Draft (2009/Feb.)
To appear in Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18, CSLI Publications, Stanford,
CA.

Argument Ellipsis in Japanese Right
Dislocation*
KENSUKE TAKITA
Nanzan University/University of Connecticut/JSPS

1. Introduction
Despite its strict head-final character, Japanese has a construction wheresome phrase appears in the postverbal position, which is called Japanese
Right Dislocation (henceforth JRD). As shown in (1), both subjects and objects can appear postverbally, and there is a corresponding gap in the preverbal position.1 (1c) schematizes the structure of JRD.

*This paper is a short version of Takita (in prep). I would like to thank Jun Abe, Masahiko
Aihara, Jean Crawford, Marcel den Dikken, Chisato Fuji, Keiko Murasugi, Koichi Otaki, Peter
Sells, Serkan Şener, Seichi Sugawa, Koji Sugisaki, Masahiko Takahashi, and especially Mamoru Saito for their valuable comments, judgments, and discussions. I also thank the participants of 18th J/K Conference for their helpful feedback. All errors are mine. Part of this work
is supported by the Research Fellowship of the JSPS for Young Scientists (#20-6511).
1JRD sentences are often found in colloquial speech. The particle -yo is attached to verbs tomake the sentences more colloquial. Throughout this paper, postverbal phrases are underlined,and ∆ is used to indicate a gap without any theoretical commitments. Adjuncts can also appear
postverbally (see Kuno 1978, Inoue 1978, Simon 1989, and Soshi and Hagiwara 2004, among
others). However, I focus on JRD with arguments in this paper, leaving more detailed analysis
of JRD with adjuncts for future research.

1

(1) a. ∆i

Ano hon-oyonda-yo,that book-ACC read-PRT‘(lit.) ∆i read that book, Tarooi’

Taroo-gaiTaroo-NOM

b. Taroo-ga ∆i yonda-yo, ano hon-oi
Taroo-NOM
read-PRT that book-ACC‘(lit.) Taroo read ∆i, that booki’c. […∆i … V], XPi
Previous approaches to JRD can be roughly classified into at least fourtypes, as schematically summarized in (2).
(2) a. Rightward movement approach[ZP [YP … ti … V], XPi]b. Double preposing approach[ZP XPi [YP … ti … V]][WP [YP … ti … V] j [ZP XPi tj]]c. Repetition + deletion approach[YP … proi … V], [ZP XPi [YP … ti …]]
d. Base-generation approach[ZP [YP … proi … V], XPi]
Under the rightward movement approach in (2a) (see, e.g. Haraguchi 1973,
Simon 1989, and Murayama 1999), the XP is directly moved to the sentence-final position. The double preposing approach in (2b) (Kurogi 2007;see also Abe 1999 for a discussion) claims that the XP undergoes leftward
movement, and then the YP undergoes remnant movement. The repetition +deletion approach in (2c) (see, e.g. Kuno 1978, Abe 1999, Tanaka 2001,
and Yamashita 2008; see also Kayne 1994, Endo 1996, and Whitman 2000
for slightly different implementations) assumes two near-identical clauses.
Then, the XP is moved leftward within the second clause, and the rest of itgets deleted. Finally, under the base-generation approach in (2d) (see. e.g.
Sells 1999 and Soshi and Hagiwara 2004), the XP is base-generated in thesentence-final position, and it is related to pro in the preverbal position.
Although these approaches differ in various ways, I focus on the following two aspects, which become relevant in the later discussions. First, noticethat under the rightward movement and the double preposing approach, thegap in the preverbal position is claimed to be a trace of movement, while itis analyzed as pro under the repetition + deletion and the base-generation
approach. Second, under the repetition + deletion approach, JRD consists of
two clauses, while under the others, there is only one clause per sentence.

2

In this paper, I first point out that JRD with Negative Polarity Items
formed with the suffix -sika (henceforth -sika NPIs) and JRD with quantifiers pose a problem to these previous approaches, and then I propose a solution. Section 2 points out the fact that the gaps of JRD with -sika NPIs andwith quantifiers behave unlike either traces or pros, which is unexpectedunder the previous approaches. Section 3 proposes that some instances of
the gap in JRD are created via ellipsis. To substantiate this proposal, I claim,
adapting the repetition + deletion approach, that they are created by an ellipsis process called Argument Ellipsis (see, e.g. Oku 1998, Kim 1999, Saito
2004, 2007a, 2007b, Takahashi 2008, and Takita 2008a, b), which is introduced there. In Section 4 I provide a piece of evidence in favor of the proposed analysis. Specifically, I point out that there are striking correlations
between JRD and Argument Ellipsis with respect to the behavior of whphrases. Section 5 summarizes this paper with a brief discussion of some
implications.

2. The Problem for the Previous Approaches
To see the problem mentioned above, let us first consider the examples in(3). Tanaka (2001) observes that the gap in JRD can be realized as a fullfledged phrase or as an overt pronoun, as in (3a). This is called the “gapless” JRD, and has been taken to support the repetition + deletion approach.
(3) a. Taroo-ga {√LGB-o /√sore-o/√∆}i yonda-yo,
read-PRT
Taroo-NOM LGB-ACC it-ACC‘(lit.) Taroo read {LGB/it/∆}i, LGBi’

LGB-oiLGB-ACC

b. LGB-oi
Taroo-ga {*LGB-o /*sore-o/√∆}i yonda-yo
LGB-ACC Taroo-NOM LGB-ACC it-ACC
read-PRT‘(lit.) LGBi, Taroo read {LGB/it/∆}’Unlike the gapless JRD, such “resumption” within a single clause is not possible for leftward movement in Japanese, no matter how displacement isanalyzed (see, e.g. Saito 1985), as in (3b). Hence, the gapless JRD poses a
problem to the approaches other than the repetition + deletion approach,since they posit only one clause for the representation of a single JRD sentence. On the other hand, under the repetition + deletion approach, nothingprohibits pro in the first clause from being replaced by a full-fledged phrase
or an overt pronoun, since JRD is analyzed to consist of two clauses.
Bearing this in mind, let us consider JRD with -sika NPIs and withquantifiers. The examples in (4) illustrate some basic properties of -sika

3

NPIs.2(4) a. Taroo-ga LGB-o
Taroo-NOM LGB-ACC

yonda
read

‘Taroo read LGB’b. Taroo-ga LGB-sika yom-ana-katta
Taroo-NOM LGB-SIKA read-NEG-PAST‘Taroo read only LGB’c. Taroo-ga LGB-o
Taroo-NOM LGB-ACC‘Taroo didn’t read LGB’

yom-ana-katta
read-NEG-PAST(4a) is the baseline, and in (4b) the object is turned into an NPI by the suffix-sika. As an NPI, negation is required. Note that (4b) is truth-conditionally
incompatible with (4c), which contains only negation. That is, (4b) entails(4a), while (4c) contradicts (4a).
Then, let us consider the examples in (5). As shown in (5a), Kuno
(1978) points out that -sika NPIs can appear in JRD (see also Murayama
1999 for more examples). (5b) is the crucial example, which, to my knowledge, has been rarely discussed in the previous literature.
(5) a. Taroo-ga ∆i yom-ana-katta-yo,
Taroo-NOM
read-NEG-PAST-PRT‘(lit.) Taroo read ∆i, only LGBi’

LGB-sikai
LGB-SIKA

b. Taroo-ga {√LGB-sika/*sore-o}i yom-ana-katta-yo, LGB-sikai
Taroo-NOM LGB-SIKA it-ACC read-NEG-PAST-PRT LGB-SIKA‘(lit.) Taroo read {only LGB/it}i, only LGBi’
The examples in (5) indicate that the gap in JRD with -sika NPIs can berealized as a full-fledged phrase, but it cannot as an overt pronoun.
As shown in (6), JRD with quantifiers exhibits the same pattern.3(6) Taroo-ga {√nanika-o/*sore-o/√∆}i yonda-yo,
Taroo-NOM something-ACC it-ACC
read-PRT‘(lit.) Taroo read {something/it/∆}i, somethingi’nanika-oi
something-ACC

That is, the gap may be realized as a full-fledged quantifier, but not as an
overt pronoun.
The pattern observed in (5) and (6) is schematically summarized as (7).
(7) [… {√{NPI/quantifier}/*pronoun/√∆}i … V], {NPI/quantifier}i

2See Muraki 1978, Takahashi 1990, Aoyagi and Ishii 1994, Kato 1994, Tanaka 1997, andSaito 2005 for detailed discussions of -sika NPIs.
3Attributing it to Haraguchi (1973), Abe (1999) observes that indefinite nouns behave in asimilar way.

4

As in the case of the gapless JRD discussed above, the possibility of fullfledged phrases in the preverbal position is problematic for the rightward
movement and the double preposing approach, since the gap is nothing but a
trace under these approaches. Meanwhile, the impossibility of pronouns inthat position causes a trouble for the repetition + deletion and the basegeneration approach, since the gap in question is pro under these approaches.
In the next section, I argue that the problem can be solved once we admit thepossibility of creating the gaps via ellipsis.

3. Proposal
I propose that some instances of the gaps in JRD are derived by Argument
Ellipsis, which directly elides an argument of a predicate under identity with
an appropriate antecedent. First, I illustrate how this proposal explains thepattern in (7) in Section 3.1, and then, I provide some independent motivations of the crucial operation, i.e. Argument Ellipsis, in Section 3.2.
3.1. How does the proposal work?
To implement the proposal, I adapt the repetition + deletion approach. 4Then, JRD with -sika NPIs or with quantifiers is derived in the manner depicted in (8) (the order of the steps in (8b-c) is irrelevant).
(8) a. Underlying structure[Clause1 … NPI/quantifier … V], [Clause2 … NPI/quantifier … V]
b. Argument Ellipsis in the first clause[Clause1 … NPI/quantifier … V], [Clause2 … NPI/quantifier … V]c. Leftward movement followed by deletion in the second clause[Clause1 … NPI/quantifier … V], [Clause2 NPI/quantifieri [… ti … V]]
As shown in (8a), underlyingly we have two identical clauses. This underly4This choice is not without reasons. First, it naturally explains the gapless JRD (cf. (3a)), as
argued by Tanaka (2001). Second, the core of my proposal is the idea that the gap results from
ellipsis, licensed by the identical element in the postverbal position. This implies that we needto have two identical elements. Aoyagi and Ishii (1994), however, observe that single negation
can license only one -sika NPI in a clause, as the ungrammaticality of (i) indicates.
(i) * Taroo-sika LGB-sika yom-ana-katta
Taroo-SIKA LGB-SIKA read-NEG-PAST‘Only Taroo reads only LGB’
Then, to execute my proposal under the approaches other than the repetition + deletion approach, it is necessary to complicate the licensing condition(s) of -sika NPIs. This is because
these approaches posit only one clause, thus only one negation, for a single JRD sentence witha -sika NPI. On the other hand, this complication can be avoided under the repetition + deletion approach, since it allows us to posit two clauses, as in (8a).

5ing structure should be independently allowed to derive the gapless JRDeven under the original repetition + deletion approach. Then, theNPI/quantifier in the first clause undergoes Argument Ellipsis under identitywith that in the second clause, as in (8b).5 This step eventually gives us a
gap in the preverbal position. Finally, as originally proposed by the repetition + deletion approach, the NPI/quantifier in the second clause undergoes
leftward movement, and deletion of the rest of the clause takes place, giving
rise to the desired surface string, as in (8c).6 If Argument Ellipsis has notapplied at the step in (8b), we obtain a JRD sentence which has a fullfledged -sika NPI or quantifier in the preverbal position.
The remaining task, then, is to explain the fact that overt pronouns are
not allowed in the preverbal position in JRD with -sika NPIs and with quantifiers. Suppose that an overt pronoun is put in the first clause, and a -sika
NPI or a quantifier in the second clause, as in (9). The examples in (9) correspond to the underlying structures of the relevant examples.
(9) a. * Taroo-ga sore-oi yom-ana-katta-yo,
Taroo-ga LGB-sikai
Taroo-NOM it-ACC read-NEG-PAST-PRT Taroo-NOM LGB-SIKA
yom-ana-katta-yo
read-NEG-PAST-PRT‘(lit.) Taroo didn’t read iti, Taroo read only LGBi’b.* Taroo-ga sore-oi yonda-yo, Taroo-ga nanika-oi
yonda-yo
Taroo-NOM it-ACC read-PRT Taroo-NOM something-ACC read-PRT‘(lit.) Taroo read iti, Taroo read somethingi’In both examples, the former clause is semantically incompatible with thelatter. This explains why the overt pronouns are not allowed in these cases.
Note that I am not claiming that all the gaps in JRD are necessarily derived by Argument Ellipsis. Overt pronouns should be allowed to appear in
the preverbal position, as long as they do not trigger an incompatibility between the two clauses, as in (3a). The same holds for pros. That is, the gaps
in sentences like (1a-b) and (3a) may be pro, or be derived by Argument
Ellipsis. What is crucial here is that the gap must be a result of Argument
5As far as I can tell, it does not affect the analysis whether Argument Ellipsis should be conceived as LF-copying or as PF-deletion. I indicate ellipsis in terms of PF-deletion just for the
purpose of presentation.
6As shown in (i), -sika NPIs can undergo long-distance scrambling, so it does not have toremain in-situ to be licensed by negation. Thus, we do not have to appeal to some nonconstituent deletion to have a -sika NPI remnant. I would like to thank Marcel den Dikken(p.c.) for pointing out this issue.
(i)
LGB-sikai, Hanako-ga[Taroo-ga
ti yom-ana-katta to] itteita (koto)
LGB-SIKA Hanako-NOM Taroo-NOM
read-NEG-PAST C
said
fact
‘(lit.) (the fact that) only LGBi, Hanako said that Taroo read ti’

6Ellipsis, just in case the presence of pronouns, either overt or null, induces
an incompatibility. -Sika NPIs and quantifiers create such configurations.
3.2. What is Argument Ellipsis?
As shown in the previous subsection, Argument Ellipsis plays a crucial rolein explaining the pattern in (7). Argument Ellipsis is proposed by Oku(1998) and Kim (1999) to account for the observation that null arguments inlanguages like Japanese and Korean allow a sloppy reading (Sag 1976, Williams 1977), which is made by Otani and Whitman (1991) (see Huang 1987
for original observations in Chinese). Let us consider the examples in (10).7(10) Taroo-wa [zibun-no hahaoya]-o sonkeisiteiru
Taroo-TOP self-GEN mother-ACC respect‘Taroo respects his mother’a. Demo, Hanako-wa ∆ sonkeisitei-nai
butHanako-TOP
respect-NEG‘(lit.) But, Hanako doesn’t respect ∆ (= Taroo’s/Hanako’s mother)’b. Demo, Hanako-wa kanozyo-o sonkeisitei-nai
butHanako-TOP her-ACC
respect-NEG‘(lit.) But, Hanako doesn’t respect her (= Taroo’s/*Hanako’s mother)
The reading where Hanako respects her own mother is available for (10a),where the object is missing, while it is not possible for (10b), which has an
overt pronominal argument in the object position. This suggests that themissing object in (10a) cannot be simply pro.
Since the availability of a sloppy reading is a hallmark of ellipsis, it has
been claimed that the null argument in (10b) also results from ellipsis. One
such implementation is the Argument Ellipsis analysis.8 Under this analysis,(10a) is analyzed to have a structure like (11), where the argument is directly elided (English words are used for ease of exposition).
(11) … [TP Hanako [VP [self’s mother] respect] Neg T]
The availability of the sloppy reading naturally follows, since the elided partcontains an anaphor.
Recall that the proposed analysis of JRD crucially presupposes that Argument Ellipsis can target -sika NPIs and quantifiers. First, let us consider
7Following Saito 2007a, I put negation in (10a-b), to avoid the possibility of null indefinite
nouns (cf. Hoji 1998).
8Otani and Whitman (1991) argue that the null object in question results from VP-ellipsis
preceded by V-to-I raising. See Oku 1998, Kim 1999, and Takita 2008b for arguments in favorof the Argument Ellipsis analysis over the VP-ellipsis analysis.

7the following example discussed in Takita 2008b.
(12) a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no riron]-sika sinzitei-nai si, Hanako-mo
Taroo-TOP self-GEN theory-SIKA believe-NEG and Hanako-also{√zibun-no riron-sika /*sore-o/√∆} sinzitei-nai
self-GEN theory-SIKA it-ACC
believe-NEG‘(intended) Taroo believes only his own theory, and Hanako also
believes only her own theory’b. … [TP Hanako-also [VP [self’s theory]-SIKA believe] Neg T](12a) indicates that the intended reading is allowed only when it has a fullfledged -sika NPI or a missing argument. Since an overt pronoun does notsupport the intended reading, the missing object cannot be pro. However,
the availability of the intended reading follows, if Argument Ellipsis cantarget -sika NPIs. This is because what is elided under this analysis is nothing but a -sika NPI, as illustrated in (12b).
As for quantifiers, Takahashi (2008) discusses examples like (13).
(13) a. Taroo-wa [sannin-no sensei]-oTaroo-TOP three-GEN teacher-ACC‘Taroo respects three teachers’

sonkeisiteiru
respectb. Hanako-mo {√sannin-no sensei-o/*karera-o/√∆} sonkeisiteiru
Hanako-also three-GEN teacher-ACC them-ACC respect‘(intended) Hanako also respects three teachers (although they are
different from those respected by Taroo)’c. … [TP Hanako-also [VP [three teachers] respect] T]
Crucially, only (13b) with an overt quantified phrase or a missing argument
allows the intended reading. This suggests that quantifiers are also subject toArgument Ellipsis, as schematically shown in (13c).
To sum up, I argued that the pattern in (7), which is problematic for all
the previous approaches, can be explained by claiming that the gaps in JRD
can be derived by ellipsis. Then, I provided independent motivations for
Argument Ellipsis, which plays a crucial role in the proposed analysis.

4. Evidence for the Proposed Analysis
This section provides a piece of evidence for the proposed analysis of JRD,
which has to do with the behavior of wh-phrases.
Saito (2007b) points out that Argument Ellipsis cannot target just whphrases.9 Let us consider the examples in (14).
9Saito (2007b) attributes this observation to Koji Sugisaki (p.c.).

8

(14) Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga nani-oTaroo-TOP Hanako-NOM what-ACC‘Taroo asked what Hanako bought’katta ka] tazuneta
bought Q asked

a. Ziroo-mo [Yooko-ga {√nani-o/*sore-o/*∆} katta ka] tazuneta
Ziroo-also Yooko-NOM what-ACC it-ACC
bought Q asked‘(intended) Ziroo also asked what Yooko bought’b. Ziroo-mo ∆ tazuneta
Ziroo-also
asked‘(intended) Ziroo also asked what Yooko bought’
Unlike the cases of -sika NPIs and quantifiers, the intended reading is impossible for sentences with a missing argument or with an overt pronoun, as
shown in (14a). On the other hand, the intended reading becomes available
if the whole embedded interrogative clause is elided, as in (14b).10
Then, it is predicated that JRD with just wh-phrases is not possible,
since there is no way to derive the gap in the preverbal domain, while JRD
with an embedded clause which contains a wh-phrase is possible. For theformer case, Kuno (1978) observes that wh-phrases cannot appear in the
postverbal position. The relevant examples are given in (15).11(15)a. * Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga ∆i katta ka] tazuneta-yo, nani-oi
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM
bought Q asked-PRT what-ACC‘(lit.) Taroo asked Hanako bought ∆i, whati’b.* Hanako-wa ∆i katta no, nani-oi?
Hanako-TOPbought Q what-ACC‘(lit.) Hanako bought ∆i, whati?’
As for the latter case, the grammaticality of the example in (16) indicatesthat the predication is borne out.
10Saito (2004) shows that sentential arguments are subject to Argument Ellipsis, based on
examples like (i).
(i)
Taroo-wa [zibun-ga kasioi to] sinziteiru si,
Hanako-mo ∆ sinziteiru
Taroo-TOP self-NOM smart C
believeand Hanako-also
believe‘(lit) Taroo believes he is smart, and Hanako also believes ∆ (= Taroo/Hanako is smart)’
The availability of the sloppy reading ensures that ellipsis is involved.
11It has been noticed at least since Kuno 1978 that JRD does not obey the Right Roof Constraint, which prohibits rightward movement from crossing a clausal boundary (cf. Ross 1967).
If the wh-phrase in (15a) is replaced by a non wh-phrase, the sentence becomes grammatical:(i)Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga ∆ikattaka] tazuneta-yo, LGB-oi
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM
bought Q
asked-PRT
LGB-ACC‘(lit.) Taroo asked Hanako bought ∆i, LGBi’Hence, the ungrammaticality of (15a) has nothing to do with the constraint.

9

(16) Taroo-wa ∆i tazuneta-yo, [Hanako-ga nani-okatta ka]i
asked-PRT Hanako-NOM what-ACC bought Q
Taroo-TOP‘(lit.) Taroo asked ∆i, [what Hanako bought]i’The proposed analysis makes a further prediction. If the source of ungrammaticality of the examples in (15) is the illicit application of Argument
Ellipsis to wh-phrases, the sentences should improve by not applying Argument Ellipsis. This prediction is borne out, as shown in (17).
(17) a. ? Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga nani-oi
katta ka] tazuneta-yo, nani-oi
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM what-ACC bought Q asked-PRT what-ACC‘(lit.) Taroo asked Hanako bought whati, whati’b. Hanako-wa nani-oi
katta no, nani-oi?
Hanako-TOP what-ACC bought Q what-ACC‘(lit.) Hanako bought whati, whati?’
Although I do not have any solid answer for the question why wh-phrases
resist Argument Ellipsis, it is these correlations between Argument Ellipsis
and JRD regarding wh-phrases that support the proposed analysis.

5. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, I first pointed out that the behavior of the gaps in Japanese
Right Dislocation (JRD) with -sika NPIs and with quantifiers poses a problem to all the previous approaches to JRD. To solve this problem, I proposed that some instances of the gaps are derived by an independently motivated ellipsis process, Argument Ellipsis. Then, I provided a piece of evidence for the proposed analysis, by showing striking correlations between
Argument Ellipsis and JRD with respect to the behavior of wh-phrases.
Finally, I briefly discuss some implications. First, the connection between JRD and Argument Ellipsis established by the proposed analysis enables us to contribute the study of Argument Ellipsis through that of JRD. In
other words, JRD provides a novel empirical test ground for proposals regarding Argument Ellipsis. This is quite interesting since these two domains
have been studied separately, and explored by Takita (in prep.) in detail.
Second, given Sugisaki’s (2008) finding that Japanese-speaking children
have adult-like knowledge of JRD from the very early stage, it is interesting
to check how JRD with -sika NPIs and with quantifiers behave in child
Japanese. Specifically, together with Sugisaki’s (2007) finding that Japanese-speaking children have the knowledge of Argument Ellipsis from theearliest observable stage (but see Otaki 2008 for discussion), our analysis
predicts a correlation between Argument Ellipsis and JRD with respect to sika NPIs and quantifiers in child Japanese. I leave these issues for future
research.

10References
Abe, J. 1999. On Directionality of Movement: A Case of Japanese Right Dislocation.
Ms. Nagoya University.
Aoyagi, H. and T. Ishii. 1994. On NPI Licensing in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4, 295-311.
Endo, Y. 1996. Right Dislocation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29: 1-20.
Haraguchi, S. 1973. Remarks on Right Dislocation in Japanese. Ms., MIT.
Hoji, H. 1998. Null Objects and Sloppy Identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29:
127-152.
Huang, C.-T. J. 1987. Remarks on Empty Categories in Chinese. Linguistic inquiry
18: 321-337.
Inoue, K. 1978. Nihongo-no Bunpoo-kisoku [Grammatical Rules of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Kato, Y. 1994. Negative Polarity and Movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
24: 101-120.
Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kim, S.-W. 1999. Sloppy/strict Identity, Empty objects, and NP Ellipsis. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 8: 255-284.
Kuno, S. 1978. Danwa-no Bunpoo [Grammar of Discourse]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Kurogi, A. 2007. Nihongo Uhooteni-bun no Sahoo-idoo Bunseki [A Leftward
Movement Analysis of Japanese Right Dislocation]. Doctoral dissertation, Tohoku
University.
Muraki, M. 1978. The Sika Nai Construction and Predicate Restructuring. In Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, ed. J. Hinds and I. Howard, 155-177. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Murayama, K. 1999. An Argument for Japanese Right Dislocation as a Featuredriven Movement. Gengokagakukenkyu 5: 45-62.
Oku, S. 1998. A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Program.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
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.
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. 2004. Ellipsis and Pronominal Reference in Japanese Clefts. Nanzan Linguistics 1: 21-50.

11

Saito, M. 2005. Further Notes on the Interpretation of Scrambling Chains. In The
Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity, ed. J. Sabel
and M. Saito, 335-376. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saito, M. 2007a. Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis. Language Research 43:
203-227.
Saito, M. 2007b. Argument Ellipsis and (the Absence of) Agreement. Paper presented at GLOW in Asia VI, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, December
2007.
Sells, P. 1999. Postposing in Japanese. Ms., Stanford University.
Simon, E. 1989. An Analysis of Postposing Construction in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan.
Soshi, T. and H. Hagiwara. 2004. Asymmetry in Linguistic Dependency: Linguistic
and Psychophysiological Studies of Japanese Right Dislocation. English Linguistics 21: 409-453.
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. H. Caunt-Nulton, S. Kulatilake, and IH. Woo, 597-608. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Sugisaki, K. 2008 Early Acquisition of Basic Word Order in Japanese. Language
Acquisition 15: 183-191.
Takahashi, D. 1990. Negative Polarity, Phrase Structure, and the ECP. English Linguistics 7: 129-146.
Takahashi, D. 2008. Quantificational Null Objects and Argument Ellipsis. Linguistic
Inquiry 39: 307-326.
Takita, K. 2008a. Remarks on the Proper Binding Condition Effects on Overt andCovert Merge. Ms., Nanzan University.
Takita, K. 2008b. An Argument for Argument Ellipsis from -Sika NPIs. Paper presented at NELS 39, Cornell University, November 2008.
Takita, K. in prep. Japanese Right Dislocation Conceals Argument Ellipsis, Japanese
Right Dislocation Conceals Argument Ellipsis. Ms., Nanzan University.
Tanaka, H. 1997. Invisible Movement in Sika-Nai and the Linear Crossing Constraint. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 143-188.
Tanaka, H. 2001. Right-Dislocation as Scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551579.
Whitman, J. 2000. Right Dislocation in English and Japanese. In Syntactic andFunctional Explorations in Honor of Susumu Kuno, ed. K., Takami, A. Kamio,
and J. Whitman, 445-470. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers
Williams, E. 1977. Discourse and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101-139.
Yamashita, H. 2008. More than One, but at Most Two Thematic -wa in Japanese: An
Argument for the Bi-sentential Analysis of Right Dislocation. Paper presented at
The 18th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, CUNY, November 2008.

12