Little p_ in English and JapaneseRobert Joel Deacon
Nagoya University
deacon.r@ilas.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Prepositional forms in English and closely related Germanic languages have been described as asplit class: some words are functional while others are more lexical (Hudson 2000; Zwarts 1997
among others). Furthermore, while terms such as P-forms (O’Dowd 1998) or P- words in (Miller
2006) have been used to capture the fact that the phonological form expressing particles (orintransitive prepositions) and prepositions is largely the same, it has been largely unclear why all
prepositional forms do not function as particles and vice-versa. It has also been unclear why and or
how these p-forms operate in different “prepositional” domains.
If the inversion test is used to distinguish a certain class of particles from prepositions (e.g. John
picked up his friend. John picked him up; John looked at the book. *John looked it at), it
becomes clear that a smaller subset of prepositions (at, from, to, with, by (agentive) and via) never
behave as particles while a larger set of forms up, down, in, out etc... function as both. The forms
that are used as both prepositions and particles are also found in other lexical domains (1,2).
(1) a. The doctor upped the dosage.
Verbb. Michael Jordan had ups.
Nounc. The very uppish crowd disliked the newcomers.
Adjective(2) a. Turkey downed a Russian jet.
Verbb. We have to get a first down. (American football)
Nounc. He was the downest gangster I knew. ‘most real’
Adjective
To account for this, it is proposed that these multi-purpose prepositional forms are acategorial-rootitems (Deacon 2014). These root-items are categorized by either a little p_ head, creating a type of
preposition or particle, or by another categorial head (creating types of nouns, verbs, and adjectives)
as traditionally done in Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994). In DM
terminal nodes are qualitatively divided into L and F-nodes, roughly corresponding to the traditional
lexical/functional distinction. However, within DM this distinction follows from whether a terminal
node consists of morpho-syntactic features (an F-node) or does not (an L-node). Prepositional forms
without a lexical distribution (to, from, at) are argued to be exponents of the p_ head itself, an Fnode, composed of [PATH], [LOCATION] etc… relational features while the other forms with a lexical
distribution are the product of p_ framing a concept/root as a spatio-temporal relational item. /a-/ or/be-/ prefixed prepositional forms (aside vs. beside) are argued to be exponents of p_; the fact that
this categorial morpheme surfaces as a prefix instead of a suffix (as other categorial heads do in
English) may be explained as a product of morphological rather than syntactic structure. While affix
ordering is proposed to reflect syntactic hierarchical structure, the realization of an affix as a prefix
or suffix is argued to be an idiosyncratic property of an affix (Noyer 1997) or one that is not derived
from its syntactic role (Halle and Marantz 1993).1
Interestingly this proposal of p_ seems to closely align with the division of Japanese functional
postpositions and the lexical items (relational nouns) that add more detailed spatial information to
the postpositional phrase.

1(3) Functional Postposition(4) Relational Nounから kara ‘from’

上 ue ‘above/on/up’に ni ‘to’

下 shita ‘below/under/down’に ni ‘at’中 naka/ 内 uchi ‘in/inside’

In Tamazight, the prefix /n-/ realizes first person plural while the suffix /-ɣ/ realizes first person singular.

で de ‘at’外 soto ‘outside’

One major difference, however, is forms such as shita ‘down/under’ must occur with a functional
postposition within a postpostional phrase. Unlike the roots in (1,2) in English, the lexical items in(4) never appear to function as postpositional markers themselves.
(5) eki*(no)
StationGEN‘under the station’

shita
under

*(ni)
at

If the analysis for English is correct, I propose that the postpositions in (3) are in fact
realizations of a p_head, as claimed for English. However, in Japanese p_ never categorizes a bareroot. Otherwise, shita could function as the postposition in (5). It is thus proposed that p_ in
Japanese is analogous to the kind of n_ in English that recategorizes a verb phrase into a deverbal
nominal (i.e. English gerunds). In Japanese p_ selects nP while p_ in English either selects for a root
or an nP.
Within DM, categorical features are responsible for grammatically framing root information forsemantic interpretation. This proposal may thus help explain why floating numeral quantifiers
cannot be associated with locative or path postpositional noun phrases (Miyagawa 1989; Hamano
1997 among others). That is, if the phrase is categorially a locative postposition, then that concept is
not viable for count modification. On the other hand, other Case-marked noun phrases remain
categorially nominal, permitting count modification.
This proposal thus uses the mechanisms of DM to continue to explain the lexical/functional
behavior of adpositions, drawing parallels between English and Japanese. It suggests thatparameters/specifications exist for where categorial features (specifically p_) may merge within thederivation and that these may be language specific.
References
Deacon, R. J. (2014). Adpositions and Lexical Categories: Distributed Morphology's Insight into
the Problem. Florida Linguistics Papers, 1(1).
Deacon, R. J. (2015). Replacing Axial Part with a Root-node in the Extended Projection of
P. Florida Linguistics Papers, 2(1).
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.
In The view from building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111-176.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology.
MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275-288.
Hamano, S. 1997. On Japanese quantifier floating. Directions in functional linguistics, 36, 173.
Hudson, Richard. 2000. Grammar without Functional Categories. In The Nature andFunction of Syntactic Categories ed. by R. Borsley, 7–35. Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Miller, D. Gary 2006. P-Words in Theory, Typology, and Old English. Ms., University of
Florida.
Noyer, R. (1997) Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure,
New York: Garland.
O’Dowd, Elizabeth M. 1998. Prepositions and Particles in English: A Discourse-Functional
Account. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zwarts, Jochen. 1997. Lexical and functional properties of prepositions. In Grammatische
Eigenschaften präpositionaler Elemente, ed. by Haugmann Dagmar and Stefan J.
Schierholz, 371: 1-18. Tübingen: Linguistische Arbeiten.

Evidentials and Presupposition Resolution
Yuto Hirayama (Osaka University)
1. Introduction In this paper, I investigate the Japanese inferential and reportative evidentials,-yoo and -soo, in relation to presupposition. As shown in the continuations (1a-c) and (1b-c),
evidentially marked sentences presupposing ϕ cannot follow the preceding ϕ or ϕ+evidential.
(1) a. Taro-wa
tabako-osut-tei-nak-atta.
Taro-Top
tobacco-Acc
smoke-Prog-Neg-Past‘Taro had not been smoking.’b. Taro-wa
tabako-osut-tei-nak-atta
soo-da.
Taro-Top
tobacco-Acc
smoke-Prog-Neg-Past
soo-Cop‘I infer/heard that Taro had not been smoking.’c. (following (1a) or (1b))#shikashi/soshite kare-wa
tabako-oyametayoo-da.
but/andhe-Nomtobacco-Acc
stoppedyoo-Cop‘but/and I infer/heard that he stopped smoking.’
For convenience of reference, proposition ψ presupposing ϕ will be written as ψ∂ϕ. Below, I
show that (1) is a problematic case for an influential previous work, and propose a system thatcan deal with both evidentials and presupposition adequately.
2. Matthewson et al. (2007) Matthewson et al. (2007) treat evidentials in St’át’imcets asepistemic modals and give the following modal-like semantics to the inferential -k’a and thereportative -ku7.
(2) ||-k’a||c,w is only defined if context c provides a modal base B such that for all worlds w',w'B(w) iff the inferential evidence in w holds in w'.
If defined, ||-k’a||c,w = f<st,st>.p<s,t>.w' [w'f (B(w)) → p(w')]
B is an epistemic modal base, and f is a choice function that picks up a subset of B(w). The
semantics of the reportative -ku7 is the one in which the inferential evidence in (2) is replacedwith the reportative evidence. If their analysis is applied to Japanese evidentials, thecontinuation of (1b-c) will be problematic; even if ϕ is true in some worlds in B(w) where thereportative evidence holds, ψ∂ϕ can be defined, for ϕ can be true in other worlds in B(w) where
the inferential evidence holds. Thus, in order to capture the behavior of Japanese evidentials,
we have to adopt other methods.
3. Proposal The framework of my proposal is based on Update Semantics by Veltman (1996).
He proposes that the information state σ is a triple <W, ε, s>, where W is the set of all possible
worlds, ε represents some ordering between each world, and s is a subset of W, representing the
speaker’s knowledge. To deal with evidentials, similarly to McCready (2015), I add to thissystem two subsets of W, sInf and sRep, the former being a set of worlds compatible with what
the speaker can infer from some evidence, and the latter of which being a set of worlds
compatible with what she heard. Further, I assume in my system that ε is the plausibility
ordering, the notion from McCready (2015), where worlds are ordered by a, according to theplausibility of each world, as in (4). Given these settings, I formulate forms of update for simple
assertions and evidentially marked assertions as in (5) to (7).
(3) The information state σ = <W, ε, s, sInf, sRep>, where s, sInf, sRep  W(4) s a t iff agent a considers world t to be at least as plausible as world s(5) σ[ϕ] = <W, ε', s∩‖ϕ‖, sInf, sRep>, where ε' is the same as ε except that v,us[v‖ψ‖ u‖ψ‖  vau → u'av] ( 'a is the plausibility ordering after update)(6) σ[EInfϕ-yoo] = <W, ε', s, sInf∩‖ϕ‖, sRep>, where ε' is the same as ε except that v,us[v‖ψ‖ u‖ψ‖  vau → u'av](7) σ[ERepϕ-soo] = <W, ε', s, sInf, sRep∩‖ϕ‖>, where ε' is the same as ε except thatv,us[v‖ψ‖  u‖ψ‖  vau → u'av](Eiϕ is proposition ψ with i evidence, where i = {Inferential (Inf), Reportative (Rep),…}What ϕ does is to narrow down s so that s contains only ϕ-worlds, and to order ϕ-worlds in s
higher than ϕ-worlds in s. What Eiϕ does is to narrow down si and order ϕ-worlds in s higher.
Next, move on to the treatment of presupposition. Generally, if ϕ is not in the context,
in processing ψ∂ϕ, ϕ is integrated into the context before ψ is processed. Suppose that you say
I have to pick up my sister and the utterance is rejected by the addressee who does not knowthat you have a sister. Even then the proposition presupposed by the definite description, thespeaker has a sister, is accepted and remains (Stalnaker 2002). This phenomenon is calledaccommodation. There are two types of accommodation. For example, when sentences likeJohn believes that the king of France is bald are processed, what is accommodated is (i) there
is a king of France, or (ii) John believes that there is a king of France. The former is global
accommodation, and the latter is local accommodation. Furthermore, when there is an option
between the two types of accommodation, global accommodation is preferred (Heim (1992)).
Evidentially marked sentences also have this option; the yoo-version of (1c) can
presuppose it is raining (global accommodation) or there is inferential evidence indicating that
it is raining (local accommodation). As with John believes that it is raining, global
accommodation is preferred in the case of evidentially marked sentences, as is found in (8).
Thus, when interpreting Ei[ψ∂ϕ], what is accommodated is normally ϕ, but not Eiϕ. Therefore,
the update will be of the following form.
(8) (The speaker does not know whether Taro had been smoking)??Taro-wa
tabako-oyametasoo/yoo-da.
Taro-Nom
tobacco-Acc
stoppedsoo/yoo-Cop.
‘I infer/heard that Taro stopped smoking.’(9) σ[Ei[ψ∂ϕ]] = σ[ϕ][Eiψ] when the presupposition of Ei[ψ∂ϕ] has not been satisfied.
4. Illustration Henceforth, propositions Taro had been smoking and Taro stopped smoking are
represented as ϕ and ψ∂ϕ, respectively. In the continuation (1a-c), (1a) narrows down s, only
ϕ-worlds being left in s, (by (5)), and when (1c), EInf[ψ∂ϕ], is interpreted, (9) is applied
because ϕ is present neither in s nor sInf (i.e. the presupposition of EInf[ψ∂ϕ] is not satisfied).
As a result, s will be an empty set, (i.e., absurd state by the terminology of Veltman (1996)),hence unacceptability. As for the continuation (1b-c), (1b) narrows down sInf, and orders ϕworlds in s higher than ϕ-worlds, and, in the same way as (1a-c), σ accommodates (is updatedby) ϕ before EInfψ is processed (by (9)). Accordingly, the ϕ-worlds ordered higher by (1b) are
immediately reordered lower than ϕ-worlds by the accommodation. In other words, the orderingby the first sentence is nullified by the second sentence. If we posit some pragmatic principle
like (10), we can correctly predict the unacceptability of the continuation of (1b)-(1c).
(10) In σ[ϕψ], if ordering by σ[ϕ] is not left in σ[ϕψ], it is inadequate.
References
Heim, I. (1992) “Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs,” Journal of
Semantics 9: 183-221. Matthewson, L., H. Davis, and H. Rullman (2007) “Evidentials as
epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets.” in Linguistic variation yearbook 2007, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam: 201-254. McCready, E. (2015) Reliability in Pragmatics, Oxford
University Press, Oxford. Stalnaker, R. (2002) “Common Ground,” Linguistics andPhilosophy 25: 701-721. Veltman, F. (1996) “Defaults in Update Semantics,” Journal of
Philosophical Logic, 25: 221–261.

Labeling and Voice Alternation with φ-feature and θ-feature
Takashi Kayashima
Graduate School of Kyushu University
Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (EKS) (2015) propose that Passives are derived by external pair mergeof R and v.
(1) a. John was hit (by Mary).
b. [φ,φ John [T T [R+v R+v John]]]
In (1), v has lost its phasality as a result of the external pair merge of R and v. Therefore, transfer does notoccur until C phase is completed, which enables John to move to [Spec, T].
However, EKS (2015) cannot cover Bahasa Indonesia. This language has two kinds of passives asshown in (2b, c).
(2) a.

c.

Ali mem-batja
buku
A. Trans-readbook‘Ali read the book.’
Buku
itu
saja
book
the
I

itu.
the

b. Buku itu di-batja(oleh) Ali.
book
the Pass-readby A.
‘The book was read by Ali.’batja.
read‘The book, I read.’(Chung (1976))(2b) is called canonical passive (CP) and (2c) is called object preposing (OP). At first sight (2c) may be seen
as a kind of topicalization, but Chung (1976) shows much evidence which shows that (2c) is actually a kindof passive construction.
While CP can be explained by EKS (2015), OP cannot. This is because thematic subject cannot be
omitted in OP. (3a) is an example of CP and (3b) is that of OP.
(3) a. Orangitu
di-pukul.
b. * Orang itu pukul.
manthePass-hitmanthe hit‘The man was hit.’‘The man was hit.’(Chung (1976))
The fact that OP obligatory has a thematic subject means that it is actually an argument. Therefore, EKS(2015) leaves it unclear why buku itu moves to the subject position over saja.
As for OP, I propose that it is derived by the system based on θ-features. Actually, there are somelanguages which cannot be covered by the Labeling Algorithm proposed in Chomsky (2013, 2014), which isbased on φ-features. Chomsky (2013, 2014) proposes two strategies to label [XP, YP] configuration. One isto move either XP or YP to higher position and the other is to label with certain agreed feature, namely
φ-feature. First, consider Flemish, where subjects stay inside vP.
(4) Oandermoistenmeer studenten
dienen boek
kuopen, …
if-3PL there
must-PAST-3PL
more students
that bookbuy‘If more students had to buy that book …’(Haegeman (2012))
Flemish has SOV order and auxiliaries precedes verbs. In (4), the subject and the object move to a higher
position leaving the auxiliary moisten. Here, it is hard to stipulate that a movement of the subject occurs
between the auxiliary and the object, which means that the [XP, YP] configuration is not resolved.
Another language which cannot be explained by Chomsky (2013, 2014) is Japanese. Saito (2007)and Şener and Takahashi (2010) claim that Japanese lacks φ-features based on the fact that Japanese allows
argument ellipsis. If it is true, Japanese cannot label [XP, YP] with φ-features, so an alternative strategy isnecessary.
The two problems can be solved by the assumption that in some languages Labeling Algorithm isbased on θ-features. I assume that θ-roles are formal features, which work as criterial features in the sense of
Rizzi (1997). Furthermore, I separate traditional θ-roles into some Proto-Roles following Dowty (1991) asshown in (5) and (6), and these Proto-Roles have the hierarchy described in (7).
(5) Contributing properties for the Agent Proto-Role:a. volitional involvement in the event or state (VOL)b. sentience (SEN)c. causing an event or change of state in another participant (CAU)
d. movement (MOV)(6) Contributing properties for the Patient Proto-Role:a. undergoes change of state (CHA)
b. incremental theme (INC)c. causally affected (AFF)
d. stationary relative to movement of another participant (STA)(7) CHA > VOL > SEN > CAU > AFF > MOV > INC > STA
In numeration, each DP is assigned θ-features. At the same time, the same θ-features as are assigned to DPs
are amalgamated to be v. When certain criterion is satisfied, v dissolves and moves to higher positionleaving the satisfied θ-feature. In this framework, (2c) is derived as follows. I omit the arrow line whichshows the movement of buku itu in order to avoid complication.
(8) [T T [CHA buku itu [CHA CHA [MOV saja [MOV MOV+CHA [STA buku itu[STA STA+MOV+CHA [R R buku itu]]]]]]]]
Considering the meaning of the sentence, saja has [MOV] while buku itu has [STA] and [CHA]. The crucial
point in (8) is that buku itu can move to [Spec, CHA] over saja, since buku itu has the criterial feature whichmust be satisfied in that position.
The proposal above implies that the subject stays below T. Actually, this implication is borne out.
CP and OP are different in what they can control. (9a) and (9b) are CP and OP respectively.
(9) a. ?? Sendjata itu di-buka(oleh) Ali untuk mem-perbaiki-nja.
weaponthe Pass-open by
A. forTrans-repair-it‘The gun was opened by Ali to repair.’b. (?) Sendjata itu
kita
buka
untuk mem-perbaiki-nja.
weapon the
we
open
for
Trans-repair-it‘The gun, we opened to repair.’The difference of acceptability between (9a) and (9b) is explained by the difference of the positionsof the subjects. Sendjata itu is in [Spec, T] in (9a) while it is in [Spec, v(CHA)] in (9b). In other words, in(9b) the subject is nearer to its controlee than in (9b). This difference of distance makes (9b) more
acceptable than (9a).
Selected References
Shung, Sandra (1976) “On the Subject of Two Passives in Indonesian,” Subject and Topic, Academic Press,
New York.
Dowty, David (1991) “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection,” Language 67, 547-619

[Guest speaker from The English Linguistic Society of Korea (ELSOK)]

A Morphological Template and Old English Derivational Morphology
Yookang Kim (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)ykim@hufs.ac.kr

It has been cross-linguistically agreed that more than one affix can combine with asingle base to express a larger set of semantic meanings, or to derive new words and wordforms. However, of all possible affix combinations in a language, a relatively limited number
are attested, which poses a question: What principles are responsible for the existingcombinations? A recent publication of the two-issue volume (Vol. 20) of the journalMorphology provides evidence that suffix combinations are constrained by a variety of
linguistic principles (Manova and Aronoff 2010, Zirkel 2010, among others).
However, it has also been observed that in some languages (e.g, Athapaskan
languages) suffix combinations are not regulated by structural or processing factors, butrather described as consisting of a template, or string of fixed order positional classes (Kari1989, Rice 2000). In this type of languages a template orders the suffixes, each of which ismarked for the position (slot) in the template that it occurs.
In Old English (OE) a number of suffix combinations are attested but the issue
concerning the order of the suffixes and a morphological device regulating the order has notbeen examined yet. Addressing the research gap in OE morphology, this paper aims toaccount for the OE suffix combinations in terms of a morphological template. To achieve thegoal, this paper introduces a template as a morphological device to order suffixes occurring insequence, and then attempt to account for the suffix combinations and some other OE
morphological processes in terms of the template. The issues to be discussed include
inflectional suffixes having the function of derivation (present and past participle endings, theadverbial genitive suffix –es, and case endings like –a, -e, -o, -u), the redundant occurrence ofthe derivational suffix –lic, and suffix combinations. It will be shown that the OE templateserves as a useful device for word formation and works well in ordering a variety of suffix
combinations and accounting for these different issues in a unified way.

[Guest speaker from The English Linguistic Society of Korea (ELSOK)]

References
Kari, J. (1989) Affix positions and zones in the Athapaskan verb complex: Ahtna and Navajo. International Journal of
American Linguistics 55: 424-454.
Manova S. and M. Aronoff (2010) Modeling affix order. Morphology 20: 109-131.
Rice, K. (2000) Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Cambridge University Press.
Zirkel, L. (2010) Prefix combinations in English: Structural and processing factors. Morphology 20: 239-266.

Canadian Raising: Evidence for or against Rule Ordering
LIU ShaLanguage Education and Research Center, Fukuoka University1
Phonologists have been entangled in the argument over the tenability of ruleordering for several decades. Canadian raising (henceforth CR) is perhaps a language
phenomenon that is most frequently involved with rule ordering discussions. To
understand CR, an introduction to the following two rules must be made.
(1)(2)

Canadian Raising Rule (Chambers (1989))/ai/ → [ʌi] /[-voice]
Intervocalic Voicing Rule (Chomsky and Halle (1968))/t/ → [d] / V
V

In the Canadian Raising Rule (1), /ai/ is realized as [ʌi] before a voiceless coda, such as/t/ or /p/. In other words, /ai/ is raised into [ʌi] before a voiceless coda, which is why
this phonological phenomenon is termed as Canadian Raising. Celebrated
exemplifications in this regard include the contrast between [rʌit] and [raid] (write andride). In the Intervocalic Voicing Rule (2), an intervocalic /t/, that is /t/ between vowels,
is voiced into /d/, as a result, “latter = ladder” (Joos (1942: 143)).
Joos (1942) first brought CR to phonologists’ attention. Joos (1942: 143) pointed
out that speakers of certain dialects in Canada are “divide[d] into two groups according
to their pronunciation of words like typewriter. Group A says [tʌiprʌidɚ], while GroupB says [tʌipraidɚ].” Halle (1962) interpreted the reason as the following: (a) in Group A,[taipraitɚ] (typewriter) is firstly converted by the Canadian Raising Rule (1) into[tʌiprʌitɚ], which is then turned by the Intervocalic Voicing Rule (2) into [tʌiprʌidɚ];(b) the ordering of Rule (1) and Rule (2) is reversed in Group B, as [taipraitɚ] is firstturned by the Intervocalic Voicing Rule (2) into [taipraidɚ] and then by the Canadian
Raising Rule (1) into [tʌipraidɚ]. Halle (1962: 386) further claimed that the necessity ofrule ordering is confirmed by CR, due to the fact that, “in the grammar of [G]roup A,”
the Canadian Raising Rule (1) precedes the Intervocalic Voicing Rule (2), “while in thegrammar of [G]roup B, the reverse order obtains.”
If the picture is as clear as what is just described, then CR is highly possible to betaken as a solid piece of evidence for the validity of rule ordering. However, opinions of
disagreement over the issue are not rare either. To name a few, Boberg (2014: 150)
describes that CR “is not … a completely uniform or invariant feature of CanadianEnglish.” And Hall (2005: 192) implies that her study questions “the assumed
predictions of traditional phonological rules”; namely, Hall (2005) does not think that
CR can even be well explained by traditional phonological rules.
The problem is clear now: to answer the question whether CR is evidence for oragainst rule ordering, a thorough understanding and explanation of CR is the first andalso an indispensable step. In the present study, I adopt the concept of variation andvariable rules and propose to treat CR as variation and explain it in terms of variable1

This is a progressing report of the study under the title of Canadian Raising: Evidence
for or against Rule Ordering, which is supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Number 15H06796 (Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity Start-up).

rules. I assume that CR, in addition to phonetic environments, is as well influenced byextra linguistic factors, such as ethnic origin, age, education background, gender, social
class, and so on. With such a theoretical background, the application of rules for CR is
not either 0 or 1; namely, those rules are not categorical (Sankoff and Labov (1979)).
The same term applies to rule ordering as well: the ordering between the Canadian
Raising Rule (1) and the Intervocalic Voicing Rule (2) depends on both internal
linguistic factors and extra linguistic factors; with every change in one factor, theordering may vary too.
With respect to data, I will mainly refer to data in open corpora or open databases
and data from works of scholars concerned with CR. I will use the software GoldVarb X
to carry out variable rule analysis, by focusing on the next three points: (a) find out
which factors are significant for the applicability of Canadian Raising Rule (1), and therelative contribution of each factor; (b) uncover which factors are significant for theapplicability of Intervocalic Voicing Rule (2), and the relative contribution of eachfactor; (c) reveal whether there is a correlation between Canadian Raising Rule (1) andIntervocalic Voicing Rule (2); if there is a correlation between the two rules, also reveal
which factors are significant for the correlation between the two rules and the relative
contribution of each factor. At the present stage, I assume that the correlation between
Canadian Raising Rule (1) and Intervocalic Voicing Rule (2) is both influenced bylinguistic factors and extra linguistic factors, such as age, education background, ethnic
origin, gender, social class, etc.
If the present study can prove that there is a correlation between Canadian
Raising Rule (1) and Intervocalic Voicing Rule (2), and also reveal what factors are
significant for the correlation between the two rules and the relative contribution of eachfactor, then I may claim that CR seems to be a piece of evidence for rule ordering andaccordingly strengthen the justification of rule ordering.
References
Boberg, Charles. 2014. The English Language in Canada: Status, History andComparative Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chambers, John K. 1989. “Canadian Raising: Blocking, Fronting, etc.” American
Speech 64: 75-88.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York:
Harper&Row.
Hall, Kathleen Currie. 2005. “Defining Phonological Rules over Lexical
Neighbourhoods: Evidence from Canadian Raising.” In Proceedings of the 24th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 191-199.
Halle, Morris. 1962. “Phonology in Generative Grammar.” Word 18, 54-72.
Joos, Martin. 1942. “A Phonological Dilemma in Canadian English.” Language 18,
141-144.
Sankoff, David and William Labov. 1979. “On the Uses of Variable Rules,” Languagein Society 8, 189-222.

Shifted Indexicals in Partial Control
Asako Matsuda
Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences, Ochanomizu University
0. Background/Goal: Since Landau (2000), attention to two distinct types of complement
control has surged: one involves attitude predicates such as hope, ask, and promise, in which
partial control is allowed and a de se reading is obligatory; and the other is associated withpredicates such as begin, manage and force, where partial control is unavailable and de se is
not obligatory (Grano (2012), Landau (2015)). Some studies have converged on theassumption that the former type involves context shifting (Anand and Nevins (2004), Pearson(2013), Landau (2015)). However, exactly how partial control is derived in shifted
complements remains a puzzle. The present study addresses this issue.
1. Context-Shifting Approaches: A basic assumption behind these approaches is as follows:(1) Speech context: Sarah is talking to David.
[CP <Speaker, Addressee> [TP John told Mary [CP <Speaker’, Addressee’> [TP to leave]]]].
speech event context

matrix event context

In all roots and some complement clauses, the context of speech/belief is represented in theleft periphery. The context tuple consists of Speaker, Addressee, Time, and World. Here I
focus on the Speaker and Addressee coordinates. In roots, they represent the
speaker/addressee of the actual utterance context. In (1), Speaker in the matrix CP represents
Sarah, Addressee David. In attitude complements, the context shifts to the matrix event
context, leading to overwriting of context coordinates: Speaker’ and Addressee’ represent thereferents of John and Mary respectively.
Anand and Nevins (2004) maintain that PRO is a shifted speaker in subject control and ashifted addressee in object control. Landau (2015) argues that PRO is just a minimal pronoun
connected to a relevant shifted coordinate by predication, and the coordinate is in turn boundto a matrix argument. Obligatory de se arises from shifted indexicals. Either proposal,
however, cannot account for partial control because PRO refers only to the shifted speaker/
addressee.
2. Partial Control (PC) and Associative Semantics: PC examples often contain a collective
element such as meet in (2), but such an element is not required to induce PC.
(2) The chairi preferred PROi+ to meet at 6. (Landau (2000))(3) Mary asked Johni PROi/i+ to move the piano.
(3), adapted from Pearson (2013), illustrates that if the contextual information is properly set,PC naturally arises; the piano is too heavy for John alone to move. Note, however, that an
exhaustive reading is still available in (3), if John is considered strong enough to move it
alone. Syntactically, attitude control complements are always ambiguous between partial andexhaustive readings. Set theoretically, a subset relation holds between the controller and PRO.
A subset relation also holds between the speaker and the 1st person pronoun. It is often
taken that the notions of 1st person and speaker are equivalent; they are not. The 1st personreference set is identical to the speaker only when its cardinality is one; in the other cases it
refers to the speaker plus others; and similarly for the 2nd person. The associative plural natureof the 1st/2nd person pronouns has long been known (Postal (1969), Wechsler (2010)), but it
often escapes linguists’ attention. At the core of the person system are reference sets
distinguished by inclusion (+) and/or exclusion (-) of the Spk(eaker) and the Addr(essee): 1st
person exclusive is defined +Spk/-Addr; 1st person inclusive +Spk/+Addr; 2nd person-Spk/+Addr; and 3rd person -Spk/-Addr.
3. Proposal: My proposal generalizes the associative nature of 1st/2nd person to interpretationof PC. The key assumptions are as follows: PRO is a variable without inherent number/person
features; attitude infinitival complements denote a property, λ-abstraction taking over the
subject (Chierchia (1990), Pearson (2013)); shifted speaker and addressee are represented in
the complement CP, more specifically in FinP; Fin head has certain ±Spk/Addr values
selected by the matrix predicate; a null Operator with the same values is located at spec FinP;and this Operator binds PRO. The syntactic representation of (3) is (4):(4) Mary asked John [FinP Op<-Spk’, +Addr’> Fin<-Spk’, +Addr’> [TP PRO to [vP t move the piano]]].
The Op in (4) is, in essence, like the wh-quantifier who with more restrictions: not only
+human but -Spk and +Addr. Force/Fin unification brings the Op to the clausal edge.
My proposal properly captures ambiguity associated with PC: if the cardinality of the Op
reference is one, an exhaustive reading obtains; if more than one, a partial reading is derived.
The de se nature is ensured by the shifted speaker/addressee.
Although the Op is valued ±Spk/Addr, it is never 1st/2nd person itself; an additional tensefeature is required to be 1st/2nd person as suggested in Schlenker (2003). It is not a mysterythat a 3rd person reflexive appears in the complement as in (5).
(5) Mary asked John to behave himself.
References: Anand and Nevins (2004) “Shifty Operators in Changing Contexts,” SALT 14. /Chierchia (1990) “Anaphora and Attitudes De Se.” / Grano (2012) Control and Restructuring
at the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. / Landau (2000)
Elements of Control. / Landau (2015) A Two-Tiered Theory of Control. / Pearson (2013) The
Sense of Self, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. / Postal (1969) “On So-called Pronouns
in English.” / Schlenker (2003) “A Plea for Monsters,” L&P 26. / Wechsler (2010) “What‘You’ and ‘I’ Mean to Each Other,” Language 86.

A Constructional Approach to the Complex Motion Predicate Construction in English
Yuzo Morishita
Kobe University
The goal of this paper is to challenge the principle of no synonymy, proposed byGoldberg (1995: 67), by making use of the concepts of argument structure and inheritance
relation. To precisely capture the relationship between constructions in these respects, I
discuss a construction exemplified in (1) and its relation to other constructions.
(1) a.
b.

My son went running to Irene's house to see what was the matter.

(BNC-HH3)

James came running up the stairs as she came out of the office.

(BNC-FRS)

I name this construction the 'Complex Motion Predicate Construction' since it involves two
verbs, constituting a single complex predicate (see also Alsina et al. 1997: 1, cf. Morishita2014).
This construction, at first sight, seems to be a characteristic construction in that two verbs
are serialized. The Complex Motion Predicate Construction is not as idiosyncratic as
Goldberg (2006: 50−52) points out. Indeed, Goldberg stresses the idiosyncratic properties ofthis construction.
However, in regard to argument structure, the Complex Motion Predicate Construction is
the same as the Intransitive Motion Construction. The argument roles of both constructions
are theme and path. In the case of the Complex Motion Predicate Construction, theparticipant roles of a complex predicate are fused with theme and path in the same way as
the Intransitive Motion Construction. Moreover, the mechanism in which the participant
roles of a complex predicate are fused with the two argument roles is compatible with thesemantic coherence principle and the correspondence principle (Goldberg 1995: 50).
The Complex Motion Predicate Construction can be handled in precisely the same
fashion as the Intransitive Motion Construction in respect to inheritance relation as well. As
discussed by Goldberg (1995: Chapter 3), the Intransitive Motion Construction is related to
the Caused-Motion Construction and the Resultative Construction via a subpart link and ametaphor link, respectively. The Complex Motion Predicate Construction is also related tothe two constructions via a subpart link and metaphor link. Examples of constructions related
to the Complex Motion Predicate Construction are given in (2).

(2) a.

My screams of terror awoke my parents and brought them rushing into my room.
(BNC-A6C)b.

Leeds Utd went surging ahead on the commercial front last year.

(BNC-J1H)As I have already noted, this paper challenges the principle of no synonymy suggested byGoldberg. On the basis of her claims, the Complex Motion Predicate Construction seems to
be distinct from the Intransitive Motion Construction in that the former involves two verbs,
while the latter involves only one. However, there are not obvious semantic/pragmatic
distinctions between the two constructions. Rather, these two constructions should be thesame in regard to argument structure and inheritance relation even though the superficial
syntactic forms of both constructions differ from each other.
Constructionists are apt to assume various kinds of constructions, and are fond of
pointing out the differences between them (cf. Croft 2001). This trend is widely recognized
but I cannot completely agree with it, for generalizations between constructions may fail tobe captured. The principle of no synonymy, suggested by Goldberg, assumes that syntactic
distinctions lead to semantic/pragmatic differences. However, what the phrase "syntactic
distinctions" means is somewhat obscure. In addition, differences between the superficial
forms of two constructions do not necessarily ensure that they distinct constructions. A
construction should be differentiated from and identified with another in regard to argument
structure and inheritance relation.
References
Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan and Peter Sells (1997) "Complex Predicates: Structure andTheory" In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan and Peter Sells (eds.) Complex Predicates.
Stanford: CSLI.
Croft, Williams (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological
Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
---. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Morishita, Yuzo (2014) A Quantitative Constructional Approach to Converbal Motion
Constructions in English. Ph.D dissertation, Kobe University.
CorpusBritish National Corpus. XML edition (available at http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk)

Competition in Word-Formation: Deverbal Nominalization by -ment vs. Conversion
Ryohei Naya
University of Tsukuba
1. Introduction
Aronoff (1976: 43) defines the notion of morphological blocking as “the nonoccurrence of one form
due to the simple existence of another.” For example, although the suffix -ness can derive a noun froman adjective, the form *decentness (< decent + -ness) does not occur. This is because it is pre-emptedby decency as the nominal form of decent that is derived by the competitive suffix -cy (Aronoff (1976:55)). Given the notion of blocking, we can predict that an earlier derivative wins out over a later
derivative if they share the same base and are in a competitive relationship. The examination of thisprediction raises an interesting question when we consider deverbal result nominals (Grimshaw(1990)). Of particular significance is the fact that result nominals can be formed not only by suffixation(e.g., a development) but also by conversion (e.g., a work). Marchand (1969) and Kiparsky (1982),
among others, argue that conversion is zero-suffixation. If so, nominal suffixes like -ment have a rivalry
with the zero nominalizer -Ø. This means that these suffixes should be in complementary distribution,
as with the case of -ness and -cy, resulting in the blocking of a later result nominal by an earlier one.
However, this is not always the case; data collected from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) revealthat a later form can occur despite the existence of an earlier form even when they share the base andare synonymous. Then, why can they co-exist? I aim to answer this question by focusing on theprocesses that produce result nominals.
2. Observation
First, I will show that a suffixed noun and a converted noun do not block each other by observing
result nominals formed by deverbal -ment suffixation and those formed by V-to-N conversion.
According to Marchand (1969: 331), -ment came into Middle English from continental Old Frenchand Anglo-French and its derivative pattern seems to have been stabilized after 1450. Lindsay andAronoff (2013) show that the productivity of -ment started to decline in the 17th century. Excluding
the examples directly loaned from French and examining -ment nouns derived during the productive
period, I focus on the -ment nouns that are first attested from 1450 to 1600 and are not obsolete. My
search of the OED found that 248 -ment nouns appeared during the period in question, among which
44 instances have converted noun counterparts. Table 1 classifies the 44 doublets of -ment andconverted nouns according to (i) the semantic difference between the two forms (whether they aresynonymous or not) and (ii) the diachronic order of their first occurrence.
Certainly, there are cases that support the prediction from Aronoff’s discussion (5 doublets,
approximately 11%). In the other cases (approximately 88%), however, the two forms of a doublet
coexist even though they are synonymous, regardless of the order of appearance. For example, theprior existence of attire does not block the suffixed synonymous noun attirement, which has the same
meaning as the former (i.e., ‘dress, apparel’). Likewise, discontentment does not block the converted
synonymous noun discontent, which means dissatisfaction. This fact cannot be easily explained by thezero-suffixation approach to V-to-N conversion because the zero-suffix should compete with -mentand thus they should be mutually exclusive, as observed in the case of -ness and -cy. Therefore, I takea different approach to V-to-N conversion.
Table 1.
(i)
The converted
noun appeared
earlier.
(ii)

The -ment noun
appeared earlier.
The two forms
appeared in thesame year.

Synonymy
23 doublets
approach/approachment,
attire/attirement,
gaze/gazement, etc.
15 doublets
arraignment/arraign,
discontentment/discontent, etc.
1 doubletallure/allurement

No synonymy
3 doublets
furnish/furnishment,
manage/management,
require/requirement
2 doublets
endorsement/endorse,
renouncement/renounce
0 cases

3. Proposal
I propose that competition that leads to blocking, compares not only the rivaling forms themselves
but the processes that produce them. That is, if the two forms are produced by the same process (e.g.,
suffixation), they are exclusive. Conversely, if they are created by different processes, they can coexist
even when they are synonymous. Under this proposal, the facts can be explained by adopting Naya’s(to appear) analysis of nouns converted from verbs. Naya (to appear) argues that converted nominals
are not formed by suffixation but by combining the base verbs with phonetically null nouns such as
ENTITY, PROCESS, and RESULT, which are silent variants of semantically light nouns called “semi-lexicalnouns” (cf. Corver (2008)). This analysis has an advantage over the zero-derivation analysis in that it
successfully accounts for why V-to-N conversion exclusively forms result nominals. Under thisanalysis, the noun attire is formed by combining the verb attire and ENTITY, resulting in the structure[[attire V] [ENTITY N] N]. This process is different from the one that produces attirement; attirement isformed through derivation. Therefore, attire and attirement do not compete and can coexist.
References
Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Corver, N. (2008) “On Silent Semi-Lexical Person,” Lingue e Linguaggio 7, 5-24.
Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kiparsky, Paul (1982) “Lexical Morphology and Phonology,” Linguistics in the Morning Calm:
Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, ed. by In-Seok Yang, 3-91, Hanshin Publishing Company,
Seoul.
Lindsday, M. and M. Aronoff (2013) “Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems,”
Selected Proceedings of the 7th Decembrettes, 133-153.
Marchand, H. (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A
Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd Edition, C. H. Beck’sche, Munich.
Naya, R. (to appear) “The Deverbal Noun-Forming Processes in English,” English Linguistics 33.

An Analysis of the Use of the First-Person Pronoun in Japanese and English Interaction
Miyabi Ozawa
Japan Women’s University
Graduate School of Humanities
One of the significant differences between Japanese and English language use iswhether to refer to the subject or speaker him/herself. Previous studies have shown thatJapanese does not usually require this, unlike English. However, there are some cases
where Japanese uses the first-person pronoun. This study focuses on the use of the firstperson pronoun in Japanese and English conversation, and especially considers inwhich cases or for what purposes Japanese uses the first-person pronoun.
Previous studies which compare the properties of the subject in languages
including Japanese and English have shown that Japanese does not need the subject
itself, while English does. From a cognitive semantic point of view, Ikegami (1991)
points out that the Japanese language is classified as a BECOME-language, where therepresentation emphasizes “BECOMing” and “the human individual, if any is involved,
tends to be suppressed and merged with the environment” (Ikegami 1991: 318). On theother hand, English is a DO-language, where the dominant schema of representation is“someone DOing something,” and it “tends to focus on the human being as agent andlikes to represent it prominently” (Ikegami 1991: 318). In addition, from a discourse
pragmatic point of view, Ide (2006: 219) claims that Japanese does not need a subject.
Accordingly, Japanese has an inside or subjective point of view and the speaker is buriedin the context or ba (field) as one of the elements, assuming each element involving thelistener in the ba is shared knowledge. Then the speaker decides what needs to bestated, depending on the ba of talk. A reference to the speaker, for instance, does notneed to be indicated because that it is the person now speaking is understandable forthe listener.
Based on the fact that Japanese does not always require the first-person pronoun,
unlike English, this study explores for what purpose Japanese use the first-person
pronoun, with data from the Japanese and English conversation in the Mister O
Corpus1. The subjects are female teachers and students, and native Japanese andEnglish speakers: teacher-student pairs and student-student pairs. Each pair talks
about the topic, “What were you most surprised at?” for 5 to 8 minutes. In this study, 13teacher-student pairs (T-S pairs) and 13 student-student pairs (S-S pairs) are used.
The‘Mister O Corpus’ is a cross-linguistic video corpus collected under a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (No. 15320054, 18320069, directed by
Sachiko Ide, and 20320064, 23320090, directed by Yoko Fujii). It consists of three types ofinteractions –– conversations, narratives, and problem-solving tasks –– in Japanese, American
English, Korean, Libyan Arabic, and Thai.
1The first-person pronouns seen in the Japanese conversations include watashi,
watakushi, atashi, atakushi, and jibun, as compared to English, where there is only “I.”
The number of first-person pronouns in English is about 7.7 times greater than inJapanese. In many cases in the Japanese conversation data, the first-person pronouns
are not used even when the subject of the proposition is the speaker herself. For
example, the utterance Ano kaado-wa nandat-ta-n darout-te __ bikkuri si-ta. whichmeans “(I) was surprised at what those cards were.”, is observed. On the other hand, in
the English conversation data, first-person pronouns are always used when the speakeris the subject of the proposition, including as a “cognitator” of thinking (Dixon 2009)
with a proportion of 15% for the T-S pairs and 18% for the S-S pairs. This is not
generally seen in the Japanese.
This result suggests that not using first-person pronouns is the default forJapanese conversation and using first-person pronouns itself has certain meanings. In
my analysis, the functions of first-person pronouns are classified into the following
categories: 1) presentation of an episode; 2) emphasis (the speaker uses a first-person
pronoun to emphasize that the subject is herself although this is understandable fromthe discourse or sentence structure) ; 3) distinction (the speaker uses it to distinguishthe subject as herself among other individuals in a discourse.); 4) contrast (the speakeruses it to contrast the subject to others); 5) conformity (the speaker uses it to conform to
the listener); 6) objectification (the speaker uses it to objectify herself).
As seen in this study, the use of the first-person pronoun in Japanese and English
interaction is different: in Japanese, since not mentioning the subject is the default,
explicit use which entails the functions above is marked and indexical, whereas inEnglish, explicit use as the subject involving agentivity is necessary.
References
Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. Basic Linguistics Theory: Grammatical Topics. Oxford University
Press.
Ide, Sachiko. 2006. Wakimae no goyouron [Pragmatics of Wakimae]. Tokyo: Taisyukan
shoten. 204-229.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1991. ‘Do-language’ and ‘Become-language’: Two contrasting typesof linguistic representation. In Yoshihiko Ikegami (ed.), The Empire of Signs 8.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 285-326.

The Use of Distal Demonstratives in Quasi-Internal Monologues
in Japanese and American English
Hiroko Shikano (Graduate School of Humanities, Japan Women’s University)

In daily life, one might likely hear a family member talking to himself/herself while
searching for his/her eyeglasses: “Where is that thing?” In these kinds of situations, thespeaker’s full and partial internal monologues are sometimes not particularly directed to arecipient; the line which lies between discourse and internal monologue is defined as“quasi-internal monologue (Noda 2006).” The speaker’s internal monologue is defined as astatement that the speaker utters that is considered his/her full internal monologue; on theother hand, partial internal monologue is defined as a statement that the speaker utters that is a
mixture between dialogue that is spoken to the recipient and internal monologue that is
unexpectedly revealed. Noda (2006) states that quasi-internal monologue does not require arecipient at all, but I strongly believe that in Japanese and American English internalmonologue does have a communicative function in the presence of another person. Therefore,
this study attempts to show how the speaker uses the distal demonstratives are and that in fulland partial quasi-internal monologue when others are present.
In this study, task data corpus from the “Mister O Corpus” is used, and the subjects for the
Mister O Corpus are female teachers and students. Each pair, either teacher-student or
student-student, is asked to arrange 15 picture cards and make a coherent story but told that
there are no “correct” stories and no time constraints.
Reviewing this task-solving corpus data extensively based on the 4 explicit monologic
features that Moriyama (1997) and Mimaki (2013) list, full and partial quasi-internalmonologues in Japanese and American English are obtained. Since quasi-internal monologues
sound monologic, the utterances are equivocal and not specifically directed to the listener;
when the speaker’s utterance sounds monologic, it is plausible that the listener does not feelthe speaker’s utterance is an imposing and interrogative statement. In addition, both thedemonstratives are and that make the speaker’s utterance more inexplicit than what the distal
demonstrative refers to, so it is hard for the listener to recognize what is really meant. This isbecause the grammatical function of the distal demonstrative suggests that a referent invisibly
exists during the speech event.
In Japanese conversation, when speakers utter quasi-internal monologue, it does notsound like an imposition on the recipient and/or does not make the recipient respond.
Although quasi-internal monologues do not require the recipient’s reply, the results from theanalysis suggest that the demonstrative are draws the recipient’s attention and induces a
response, as if the recipient shares the speaker’s thoughts. Therefore, it is conceivable to point1

out that, together with the demonstrative are, in quasi-internal monologues the speaker’s
thoughts are shared with the recipient. For English conversation, even in quasi-internalmonologues, the recipient definitely responds to the speaker. In other words, all utterances are
considered discourse that requires the recipient’s reply. As a consequence, both Japanese andEnglish conversations show that regardless of the quasi-internal monologues, interactions arepreceded by the distal demonstrative.
Fujii, who studies cross-cultural linguistic differences, explains that Japanese speakers
place themselves as if they were in the other person’s shoes. Physically, the speaker and therecipient have two different minds, but work towards the same task, of one mind. On the other
hand, American speakers place themselves separately from each other and their interaction
shows that they have independent and individual minds (Fujii 2012). In consequence,
Japanese participants influence each other by sharing and merging each individual mind, but
American participants’ selves are more likely to be independent. From this perspective, thedemonstratives are and that explicate the differences in the two language practices even inquasi-internal monologues.
Altogether, in Japanese interaction, the demonstrative are draws the recipient’s attention
and induces his/her response without any imposing and interrogating of the other. On theother hand, in American English interactions, the demonstrative that has the function of aninterrogative statement where the recipient responds to the speaker.
References
Fujii, Yoko. 2012. Differences of situating self in the place/ba of interaction between theJapanese and American English speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 636-662.
Mimaki, Yoko. 2013. Poraitonesu no danwabunseki: Shotaimen komyunikeshon no sugata toshikumi [Discourse analysis on politeness: How people interact at first encounters].
Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan.
Moriyama, Takuro. 1997. “hitori-goto” o megutte: Shikou no gengo to dentasu no gengo[About the internal monologue: Language of thoughts to language for communication].
In Yoshiaki Kawabata・Yoshio Nitta (Eds.), Nihongo bunpoo: Taikei to hoohoo [Japanesegrammar: Organization and system]. 173-188. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.
Noda, Harumi. 2006. Gijidokuwa ga shutsugen suru toki [When does quasi-internalmonologue occur]. In Takashi Masuoka (eds.), Nihongo bunpo no shin-chihei 2bunron-hen [A new horizon in Japanese grammar: Stylistic]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
193-213.

2

Labeling, Gross Minimality, and Embedded Imperatives
Norio SUZUKI

Kobe Shinwa Women’s University (non-full-time)

Synopsis : This paper explores labeling of (embedded) English imperatives ((embedded)
EImps) based on Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) labeling algorithm (LA). We assume (Miyagawa
2010, Suzuki 2013) that EImps, with no φ-feature agreement between the subject & verb, area discourse-configurational language (DC-language; e.g., Japanese; keeping to subject
omission). Then, following Chomsky’s (2015) observation that “In terms of labeling theory,
Italian T, with rich agreement, can label TP …” & that there is little reason for assuming pro innull subject languages, we take T’s topic-/focus-features in DC-languages & EImps to be “rich”
enough to label TP, & the “empty” DC-language/EImp subject to be “radically empty.”
Specifically, we explore a Gross Minimality (Cecchetto & Donati 2015) account of the
problem of the absence of an overt subject in embedded EImps (with the (embedded) EImp
examples here taken largely from Crnič & Trinh MS., MIT & Shuhama 2014).
Proposal : We follow Miyagawa (2010) in assuming the dichotomy between agreementbased languages (A-languages; e.g., English) & DC-languages in terms of φ-features andtopic-/focus-features (respectively) inherited by T from C for the purpose of triggering
A-movement to T. We further assume (Miyagawa 2010) that “Topic (− focus) is default andfocus is marked, with probing taking place only for a focus,” with the additional assumptionthat the overt Imp subject receives a <+focus>-feature. Then keeping to the syntactic object
SO in need of labeling: ‘{XP, YP}, neither a head,’ Chomsky’s (2013) LA provides three ‘labeling’
categories a)-c): a) … XP … {XP, YP}: SO, labeled based on YP, raising of XP; b) {XP[+F], YP[+F]}:
SO, labeled based on [+F], ‘feature-sharing’; & c) *{XP, YP}: SO, unlabeled in the absence of a) or b).
The basic paradigm to explain is summarized in (1, 2) for unembedded & embedded EImps without &with an overt subject, respectively:(1) a.

Open the door!

b. Somebody open the door!

(2) a. John said open the door.

b. *John said somebody open the door.

Our proposal for account of distinctions between (1a,b, 2a, b) is summarized below in (3a,b, 4, 5a, a’)respectively:(3) a. [T T-<(–focus/) topic> [vP open the door]] (= (1a))
T inherits (–focus/) topic from C. (3a) is labeled as ‘T/topic’ based on the <topic>-feature.
b. [α-<+focus> somebody-<+focus> [T T-<(–focus/) topic>/<+focus>[vP (somebody-<+focus>) open the door]]] (= (1b))
T inherits from C two <– focus>-features, one of which it receives as a <(–focus/) topic>feature on T & the other of which serves as a probe for the focus somebody, ending up as<+focus> on T (Miyagawa 2010). α is labeled as ‘<+focus>,’ which is shared by somebody& TP. See Saito (2007) & Suzuki (2011) for the necessity of a <topic>-feature on Imp T.
(4) [John said T] (= (2a); label ‘T/topic’ is visible for Merge between said & itself)
Gross Minimality Blocks Overt Subjects in Embedded Imps : Crnič & Trinh (MS., MIT)observe that pronouns and indexicals in embedded Imps must be evaluated with respect to the“actual speech context.” We take this to point to the necessity of the embedded Imp T inheriting
features from the matrix C. This may limit the categorial status of the embedded Imp to TP sothat it may be phase-wise accessible to the matrix C, with the consequence of thecomplementizer that not being allowed in embedded Imps. Look at (5a) (= (2b)):(5) a. *John said [somebody open the door]. (= (2b))
a’. *[ C-(<–focus>, <–focus> => <+focus>) [John said [somebody-<+focus>[T T-<(–focus/) topic>/<+focus> [vP (somebody-<+focus>) open the door]]]]]
Probing of somebody-<+focus> in the embedded vP by the matrix C’s <–focus>-feature isblocked by intervening John due to Gross Minimality effects of Cecchetto & Donati (2015:
chapter 5). I.e., we take (5a, a’) to be a case where the <–focus>-prober may target a larger
set of elements with a feature N on them not incompatible with <+focus> rather thansomebody-<+focus> alone. It is not semantics/pragmatics that blocks overt subjects inembedded Imps. See grammatical (6a) containing an embedded Imp with an overt subject:(6) a. … I say [don’t you worry about no artificial things]. (= Shuhama’s 2014)
a’. [ C-(<–focus>) [I say [T don’t-<(–focus/) topic>/<+focus>[(NEG) (not-<–focus>) [RP(-<+focus>) you-<+focus> worry …]]]]]
The focus of sentential negation is taken to be Root Phrase (RP). Negation with its own<–focus>-feature probes the focus element, RP, enters into agreement with it, & is valued as<+focus> (see <+focus> on don’t; Chomsky 2015, Zeijlstra 2013), perhaps with the subsequent‘focus-shift’: RP => you (Reinhart 2006). <+Focus> identification of you by negation does
not induce a violation of Gross Minimality.
Why Wh-Movement out of an Embedded Imp is OK :(7) a. ?Who did John say (who) call at three?
b. [α (who-<+focus>) [T T-<(–focus/) topic>/<+focus> [vP (who-<+focus>) call at three]]]
α in (7b) corresponds to the embedded Imp in (7a). It is an instance of category a) ofChomsky’s (2013) LA, where α is labeled based on T’s feature(s) as a result of raising of who.
Movement of who over John does not seem to induce Gross Minimality effects since thepresence of a wh-feature on the relevant wh-phrase forces Relativized Minimality to operate.
Selected References

Cecchetto, C. & C. Donati. 2015. (Re)labeling. MIT Press.; Chomsky, N.

2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130; 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. Structures,
strategies and beyond.; Crnič & Trinh. Embedding imperatives. MS., MIT (Available on the Internet).;Miyagawa, S. 2010. Why agree? Why move? MIT Press.; Saito, M. 2007. Notes on East Asianargument ellipsis. Language Research 43.; Shuhama, Y. 2014. On the syntax of embedded imperative
clauses in English. MS. (Available on the Internet.); Suzuki, N. 2011. English imperatives as a
discourse-configurational language ― Some preliminary assumptions ― (Available at Academiaedu.).; 2013. English imperatives as a discourse-configurational language. JELS 30 (Available at
Academia edu.).; Zeijlstra, H. 2013. Negation and negative polarity. The Cambridge handbook ofgenerative syntax.

Head Movement and Its Consequences in the Right Periphery
Maiko Yamaguchi
Osaka University (graduate student)
Synopsis
It has often been reported in the literature that the head movement (HM) in general plays asignificant role derivationally. Bošković (2014), (2015) claim that the HM grants the argument-extractions
from the Double-Phase Structures (DPS) like (5). Conspicuous examples of HMs given in Bošković (2015)
are English C-to-P and P-to-N movements. There, HM (phase-collapsing) sanctions argument-extractions,while crucially, it does not save adjunct-extractions. Examples are omitted for spatial reasons.
In this paper, I will show that such HM leading to the ‘phase-collapsing’ à la Bošković can be found inJapanese right periphery as well. Especially, what is observable in the Complement Nominal Clauses (CNC)
epitomizes the effect of HM (phase-collapsing).
T-Topic
Japanese cannot host a Thematic topic (T-topic) in the nominalized clauses headed by koto/no when
they show up alone (1). However, they can host T-topic when koto is directly preceded by an Epistemic
Modal (EMod) like kamoshirenai.
The reason why suddenly the T-topic position is allowed with koto can be found in the HM(T-to-Mod); also, the EMod-insertion indirectly shows the expansion of the embedded CP in that it gains theescape-hatch for extraction. This state of affairs gives further credence to the HM in the Nominative
Genitive Conversion (NGC) in Japanese.
Proposal and Discussions
In Taguchi (2008), NGC is possible when the optional T-to-D movement and AGREE obtain, and it
is impossible when C is there. When C is present, T-to-D movement is blocked by the T-to-C movement.
If Taguchi’s C-intervention-effect is correct, inserting EMod between T and C(affixal) would break up
T-to-D movement as well. Indeed, this prediction is borne out. I assume that T-to-Mod movement prevents
further movement of T; thereby we do not get NGC. Here, adapting Taguchi (2008), and Hiraiwa (2002), I
argue that NGC is possible when the whole-HM (T-C(affixal)-D movement) is completed, and HM has atendency to freeze, (though not obligatory), when T-to-Caffixal movement completes. The whole-HM isdecisively suspended if interveners like (Mod) comes in; T-to-Mod movement does not prevent C(affixal)-to-D
movement. Rather, Mod-insertion feeds (makes this HM obligatory) C(affixal)-to-D movement. Here, CNC
constitutes DPS consisting of C and D. The fact that the argument extraction is allowed in the DPS indicatesthe presence of phase-collapsing.
The feeding relation between the Mod-insertion and the HM gives a further credit to the Raising to
Object (RtO) construction in Japanese. RtO involves extraction out of the embedded CP. RtO is well-formed
with to, and T-topic can felicitously appear under to. Importantly, to with GEN is untenable, due to the overt
C(nonaffixal)-intervention-effect as in (2).
Observe (4). The ungrammatical RtO case in (3) is somewhat ameliorated in (4). Note that CNC
can host T-topic position. Of course, the property of the selecting matrix Verb is one possible factor. Yet,
before Mod-insertion, what we get is an ungrammatical RtO output. Thus, it seems safe to say that theMod-insertion facilitates the C(affixal)-to-D movement, which is previously rather hard to get, as thegrammaticality of (RtO) indicated in (3). With this phase-collapsing, a previously impossible argument
extraction (RtO) becomes (more or less) possible. Therefore, (3)-(4) serve as an empirical supportingevidence for the DPS and the phase-collapsing.
Nevertheless, there remains a question: what is koto and no? Although NGC is possible with kotoand no they are far from perfect, compared to the content nominal counterpart. Both in Hiraiwa (2002) andTaguchi (2008), if NGC is obtainable, C-intervention-effect is absent. Put differently, if koto and no allow
NGC, they are nouns or Cnull. Hiraiwa predicts that no should always allow NGC because it is a realizationof HMed Cnull. If koto and no are the same nominal as the lexical content nominals, the reason why koto,and no cases are less well-formed is a mystery.
As to answer the question, I claim that koto and no which head CNC are actually, C(affixal). I also
argue that they are not the same nominal as the content nominals in that they can bear both nominal and C’s
properties. This dual-property is acquired through C(affixal)-to-D movement and AGREE. Due to the presenceof C-property within koto and no, they trigger the lower grammatical status with NGC. In other words, theyshow a weaker version of C-intervention effect. Conversely, due to the presence of D-property within kotoand no, NGC is somehow allowed though it is not perfect. Absolute C like to will never have that option
since it lacks D-property.
To recapitulate, my approach can entertain the ungrammaticality of NGC (*no) with theMod-insertion case in (4). The Mod-insertion triggers T-to-Mod movement, and this feeds C(affixal)-to-D
movement, but the whole T-to-C(affixal)-to-D movement is fatally severed by the Mod. Thus, though
topicalization and extraction (RtO) are somewhat felicitous, NGC should be disallowed.
Data:(1) Hanako-ga/*wa(*T-topic sense)/noHanako- NOM /*TOP /GEN

utsukushii
beautiful

koto]
koto

(2) John-wa [ Hanako-ga/-o/-wa/-*no Amerikazin-dearu ] to minuita.
John-TOP Hanako-NOM/ACC/TOP/*GEN American-COP
C (discerned)(3) John-wa
John-TOP(4)(5)[Hanako-ga/*o/(?)wa/-?(?)no Amerikazin-dearu]
Hanako-NOM/ACC/TOP/GEN
American-COP

John-wa [Hanako-ga/?(?)o/wa/-*noJohn-TOP Hanako- NOM/ACC/TOP/*GEN[XP=Phase [YP=Phase]]

koto/no-o minuita.
C -ACC(discerned)

Amerikazin-dearu kamoshirenai] koto/no-o minuita.
American-COP
maybe
C -ACC(discerned)(DPS)(adapted from Bošković 2015:4)

Selected References
Bošković, Željko 2015. Deducing the Generalized XP Constraint from phasal spell-out. Ms.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2002. Nominative-Genitive Conversion Revisited. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10. 546-559.
Taguchi, Shigeki. 2008. Against the Null Complementizer Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses. Nanzan
Linguistics Special Issue 3. 185-198.

Maintaining the Direct Object Restriction
Masashi Yamaguchi
Osaka University
Introduction
This paper focuses on the issue of whether the Direct Object Restriction (DOR) of resultative constructions,which is shown in (1), should be maintained.
(1)

Result XPs are predicated of underlying direct objects.

(Rappaport and Levin 2001: 766)

In the literature, counter-examples against this generalization have been provided. They are called subjectoriented resultatives (SORs). See (2).
(2)

a.

Robin danced out of the room.

b.

The wise men followed the star out of Bethlehem.

(ibid.: 782)
(Wechsler 1997: 313)

However, Rothstein (2004) argues from a semantic viewpoint that the PPs in the SORs are locative expressions, and that they are not resultative constructions. I argue from a syntactic point of view that SORs do
not have the same properties as the object-oriented resultatives (OORs), sand that they should be treated as
motion verb constructions, suggesting that DOR should be maintained independently.
Diﬀerences between Object-Oriented Resultatives and Subject-Oriented Resultatives
OORs and SORs have diﬀerent properties. First, OORs cannot appear in the sentence-initial position, but
SORs can, as shown in (3) and (4).
(3)
(4)

a.

John painted the wall red.

b.

* Red John painted the wall.

a.

Out of the room Robin danced.

b.

Out of Bethlehem the wise men followed the star.

Second, more than one resultative predicate cannot be used in the same clause, but SORs allow two PPs in
one clause, as shown in (5) and (6).
(5)

a.

Mary washed the clothes clean.

b.

Mary washed the clothes white.

c.
(6)* Mary washed the clothes clean white.

a.

Robin danced out of the room into another room.

b.

The wise men followed the star out of Bethlehem into another town.

Third, SORs can be used in the locative inversion construction, but the OORs cannot, as shown in (7) and
(8).
(7)
(8)

Out of the room danced Robin.
a.

The lake froze solid.

b.

* Solid froze the lake.

Fourth, the resultative predicates in OORs are limited to bounded ones, but the PPs in SORs are not restricted to bounded ones, as illustrated in (9) and (10).
(9)

a.

Tom wiped the table clean.

b.

* Tom wiped the table beautiful.

(10)

a.

The wise men followed the star out of Bethlehem in one hour.

b.

The wise men followed the star toward Bethlehem for one hour.

From the examples above, it is reasonable to conclude from syntactic and semantic perspectives that the
SORs do not have the same properties as the OORs.
Similarities between Motion Verb Constructions and Subject-Oriented Resultatives
This section presents the syntactic properties of the motion verb construction, and I argue that SORs havethe same property as the motion verb constructions.
First, the PPs of motion verb constructions can be positioned sentence-initially, as shown in (11).
(11)

a.

The balloon floated in the cave.

b.

In the cave the balloon floated.

Second, more than one locative expression is allowed in one clause. See (12).
(12)

The balloon floated out of the town into another village.

Third, the telicity changes in accordance with the PPs, as shown in (13).
(13)

a.

The balloon floated in the cave *in / for minutes.

b.

The balloon floated into the cave in / *for ten minutes.

Fourth, the motion verb construction can be employed in the locative inversion construction. Observe (14).
(14)

a.

In the cave floated the balloon.

b.

Into the cave floated the balloon.

As we have observed in the previous section, SORs have these properties. Thus, I conclude that the SORs
should be treated as an instance of the motion verb constructions. Therefore, the DOR should be maintained.
Conclusion
In this paper, I have argued that SORs are not real resultative constructions from syntactic and semantic
perspectives, suggesting that the DOR of resultative constructions should be maintained. Another diﬀerence
between OORs and SORs is whether the resultee DP serves to measure out the event of the sentence. In
OORs, the resultee DP delimits the event, but that of SORs does not. Witness (15) and (16).
(15)
(16)

a.

John painted the wall red in / *for ten minutes.

b.

John painted walls red *in / for ten minutes.

a.

The wise men followed the star out of Bethlehem in / for two hours.

b.

Wise men followed the star out of Bethlehem in / for two hours.

Rapparpot and Levin (2001) propose that a DP must be assigned a “Force-recipient” thematic role in order
to be predicated of by a resultative predicate, whether it is an OOR or SOR. Thus, the resultee DPs of
OORs and SORs should show the same semantic behavior, contrary to the fact, as shown in (15) and (16).
Therefore, the properties of the constructions cannot be captured under their analysis.
References
Rappaport, Malka Hovav and Beth Levin (2001) “An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives,”
Language 77, 766-797.
Rothstein, Susan (2004) Structuring Events, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Wechsler, Stephen (1997) “Resultative predicates and control,” Proceedings of the 1997 Texas Linguistics
Society Conference, 307-321, Texas Linguistic Forum 38, Austin, University of Texas.

Two Types of External Causes
Masaki Yasuhara
Teikyo University
It has been observed that the causative alternation is possible with verbs denoting change of statethat can come about without an external cause (or an agent) (e.g. Levin and Rappaport (1995),
Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou and Schäfer (2015)).
(1) a.
John broke the vase.
b.
The vase broke.
(2) a.
John cut the carrot.
b. * The carrot cut.
The event of the vase breaking does not necessarily specify an external cause, so break allows thecausative alternation. The event of the carrot being cut, on the other hand, necessitates theintervention of an instrument such as a knife, which must be used by an agent, so cut cannot
participate in the causative alternation. In this way, the causative alternation is possible with verbs
that have no causal specification.
Cooking verbs (e.g. bake, cook, and fry) (Levin (1993)), however, seem to be problematic because
they lexically specify a cause but do not forbid the causative alternation.
(3) a.
Jennifer baked the potatoes.
b.
The potatoes baked.
(Levin (1993:243))
Bake, for example, entails the use of an oven or heat. Note that cut and bake resist the denial of using
any instrument, as in (4).
(4) a. # John cut the carrot without using any instrument.
b. # John baked the potatoes without using any instrument.
This fact indicates that they lexically specify the existence of an external cause.
Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou and Schäfer (2015) give a syntactic analysis of the causative
alternation. They argue that roots specifying an external cause require Voice and an externalargument (i.e. (5a)) whereas those that do not specify it can occur without them (i.e. (5b)).
(5) a. Causative structureb. Anti-causative structure
Voice P
vP
vP
Voice
v
√P
v
√P
They argue that the causative alternation is possible when the roots have no specification of an
external cause (or agentivity).
This paper aims to account for the availability of the causative alternation of cooking verbs. I
propose that external causes can be divided into two types, those associated with Voice (hereafter,
Voice-causes) and those relating to v (hereafter, v-causes). Voice- and v-causes are both lexical
meanings specified by roots. They are only different with respect to the functional heads they require.
The verb cut (and other cutting verbs such as carve and slash) lexicalizes a Voice-cause and cooking
verbs entail v-causes.

This dichotomy is supported by the different types of modifiers that indicate external causes.
Voice-causes can be instantiated by instrumental with-phrases such as with a knife in John cut the
carrot with a knife. v-causes can be exemplified by instrumental locative phrases (cf. Levin (1979))
such as in the oven in John baked the potatoes in the oven. Notice that instrumental with-phrases are
only compatible with causative verbs, as in (6), whereas instrumental locative phrases go along withboth causative and anti-causative verbs, as in (7).
(6) a.
John broke the vase with a hammer.
b. * The vase broke with a hammer.
(7) a.
John baked the potatoes in the oven.
b.
My mother can fry up chicken in a pan, but my pop won't eat it until it has baked in theoven for another hour. (Maryam Wade, Chickasaw, underline is mine)
The unacceptability of (6b) indicates that instrumental with-phrases require Voice. The acceptabilityof (7b) suggests that the instrumental locative phrases are associated with v and therefore they canoccur in both causative and anti-causative structures.
The verb cut lexically specifies Voice-causes, as exemplified by the with-phrase with a knife,
which requires Voice, so it cannot permit the anti-causative variant. Cooking verbs, on the other
hand, only lexicalize v-causes, as exemplified by the locative phrase in the oven, which does notneed Voice, so they permit the anti-causative variants.
The distinction between Voice- and v-causes can be attributed to the encyclopedic information of
the causes specified by roots. Voice-causes (e.g. a knife in cut) must be directly controlled by anagent whereas v-causes (e.g. an oven in bake) can act on the object autonomously. In fact, the eventof cutting the carrot cannot happen if the agent is away, as in (8a), whereas the event of baking thepotatoes can occur even if the agent is away, as in (8b).
(8)(Situation: there was nobody in the kitchen except John.)a. # John went to the supermarket while the carrot was being cut.
b.
John went to the supermarket while the potato was being baked.
Consequently, Voice-causes are closely associated with Voice, which is the locus of agentivity,
whereas v-causes are not.
To sum up, this paper showed that there are two types of external causes. Although it has been
observed that the presence of an external cause is sensitive to the unavailability of the causative
alternation, this observation only holds of Voice-causes. Verbs specifying v-causes permit thecausative alternation.
References
Alexiadou, A. E. Anagnostopoulou and F. Schäfer (2015) External arguments in transitivity
alternations: a layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, B. (1979) “Instrumental with and the Control Relation in English” A.I. Memo No. 522.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Levin, B. (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B, and M. Rappaport Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Locality in Phonological Operation
Yusuke Yoda (Toyo Gakuen University)
Synopsis: The aims of this paper are to provide (i) an account for condition of sequential voicing within thetheory of Distributed Morphology, and moreover, (ii) a piece of evidence that head-head locality yields a
special phonological operation.
Sequential Voicing: One restriction of sv is known as Lyman’s Law (cf. Otsu 1980, Ito and Mester 1986a.o.). This effect is regarded as a phonological effect as in (1). Moreover, syntacosemantic condition isobserved: If the compounded items obtain contrastive interpretation (2)a, sv is blocked, while (2)b with aregular interpretation undergoes sv. This shows that there are not only phonological but also syntacosemantic
motivations for the sv. Furthermore, sv applies only when a potential sv segment is in a right branch
constituent at the lowest level as in (3).
Issue: Japanese has productive RED processes. For instance, in (4)a,d RED denotes emphasis, while in (4)b, c
RED denotes plurality. However, the superficially same RED process produces two distinct out-puts; sv
sensitive RED and sv insensitive RED. This has been argued as a result of specification of vocabulary origin,yet the mechanism has remained unaccounted for.
Assumption: I assume the theory of DM and the phase based locality (Embick 2010, Bobaljik 2012).
Moreover, according to Bobaljik and Harley (to appear), a phonological shape might be determined by astructural relation between two items (cf. Hiaki participant supplitive.) Thus, here I assume head-head relation
construed via the incorporation triggers [voi] feature assignment.
Analysis: The syntacosemantic motivation is further supported by contrastive cases illustrated in (5). Here, I
assume the [ XP [& YP] ] (Hiraiwa and Chino 2014, Yoda 2013) structure for (5), since the interpretation of
the compound is equivalent to “siro {to/ka} kuro”, where two items are coordinated by a coordinator “to” or“ka” (&). Following Yoda (2015), conjunctions must be phases, and thus a conjunct cannot undergo sv since
the vocabulary is specified when the items spell-out. Now let us look at the structure of sv-sensitive dvandva
compounds. Following Sato (2010), Tornton (2015), I assume the [#P [n/vP …] ] structure and event/participant
plurality is specified by #0. Adopting the structure, examples in (4)b,c which involve plural events orparticipants are illustrated as in (6)a, and, following Harley (2005), the √change/flower incorporates into #,and then yielded structure is something like (6)b. Targeting the (6)b, VI takes place, and due to the head-sister
relation, the exponent of RED undergoes sv. Now, let us turn to the case in (4)a. It involves emphasis, which is
specified by Δ, and its structure is something like (7). Thus, the same mechanisms as (6) implement the sv onthe √ and the sv on RED is yielded.
Mimetics Special Cases?: First, Japanese has two types of dvandva mimetic compounds as in (8). (Here theUpper-case letters indicate accented items and Q stands for a geminated special mora.) Ones like (8)a does
not allow multiple occurrence of RED, while ones like (8)b allow multiple occurrence of RED (as indicated bya bracket.) The crucial point is that mimetic dvandva compounds never undergo sv. A reason for (8)a not toundergo sv is provided by Nasu (2001) and he claims that its accent pattern is same as Sino-Japanese, such as“ZEni-kane” (money-money), and thus, it is excluded from the target of sv. However, (8)b, where Q carries
either plurality or emphasis, has not accounted for yet. Now, I assume the current proposed structure as in(6)a and (7)a, and (8)b has the structure like (9) and the RED in the spec. #/ΔP cannot undergo incorporation,

since the Δ-position is occupied by a special mora, “Q”. In this case, multiple occurrences of copies of √ROOT
are realization of RED in the spec. of #0/Δ0., which must agree agree with #0/Δ0 due to satisfy the multiple
spec.s (Rezac 2002). In this case, the red in the spec can incorporate into neither √0 nor #0/Δ0 positions, sinceneither type of movement satisfy ECP nor locality condition. As a result, in (9), the RED in the spec is not able
to establish head-head relation and cannot induce sv on the second item in the compound.

(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)

[DATA]
a. oo + kata → oo-{*k/g}ata
b. oo + kaze → oo-{k/*g} aze.
large type“large size”
large wind“big wind”
a. o+ hire → o-{h/*b}ire
b. o+ hire → o-{*h/b}ire(Kubozono 1995)
caudal-fin fin caudal.and.tail.fin
caudal fin
caudal.fin
nise – tanuki –siru “fake-raccoon-soup”
a. [[nise-{*t/d} anuki]- {*s/z}iru]
b. [nise- [{t/*d}anuki-{*s/j}iru]]“soup of a fake raccoon”“fake soup of a raccoon”
a. “kuro” kuro-guro b. “kawar-u” kawaru-gawaru c. “hana” hana-bana d. “koro” koro-koro-Q
black “(lit) more black”

change “change (rep)”flower “flower (pl)manner of roll “roll”(5) a. [&P [PH(ase) siro] [& [PH kuro]]➠ siro-{k/*g}uro(cf. siro-{to/ka} {k/*g}uro)
white
black
“white and black”
white-{∧/∨} black0(6) a. [#P [√P √change/√flower ] # [PL] = RED]b. [#P t [√P [ …t…] √change/√flower +RED ]|____________↑
RED ➠ {*k/g}awaru/{*h/b}ana
0(7) a. [ΔP [√P √kuro] Δ [EM] = RED]b. [ΔP [√P … t …] √kuro + RED]
VI ➠ {*k/g}uro(8) a. KOro-koro-{to}b. koRO (-KORO-KORO-KORO…)-KORO-Q-{to}“roll” (manner)-C“roll” (manner)
-Q -C
|
↓
(9) [Δ/#P RED [√P √koro ] #[PL]/Δ0[EM] = Q]|__*__________ ↑➠ {k/*g}oro[References]
Bobalik, Jonathan David and Heidi Harley (2013) Suppletion is local. /Bobaljik Jonathan David (2012). Universals in
Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlative, and the Structure of Words /Chino Yukiko and Ken Hiriwa (2014)
Coordination and head parameter./Embick, David (2010) Localism versus Globalism in Morphology andPhonology/Harley, Heidi (2008) How do verbs get their name? Denominal verbs, Manner incorporation and theontology of verb roots in English /Ito, Junko and Armin Mester (1986) The phonology of voicing in Japanese.
theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility/ Nasu, Akio (2001) Nihongo onomatope-no gokeisei-to
inritsukozoo./Otsu Yukio. (1980) Some aspect in rendaku in Japanese and related problems./Rezac, Milan (2002)
NP-movement in Icelandic and Multiple Specifier Construction./Sato, Yosuke (2010) Minimalist Interfaces: Evidence
from Indonesian and Javanese./ Toronton, Abigail (2015) If Verbal Number is Lo-Low…/Yoda, Yusuke (2013) The
structure of &P and contextual allomorphy. /Yoda, Yusuke (2015) Phasal or phrasal coordination –from the evidenceof suspended affixation