Draft (Feb. 2009)
To appear in The Proceedings of NELS 39

An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs*

Kensuke Takita
Nanzan University/University of Connecticut/JSPS

1.

Introduction

Japanese is among the languages that allow null arguments. Thus, both subjects andobjects can be null, as shown in (1).1(1)∆i kooen-de ∆j mikaketa to] itta
Tarooi-wa Hanakoj-ni [kinoo
Taroo-TOP Hanako-DAT yesterdaypark-insaw
C said‘(lit.) Tarooi said to Hanakoj that [∆i (= he) saw ∆j (= her) in the park yesterday]’

Since Kuroda 1965, these null arguments have been analyzed as pro, which is thephonologically null counterpart of pronouns.
It has been noticed that there are some cases where this pro analysis does notseem to work, however. The examples in (2), discussed in Otani and Whitman 1991,
illustrate one such case (see also Huang 1987 for similar observations in Chinese).
(2)

a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no hahaoya]-o sonkeisiteiru
Taroo-TOP self-GEN mother-ACC respect‘Taroo respects his mother’b. Hanako-mo ∆ sonkeisiteiru
Hanako-also respect‘(lit.) Hanako also respects ∆ (= Taroo’s mother/Hanako’s mother)’c. Hanako-mo kanozyo-o sonkeisiteiru
Hanako-also her-ACC
respect‘Hanako also respects her (= Taroo’s mother/*Hanako’s mother)’*I thank Hiroshi Aoyagi, Johnny H.-T. Cheng, Chisato Fuji, C.-T. James Huang, Jungmin Kang,
Keiko Murasugi, Koichi Otaki, Junko Shimoyama, William Snyder, Seichi Sugawa, Koji Sugisaki, Daiko
Takahashi, Masahiko Takahashi, Lyn Tieu, Hideaki Yamashita, and especially Mamoru Saito for theirvaluable comments and discussions. All errors are mine. Part of this work is supported by the Research
Fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Young Scientists (#20-6511).
1
Throughout this paper, I use the symbol ∆ to indicate a null element theory-neutrally.
1

Kensuke Takita(2a) sets up the context for (2b-c). The example in (2b) is ambiguous, allowing themissing object to refer to either Taroo’s mother or Hanako’s mother. The former reading
is called the strict reading, and the latter the sloppy reading (cf. Sag 1976, Williams 1977).
On the other hand, the example in (2c), where the overt pronoun appears in the object
position, is unambiguous; the sloppy reading is not possible. This suggests that it is not
likely that the null element in (2b) is pro, given that pro is the phonologically nullcounterpart of overt pronouns.
To accommodate this observation, several types of analyses have been proposedin the literature. This paper provides support for a particular type of analysis, based on anovel observation regarding the behavior of Negative Polarity Items formed with thesuffix -sika (henceforth -sika NPIs). Specifically, I show that -sika NPIs can be null when
they qualify as arguments, while they cannot be null when they are construed as adjuncts.
I also argue that the Argument Ellipsis analysis proposed by Oku (1998) and Kim (1999)(see also Saito 2004, 2007, and Takahashi 2007, 2008) naturally capture the observation,
while the VP-ellipsis analysis proposed by Otani and Whitman (1991) and the nullindefinite analysis advocated by Hoji (1998) have difficulties accounting for it.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly reviews the previous
analyses. In addition to introducing some relevant properties of -sika NPIs, Section 3
provides the novel observation concerning -sika NPIs. In Section 4 I argue that theArgument Ellipsis analysis is empirically superior to the others. Section 5 concludes thepaper.
2.

Previous Analyses of the Basic Data

This section reviews the previous analyses by illustrating how they account for the basic
data exemplified by (2). I start with Otani and Whitman’s (1991) VP-ellipsis analysis. Let
us first consider the English VP-ellipsis example in (3a), where the second clause has theschematic structure in (3b) (hereafter, elided parts are indicated by strike-through).2(3)

a. John respects his mother, and Mary does ∆, too
b. …, and [TP Subj T [VP V Obj]]The fact that (3a) allows both the strict and sloppy readings suggests that the sloppy
reading results from ellipsis.
Adopting Huang’s (1987) analysis of similar examples in Chinese, Otani and
Whitman (1991) propose that (2b) has the schematic structure in (4), where VP-ellipsis ispreceded by V-to-T raising.
(4)[TP Hanako-also [VP [self’s mother] tV] V+T]
2

Although I indicate ellipsis in terms of PF-deletion for ease of exposition, it can be easilytranslated into a framework that adopts LF-copying, without affecting the main arguments of this paper.
2

An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs
Due to V-to-T raising, VP-ellipsis elides only the object, deriving the surface string in(2b). Moreover, the availability of the sloppy reading naturally follows, since ellipsis is
involved in (4), just as in (3b).
The Argument Ellipsis analysis proposed by Oku (1998) and Kim (1999) issimilar to the VP-ellipsis analysis in that it invokes ellipsis. However, under this analysis
what is elided is not VP but an argument of the predicate.3 Thus, (2b) is analyzed ashaving a structure like (5) under the Argument Ellipsis analysis, where the object isdirectly elided.4(5)[TP Hanako-also [VP [self’s mother] V] T]

Since ellipsis is involved, the availability of the sloppy reading also follows.5
Let us turn to the null indefinite analysis proposed by Hoji (1998). Under thisanalysis, Japanese is claimed to have a null indefinite noun (cf. Ishii 1991). Thus, (2b) isanalyzed to have a structure like (6) (ecindef stands for the null indefinite).6(6)[TP Hanako-also [VP ecindef V] T]

Notice that unlike the other analyses discussed above, ellipsis is not involved in thisanalysis. Why then is the sloppy reading available for (2b)?
Hoji (1998) explicitly denies that (2b) has the sloppy reading. According to thisanalysis, the relevant reading is possible because it is compatible with the situation
described by a sentence like (7), which has the overt indefinite noun hahaoya ‘mother’ as
its object.
(7)

Hanako-mo hahaoya-o sonkeisiteiru
Hanako-also mother-ACC respect‘Hanako also respects a mother’That is, the reading where Hanako respects her own mother is available for (2b) because
it can be inferred from (7).
3Although Oku (1998) and Kim (1999) call the ellipsis process NP-ellipsis, I use the term
Argument Ellipsis, following Saito (2004). One of the reasons behind this choice is to stress that being anargument is a crucial factor for an element to be subject to this ellipsis process (see Section 4.2 for thispoint).
4
Unlike the VP-ellipsis analysis, the Argument Ellipsis analysis does not directly bear on the issueof whether V raises to T. Throughout this paper I use the structure where a verb remains in-situ if V-to-T
raising is not an issue in order to avoid unnecessary complications.
5
Although space limitations prohibit me from going into detail, Tomioka (2003) and Moriyama
and Whitman (2004) suggest that the null arguments in question result from NP-ellipsis (traditionally called
N’-ellipsis; see Jackendoff 1971, Lobeck 1990, and Saito and Murasugi 1990, among many others). I leave
for future research the comparison of their analyses with the Argument Ellipsis analysis.
6
As far as the materials discussed in this paper are concerned, V-to-T raising is not an issue forthe null indefinite analysis. Hence, I use the structure where V remains in-situ.
3Kensuke Takita
So far, all the previous analyses can account for the basic data in some way or
another. In the next section, I provide a crucial observation regarding -sika NPIs, whichhelps us to decide which analysis is empirically superior to the others.
3.
3.1.

Observation
Properties of -Sika NPIs

Since the crucial observation provided in this section has to do with -sika NPIs, I begin
by illustrating some of their relevant properties.7 Let us consider the examples in (8).
(8)

a. Taroo-ga
ringo-otabetaTaroo-NOM apple-ACC ate‘Taroo ate apples’
b. Taroo-ga
ringo-sika tabe-na-katta
Taroo-NOM apple-SIKA eat-NEG-PAST‘Taroo ate only apples’c. Taroo-ga
ringo-otabe-na-katta
Taroo-NOM apple-ACC eat-NEG-PAST‘Taroo didn’t eat apples’(8a) is the baseline example. In (8b), the object ringo ‘apple’ is turned into an NPI by thesuffix -sika (henceforth -sika NPIs are underlined). Consequently, the negation isrequired ((8b) is ungrammatical if the negation is missing). Taken together with thenegation, X-sika means ‘only X’. One property that becomes crucial in the later
discussion can be seen by comparing (8b) with (8c), which contains the negation but not
the -sika NPI. Although both of them have negation, (8b) is truth-conditionally
incompatible with (8c); (8b) entails (8a) whereas (8c) contradicts (8a).8
Let us consider the examples in (9). (9a) is repeated from (8b). As observed by
Aoyagi and Ishii (1994), a -sika NPI may co-occur with another NP which is associatedwith it, as shown in (9b) (hereafter the associated NPs are boxed).
(9)a. Taroo-ga ringo-sika tabe-na-katta
Taroo-no apple-sika eat-neg-past‘Taroo ate only apples’
b. Taroo-ga
ringo-sika kudamono-o tabe-na-katta
Taroo-nom apple-sika fruits-acc
eat-neg-past‘Among fruits, Taroo ate only apples’
7See, for instance, Muraki 1978, Takahashi 1990, Aoyagi and Ishii 1994, Kato 1994, Tanaka 1997,
and Saito 2005 for detailed discussion of other properties of -sika NPIs. The examples I provide mainlycontain object -sika NPIs, but subject -sika NPIs basically behave in the same way.
Although I cannot go into detail due to space limitations, the suffix -pakkey in Korean seems toshare some basic properties with -sika but has a slightly different distribution. I thank Hiroshi Aoyagi (p.c.)
and Jungmin Kang (p.c.) for discussion.
8
In this respect, -sika NPIs are different from the ‘any-’type NPIs in Japanese, which are formedby combining indeterminate nouns such as dare ‘who’ and nani ‘what’ with the particle -mo.
4

An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs
In addition to the linear order exemplified by (9b), all of the following linear
orderings between a subject, a -sika NPI, and its associated NP are possible, keeping theposition of the verb constant (glosses and translations are omitted):
(10)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Taroo-ga
Kudamono-o
Kudamono-o
Ringo-sika
Ringo-sika

kudamono-o
Taroo-garingo-sika
Taroo-gakudamono-oringo-sika
ringo-sika
Taroo-gakudamono-o
Taroo-gatabe-na-kattatabe-na-kattatabe-na-kattatabe-na-kattatabe-na-katta

This indicates that the linear ordering of a -sika NPI and its associated NP is quite free.
Note that they can even be separated by other constituents such as a subject, as in (10b)and (10d), suggesting that they do not form a constituent at least at surface structure.9
Finally, I assume that the -sika NPIs in sentences like (9a), which do not have anassociated NP, are arguments but those in sentences like (9b), which do have anassociated NP, are adjuncts. Accordingly, I refer to the former as argumental -sika NPIs,
and the latter as adverbial -sika NPIs. In the rest of this subsection, I provide someevidence for this assumption.10
One standard diagnostic that distinguishes arguments from adjuncts is thepossibility of long-distance scrambling. That is, adjuncts, unlike arguments, resist longdistance scrambling. Thus, (11a) does not have the intended reading where the sentenceinitial adverb yukkurito ‘slowly’ modifies the embedded verb.
(11)

a. *Yukkuritoi Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga
booru-o ti nageta to] itta
slowlyHanako-NOM Taroo-NOM ball-ACC
threw C said‘(lit.) Slowlyi, Hanako said [that Taroo ti threw a ball]’b. Yukkurito-sikai Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga booru-o ti nage-na-katta to] itta
slowly-SIKA
Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM ball-ACC throw-NEG-PAST C said‘(lit.) Only slowlyi, Hanako said [that Taroo ti threw a ball]’

Sugisaki (2000), however, observes one interesting exception. As shown in (11b), if an
adjunct is turned into a -sika NPI and the negation appears in the lower clause, it canundergo long-distance scrambling. That is, the argument/adjunct asymmetry with respect
to long-distance scrambling seems to break down when it comes to -sika NPIs.
There is a way to avoid this interfering factor, however. First, compare (12a) with(12b) below. In both cases, the negation appears in the matrix clause. If the -sika NPI
remains within the embedded clause as in (12a), the sentence is ungrammatical. This
9

In this respect, the relation of a -sika NPI and its associated NP is similar to that of a floating
quantifier and its host NP. As far as the materials discussed in this paper are concerned, it is irrelevant tothe analysis whether a -sika NPI and its associated NP form a constituent in the course of the derivation.
Hence, I leave this open.
10
I thank an anonymous reviewer of NELS 39 for raising this issue, and Hiroshi Aoyagi (p.c.) andMasahiko Takahashi (p.c.) for detailed discussion on this matter.
5

Kensuke Takita
indicates that -sika NPIs obey a certain kind of clause-mate condition. The
grammaticality of (12b), then, suggests that long-distance scrambling provides a way tocircumvent a violation of the clause-mate condition (cf. Tanaka 1997 and Saito 2005).
(12)

a. *Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga
ringo-sika tabeta to] iw-ana-katta
C say-NEG-PAST
Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM apple-SIKA ate‘Hanako said [that Taroo ate only apples]’b. Ringo-sikai Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga
ti tabeta to] iw-ana-katta
C say-NEG-PAST
apple-SIKA Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM ate‘(lit.) Only applesi, Hanako said [that Taroo ate ti]’c. *Yuukurito-sikai Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga booru-o ti nageta to] iw-ana-katta
slowly-SIKA
Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM ball-ACC threw C say-NEG-PAST‘(lit.) Only slowlyi, Hanako said [that Taroo ti threw the ball]’On the other hand, the ungrammaticality of (12c) indicates that long-distance scramblingof adjunct -sika NPIs cannot prevent a violation of the clause-mate condition. That is,unlike (11b), (12c) does not have the intended reading.11
Let us now compare (13a), which is repeated from (12b), with its adverbial -sika
NPI counterpart in (13b).
(13)a. Ringo-sikai Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga
ti tabeta to] iw-ana-katta
apple-SIKA Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM
ate
C say-NEG-PAST‘(lit.) Only applesi, Hanako said [that Taroo ate ti]’b. * Ringo-sikai Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga ti kudamono-o tabeta to] iw-ana-katta
apple-SIKA Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM fruits-ACC ate
C say-NEG-PAST‘(lit.) Among fruits, only applesi, Hanako said [that Taroo ate ti]’(13b) patterns with (12c), indicating that the -sika NPI in (13b) behaves as an adjunct.
The contrast between (13a) and (13b) in turn suggests that the -sika NPI in (13a), namely
the argumental -sika NPI, qualifies as an argument.12
3.2.

Crucial Observation

This subsection provides a crucial observation regarding -sika NPIs. Let us start with theexamples in (14), which involve the argumental -sika NPIs.
11

Bošković and Takahashi (1998) observe that wh-adjuncts behave in a similar way.
I thank Junko Shimoyama (p.c.) for pointing out the possibility that the -sika NPI in (13a) isbase-generated in the matrix clause, so that (13a) has a meaning such as the following: Hanako said
something only about apples, and what she said is that Taroo ate them. As in (i), however, the anaphor
contained within the -sika NPI can be bound by the subject of the embedded clause. This suggests that the sika NPI is indeed scrambled from the embedded clause.
12(i)[Zibuni/j-no ringo-sika]k Hanakoi-ga [Tarooj-ga tk tabeta to] iw-ana-katta
self-GEN
apple-SIKA Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM
ateC
say-NEG-PAST‘(lit.) Only self’s applesi, Hanako said [that Taroo ate ti]’

6

An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs
(14)

a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no tukutta ringo]-sika tabe-na-katta
apple-SIKA eat-NEG-PAST
Taroo-TOP self-GEN grew
‘Taroo ate only the apples that he had grown’
b. Hanako-mo ∆ tabe-na-katta
Hanako-also
eat-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Hanako also ate only the apples that she had grown’(14a) sets up the context for (14b), in which the object is missing. The fact that (14b)allows the intended NPI reading indicates that the argumental -sika NPI can be null.
Let us now consider the adverbial -sika NPI counterpart of (14). The relevant
examples are given in (15).
(15)

a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no tukutta ringo]-sika kudamono-o tabe-na-katta
Taroo-TOP self-GEN grew
apple-SIKA fruits-ACC
eat-NEG-PAST‘Among fruits, Taroo ate only the apples that he had grown.’b. * Hanako-mo ∆ kudamono-o tabe-na-katta
Hanako-also
fruits-ACC
eat- NEG-PAST‘(intended) Among fruits, Hanako also ate only the apples that she had grown’

Unlike (14b), (15b) does not allow the intended reading. The same pattern is observed
even though different associated NPs are used to avoid the awkwardness of repetition, as
shown in (16) below.
(16)

a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no tukutta mono]-sika yasai-otabe-na-katta
Taroo-TOP self-GEN grewthing-SIKA vegetables-ACC eat-NEG-PAST‘Among vegetables, Taroo ate only the things that he had grown.’b. * Hanako-mo ∆ kudamono-o tabe-na-katta
Hanako-also
fruits-ACC
eat-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Among fruits, Hanako also ate only the things that she had grown’

The impossibility of the intended NPI reading for (15b) and (16b) indicates that adverbial-sika NPIs cannot be null, unlike their argumental -sika NPI counterparts.
To sum up, I first introduced the following properties of -sika NPIs: (i) sentenceswith -sika NPIs are truth-conditionally incompatible with those that have negation but nota -sika NPI; (ii) the relative linear order of a -sika NPI and its associated NP is quite free;(iii) a -sika NPI behaves like an argument if there is no associated NP, but it behaves likean adjunct if its associated NP is present. I then provided the crucial observation thatargumental -sika NPIs can be null but adverbial ones cannot.
4.

Discussion

In this section, I argue that the crucial observation made in the previous section provides
support for the Argument Ellipsis analysis. In Section 4.1, I focus on the fact that7

Kensuke Takita
argumental -sika NPIs can be null. I illustrate that the null indefinite analysis does notwork at least for this case, while the VP-ellipsis analysis and the Argument Ellipsis
analysis can accommodate the facts, confirming Saito’s (2007) argument against the nullindefinite analysis. Section 4.2 turns to the fact that adverbial -sika NPIs cannot be null toshow that the Argument Ellipsis analysis is superior to the VP-ellipsis analysis. Morespecifically, I argue that this helps us to complete Kim’s (1999) argument against the VPellipsis analysis, and that the argument/adjunct asymmetry favors the Argument Ellipsis
analysis over the VP-ellipsis analysis, as discussed by Oku (1998) and Saito (2007).
4.1.

Ellipsis or Null Indefinite?

This subsection focuses on the fact that argumental -sika NPIs can be null. The crucial
examples in (14) are repeated as (17).
(17)

a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no tukutta ringo]-sika tabe-na-katta
apple-SIKA eat-NEG-PAST
Taroo-TOP self-GEN grew
‘Taroo ate only the apples that he had grown’
b. Hanako-mo ∆ tabe-na-katta
Hanako-also
eat-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Hanako also ate only the apples that she had grown’

What is important for our purposes is that (17b) allows the intended NPI reading.
Let us first consider the structure in (18), which the null indefinite analysis would
assign to (17b). If the null indefinite in (18) is replaced by an overt indefinite noun, asentence such as (19) results.
(18)
(19)

… [TP Hanako-also [VP ecindef V] Neg T]
Hanako-mo ringo-otabe-na-katta
Hanako-also apple-ACC eat-NEG-PAST‘Hanako also didn’t eat apples’

Crucially, however, the relevant reading available for (17b) cannot be inferred from (19),due to the peculiar semantic property of -sika NPIs. (cf. (8)). That is, the intended reading
obtained in (17b) is truth-conditionally incompatible with the reading available for (19).
Suppose that the range of possible interpretations of the null indefinite is extended
so as to include the data in (17). It then becomes mysterious as to why (20) lacks theintended NPI reading.
(20)

Context: Taroo didn’t eat anything but the apples that he had grown.
Speaker: #Taroo-wa ∆ tabe-na-katta
Taroo-TOP
eat-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Taroo ate only the apples that he had grown’

8An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs
Hence, we can safely conclude that the null indefinite analysis is not adequate, at least in
the case of argumental -sika NPIs.
This argument confirms Saito’s (2007) argument against the null indefinite
analysis. His argument is based on examples like (21).
(21)

a. Sensei-wa subeta-no itinenseii-ni
zibuni-no booru-o keraseta
first.grader-DAT self-GEN ball-ACC made.kickteacher-TOP all-GEN‘The teacher let all the first-graders kick their own balls’
b. Demo, ninensei-ni-wa∆ kerase-na-katta
but
second.graders-DAT-TOP
made.kick-NEG-PAST‘(lit.) But, she/he didn’t let the second-graders kick ∆’c. Demo, ninensei-ni-wa
booru-o kerase-na-katta
but
second.graders-DAT-TOP ball-ACC made.kick-NEG-PAST‘But, she/he didn’t let the second graders kick balls’(21a) sets up the context for both (21b) and (21c). Both (21b) and (21c) contain negation,but (21b) has a null object whereas (21c) has the overt indefinite noun booru ‘ball’ as its
object. If the null object in (21b) is the null counterpart of the overt indefinite noun in(21c), these two sentences should have the same interpretation. However, this is not thecase: Suppose that there are two second-graders, John and Bill. Although (21b) is true inthe situation where John kicked Bill’s ball and Bill kicked John’s ball, (21c) is false inthis situation. This leads Saito (2007) to conclude that the null indefinite analysis cannot
deal with these cases. Note here that (21b) with the sloppy reading and (21c) are nottruth-conditionally incompatible. In the case of -sika NPI, however, (17b) with the sloppy
reading and (19) are indeed truth-conditionally incompatible. In this sense, our argument
strengthens Saito’s (2007) conclusion.
On the other hand, the VP-ellipsis analysis and the Argument Ellipsis analysis
straightforwardly accommodate the data in (17), assigning the following structures to(17b):(22)

a. … [TP Hanako-also [VP [self’s grew apples]-SIKA tV] V+Neg+T]
b. … [TP Hanako-also [VP [self’s grew apples]-SIKA V] Neg T]

In (22a) the VP that contains the sika NPI is elided, and in (22b) the sika NPI itself, being
an argument (see Section 3.2.), is elided. Hence, the availability of the intended reading
naturally follows. Moreover, it also follows that (20) lacks the intended NPI reading.
Given that ellipsis is surface anaphora in the sense of Hankamer and Sag 1976, ellipsis is
not licensed in (20) since it lacks a linguistic antecedent.
Summarizing so far, I illustrated that the null indefinite analysis has difficulties inaccounting for the facts regarding argumental -sika NPIs, while the VP-ellipsis analysis
and the Argument Ellipsis analysis do not. I also argued that the discussion strengthens
Saito’s (2007) argument against the null indefinite analysis.
9Kensuke Takita

4.2.

What is Elided, VP or an Argument?

Turning to the observation regarding adverbial -sika NPIs, this subsection argues that theArgument Ellipsis analysis is empirically superior to the VP-ellipsis analysis. Before
discussing the relevant facts, I introduce one of the strong arguments against the VPellipsis analysis of Kim (1999). His argument has to do with part-whole constructions in
Korean, exemplified by (23a).13(23)

a. Mike-nun James-lul tali-lul ketecha-ss-ta
Mike-TOP James-ACC leg-ACC kich-PAST-IND‘Mike kicked James on the leg’b. [TP Subj [VP whole-NP part-NP V] T](Kim 1999:258)

As schematically shown in (23b), a whole-NP precedes a part-NP in this construction.
Let us then consider the examples in (24) below.
(24)

a. Jerry-nun [caki-uy ai]-lul
phal-ulttayli-ess-ta
Jerry-TOP self-GEN child-ACC arm-ACC hit-PAST-IND‘Jerry hit his child on the arm’b. Kulena Sally-nun ∆ tali-lul ttayli-ess-ta
leg-ACC hit-PAST-IND
but
Sally-TOP‘(lit.) But Sally hit ∆ (= Jerry’s child/Sally’s child) on the leg’(Kim 1999:259)(24a) has the anaphor caki ‘self’ within the whole-NP, and it sets up the context for (24b).
(24b) allows the sloppy reading in which the missing whole-NP refers to Sally’s own
child. That is, the sloppy reading is possible for sentences with missing whole-NPs.
Given the structure in (23b) for the relevant construction, (24b) would beanalyzed as having a structure like (25) under the VP-ellipsis analysis.
(25)… [TP Sally [part-NP leg]i [VP [whole-NP self’s child] ti tV] V+T]

In order to derive the required surface string, the whole-NP must stay within the VP.
Moreover, the part-NP must move out of the VP, crossing the whole-NP. The
ungrammaticality of (26) below suggests that a part-NP cannot be moved across a wholeNP, however.

13

See, for instance, Yoon 1989 and Maling and Kim 1992 for detailed discussions of the partwhole construction in Korean. It is not completely impossible to replicate Kim’s (1999) argument using
Japanese examples, but the result is obscured by the double-o constraint (cf. Harada 1973), which, roughly
speaking, blocks a single predicate having more than one instance of Accusative marked NPs. I thankWilliam Snyder (p.c.) for raising this issue.
10

An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs
(26) *Kulena Sally-nun tali-luli [caki-uy ai]-lul
ti ttayli-ess-ta
hit-PAST-IND
but
Sally-TOP leg-ACC self-GEN child-ACC‘but Sally hit her child on the leg’(Kim 1999:259)
Hence, the VP-ellipsis analysis fails to capture the availability of the sloppy reading insentences such as (24b).
On the other hand, (24b) has the structure depicted in (27) under the Argument
Ellipsis analysis.
(27)… [TP Sally [VP [whole-NP self’s child] [part-NP leg] V] T]

Since Argument Ellipsis directly targets the whole-NP, which is an argument of the verb,
the part-NP does not have to move across it. Therefore, the availability of the sloppy
reading is readily captured.
Bearing this argument in mind, let us return to the Japanese adverbial -sika NPI
case. The crucial examples in (16) are repeated below as (28). Recall that (28b) does notallow the intended interpretation. Under the VP-ellipsis analysis, (28b) would beanalyzed as having a structure like (29), where the associated NP and the verb have been
moved out of the VP.
(28)

(29)

a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no tukutta mono]-sika yasai-otabe-na-katta
Taroo-TOP self-GEN grewthing-SIKA vegetables-ACC eat-NEG-PAST‘Among vegetables, Taroo ate only the things that he had grown.’b. * Hanako-mo ∆ kudamono-o tabe-na-katta
Hanako-also
fruits-ACC
eat-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Among fruits, Hanako also ate only the things that she had grown’… [TP Hanako vegetables i [VP [self’s grew thing]-SIKA ti tV] V+T]

As discussed in Section 4.1, ellipsis of a VP that contains a -sika NPI should be possible(cf. (22)). Recall here that the relative linear order of a -sika NPI and its associated NP isquite free (cf. (9b) and (10)). Hence, the structure in (29) should be legitimate. Thus, theVP-ellipsis analysis predicts that (28b) is grammatical with the intended reading, contrary
to fact.
The examples given in (30) illustrate this point even more clearly.
(30)

(31)

a. Yasai-o i
Taroo-wa [zibun-no tukutta mono]-sika ti tabe-na-katta
vegetables-ACC Taroo-TOP self-GEN grewthing-SIKA
eat-NEG-PAST‘Among vegetables, Taroo ate only the thing that he had grown’b. * Kudamono-o Hanako-mo ∆tabe-na-katta
fruits-ACC
Hanako-also
eat-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Among fruits, Hanako also ate only the things that she had grown’… [TP vegetables i Hanako [VP [self’s grew thing]-SIKA ti tV] V+T]

11

Kensuke Takita

In (30), the associated NPs are presumably moved out of the VP. Nevertheless, (30b)lacks the intended reading. This indicates that the structure in (31), which the VP-ellipsis
analysis would assign to (30b), is not available. Taken together with Kim’s (1999)
argument, the VP-ellipsis analysis undergenerates in the case of the part-wholeconstructions in Korean, and it overgenerates in the case of the adverbial -sika NPIs in
Japanese.
On the other hand, the Argument Ellipsis analysis can capture the impossibility of
the intended readings for (28b) and (30b). Let us first consider the examples given in (32),
discussed by Oku (1998) and Saito (2007).
(32)

a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no sippai]-de
kaisya-okubininatta
Taroo-TOP self-GEN mistake-for company-ACC was.fired‘Taroo was fired from the company because of his mistakes’
b. * Hanako-mo ∆ zimusyo-o kubininatta
Hanako-also
office-ACC was.fired‘(intended) Hanako was also fired from the office because of her mistakes’

In (32a), the anaphor is contained in the adjunct. The fact that (32b) lacks the intendedsloppy reading suggests that adjuncts cannot be null.
The fact that arguments can be null as in (2) but adjuncts cannot be null as in (32)suggests that it is necessary for the required ellipsis process to be sensitive to theargument/adjunct distinction. VP-ellipsis is blind to such a distinction since it targets the
VP without looking into it, while Argument Ellipsis meets this requirement by definition.
Recall at this point that adverbial -sika NPIs are adjuncts, as discussed in Section 3.1.
Hence, it follows that (28b) and (30b) lack the intended reading, just as the relevant
reading is not available for (32b). Our observation that adverbial -sika NPIs cannot benull thus provides further support for the Argument Ellipsis analysis.
Summarizing so far, I illustrated that in the case of the part-whole constructions in
Korean, ellipsis is possible, despite the restricted word order, while in the case ofadverbial -sika NPIs in Japanese, ellipsis is not possible, despite the free word order. In
this way, Kim’s argument against the VP-ellipsis analysis is completed. I also argued thatthe required ellipsis process must be sensitive to the argument/adjunct distinction, andthat our observation regarding adverbial -sika NPIs further confirms this distinction,
supporting the Argument Ellipsis analysis.
5.

Concluding Remarks

In this paper, I first provided a novel observation concerning the null argument
phenomena in Japanese. In particular, I showed that the Negative Polarity Items formed
with the suffix -sika can be null if they count as arguments, while they cannot be null ifthey are adjuncts. Based on this observation, I illustrated that the Argument Ellipsis
analysis is empirically superior to the VP-ellipsis analysis and the null indefinite analysis.
12

An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs

Finally, I point out here some implications of this paper. One of the interesting
research topics regarding Argument Ellipsis is its cross-linguistic distribution. As
discussed by Takahashi (2007), it is controversial whether null arguments in languages
other than Japanese, for instance, Chinese, Basque, and Mongolian, are also derived by
Argument Ellipsis. Since the properties of -sika NPIs sharply distinguish the Argument
Ellipsis analysis from the others, if we can find elements similar to -sika NPIs in thoselanguages, they should help us to solve the controversy. In a similar vein, recent works by
Sugisaki (2007) and Otaki (2008) examine whether Japanese-speaking children haveknowledge of Argument Ellipsis from the earliest observable stages. -Sika NPIs should
provide a more accurate tool for these attempts.

References
Aoyagi, H. and T. Ishii. 1994. On NPI licensing in Japanese. Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 4:295-311.
Bošković, Ž. and D. Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry
29:347-366
Hankamer, J. and I. Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7:391-426.
Harada, S.-I. 1973. Counter Equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin 7, 113-147. The ResearchInstitute of Logopedics and Phoniatirics, University of Tokyo.
Hoji, H. 1998. Null objects and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29:127152.
Huang, C.-T. J. 1987. Remarks on empty categories in Chinese. Linguistic inquiry
18:321-337.
Ishii, Y. 1991. Operators and empty categories in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Jackendoff, R. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2:21-36.
Kato, Y. 1994. Negative polarity and movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24,
101-120.
Kim, S.-W. 1999. Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP Ellipsis. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 8:255-284.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Lobeck, A. 1990. Functional heads as proper governors. The Proceedings of North East
Linguistic Society 20, 348-362. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Maling, J. and S.-W. Kim. 1992. Case assignment in the inalienable possession
construction in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1:37-68.
Moriyama, Y. and J. Whitman. 2004. Null objects in Japanese revisited. Paper presented
at a linguistics colloquium at Nanzan University, September 2004.
Muraki, M. 1978. The sika nai construction and predicate restructuring. In Problems inJapanese Syntax and Semantics, ed. by J. Hinds and I. Howard, 155-177.
Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Oku, S. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the Minimalist Program.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
13

Kensuke Takita
Otaki, K. 2008. The null object construction and the availability of the sloppy identity
interpretation in child Japanese. Ms., University of Connecticut.
Otani, K. and J. Whitman. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22:345-358.
Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Saito, M. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Saito, M. 2004. Ellipsis and pronominal reference in Japanese clefts. Nanzan Linguistics
1, 21-50. Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University, Nagoya.
Saito, M. 2005. Further notes on the interpretation of scrambling chains. In The free word
order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and diversity, ed. by J. Sabel and M.
Saito, 335-376. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Saito, M. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43, 203-227.
Seoul National University.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi. 1990. N’-deletion in Japanese: A preliminary study.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1:285-301.
Sugisaki, K. 2000. Scrambling of adjuncts and last resort. Japanese/Korean Linguistics
9:379-389.
Sugisaki, K. 2007. The configurationality parameter in the Minimalist Program: A view
from child Japanese. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University
Conference on Language Development, ed. by H. Caunt-Nulton, S. Kulatilake,
and I-H. Woo, 597-608. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA.
Takahashi, D. 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP. English Linguistics
7:129-146.
Takahashi, D. 2007. Argument ellipsis from a cross-linguistic perspective: An interim
report. Paper presented at GLOW in Asia VI, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
December 2007.
Takahashi, D. 2008. Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis. Linguistic
Inquiry 39:307-326.
Tanaka, H. 1997. Invisible movement in sika-nai and the Linear Crossing Constraint.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6:143-188.
Tomioka, S. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic
implications. In The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed.
by K. Schwabe and S. Winkler, 321-339. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Williams, E. 1977. Discourse and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101-139.
Yoon, J. H.-S. 1989. The grammar of inalienable possession construction in Korean,
Mandarin and French, in Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III, ed. by S.
Kuno et al., 357-368. Hanshin Publishing Company, Seoul.
Graduate School of Humanities
Nanzan University
18 Yamazato-cho, Showa-ku
Nagoya 466-8673
JAPAN
k.takita4strings@gmail.com

14