snippets
Issue 19

July 2009

Contents
1. Bridget Copley and Heidi Harley. Futurates, directors and have-causatives.
2 Xuan Di. Predicate types in relative clauses and complementizer deletion.
3. Aviad Eilam. Evidence for covert syntax in complement coercion.
4. Nancy Hedberg and Richard C. DeArmond. On complements and adjuncts.
5. Ken Hiraiwa. Kakarimusubi in Okinawan and its microparametric implications.
6. Karine Megerdoomian. Telicity inPersian complex predicates.
7. Andrea Moro. Rethinking symmetry: a note on labeling and the EPP.
8. Lucia Pozzan and Giuliano Bocci. Here there is an ambiguity: two readings for the sequence
here/there-P in Italian.
9. Emilio Servidio. A puzzle on auxiliary omission and focalization in English: evidence forcartography.

5.
Ken Hiraiwa – University of Victoria
Kakarimusubi in Okinawan and its microparametric implications
hiraiwa@uvic.ca

1. Predictions
Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002) propose that in Japanese, cleft constructions,nominalized in-situ focus constructions (what they call "no da" in-situ focus
constructions), and sluicing are all “transformationally” linked. Specifically,nominalized in-situ focus constructions underlie clefts and sluicing. This makes one
theoretical prediction. If a language/dialect close to Japanese lacks nominalized in-situ
focus constructions, it should not allow syntactic cleft constructions. If sluicing isderived from syntactic clefts (Nishiyama et al. 1995), the same language/dialect should
not allow sluicing, either. On the other hand, if sluicing is derived via Wh-movement +TP-deletion (see Ross 1969, Takahashi 1994), it should exist independently of clefts.
2. Okinawan
As is well known, endangered languages spoken in Japan such as theOkinawan language (and related languages) and the Hachijoo jima language, which
split from Japanese more than one thousand years ago, still retain the so-called
Kakarimusubi constructions, which used to be a glowing feature of Old Japanese.
Kakarimusubi is a construction in which a Wh/focus phrase agrees with a particularsentence-final verbal inflection or a particle (see Miyara 2000).
Significantly, Okinawan lacks a counterpart of nominalized in-situ focus
constructions (1) and syntactic cleft constructions (2). (All the data come from myinformant Chie Inamine, native speaker of Naha dialect, to whom I am very grateful.)(1) *[Taraa-ga Naha-nkai ?zya si] yan.
Taraa-Nom Naha-Dat go.Pst Nml Cop'It is that Taraa went TO NAHA.’ (Nominalized in-situ focus)(2) *[Taraa-ga ?zya syee]
Naha-nkai yan.
Taraa-Nom go.Pst Nml.Top Naha-Dat Cop‘It is (to) Naha that Taraa went.’ (Cleft)
Instead, my informant consistently employs Kakarimusubi for focusing (cf. 3).
(3) Taraa-ga Naha-nkai-du ?zya-ru.
Taraa-Nom Naha-Dat-Foc go.Pst-Adn.
‘It is (to) Naha that Taraa went.’ (Kakarimusubi: Focus)

Snippets - Issue 19 – July 2009http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/- 13 -However, Okinawan does allow sluicing constructions, as Miyara (2007) observes(see Kurafuji to appear for truncated questions).
(4) Taraa-ya maagana-nkai ?nzyoo-ru huuzi
yasiga,Taraa-Top somewhere-Dat go.Pst-Adn. appearance but‘I heard that Taraa went somewhere, but ’wannee maa-nkai ga wakaran.
1Sg.Top where-Dat Q know.Neg‘I don’t know where to.’ (Sluicing)
3. Conclusion
It is reasonable to think that the fact that Kakarimusubi is still active in thelanguage has prevented a development of the counterpart of nominalized in-situ focusconstructions. Then Okinawan lends empirical support for a strong syntactic
connection between clefts and nominalized in-situ focus constructions. On the other
hand, it suggests that syntactic sources for sluicing do not have to be clefts or
nominalized in-situ focus constructions, and that a Wh-movement + TP-deletion
analysis is an option permitted by UG even for Okinawan-type Wh -in-situ languages(see Ross 1969, Takahashi 1994 among others).
References
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2002) “Missing links: cleft, sluicing and ‘no da’ construction inJapanese.” In Proceedings of HUMIT 2001. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics #43, ed. T.
Ionin, H. Ko, and A. Nevins. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 35–54.
Kurafuji, T. (to appear) “Clausal pied-piping and cyclicity of ellipsis: evidence from truncatedWh-questions in Okinawan.” In Proceedings of NELS 38. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Miyara, S. (2000) Utinaa-guti kooza. Naha, Okinawa: Okinawa Times.
Miyara, S. (2007) “On the properties of Wh and focus in Okinawan.” In Current Issues in theHistory and Structure of Japanese, ed. Bjarke Frellesvig et al. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers,
187–205.
Nishiyama, K., J. Whitman, and E.-Y. Yi. (1995) “Syntactic movement of overt Wh -phrases inJapanese and Korean”. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 337–351.
Ross, J. R. (1969) “Guess who?” In CLS 5 , 252–286.
Takahashi, D. 1994. “Sluicing in Japanese.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3(3):265–300.

Snippets - Issue 19 – July 2009http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/- 14 -