That-Relatives and Contrastive-Focus
Aichi Prefectural University
Ikeda Takashi

This talk presents two facts about that-relatives. First, head nominals such as
the only, the very and the superlative which allow only that-relatives are focused, andovertly move to the spec of FocP inside the relative clause in the spilt-CP system by
Rizzi (1997). For the conveniences of discussion, these head nominals are classified as
category 1. In addition to that, it is also claimed that head nominals such as no and every
which allow both that- and wh-relatives are focused, and overtly move to the spec of
FocP inside the relative clause in that-relatives. Although it is said that no and every
prefer that-relatives in literatures, they can choose both that- and wh-relatives actually.
These head nominals are classified as category 2. Second, head nominals classified as
category 1 and 2 require the covert movement to the spec of FocP in the matrix clause
for the semantic reason.
Examine following examples containing head nominals of category 1 and 2:(1) John read the {only/ very/ most difficult} book {that/??which} Mary wrote.
(2) John read (no/every) book {that/which} Mary wrote.
Category 1 requires only that-relatives while category 2 allows both that- andwh-relatives. Aoun and Li (2003) distinguish the derivation of that-relatives from that of
wh-relatives. Examine the following example:(3) a. The picture of himselfi (that) Johni painted is impressive.
b. The picture of himselfi (that) Johni likes is impressive.
c.* The picture of himselfi which Johni painted is impressive.
d.* The picture of himselfi which Johni likes is impressive.
Aoun and Li (2003: 111)
An anaphoric expression himself must be c-commanded by its antecedent John. Aounand Li (2003) analyzes that in the case of that-relatives the head nominal the picture ofhimself is generated inside the relative clause where John c-command it, and is moved
to the spec of CP. On the other hand, in wh-relatives, the head nominal isbase-generated in the matrix clause. This causes the ungrammaticality of (3)c and (3)d.
Before analyzing the targeting position of head nominals in that-relatives in (1) and (2),examine the following example concerning the spec of FocP in the split-CP.
(4) [FocPWhat [FocP never again will you do]]?
Radford (2004: 329)
Radford (2004) argues that only one spec is available for the spec of FocP. In thisderivation, what and never again moves to the same spec of FocP, so (4) becomes
ungrammatical. With this in mind, examine the following example of category 1:(5) a. This is the very book (that) students will enjoy only very rarely.
b.* This is the very book (that) only very rarely will students enjoy.
c. This is the very book which only very rarely will students enjoy.
1(5)b is an inverted sentence of (5)a. The ungrammaticality of (5)b derives from the factthat the head nominal (the) very book and the negative adverb expression only very
rarely occupis the same spec of FocP inside the relative clause. As shown in (4), thespec of FocP cannot have two constituents. In (5)c, the head nominal does not move tothe spec of FocP.
Next, examine the following example of category2:(6) a. I read every book (that) students will enjoy only very rarely.
b.* I read every book (that) only very rarely will students enjoy.
c. I read every book which only very rarely will students enjoy.
The same explanation to category 1 can be applied to category 2. In (6)b, when the headnominal (every) book and the negative adverb moves to the spec of FocP where only
one constituent is allowed, the sentence becomes ungrammatical. Regarding thedeterminer every, it is assumed to be added after the movement of book to the spec of
FocP. In (6)c, only the negative adverb occupies the spec of FocP, so the sentence isgrammatical. The head nominal is not moved to the spec of FocP in wh-relatives.
After the completion of the matrix clause, the head nominal of category 1 and 2
covertly moves to the spec of FocP in the matrix clause. For instance, in category 1, it isdone through percolation. Examine the following example:
John read [DP the [FocP very book i that Mary wrote ti ]](7)
In (7), it is assumed that the head nominal very book moves to the spec of FocP inside
the relative clause, and the focus feature of the head nominal very book percolates
upwards up to DP. As a result, whole DP is focused. This triggers the covert movementof DP including the head nominal to the spec of FocP in the matrix clause. From the topof the sentence, the head nominal can look out across the sentence as a wh-phrase doesin wh-questions. To put it shortly, the focused head nominal introduces alternatives
from which to choose, and the selection becomes possible after the covert movement tothe spec of FocP in the matrix clause.
References
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui A. Li (2003) Essays on the representational andderivational nature of Grammar: The diversity of WH-Construction, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Radford, Andrew (2004) Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structureof English,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left periphery,” in L. Haegeman (ed.)
Elements of Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers , Dordrecht.
Rooth, Mats (1992) “A theory of focus interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

A constructional approach to synonyms: a case study of apparently and seemingly
Fuminori NAKAMURA (Kitasato University)
In English, it has been generally described in the literature that there are two close synonymous
adverbs: apparently and seemingly. Both of them function as evidential markers as shown in (1):(1) a. Apparently1, she went to a particular pub.
(W_fict_prose, HWE)
b. Seemingly, two separate conditions must be satisfied to achieve proper balance.
(W_ac_tech_engin, K90)
According to Oxford Thesaurus of English, apparently is a prime synonym of seemingly and vice versa as
seen in (1). In Oxford English dictionary (2nd ediciton), either of them is also used to define the other.
Apparently means “to external appearance; seemingly” (s.v. apparently) and seemingly “to external
appearance; apparently” (s.v. seemingly).
Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 768-9) classified both of them into the same “modal adverb” category.
Wordnet 3.1. also places them in the same class and regard them as synonyms of each other.
Previous studies are (i) based mainly on meaning, (ii) focusing on their similarities but not theirdifferences. That is, although they describe their semantics in detail, they have hardly addressed theirsyntactic distribution (in corpus-linguistic terms, collocation and colligation). The present paper, therefore,
focuses on distribution because the adverb is a part of speech which occur multiple places as shown in (2).
(2) a. [Initial] Apparently there’s a device but the RAOC team are dealing with it.
(W_fict_prose, HTJ)
b. [Medial] He apparently slipped and has fallen between the floors.
(W_fict_prose, JXY)
c. [End] This was not her usual choice of milliner, but it possessed only dark-coloured had in
Broadstairs apparently.
(W_fict_prose, H8A)
d. [Parenthetical] They’re divorced now, apparently, and Paul’s married someone else, but at thetime he was going to Sonia and marry me.
(W_fict_prose, JXY)
The present paper adopts usage-based construction grammar (Bybee 2010, Hilpert 2014) as the theoreticalframework. It assumes that the basic unit of language is a construction, a form-meaning pair. Language as awhole is a large database of concrete examples and abstract constructions. The point is, although form andmeaning pairing is crucial, neither form nor meaning can be fully predictable from the other. Therefore,
independent of semantics, form distribution is also necessary for full description. The research question hereis, therefore, whether or not apparently and seemingly are similar or different in formal distribution.
The data has been garnered from BYU-BNC, an online version of the British National Corpus. For
each of the adverbs, 1,000 examples are randomly sampled. Then, each example is manually tagged with
relevant information: (i) in which position it occurs (i.e. initial, medial, end, parenthetical) and (ii) whichelement it modifies (e.g. verb, adjective).
The result is represented in Table 1. Apparently and seemingly show different distribution. Apparently
occurs more frequently in initial, end and parenthetical position than seemingly. From a functional point ofview, apparently have developed as an evidential modal adverb more than seemingly.
apparently seemingly
initial
198
9
end
22
3
medial723
966
parenthetical
57
20
metalinguistic
0
2
total
1000
1000
Table 1. Frequency of apparently and frequency according to position1

All underlines in the examples here are mine.

On the other hand, seemingly is used almost exclusively in the medial position. For the examples ofapparently in each of the positions, see (2). For the examples of seemingly, see (3).
(3) a. [Initial] Seemingly, two separate conditions must be satisfied to achieve proper balance.
(W_ac_tech_engin, K90)
b. [End]The players retain it, seemingly.
(W_newsp_brdsht_nat_misc, AJJ)
c. [Medial] He climbed seemingly endless stairways leading him ever upward.
(W_fict_prose, HUA)
d. [Metalinguitic] Even words like' seemingly' or' probably'are out of place if the law is clear.
(W_non_ac_polit_law_edu, FRA)
e. [Parenthetical] She did this with great vigour at, seemingly, every opportunity.
(W_non_ac_soc_science, CGS)
As for modified element, there is also a great difference between the two adverbs. For example,
Apparently modifies verbal predicatives in the medial position (364/723 examples).
(4) a. Her blood was there, but she had apparently forgotten about it.
b. The Queen apparently lost her patience.

(W_fict_prose, GV2)
(W_biography, G3R)

It is sometimes used as an independent reply as shown in (5).
(5) Apparently.

(W_fict_prose, G0A)

Seemingly in the medial position, on the other hand, strongly prefers to adjectives (697/966 examples).
In particular, seemingly is frequently collocated with negative adjectives, often followed by nouns, as shownin (6).
(6) a. His words came out in a seemingly endless flow of support and approbation.
(W_fict_prose, HNK)
b. However, the new minister on arrival soon found that he was faced with a seemingly
impossible task.
(W_religion, CCL)
This suggests that seemingly [neg]adjective (noun) construction has been firmly established in English.
In sum, although apparently and seemingly are similar in meaning in expressing modality andevidentiality, they show rather different distribution in form in Present-day English. From a constructional
point of view, this result supports for bottom-up, probabilistic, neither top-down nor clear-cut, nature oflanguage. These subtle differences should be learned individually (Hilpert 2014).
References
Biber, Doglas et al. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Longman, London.
Bybee, Joan (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Davies, Mark. (2004) BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus. <http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc>
Hilpert, Martin (2014) Construction Grammar and Its Application to English, Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Princeton University (2010) About “WordNet”. Princeton University. <http://wordnet.princeton.edu>
Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greembaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammarof the English Language. Longman, London.
Dictionaries and Corpora
BYU-BNC
Oxford English Dictionary
Oxford Thesaurus of English
Wordned 3.1.

On the Existence of Multi-Phonological Words
From the Viewpoint of Stress Movement in Prefixes
Tetsuo Nishihara (Miyagi University of Education)
This presentation focuses on the different effects of prefixation and suffixation on
stress placement in English. It is generally assumed that prefixation does not affectstress placement in this language, but that suffixation does. This difference can be
explained by the adjacency condition proposed by Sato (1990) (see also Nishihara andvan de Weijer (2012)).
When a word and suffix are affected by the adjacency condition, movement ofstress occurs. The different effects of different suffixes on stress in English can be
explained by the adjacency condition as follows:(1)a. [ [ [ DEFinite ] ive ]φ]Class I (movement of stress)

deFInitiveb. [ [ [ DEFinite ]φ] ness] ] Class II (no movement of stress) DEfinitenessIn the first word, the suffix –ive is immediately adjacent to the root, and stress canmove. In the second word, there is an empty unit between the root and the suffix –ness,and stress cannot move across this. In other words, when a word and a suffix occur
within the same Phonological Word, stress shift can occur. These structures cantherefore also be interpreted as differences in Phonological Word (PW) structure, assuggested by researchers such as Szpyra (1989) and Kean (1978):(2)a. ( definite ) ive )PW
b. ( definite )PW ( ness )PW(movement of stress)(no movement of stress)

In prefixed words, stress does not move although other phonological processes
may apply:(3)a. [ in [ balance ]](no movement of stress, but nasal assimilation occurs)→ [ im [ balance ]]b. [ un [ balance ]] (neither movement of stress, nor nasal assimilation occurs)
Nasal assimilation occurs when a Class I prefix (in-) is added, while it does not occur
when a Class II prefix (un-) is attached. Using the adjacency conditions as explained in(1) these forms can be represented as in (4):(4)

a. [φ[ in [ balance ] ] ](nasal assimilation occurs, because of adjacency)

b. [ un [φ[ balance ] ] ] (nasal assimilation does not occur, because of empty unit)
1Can the rule of stress shift be distinguished from other phonological phenomena, suchas assimilation, in terms of the Phonological Word structure? When these structures are
represented by using Phonological Words (PWs), it is not clear why one allows stressmovement and the other does not:(5)a. (in)PW (balance)PWb. (un)PW (balance)PW

On the other hand, in order to explain whether or not nasal assimilation occurs when aprefix, another PW structure would seem to be necessary:(6)a. ( in ( balance ))PW

(nasal assimilation occurs)→( im ( balance ))b. ( un )PW ( balance )PW(nasal assimilation does not occur)

It seems that stress placement in English words is independent from other phonologicalphenomena, such as nasal assimilation and other types of assimilation. Stress placement
does not seem sensitive to Phonological Word structure. If we do not accept a
distinction between different types of Phonological Words based on Class I and Class II
prefixes confirming (6a, 6b), we could suggest that the Phonological Word structure isdifferent in prefixed forms such as (5a, 5b) to account for stress shift.
In sum, I propose that we have to accept the existence of Multi-PhonologicalWords, i.e. both traditional Phonological Words exist (based on the application of nasal
assimilation) and Phonological Word Minus (PW=M) (based on the blocking of stressmovement). The summary of this analysis is given in (7):(7)
Class I Suffix PWClass II Suffix PWClass I Prefix PW=M
Class II Prefix PW< stress movement >
YES
NO
NO
NO

< phonological change >
YES
NO
YES
NO

References
Kean, M-L. (1978) “The Linguistic Interpretation of Aphasic Syndrome.” Cognition 5,
9-46.
Nishihara, T and J. van de Weijer (2012) “On the Role of Adjacency in MorphologicalStress Shift.” JELS 29, 293-296.
Sato, Y. (1990) “Adjacency in Phonology.” The Meiji Gakuin Review 75, 85-89.
Szpyra, J. (1989) The Phonology-Morphology Interface. London: Routledge.

2Elaboration on Labeling Algorithm: Agreement for Feature Sharing
Shin-ichi Tanigawa
Fukuoka University
This paper provides a refined definition of agreement for feature sharing in Labeling Algorithm.
It proposes that feature sharing for labeling requires agreement whereby two unvalued features ofXP and YP mutually get deleted (valued). It argues that only this definition of agreement can
successfully rule out illicit movement.
In Labeling Algorithm, Chomsky (2013, 2015) claims that feature sharing is essential to labelingof {XP, YP}, in which two non-heads XP and YP are merged. He implies that feature sharing
requires agreement rather than matching, although he does not discuss in detail how they are
differentiated. Chomsky (2015:13, fn.16) provides a brief definition of agreement, as in (1).
(1) Agreement holds for a pair of features <valued, unvalued>.
This definition has typically been adopted for both A-movement and A’-movement, and according tothis definition, {DP, TP} and {wh-XP, CP} are labeled as follows:
α = <φ, φ>(2)

α = <Q, Q>

(3)

DP[φ]
TP[uφ]
wh-XP[Q] CP[uQ]
However, the definition in (1) encounters two problems. One is a conceptual problem regarding
the ambiguity between agreement and matching. Paired features such as <φ, uφ> in (2) and <Q, uQ>
in (3) are identical features. According to Chomsky (2000:122), matching is identity. A mere
description of paired identical features is not sufficient to distinguish agreement from matching. In
principle, matching as well as agreement holds for <φ, uφ> and <Q, uQ>. The other is an empiricalproblem regarding illicit movement. As pointed out by Goto (2015), the definition in (1) wrongly
predicts that illicit A-movement in (4a) should be permitted.
(5)(4) a. * John seems likes cats.
b.

[α

John

T

seem

[β

t

T

like cats

α = <φ, φ>

]]

DP[φ]
TP[uφ]
If <[φ], [uφ]> induces agreement, not only the embedded {β DP, TP} but also the matrix {α DP, TP}
is labeled as <φ, φ>, as shown in (5). The same problem is found in illicit A’-movement in (6a).
(6) a. * Which cat do you wonder John likes?
b.

[αwhich catC

you wonder

[β

(7)
t

C

John likes

α = <Q, Q>]]

wh-DP[Q] CP[uQ]
If <[Q], [uQ]> induces agreement, the matrix { α wh-DP, CP} is labeled as <Q, Q>, as shown in (7).
As far as labeling is concerned, (4a) and (6a) are not excluded.
For these reasons, the definition in (1) is not considered as the best definition of agreement forfeature sharing. Following the implication of Chomsky (2013:45), this paper proposes an alternative
definition of agreement in (8) by scrutinizing the mechanism of Agree in Chomsky (2000) inter alia.
(8) In {XP, YP}, where XP is lexical and YP is functional, agreement takes place if
i.

{XP, YP} bears a set of features <[α][uβ], [uα]>. Namely, XP bears a valued feature [α]and an unvalued feature [uβ]. YP bears [uα], an unvalued counterpart of [α].

ii.

[uα] and [uβ] are active in the sense that they are undeleted.

iii.

[uα] and [uβ] mutually get deleted (valued) under identity between [α] and [uα].

In conjunction with (8), this paper proposes agreement mechanisms in (9) and (10), whereby a
unified way of labeling applies to both A-movement and A’-movement.
α = <φ, φ>(9)

α = <Q, Q>(10)

DP[φ][uCase] TP[uφ]wh-XP[Q][uOp] CP[uQ]
In (9), subject-DP bears valued φ-features [φ] and an unvalued case feature [uCase]; TP bears
unvalued φ-features [uφ]. [uφ] and [uCase] get deleted under identity between [φ] and [uφ], and{α DP, TP} is labeled as <φ, φ>. In (10), wh-XP bears a valued Q-feature [Q] and an unvalued
operator feature [uOp]; CP bears an unvalued Q-feature [uQ]. [uQ] and [uOp] get deleted underidentity between [Q] and [uQ], and { α wh-XP, CP} is labeled as <Q, Q>. (8ii) ensures that once[uCase] and [uOp] are deleted, subject-DP and wh-XP are no longer capable of inducing agreement.
This paper argues that the definition in (8) must be maintained if we take account of illicit
movement discussed above, i.e., the ungrammaticality of illicit movement is accounted for only interms of (8). According to (8) and (9), agreement does not apply to the matrix {α DP, TP} in (11).
(11)

[α

John

T

seem

[β

t

T

like cats

]]

(12)

α = ??

DP[φ][uCase] TP[uφ]The most crucial in (11) is that [uCase] has already been deleted by agreement in the embedded{β DP, TP}. Due to the deleted [uCase], subject-DP cannot induce agreement with the matrix-TP,
and the matrix {α DP, TP} is not labeled, as shown in (12). The same account is given to (13).
(13)

[α

which catC

you wonder

[β

t

C

John likes

]]

(14)

α = ??
wh-DP[Q][uOp]

CP[uQ]

According to (8) and (10), agreement does not take place in the matrix {α wh-DP, CP}, as shown in(14), since [uOp] has already been deleted by agreement in the embedded {β wh-DP, CP}.
Consequently, the matrix {α wh-DP, CP} is not labeled.
Finally, this paper clarifies theoretical implications and consequences of the definition in (8). It
shows what kind of theoretical treatment should be given to quirky subjects in English, Icelandic
and Japanese.
Selected 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 and Juan
Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. | Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of
Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49. | Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,”
Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico,Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3-16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. | Goto, Nobu (2015)“On the Necessity of Labeling in Narrow Syntax: Exploring a Third Approach,” Paper Presented at
Keio Linguistic Colloquium, March 14th.