The Predicate Structure of Past Participial Reduced Relatives in English
Chigchi Bai
Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics
Past participles in reduced relative clauses in English, exemplified in (1), have twofunctions; they are postnominal modifiers and are predicated of the noun.
(1) [The books sent to me] are about global warming.
This paper aims to clarify the predicate structure of such relative clauses in English. The
discussion is concerned with three questions listed below.
(2) a. Evidence: from As
b. Structure: of Subject-predicate relationc. Extension: to non-reduced relatives
First, this paper presents syntactic evidence for the predicate structure. As shown in (3), as
is a lexical realization of a functional head in the predicate structure of, for example, small
clauses. Importantly, as introduces postnominal modifiers including adjectives and past
participles, as in (4) and (5). Noteworthy is the fact that both in small clauses (3) and in
reduced relatives (4, 5) the subject-predicate relation is mediated by as, indicating that past
participles in reduced relative clauses have a predicate structure like small clauses.
(3) They regard John as crazy and as a fool. (Bowers (1993: 605))(4) The faculty of speech is the most salient quality of [men as distinct from animals].
(Egawa (1991: 397))(5) [The plan as currently conceived] is seriously flawed.
(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1146))
Second, based on the above fact, this paper proposes the structure in (6), in which the past
participle is embedded under AspP selected by a functional head Pred0 and the modified NP is
located in the Spec of PredP, whereby the subject-predicate relation is established. As shownin more detail in (7-9), NP originates as an internal argument of the verb in AspP and raises to
the Spec of PredP, followed by subsequent raising to the surface position, where it projects sothat the label of the entire phrase is NP. As is a lexical realization of Pred0.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

[PredP NPsubj Pred0 [AspP Participle …]][PredP planias[AspP currently conceived ti …]][PredP booksi Ф[AspP sent ti to me …]][NP booksi [PredPtiФ[AspP sent ti to me …]]]Third, this predicate structure also applies to non-reduced relative clauses, exemplified in(10) and (11), in which each of the relative clauses contains a gap of a certain element, as
indicated by Jespersen (1927: 168) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1150).
1

(10) a. such woman as knew Tomb. such woman as Tom knew
c. such woman as Tom dreamed of (Jespersen (1927: 168))(11) a. This is a photograph of the church as it wasin 1900.
b. No one thought that Margot, as she was then known, would last the distance.
(Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1150))
As shown in (12) and (13), NP originates within CP and raises to the Spec of PredP, from
where it subsequently raises to the surface position. Predication is established in theSpec-head configuration in PredP and modification is completed when NP raises from/is
relativized out of the Spec of PredP.
(12) [DP [NP womani [PredP ti Ф [CP that/Ф [TP Tom knew ti ]]](13) [DP [NP womani [PredP ti as [CPФ [TP Tom knew ti ]]]A side issue concerning the landing site of NP and labeling will also be discussed. The
paper will modify Donati and Cecchetto’s (2011, 2015) relabeling analysis of relativizationand presents a refined one, as proposed in Chigchi (2016, 2017).
The present analysis of the predicate structure of past participial reduced relative clauses
thus has an important consequence; it provides a unified basic structure for reduced andnon-reduced relatives, identifying the highest projection as PredP, whose head can belexically realized as as.
(14) [PredP [CP … [AspP … (non-reduced relatives)(15) [PredP[AspP … (reduced relatives)
The structural difference between them lies in the presence/absence of the CP layer, as
shown in (14) and (15). In the case of non-reduced relatives, the CP layer is present, while in
reduced relatives, it is absent because reduced relatives lack finiteness and discourse-scope
properties. In both cases, however, PredP is present because both reduced and non-reduced
relatives are predicated of the modified noun.
Selected References:
Bowers, John (1993) “The Syntax of Predication” Linguistic Inquiry, 591-656.
Chigchi, Bai (2017) “Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Adnominal Past Participles inEnglish” Ph.D Dissrtation, Nagoya University.
Donati, Caterina and Carlo Cecchetto (2011) “Relabeling Heads: A Unified Account for
Relativization Structures” Linguistic inquiry 42, 519-560.
Egawa, Taiichiro (1991) A New Guide to English Grammar, Kaneko Shobo, Tokyo.
Huddleston Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jespersen, Otto (1909-1949) A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol 3,
George Allen and Unwin, London.
2

Lexicogrammatical Patterns of Speech Acts in English and Japanese Legal Discourse
Sonya Chik
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
The regulative function of speech acts in legal discourse has been extensively researched (cf.
Trosborg, 1997; Geis, 2006; Cao, 2007, just to name a few). For example, in legal contracts,
directive acts or language use to impose action on the addressee through obligation andcommissive acts or language use to commit the speaker to certain course of action (cf. Searle,
1985; Trosborg, 1997) are two common speech acts with regulative functions. However,different languages and cultures have different lexicogrammatical preferences on theconstruction of directives and commissives even within comparable legal contexts. Yet, moststudies in regulative speech acts are English-centric, and cross-linguistic research in this area
remains under-represented. In the case of contrastive analysis between English and Japanese
legal discourse, most studies have been conducted with a focus on legal translation (e.g. Kono,
2010 and Takeda & Sekine, 2014). This study investigates the lexicogrammatical features thatcharacterize regulative speech acts in English and Japanese legal discourse by offering adetailed description of the speech acts from a systemic functional perspective.
The data of this study is drawn from a bilingual corpus that contains sixteen privacy
policies (eight in English and eight in Japanese, both in their original and target languages)
collected from social media websites and top global company websites. Privacy policy is
chosen as the object of this study because it is one of the most common legal agreements thatare publicly available online and in multiple languages including English and Japanese.
Drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) theory, this study identifies and classifies
the major speech acts in privacy policies from a ‘trinocular’ perspective. First, the text isanalyzed ‘from above’ based on the contextual variables of field or subject matter, tenor or
writer-reader relationship, and mode or medium and style in which the text is produced (cf.
Halliday & Hasan, 1989:26). Next, the text is scrutinized ‘from below’ by examining thelexicogrammatical features in which the functions of the speech acts are realized. Each text isanalyzed under the systems of MOOD (declarative, imperative and interrogative) and
MODALITY (probability and obligation) at the rank of clause (see Halliday & Matthiessen,2014 for English; and Teruya, 2007 for Japanese). Finally, the text is analyzed at the semantic
level where different speech acts are identified and classified according to the communicative
purposes.

1

Findings from the study reveal that privacy policy is hybrid in nature, which isevidenced in the lexicogrammatical features that characterize both legal and commercial text
types. In addition to regulative speech acts such as directives and commissives, privacy policies
also contain the speech acts of warning and advising, which are not common features in legal
contracts. In general, the epistemic modality is preferred over deontic in both English andJapanese privacy policies. In terms of cross-linguistic variation, it is observed that linguistic
expressions for the speech acts in Japanese tend to be more lexical and phrasal, compared tothose in English, which are more grammatical. Moreover, the social hierarchical relationshipbetween service provider and user is explicitly coded in Japanese through the systems of
Honorification and Politeness. Although the cross-linguistic variation identified in this study
is mainly language-specific, the linguistic choices reflect the divergence between the two
languages in enacting the writer-reader relationship, which is motivated by the context oflanguage use. These findings are significant in terms of the implications on cross-linguistic
variation in communicative contrasts between the two languages in general (cf. House, 2006),
and potential contributions to translation studies in particular.
References
Cao, D. (2007). Legal speech acts as intersubjective communicative action Interpretation, law
and the construction of meaning, 65-82. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Geis, M. L. (2006). Speech acts and conversational interaction: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text : aspects of language in asocial-semiotic perspective: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional
grammar (Fourth ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
House, J. (2006). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English
Studies, 10(3), 249-267.
Kono, T. (2010). The Transparency Project, Its Achievements, and Some Cross-Cutting Issues.
Japanese YB Int'l L., 53, 306-319.
Searle, J. R. (1985). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts: Cambridge
University Press.
Takeda, K., & Sekine, Y. (2014). Translation of Japanese Laws and Regulations. In L. Cheng,
K. K. Sin and A. Wagner (eds.), The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation. Surrey,
UK & Burlington, USA: Ashgate, 223-235.
Teruya, K. (2007). A systemic functional grammar of Japanese, two volumes. London:
Continuum.
Trosborg, A. (1997). Rhetorical strategies in legal language : discourse analysis of statutes
and contracts. Tübingen Germany: Gunter Narr.

2

vP movement in Japanese Right-Dislocation
Kaori Furuya
University of North Texas
This paper examines Japanese right-dislocation constructions (RDCs) with adverbs postverballyand provides new arguments for a mono-clausal analysis with vP movement for some RDCs.
Unlike cases of postposing adverbs alone (e.g. Endo 1996), it has not been observed that adverbs
can be postposed together with arguments as in (1).
(1) Did Taro read the book on the table a lot?
Taro-wai [e]i yomanakatta-yo,
sono honi-oi(nandomo/zenzen).
Taro-Top
read.did.not-Prt
thebook-Acc repeatedly/never‘(Lit) Taro did not read [e]i, (the booki repeatedly/never).’
In reply to the question written in italicized English, (1) can be uttered with the combination of theaccusative-Case marked DP and an adverb postverbally. These postverbal elements appear to be
an afterthought added later and thus the sentence (1) is fine even without them.
The most prevailing analysis adopts the perspective that a RDC consists of two clauses(Abe 1999, 2019 Takita 2011, a.o.). In this analysis (1) can be schematized in (2), where postposed
elements exist in S2 and are taken as afterthoughts added later on what S1 states (Kuno 1987), asin Taro did not read iti, he did not read the booki repeatedly/at all.
(2) [S1 …] [S2 DP-Acci Adv [ ti ] ]However, the bi-clausal analysis is puzzling in (3) since the RDC with an adverb attachedby the Negative Polarity Item (NPI) –sika ‘only’ is not properly interpreted in the analysis.
(3) Did Taro eat the applei on the table?
Taro-wa[e]i tabenakatta-yo (sono ringo(-o)i sukosi-sika).
Taro-Top
did.not.eat-Prt the apple-Acc little-SIKA‘Taro ate the applei only a little bit.’* ‘Taro did not eat iti, he ate the applei only a little bit.’As the English translations indicate, the postposed NPI should be associated with the verb
preverbally in the single clause, rather than in the bi-clausal structure. Note that Takita’s (2014)
mono-clausal analysis with base-generation fails to explain (3) since it is unlikely that the object
and the adverb postverbally function as topic(s) together or separately.
Alternatively, provided that a verb is overtly raised to T (Hayashi & Fujii 2015, Sato &Hayashi 2018), I suggest a mono-clausal analysis with vP movement in (4). The proposed analysis
with vP movement correctly explains the word order and the interpretation of (3).
(4) [S … ti Vneg] [vP DP-Acci Adv-sika tv ]i
The proposed analysis also explains the distribution of the adverbs in (5), where oogoe-de‘loudly’ modifies the matrix verb whereas ichijikan ‘one hour’ modifies the embedded verb in CP.
(5) Taro-wa [e]i itta, [[Mari-ga [e]j hasitta-to]i kouen-oj itizikan
oogoe-de].
Taro-Top
said Mari-Nom
ran-Comp park-Acc one.hour
loud.voice-in‘Taroi said loudly that Marij ran in the park for one hour.’In the proposed analysis vP undergoes rightward movement in (6a). In (6b) the matrix adverb
successfully modifies the trace of the matrix adverb in the raised vP (Sato & Hayashi 2018). In

(6c), vP in the embedded CP is right-dislocated to the right periphery, in which the embedded
adverb likewise modifies the trace of the verb.
(6) a.
TP
b. vP
c.
CP
T’
vP VerbMatrix

CP

vP

TP
T’

AdvMetrix tMatrx

tMatrxv vPMaxrix movementvP

VerbEmbedded

Ob vP vPEmbedded movement
AdvEmbedded tEmbeddedv
Notice that (5) is problematic to the bi-clausal analysis (and Tanaka’s 2001 tripartite
analysis) along with the perspective that postposed adverbs are originally right-adjoined without
moving (Kamada 2009) since these analyses would predict no asymmetry between (5) and (7)(which is ungrammatical when it involves adverbs), contrary to what we observe.
(7) *[Mari-ga [e]j hasitta-to]i kouen-oj itizikan oogoe-deTaro-wa [e]i itta
Mari-Nom
ran-Comp park-Acc one.hour loud.voice-in Taro-Top
said‘(Intended) Taroi said loudly that Marij ran in the park for one hour.’Moreover, under the proposed analysis the preverbal null element in (8) is a trace of the
moved vP attached by the focus particle –sae ‘even’.
(8) Did Taro eat anything?
Taro-wa [e]i/*j sinakatta-yo, [ie-de ringo-oj
tabe-sae]i
Taro-Top
did.not-Prt house-at apple-Acc eat-even‘(Intended) Taro did not even eat an apple at home.’
Note that the fact that the preverbal null element cannot be pro (or a(n) argument/vP
ellipsis) is problematic to the extant analyses including the bi-clausal analysis.
This paper analyzes RDCs with the combination of adverbs and arguments postverbally,and demonstrates that the prevailing bi-clausal analysis and extant mono-clausal analyses withbase-generation fail to account for the distribution of adverbs postverbally. I argue that a monoclausal analysis with vP movement is the best to account for the distribution of the combinationsof adverbs and arguments postverbally for some Japanese RDCs. The proposed analysis indicatesthat postverbal elements do not always fit the typical uses of afterthoughts added later in the biclausal structure (Kuno 1987). Moreover, it also challenges a uniform analysis of RDCs
regardless of whether it is a mono- or a bi-clausal analysis since a postverbal adverb may not
obligatorily occur in the second clause of a RDC.
Selected references:Abe, J. (2019). Two types of Japanese right dislocation under the bi-clausal analysis. Proceedingof WAFL.
Kuno, S. (1978). Japanese: A characteristic OV language. In Syntactic typology, ed. By W.P.
Lehmann, 57-138. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sato, Y. and S. Hayashi. 2018. String-vacuous head movement in Japanese: new evidence fromverb-echo answers. Syntax 21(1): 72–90.
Tanaka, H. (2001). Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551-579.
Takita, K. (2014) “Pseudo-right dislocation, the bare-topic construction, and hanging topic
constructions.” Lingua 140.137-157.

Remarks on Root Removal and Placement Verbs
Hideaki Gen’ey (Saitama-Gakuen University)
This paper provides a compositional account of verbal lexical decomposition of English
removal and placement verbs. I focus on a particular verb class, which I call “RootRemoval Verbs (henceforth RRV),” as illustrated by seed the butternut. My definition ofthis verb class is that these verbs entail the removal of an entity, but the entity is not
expressed by an argument of the verb, thus implicit. Importantly, the “removed” argument
is a structured part (tentatively represented as ≤structured) of a whole (= source) (similar to
the finger－hand－arm relation). Root Placement Verbs (RPV’s) come in two types: ①
those which entail the placement of an entity but the entity is not expressed by anargument of the verb like She buttered the toast. and ② those which entail a location but
the location argument itself is implicit like Juddy bagged the carrots. I assume that theverbs like seed with the meaning of “to remove seeds from the plant” are derived fromroots like √seed but these roots do not bear categories like “verb” or “noun.” Lexical items
like seed contains a property, extracted from the root, of being a noun (represented as a“small n”) and of being a verb (represented as an agent-introducing “small v”) and they
are represented as [n√seed] and [v √seed] respectively when categories are distinguished.
For example, roots like √skin are related to “(removal) source” arguments like freshcaught fish by preposition-like functional heads, called OUT (properties extracted fromthe root) in the semantic structure, and ultimately combine with a small v head jumping
the object DPs (N.B. Levinson 2014:212). OUT is not pronounced (N.B. Levinson
2007:47, 112). Namely, a small v is a syntactic conflation of √Root and OUT.
(1) [v [DP fresh-caught fish]] [OUT [√skin]]]]]↑||
OUT can be explicit as in attested examples like (2).
(2) Looking across the stream to where the gun bearers were skinning out the lion …
I argue that skin as a noun is converted a verb by “association which pick up the mostappropriate meaning on the situation”, which Gil (2005) claims to work at the beginningof language, where categories like preposition and tense are not discriminated. I claimthat association survives in noun-verb conversion and a few other areas (thus OUT is
often not pronounced). The structures like (2) and (3) have the associational meaning of“removing the skin/gut,” based on the relation structured parthood (i.e., the relation that
holds between whole entities and their proper parts (cf. Champollion 2017: 13)).
(3) [vP[v[√skin]] [DP fresh-caught fish]] (skin ≤structured fish; skin is a structured part of fish)
Note Champollion’s (2017) classical extensional mereology only concerns unstructured
parthood, represented by a relation ≤, “‘wholes’ are collection without internal structure1

(=sum),” as in (4).
(4) Eight men, twenty pieces, some of them large. (some of them ≤ twenty pieces)
The denotation for the phrases like “gutting fish” will be a predicates of events: “A set ofremoval events which cause an event in which gut (= the structured part of ‘fish’) isremoved.” I extend the notion of “structured parthood” relation to pseudo-resultatives(PR’s) given in (6), which do not modify the DP object as resultatives do. I claim that
resultative predicates like thick might, but not always, predicate structured parts like peel.
(6) The rich peel potatoes thick. → At least one thick peel was removed (from a potato).
The resultative-like interpretation of PR’s is contributed not by modification of a resultant
state, but by modification of an individual which is separated as a result of the event,corresponding to the “structured part (= removed peel)” of potatoes. Notice that peeling
potatoes refers to an obviously separable part of the item. But in “2 apples, cored and cut
into wedges,” the core is created because of the removing action (cf. Bob balled his fist.)
In (8) structured parthood appears to be “transitive”: blood is not only the structured partof a vein but also that of you. But extensionality (i.e., *blood = you) does not hold here.
(8) I’ll bleed you dry. ← dry might modify the whole human being (“you”)
Note also “a feet missing toe” is acceptable but “??a leg missing a toe” sounds strange.
RRV milk might form the following (semantic) structure:(9) [vP[v[√milk]] [OF [OUT [DP his cow]]] (milk ≤structured his cow)
The syntactic derivation of milk as a RPV is shown in (10), barring *milk the cup, the factof and the reason for which Clark and Clark (1979) neither mention nor address:(10) [v [DP the tea [WITH [IN [√milk]]]]]](milk ≤structured the tea) ← “milk the tea”↑|||
cf. “Milk in first”“Milk the tea” yields “tea with milk” but the cup and milk don’t merge (cf. milk the baby).
Once the noun-verb conversion with its associational meaning established, the use of milk
might extends to yield other expressions like milk the cash-cow or I’ll milk you properly.
Finally, under a telicity test, RRV’s like dust pattern as follows: (a) She dusted furniture
for /?in five minutes. vs. (b) She dusted all of the furniture *for/in five minutes. RRV’s
with unbounded mass objects give rise to atelic clauses but with bounded objects theyyield telic clauses. In the former cases, there arises “the minimal-parts problem.”
References: Clark, E.V., and H.H. Clark. 1979. “When Nouns Surface as Verbs.”
Language 55. Gil, D. 2005. “Word Order without Syntactic Categories.” In Harley andDooley. Eds. Kajita, Masaru. 1977. “Towards a Dynamic Model of Syntax.” SEL 5.
Levinson, L. 2007. The Roots of Verbs. Ph.D. diss., NYU. Levinson, L. 2014. “The
Ontology of Roots and Verbs.” In Alexiadou et al. Eds. Champollion, L. 2017. Parts of a
Whole. Oxford Univ. Press. Moltmann, D. 1997. Parts and Wholes in Semantics. Oxford.
2

When and How Does Search Take Place? Nobu Goto (Toyo University)
In personal communication with Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (EKS), Chomsky suggests:“Labeling is a search procedure, like Agree (and in fact Merge, which searches for things tomerge). So why isn’t it enough to say that all search procedures are governed by the third
factor principle of economy (shortest search)” (EKS 2018:268).
That said, however, it is still unclear (at least to me) how a search procedure is governedby the 3rd factor principle and involved in the formulation of Merge(X,Y)→{X,Y}. So I
propose: a search procedure be involved not only in labeling the output of Merge{X,Y}(which I call Label-Search, LS), but also in determining the input of Merge(X,Y) (which I call
Input-Search, IS), claiming that the 3rd factor principle require all search procedures not toaccess the deep interior of a complex structure such as {XP,YP}. Thus in an XP-YP structuresuch as {IS(H)…{LS(α) {XP X, {…Z…}}, {YP Y, {…W…}}}}, XP, YP are accessible to bothLS(α) (search to determine the label of α) and to IS(H) (search to determine the input of
Merge with H), but the deep interiors of them, i.e., the gray zones containing Z, W, areinaccessible to them. Note here that I assume with Chomsky’s POP system (2013; 2015) thatthe label of syntactic objects is determined as follows: {H,XP}=H; {XPF,YPF}=<F,F>; and{XP,YP}=unlabeled (where H, a head; XP/YP, a phrase; [F], agreement features like Q), andwith Sorida (2015), Bošković (2016), Rizzi (2016) and Saito (2016) that LS applies at eachstep of a derivation (contra the POP system where LS is assumed to operate at the phase level,
CP and vP, in one fell swoop). Under this theory, therefore, it follows that search (LS and IS)
always operates over the minimum binary branching structure in a workspace. I take this as
the so-called Minimal Search (MS), and dub it “MS-3” to mean 3rd-factor-contsrianed MS.
The MS-3 provides a unified account of two (unrelated) phenomena: if α pied-pipes β,then α must be at the edge of β (1) (“Pied-Piping problem,” Heck 2008; 2009); and extraction
out of non-complements is disallowed (2) (“CED problem,” Huang 1982; Chomsky 1986):(1) a. [Whose problem] did he solve?

(2) a. Whoi did you believe [that he saw ti]?

b. *[The problem of what] did he solve?

b. *Whoi did [pictures of ti] please you?
c. *Who did he leave [before speaking to ti]?

The relevant derivations of (1a, b) and (2a, b, c) are (3a, b) and (4a, b, c), respectively:(3) a. {LS(α) {Q Q, {DP whose problem}}, {CQ CQ, {TP he solve}}}b. *{LS(α) {DP D(the), {problem of what}}, {CQ CQ, {TP he solve}}}(4) a. {IS(v) {α whoi, {CP C(that), {…ti…}}}}(=(1a))(=(1b))(=(2a))

b. *{IS(C) {α {DP D, {picture of who}}, {vP v, {…}}}}(=(2b))

c. *{IS(C) {α {vP v, {…}}, {CP C(before), {…speaking to who…}}}}(=(2c))In (3a), Q and CQ are accessible to LS(α); α is labeled as <Q,Q>. But in (3b), Q is notaccessible to LA(α); α is not labeled, resulting in an interpretation failure at the CI (Ott 2015).
Likewise, in (4a), who is accessible to IS(v); who can be the input of IS(v) (the same holds forthe next CP). But in (4b, c), who is not accessible to IS(C); who cannot be the input of IS(C),failing to derive (2b, c). The contrasts above receive a unified account. Note that in the POP
system, where it is unclear how the 3rd factor principle governs LS and assumed that Merge
applies freely, it would be an unresolved mystery why (1b) and (2b, c) are bad (see Goto 2016
and Blümel and Goto 2019 for further empirical consequences of our analysis of CED).
As a consequence of our analysis of Pied-Piping, the generalization that free relative (FR)interpretation is not available when the moved element is a phrase (Donati 2006) receives a
simple principled explanation: “I read [[what book] you wrote]” (in which there can be no FR
interpretation). This sentence cannot receive FR interpretation because the DP label that mustbe accessible for FR interpretation (Chomsky 2008) is inaccessible as in (3a). In addition, theunresolved contrast in (5) (Cable 2013) follows on the independently motivated principle thata root clause can remain unlabeled (Goto 2013; Blümel 2017; Chomsky et al. 2019):(5) a. *I wonder [[pictures of whom] you bought on the internet].
b. ??[Pictures of whom] did you buy on the internet?
(5a) is bad for the reasons stated in (3b), but (5b) is good because of the privilege of the root.
Furthermore, adopting the hypothesis that “language is optimized relative to the CI
interface alone” (Chomsky 2014:7), I propose: the MS-3 be in turn governed by CI-visibility,
claiming that the CI allow LS to “ignore” elements that are “invisible” at the CI and IS to“access” even the deep interior of the complex structure when the SO gets labeled so as to be“visible” at the CI. Thus in the XP-YP structure {IS(H)…{LS(α)=Y {XP-Case X, {…Z…}}, {YP Y,{…W…}}}}, the Case-marked XP (XP-Case) is a CI-invisible element (EKS 2014), so that
XP-Case can be ignored by LS(α) (Saito 2014) and α gets the label of Y. Now, since thelabeled α is a CI-visible element, the deep interiors of XP, YP become accessible to IS(H). I
name the dilemmatic MS-3 “CI-MS-3” in that MS is governed not only by the 3rd factor
principle but also by the CI interface. Significantly, the CI-MS-3 neatly explains the contrast
below (see Hasegawa 2005; Bianchi and Chesi 2014 for the judgment of the example (6)):(6) Nani-oi A-ga
what-acc A-nom[α [ B-ga
B-nom

ti

kata

koto ]-ga/-*wabought fact-nom/-top

mondai-da] to omotteru no
problem-is C think

Q‘Whati does A think that the fact B bought ti is a problem?’Since XP-ga (nom) is a CI-invisible element, it is ignored by LS(α) and α is labeled as v. The
labeled α is a CI-visible element; the deep interior of α becomes accessible to IS(C). But since
XP-wa (topic) is a CI-visible element, it is not ignored by LS(α) and α is unlabeled. The
unlabeled α is a CI-invisible element; the deep interior of α becomes inaccessible to IS(C).

Impact of Remedial Instruction on Rhyme Recognition among First Grade ESL
Students
Maria Leonora D. Guerrero, John Xavier B. Nepomuceno, Ma. Lourdes D. Guerrero
Cavite State University Naic
According to UNESCO (2013), statistics indicates that the Philippine population aged
15 to 24 years has a literacy rate of 97.8% in 2008. Despite this high literacy rate, thePhilippine Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey in 2008 revealed that 30%
or 20.1 million Filipinos cannot understand what they read (Nolasco, 2010). One of the mostessential issues vis-à-vis reading comprehension is phonological awareness.
Greater change in phonological awareness is realized when instruction or intervention
is provided to young children (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). Because of this, the participants
used in this study were early grade students who passed the criterion set by Konza (2011),
that is, young children who can already discriminate separate phonemes. To her, thesechildren are those who are ready for letter-sound relationships. Conversely, in the hierarchyof phonological awareness skills presented by Konza, it shows that in terms of the growing
awareness of the sounds of the English language, children usually first become aware of
rhythm. However, these participants are considered economically disadvantaged since they
are children to parents residing in coastal barangays whose main source of living is fishing,farming or construction work. Nearly all families of the students from both elementary
schools earn lower than Php 10,000 a month. A family with five members earning less than
Php 10,000 monthly is considered poor according to the National Statistics Coordination
Board (NSCB) of the Philippines (as cited in PinoyMoneyTalk, 2018). According to
McDowell, Lonigan and Goldstein (2007), several studies indicate that socioeconomic status
and phonological awareness are related. In fact, their study revealed that age is moderating
the relations between socioeconomic status and phonological awareness. This is also
supported by the claims of Lonigan (2004), Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker (1998),
Bowey (1995), Chaney (1994), Hecht, Burgess, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte (2000), Raz& Bryant (1990), Webb, Schwanenflugel, & Kim (2004) that skills in phonologicalawareness are less evident among preschool and early grade students from low income andless educated parents than those who came from well-off families (as cited in Phillips,
Clancy-Menchetti & Lonigan, 2008). In terms of educational attainment, majority of theparents of the participants from the two schools only obtained high school education. Thisimplies that young children of low-income and less educated parents most likely will not
improve phonological awareness, thus, the implementation of remedial intervention.
This quasi-experimental research study investigated the impact of remedial instruction
on improving the rhyme recognition ability of Grade 1 students in two public elementary
schools. Specifically, the study aimed to find out if there was significant difference in the preand post-test scores of the students after the intervention. Using t-test of dependent samples,
pre- and post-test results for rhyme recognition in Bucana Elementary School showed that
there was no significant difference between pre- and post-test scores at p ≥ .05 where thecalculated t value was 1.62 and the calculated p value was 0.12. In contrast, pre- and post-test
results for rhyme recognition from the three sections in Bancaan Elementary School showedsignificant difference at p ≥ .05. In section Mangga, the value of t was 3.10 while the value ofp was 0.00. In section Atis, the value of t was 2.82 while the value of p was 0.01. Lastly, in
section Santol, the t value was 2.63 and the p value was 0.01.
This study generates two contradicting results. While results in Bucana Elementary
School corroborates the previous studies, results in Bancaan Elementary School confirms that
remedial instruction helps improve phonological awareness of Grade 1 students as claimed by
Schuele & Boudreau (2008).
Resting on the results of the study, the following are recommended: administration ofhearing ability test on students as hearing ability may influence the development ofphonological awareness; investigation of teachers’ articulation of sounds as teachers’
articulation may affect students’ articulation through mimicking; and training of parents onphonological awareness instruction as they can be potential partners of teachers in thedevelopment of students’ phonological awareness.
REFERENCES
Bayetto A. (n.d.) Phonological Awareness. Retrieved September 13, 2018 fromhttps://www.appa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Phonological-Awareness-article.pdf
Konza, D. (2011). Phonological awareness: Research into practice: Understanding thereading process, 1(1.2), 1-6.
McDowell, K., Lonigan, C., Goldstein, H. (2007). Relations among socioeconomic status,
age, and predictors of phonological awareness: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 50(4), 1079-1092.
Nolasco, R. (2010, October 16). Reforms first or K+ 12 means nothing: Inquirer. Retrieved
from http://www.inquirer.net
Phillips, B., Clancy-Menchetti, J. & Lonigan, C. (2008). Successful phonological awareness
instruction with preschool children: Lessons from the classroom: Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 3-17.
PinoyMoneyTalk. February 12, 2018. You are poor if your family income is less than P10k amonth. Retrieved from https://www.pinoymoneytalk.com/poverty-line-philippines/
Schuele, C. M. & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond
basics:Language, Speech & hearing Services in Schools, 39(1), 3-20.

Learner Beliefs about English Learning among Japanese University Students
Kenji KANEKO
Kyoto University of Advanced Science
Abstract
Studies about both learner beliefs and metacognitive knowledge have been a part of educational
psychology, sociology and second language studies, and past research has provided empiricalexplanations for individual learner differences and distinctiveness due to the diversity ofcognitive skills and abilities (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005; Flavell, 1979; Horwitz, 1988; Kojima,
2015; Itoi, 2003; Matsuura, Chiba & Hilderbrandt, 2001; Wenden, 1998:1986). For learning,
beliefs can be described as a person’s prior knowledge consisting of various facts which may
include insufficient or biased information (Ambrose et al., 2000, pp. 4-7). Metacognitive
knowledge usually refers to a person’s awareness of the acquisition of knowledge (Wenden,
1998, p. 516). This also means that it could become a starting point for learning as a series of
events. When individuals acquire knowledge, they tend to retain and recall new information byconnecting it with the previous knowledge (Ambrose et al., 2000, pp. 15-27). In the case offoreign language learning, students mainly rely on common knowledge or beliefs to search fortheir answers: how difficult foreign language learning is or how to go about it. It is not unusual
for students to “hold a range of beliefs with varying degrees of validity” (Horwitz, 1988, p. 293).
This research has examined learner beliefs among Japanese university students of English
in Japan, and I am particularly interested in understanding the importance of the role of priorknowledge in the process of learning English as a foreign language. This research has also
investigated learner beliefs that may become types of motivation for Japanese English learners.
The objectives are to understand what common learner beliefs are among Japanese university
students and to determine if certain types of learner beliefs may help or hinder them to study
English successfully.
This research conducted a case study investigating learner beliefs among forty-one
Japanese university students taking a weekly listening and speaking class for English at auniversity, Fukuoka, Japan. This research employed questionnaire that combined both qualitativeand quantitative aspects. The questionnaire was mainly adopted from Horwitz (1988): the Beliefs
About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI), a set of survey questions for assessing individuals’
beliefs about foreign language learning, although I removed, modified and translated somequestions and methods for the specific aims of this study. Besides the collection of qualitative

survey data, I included an open-ended question survey to capture students’ deeper feelings about
the practice of English. For the qualitative analysis, open-ended questions were analyzed with
Steps for Coding and Theorization (SCAT) method (Otani, 2011). One of the advantages ofusing the SCAT method was to have a clear and accessible data analysis.
The findings revealed that the participants had a range of beliefs about English learning,
and these beliefs included more negative beliefs than positive ones. Negative learner beliefs are
the ones that do not just consist of insufficient or incorrect information but also dismiss a
positive outlook. There were relatively a few positive learner beliefs shared among the students.
The analysis revealed that the students were aware of a large number of foreign tourists orworking individuals coming to Japan in the recent years, and believed that they could get more
opportunities if they were able to speak English well.
The findings of this research suggest that English instructors address learner beliefs toremove students’ doubts that help them build confidence. Positive learner beliefs may motivatethem to study English hard, but they will eventually conflict with a lot of negative learner beliefs.
A struggle between two opposite views does not often help them keep studying it successfully.

References
Ambrose, S. A., Bridge, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven Research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bernet, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge,
pedagogical implications, and new research directions. TESL-EJ, 9(1), 1-21.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychology, 34(10), 906-911.
Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language
students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(iii), 283-294.
Itoi, E. (2003). Student’s beliefs about English learning (Eigo gakushuu ni kansuru gakusei nobiriifu). Gakubu kiyou / Bulletin of The Faculty of Language and Literature, 16(2), 85100.
Kojima, C. (2015). Jyugyou ni tsuite no Learners’ beliefs to Teachers’ beliefs ni kansuru
kousatsu (An investigation into learners’ and teachers’ beliefs about classroom activities).
Seisen jyoshi daigaku gengo kyouiku kenkyuujyo, Gengo kyouiku kenkyuu, 7, 1-17.
Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., & Hilderbrandt, P. (2001). Beliefs about learning and teachingcommunicative English in Japan. JALT Journal, 23(1), 69-89.
Otani, T. (2011). SCAT: Steps for coding and theorization. Nihon kansei kogakukai ronbunshi(Japanese Institutional Repositories Online), 10(3), 155-160.
Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4),515-537.
Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. ELT Journal, 40(1), 3-12.

Syntactic Nature and Semantic Effect of Dative Case in Japanese
Takashi Kayashima (Seinan Gakuin University)
In this presentation, how dative Case functions syntactically and semantically in Japanese is
explicated. A clue is found in potential sentences, which have irregular distribution of Case as follows.
(1) a. Kodomo-ga hon-ga/ochild-NOM book-NOM/ACC“A child can read a book.”b. Kodomo-ni hon-ga/*oyom-er-u.
read-Poss-Presyom-er-u.

child-DAT
book-NOM/*ACC read-Poss-Pres“A child can read a book.”
As (1b) shows, we can mark a subject of a potential sentence as dative. In that case, an object cannot haveaccusative Case. A principled explanation to this fact is given in Ura (1999), according to which v in a
potential sentence is idiosyncratic; it can assign dative Case to DP in its specifier, and it is not obligatory toassign accusative Case to a complement of V. Because of this nature of v, all the patterns shown in (1) are
derived, including (1b) with an accusative object. This derivation does not converge because T cannot haveits uninterpretable φ-feature checked since there is no DP with [u-Case] to agree with.
However, this explanation cannot capture the grammaticality of examples below.
(2) a. Boku-ni-*(ha) kare-o
I-DAT-*(Top) he-ACC“I cannot betray him.”b. Kodomo-ni
Otona-ochild-DAT
adult-ACC

uragir-e-nai.
betray-Poss-Neg
taos-eru-ka?
beat-Poss-Q“Can a child beat an adult?”
Since both (2a) and (2b) do not contain nominative marked argument, Ura’s (1999) analysis expects thatthese sentences are ungrammatical because of unvalued φ-feature of T, which is not the case.
In this presentation, it is shown that the ungrammaticality of (1b) with an accusative object isreduced to failure of labeling. Saito (2014) claims that Japanese lacks φ-feature and it is problematic forlabeling algorithm, which is proposed in Chomsky (2013). In his framework, some nodes are labeled with
φ-feature. Then, if Japanese lacks φ-feature, how can these nodes labeled? Saito’s (2014) answer is thatgrammatical Case in Japanese makes arguments invisible for labeling. This strategy makes it possible tolabel all the syntactic nodes in Japanese without φ-feature.
Now consider the structure of (1b) with an accusative object. The following example is helpful toclarify the syntactic position of the subject.
(3) John-ni-sikakono-mondai-otoke-nai-de iru.
John-DAT-only
this-quiz-ACC
solve-Neg
be-Pres“Only John has solved this quiz.”As discussed in Kishimoto (2013), sika in Japanese is negative polarity item, which must be licensed bynegative head. Grammaticality of (3) shows that the subject is structurally below Neg. If a dative subject in a
potential construction stays inside vP, the structure of (1b) with an accusative object is as follows.
(4) [TP [XP DP [v+R [RP DP R] v+R]] T]
Here it is proposed that dative Case does not have function to make arguments invisible for labeling. XP in(4) consists of two phrases and they do not share any feature, so XP is unlabeled and the derivation crashes.
Then, how is this problem avoided in (2a) and (2b)? According to Suzuki (2017), which extends Diesing’s(1992) Mapping Hypothesis, syntactic positions of arguments are differentiated depending on theirinterpretation as follows.
(5) [CP [TopP NPGENHA [FocP NPGENGA [TP NPGENGA [T’ [vP NP GA [v’ VP v]]]TGEN]]] CTopic/Focus]
A topic marked argument moves to [Spec, TopP] and a nominative marked argument which is given genericinterpretation moves to [Spec, FocP]. Since the dative subject in (2a) has a topic marker ha, this argument isin [Spec, TopP]. And kodomo in (2b) is interpreted not as a child but a kind, which shows that this argument
receives generic interpretation, so it is in [Spec, FocP]. Therefore, derivations of (2a, b) are as follows.
(6) a. [Top, Top DP [TopP [TP [v+R DP [v+R [RP DP R] v+R]] T] Top]]b.

[Foc, Foc DP [FocP [TP [v+R DP [v+R [RP DP R] v+R]] T] Foc]]

Since subjects move out of vP in (6a) and (6b), the problem of labeling in (4) does not occur. The nodes
where the subjects finally land are labeled with their shared feature, Top and Foc (cf. Rizzi (2015a)).
As an anonymous reviewer points out, (1b) with nominative Case would be predicted to beungrammatical. A useful example to answer this question is as follows.
(7) a. * Hon-ga
kodomo-ni
yom-er-u.
book-NOM
child-DAT
read-Poss-Pres“A child can read a book.”b. [TP DP[TP [XP DP [v+R [RP DP R]v+R]]T]](7a) shows that we cannot alter the word order in (1b) with nominative object. This is because we cannot
label XP in (7b) since the DP in [Spec, XP] has dative Case, which does not make a DP invisible for labelingalgorithm. In (1b) with nominative object, the dative marked DP moves over nominative object, which is in[Spec, TP], to a position in left periphery. Labeling of the node which is a landing site of this DP is donewith a discourse feature, which makes (1b) with nominative object grammatical.
Here, given that dative Case does not have a function to make a DP invisible for labeling algorithm,
a question arises about importance of existence of dative Case in Japanese. Since it does not have syntactic
effect, a possibility naturally pursued is that it has effect on interpretation. These properties are pursued
comparing other dative marked arguments, such as thematic agent in causatives and passives.
Selected References
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problem of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2013) “Verbal Complex Formation and Negation in Japanese,” Linguia 135, 132-154.
Saito, Mamoru (2014a) “Case and labeling in a Language without φ-feature Agreement,” On Peripheries:
Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, ed. by Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque andYoshio Endo, 251-269, Hituzi Syobo Publishing, Tokyo.
Suzuki, Ayaka (2017) Zokuseijojutubun no togoteki imiteki bunseki (A syntactic and semantic analysis ofproperty predication), doctoral dissertation, University of Tsukuba.
Ura, Hiroyuki (1999) “Checking Theory and Dative Subject Constructions in Japanese and Korean,” Jurnalof East Asian Linguistics 8, 223-254.

Notes on Reciprocals in Korean and Japanese Ellipsis
Mika Kizu, Notre Dame Seishin University
Kazumi Yamada, Kwansei Gakuin University
Kim (1999) and Oku (1998) claim that the analysis of argument ellipsis (AE) applies equallyin Japanese and Korean, as illustrated below:(1)a. Kuma-wa zibun-no kuruma-o fuita.
bear-Top self-Gen car-Acc wiped(2)‘Bear wiped his own car.’b. Pengin-mo [e] fuita.

[√ strict reading, √ sloppy reading]penguin-also wiped‘(lit.) Penguin also wiped [e].’a. Kom-un caki-uy cha-lul takkassta
bear-Top self-Gen car-Acc wipedb. Pengkwin-to [e] takkassta
penguin-also‘Bear wiped his own car.’[√ strict reading, √ sloppy reading]

wiped‘(lit.) Penguin also wiped [e].’The elided objects in both (1b) and (2b) are ambiguous in that they are interpreted either as 1)
the strict identity reading (= Penguin also wiped Bear’s car) or 2) the sloppy identity reading(= Penguin also wiped Penguin’s car). The two languages seem to share the common property
in their elliptical phenomena but they are not always identical. Saito and An (2010), for instance,
points out that so-called N’-ellipsis is observed in Japanese but not in Korean due to slightly
different parameterization of the genitive marker insertion rule.
This paper examines another micro-parametric difference between Korean and Japanese
in relation to AE. When an elided object has a reciprocal pronoun as its antecedent in thepreceding sentence, the interpretation of the missing object differs between the two languages.
According to our informant work, reciprocal pronoun selo in Korean allows only a sloppy
identity reading whereas Japanese reciprocal pronoun otagai observes both strict and sloppy
identity readings.
Relevant examples are shown in (3) for Japanese and (4) for Korean respectively. In
Japanese, the missing object in (3b) allows both strict and sloppy identity readings:(3)

a. Harry toGinny-wa otagai-osonkeishiteiru.

Harry and Ginny-Top each-other-Acc respect‘Harry and Ginny respect each other.’b. Ron to Hermione-wa [e] keibetsushiteiru.
Ron and Hermione-Top despise‘(lit.) Ron and Hermione despise [e].’[√ strict reading, √ sloppy reading](Takahashi 2016, p. 245)

It is said that the possible interpretation in the elided object in (3b) is either ‘Ron and Hermione
despise Harry and Ginny’ (i.e. strict identity reading) or ‘Ron and Hermione despise each other1

(i.e. sloppy identity reading).’ Interestingly, however, the corresponding Korean missing object
in (4b) obtains only the sloppy interpretation and its strict interpretation is constantly rejectedby the Korean native speakers we consulted:(4)a.

Chelswu-wa Younghi-nun selo-lul

concwunghanta

Chelswu and Younghi -Top each-other-Acc respect‘Chelswu and Younghi respect each other.’b.

Tongsoo-wa Sooni-nun[e]silhehanta

Tongsoo-and Sooni -Top

despise‘(lit.) Tongsoo and Sooni despise [e].’[* strict reading, √ sloppy reading]In theory, the strict identity reading can be made possible by either the pro hypothesis (Kuroda
1965, Hoji 1998) or the AE analysis with vehicle change (Fiengo and May 1994, Takahashi2016). If the elided object would be pro in (3b)/(4b), it should be able to refer to ‘Harry and
Ginny’ or ‘Chelswu and Younghi’ in the (a) sentences just like the overt counterpart such asthem; however, this could explain only (3b) in Japanese but not (4b) in Korean.
The present paper argues that [e] in (3b)/(4b) is not pro referring to the antecedent in(3a)/(4a) but involves AE with vehicle change. The micro-parametric difference between (3b)and (4b) is concerned with the distinct internal structures of the reciprocals; unlike thereciprocal pronoun in Japanese, which is represented as [NP pro [N otagai]] (Hoji 2006), Korean
selo does not contain such a pronominal property and hence, no ‘tolerable mismatch’ can beconstrued via vehicle change between the elided site and its antecedent (Hunter and Yoshida2016). We will discuss how the AE analysis can account for (1) and (2), and present further
empirical evidence to support our claim with some implications for research into second
language acquisition.
Selected References
Fiengo, R. and R. May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hoji, H. 2006. Otagai. In A. Ueyama, ed., Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Reference andAnaphora—Toward the establishment of generative grammar as an empirical science, a report of
the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), Kyushu University, pp. 126-138.
Hunter, T. and M. Yoshida. 2016. A Restriction on ‘Vehicle Change’ and its Interaction with Movement.
Linguistic Inquiry 47 (3), 561-571.
Saito, M. and D-H. An. 2010. A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean. In H. Maezawa
and A. Yokogoshi, eds., Proceedings of the 6th WAFL, pp. 287-307.
Takahashi, D. 2016. Ko-syoryaku (Argument Ellipsis). In K. Murasugi et. al, eds., Nihongo-bunpo
Handbook: Gengo-riron to gengo-kakutoku no kanten kara (Japanese Grammar Handbook: froma viewpoint of linguistic theory and acquisition), Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp.228-264.

2

On the Semantics of the Japanese Degree Morpheme hoo
Kenta Mizutani
Graduate Student, Osaka University
Introduction: Since Kennedy & McNally (2005), it has been pointed out that there have been various kindsof degree morphemes and modifiers. The aim of this paper is to argue that the Japanese morpheme hoo,which combines with gradable adjectives as in (1), is a degree morpheme in the sense of Kennedy (1999)
and that this morpheme requires the existence of contextually determined standards.
Observations: This paper focuses on three observations about hoo. The first is the entailment pattern.
(2a) and (2b) indicate that the sentence with adjective-hoo entails the sentence with the positive form of theadjective but not the sentence with the intensifier totemo. The second is the (in)compatibility of certain kindsof adjectives. As in (1) and (3), hoo is compatible with open scale adjectives such as tall, but incompatible
with closed scale adjectives. The third is that hoo cannot appear in yori-comparatives as in (4).
Entailment Pattern. Following Kennedy (1999) I assume that a gradable adjective g is a measure function
as in (5a) and it denotes a property of individuals by combining with the null degree morpheme pos in (5b).
These assumptions derive the truth conditions of the example with the positive form of a gradable adjectives
as in (5c), which require that the height of Taro should be greater than the contextually determined standard
for tallness (= ds(se-ga takai)(c) ). To capture the entailment pattern in (2), I adopt the semantics of very proposedby Svenonius & Kennedy (2006) and assume that the intensifier totemo has the same semantics. In (6a), thestandard function ds(g)(c[{ x | pos(g)(x)(c) = 1 }]) indicates that the standard for very g is not calculated on the basisof ordinary individuals but on the basis of those which count as pos g. Hence, the standard is raised and theintensifying effect arises. Based on these assumptions, I propose that hoo has the denotation in (7a). This
proposal derives the truth conditions of (1) as in (7b), according to which (1) is true in a context c iff theheight of Taro is greater than the contextually determined standard for tall and is smaller than the standard
for very tall. Hence, the entailment pattern in (2) is captured. In addition, the truth conditions capture ourintuition that when we use the sentence x is tall-hoo, we do not regard x as particularly tall.
Incompatibility with Closed Scale Adjectives. The notable feature of closed scale adjectives is that they
do not utilize contextual information but the endpoints of their scales to determine their standards. To
capture this fact, Kennedy (2007) proposes (8) and (9). Under this analysis, closed scale adjectives, when
they combine with pos, return the endpoints of their scales, because the scale structures are a part of theirconventional meanings. Crucially, this is also true of the standard function ds(g)(c[{ x | pos(g)(x)=1 }]) , because(8) and (9) demand that the standards for closed scale adjectives be fixed to their endpoints regardless ofcontexts. Given these facts, hoo, if it combines with closed scale adjectives such as bent, leads to the truth
conditions in (10), which require that the rod has the degree of bentness that is greater than and at the sametime smaller than the scale’s minimum endpoint. Clearly, this is impossible and the truth conditions arecontradictory (i.e. always false). I argue that the incompatibility of hoo with closed scale adjectives is dueto these contradictory truth conditions.
Incompatibility with yori-comparatives: Following Sawada & Grano (2011), I adopt the derived measure function analysis of yori. As shown in (11a) the morpheme takes a gradable adjective and returns a
new gradable adjective whose scale structure is converted into the one with a derived minimum endpoint.
In (11b), for example, hanako yori se-ga takai denotes a measure function whose minimum endpoint isHanako’s height. What is crucial here is the fact that a new gradable adjective is similar to a lower closed
scale adjective in that both of them have a minimum endpoint. This new adjective combines with hoo toyield the truth conditions in (12). Again, given the interpretive economy, the standard functions in (7a)return the scale’s endpoint, namely, Hanako’s height. Hence, the truth conditions require that Taro’s heightis taller and at the same time smaller than Hanako’s height. This is clearly impossible, resulting in the
problematic contradictory truth condition. Hence, the unacceptability arises.
(1) Taro-wa
Taro-TOP

se-ga

takai-hoo-da.

height-NOM

high-HOO-COP

Taro is tall-hoo.
(2) a. #Taro-wa
Taro-TOP

se-ga

takai-hoo-da-ga,

se-ga

takaku-wa-nai.

height-NOM

high-hoo-COP-but

height-NOM

high-TOP-NEG‘Taro is tall-hoo but not tall.’b.

Taro-wa

se-ga

takai-hoo-da-ga,

totemose-ga

takaku-wa-nai.

Taro-TOP

height-NOM

high-hoo-COP-but

veryheight-NOM

high-TOP-NEG‘Taro is tall-hoo but not very tall.’(3) a. ??Kono
thissao-wamagat-teiru-hoo-da.

rod-TOPbent-Teiru-hoo-COP‘This rod is bent-hoo.’b. ??Kono
this(Lower-closed Scale Adjectives: bent)

sao-wamassugu-na-hoo-da..

rod-TOPstraight-NA-hoo-COP‘This rod is straight-hoo.’c. ??Kono
this(Upper-closed Scale Adjectives: straight )doa-waai-teiru-hoo-da..

door-TOP

open-TEIRU-hoo-COP‘This door is open-hoo.’(Totally Closed Scale Adjectives: open)(4) *Taro-wa

Hanako-yori

se-gatakai-hoo-da.

Taro-TOP

Hanako-YORI

height-NOM

high-HOO-COP‘Taro is taller-hoo than Hanako.’(5) a. ! se-ga takai "c = λx.height(x)⟨e, d⟩

b. ! pos "c = λg.λx. g(x) > ds(g)(c)c. ! Taro-wa se-ga takai "c = ! pos "c (! se-ga takai "c )(! Taro "c )= height(Taro) > ds(se-ga takai)(c)(6) a. ! very / totemo "c = λg.λx. g(x) > ds(g)(c[{ x | pos(g)(x)(c) = 1 }])⟨⟨e, d⟩, ⟨e, t⟩⟩(Svenonius & Kennedy 2006:151)

b. ! Taro-wa totemo se-ga takai "c = height(Taro) > ds(tall)(c[{ x | pos(tall)(x)(c) = 1 }])(7) a. ! hoo "c = λg.λx.[ds(g)(c) < g(x) < ds(g)(c[{ x | pos(g)(x)=1 }]) ]b. ! (1) "c = ! hoo "c (! tall "c )(! Taro "c )= ds(tall)(c) < height(Taro) < ds(tall)(c[{ x | pos(tall)(x)=1 }])(8) Interpretive Economy(Kennedy 2007:35)
Maximize the contribution of the conventional meanings of the elements of a sentence to the computation of its truth conditions.
⎧(9)⎪⎨min(g) if min(g) is definedds(g)(c) = max(g) if max(g) is defined⎪⎩ds(g)(c)otherwise(10) ! Kono sao-wa magat-teiru-hoo-da "c= ds(bent)(c) < bentness(this.rod) < ds(bent)(c[{ x | pos(bent)(x)(c) = 1 }])= min(bent) < bentness(this.rod) < min(bent)= ⊥(Contradiction)(11) a. ! yori " = λx.λg.λy.gg(x)↑ (y)(Sawada & Grano 2011:212)

b. ! Hanako yori se-ga takai " = ! yori "(! Hanako ")(! se-ga takai ")= λy.heightheight(Hanako) ↑ (y)(12) ! Hanako yori se-ga takai hoo "c= ds(λx.height< height(Taro) < ds(straight)(c[{ x | pos(λx.height↑↑height(Hanako) (x))(c)height(Hanako) (x))(x) = 1 }])= height(Hanako) < height(Taro) < height(Hanako)
Selected References: Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics ofgradability and comparison / Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1) / Kennedy, Christopher & Louise
McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language81(2) / Sawada, Osamu & Thomas Grano. 2011. Scale structure, coercion, and the interpretation of measurephrases in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 19(2)/ Svenonius, Peter & Christopher Kennedy. 2006.
Northern Norwegian degree questions and the syntax of measurement. In Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases ofInterpretation.

Negative WH-Phrases in Japanese
Takeshi Oguro
Chiba University of Commerce
WH-phrases are often treated on a par with existential quantifiers. This presentationshows that Japanese has instances of WH-phrases that function as Negative Concord Items(NCIs). They are found in the following kind of constructions, namely, mono ka rhetoricalquestions (MRQs), which are examined in detail by Oguro (2018).
MRQs, exemplified in (1a), have various properties that distinguish them from ordinary
questions (OQs) such as (1b).
(1) a.
Dare-ga iku mono ka!
b.
Dare-ga iku no?
who-NOM go C
Q
who-NOM go C
'No one will go!''Who will go?'For one thing, even though (1) contains a WH-phrase and the question particle ka, it does
not have the usual information-seeking interpretation that (1b) allows, but it has thenegative assertion interpretation. Thus, it would be awkward to respond to (1a) by saying(2), while this response is perfectly fine in the case of (1b).
(2) Iya,daremo.
noanyone'No, not anyone.'
Another striking property is that they license strict negative sensitive items like daremo'anyone', which are not allowed in non-negative OQs.
(3) a.
Daremo iku mono ka!
b. * Daremo iku no ka?
anyonego C
Qanyonego C Q'No one will go!''Will anyone go?'
These interpretative characteristics indicate that MRQs should be regarded as negative
assertions rather than negatively biased questions.
Given that (1a) and (3a) have essentially the same meaning, it is expected that theWH-phrase in (1a) and daremo in (3a) share some kind of properties. Miyagawa, Nishioka,
and Zeijlstra (2016) (MNZ, hereafter) argue that daremo is an NCI, whose crucial property
is the ability to be in fragment answers. Dare-ga in (1a) arguably has this property as well.
Note that (1a) can be used as a reply to (4a), in which case (1a) is interpreted as meaning 'I
won't go!' rather than 'No one will go!', which is the literal interpretation. With this inmind, consider the dialogue in (4).
(4) a.
Kimi-wa iku no?
b.
Dare-ga!
you-TOP go C
who-NOM'Will you go?'
'I won't!'(4b), which only contains the WH-phrase, is fine as a reply to (4a), indicating the speaker's
strong refusal to go. Since this special interpretation is unique to MRQs, (4b) must be an
MRQ as well, with only the WH-subject being pronounced. This shows that theWH-subjects in MRQs are NCIs.
MNZ also observe that NCIs like daremo 'anyone' have the following characteristics.
They can be inside vP, whose left edge can be shown by a manner adverb.
(5)
Taroo-wa [vP umaku
nanimotukur]-anakat-ta.
Taro-topskillfully anything make-NEG-PAST'Taro did not make anything well.'This property is not shared by the WH-phrases found in MRQs. According to Oguro(2018), the WH-object in an MRQ must be fronted. There is additional evidence that theWH-phrase in this construction must be raised. Kishimoto (2009) suggests that subjects
marked with kara 'from' stay inside vP. Importantly, the WH-subject in an MRQ cannot bemarked with it.
(6) a. John-kara ayamar-ub. * Dare-kara ayamar-u
mono ka!
John-from apologize-PRES
who-from apologize-PRES CQ'John will apologize.''No one will apologize!' 'I will not apologize!'
Another property of items like daremo which is not shared by WH-phrases in MRQs
has to do with multiple occurrences. Daremo and nanimo can occur with each other in a
sentence, but dare-ga and nani-o fail to do so, irrespective of their ordering.
(7) a. Daremo nanimo
kawa-nai/kau mono ka!
anyoneanything buy-NEG/buy C
Q'No one will buy anything!'b. *{Nani-o}dare-ga{nani-o}kaumono ka!
what-ACC who-NOM
what-ACC buy
CQ'No one will buy anything!'
MNZ suggest that the effects found in (5) and (7a) come from the unfocused nature ofthese NCIs. Then it must be that the deviance detected in (6b) and (7b) shows that
WH-phrases in MRQs are focused NCIs.
A natural expectation is that these two NCIs can occur with each other in a sentence,but this is not borne out.
(8) a. * Dare-ga nanimokaumono ka!
who-NOM anything buy
CQ'No one will buy anything!'
b. * Nani-odaremokau
mono ka!
what-ACC
anyonebuy
CQ'No one will buy anything!'
I assume that daremo/nanimo and the WH-phrases are licensed in different ways. To be
specific, I suggest that just as interrogative complementizers are divided into Yes/No
complementizers (kadooka, ka) and the WH complementizer (ka), the ka in MRQs isdivided into the one licensing daremo/nanimo and the one licensing the WH-phrases. The
examples in (8) are degraded because the two types of NCIs cannot be licensed at the sametime. This idea is motivated by MRQs involving the predicate -te tamaru 'can bear', which
license daremo/nanimo but not dare-ga, which means that they have the former type of ka.
(9) a.
Boku-ga aitu-ni
make-te tamaru mono ka!
I-NOM
that.guy-to lose-TE bear C
Q'I will not bear losing to that guy!'b. ? Darenimo make-te tamaru mono ka!
anyonelose-TE bear C
Q'I will not bear being defeated to anyone!'c. * Dare-ga
aitu-nimake-te tamaru mono ka!
who-NOM
that.guy-to lose-TE bear C
Q'No one/I will not bear losing to that guy!'
Thus, WH-phrases in MRQs function as focused NCIs, which can be taken to mean
WH-MRQs can be regarded as a subcase of negative preposing.
Selected References
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2009. Topic Prominency in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 26(4):465-513.
Miyagawa, Shigeru, Nobuaki Nishioka, and Hedde Zeijlstra. 2016. Negative Sensitive Items
and the Discourse-Configurational Nature of Japanese. Glossa: a Journal of General
Linguistics 1(1): 33. 1–28
Oguro, Takeshi. 2018. Properties of Mono Ka Rhetorical Questions. Proceedings of the
13th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL13). 193-204.

Free Rule Ordering in There Constructions
Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University)
Consider the following typical there constructions:(1)

There *is/are three men (in the room).

PGA (Probe-Goal Agree) by Chomsky (2001) explains why verbs agree with IA (internal argument) in
there constructions. If we, following EOS (Epstein, Obata, and Seely) (2017), assume that PGA holds forthe free-Merge model proposed by Chomsky (2015), then the derivation of the typical there construction
is as follows:(2)

There are three men:i.
Merge forms {C, {there, {T, {v, three men}}}}.
ii.
FI (feature inheritance): T inherits uPhi (unvalued Phi-set) from C.
iii. PGA: The inherited uPhi on T probes into three men.

As a result of PBA between T and three men in (2), the phonological realization of the agreement isinstantiated at T. Thus, the be-verb is phonologically realized as are. However, verbs do not always inflect
based on the agreement with IA in the list reading. The ‘T-probing’ PBA therefore fails to explain empiricalphenomena such as (3).
(3)

List There Constructions:
Who is still here to do the work?
a.
There is/*am/remains/*remain only me.
b.
There is/are/remains/remain only us/John and Bill.
(adapted from Chomsky (2001: 149, fn. 90))

We argue that this problem is solved by adopting the free-rule-ordering system proposed by EOS(2017). They argued that FI and PGA apply ‘freely in any order’ because PGA needs to apply ‘before FI’in the typical transitive structure (4) by Chomsky (2015). If FI applies before PGA, PGA fails, since no1 –○2 )). Thus, not T but C probes into the external argument (see (4□
1 –□
2 )):
possible goal exits (see (4○

(4)

1
○

2 PGA
○

{C, {John, {T, {, {hit-v, …}}}}}

1 PGA
□

(John hit Mary)

2□

Note that John internally merges with (i.e. moves to) SPEC-T, andis the lower copy, which is by
1 –□2 holds for the list there construction.
definition invisible. We propose that the latter rule ordering □(5)

There is/are only John and Bill:i.
Merge forms {C, {there, {T, {v, John and Bill}}}}.
ii.
PGA: The uPhi of C first probes into there, which bears ‘only 3rd-person’ (see Richards
and Biberauer (2005)), and then John and Bill.
iii. FI: T inherits vPhi (valued Phi-set) from C.
1

In (5ii), the uPhi of C agrees with the two phi-sets: it first probes into the 3rd-person of there because thereis the closest phi-bearer, and further probes into the full Phi-set of John and Bill to maximize matchingeffects (see Chomsky (2001)). If externalization (i.e. mapping of syntax-phonology) utilizes the informationof the agreement between C and there, T is phonologically realized as the ‘default form is’ due to the ‘3rdperson’ of three. If externalization utilizes the agreement information between T and John and Bill, T isrealized as are. This matches with the fact in (3b). In (3a), externalization exploits the agreement data
between uPhi and there, and the verbs are realized as is and remains. It is the null hypothesis that all
agreement data (i.e. T-there and T-IA) are available to externalization. Therefore, am and remain in (3a)should be the valid realization, but they are not. Why not? This is because externalization does not regard
the ‘first-person singular’ as a legible agreement pair for the expletive there; the contraction of there andam (i.e. there’m) is impossible.
Consider the following construction:
There (*)seems/seem to be some men in the garden.

(6)

It has been assumed that seem is only the acceptable choice in this sentence, since the matrix T agrees with
the IA some men. Kallulli (2008: 286), however, pointed out that seems in (6) is acceptable, and five native
speakers also judged seems acceptable in the survey by the author. Consider the structure of (6):
1
○

(7)

2 PGA
○

{C, {there, {T, …, {1 PGA□

, {Tto, …, some men, …}}}}}

2□

there first externally merges with SPEC-Tto and then internally merges with SPEC-T before C is introduced(because Merge applies strict-cyclically in Chomsky (2015)). If FI first occurs and then PGA, the uPhi
inherited by T agrees with some men alone because the lower copy
is invisible. Accordingly, the1 –○2 judge seems unacceptable in (6). However, if PGA first occurs, thespeakers using this rule order ○uPhi on C agrees with the closest phi-bearer there first and some men second. The subsequent FI makes T
1 –□2 judge both seems and seem
inherit the ‘valued’ Phi from C. The speakers using this rule order □acceptable in (6). Therefore, the (un)acceptability of seems in (6) is explained by the difference of ruleordering.
Selected References
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz,
1–52, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies
in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini,
3–16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Epstein, Samuel D., Miki Obata, and T. Daniel Seely (2017) “Is Linguistic Variation Entirely Linguistic?,”
Linguistic Analysis 41, 481–516.
Kallulli, Dalina (2008) “There Is Secondary Predication in There-Existentials,” WCCFL 26, 279–287.
Richards, Marc and Theresa Biberauer (2005) “Explaining Expl,” The Function of Function Words andFunctional Categories, ed. by Marcel den Dikken and Christina M. Tortora, 115–153, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
2

[テキストを入力]

A Case Study in Monadic Concepts: Comparative Constructions
Norio Suzuki Kobe Shinwa Women’s University (former professor)
This paper is a case study in monadic concept MC construction (Pietroski/P2011, 2012, 2018)
for “comparative constructions CCs.” MCs appear in P’s Minimal Semantic Instructions
MSI framework exploring basic operations of human language syntax-semantics (Hornstein&
Pietroski/H&P2009), where “phrasal meanings are instructions for how to build conjunctive
monadic concepts” (P2012). Minimal syntax-semantics is obtained via (complex) MC
construction (with some dyadic resources) by means of conjunction. MCs will be seenderived for ‘argument structure’ & ‘quantification.’ We then move on to CCs.
MC Examples & Some Assumptions See MCs for a verb & every for ‘argument structure’& ‘quantification’ respectively (E for events & Ǝ for existential closure; P2012):(1) “… lexicalizers abstract the MC STAB (E) from the relational concept STAB (x, y) or
STAB (x, y, E), by drawing on thematic concepts: STAB (x, y) ≡ ƎE [STAB (x, y, E)];
STAB (x, y, E) ≡ AGENT (E, x) & STAB (E) & PATIENT (E, y). Think of thesebiconditionals as providing a contextual definition CD of STAB (E)” (H&P2009)(2) a. “If ‘every’ (which lexicalizes a quantificational concept) can take a predicate ofindividuals as its internal argument IArg & a predicate of truth values as its externalargument EArg, then ‘every’ is satisfied by things that have individuals as theirinternal participants IPs & truth values as their external participants EPs.” (H&P2009)b. i) Every spy is wearing a hat.
(P2018; Q for quantifiers, MAX6/MAX3/MAX∞ ― NS)ii) EVERY (Q) ˄ ƎQ [INTERNAL (Q, x) ˄ MAX: A-SPY (x)]˄ ƎQ [EXTERNAL (Q, x) ˄ MAX6/MAX3/MAX∞: IS-WEARING-A-HAT (x)]The MC EVERY (Q) applies to some ordered pairs if&onlyif they meet three conditions: eachof their IPs is one of their EPs; their IPs are the spies; & their EPs are the things wearing ahat. The concept MAX:Φ(_) applies to some things if&onlyif they are (all&only) the things
to which Φ(_) applies (P2018). EVERY (_) applies to both the six ordered pairs: <1, 1>;<2, 1>; <3, 3>; <4, 3>; <5, 5>; <6, 5> (three IPs, 1, 3, & 5, being the spies, & six EPs, 1-6,
the people wearing hats) & the three ordered pairs: <1, 5>; <3, 3>; <5, 1> (the numbers of IPs& EPs being the same) (P2018). Then (2bii with MAX3) is a CD of EVERY (Q) for thelatter ‘three ordered pairs’ case, with a CD of EVERY (Q) for the other, former ‘six orderedpairs’ case shown in (2bii with MAX6). Some implicature (e.g., Grice’s maxim of Quantity:“Do not make your contribution more informative than is required”) urges you to choose (2biiwith MAX3) as the CD of EVERY (Q) for (2bi). Even in the ‘six ordered pairs’ case, the CD of
EVERY (Q) in (2bii with MAX3) appears to be preferred over (2bii with MAX6). As for (2biiwith MAX∞), see H&P2009 for “… the external/sentential argument does not, …, specify asecond set.”1

[テキストを入力]

Comparative Constructions Move on to the MC –ER (D) (D for degrees ― NS) forcomparatives. See the comparative (3a) with structure (3b) involving -er as ‘head’ of the CC
taking two arguments:(3) a. Mary is taller than John is.
b. [[ -er [than John is]] [Mary is tall]](Hohaus,Tiemann&Beck/HTB2014)
In (3) John is is IArg of –er creating a set of degrees specifying all the gradable stages ofJohn’s tallness, while EArg Mary is tall… may allow of two possibilities: (4 with MAXMARY& MAX∞; also H&P2009):(4) –ER (D) ˄ [than ˄ ƎD [INTERNAL (D, x) ˄ [MAX: TALL (x) ˄ JOHN (x)]]]˄ ƎD [EXTERNAL (D, x) ˄ [MAXMARY/MAX∞: TALL (x) ˄ MARY (x)]]In (4 with MAXMARY), a CD of –ER (D) is given for both the degrees of tallness of IPs & EPs
being (all&only) the things to which ‘TALL (_)’ applies, with IArg & EArg creating a set of
degrees. In (4 with MAX∞) EArg does not specify a set. –ER (D) applies to three similar
contexts: (i) both IArg & EArg create a set of degrees of tallness (4 with MAXMARY), with“the set of degrees d such that Mary is d tall properly including the set of degrees d such thatJohn is d tall: λd. Mary is d tall  λd. John is d tall” (Aloni&Roelofsen2014); (ii) there are somedegrees of EP’s tallness surpassing the set of all such degrees of IP’s tallness (myinterpretation; (4 with MAXMARY/MAX∞)); & (iii) the maximal height degree that Maryreaches is more than the maximal degree of height that John reaches: max (λd. Mary is d-tall)> max (λd’. John is d’-tall) (HTB2014; (4 with MAXMARY/MAX∞)). See a Japanese CC (5)with no syntactic degree operators:(5) a. Sally wa Joe yorikasikoi.
Sally TOP Joe yori/thansmart‘Compared to Joe, Sally is smarter./Sally is smarter than Joe.’ (HTB2014)b. YORI (D) ˄ ƎD [INTERNAL (D, x) ˄ [MAX: SMART (x) ˄ JOE (x)]]˄ ƎD [EXTERNAL (D, x) ˄ [MAXSALLY/MAX∞: SMART (x) ˄ SALLY (x)]]The comparison word yori (than), constructed as the MC YORI (D) with its two CDs in (5bwith MAXSALLY/MAX∞), serves as ‘head’ of the CC in Japanese.
Selected References
Aloni & Roelofsen. 2014. Indefinites in comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 22.
Hohaus, Tiemann, & Beck. 2014. Acquisition of comparison constructions. Language Acquisition 21.
Hornstein & Pietroski. 2009. Basic operations: Minimal syntax-semantics. Catalan J of L 8.
Pietroski. 2011. Minimal semantic instructions. In The OxfordHB of linguistic minimalism. Oxford UP.
Pietroski. 2012. Language and conceptual reanalysis. In Towards a biolinguistic understanding ofgrammar. John Benjamins.
Pietroski. 2018. Conjoining meanings. Oxford UP.
2

On part-whole relations expressed by partitive and A out of B constructions
Hideki Tanaka / Yokohama National University
What Jackendoff (1977) calls the true partitive (A of B) may express a groupmember relation, e.g. two of the books I read, where two denotes a subset of the main set
denoted by the books I read. On the other hand, the A out of B construction may express
either a ratio or a proportion (a kind of group-member relation). For instance, two out offive books has a proportional reading when five books denotes the main set; otherwise, aratio reading occurs. This paper will claim that there are at least two subtypes of (true)
partitives, one of which is semantically close to A out of B. If this analysis is correct,
putative counterexamples to the so-called Partitive Constraint will have reasonable
explanations. For ease of reference, let us refer to the N(P) in the A slot of A of B and A
out of B as N(P)1 and the one in the B slot as N(P)2.
Quirk et al. (1985) observe the contrastive behavior of partitives and the A out of B
construction. Whereas A out of B can have an indefinite NP2, partitives cannot.
(1) a.

Ten out of fourteen women were single.

b.?* Ten of fourteen women were single.

(Quirk et al. 1985:1287)(ibid.)The ban on indefinite NP2s of partitives is known as the Partitive Constraint, according
to which partitives should contain either demonstratives (including a definite article) or
genitive specifiers in the NP2 (cf. Jackendoff 1977:113). Notice that (1a) is acceptable,
even with the proportional (or group-member) reading. In other words, what is crucial for
the A out of B construction is whether two cardinals occur in the A and B slots rather thanwhether the NP2 denotes a main set. This idea is borne out by the fact that proportional
quantifiers such as all and most cannot occur in A out of B.
(2) *{All / Most} out of fourteen women were single.
Proportional quantifiers can occur in partitives, as in {all / most} of the fourteen women.
This is another sharp contrast between partitives and the A out of B construction.
These two constructions, however, do not always contrast each other. They aresemantically close in the following pair of sentences:(3) a.
b.

This is only one instance out of many.

（Kenkyusha’s J-E Dictionary6 ）This is only one of many instances of the breadth of Marryat’s view.
(BNCweb, EC8 373)

The A out of B in (3a) seems to denote a proportion rather than a ratio because it makes
sense to talk about the size of the main set. The partitive in (3b) should denote a groupmember relation; however, it does not satisfy the Partitive Constraint because it contains

an indefinite NP2. Indeed, similar examples have been pointed out in the literature.
(4) a.
b.

Only one of many applicants passed the test.

(Reed 1989: 421)

This is one of a number of counterexamples to the PC. (Ladusaw 1982: 420)

The partitives in these examples have an indefinite NP2 with an indeterminate cardinal.
Interestingly, if these cardinals are replaced with determinate ones like ten, the resulting
phrases are unacceptable (e.g. *only one of ten applicants). This fact will be explained if
we assume that the partitives in (3b) and (4) bear the semantic function of the A out of B
construction. In other words, instead of denoting a group-member relation in the way
ordinary partitives do, these partitives denote a “vague” proportion on which a
determinate main set is not required. The point is that the denominator is expressed insuch a way that it emphasizes the size of the set of the N(P)1. The following table
describes the semantic relationship between A of B and A out of B:
Form
A of BA out of B

Relation bet. A & B

NP2 element

group-member

definite article

vague proportion

cardinal quantifier

ratio / proportion

cardinal number

Exampleone of the (ten) applicants
one of many applicants
one out of many applicants
one out of ten applicants

An important question is: What is the difference between one of the many
applicants and one of many applicants? The answer is that the latter, unlike the former,
does not require a main set to be introduced in previous discourse (and thus it is not
subject to the Partitive Constraint); instead, the special use of partitives denotes that there
are more individuals (save the one expressed by the NP1). It should be noted, however,that the partitive subtype and A out of B are not identical with respect to the status of theNP2. This is indicated by the fact of fronting the of-NP2.
(5) a.

Out of many applicants, only one passed the test.

b. * Of many applicants, only one passed the test.
(5b) becomes acceptable if the preposed of-phrase is changed to be definite, as in Of themany applicants, …. While A out of B compares the quantitative amounts between the
NP1 and the NP2, the special use of partitives employs the NP2 to denote an indeterminate
number and implies the existence of other individuals related to the NP1.
References: Jackendoff, R. (1977) X-bar syntax, MIT Press/ Ladusaw, W. (1982)“Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction,” WCCFL 1, 231-242/ Quirk,
R. et al. (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language, Longman/ Reed, A.
(1989) “Discourse groups and semantic groups,” Proceedings of the fifth eastern states
conference on linguistics, 416-427.

How people understand each other in interaction using figurative language:Comparing Japanese and English task-based dialogues
Midori Tanimura

Koichiro Nakamoto

Etsuko Yosida

Kyoto University of Foreign Studies Yamanashi University

Mie University

Abstract
Figurative language such as metaphor and simile can be used to convey meaning
quickly and effectively, as many are commonly used in everyday life (Lakoff and Johnson
1980; Lakoff 1987). According to Kövecses (2002), metaphor is used when one thing iscompared to another (e.g. That young man is a lion.). In this case, the young man’s
courage or aggressiveness is compared to behavior of a lion. Simile, on the other hand, isused when two unlike entities are compared, signaled by the expressions starting like or
as. Those previous studies have carefully analyzed mechanisms of how figurative
language is used in many situations. However, it is unclear how these metaphors andsimiles are used in interactions where participants jointly act to mutually understand eachother. In particular, no studies seem to shed a light on comparison between native
Japanese speaker to native Japanese speaker (NJS-NJS) and native English speaker andnative English speaker (NES-NES) dialogues. This paper explores how figurative
language is integrated in both English and Japanese task-based dialogues to achieve
mutual understanding.
We video-recorded task-based dialogues from five pairs of native Japanese
speakers (NJS) and five pairs of native English speakers (NES). We used Clark andKrych’s (2004) Lego task, where one of the pair (the builder) assembled the Lego blocks
based on instruction from the other (the director). The total number of trials for each pair
was twenty, and the total recording hours were approximately ten hours for all pairs inthe study. As for figurative language, we looked at the following expressions: in English,
like, kind of, and kind, and in Japanese, -mitai, -teki, -katachi, -poi, and -nakanji, as wellas other metaphorical expressions.
The analysis of video-recordings showed three key points. First, when the NESs
described prototype shapes of Lego blocks, they used figurative language as a resource
to solve each particular problem. For example, they used letters of the alphabet (e.g. T, V
and U), artifacts (e.g. sitting in it, like a chair, looks like stairs, zigzag), buildings orlandmarks (e. g. like making a central tower, like a small pyramid) and some others (e.g.
snake, looks like two mushrooms, like a teetertototterish shape). NJS also used figurative
language such as furansu no kokki mitai ni [like a French flag], totemu po-ru teki na [likea totem pole], hashi poi [kind of a bridge], kaidan mitai na [like a stair]. These results
indicate both NESs and NJSs assume that the resources they use are mutually identifiable
to each other.
Second, though both NESs and NJSs used figurative language as the resources foraccomplishing their mutual understanding, frequencies were quite different. As table 1
shows, it was revealed that both simile and metaphor were used more frequently inEnglish task-based dialogues than in Japanese ones. Different frequency in Japanese andEnglish implies that English relies heavily on this kind of structure for clarify ofcommunication.
Table 1. Frequencies of simile and metaphor in NJS-NJS and NES-NES dialogues
SimileMetaphor

Japanese dialogues

16

8

English dialogues

62

47

Thirdly, figurative language is used by both the director and the builder as a joint
action to accomplish mutual understanding. In particular, both similes and metaphors areused as communication repair strategies for smooth conversation. In the example below,
the conversants used varied expressions to confirm understanding.
(1) Excerpt from a pair of NESs
D: And so that it joins out the green and the yellow.
B: And it looks like an L?
D: Yep. And then you take a little red one and make it no longer an L.
B: Okay. (hhh)(Note: D, director and B, builder)
The dialogue data interestingly showed that the NES and NJS pair used different
referents. For example, the NES pair used the letter “L” as a referent, while the NJS pairused the katakana “ko.” This is backed up by Clark’s (1996) idea of communal common
ground: people in the same community generally can understand each other’s language.
In sum, we compared Japanese and English task-based dialogues. The study reveals
that co-constructing builds mutual understanding; By looking at the dialogues, we can seethat although the NES pairs and NJS pairs use different expressions, they are effectively
communicating and mutually understanding through the use of metaphoric language(along with other strategies). This result indicates the emergent use of figurative language
is based on items in the environment of our life which results in unique forms of languages
in both English and Japanese, which may be supported by situated actions (Suchman,1985).

Assimilation of words or assimilation of the word-formation pattern? A case study ofanalytical N+N compounds in Russian
Elizaveta Tarasova
IPU New Zealand
Abstract
One of the obvious consequences of language contact relates to changes in the
vocabulary of languages under the influence of lexical borrowing. Changes in morphology
and syntax that are induced by language contact are not so common, and hence interesting forinvestigation. Recent studies on the word-formation processes in contemporary Russian (e.g.
Janurik 2010, Marinova 2008, Patton 1999) claim that a large number of borrowings fromEnglish in the last three decades have triggered a rapid development of analytical tendencies,
with the growing productivity of the English N+N compound pattern being reported as an
example of that. In English N+N compounds, the first noun has no formal markers indicatinggrammatical or semantic relations between the elements of the compound, e.g. baby oil,coffee pot, sea salt, etc. Russian equivalents of English N+Ns follow the same pattern, which
is not surprising because most of such compounds are partially assimilated loanwords, e.g.
top-menedžer ‘top-manager’, prezident-salon ‘president-salon’. At the same time, novel
analytical N+N formations that originated in Russian (and do not exist in English) appear
every day. Such sequences may be comprised of two borrowed words, e.g. biznes-ledi‘business lady’ (business woman), or of one borrowed word and one Russian word (in either
the head or the modifier position), e.g. Suvenir-Grad ‘Souvenir City’, kvass-meiker ‘kvassmaker’. Some recent publications (e.g. Kapatsinski & Vakareliyska 2013) also comment on
cases where two Russian words that were not borrowed (or at least are not recent borrowings)
are involved into the formation of N+N analytical units, e.g. babushka-otbojnik ‘car bumper’(lit. ‘grandma car-bumper’), gopstop-komitet ‘street-robber gang’ (lit. ‘thug-stop
committee’).
This trend is interesting because N+N compounding in Russian (and other Slavic
languages) is by far less robust compared to English. The most frequently occurring type of
nominal compounds in Russian is represented by the “classic” pattern NSTEM + LV + N, e.g.
khlebozavod ‘bread + LV + plant’ (bread-making plant) or by sequences in which the firstelement is clipped, aka “stump compounds”, e.g. sportploščadka ‘sports grounds’. The
limited range of nominal compounding is compensated for by compounds in which the firstelement is represented by a relational adjective (see Ohnheiser 2019 for discussion), e.g.
knižnij magazin ‘book store’, železnaja doroga ‘railway’ (lit. ‘iron road’).
The aim of this study is to analyse the current trends associated with the N+N pattern
in Russian in order to examine how changes in the vocabulary of the language may affect its
morphology. In particular, the analysis focuses on the processes involved in assimilation (orlack of assimilation) of N+N loans to see how they impact the Russian word-formation
system. The descriptive and construction grammar approaches are used for the analysis of the
corpus of Russian analytical N+N compounds collected from the Russian National Corpus(2003-2018), and Russian media websites. Krysin’s (1975) framework is applied for the
analysis of the assimilation of English N+N compounds in Russian.
The results of the study suggest that the N+N analytical pattern is applied as one ofthe possible routes for assimilation of loans that comprise borrowed N+N compounds in the
new linguistic environment in order to compensate for their low derivational activity incontemporary Russian. The strong association of the N+N analytical pattern with English(and hence Western lifestyle and culture) promotes further development of the pattern and its
use with original Russian words to create novel combined concepts.
References:
Janurik, S. (2010). The integration of English loanwords in Russian: An overview of recent
borrowings. Studia Slavica Hungarica, 55, 45–65.
Kapatsinski, V. & Vakareliyska, C.M. (2013). [N[N]] compounds in Russian. A growing
family of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 5, 69–87.
Krysin, L. (1975). Stupeni morfemnoi chlenimosti inoyazychnyh slov. [Stages of morphemic
analyzability of foreign words.] In E. Zemskaya (ed.), Razvitie sovremennogo russkogo
yazyka. Slovoobrazovanie. Chlenimost’ slova, 227–231. Moscow: Prosveshchenie.
Marinova, E. V. (2008). Inoyazyčnye slova v sovremennoj russkoj reči konca XX - načala
XXI vv. [Borrowed words in the modern Russian language (end of the 20th – beginning of
the 21st centuries)]. Moscow: Ellipsis.
Marinova, E. V. (2010). Vopros ob analitičeskix prilagatel’nyx v otečestvennoj i zarubežnoj
lingvistike. [The issue of analytical adjectives in Russian and foreign linguistics.] VestnikNižegorodskogo Universiteta im. Lobačevskogo, 4, 628–30.
Ohnheiser, I. (2019). Compounds and multi-word expressions in Russian. In B. Schlücker
(ed.), Complex Lexical Units: Compounds and Multi-Word Expressions, 251–278.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Patton, D. P. (1999). Analytism in modern Russian: A study of the spread of non-agreement
in noun phrases. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.
Russian National Corpus. (2003-2018). Retrieved from: www.ruscorpora.ru

Diachronic changes in expressions of perception in the English grammar
Junichi Toyota
Osaka City University
One may assume that perception is expressed by certain verbs such as see, hear, feel, etc.
It is true that these verbs refer straightforwardly to perception, and this is referred to here
as lexical perception. However, there have been other means of referring to perception
denoted by specific constructions. These are termed structural perception. This paper
analyses how structural perception has changed over time in the history of English andargues that changes in structural perception signify a vital piece of evidence concerning
key issues in the formation of the Present-Day English grammar, particularly transitivity.
Note that perception is used here in a broad sense, including sensations of happiness,
disappointment, enthusiasm, thinking, etc., and not merely for visual or aural sensation.
Structural perception in earlier English involves an involuntary stimulus and its
recipient, and the recipient of the stimulus used to be expressed as a grammatical object
in the dative case. The type of verb this involves is known as an impersonal verb, as
exemplified in (1). There were about 40 verbs classified as impersonal verbs in older English,
and they were not productive. In addition, during its development English borrowed some similarverbs from Old French and Scandinavian languages (Bauer 1998: 112; Pocheptsov 1997). Whatis typical about impersonal verbs is the marked case marking, and that the experiencer isexpressed with the dative (ðeodne in (1), as opposed to the nominative form ðeoden) and thestimulus with the genitive case (i.e. þæs ‘that’ in (1)). These verbs either disappeared from thelanguage or changed into a non-impersonal construction. Note that impersonal verbs, unlike
earlier English, can be productive in other Indo-European languages, such as Slavic languages,
by altering case marking on the experiencer, e.g. Serbian as in (2b). Notice that spavati ‘sleep’ isnot even remotely related to perception (i.e. (2a)).

(1)

(2)

Old English
Mæg þæs
þonne ofþyncanðeodneHeaðobeardna
may that.GEN thendisplease.INF lord.DAT Heathobards.GEN‘The lord of the Heathobards will be displeased.’ (Beo 2032)
Serbiana. Ja
spavamI.NOM sleep.PRS.1SG‘I sleep.’ (i.e. ‘I go to bed.’)b. Menise
spava
I.DAT REF sleep.PRS.3SG‘I feel sleepy.’

When the impersonal verbs were disappearing, yet another structure emerged, known
as the adjectival passive. Constructions such as I am surprised at the noise are rarely
associated with perception. However, in spite of its similarity to the passive, semantic
characteristics of the adjectival passive differ considerably from those of the passive(Toyota 2008), and it can be considered a structural perception. Verbs such as amaze,interest, satisfy, etc. are now almost exclusively used in the adjectival passive and theirappearance in the active voice is rare (Toyota 2013). A clear difference between
impersonal verbs and the adjectival passive is how the subject is expressed, i.e. a syntactic
subject with an impersonal verb is the outer stimulus, but it is the experiencer with anadjectival passive construction. It is possible to argue that the adjectival passive came into
existence in order to fulfil the expression of perception with a human syntactic subject,and its marginal use in the active voice is a sign that the adjectival passive can beconsidered a fluid ergative system, i.e. ergativity is found according to the semantic
contents of verbs.
What should be noticed in the course of historical changes of English is the emergenceof syntactic transitivity (cf. Toyota 2009, 2012). Syntactic transitivity expresses energy
transfer based on its syntactic structure, and the subject is automatically considered an
actor and the direct object an undergoer. Therefore, the presence of the direct object
guarantees that the whole clause is transitive, regardless of the semantic contents of theverb (cf. Taylor 2003). This line of change concerning transitivity posed a challenge forperception verbs, and this point has been rather neglected in previous historical studies ofEnglish. Perception verbs, as realised in the adjectival passive, have indeed beengrammatically marginalised as syntactic transitivity has become established, and it isestimated that all perception verbs have a human experiencer acting as a grammaticalsubject, neglecting earlier semantic characteristics of the recipient of a stimulus.
Therefore, marginalisation (i.e. fluid ergativity) is visible since the grammar is in flux,
developing into a generally syntax-oriented organisation.
References
Bauer, B. L. M. (1998). ‘Impersonal verbs in Italic: their development from an IndoEuropean perspective.’ Journal of Indo-European Studies 26, 91-120.
Pocheptsov, G. G. (1997). ‘Quasi-impersonal verbs in Old and Middle English.’ In Fišiak,J. (ed.) Studies in Middle English Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 469-488.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toyota, J. (2008). Diachronic Change in the English Passive. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Toyota, J. (2009). ‘Passive as an indicator of alignment change: in terms of transitivity.’
Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, spezial issue The passive inGermanic languages, 41-52.
Toyota, J. (2012). ‘Dialect mixing as a language contact in the history of English.’ In
Trušník, R. et al. (eds) Theories and Practice: Proceedings of the third international
conference on Anglophone Studies. Zlín, Tomas Bata University, 95-110.
Toyota, J. (2013). ‘On so-called adjective passive in English.’ Belgrade English language
and literature studies 5, 11-48.

Comparisons and speech acts in Japanese exclamatives.
Akitaka Yamada, Georgetown University (ay314@georgetown.edu)
Introduction. The interrogative sentence in (1)a and the exlcamative sentencein (1)b look alike, nevertheless achieving a different speech act. The purpose ofthis talk is to analyze how these effects are derived from the meaning of theirconstituents.
(1) a. Ano suimasen. Are-wa nomiya de-wa/zya ari-mas-en-ka?
uhm excuse me that-TOP bar
COP - FOC be-hona- NEG -q
Uhm, excuse me. Isn’t that a bar?
Interrogative
b. Nantekottai. Are-wa nomiya de-wa/zya ari-mas-en-ka!
Oh boythat-TOP bar
COP - FOC be-hona- NEG -q
Oh boy! That is a bar (e.g., not a restaurant)!
Exclamative
Data. There are two differences between (1)a and (1)b . First, they differ in thepitch accent on -ka; (1)a has a rising pitch and (1)b has a falling pitch. Second,in interrogatives, -ka must be used with an addressee-honorific marker (AHON)(Miyagawa 2012, 2017), while exclamative sentences are licit without an AHON.
(2) a. Ano suimasen. *Are-wa nomiya de-wa/zya nai-ka?
uhm excuse me that-TOP bar
COP - FOC NEG -q
Uhm, excuse me. Isn’t that a bar? (intended)
Interrogative
b. Arama. Are-wa nomiya de-wa/zya nai-ka!
Oh boy that-TOP bar
COP - FOC NEG -q
Oh boy! That is a bar (not a restaurant)!
Exclamative
There also exist some similarities as well. First, they have a doxastic bias.
In both (1)a and (1)b, the speaker has some evidence to believe that p (= it is abar) is true, while, in (1)a, the speaker knows that ¬p is true. Second, two opposing propositions p and ¬p are compared in a certain way. As for (1)a, though
the speaker believes p is likely, the speaker is not sure about his conclusion. He
is still comparing p or ¬p. As for (1)b, what he had been assuming was ¬p. But
now, he realizes that p is true; i.e., there is a discrepancy between what he had
believed (= ¬p) and what he is believing (= p).
Claim 1 (Partition in the proposition set). Based on the above observations, I
propose the following analysis. First, the focus particle -wa in -de-wa/zya creates
the high-pitch boosting, responsible for creating the alternative set. In (1)a and(1)b, the focus is put on nomiya ‘bar,’ creating a set of type et objects, i.e.,
0candidates for dinner-eating places: Det = {restaurant, cafeteria, ......} ⊂ Det .

Second, based on this set, the negation marker nai/en creates two opposing
sets of propositions, as illustrated by S 1 and S 2 in (3) and (4) (clearly, S 1 ∪ S 2 =S, S 1 ∩ S 2 = ∅; the negation creates a partition in S).
0(3) S 1 = {p : ∃f ∈ D \ {bar}. p = f (that)} = {that is a restaurant, that is acafeteria, ...}
(4) S 2 = {p : ∃f ∈ {bar}.p = f (this)} = {that is a bar}0(5) S = {p : ∃f ∈ D .p = f (that)} = {that is a restaurant, that is a cafeteria,that is a bar, ...}
Third, these partitioned sets are related to the speaker’s modal backgrounds and the clause type determines which background to choose.
Claim 2 (Dialogue feature). The interrogative needs addressee-honorific markers to create an information-seeking question. To capture this, Miyagawa (2012,2017) proposes (i) that -ka has a SYNTACTIC requirement that it be selectedand (ii) that -mas head-moves to the Speech Act projection so it can select ka. However, his analysis would not work for the exclamative because the samemorpheme -ka is licit without -mas (unless we admit the polysemy for -ka; theone which needs to be selected and the other that has no such restriction, which
seems to make the theory more complicated than necessary). In the spirit of DYNAMIC PRAGMATICS (Portner forthcoming), this study, rather, proposes (i) thatsome discourse elements (such as -mas) have a DIALOGUE FEATURE, whose role
is to declare that the referent of the speaker must be different from the referent of
the addressee and (ii) Japanese has a PRAGMATIC requirement that the discoursefeature must be grammatically encoded in the sentence when the speaker forms
a speech act that binds the addressee to take particular action for the speaker.
R EFERENCES : Goodhue 2018. On asking and answering biased polar questions. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University. Miyagawa, S. 2012. Agreements that
occur mainly in main clauses. In Main clause phenomena: new horizons, (eds.),
Aelbrecht, L., Haegeman, L., Nye, R.John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Miyagawa, S. 2017. Agreement beyond phi. CUP. Portner, P. 2018. Mood.
OUP. Portner, P. forthcoming. Commitment to Priorities. In New Work on
Speech Acts, (eds.) Fogel, D., Harris, D. & Moss, M. OUP. Shimoyama, J.,
Goodhue, D. & Hirotani, M. 2018. Embeddability of biased negative polar
questions in Japanese. WAFL 14. Zanuttini, R. & Portner, P. 2003. Exclamative Clauses: At the Syntax-Semantics Interface.Language.

Two Types of Anti-causatives in English: A Cross-linguistic Perspective
Masaki Yasuhara
Ibaraki University
Germanic languages such as German and Heerlen Dutch have two types of anti-causatives (Cornips andHulk (1996), Schäfer (2008)).
(1)

The following examples illustrate two types of anti-causatives in German.

a.

Das

Wasser

kühlt

b.

Das

Wasser

kühlt

the

water

cools

ab.

unmarked anti-causative

sich

ab.

marked anti-causative

REFL

down

“The water cools down.”(Schäfer (2008:37))

The anti-causative in (1b) is called a marked anti-causative because it takes a reflexive pronoun as object
and is apparently a transitive verb.

The subject NP, however, is construed as neither Agent nor Causer.

The anti-causative in (1a) lacks such an object and is called an unmarked anti-causative.
Alexiadou et al. (2015) propose two types of Voice, thematic Voice and non-thematic Voice.

The

external argument of marked anti-causatives is introduced by non-thematic Voice and receives neither anAgent nor a Causer role.

They explore two types of anti-causatives cross-linguistically and observe that

English has only unmarked anti-causatives and non-thematic Voice is unavailable in English anti-causatives.
In this paper, I aim to show that English also has two types of anti-causatives (i.e. marked andunmarked anti-causatives) in the same way with other Germanic languages.

I propose that English marked

anti-causatives are exemplified by the following examples.
(2)a.

A solution to the problem presented itself yesterday.

(Levin (1993:85))b.

Religious faith expresses itself in a variety of ways.

c.

His illness began to manifest itself at around this time.

d.

I’ll look at my cookbooks and see if anything suggests itself.
(examples (b)-(d) are cited from LDCE)

The marked anti-causative analysis of these transitive sentences can be confirmed by the following fourpieces of evidence.

Firstly, these sentences include transitive verbs and take a reflexive pronoun as object

but denote anti-causative events, in parallel with the marked anti-causative in (1b).

Secondly, the subject

NP of these sentences receives neither an Agent nor a Causer role.

The referent of the subject NP asolution to the problem in (2a), for instance, brings about no events.

The same observation is true of theother examples in (2).
The marked anti-causative analysis of the transitive sentences in (2) is further confirmed by theavailability of a causer phrase.

Causer phrases such as due to strong wind is compatible with unmarked

anti-causatives, as in (3), whereas they cannot co-occur with transitive sentences with Agent or Causer
subject, as in (4).
(3)

The vase broke due to strong wind.

unmarked anti-causative(4)*

John broke the vase due to strong wind.

transitive

A causer phrase and Agent or Causer subject cannot co-occur in a single clause, as in (4), because both ofthem specify distinct direct causes, and hence a contradiction results.

Marked anti-causatives, on the otherhand, permit the occurrence of a causer phrase, as shown in (5).

Although marked anti-causatives aretransitive syntactically, they do not have Agent or Causer subject.
(5)

Die

Tür

öffnete

sich

durch

einen

Windstoß

the

door

openedREFL

throughablast-of-wind‘The door opened from a blast of wind’(Alexiadou et al. (2015:33))

The transitive sentences in (2) are also compatible with a causer phrase, as shown in (6) and (7).
(6)

His illness began to manifest itself due to immune deficiency.

(7)

The sand began to form itself into geometric patterns due to strong wind.

The subject NP of the transitive sentences in (2) is not construed as Agent or Causer, so these sentences
denote anti-causative events, and therefore they are compatible with a causer phrase.
Anti-causatives generally permit the co-occurrence of adverbial phrases that denote spontaneity such as
by itself and of its own accord (Kageyama (1996)).

By itself, however, is not compatible with the transitive

sentences in (2).
(8)

a.* His illness began to manifest itself by itself.
b.* The sand began to form itself into geometric patterns by itself.

The unacceptability of the occurrence of by itself is due to the duplication of the word itself.

In fact, thesetransitive sentences go along with of its own accord, as shown by the following sentences.
(9)a.

... a world that does not manifest itself of its own accord.
(Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind)b.

... the sentence had seemingly formed itself of its own accord, ...
(Campbell Black, Letters from the Dead)

The fact that the transitive sentences in (2) are compatible with of its own accord further supports ourmarked anti-causative analysis.
To sum up, this paper has shown that English has marked anti-causatives, in parallel with other
Germanic languages.

The anti-causative analysis of the transitive sentences in (2) is supported by thereflexive pronoun object, the non-thematic interpretation of the subject, the availability of a causer phrase
and the adverbial phrase of its own accord. I hope this study will shed new light on the nature of marked
anti-causatives in Germanic languages.
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer (2015) External arguments in transitivity
alternations: a layering approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cornips, Leonie and Aafke Hulk (1996) “Ergative reflexives in Heerlen Dutch and French,” Studia
Linguistica 50.1, 1-21.
Kageyama, Taro (1996) Doshi Imiron (Verb Semantics), Kuroshio, Tokyo.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (4th edition) (LDCE), Longman, London.
Schäfer, Florian (2008) The syntax of (anti-)causatives: external arguments in change-of-state contexts,
John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.