)

a.
b.
c.

But this young stranger from the bleak Northern Fells seemed very capable.
(FP1-1595)
All in all, the task looked pretty impossible but we were determined to have a go. (K9K-202)[S]he exclaimed with a laugh that even to herself sounded slightly false.
(HGY-1413)

From the distinct distribution of linking-verbs, it can be concluded that the precise use of Rigid usagein (5) expresses not only precision as Kennedy and McNally’s research shows, but also the strong assertionof the speaker. This is because using a copula be makes the sentence assertive, namely, truth condition isjustifiable. Thus an end-point of the scale with an aﬃrmation shows a strong confidence of the speaker. On
the other hand, Loose use tend to occur with modality-like linking-verbs. In the sentences with these verbs,“it is the speaker to whom the state of aﬀairs . . . only appears to be true (Croft 2001, 217)”. This is to saythat the speaker is not comfortable to make a strong statement to the event.
This study investigated the conditions when absolute adjectives are absolute, and the conditions when
they are relative-like standard. This is one of the semantic-shift in scale adjectives. Thus, this research
proposes one of the factors of semantic coercion. Research at present reveals that semantic coercion canoccur depending on the speaker’s level of confidence. If the speaker is less self-trust, it is more likely meaning
is being coerced, from Rigid usage to Loose usage.
References
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kamoen, Naomi, Bregje Hollemann, Rick Nouwen, Ted Sanders, and Huub van den Bergh. 2011. Absolutely
relative or relatively absolute? the linguistic behavior of gradable adjectives and degree modifiers. Journalof Pragmatics 43:3139–3151.
Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 1999. From event structure to scale structure: Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9:163–180.
Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable
predicates. Language 81:345–381.
Paradis, Carita. 1997. Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Chartwell-Bratt.
2

Semantics of English Determiners
Name: Jang-song Lee
Affiliation: Korea Military Academy, Korea
E-mail address: jangsonglee0705@gmail.com
This presentation aims to propose a unified approach toward the semantics of English
determiners including a(n), some, every, most, etc., by adding some assumptions to theassumption set of the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT).
Traditionally English determiner 'a(n)' is treated as the existential quantifier (∃) and'every' as the universal quantifier (∀), with a sentence as their quantification scope.
However, 'a(n)' can bind a variable which occurs in a subsequent sentence, while 'every'
cannot as in (1).
(1)

a. [A student]i came in the room. [He]i sat down on a couch.
b. [Every student]i came in the room. *[He]i sat down on a couch.
In addition, the traditional approach cannot explain the two determiners' behaviors in a

so-called 'donkey sentence' like (2) whose intuitional meaning is represented as in (3). In (3),the pronoun 'it' is bound by 'every', not by 'a', and the indefinite noun phrase 'a donkey' istranslated as if it is 'every donkey'.
(2)

Every farmer who owns [a donkey]i beats [it]i.

(3)∀x∀y[[farmer(x) ∧ donkey(y) ∧ x owns y] → x beats y]
To solve the problems raised mainly by the binding phenomena concerning donkey

sentences and discourse binding, Heim (1982) assumes that (i) indefinites are boundvariables; (ii) anaphoric pronouns are plain bound variables; (iii) 'every' is capable of binding
multiple variables in its scope; and (iv) the existential quantifier (∃) is given to a nuclear
scope of a quantifier and to a discourse (existential closure). The Discourse Representation
Theory (DRT) faithfully accepts her assumptions on quantification. The DRT further modifies
its assumptions so as to adopt the claims that English determiners be classified into individual
denoting determiners such as a, some, 1,2,3, etc. and quantificational ones such as every,

most, many, few, etc. Now the third assumption above is changed so that quantificational
determiners are capable of binding multiple variables.
Nevertheless, this system faces several serious problems. First, it does not explain why
sentence (4) is acceptable, where the pronoun they refers to a plural entity made of all theindividuals who are students.
(4)[Every student]i came in. [They]i gathered in the hall.
Second, it cannot explain the phenomenon of the asymmetric quantification stated in

Rooth (1986). If the unselective binding of (5iii) allows the quantifier most to bind thevariables introduced by most farmers and a donkey, sentence (5) would mean most farmers

who own a donkey beat most donkeys they own. However, the sentence intuitively meansthat most farmers who own a donkey beat every donkey they own. The DRT cannot explain
the universal quantification over the donkeys. And if the unselective binding is rejected, thewhole system of the DRT as a theory of quantification would not stand.
(5)

Most farmers who own [a donkey]i beat [it]i.
The third one is about the source of quantificational force. The classification ofdeterminers into quantificational and individual denoting takes it for granted that thequantificational force of sentence (8) originates from the quantificational determiner every(most, many, or few), while the quantificational force of sentence (9) comes from the
distributive predicate came in the room individually which requires a plural subject denoting aplural entity (or an i-sum individual) and predicate over every individual member of the plural
entity. In short, quantificational force comes from the quantificational determiners or
distributive predicates--an ununified approach.
After critically reviewing the efforts to solve these problems in the DRT, I attempt topropose a new approach to the problems by just adding two more assumptions to theassumption set of the DRT as in (6).
(6) (i) The quantificational force of a sentence uniquely comes from predicates, but not fromdeterminers.
(ii) All the English NPs are variables of their own kinds--singular or plural.

References:
Heim, Irene (1982), The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Heim, Irene (1990), "E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora," Linguistics and Philosophy 13.
Kamp, Hans (1981), "A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation," in Groendijk, Janssen,& Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Vol. I , MathematischeCentrum, Amsterdam.
Lee, J. (1999), Discourse Representation Theory, Hankookmunhwasa, Seoul, Korea.
Rooth, Mats (1986), "NP Interpretation in Montague Grammar, File Change Semantics, andSituation Semantics," manuscript, CSLI, Stanford University.

A Merge Condition-Based Approach to Doubling Constituents
Akitoshi Maeda (Osaka University)
1. Overview: In this paper, I argue that the Merge Condition (output condition on external merge)(Wurmbrand Forthcoming) is subject to doubling constituents (Kayne 2002). In consequence, I
demonstrate that (i) application of Movement Theory of Antecedent: MTA (Kayne 2002) is restrictedby the Merge Condition and (ii) in order to account for coreferential relations between antecedents andpronouns without indices, the MTA and A-Binding (the mechanism is based on semantic
representations) (Reinhart 2006 and Reuland Forthcoming) are necessary.
2. Observation and Problem: Quantifier scope is basically clause-bounded as in (1a) and (2a). If theBound Pronoun: BP he bound by each boy is added as shown in (1b), a distributive reading arises. On
the other hand, the BP she bound by someone cannot yield the distributive reading as shown in (2b)(Wayles Browne judges that (2c) is ambiguous, however (2b) is unambiguous) (Wayles Browne p.c.
contra Ausin Forthcoming). The same story can also be applied to ∀s every, all, most and ∃s a, two,many, several, a few. Following the MTA, the antecedent and pronoun form the doubling constituent.
After they formed the doubling constituent, only the antecedent moves. Kayne assumes that the MTA
can deal with coreferential relations without indices. Thus, the MTA can predict that (1b) is ambiguous
because the copy left by movements of antecedent meets the clause-boundedness and scope principle
based on Quantifier Raising (Miyamoto 2008). However the MTA predicts incorrectly that (2b) is also
ambiguous due to the same reason.
3. Assumptions, Proposal and Analysis: I assume the assumptions as follows. (i) ∀s have the valueof specific features, however ∃s and BPs do not (Enç 1991 and Higinbotham 1983). (ii) Specificfeatures are active semantic features in the syntactic component (Diesing and Jelinek 1995 and Kim
2004). (iii) I adopt the Merge Condition as defined in (3) and Value (Chomsky 2000, 2001)(Wurmbrand Forthcoming assumes the Reverse Agree (Pesetsky and Torrego 2007). However I adopt
not the Reverse Agree but Spec-Head Agreement (Chomsky 1981)). Based on these assumptions, I
propose that specific features be subject to the Merge Condition. Following the proposal, ∀s do not
violate the Merge Condition because the BP is capable of receiving the value of specific features in(4a), however ∃s violate because the BP is not in (4b). For the reason, ∃s cannot induce the
distributive reading.
4. Consequences and Conclusion: This analysis can also be applied to the PRO-based construction
like negative sentences in English (I have to omit data for want of space) (Kroch 1974, Hornstein1

1995). From these reasons, the MTA is subject to ∀s, however the MTA is not ∃s. In order toaccount for binding relations between someone and BPs as shown in (2b), I adopt the A-Binding basedon Reuland’s modification instead. Reinhart proposes (5). Based on (5), Reuland assumes that thesemantic representation of (2b) is (6). In (6), the operator (the φ-feature of someone) can bind she (theφ-feature of she). In addition, someone is the sister argument of the λ-predicate ([φ said that φ loves
everyone]). Thus, someone is capable of A-binding she by utilizing not indices but φ-features. The
same story can also be applied to other ∃s a, two, many, several, a few. In conclusion, (i) the MTA islimited by the Merge Condition and (ii) we need to assume both the MTA and A-Binding.
Data:(1) a.
b.

Each boy said that John loves more/ less than two girls.[∀ > ∃] (unambiguous)
Each boy1 said that he1 loves more/ less than two girls.[∀ > ∃]or[∃ > ∀](2) a.

Someone said that Mary loves everyone.[∃> ∀] (unambiguous)b.

Someone1 said that she1 loves everyone.[∃ > ∀] (unambiguous)c.

Someone1 talked to everyone about her1 mother.[∃> ∀]or[∀(ambiguous)> ∃] (ambiguous)(3) Merge Condition
Merge α and β if α can value a feature of β.
(4) a.

DP

Antecedent (∀)

b.

D′[specific:
BP[specific:

DP

Antecedent (∃)[specific: val]

(5)

(Wurmbrand Forthcoming: 2)

Null NP

D′

]
BP

]

[specific:

Null NP]

A-Binding
α A-binds β iff α is the sister of a λ-predicate whose operator binds β.

(Reinhart 2006: 171)(6) [Someoneφ [φ said that φ loves everyone]]
Selected References: Kayne, R. 2002. Pronouns and Their Antecedents, In Samuel. David. Epstein andDaniel. Seely, eds. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies: Reference Set Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wurmbrand, S. Forthcoming. The Merge Condition: A syntactic Approach to Selection. In Peter Kosta,
Lilia Schürcks, Steven Franks and Teodora Radev-Bork, eds. Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing theInterfaces, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2

VP-DELETION, PARALLELISM, AND THE ROLE OF AUX:A PHASE-THEORETIC APPROACH
MASAKO MAEDA AND TAICHI NAKAMURA
Kyushu Institute of Technology and University of Fukui
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this presentation is to formalize the roles of auxiliaries in VP-Deletion(VPD). We propose that the non-epistemic auxiliaries, if focused, constitute a phasehead. We then put forth a novel analysis of VPD that makes fuller use of the parallelism
condition.
DATA
As Kertz (2008, 2010) observes (contra Merchant (2008, 2013), among others),
voice mismatches barely affect acceptability when the auxiliary preceding the deletionsite is focused while they do when the subject is focused. The contrast is given in (1),where focused items are in small capital.
(1) a. * This problem was looked into by JOHN, and (similarly) BOB did, too.
b. The janitor MUST remove the trash whenever it is apparent that it SHOULD be.
(Merchant (2008: 169))
PROPOSAL
We put forth the following proposal:(2) Phases in the VP-domain are constituted by the non-epistemic auxiliary(i) that selects transitive v, or(ii) that is focused.
Our proposal contextually determines the phasehood of the VP domain and could also
dispense with, through selection or agreement, the rather undesirable assumption that
passive v, unlike transitive v, does not constitute a phase head (Chomsky (2008)). The
contrast in (1) can then be captured as indicating that the phasehood of the VP domain
is the most relevant factor to VPD.
ANALYSIS
Building on the proposal in (2), we provide a phase-based analysis of the contrast
in (1) with the aid of the parallelism condition. Assume that the parallelism condition ondeletion is sensitive to the path of A-Movement, as well as the one of A′-Movement,
within a Parallelism Domain (PD) (Hartman (2011)). The example in (1a), then, has theschematic analysis in (3), where … stands for a phase and … a PD. Note also that Aux
moves to T.
(3) a. [TP this problem was [AuxP was [vP v[Passive] [VP V this problem] by John[+Foc]]]]b. [TP Bob[+Foc] did [AuxP Bob[+Foc] did [vP Bob[+Foc] v[Active] [VP V this problem]]]]The VP domain of the antecedent sentence in (3a) does not form a phase and the subject
directly moves from its base position to Spec-TP. On the other hand, the VP domain of

the elliptic sentence forms a phase since v is transitive and hence the subject moves via
Spec-AuxP in observance with the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). Then, we can
exclude the example in (1a) because the parallelism condition is not met within thespelled-out TP chunk. Let us next consider the example in (1b). The schematic structure
is given in (4).
(4) a. [TP the janitor must[+Foc] [AuxP the janitor must[+Foc] [vP the janitor v[Active] [VP V]]]]b. [TP it should[+Foc] [AuxP it should[+Foc] … [vP v[Passive] [VP V it]]]]Since the auxiliary is focused in (4b), it forms a phase and provides its Spec as a landingsite for A-movement. Thus, the parallelism holds here and the example in (1b) is ruledin; the surface subjects move along the same path from Spec-AuxP to Spec-TP within
the spelled-out TP chunk.
In sum, voice mismatch phenomena in VPD are attributed to the interaction of thephasehood of the VP domain with the parallelism condition.
CONSEQUENCE
Our analysis could be further supported if we assume with Johnson (2001) that
VPD involves VP-Topicalization. He points out that the trace of VP-Topicalization islicensed by the very same range of heads that license the VPD site, as shown in (5).
(5) a. John must wash his car every day, and Peter must too.
(*epistemic/deontic)
b. Peter said that Max must work for the KGB and work for the KGB, Max must.
(??epistemic/deontic)(Authier (2012: 2-3))
Given that VPD and VP-Topicalization apply to vP, only the deontic auxiliaries in (5)provide their Spec as an escape hatch for vP-Topicalization, which then avoids a
PIC-like violation. Our analysis also accounts for several other focus effects observed inpseudogapping and sluicing, as well as the restriction on wh-extraction out of the elided
part in VPD.
CONCLUSION
We have proposed that all the non-epistemic auxiliaries, if focused, constitute aphase head. We then put forth a phase-based analysis of the voice mismatch phenomena
in VPD.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Hartman, Jeremy (2011) “The Semantic Uniformity of Traces: Evidence from Ellipsis
Parallelism,” LI 42, 367-388.
Jonson, Kyle (2001) “What VP-Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can’t, but not Why,” The
Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 439-479, Blackwell, Oxford.
Kertz, Laura (2010) Ellipsis Reconsidered, Doctoral dissertation, University ofCalifornia, San Diego.
Merchant, Jason (2008) “An Asymmetry in Voice Mismatches in VP-Ellipsis andPseudogapping,” LI 39,169-179.

Voice Alternation in Japanese Sentence Fragments
Kento Nagatsugu (Kyushu University)
A Sentence fragment (in short, fragment) is a kind of elliptical expression, which istypified by short answers like (1B).
(1) A: What did you eat for lunch?
B: Pizza.
Despite its non-sentential surface form, (1B) has a sentential interpretation such as“I ate Pizza for lunch.” From the standard view point, (1B) should be derived fromthis full sentence. In this presentation, however, I will make an argument against
this view, focusing on voice alternation. I will argue that fragments in Japaneseallow voice mismatch, contrary to what the standard analysis (especially Merchant(2013)) would expect.
The standard analysis, which is called Deletion Analysis, assumes thatfragments are derived from full-fledged sentential structures (Morgan (1973),
Merchant (2004)). Merchant (2004) argues that fragments are derived by TPdeletion, with A’-movement of fragments to the left periphery, as is illustrated in (2).
(2) [[Pizza]i [TP I ate ti for lunch]
An alternative to Deletion Analysis is Direct Generation Analysis, which assumes
that fragments are directly generated as such are and have no underlying
sentential structures (Culicover and Jackendoff (2005) and Progovac et al. (2006)).
According to the latter analysis, (1B) is represented just as [NP Pizza].
In the standard approach, it has been assumed that a deleted part must have alinguistic antecedent which is formally identical to it. Therefore, an importantquestion is whether elliptical constructions allow voice alternation between deletedparts and antecedents. Based on Deletion Analysis, Merchant (2013) argues thatvoice alternation is disallowed in fragments (and other large scale ellipses) and thisis due to violation of the identification requirement for ellipsis.
(3) Q: Who is sending you to Iraq?
A: *By Bush.
(Merchant (2013))
Assuming that VoiceP is projected above vP, Merchant (2013) claims that in TPdeletion voice mismatch violates the identity requirement.
(4) [CP C [TP T [VoiceP Voice [vP ... ]TP-deletion

VP-deletion

The unacceptability of (3), however, can be accounted for in terms of
information structure, based on Kertz’s (2013) analysis on voice mismatch in VPdeletion. She attributes unaccepted voice mismatches in VP-deletion to violations ofa constraint on contrastive topic relations. According to her, vice mismatch violates
the constraint only when a parallel topic-comment relation is required between thedeleted part and the antecedent. Since in (3) topic-comment structures of thequestion and the fragment answer are not parallel, the unacceptability of (3B) falls
within Kertz’s analysis. Since a Q&A pair like (3) necessarily requires a contrastive
relation between the Wh-element in the question and the fragment, voice mismatchcannot be accepted in such a case. Therefore, to argue whether voice alternation isallowed in fragments, we should examine other kinds of fragments.
According to Merchant (2013), however, it is difficult to investigate whether
voice alternation, in particular passive-to-active alternation, is possible in English.
Though it appears that a passive-to-active alternation occurs in (5), we cannot
exclude the possibility that the fragment answer (5A) is derived from an underlying
structure like (6), given the poor case morphology and the availability of preposition
stranding in English.
(5) Q: Who were you sent by?
A: Marcus.
(Merchant (2013))(6) [Marcusi [I was sent by ti]]In this presentation, therefore, I will examine whether voice alternation infragments is allowed in Japanese. If Direct Generation Analysis is the rightapproach, it should be.
To avoid violating Kertz’s (2013) constraint, I will use an example with sprouting,in which the correspondent to the fragment is implied. I will show that passive-toactive alternation can be accepted in such a case, as exhibited in (7) and (8): (7B)means ‘Is the CIA watching me?’ and (8B) means ‘I often escape?’(7) A: Omae, kansi-sare-tei-ru-zo.
B: CIA-ga?

yousurveillance-PAST-ASP-PRST-PART

CIA-NOM‘You are being watched.’‘CIA?’(8) (A talks to B about what he heard about B from B’s friend, Taro.)
A: Taro i-tte-ta-yo,
yoku nige-rare-ru-tte.
B: Boku-ga?

Taro say-ASP-PAST-PART, often escape-PASS-PRST-C

I-NOM‘Taro said you often escape.’‘Me?’This fact suggests that fragments are not subject to the strict identity requirement
and supports a Direct Generation Analysis.
References:
Culicover, P. W., and R. Jackendoff (2005) Simpler Syntax, OUP, Oxford.
Kertz, L. (2013) “Verb Phrase Ellipsis: The View from Information Structure,” Language 89,
390-428.
Merchant, J. (2004) “Fragments and Ellipsis,” L&P 27, 661-738.
Merchant, J. (2013) “Voice and Ellipsis,” LI 44, 77-108.
Morgan, J. L. (1973) “Sentence Fragments and the Notion ‘Sentence’,” B. B. Kachru, R. B.
Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli and S. Saporta (eds.) Issues in Linguistics: Papers in
Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
Progovac, L., K. Paesani, E. Casielles and E. Barton (eds.) (2006) The Syntax ofNonsententials, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

The Relationship between Subjective Ellipsis and Grammatical Patterns
Kayoko Shibata
Kyoto Prefectural University
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the subject ellipsis andgrammatical patterns, focusing on the verb feels. The case studies suggest that the subject ellipsis often
occurs in the grammatical patterns of feels that are highly subjective (e.g. it feels + adjective or it feels
like...) where the experiencer and the conceptualizer are assimilated with each other (Langacker 1990).
Regarding the subject ellipsis, Carter & McCarthy (1995) mention that the immediate context,
situational context and genres such as casual discourse contribute to the subject ellipsis as main factors
for its occurrence. However, this pragmatically-oriented view fails to explain why the subject ellipsis
occurs more frequently with particular grammatical patterns. Therefore, this paper pursues the relation
between the subject ellipsis and the grammatical patterns by investigating a historical change of
frequently occurring patterns with feels and subsequently analyzes the relation between the subject
ellipsis and subjectification.
2. Methodology
The data is collected from Corpus of Historical American English. In Table 1, the left side of
the figures shows the frequency of the patterns, and the bracketed figures and those for the graphs in
Tables 2 and 3 are converted and shown per million for a common denominator. In this research thedata from 1820s to 1850s and the latest one in 2000s is collected.
3. Data and discussion
The results in Tables 1 and 2 “A change of frequently occurring patterns with feels” are as
follows: (1) the expressions using feels have been diversified during 1850s and 2000s. (2) 2. animatedsubject + feels + noun has a high frequency in each era but is slightly decreasing with a passage oftime or it seems to be leveling off. In contrast, except the pattern 2, the frequency in all the patterns,
especially 1. it feels + adjective has been increasing since 1850s. (3) in 2000s the patterns starting withthe subject it in short phrases are more frequently used, for example, it feels + adjective compared withthose with longer ones such as it feels as if…
Table 3 “A change of frequently occurring patterns with feels and the subject ellipsis” illustrates
that the ellipsis remarkably occurs in 1. it feels + adjective and 6. it feels like in 2000s. Presumably it
is affected by the higher occurrence of those patterns as shown in Tables 1 and 2. However, regarding
4. animated subject + feels + adjective in Table 3, there is no ellipsis in 2000s, even if it has a higher
frequency (9.80) in Tables 1 and 2. This fact suggests that the subject ellipsis occurs with the specificpatterns (e.g. 6. it feels like) but not with 4. animated subject + feels + adjective. Therefore, thesefindings suggest that there is a relationship between the subject ellipsis and grammatical patterns.
Judging from the co-occurrence of the subject ellipsis with 1. it feels + adjective or 6. it feels like, thispaper argues that the subject ellipsis often occurs in the feels patterns which are highly subjective.

4. Conclusion
The finding that the subject ellipsis concerning feels occurs in the specific patterns which arehighly subjective, suggests that presumably there is a certain relationship between the subject ellipsis
and subjectification.
References
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied
Linguistics, 16 (2), 141-158. / Langacker, Ronald W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5-38.
Table 1 A change of frequently occurring patterns with feels
1820s

1830s

1840s

1850s

2000s

1. It feels + adj.

6(0.86)10(0.72)11(1.56)6(0.36)222(13.19)

2. A + feels + noun

181(26.06)

340(24.48)

209(29.67)

398(23.88)

338(20.08)

3. A + feels + adj. phrase

19(2.73)27(1.94)

14(1.98)

36(2.16)33(1.96)

4. A + feels + adj.

12(1.72)42(3.02)31(4.40)69(4.14)165((9.80)

5.It feels adj. to…

001(0.14)1(0.06)20(1.18)6.It feels like…

1(0.14)1(0.07)2(0.26)2(0.12)132(7.84)

7.It feels as if…

2(0.28)1(0.07)02(0.12)16(0.95)

8.A + feels like…

2(0.28)1(0.07)4(0.56)9(0.54)48(2.85)

9.A + feels as if…

3(0.42)7(0.50)3(0.42)5(0.3)

16(0.95)

10. Others (feels + adv. phrase)03(0.21)3(0.42)4(0.24)10 (0.59)

Total

226 (32.53)

432 (31.10)

278 (39.4)

532 (31.92)

1,000PatternEra(59.39)(adj. = adjective, A = Animated subject, adv. = adverb)
Table 2 A change of frequently occurring patterns
Frequencywith feels

Table 3 A change of frequently occurring patterns with
Frequency

40

1

30

0.8

feels and the subject ellipsis

0.6

20

0.4

10

0.2

0

0
1820s

1830s

1840s

1850s

2000s

1820s

1830s

1840s

1850s

2000s

Dark blue (1.It feels adj.), red (2.A feels noun), green (3.A feels adj. phrase), purple (4.A feels adj.), blue (5.It feels
adj. to), orange (6.It feels like), light blue (7.It feels as if), light purple (8.A feels like), light green (9.A feels as if),gray (10.Others)

Problems of Feature Inheritance
Sho Shimokariya
Kyushu University
Haegeman and van Koppen (2012) present an interesting phenomenon illustrated in (1), which
has not previously been discussed in the literature. The example from West Flemish shows that if
there is an intervening adverbial in the subject phrase, the agreement on the complementizer varies
from that of the finite verb; here the former displays the plural agreement with André and Valère,
and the latter, singular agreement with their computer.
(1) … omda-n/*omdat André en Valère toen juste underen computer kapot was.
because-PL/because André and Valère then justtheir computer broken was(Haegeman and van Koppen (2012: 449))
In order to grasp the significance of (1), which I believe causes a stir with the phase theory, let
us turn to look at the two possible syntactic derivations within the recent Minimalism. The first is
the one with Feature Inheritance suggested by Chomsky (2007, 2008), where there is no inherent
feature of functional heads other than phase heads: later in the derivation the phase heads pass ontheir features anti-cyclically to the designated partners. The other is proposed by Chomsky (2000,
2001), where all syntactic objects have their own features from the beginning and derivations
proceed in a strict bottom-up fashion. The question then arises as to which analysis is valid fromboth theoretical and empirical viewpoints.
With regard to the rationale for Feature Inheritance, Richards (2007) has made an importantstatement: the mechanism naturally follows from the language design. That is, the reason Value andTransfer must be simultaneous is attributed to the nature of uninterpretable features, and the reason
Phase-edges and their domains must be transferred separately is that otherwise the successive
computation would not fare. Consequently, the only way to cope with these both is for the syntax
to employ the mechanism of Feature Inheritance.
This is, however, not true of the facts well observed in West Germanic languages, one of which
we have already seen in (1), namely the complementizer agreement phenomenon. If the claim byRichards (2007) is on the right track, C0 cannot be allowed to retain an uninterpretable φ-feature so
as not to crash the derivation, but it does display the φ-feature agreement with the subject.
It may be worth mentioning here that what is called an edge-feature adopted in the Feature
Inheritance system also seems to be quite controversial. According to Chomsky (2008), the role ofan edge-feature is to attract a wh-element to the edge of C0, and it does not involve feature matching
and agreement. This leads us to suppose that there would be no case where the agreement between
C0 and the wh-element can be seen, which turns out to be false in (2).
(2)
Which

Cén
t-úrscéal aL mheas mé aL dúirt sé aL thuig
sé?
novel C thought I C said he C understand he‘Which novel did I think he said he understood?’(McCloskey (1979: 148))

In Irish, it is known that the finite C0 surfaces as ‘go’ or ‘gur’ depending on the tense of thesentence, whereas the C0 in wh-questions occurs as ‘aL’ as the above example demonstrates. In
addition, a similar phenomenon to this is as well observed in other languages such as Haitian Creole(cf. Takahashi and Gračanin-Yuksek (2008)). Therefore it can safely be said that at least thedefinition of the edge-feature should be wrong, or rather we have to put an uninterpretable
φ-feature/wh-feature on C0 that is in charge of agreement morphologies; hence the rationale for
Feature Inheritance would not be feasible any more.
Added to the above empirical problems, the Feature Inheritance system again seems to betheoretically undesirable in that it involves the anti-cyclic operation only within phases. It is now
entirely fair to accept the syntactic derivation proposed by Chomsky (2000, 2001), which enables
complementizers to accommodate their own uninterpretable features to exhibit agreement
morphologies. This research will go further to reinforce the discussion here showing that thegerundive construction in English is given a natural explanation if we adopt the ideas by Pesetsky
and Torrego (2001).

References
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, andJuan Uriagereka, 98-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael
Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2007) “Approaching UG from Below,” Interfaces + Recursion = Language?:
Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland andHans-Martin Gärtner, 1-29, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
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 L. Zubizarreta,
133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
McCloskey, James (1979) Transformational Syntax and Model-Theoretic Semantics: A Case Studyin Modern Irish, Dordrecht, Reidel.
Haegeman, Liliane, and Marjo van Koppen (2012) “Complementizer Agreement and the Relation
between C0 and T0,” Linguistic Inquiry 43, 441-454.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego (2001) “T-to-C movement: Causes and Consequences,” Ken
Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 355-426. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Richards, Mark (2007) “On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase Impenetrability
Condition,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563-572.
Takahashi, Shoichi, and Martina Gračanin-Yuksek (2008) “Morphosyntax of Movement
Dependencies in Haitian Creole,” Syntax 11, 223-250.

Stress and restrictiveness in phrase and compound
Hisao Tokizaki
Sapporo University
In this paper, I argue that the main stress location in phrases and compounds isdetermined by the restrictiveness of modifier or complement: restrictive modifier/complement receives the main stress while non-restrictive modifier/complement does not.
Chomsky and Halle’s (1968) Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) and Compound Stress
Rule (CSR) correctly describe the main stress location in phrases and compounds such as(1a) and (1b), where the stressed constituent is underscored.
(1)a.

[NP black bird]b.

[N blackbird]

However, these rules are no more than a description of the stress phenomena: they do notgive us any principled explanation of why phrases and compounds have different stresslocations.
Another idea about stress placement is that main stress falls on the non-head rather
than on the head in a constituent (Nespor and Vogel 1986, Duanmu 1990), as shown in (2).
(2)

a.

[N towel rack]b.

[PP in Boston]c.

[VP eat cake]

Cinque (1993) formalizes this idea and claims that stress is assigned to the most deeply
embedded element in a structure, which is in complement. This idea of non-head stressgeneralizes phrasal stress and compound stress. However, stress falls on the head noun rather
than on the non-head in a noun phrase.
(3)[NP big cat]

In order to solve this problem, Cinque assumes that noun phrases are in fact FP, having afunctional element F as their head, as in (4).
(4)

[FP big [F’ F [NP cat]]]In the structure (4), the modifier big is not the complement of the noun cat, which is the mostdeeply embedded constituent in FP. However, the nature of F in phrases is not discussed in
Cinque (1993).
I try to solve the problems of NSR/CSR and non-head stress in terms of therestrictiveness of modifier and complement. Restrictiveness is involved in two types ofprenominal adjectives, restrictive and non-restrictive, which have different structures andstress patterns (cf. Chomsky 1965, Givón 1993).
(5)a.

the industrious Chinese dominate the economy of Southeast Asia.

b.

the industrious Chinese dominate the economy of Southeast Asia.

These sentences can be paraphrased as (6a) and (6b), respectively.
(6)a.

the [NomP [NP Chinese], [CP who are industrious]], dominate ....

b.

the [NP Chinese [CP who are industrious]]] dominate ....

I argue that the whole structure of the industrious Chinese in (5a) is a nominal phrase(NomP) while that in (5b) is a noun phrase (NP). Then, the structures of non-restrictive (5a)and restrictive (5b) are (7a) and (7b).
(7)

a.

the [NomP industrious [NP Chinese]] dominate ....

b.

the [NP industrious Chinese] dominate ....

The modifier industrious is in the same NP in (7b) but not in (7a). (7a) and (7b) correspond toa noun phrase (4) and a compound (2a). In other words, a modifier in a compound isrestrictive by nature. For example, the modifier towel restricts the set of rack into a specific
type of rack in (2a).
This idea of restrictive stress straightforwardly explains why complement rather
than head receives the main stress in phrases other than NP. In a PP (2b) and a VP (2c), thecomplements Boston and cake restrict the meaning of the head preposition in and the headverb eat.
Thus, we can solve the problems of NSR/CSR and the non-head stress rule andgive a generalized idea of stress placement in all types of phrases and compounds. I will also
point out that this idea of restrictive stress can explain problematic cases of stress location insome compounds (cf. Giegerich 2004). I hope that this study sheds light on the study of theinterface between syntax, phonology and semantics.
References
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper &Row.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24,
239-298.
Duanmu, San. 1990. A formal study of syllable, tone, stress and domain in Chinese languages.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2004. Compound or Phrase? English Noun-plus-Noun Constructions andthe Stress Criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8, 1 - 24.
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar: a function-based introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

Effects of perception on loanword adaptation from English to Japanese:
The case of schwa vowels
Kanako Tomaru
Sophia University
OVERVIEW: It is common for words from one language (the source language) to beimported into another (the adapting language). For example, Japanese has borrowed
numerous English words. In this study, the borrowed words are called loanwords, English
word source word, and the process of borrowing loanword adaptation. In loanword
adaptation, the sound structure of a source word is often amended to conform to thephonological requirements of the adapting language. For instance, Japanese employs
epenthetic vowels to avoid consonant clusters (e.g., “strike”  “ｽﾄﾗｲｸ” //).
In addition, the quality of consonants and vowels in a source word are changed to fit theJapanese phonemic system (e.g., “label,”  “ﾗﾍﾞﾙ” //, “thanks”  “ｻﾝｸｽ”//). Furthermore, schwa vowels, phonologically nonexistent in Japanese, arerealized as different Japanese vowels (e.g., “Christmas”  “ｸﾘｽﾏｽ” //,“minimum”  “ﾐﾆﾏﾑ” //, “sensation”  “ｾﾝｾｰｼｮﾝ” //, “atom”
 “ｱﾄﾑ” //). Many studies (e.g., Kaneko & Iverson, 2009) suggest that thesephonological changes of consonants and vowels cannot be explained by a single factor,
but are influenced by multiple factors including perception and orthography. However,less research has been done to clarify how Japanese vowels are assigned to schwa vowels
in the process of loanword adaptation. The present research particularly investigated theeffects of perception on schwa adaptation in Japanese loanwords from English. Througha perceptual experiment, the present study found that the adaptation of schwa vowels inJapanese is not solely based on perception.
HYPOTHESIS: Schwa vowels are centralized reduced vowels that occur in unstressed
positions in English (Ladefoged & Johnson, 2011). In loanwords, schwa vowels are notcategorized into a single Japanese vowel, but are realized as several different vowels, as
shown above. Thus, the current study hypothesized that if adaptation of schwa vowels isbased on perception, native Japanese speakers perceptually substitute different Japanesevowels for schwa vowels.
EXPERIMENT: A native speaker of English was recruited for a recording. The recorded
source words were nonsense words that contained schwa vowels in initial, medial, or final
positions (e.g., [], [], and []). The syllable structures of the nonsense1source words conformed to English phonotactics. 20 native Japanese speakers wererecruited, and asked to write down the nonsense words they heard in Japanese katakana
as if they were introducing new loanwords to Japanese. An experimenter observed whichof the five Japanese vowels was assigned to a schwa vowel by the Japanese listeners.
RESULTS: If the hypothesis was correct, the schwa vowels should have been perceived
as different Japanese vowels. However, the results proved otherwise: 96% of the schwa
vowels were perceived as a single Japanese vowel, /a/.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that schwa vowels are not perceived by native
Japanese speakers as different Japanese vowels, but as a single vowel, i.e., /a/. Thissuggests that perception is not fully responsible for the varied realization of schwa vowels
in Japanese loanwords from English.
REFERENCES:
Kaneko, E., and Iverson, G., (2009). “Phonetic and other factors in Japanese on-line
adaptation of English ﬁnal consonants,” In Studies in language sciences 8: Papers
from the eighth annual conference of the Japanese Society for Language Science,
Inagaki, S. and Hirakawa, M. (Eds). Tokyo: Kurosio Publications.
Ladefoged, P., and Johnson, K., (2011). A course in phonetics sixth edition. Wadsworth:
Cengage Learning.

2