Draft (July, 2009)
To appear in The Proceedings of CLS 45‘Genuine’ Sluicing in Japanese*
Kensuke Takita
Nanzan University/University of Connecticut/JSPS Research Fellow

1 Introduction
This paper is concerned with the so-called sluicing construction, illustrated by the
English example given in (1a).1(1) a. John bought something, but I don’t know [what ∆]b. … I don’t know [CP whati [TP John bought ti]]As shown in (1b), wh-movement followed by TP-deletion gives rise to thedesirable surface string (see Ross 1969 and Merchant 2001, among many others).
A similar construction is found in Japanese, as in (2).
(2) Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga nanika-okattato] itteita ga,
T.-TopZ.-Nom something-Acc bought that said but
boku-wa [nani-o∆ (da) ka] sir-anai
I.-Topwhat-Acc
Cop Q know-not‘(lit.) Taroo said that Ziroo bought something, but I don’t know [what ∆]’Although (2) is quite similar to (1a), there is an interesting difference between
them; the copula da can appear in (2). Thus, this construction is referred to as thesluicing-like construction (SLC).
There has been some controversy as to how to analyze the SLC. Takahashi(1994) proposes that the SLC has essentially the same structure as the sluicing
construction in English. That is, it results from wh-movement followed by TPdeletion.2 Under this view, the second clause of (2) has a structure like that in (3).
Let us call this view the genuine sluicing analysis of the SLC.
(3) Genuine sluicing analysis of the SLC… boku-wa [CP nani-oi [TP Ziroo-ga ti katta] ka] sir-anai*

I would like to thank Jonathan Bobaljik, Johnny H.-T. Cheng, Kyle Johnson, Corina Goodwin,
Jungmin Kang, Keiko Murasugi, Koichi Otaki, Jong Un Park, William Snyder, Masahiko
Takahashi, Lyn Tieu, Susi Wurmbrand, Barry C.-Y. Yang, Masaya Yoshida, the participants of
LingLunch at the University of Connecticut and CLS 45, and especially Mamoru Saito for theirvaluable comments, judgments, and discussions. All errors are of course mine. Part of this work is
supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow (#20-6511).
1
Sluicing remnants and their correlates are boxed. Deleted parts are indicated by strike-through.
The symbol ∆ is used to indicate a gap without any theoretical commitment.
2
Although Japanese is a wh-in-situ language, Takahashi (1994) assumes that scrambling of whphrases count as wh-movement, following Takahashi (1993).

1

On the other hand, it has been argued that the SLC has a different structure fromsluicing. According to this view, the relevant part of (2) is analyzed either as a
copula construction with a null pronominal subject as in (4a), or as a cleft
construction with ellipsis of the presupposition CP as in (4b) (see Shimoyama
1995, Nishiyama, Whitman & Yi. 1996, Kuwabara 1997, Kizu 1997, 2005, Sakai
2000, Hiraiwa & Ishihara 2002, and Saito 2004, among many others).
(4) Pseudo-sluicing analysis of the SLC
a. ... boku-wa [pro nani-o(da) ka] sir-anai
I-Top
what-Acc Cop Q know-not‘(lit.) … I don’t know [what it is]’b. … boku-wa [[CP Ziroo-ga katta no]-ga nani-o (da) ka] sir-anai
I-Top
Z.-Nom bought C-Nom what-Acc Cop Q know-not‘(lit.) … I don’t know [what it is [that Ziroo bought]]’
Adopting Merchant’s (2001) terminology, let us call this type of analysis thepseudo-sluicing analysis of the SLC.
As will be reviewed in the next section, one of the major sources ofcontroversy is the optional presence of the copula. As far as I can tell, all previous
studies on the SLC in Japanese mentioned above have examined sentences
containing predicates like ‘know’, which take finite clausal complements. These
predicates can also take the copula and cleft constructions as their complements.
Thus, it is far from clear whether Japanese allows genuine sluicing. This state ofaffairs undermines the basis of the theoretical implications of Takahashi’s (1994)
work; evidence for wh-movement and for the functional category that licenses
TP-deletion, namely C0 (Lobeck 1990, Saito & Murasugi 1990) in Japanese,
contra, for instance, Fukui (1986).
Note at this point that the copula and cleft constructions are never allowed ascomplements of control predicates like mayotteiru ‘hesitate’, as shown in (5).3(5) a. Taroo-wa [PRO doko-e ik-oo (*da) ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
T.-Topwhere-to go-Inf Cop Q hesitate
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where to go]’b. * Taroo-wa [(sore-ga) doko-e da ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
T.-Topit-Nom where-to Cop Q hesitate
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where it is]’c. *Taroo-wa [[iku no]-ga doko-e da ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
T.-Topgo C-Nom where-to Cop Q hesitate
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where it is [to go]]’Hence, this kind of predicate allows us to examine whether Japanese has genuine
sluicing without the interference of pseudo-sluicing. The main goal of this paper
3

See Fujii (2006) and references cited therein for the control properties of the clauses whose
predicates have the infinitive marker -(y)oo.

2

is to show that Japanese does indeed have genuine sluicing, based on a novel setof data regarding the SLC with non-finite (namely, control) complements(hereafter SLCNFC). Meanwhile, I also show that the SLC with finite complements(hereafter SLCFC) is best analyzed as pseudo-sluicing, contrasting it with the
SLCNFC. Therefore, our results support Takahashi’s (1994) idea and consequently
its aforementioned theoretical implications from a slightly different angle,
simultaneously maintaining the pseudo-sluicing analysis of the “standard”
examples, that is, of the SLCFC.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a brief background on
the genuine sluicing and pseudo-sluicing analyses. In Section 3, I show that the
SLCNFC exhibits the properties of genuine sluicing, while the SLCFC behaves quite
differently. Section 4 extends the present perspective to Chinese and Korean,
which are also analyzed as having pseudo-sluicing. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2 Background on the SLCFC
Let us start with one of Takahashi’s (1994) arguments for the genuine sluicing
analysis. He observes, as shown in (6), that the SLCFC allows the sloppy reading
given in (6bii) (Ross 1969; see also Sag 1976 and Williams 1977 for VP-ellipsis),in addition to the strict reading given in (6bi).4(6) a. Taroo-wa [zibun-ga doko-de sikarareru ka] sitteiru ga,
T.-Topself-Nom where-at is.scolded Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [where he will be scolded],’b. Hanako-wa [doko-de ∆ (da) ka] sir-anai
H.-Topwhere-at
Cop Q know-not(i) ‘Hanako doesn’t know [where he (= Taroo) will be scolded]’(ii) ‘Hanako doesn’t know [where she (= Hanako) will be scolded]’Since the availability of the sloppy reading is a hallmark of ellipsis/deletion,
Takahashi (1994) argues that (6b) results from wh-movement of doko-de ‘where’
followed by deletion of the TP, which contains the anaphor zibun ‘self’ (cf. (2)).
The genuine sluicing analysis, however, cannot deal with the presence of the
copula, as Takahashi (1994) himself notes. If the alleged TP-deletion did not
apply, (6b) would be like (7), in which the copula da cannot appear.
(7) Hanako-wa [CP doko-de i [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareru] (*da) ka] sir-anai
H.-Topwhere-at self-Nom is.scolded Cop Q know-not
Thus, the copula should be disallowed if (7) is the underlying source of (6b).
Let us now turn to the pseudo-sluicing analysis, which treats the SLCFC as a
4

Merchant (2001) notes that sluicing in English does not easily allow the sloppy reading,contrary to Ross’s (1969) observation. As will be shown in Section 3, the SLCNFC in Japanese,
which I claim to be an instance of genuine sluicing, also allows the sloppy reading. I leave thedifference between English and Japanese for future research.

3

copula construction with a null pronominal subject (cf. (4a)). Suppose that (6a)above is followed by (8), whose embedded clause is a copula construction withthe overt pronominal subject sore ‘it’.
(8) Hanako-wa [sore-ga doko-de (da) ka] sir-anai
H.-Topit-Nom where-at Cop Q know-not‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [where he/*she will be scolded]’
As seen in (8), the copula is optional in this construction. If the overt pronominal
subject sore ‘it’ in (8) is replaced with pro, the surface string of (6b) results. In
this way, the presence of the copula can be accounted for. However, the sloppy
reading is not available for (8), as indicated by the translation. Therefore, theavailability of the sloppy reading fails to be captured if (6b) is derived from (8).
To solve this problem, Saito (2004) proposes a version of the pseudo-sluicing
analysis, arguing that the cleft construction underlies the SLCFC (cf. (4b)).
According to Saito (2004), (6b) would be analyzed as having a structure like (9),whose embedded clause is a cleft construction.
(9) Hanako-wa [[CP zibun-ga sikarareru no]-ga doko-de (da) ka] sir-anai
H.-Topself-Nom is.scolded C-Nom where-at Cop Q know-not‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [where it is [that self will be scolded]]’Note that the copula also appears in the cleft construction, and it is optional. Notefurther that the presupposition CP in the Japanese cleft construction qualifies as a
subject; for instance, it can be marked by the nominative Case marker -ga, as in(9). Then, adopting Oku’s (1998) hypothesis that Japanese allows arguments,
including subjects, to be directly deleted, Saito (2004) argues that the surface
string of the SLCFC derives from deletion of the presupposition CP subject andomission of the copula.5 Thus, this analysis can explain not only the presence ofthe copula but also the availability of the sloppy reading, since it involves deletion.
To sum up, the pseudo-sluicing analysis seems to be promising, as far as the
SLCFC is concerned. However, this state of affairs does not necessarily exclude
the possibility of genuine sluicing in Japanese. In the next section, I examine the
SLCNFC, to determine whether genuine sluicing is available in Japanese.
3 Observations
As we have seen in the previous section, the predicates of the SLCFC
examined in previous studies can take the copula and cleft constructions as theircomplements, as well as the normal interrogative complements. Thus, to see
whether Japanese allows genuine sluicing, it is necessary to find a syntactic
context where the copula and cleft constructions cannot appear. By using thecontrol predicates that select interrogative non-finite complements, we can satisfy
5Space limitations prevent me from reviewing Oku’s (1998) arguments, but see Kim (1999),
Saito (2007), Takahashi (2008), and Takita (to appear) for more evidence for Oku’s hypothesis.

4this requirement, as pointed out in Section 1 (see (5)).
Now, let us consider (10). Note that the first clause has a control complement.
(10) Taroo-wa [PRO dono zyaanaru-ni zibun-no ronbun-o das-ooka]T.-Topwhich journal-to self-Gen paper-Acc submit-Inf Q
kimeta ga, Hanako-wa [dono zyaanaru-ni ∆ (*da) ka] kimekaneteiru
decided but H.-Top
which journal-to
Cop Q cannot.decide‘(intended) Though Taroo decided [to which journal [to submit his
paper]], Hanako cannot decide [to which journal [to submit her paper]]’
Crucially, we can leave only the wh-phrase and the Q-marker in the second clause,and the sloppy reading is available. Furthermore, the copula cannot appear in thisconstruction. This fact already suggests that Japanese does have genuine sluicing.
In the rest of this section, I illustrate that the SLCNFC, instantiated by (10), exhibits
the characteristic properties of genuine sluicing, while the SLCFC exhibits those ofpseudo-sluicing. Based on these observations, I argue that Japanese has thegenuine sluicing as far as the SLCNFC is concerned, whereas the SLCFC
unambiguously has the pseudo-sluicing structure.6
3.1 SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (I): Clause-types
The first property has to do with the types of clauses. We have already seen that
the SLCs are possible with wh-remnants, irrespective of whether the complements
are finite or not. Let us first consider the SLCNFC examples whose remnant is a
non-wh-phrase. (11a) is the antecedent, followed by sentences containing a
yes/no-question complement (= (11b)) and a declarative one (= (11c)).
(11) a. Taroo-wa [PRO LI-ni ronbun-o das-ooto] kimeta ga,
T.-TopLI-to paper-Acc submit-Inf that decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo decided [to submit a paper to LI],’
b. Hanako-wa [NLLT-ni *(ronbun-o das-oo)
kadooka] mayotteiru
H.-Top
NLLT-to paper-Acc submit-Inf whether hesitate‘(lit.) Hanako hesitate [to NLLT whether [to submit a paper]]’c. Hanako-wa [NLLT-ni *(ronbun-o das-oo)to] kimeta
H.-Top
NLLT-to paper-Acc submit-Inf that decided‘(lit.) Hanako decided [to NLLT that [to submit a paper]]’
The ungrammaticality of (11b-c) indicates that the SLCNFC does not allow nonwh-remnants (note that (11b-c) are totally acceptable without ellipsis). Given thatsluicing is compatible only with wh-questions in many languages (Ross 1969; seealso Lobeck 1990 and Saito & Murasugi 1990), this observation suggests that the
SLCNFC does have the genuine sluicing structure.
6

See Takita (in prep.) for more observations in support of this conclusion, which I have notincluded in the present paper for reasons of space.

5

On the other hand, it has been observed that the SLCFC freely allows non-whremnants (see, e.g. Nishiyama et al. 1996). Relevant examples are given in (12).
(12) a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga LI-ni ronbun-o dasitato] itteita ga,
T.-TopZ.-Nom LI-to paper-Acc submitted that said but‘Though Taroo said that Ziroo submitted a paper to LI,’
b. Hanako-wa [NLLT-ni ∆ (da) kadooka] siritakatta
H.-Top
NLLT-toCop whether wanted.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wanted to know [to NLLT whether ∆]’c. Hanako-wa [NLLT-ni ∆ (da) to] itteita
H.-Top
NLLT-toCop that said‘(lit.) Hanako said [to NLLT that ∆]’The grammaticality of (12b-c) follows under the pseudo-sluicing analysis of the
SLCFC, because their cleft counterparts are also grammatical, as in (13).
(13) a. Hanako-wa [[CP Ziroo-ga ronbun-o dasitano]-ga NLLT-ni
H.-TopZ.-Nom paper-Acc submitted C-Nom NLLT-to(da) kadooka] siritakatta(cf. (12b))
Cop whether wanted.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wanted to know [whether it is to NLLT [that Ziroo
submitted a paper]]’b. Hanako-wa [[CP Ziroo-ga ronbun-o dasitano]-ga NLLT-ni
H.-TopZ.-Nom paper-Acc submitted C-Nom NLLT-to(da) to] itteita(cf. (12c))
Cop that said‘(lit.) Hanako said [that it is to NLLT [that Ziroo submitted a paper]]’Thus, the contrast between (11) and (12) supports the claim that the SLCNFC has
the genuine sluicing structure while the SLCFC is an instance of pseudo-sluicing.
3.2 SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (II): Case-marker/postposition drop
The second property concerns the so-called P-stranding generalization (Merchant2001), which roughly states that P-stranding is allowed under sluicing in alanguage iff it allows P-stranding under regular movement. As shown in (14),Japanese disallows Case-markers/postpositions from being stranded.
(14)*NLLTi Hanako-wa ti-ni ronbun-o dasita
NLLT H.-Top-to paper-Acc submitted‘(lit.) NLLTi, Hanako submitted a paper to ti’
We expect the same to hold for sluicing if Japanese in fact has it. This expectation
is fulfilled for the SLCNFC, as shown in (15) below.

6(15) Taroo-wa [PRO dono zyaanaru-ni ronbun-o das-ooka] kimeta ga,
T.-Topwhich journal-to paper-Acc submit-Inf Q decided but
Hanako-wa [dono zyaanaru*(-ni) ∆ ka] kimekaneteiru
H.-Topwhich journal-to
Q cannot.decide‘(lit.) Though Taroo decided [to which journal [to submit a paper]],
Hanako cannot decide [to which journal ∆]’As shown in (16), however, Case-markers/postpositions on the remnants canbe dropped in the SLCFC (see, e.g. Nishiyama et al. 1996, Fukaya & Hoji 1999).
(16) Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga dono zyaanaru-ni ronbun-o dasita ka] sitteiru ga,
T.-TopZ.-Nom which journal-to paper-Acc submitted Q know but
Hanako-wa [dono zyaanaru(-ni) ∆ (da) ka] sir-anai
H.-Topwhich journal-to
Cop Q know-not‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [to which journal [Ziroo submitted a paper]],
Hanako doesn’t know [to which journal ∆]’The pattern in (16) can be easily accommodated under the pseudo-sluicing
analysis of the SLCFC, since Case-markers/postpositions can be dropped from thepivot of the cleft in Japanese (Hoji 1990), as in (17).7(17) Hanako-wa [[CP Ziroo-ga ronbun-o dasitano]-gaH.-TopZ.-Nom paper-Acc submitted C-Nom
dono zyaanaru(-ni) (da) ka] sir-anai
which journal-to
Cop Q know-not‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [to which journal it is [that Ziroo submitted apaper]]’
Hence, the difference between the SLCNFC and the SLCFC regarding P-stranding
provides further support for the claim that the former is an instance of genuine
sluicing, while the latter is a case of pseudo-sluicing.
3.3 SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (III): Island repair
It has been observed that island violations can be repaired in English by sluicing,as exemplified by the contrast between (18a) and (18b) (see Ross 1969, Chung,
Ladusaw & McCloskey 1995, and Merchant 2001, to name a few).
(18) They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but ...
a. *I don’t know which language they want to hire someone who speaks
b. I don’t know which language
7

Hoji (1990) argues that when the pivot of a cleft has a Case-marker/postposition, null operator
movement takes place with in the presupposition CP, while pro appears in the presupposition
when the pivot lacks a Case-marker/postposition. See Murasugi (1991) for further discussion.

7

I show that although island violations cannot be repaired in the SLCFC (see, e.g.
Takahashi 1994 and Nishigauchi 1998), but can indeed be repaired in the SLCNFC.
Let us start with the SLCFC. The relevant examples are given in (19).
(19) a. Taroo-wa [keisatu-ga mazu [NP [RC zibun-no heya-kara nani-oT.-Toppolice-Nom firstself-Gen room-from what-Acc
nusunda] otoko]-o siraberu ka] sitteiru ga,
stole
man-Acc check Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [Q the police will check first [the man[who stole what from his room]]],’
b. * Hanako-wa [nani-o i keisatu-ga mazu [NP [RC zibun-no heya-kara
H.-Topwhat-Acc police-Nom firstself-Gen room-fromti nusunda] otoko]-o siraberu ka] sir-anai
stoleman-Acc check Q know-not‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [whati [the police will check first [theman [who stole ti from self’s room]]]]’c. Hanako-wa [nani-o∆ (da) ka] sir-anai
H.-Topwhat-Acc Cop Q know-not‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [what is x such that the police will
check first [the man [who stole x from his/*her room]]],’
d. Hanako-wa [sore-ga nani-o(da) ka] sir-anai
H.-Topit-Nom what-Acc Cop Q know-not‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [what is x such that the police will
check first [the man [who stole x from his/*her room]]],’(19a) is the antecedent of (19b-d). In (19b) the wh-phrase is extracted from therelative clause, so the sentence is ungrammatical. The crucial example is (19c),
which is an instance of the SLCFC. Note that although the sentence is grammatical,
it does not have the sloppy reading for zibun ‘self’ contained in the relative clauseof the antecedent, as its translation indicates. The only available interpretation for(19c) is the strict reading, on a par with (19d), which has the overt pronominal
subject sore ‘it’. Hence, it is plausible to assume that (19c) with the strict reading
has pro as its embedded subject, so that there is no island violation to begin with.
Then, what is crucial is the absence of the sloppy reading in (19c).
Bearing this observation in mind, let us turn to the SLCNFC. The relevant
examples are given in (20) below.
(20) a. Taroo-wa [PRO mazu [NP [RC zibun-no heya-kara nani-oT.-Topfirst
self-Gen room-from what-Acc
nusunda] otoko]-o sirabe-yoo ka] kimeta ga,
stole
man-Acc check-Inf Q decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo decided [Q to check first [the man [who stole
what from him room]]]’8

b. * Hanako-wa [nani-o i PRO mazu [NP [RC zibun-no heya-kara ti
H.-Topwhat-Acc
firstself-Gen room-fromnusunda] otoko]-o sirabe-yoo ka] kimekaneteiru
stole
man-Acc check-Inf Q cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [whati to check first [the man [who stoleti from self’s room]]]’c. Hanako-wa [nani-o∆ ka] kimekaneteiru
H.-Topwhat-Acc
Q cannot.decide‘(intended) Hanako cannot decide [Q to check first [the man [whostole what from his/her room]]],’(20a) is the antecedent of (20b-c), and the ungrammaticality of (20b) indicatesthat there is an island violation. The crucial example is (20c). Most importantly,(20c) allows the sloppy reading. Recall that the SLCNFC cannot have thecopula/cleft construction as its underlying source. Thus, the fact that (20c) allows
the sloppy reading suggests that (20b) is the only available source of (20c), andisland violations can indeed be repaired in the SLCNFC.8 This observation further
supports our view that the SLCNFC is an instance of genuine sluicing.
Returning to (19c), the absence of the sloppy reading in the SLCFC suggeststhat the construction in question unambiguously has the pseudo-sluicing structure.
If the SLCFC were structurally ambiguous between genuine sluicing and pseudosluicing, it would be unclear why the sloppy reading is not available for the
SLCFC with the genuine sluicing structure.9
One question which arises at this point is why the genuine sluicing structure is
not available for the SLCFC. Put differently, if Japanese allows (optional) whmovement, and C0 can license deletion of TP in non-finite clauses, why is it not
the case that wh-movement followed by TP-deletion is also licensed in finite
clauses, giving rise to the SLCFC with the genuine sluicing structure? Although
there might be several possible accounts, I suggest a modification of Merchant’s(2001) E-feature, which triggers TP-deletion and must be checked against a [+wh,+Q] C0. Specifically, I claim that in languages like Japanese, the E-feature must
be checked by a [+wh, +Q, -finite] C0. Given this modification, the asymmetry
between the SLCNFC and the SLCFC follows.
8

See, e.g. Chomsky (1972), Chung et al. (1995), Lasnik (2001), Merchant (2001), Fox &Lasnik (2003) for some accounts of island repair. As far as I can tell, any of these accounts except
for Merchant’s (2001) may accommodate the Japanese data in the text. Merchant (2001) argues
that relative clauses are LF-islands, unaffected by PF-deletion. He argues that in the case of therelative clause island, there is an alternative source that contains an E-type pronoun (Evans 1980)
and no island to begin with. However, in the case of (20c), there seems to be no alternative sourcethat can make use of an E-type pronoun. This puts into question Merchant’s (2001) analysis if we
assume that relative clauses are universally LF-islands. See also Lasnik (2001) for some English
examples that lack alternative sources.
9See, for instance, Saito (2004) and Sugawa (2008) for some accounts of the lack of island
repair in the SLCFC.

9

3.4 Summary
To Summarize, I have thus far demonstrated that the SLCNFC (i) disallows nonwh-remnants, (ii) obeys the P-stranding generalization, and (iii) exhibits island
repair. These three properties are characteristic of sluicing. Thus, I conclude that
the SLCNFC is indeed an instantiation of genuine sluicing, namely, of whmovement followed by TP-deletion. In contrast, the SLCFC exhibits a quite
different pattern; it always patterns with the copula/cleft constructions. Thissuggests that the underlying source of the SLCFC is unambiguously the
copula/cleft constructions, further supporting the pseudo-sluicing analysis.
4 Cross-linguistic variations of the SLCsNFC10This section examines some cross-linguistic variations of the SLCNFC, focusing on
Chinese and Korean. I argue that though there certain differences among Chinese,
Korean and Japanese regarding the SLCsNFC, they can be traced back to someindependently attested differences among these languages.
4.1 Chinese
Let us start with Chinese. Some examples of the SLCFC in Chinese are given in(21) (based on Chui, Fujii & Sugawa 2008).11(21) a. Lisi yujian mouren, keshi wo bu zhidao *(shi) shei
L. metsomeone but I not know Cop who‘Lisi met someone, but I don’t know who’b. Lisi zuotian
zaimougedifang maile dong fangzi,L.
yesterday somewherebought Cl
house
keshi wo bu zhidao (shi) zai-nailbut
I not know Cop at-where‘Lisi bought a house yesterday somewhere, but I don’t know where’
Much like the Japanese SLCFC, the copula-like element shi appears in the Chinese
SLCFC. As shown in (21), shi is obligatory when the remnant is an argument,
while it is optional when the remnant is an adjunct. The presence of shi suggeststhat the Chinese SLCFC is also an instance of pseudo-sluicing.
The copula-like element shi is disallowed under control predicates likedashuan ‘plan’ in Chinese, as shown in (22).
(22) Zhangsan dashuan (*shi) qu TaipeiZ.
plan
Cop go Taipei‘Zhangsan plans to go to Taipei’
10

All the Chinese and Korean examples in this section are collected from my informants unlessexplicitly noted. I thank Johnny H.-T. Cheng, Jungmin Kang, Jong Un Park, and Barry C.-Y.
Yang for their help.
11
See also Wei (2004), Chiu (2006), and Wang & Wu (2006), among many others, for
discussion of the SLC in Chinese.

10Now consider (23) below. In this example, the remnant is an argument wh-phrase.
(23)*Zhangsan yijing jueding [PRO mingtian yao baogao shenme],Z.
already decidetomorrow will present whatdanshi Lisi hai-mei jueding (shi) shenmebut
L. yet-not decide Cop what‘(intended.) Zhangsan has already decided what to present tomorrow, but
Lisi hasn’t decided what’
The ungrammaticality of (23) indicates that ellipsis is not allowed, irrespective ofwhether shi is present or not.12 Recall that the fact that Japanese has the genuine
sluicing structure implies that the language has wh-movement, at least optionally.
The difference between Japanese and Chinese with respect to the possibility of the
SLCNFC follows if argument wh-phrases do move in the former but stay in-situ inthe latter (Huang 1982, Watanabe 1992, Takahashi 1993, Tsai 1994, 1999, toname a few; see also Takita & Yang 2007).13
4.2 Korean
Let us now turn to Korean. The SLCFC in Korean obligatorily requires the copula
i-n between wh-remnants and the Q-marker ci, as shown in (24) below (based on
Nishiyama et al. 1996).14 In this respect, Korean differs slightly from Japanese.
(24) John-un nukunka-loputhe pyenci-lul patass-ciman,
J.-Top someone-fromletter-Acc received-thoughna-nun [nuku-loputhe *(i-n)-ci] molunta
I-Top
who-from
Cop-Q know.not‘John received a letter from someone, but I don’t know from whom’12

For some speakers, (23) seems to be acceptable. Barry C.-Y. Yang (p.c.) suggested that these
speakers may allow the relevant predicates to take finite complements more easily than those who
do not accept (23). Since Chinese does not realize finiteness morphologically, it seems to benecessary to ensure that the embedded clauses are indeed non-finite in a more unambiguous way.
13
As for wh-adjuncts, the situation is more complicated. First, weishenme ‘why’ cannot appear
in sluicing with non-finite complements, even in English (see Ross 1969). Moreover, Wang & Wu
(2006) observe that zenme ‘how’ is not possible, either. PP-adjuncts like zai-nali ‘where’ seem tobe possible, as shown in (i) below. In this case, shi is prohibited.
(i) Zhangsan yao
jueding yao zai-nali maile dong fangzi, dan Lisi hai-mei
Z.
already decide will at-where buy
Cl house but L.
not-yetjueding (*shi) zai-nali
decideCop at-where‘Zhangsan has already decided where to buy a house, but Lisi hasn’t yet decided where’
This observation seems to suggest that Chinese has genuine sluicing in SLCNFC with wh-PPadjuncts, implying that they can undergo overt wh-movement. The PP-adjuncts, however, patternwith wh-arguments in terms of island sensitivities, indicating that they do not undergo whmovement (cf. Huang 1982, Tsai 1994, 1999). I leave this issue for future research.
14
See, for example, J.-S. Kim (1997), Sohn (2000), M.-K. Park (2001), and B.-S. Park (2005)
for discussion of the SLCFC and related constructions in Korean.

11A further difference between Japanese and Korean exists when it comes to the
SLCNFC. Let us consider the examples in (25).
(25) a. John-un imi [PRO mwues-ul ilk-ul-ci]-lul
kyelceng-hayss-ta
J.-Top already
what-Acc read-Fut-Q-Acc decide-did-Decl‘(lit.) John has already decided [what to read]’b. Kulena Bill-un [PRO mwues-ul ilk-ul-ci]-lul
but
B.-Topwhat-Acc read-Fut-Q-Acc
kyelceng-ha-ci-mos-hayss-ta
decide-do-Noml-cannot-did-Decl‘(lit.) But Bill cannot decide [what to read]’c. *Kulena Bill-un [mwues-ul ∆ (i-n)(-ci)](-lul)but
B.-Top what-Acc
Cop-Q-Acc
kyelceng-ha-ci-mos-hayss-ta
decide-do-Noml-cannot-did-Decl‘(lit.) But Bill cannot decide [what ∆]’(25a) is the antecedent of (25b-c). (25b) involves no ellipsis. As shown in (25c), it
is not possible to construct a sentence similar to the SLCNFC, no matter how weretain the copula, the Q-marker, and the Case-marker of the clausal complement.
Thus, it appears that Korean disallows the SLCNFC, on a par with Chinese.
Further examination suggests a different possibility, however. In (26a) below,
the anaphor caki ‘self’ is contained in an adjunct, and there is no adjunct in (26b).
(26) a. John-un LGB-ul [Adj caki bang-eyseo] ilkass-ta
J.-Top LGB-Acc
self room-Loc
read-Decl‘(lit.) John read LGB [in his room]’b.?*Kulena Mary-nun LGB-lul an-ilkass-ta
but
M.-TopLGB-Acc Neg-read-Decl‘(intended) But Mary didn’t read LGB in her room’(26b) does not have the sloppy reading for the missing adjunct (see Oku 1998 fora similar observation in Japanese). Bearing this observation in mind, let us
consider (27), where wh-infinitival complements are involved.
(27) a. John-un [PRO mwues-ul [Adj caki bang-eyseo] ilk-ul-ci]
J.-Topwhat-Acc
self room-Loc
read-Fut-Q
kyelceng-hayss-ta
decide-did-Decl‘(lit.) John has already decided [what to read [in his room]]’b. Kulena Mary-nun [mwues-ul ilk-ci-an-ul-ci]
kyelceng-hayss-ta
but
M.-Topwhat-Acc read-CI-Neg-Fut-Q decide-did-Decl‘(intended) But Mary has decided [what not to read [in her room]]’12Surprisingly, (27b) allows the sloppy reading for the missing adjunct. As shownin (28), if the embedded infinitival clauses are not wh-questions, the sloppy
reading is not allowed, on a par with (26).
(28) a. John-un [PRO LGB-lul [Adj caki bang-eyseo] ilk-ul-rye-ko]
J.-TopLGB-Accself room-Loc
read-Fut-C
noryek-hayss-ta
try-did-Decl‘(lit.) John tried [to read LGB [in his room]]’?
b. *Kulena Mary-nun [LGB-lul ilk-ci-an-ul-rye-ko] noryek-hayss-ta
but
M.-TopLGB-Acc read-CI-Neg-Fut-C try-did-Decl‘(intended) But Mary tried [not to read LGB [in her room]]’Thus, it seems to be the case that the sloppy reading for missing adjuncts isavailable only with wh-infinitival complements.
I propose that in Korean, a [+wh, +Q, -finite] C0 can license TP-deletion, on apar with Japanese, but verbs must move to C0 before ellipsis takes place. That is, I
claim that (27b) is indeed an instance of the SLCNFC, which has a schematic
structure like that in (29). In this structure, the wh-phase and the verb (together
with T0) have evacuated the TP before deletion applies.
(29) … [CP whi [TP … [VP … [Adj in self’s room] … ti … tV] tT] [C0 V-T-C]] …
It follows that missing adjuncts allow the sloppy reading only in wh-infinitival
complements, because they can be elided together with the TP, and the TPdeletion in question can be licensed only in the wh-infinitival clauses whose C0
head can host the E-feature, but not in the other environments.
Under this proposal, the main difference between Korean and Japaneseregarding the SLCNFC is that the former requires verb movement while the latterdoes not. Recall at this point that in the case of the SLCsFC, the copula is
obligatorily required in Korean (see (24)) but is optional in Japanese (see (2)).
Suppose that the Q-marker, which is presumably C0, has the [+V] feature in
Korean, which forces some verbal elements including the copula to support it,
while it is specified as [-V] in Japanese. The two differences between Korean andJapanese, that is, the fact that the former requires the copula to appear in the
SLCFC and verbs to move in the SLCNFC while the latter does not, can be captured
at the same time.
To sum up this section, I have examined SLCs with finite and non-finite
complements in Chinese and Korean, reaching the following conclusions: (i)Chinese completely lacks genuine sluicing, suggesting that Chinese argument whphrases never undergo wh-movement; (ii) Korean does have genuine sluicing, ona par with Japanese, and the apparent differences between Korean and Japanese
follow from the different specifications of the V-feature of C0.

13

5 Conclusion
In this paper, I argued that Japanese does indeed have genuine sluicing, namely
wh-movement followed by TP-deletion, based on a novel set of data regarding thesluicing-like construction with non-finite complements. Meanwhile I also
illustrated that the sluicing-like construction with finite complements exhibits theproperties of copula/cleft constructions. Hence, our results support Takahashi’s(1994) idea that Japanese has genuine sluicing, simultaneously maintaining thepseudo-sluicing analysis of the sluicing-like construction with finite complements.
Furthermore, the fact that Japanese, which has been treated as a typical “pseudosluicing language,” does have both types of structures calls for further reexamination of other pseudo-sluicing languages such as Malagasy (Potsdam
2007). Finally, I also examined some cross-linguistic variations of the sluicinglike constructions with non-finite complements, suggesting some possible sourcesof the observed differences. Although more work seems to be necessary, I believethat this paper provides a step toward a deeper understanding of sluicing in wh-insitu languages and its cross-linguistic variations.
References
Chiu, L.-I. L. 2006. A Focus-movement account on Chinese multiple sluicing. Nanzan
Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1, 23-31. Nagoya: Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Chiu, L.-I. L., T. Fujii, & S. Sugawa. 2008. On certain commonalities between sluicing-likeconstructions in Mandarin Chinese and Japanese. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2,
35-50. Nagoya: Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Chomsky, N. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In The
Goals of Linguistic Theory, ed. by S. Peters, 63-130. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chung, S., W. Ladusaw, & J. McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language
Semantics 3, 239-282.
Evans, G. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337-362.
Fox, D. & H. Lasnik. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The difference
between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-154.
Fujii, T. 2006. Some Theoretical Issues in Japanese Control. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Maryland.
Fukaya, T. & H. Hoji. 1999. Stripping and sluicing in Japanese and some implications.
Proceedings of WCCFL 18, 145-158.
Fukui, N. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Hiraiwa, K. & S. Ishihara. 2002. Missing links: Clefts, sluicing, and “no da” construction in
Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 35-54.
Hoji, H. 1990. Theories of anaphora and aspects of Japanese syntax. Ms., University of Southern
California.
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Kim, J.-S. 1997. Syntactic Focus Movement and Ellipsis: A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Kim, S.-W. 1999. Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 255-284.
Kizu, M. 1997. Sluicing in wh-in-situ languages. CLS 33, 231-244.
Kizu, M. 2005. Cleft Constructions in Japanese Syntax. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kuwabara, K. 1997. On the properties of truncated clauses in Japanese. In Report (1) Researching

14

and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language, ed. by K. Inoue, 61-84. Chiba:
Kanda University of International Studies.
Lasnik, H. 2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? Proceedings of NELS 31, 301320.
Lobeck, A. 1990. Functional heads as proper governors. Proceedings of NELS 20, 348-362.
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Murasugi, K. 1991. Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, andAcquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nishigauchi, T. 1998. “Multiple sluicing” in Japanese and the functional nature of wh-phrases.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 121-151.
Nishiyama, K., J. Whitman, & E.-Y. Yi. 1996. Syntactic movement of overt wh-phrases inJapanese and Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, 337-351.
Oku, S. 1998. A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Program. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Park, B.-S. 2005. Island-insensitive fragment answers in Korean. Proceedings of WCCFL 24, 317325.
Park, M.-K. 2001. Subject-less clefts in Korean: Towards a deletion analysis. Language Research37, 715-739.
Potsdam, E. 2007. Malagasy sluicing and its consequences for the identity requirement on ellipsis.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 577-613.
Ross, J. R. 1969. Guess who? CLS 5, 252-286.
Sag, I. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. 2004. Ellipsis and pronominal reference in Japanese clefts. Nanzan Linguistics 1, 21-50.
Nagoya: Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Saito, M. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43, 203-227.
Saito, M. & K. Murasugi. 1990. N’-deletion in Japanese: A preliminary study. Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 1, 285-301.
Sakai, H. 2000. Predicate ellipsis and nominalization in Japanese. Proceedings of 2000 Seoul
International Conference on Language and Computation, 85-113.
Shimoyama, J. 1995. On ‘sluicing’ in Japanese. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sohn, K.-W. 2000. A non-sluicing, non-clefting approach to copula constructions. Studies inGenerative Grammar 10, 267-294.
Sugawa, S. 2008. Ellipsis and repair effects. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 165-183.
Nagoya: Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Takahashi, D. 1993. Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 11, 655-678.
Takahashi, D. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 265-300.
Takahashi, D. 2008. Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 39,
307-326.
Takita, K. to appear. An argument for argument ellipsis from -sika NPIs, Proceedings of NELS 39.
Takita, K. in prep. Cyclic linearization and constraints on movement. Ms. Nanzan University.
Takita, K. & B. C.-Y. Yang. 2007. Antisuperiority and feature valuation. Paper presented at
GLOW in Asia VI, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, December 2007.
Tsai, W.-T. D. 1994. On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependences. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, W.-T. D. 1999. On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 39-73.
Wang, C.-A. A. & H.-H. I. Wu. 2006. Sluicing and focus movement in wh-in-situ languages. Penn
Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 375-387.
Watanabe, A. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 1, 255-291.
Wei, T.-C. 2004. Predication and Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, National
Kaoshung Normal University, Taiwan.
Williams, E. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101-139.

15