The material was presented at WAFL 6, September 4-6, 2009, Nagoya University.
This version was completed in January, 2010.

A COMPARATIVE SYNTAX OF
ELLIPSIS IN JAPANESE AND KOREAN*
MAMORU SAITO
Nanzan University
DUK-HO AN
Kyungpook National University

1 Introduction
Japanese and Korean are known to be very similar in syntax. The task of Japanese-Korean
comparative syntax is then to shed light on the nature of general principles based on theircommon properties and to investigate micro-parameters that explain their differences. This paper
examines ellipsis in the two languages, focusing on argument ellipsis, “sluicing,” and N’-ellipsis.
We argue that the relevant phenomena provide evidence for the LF copying analysis of ellipsis
over the PF deletion analysis. We also show that N’-ellipsis obtains in Japanese but not in
Korean and attribute this difference to a micro-parameter in the genitive marker insertion rule.
It has been known since Kim 1999 and Oku 1998 that argument-ellipsis applies in the sameway in Japanese and Korean. Examples from the two languages are shown in (1)-(2).
(1) a. John-wa [CP [NP zibun-no teian]-ga
saiyoosareru-to] omotteiru
J-top
self-gen proposal-nom be.adopted-comp think‘John thinks that his proposal will be adopted.’(J)b. Mary-mo [CP ___ saiyoosareru-to] omotteiru
M-alsobe.adopted-comp think‘Mary also thinks that her proposal will be adoped.’*

This is a shortened version of the paper presented at WAFL 6, held at Nagoya University on September 4-6, 2009.
An earlier version was presented in seminars at the University of Connecticut and MIT, and in workshops at Nanzan
University and the University of York. We would like to thank the audiences at these places for helpful comments.
The research leading up to this paper was conducted when the second author was a post-doctoral fellow at Nanzan
University. We thank the Japanese Ministry of Education and Science for its grant to the Nanzan Center for
Linguistics, which made this collaborative work possible.

1

2

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An(2) a. John-un [CP [NP caki-uy ceyan]-ichaythayktoylkela-ko] sayngkakhanta (K)J-top
self-gen proposal-nom will.be.adopted-comp think‘John thinks that his proposal will be adopted.’b. Mary-to [CP ___ chaythayktoylkela-ko] sayngkakhanta
M-alsowill.be.adopted-comp think‘Mary also thinks that her proposal will be adopted.’

Oku (1998), in particular, argued that the “missing arguments” such as those in (1b) and (2b) are
interpreted by LF copying. Persuasive empirical evidence for this is presented in Shinohara 2006.
We briefly go over Shinohara’s discussion in the following section.
The situation with “sluicing,” initially examined by Takahashi (1994), is slightly more
complicated. Representative examples are shown in (3)-(4).
(3) John-wa dareka-kara
tegami-o uketotta-ga,
J-top
someone-from letter-acc received-thoughboku-wa [dare-kara-(da)-ka] wakaranai
I-top
who-from-cop-Q not.know‘John received a letter from someone, but I don’t know from whom.’(J)(4) John-i nwukwunka-lopwuthe phyenci-lul patass-ciman,
J-top someone-fromletter-acc received-thoughna-nun [nwukwu-lopwuthe-i-nci] molunta
I-top
who-from-cop-Q
not.know‘John received a letter from someone, but I don’t know from whom.’(K)

As discussed in Section 3, many analyses have been proposed for the phenomenon in both
Japanese and Korean, and this has made the comparison difficult. We argue along the lines of
Saito 2004 that the relevant examples are derived by applying argument ellipsis to cleft sentences,deleting the CP that expresses the presupposition. It is shown that an apparent problem that arises
with this analysis for Korean is resolved if we assume the LF copying analysis.
Finally, Japanese and Korean contrast with respect to N’-ellipsis: Japanese has it as argued in
Saito and Murasugi 1990, but Korean does not. This is shown in (5)-(6).
(5) [Taroo-no kenkyuu-nitaisuru taido]-wa yoi-ga,
T-gen
research-toward attitude-top good-though[Hanako-no ___]-wa yoku-nai
H-gen-top good-not‘Taroo’s attitude toward research is good, but Hanako’s isn’t.’(J)(6) *[Chelswu-uy yenkwu-eytayhan thayto]-nun coh-cimen,
C-gen
research-toward attitude-top good-though[Swuni-uy ___]-nun cohci ahnta
S-gen-top good not‘Chelswu’s attitude toward research is good, but Swuni’s isn’t.’(K)

In Section 4, we argue that the context of genitive insertion is slightly more restricted in Korean
than in Japanese, and this makes N’-ellipsis impossible in the language. Then, comparing N’-A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

3

ellipsis with right-node raising, examined in detail in An 2007, we show that this analysis of thecontrast in (5)-(6) implies that N’-ellipsis involves LF copying rather than PF deletion. Section 5
concludes the paper.

2 Argument Ellipsis as LF Copying
In this section, we first discuss Oku’s (1998) evidence for argument ellipsis and then introduce
Shinohara’s (2006) argument that it is interpreted by LF copying.
The investigation leading to the argument ellipsis hypothesis started with Otani and
Whitman’s (1991) discussion of examples such as (7)-(8).
(7) John-ga zibun-no konpyuutaa-o kowasita. Mary-mo __ kowasita
J-nom self-gen computer-acc destroyed M-also
destroyed‘John destroyed his computer. Mary also destroyed his/her computer.’(J)(8) John-i caki-uy khemphyute-lul pwuswuessta. Mary-to __ pwuswuessta
J-nom self-gen computer-acc destroyed
M-alsodestroyed‘John destroyed his computer. Mary also destroyed his/her computer.’(K)

The object is missing in the second sentences of these examples. Null objects in Japanese/Korean
have been assumed to be pro since Kuroda 1965, but what Otani and Whitman pointed out is thatthose in (7)-(8) allow sloppy interpretation in addition to strict interpretation. This is unexpectedunder the pro hypothesis and requires a new analysis. Otani and Whitman, following Huang’s(1987) analysis of similar phenomenon in Chinese, proposed that the sloppy interpretation ismade possible by VP-ellipsis. More specifically, they argued that V is raised out of VP to T andthe remnant VP is elided. This results in the deletion of the object and correctly predicts theinterpretations of (7)-(8) as it is known that sloppy interpretation is possible with ellipsis.
Building on Otani and Whitman 1991, Kim (1999) and Oku (1998) introduced examples thatare similar to (7)-(8) but cannot be explained as instances of VP-ellipsis. For example, Oku
showed that not only null objects but also null subjects permit sloppy interpretation. His
Japanese example and its Korean counterpart in (1)-(2) are repeated in (9)-(10).
(9) a. John-wa [CP [NP zibun-no teian]-ga
saiyoosareru-to] omotteiru
J-top
self-gen proposal-nom be.adopted-comp think‘John thinks that his proposal will be adopted.’(J)b. Mary-mo [CP ___ saiyoosareru-to] omotteiru
M-alsobe.adopted-comp think‘Mary also thinks that his/her proposal will be adoped.’(10) a. John-un [CP [NP caki-uy ceyan]-ichaythayktoylkela-ko] sayngkakhanta
J-top
self-gen proposal-nom will.be.adopted-comp think‘John thinks that his proposal will be adopted.’b. Mary-to [CP ___ chaythayktoylkela-ko] sayngkakhanta
M-alsowill.be.adopted-comp think‘Mary also thinks that his/her proposal will be adopted.’

(K)

4

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An

As subjects cannot be elided by VP-deletion, Oku proposed that an argument can be elided
directly in Japanese. Kim (1999) reached the same conclusion for Korean based on examinationof different kinds of data.
Oku argued further for the LF copying analysis of argument ellipsis, extending Bošković and
Takahashi’s (1998) analysis of scrambling. Shinohara (2006) provides empirical evidence for
this, to which we now turn. The crucial paradigm is shown in (11).1(11) a. Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga sono hon-omotteiru-ka] kiita
T-top
H-nom
that book-acc have-Q
asked
Ziroo-mo [Hanako-ga sono hon-omotteiru-ka] kiita
Z-alsoH-nomthat book-acc have-Q
asked‘Taroo asked if Hanako has the book. Ziroo also asked if Hanako has the book.’b. Sono hon-oi
Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga ti motteiru-ka] kiita
that book-acc T-top
H-nom
have-Q
asked* Sono hon-oi
Ziroo-mo [Hanako-ga ti motteiru-ka] kiita
that book-acc Z-also
H-nom
have-Q
asked
c. Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga sono hon-omotteiru-ka] kiita
T-top
H-nom
that book-acc have-Q
asked*Sono hon-oi
Ziroo-mo [Hanako-ga ti motteiru-ka] kiita
that book-acc Z-also
H-nom
have-Q
asked
d. Sono hon-oi
Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga ti motteiru-ka] kiita
that book-acc T-top
H-nom
have-Q
asked
Ziroo-mo [Hanako-ga sono hon-omotteiru-ka] kiita
Z-alsoH-nomthat book-acc have-Q
asked(11a) shows that a complement CP can be elided. Given that argument ellipsis applies to anyargument, this is expected. (11b), on the other hand, is somewhat surprising. It shows that the CP
1

The same paradigm obtains in Korean, as shown below.
(i) a. Chelswu-nun [Yenghi-ka ku chayk-ul ilkessnun-ci] mwulessta
C-top
Y-nom
that book-acc read-Q
asked
Minswu-to [Yenghi-ka ku chayk-ul ilkessnun-ci] mwulessta
M-alsoY-nom
that book-acc read-Q
asked‘Chelsu asked if Yenghi read the book. Minsu also asked if Yenghi read the book.’
b. Ku chayk-uli Chelswu-nun [Yenghi-ka ti ilkessnun-ci] mwulessta
that book-acc C-top
Y-nom
read-Q
asked* Ku chayk-uli Minswu-to [Yenghi-ka ti ilkessnun-ci] mwulessta
that book-acc M-also
Y-nom
read-Q
asked
c. Chelswu-nun [Yenghi-ka ku chayk-ul ilkessnun-ci] mwulessta
C-top
Y-nom
that book-acc read-Q
asked* Ku chayk-uli Minswu-to [Yenghi-ka ti ilkessnun-ci] mwulessta
that book-acc M-also
Y-nom
read-Qasked
d. Ku chayk-uli Chelswu-nun [Yenghi-ka ti ilkessnun-ci] mwulessta
that book-acc C-top
Y-nom
read-Q
asked
Minswu-to [Yenghi-ka ku chayk-ul ilkessnun-ci] mwulessta
M-alsoY-nom
that book-acc read-Q
asked

A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

5cannot be elided when the embedded object is scrambled out of the target CP as well as theantecedent CP. (11c) indicates that the result is the same when scrambling takes place only in thetarget CP. (11d) represents another interesting case. A complement CP can be elided even whenthe embedded object is scrambled out of the antecedent CP as long as no scrambling takes placein the target CP.
Shinohara (2006) points out that the PF deletion analysis fails to predict this state of affairs.
For example, the elided CP and its antecedent are identical in (11b), and nothing seems to prevent
PF deletion. Then, she argues that the paradigm in (11) is exactly what we expect with LF
copying. There are two crucial ingredients in her analysis. First, LF copying is an LF operation,and hence, what is copied at the ellipsis site is an LF object, as discussed in detail in Williams
1977. Second, scrambling is semantically vacuous in the sense that it is not represented at LF.
This hypothesis was originally argued for in Saito 1989 on the basis of examples such as (12).
(12) a. Taroo-ga [Hanako-ga nani -o katta ka] siritagatteiru (koto)
T-nom
H-nom
what-acc bought Q want.to.know fact‘(the fact that) Taroo wants to know what Hanako bought’b. Nani-oi Taroo-ga [Hanako-ga ti katta ka] siritagatteiru (koto)
what-acc T-nom
H-nombought Q want.to.know fact(12a) is a straightforward example with an embedded wh-question. In (12b), the wh-phrase nani
‘what’ is scrambled out of the embedded CP, and the example is grammatical with the sameinterpretation as (12a). As the wh-phrase is part of the embedded wh-question, it must belong to
the embedded CP for the example to be properly interpreted. Then, the grammaticality of (12b)suggests that scrambling is not represented at LF.2
Given these assumptions, the LF copying analysis correctly predicts the ungrammaticality of(11b). First, given that scrambling is ignored in LF, the LF representation of the antecedentclause is as in (13).
(13) Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga sono hon-omotteiru-ka] kiita
T-top
H-nom
that book-acc have-Q
asked
The embedded CP in (13) is the LF object that constitutes the antecedent for the ellipsis in thesecond clause. We then copy it into the ellipsis site to interpret the second clause as in (14).
(14) Sono hon-o
Ziroo-mo [CP Hanako-ga sono hon-omotteiru-ka] kiita
that book-acc Z-also
H-nomthat book-acc have-Q
asked
The resulting LF representation is clearly ill-formed as it contains two instances of the embedded
object. The LF copying analysis also straightforwardly predicts the grammaticality of (11d). The
antecedent clause has the same LF representation as in the case of (11b), namely, (13). The LF
copying of the embedded CP into ellipsis site yields (15) in this case.

2

See Saito 1989 and subsequent works, especially Saito 2005, for more detailed discussion on this. We assume forease of exposition that scrambling is simply ignored in the LF representation. But Shinohara’s analysis is consistent
with more recent accounts of the semantic vacuity of scrambling, for example, with the account proposed in Saito
2005. An explicit discussion on this point can be found in Takita 2008.

6

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An(15) Ziroo-mo [CP Hanako-ga sono hon-omotteiru-ka] kiita
Z-alsoH-nomthat book-acc have-Q
asked

Then, (11d) should be grammatical as it is interpreted exactly like (11a).
Shinohara thus concludes that the paradigm in (11) constitutes evidence for the LF copying
analysis of argument ellipsis. We present additional evidence for this in the following sections.

3 “Sluicing” in Japanese and Korean
We turn to “sluicing” in this section. In Section 3.1, we briefly discuss Takahashi’s (1994)
original analysis of the phenomenon. Then, in Section 3.2, we develop Nishiyama, Whitman andYi’s (1996) analysis, which is based on cleft structure, and argue that the phenomenon should betreated as an instance of argument ellipsis. More specifically, we argue that the “sluicing”
structure is derived by applying argument ellipsis to a cleft sentence and eliding the CP subject
that expresses the presupposition. In the course of this discussion, we demonstrate that the
proposed analysis applies equally well to Japanese and Korean. Finally, in Section 3.3, we takeup a case in Korean pointed out by Sohn (2000) where “sluicing” is allowed despite the fact thatthe corresponding cleft structure is ungrammatical. We show that this discrepancy is expected
given the LF copying analysis.

3.1 Takahashi’s (1994) Sluicing Analysis
Takahashi first points out that examples such as (16) are not only grammatical but allow sloppy
interpretation. The Korean counterpart of (16) is shown in (17).
(16) John-wa [CP zibun-ga naze sikarareta-ka] wakatteinai-ga,
(J)
J-top
self-nom why was.scolded-Q not.know-though
Mary-wa [naze-(da)-ka] wakatteiru
M-top
why-cop-Q know
‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why (he/she was scolded).’(17) John-un [CP caki-ka way honnassnu-nci] molu-ciman,
(K)
J-top
self-nom why was.scolded-Q not.know-though
Mary-nun [way-i-nci] anta
M-top
why-cop-Q know
‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why (he/she was scolded).’The underlined part consists only of a wh-phrase, a copula (which is optional in Japanese) and aquestion complementizer, and yet, expresses the same content as the preceding embedded full
CP. Further, the availability of sloppy interpretation suggests that ellipsis is involved in thederivation of this sequence. Takahashi then proposed to analyze it as an instance of sluicing as
indicated in (18), adopting Kuroda’s (1988) hypothesis that Japanese has optional wh-movement.
(18) a. [CP nazei [C’ [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta] [C ka]]] (for (16))
b. [CP wayi [C’ [TP caki-ka ti honnassnu] [C nci]]] (for (17))

A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

7

The wh-phrase naze/way is moved to CP Spec and the remnant TP is elided. The analysis is quite
attractive as it accounts for (16)-(17) in exactly the same way as the English (19).
(19) John doesn’t know [CP whyi [TP he was scolded ti]], but Mary knows[CP whyi [TP she was scolded ti]]At the same time, Takahashi notes one outstanding problem with this analysis, that is, theoptional presence of copula in (16). There is no position for this element in the structure in (18a).
This led him to consider the alternative analysis illustrated in (20).
(20) a. John-wa [CP zibun-ga naze sikarareta-ka] wakatteinai-ga,
J-top
self-nom why was.scolded-Q not.know-though
Mary-wa [CP (sore-ga) naze-(da)-ka] wakateiru
M-top
it-nom why-cop-Q know
‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why it is.’(J)

b. John-un [CP caki-ka way honnassnu-nci] molu-ciman,
J-top
self-nom why was.scolded-Q not.know-though
Mary-nun [CP (ku kes-i) way-i-nci] anta
M-top
it-nom why-cop-Q know
‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why it is.’(K)

The underlined part is a regular question CP with a wh-phrase in-situ and a pronominal subject.
As the copula is optional in Japanese and obligatory in Korean, we obtain precisely the desired
string when the pronominal subject is pro instead of an overt pronoun. However, Takahashi
rejects this analysis on the basis that (20a) does not allow sloppy interpretation when the subject
pronoun is overt. This observation carries over to the Korean (20b) as well. This is expected as
we know that sloppy interpretation is possible with ellipsis but not with pronouns, as (21) shows.
(21) a. John loves his mother, and Mary does, too (= Mary loves his/her mother)b. John loves his mother, and Mary loves her, too (= Mary loves his mother)
Then, (20a-b) should not allow sloppy interpretation even when the subject is pro because pro isnothing but a pronoun without phonetic content. Hence, the analysis fails to account for theavailability of sloppy interpretation in (16)-(17). With this consideration, Takahashi maintained
the sluicing analysis illustrated in (18), leaving the occurrence of copula as a problem.3

3

The problem posed by the copula is more serious in Korean as its occurrence is obligatory. Kim (1997) and Park
(2005) try to maintain the essence of Takahashi’s analysis by assuming that the copula heads a focus projection andmaking sluicing apply to the TP complement of this focus head, as in (i).
(i) [CP [C’ [FP wayi [F’ [TP caki-ka ti honnassnu] [F i ]]] [C nci]]]
The disadvantage of this analysis is that ellipsis must be obligatory. The string in (i) is ungrammatical when the TP
is overtly expressed as shown in (ii).
(ii) a. * [CP way caki-ka honnassnu-i-nci]
b. * [CP naze zibun-ga sikarareta-da-ka]

(K)
(J)

8

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An

3.2 Nishiyama, et al. (1996) and Saito’s (2004) Cleft-Based Analysis
Nishiyama, et al. (1996) reexamine “sluicing” in Japanese and Korean, and present new evidence
for Takahashi’s alternative analysis. For example, they discuss examples such as (22)-(23),which cannot be derived by sluicing but would receive an analysis with a pro subject.
(22) John-ga dareka-kara
tegami-o uketotta-ga,(J)
J-nom someone-from letter-acc received-thoughboku-wa [Mary-kara-(da)-kadooka]-(wa) wakaranai
I-top
M-from-cop-whether-top
not.know‘John received a letter from someone, but I don’t know whether it was from Mary.’(23) John-i nwukwunka-lopwuthe pyenci-lul patass-ciman,(K)
J-nom someone-fromletter-acc received-thoughna-nun [Mary-lopwuthe-i-nci]-nun molunta
I-top
M-from-cop-Q-top
not.know‘John received a letter from someone, but I don’t know whether it was from Mary.’
The underlined part of these examples contains a non-wh PP and a question complementizer thatis interpreted as ‘whether’. These elements cannot be the remnants in sluicing, as (24) shows.
(24) *John received a letter from someone, but I don’t know whether from MaryOn the other hand, the examples are grammatical even with overt pronominal subjects
corresponding to ‘it’, as illustrated in (25)-(26).
(25) John-ga dareka-kara
tegami-o uketotta-ga,(J)
J-nom someone-from letter-acc received-thoughboku-wa [CP (sore-ga) Mary-kara-(da)-kadooka]-(wa) wakaranai
I-top
it-nom M-from-cop-whether-top
not.know‘John received a letter from someone, but I don’t know whether it was from Mary.’(26) John-i nwukwunka-lopwuthe pyenci-lul patass-ciman,(K)
J-nom someone-fromletter-acc received-thoughna-nun [CP (ku kes-i) Mary-lopwuthe-i-nci]-nun molunta
I-top
it-nom M-from-cop-Q-top
not.know‘John received a letter from someone, but I don’t know whether it was from Mary.’
It is then clear that (22) and (23) have the structures in (25) and (26) respectively with pro
subjects. This confirms that (16) and (17) can be assigned the structures in (20a-b).
But Nishiyama, et al. struggle with the sloppy interpretation just like Takahashi (1994). They
hypothesize that (16)-(17) allow sloppy interpretation because they are related to similar
examples with cleft sentences as in (27)-(28).

A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

9(27) John-wa [zibun-ga naze sikarareta-ka] wakatteinai-ga, Mary-wa
(J)
J-top
self-nom why was.scolded-Q not.know-though M-top[CP [TP [CP Opi [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta] no]-ga
nazei-(da)]-ka] wakatteiru
self-nom was.scolded comp-nom why-cop-Q
know‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why it is that she wasscolded.’(28) John-un [caki-ka way honnassnu-nci] molu-ciman,
Mary-nun(K)
J-top
self-nom why was.scolded-Q not.know-though M-top[CP [TP [CP Opi [TP caki-ga ti honnan]kes]-iwayi-i]-nci] anta
self-nom was.scolded comp-nom why-cop-Q know
‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why it is that she wasscolded.’In these examples, the embedded CP of the second sentence is a fully spelled out cleft sentence.
The second sentence is interpreted as ‘Mary knows why (it is that) she was scolded’ because
zibun/caki ‘self’ is overt and takes Mary as its antecedent. Nishiyama, et al. (1996), then, suggestthat sloppy interpretation obtains when the underlined CP, that is, the CP that expresses thepresupposition in cleft structure, is turned into pro. The idea is that the pro subjects in (20a-b)
can stand for the underlined CPs in (27)-(28), and in this case, the examples are interpreted withsloppy interpretation. This begs the question, however, because sloppy interpretation is
impossible with the overt sore/ku kes ‘it’ as Takahashi (1994) observed. Nishiyama, et al.
stipulate here that only phonetically null pro yields sloppy interpretation.
Although Nishiyama, et al. did not achieve a principled account for the sloppy interpretationof the “sluicing” examples, they made the problem very clear. When the underlined CPs in (27)(28) are phonetically null, sloppy interpretation obtains. On the other hand, when overt pronouns
appear in their places, strict reading is forced. And Saito (2004) pointed out that the argument
ellipsis hypothesis of Kim 1999 and Oku 1998 provides a direct solution to this problem. For
Nishiyama, et al. 1996, when the underlined CPs in (27)-(28) are null, they had to be pro. But
given the argument ellipsis hypothesis, the relevant structure can be derived with the ellipsis of
those CPs. This is illustrated in (29).4(29) a. Mary-wa [[CP Opi [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta] no]-ga
nazei-(da)-ka] wakatteiru
M-top
self-nom was.scolded comp-nom why-cop-Q
know
b. Mary-nun [[CP Opi [TP caki-ka ti honnan]kes]-iwayi-i-nci] anta
M-top
self-nom was.scolded comp-nom why-cop-Q know
Takahashi’s (1994) original examples in (16)-(17), repeated in (30)-(31), are then ambiguous in
structure.
4Here, some adjustments are necessary. The LF of the antecedent CP in (27) is as in (i).
(i) [CP nazei [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta] ka]
why
self-nom was.scolded Q

Then, the wh-operator in CP Spec, for example, must be turned into a null operator prior to LF copying so that theresulting cleft structure can be interpreted properly. It is suggested in Saito 2004 that this can be achieved by anoperation similar to “vehicle change” in the sense of Fiengo and May 1994.

10

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An(30) John-wa [CP zibun-ga naze sikarareta-ka] wakatteinai-ga,
(J)
J-top
self-nom why was.scolded-Q not.know-though
Mary-wa [naze-(da)-ka] wakatteiru
M-top
why-cop-Q know
‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why (he/she was scolded).’(31) John-un [CP caki-ka way honnassnu-nci] molu-ciman,
(K)
J-top
self-nom why was.scolded-Q not.know-though
Mary-nun [way-i-nci] anta
M-top
why-cop-Q know
‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why (he/she was scolded).’If the subject of the underlined CP is elided as in (29), sloppy interpretation obtains. On the other
hand, if the position is occupied by pro, strict reading is forced.
Saito (2004) discusses only Japanese data, but it was shown above that the argument applies
equally well to Korean. We conclude then that “sluicing” is the same phenomenon in Japaneseand Korean, and that it results from argument ellipsis applied to the subject CP in cleft structure.
According to this analysis, cleft structure provides the necessary “source” for sluicing. That is,an example of “sluicing” is nothing but a cleft sentence with an elided CP subject. We would
expect then that for any “sluicing” example, there is a corresponding well-formed cleft structure.
In the following subsection, we discuss this parallelism. We show that the prediction is borne out
at least in part, and when there is a discrepancy, it is explained by the LF copying analysis ofargument ellipsis.

3.3 On the Parallelism between “Sluicing” and Cleft in Japanese and KoreanFirst, “sluicing” shares some unique properties of Japanese/Korean clefts. For example, it is
known that cleft sentences in Japanese/Korean can have multiple foci. “Sluicing” also allows
multiple remnants. This is illustrated in (32)-(35). (32)-(33) are examples of clefts with multiple
foci, and (34)-(35) are “sluicing” examples with multiple remnants.
(32) John-ga supai-nituite hookoku-o sita no-wa
howaitohausu-de daitooryoo-ni-da (J)J-nom spy-about report-acc do comp-top White House-at president-dat-cop‘Lit. It was at the White House to the President that John reported about a spy.’(33) John-i suphai-eytayhayse poko-lul han kes-un
payakkwan-eyse
J-nom spy-about
report-acc do comp-top White House-at
taythonglyeng-eykey-i-ta
president-to-cop-dec‘Lit. It was at the White House to the President that John reported about a spy.’(K)(34) John-ga supai-nituite dokoka-de
dareka-ni
hookoku-o sita
(J)J-nom spy-about somewhere-at someone-dat report-acc did
Demo doko-de dare-ni-(da)-ka-(wa) wakaranai
But where-at who-dat-cop-Q-top not.know‘Lit. John delivered a report about a spy to someone somewhere. But I don’t know
where and to whom.’A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

11(35) John-i suphai-eytayhayse etieysenka nukunka-eykey poko-lul hayssta(K)J-nom spy-aboutsomewhere someone-dat report-acc did
Haciman eti-eyse nuku-eykey-i-essnu-nci-nun molunta
Butwhere-at who-dat-cop-past-Q-top
not.know‘Lit. John delivered a report about a spy to someone somewhere. But I don’t know
where and to whom.’In this context, Sohn (2000) presents an interesting discussion that compares the distributionsof “sluicing” and cleft in Korean. While pursuing Nishiyama et al.’s (1996) analysis, he observescases where “sluicing” is allowed but cleft is not. Some of his examples are listed in (36) and(37).
(36) a. John-i chayk-ul sey-kwen sassta
J-nom book-acc three-CL bought‘John bought three books.’b. *John-i chayk-ul san
kes-unsey-kwen-i-ta
J-nom book-acc bought comp-top three-CL-cop-dec‘Lit. It is three pieces that John bought books.’
c. John-i chayk-ul mwet-kwen sass-tako
tuless-ciman,
J-nom book-acc some-CL bought-comp heard-thoughna-nun mwet-kwen-i-nci-nun
molunta
I-top how.many-CL-cop-Q-top not.know‘I heard that John bought some books, but I don’t know how many.’(37) a. John-i Mary-lul oyn ccok son-ul
ttayliessta
J-nom M-acc left side hand-acc hit‘John hit Mary on the left hand.’b. *John-i Mary-lul ttalin kes-un
oyn ccok son-i-ta
J-nom M-acc hit comp-top left side hand-cop-dec‘It is on the left hand that John hit Mary.’c. John-i Mary-lul han ccok son-ul
ttayliessnu-ntey,
J-nom M-acc one side hand-acc hit-thoughna-nun enu ccok son-i-nci
alko sipta
I-top which side hand-cop-Q know want
‘John hit Mary on one hand, but I want to know which hand.’(36a) contains a floating numeral quantifier, sey-kwen ‘three-volume’. (36b) shows that it is
impossible to cleft the quantifier, stranding the associate NP. (36c), on the other hand, indicatesthat a numeral quantifier can be a remnant in the “sluicing” construction. (37a) is a doubleaccusative sentence, which is observed in Korean but not in Japanese. (37b) shows that thesecond, body-part accusative NP cannot be focused in cleft structure, but this NP can be aremnant in “sluicing” structure as observed in (37c).
These contrasts do not pose immediate problems because according to our analysis, the“sluicing” examples have two distinct sources when sloppy interpretation is not at issue. For
example, the underlined part of (37c) may be derived from cleft structure by ellipsis of the CP

12Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An

subject as in (38a), or it may simply have a pro subject as in (38b).
(38) a. [CP John-i Mary-lul ttalin kes]-i
enu ccok son-i-nci
J-nom M-acc hit comp-nom which side hand-cop-Qb. (ku kes-i) enu ccok son-i-nci
it-nom which side hand-cop-Q
If (37c) is derived as in (38a), its contrast with (37b) requires an explanation. On the other hand,
if it has the structure in (38b), its grammaticality has nothing to do with the cleft sentence in(37b).5 And in fact, (36c) and (37c) are both grammatical with an overt pronoun ku kes-i ‘it-nom’as shown in (39).
(39) a. John-i chayk-ul mwet-kwen sass-tako
tuless-ciman,
J-nom book-acc some-CL bought-comp heard-thoughna-nun (ku kes-i) mwet-kwen-i-nci-nun
molunta
I-top
it-nom how.many-CL-cop-Q-top not.know‘I heard that John bought some books, but I don’t know how many that was.’b. John-i Mary-lul han ccok son-ul
ttayliesstanun-tey,
J-nom M-acc one side hand-acc hit-thoughna-nun (ku kes-i) enu ccok son-i-nci
alko sipta
I-top
it-nom which side hand-cop-Q know want
‘John hit Mary on one hand, but I want to know which hand that was.’Hence, we may assume that (36c) and (37c) are not related to cleft structures but have pro
subjects.
However, it is possible to construct examples similar to (37c) that must be derived from cleft
structures. Two such examples are shown in (40).
(40) a. John-un caki-uy atul-ul enu phal-ul ttayliessnu-nci kiekha-ciman,
J-top
self-gen son-acc which arm-acc hit-Q
remember-though
Mary-nun enu phal-i-nci kiekha-ci
mothanta
M-topwhich arm-cop-Q remember-CI unable‘John remembers which arm of his son he hit, but Mary doesn’t remember which arm.’b. John-un caki-uy atul-i
enu phal-i
ki-nci al-ciman,
J-top self-gen son-nom which arm-nom long-Q know-though
Mary-nun enu phal-i-nci molunta
M-top
which arm-cop-Q not.know‘John knows which of his son’s arm is long, but Mary doesn’t know which one.’
These examples allow sloppy interpretation. Thus, (40a), for example, can mean ‘Mary doesn’t
remember which arm of her son she hit’. This example, then, must be derivable from a cleft
structure as in (41).

5

The pronoun may or may not stand for the CP subject in cleft structure. In fact, when a pronoun appears, it is far
from clear what it refers to. See Sohn 2000 and Saito 2004 for relevant discussion.

A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

13(41) Mary-nun [CP [CP pro caki-uy atul-ul ttaylin kes]-i
enu phal-i-nci] kiekha-ci
M-top
self-gen son-acc hit
comp-nom which arm-cop-Q remember
mothanta
unableBut we have seen in (37b) that a cleft sentence is ungrammatical when the body-part object isfocused. Hence, there is a genuine discrepancy between cleft and “sluicing” here: “sluicing” isallowed despite the fact that its “source” is ungrammatical.
This discrepancy, however, is not surprising under the LF copying analysis of argument
ellipsis. Note first that the antecedent CP in (40a) is perfectly grammatical with the following LF,
formed either by covert wh-movement or ‘unselective binding’ in the sense of Tsai 1994:(42) [CP enu phal-uli [TP pro caki-uy atul-ul ti ttayliessnu] nci] ]which arm-acc
self-gen son-acc hit
Q
The contrast between (37b) and the first sentence of (40a) in fact shows that the former is ruledout by a constraint on overt movement. Then, the LF in (42) can be copied into the ellipsis site in(41) and the proper interpretation obtains.6 The grammaticality of (40a) is thus expected under
the LF copying analysis because it does not require overt movement of the body-part NP over thehigher accusative phrase. The observed discrepancy between cleft and “sluicing” poses noproblem for the analysis entertained here.
This account for the grammaticality of (40) provides additional evidence for the LF copying
analysis of argument ellipsis. It is in fact quite similar in form to the analysis of the absence ofisland effects in examples of sluicing, presented in Chung, Ladusaw and McCloskey 1995. They
discuss examples such as (43), originally noted by Ross (1969).
(43) The administration has issued a statement that it is willing to meet with one of thestudent groups, but I am not sure [CP which onei [TP it has issued a statement that it iswilling to meet with ti]]
The example is ungrammatical without sluicing as the wh-phrase which one is extracted out of acomplex NP. Yet, it is grammatical with the ellipsis. Chung, et al. takes this as evidence against
the PF deletion analysis on the assumption that Subjacency is a condition on movement. If (43)is derived by PF deletion, the wh-phrase must move out of the complex NP in syntax in violationof Subjacency. Then, they go on to present an LF copying analysis, adapting Heim’s (1982)
proposal that indefinites such as one of the student groups are interpreted as variables at LF.
With this proposal, (43) receives proper interpretation when the first sentence is copied into theellipsis site.
For examples like (43), alternative analyses have been proposed under the PF deletion
hypothesis. For example, Fox and Lasnik (2003) argue that Subjacency violations are checked at
PF and this is why it does not obtain in the case of (43). (See also Merchant 2001 for relevant
discussion.) A similar analysis may be possible for (40). But for this to be tenable, it must be
shown that the ban on the movement of the body-part NP over the higher accusative phrase
observed in (37b) is plausibly a PF phenomenon. It remains to be seen whether this is possible.

6

That is, with the adjustment mentioned in Fn.4.

14

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An

4 N’-Ellipsis and Genitive Insertion
We saw in the preceding section that “sluicing” applies in the same way in Japanese and Korean.
This is expected if “sluicing” is after all a kind of argument ellipsis as we argued. In this section,
we discuss a difference between the two languages: N’-ellipsis is observed in Japanese but not in
Korean. In Section 4.1, we discuss the distributions of the genitive markers and show that nounphrase structures are quite similar in the two languages. In Section 4.2, we propose aparameterization in the genitive insertion rule and suggest an account for the absence of N’ellipsis in Korean. Then, we present an argument for the LF copying analysis of N’-ellipsis.

4.1 Noun Phrases in Japanese and Korean
The similarity of Japanese and Korean noun phrase structures can be best illustrated with the
distributions of the genitive or “modifying” markers. It is well known that no is inserted after any
NP or PP in sister relation to a nominal projection in Japanese. Some examples are shown below
in (44).
(44) a. Haruki-no kuruma
H-gen
car
‘Haruki’s car’(J)

b. Haruki-to-no intabyuu
H-with-gen interview‘an interview with Haruki’c. yuubokumin-no tosi-no hakai
nomads-gen
city-gen destruction‘the nomads’ destruction of the city’d. Taroo-no yooroppa-e-no ryokoo
T-gen
Europe-to-gen trip
‘Taroo’s trip to Europe’
These examples indicate that the distribution of no is much wider than ’s in English. It follows a
PP in (44b), and it is attached to both the subject and the object in (44c). In (44d), it accompanies
the subject and a complement PP. Given this, it has been widely assumed that no is inserted into
the structure by a rule of the following kind:(45) Mod Insertion (Kitagawa and Ross 1982)[NP … XP Nα] → [NP … XP Mod Nα], where X is [-V] and Mod = no.
The Korean counterpart of no, uy, has basically the same distribution. This is shown in (46).
(46) a. Harukhi-uy cha
H-gen
car
‘Haruki’s car’(K)A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

15b. Harukhi-wa-uy intebyu
H-with-gen
interview‘an interview with Haruki’c. yumokmin-uy tosi-uy phagoy
nomads-gen city-gen destruction‘the nomads’ destruction of the city’d. Chelswu-uy yurep-ulo-uy yehayng
C-gen
Europe-to-gen trip
‘Chelsu’s trip to Europe’
The Mod Insertion rule in (45), then, can be generalized to Korean, the only difference being thephonetic realization of the Mod marker.7
Despite the obvious similarities like this, the two languages differ with respect to N’-ellipsis
as noted above. Japanese allows it as discussed in detail in Saito and Murasugi 1990, but Korean
does not. Another pair of examples is provided in (47)-(48).
(47) [Hanako-no sinri-no tuikyuu]-wa [Taroo-no sinri-no tuikyuu]-yorimo
H-gentruth-gen pursuit-top T-gen
truth-gen pursuit-thanzyoonetutekida
is.passionate‘Hanako’s pursuit of the truth is more passionate than Taroo’s.’(J)(48) *[Chelswu-uy cinli-uy chwukwu]-nun [Yenghi-uy cinli-uy chwukwu]-pota
C-gentruth-gen pursuit-top
Y-gen
truth-gen pursuit-thanyelcengcekita
is.passionate‘Chelswu’s pursuit of the truth is more passionate than Yenghi’s.’(K)

It is argued in Saito and Murasugi 1990 that N’-ellipsis is actually movement of an argument
to DP Spec followed by deletion of the complement NP. (See also Lobeck 1990.) Then, if only
arguments can move to DP Spec, as seems plausible, it is predicted that only they can beremnants in N’-ellipsis. The prediction is borne out, as illustrated in (49).
(49) a. [Rooma-no hakai]-wa[Kyooto-no hakai]-yorimo hisandatta
R-gen
destruction-top K-gen
destruction-than was.miserable‘Rome’s destruction was more miserable than Kyoto’s.’b. *Saikin-wa [hare-no hi]-ga [ame-no hi]-yorimo ooi
recently-top fine-gen day-nom rain-gen day-than plentiful‘Recently, there are more clear days than rainy days.’

7

It should be noted here that the presence of uy, unlike no, is sometimes optional. For example, temporal
expressions like ecey ‘yesterday’ and onul ‘today’ can appear without uy, as we will see below. Further, uy on someargument NPs need not be overtly realized when it is adjacent to the head noun. See An 2009 for detailed discussion
on this.

16

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An
c. *Hanako-wa issyuukan-ni [san-satu-no hon]-ga yomeru-ga,
Taroo-wa
H-top
one.week-in three-cl.-gen book-nom can.read-though T-top[go-satu-no hon]-ga yomeru
five-cl.-gen book-nom can.read‘Hanako can read three books in a week, but Taroo can read five books.’

The ellipsis site follows the subject in (47) and the object in (49a). On the other hand, theremnants are modifiers in the ungrammatical (49b-c). Note that these examples are fine without
the ellipsis. This is expected because the Mod Insertion rule applies to modifiers as well asarguments as long as they are NPs (DPs) or PPs. Yet, since modifiers cannot move to DP Spec,
they cannot trigger N’-ellipsis.
If arguments can move to DP Spec and trigger N’-ellipsis in Japanese, it is mysterious why
this is impossible in Korean. Given the similarity between the two languages, this difference islikely to be due to a micro-parameter. In the following section, we propose a parameterization in
the Mod Insertion rule on independent grounds, and argue that it explains the absence of N’ellipsis in Korean.

4.2 An Analysis for the Absence of N’-ellipsis in Korean
Another interesting difference between Japanese and Korean can be found in the peculiar
construction shown in (50).
(50) a. [kinoo-no[Tani kyoozyu-no koogi]]-to [kyoo-no [Kan kyoozyu-no (J)yesterday-gen Prof. Tani-gen lecture-and today-gen Prof. Kan-gen
koogi]]
lecture‘Prof. Tanaka’s lecture yesterday and Prof. Yamada’s lecture today’b. [kinoo-no[Tani kyoozyu __]]-to [kyoo-no [Kan kyoozyu-no koogi]]
yesterday-gen Prof. Tani-and today-gen Prof. Kan-gen lecture(50a) is a normal conjoined NP. In (50b), the head noun and the preceding no are missing fromthe first conjunct. Yet, the example is grammatical and somehow receives the same interpretationas (50a). And interestingly, the Korean counterpart of (50b) is ungrammatical as shown in (51b).
(51) a. [ecey-uy[Kim kyoswu-uy kanguy]]-wa [onul-uy [Pak kyoswu-uy
yesterday-gen Prof. Kim-gen lecture-and today-gen Prof. Park-gen
kanguy]]lecture‘Prof. Kim’s lecture yesterday and Prof. Park’s lecture today’(K)b. *[ecey-uy[Kim kyoswu __]]-wa [onul-uy [Pak kyoswu-uy kanguy]]
yesterday-gen Prof. Kim-and today-gen Prof. Park-gen lecture(51b), like (50b), can be interpreted as a conjunction of a person and a lecture, but it cannot havethe intended reading, that is, a conjunction of two lectures.
Although we do not have an analysis for this peculiar construction, the source of the

A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

17

ungrammaticality of (51b) seems clear. As mentioned in Fn.7, temporal expressions like ecey
‘yesterday’ and onul ‘today’ need not be followed by uy. An example is given in (52).
(52) ecey(-uy)
Kim kyoswu-uy kanguy
yesterday-gen Prof. Kim-gen lecture‘Prof. Kim’s lecture yesterday’And (51b) becomes grammatical with the intended reading when uy is omitted, as observed in(53).
(53) [ecey[Kim kyoswu __]]-wa [onul [Pak kyoswu-uy kanguy]]
yesterday Prof. Kim-and today Prof. Park-gen lecture‘Prof. Kim’s lecture yesterday and Prof. Park’s lecture today’
The ungrammaticality of (51b), then, must be due to a failure of uy-insertion. As the maindifference between (51a) and (51b) is that the head noun is missing in the latter, we propose thatuy can be inserted only when the head noun is overt. This leads to the parameterization of the
Mod Insertion Rule in (54).
(54) Mod Insertion (revised)[YP … XP Yn] → [YP … XP-Mod Yn] (Mod = no in Japanese and uy in Korean.)
where (i) Y = N or D, X is [-V], and(ii) Y is overt. (Only in Korean.)
The rule states that Mod insertion requires the head noun to be overt in Korean while there is nosuch requirement in Japanese.
The revised rule in (54) directly accounts for the absence of N’-ellipsis in Korean. Let us
consider the relevant part of (48), shown in (55).
(55) *[Yenghi-uy cinli-uy chwukwu]
Y-gen
truth-gen pursuit
Given (54), uy cannot be inserted after the subject Yenghi. This is so because the head noun iselided together with the object. (55) is then ungrammatical for the same reason as (51b). Notehere that uy is required on the subject in (55). The example is ungrammatical without uy even in
the absence of N’-ellipsis, as shown in (56).
(56) [Yenghi*(-uy) cinli-uy chwukwu]]
Y-gentruth-gen pursuit
Thus, unlike the case of (53), we cannot save (55) by simply omitting uy on the remnant. On theother hand, the Japanese counterpart of (55) is grammatical for the same reason as (50b). The
language allows the insertion of no even when the head noun is not overt.
So far, we proposed the parameterization of Mod Insertion in (54), and argued that it explains
the absence of N’-ellipsis in Korean as well as its presence in Japanese. This analysis, if correct,
has an implication for the analysis of N’-ellipsis itself. Note first that the material following uy
can be null in the so-called right-node raising examples. Examples from Japanese and Korean areprovided in (57)-(58).

18

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An(57) John-wa [CP [Mary(-no) otoosan]-ga byookida-to] omoi, sosite
(J)
J-top
M-gen
father-nom sick-comp think andTom-wa [CP [Susan-no otoosan]-ga byookida-to] omoteiru
T-top
S-gen
father-nom sick-comp think‘John thinks that Mary’s father is sick, and Tom thinks that Susan’s father is sick.’(58) John-un [CP [Mary(-uy) apeci]-ka aphu-tako] sayngkakhanta, kuliko
(K)
J-top
M-gen
father-nom sick-comp thinkandTom-un [CP [Susan-uy apeci]-ka aphu-tako] sayngkakhanta
T-top
S-gen
father-nom sick-comp think‘John thinks that Mary’s father is sick, and Tom thinks that Susan’s father is sick.’

Right-node raising takes place with the “sentential conjunction marker,” sosite/kuliko ‘and’,
unlike the peculiar construction without a nominal head observed in (50b) and (53), which has
the “constituent conjunction marker,” to/wa ‘and’.
An (2007) discusses right-node raising in detail and presents a few arguments that it
involves PF deletion. One of them is based on the fact that it is insensitive to constituent
structure. In (57)-(58), for example, the deleted material clearly does not form a constituent. In
this respect also, it differs from the construction in (50b) and (53). (59) and (60) constitute therelevant minimal pair in Korean.
(59) [Ecey(-uy)
Kim kyoswu(-uy) ___ ], kuliko [onul-(uy) [Pak kyoswu-uy apeci]-uy
yesterday-gen Prof. Kim-gen
andtoday-gen Prof. Park-gen father-gen
kanguy]-nun twul ta caymissessta
lecture-top two all was.fun‘Prof. Kim’s (father’s) lecture yesterday and Prof. Park’s father’s lecture today wereboth fun.’(60) [Ecey(*-uy) Kim kyoswu(*-uy) ___ ]-wa [onul [Pak kyoswu-uy apeci]-uy
yesterday-gen Prof. Kim-gen-and today Prof. Park-gen father-gen
kanguy]-nun twul ta caymissessta
lecture-top two all was.fun‘Prof. Kim’s lecture yesterday and Prof. Park’s father’s lecture today were both fun.’In (60) with constituent conjunction, the missing part can only be interpreted as kanguy ‘lecture’.
So the sentence is about Prof. Kim’s lecture and Prof. Park’s father’s lecture. On the other hand,(59) with sentential conjunction is ambiguous. The missing part in this example can beinterpreted as kanguy as in (60) or as apeci-uy kanguy ‘father’s lecture’, which is not a
constituent.
If right-node raising is indeed PF deletion, it is not surprising that it can delete a head noun
following uy. Mod insertion plausibly takes place in the syntax prior to PF deletion.8 Then, therelevant head noun is present when uy is inserted in (58) and (59). This, when combined with ouranalysis for the absence of N’-ellipsis in Korean, implies that N’-ellipsis cannot be PF deletion.
We just argued that N’-ellipsis fails in Korean because the head noun is missing and hence, the8

Although we assumed the classical form of Mod Insertion, the Mod marker can in fact be considered a provider ofa specific edge feature that is required for merger with a nominal projection. If this is the case, it must already bepresent when the noun phrase is constructed.

A Comparative Syntax of Ellipsis in Japanese and Korean

19

required uy cannot be inserted after the remnant. This is consistent with the LF copying analysis:
according to this analysis, there is nothing at the ellipsis site in the syntax. But if N’-ellipsis is PF
deletion, the head noun must be present when Mod insertion applies. It is then predictedincorrectly that N’-ellipsis is possible in Korean just like right-node raising is. We are thus led tothe conclusion that N’-ellipsis, like argument ellipsis, is interpreted through LF copying. Rightnode raising is insensitive to constituency and does not block Mod insertion in the syntax
because it is PF deletion. On the other hand, the elided material is not present until LF in the caseof N’-ellipsis, and consequently, Mod insertion can apply to the remnant in Japanese but not in
Korean.

5 Conclusion
In this paper, we examined three kinds of ellipsis, argument ellipsis, “sluicing,” and N’-ellipsis,in Japanese and Korean. On the empirical side, we argued that “sluicing” is identical in the two
languages, and is derived by the application of argument ellipsis to the CP subject of a cleft
sentence. Then, we proposed an analysis for the fact that N’-ellipsis is observed in Japanese but
not in Korean. We argued for a parameterization of the Mod Insertion rule, repeated in (61), on
independent grounds, and showed that it accounts for the difference between the two languages
with respect to N’-ellipsis.
(61) Mod Insertion (revised)[YP … XP Yn] → [YP … XP-Mod Yn] (Mod = no in Japanese and uy in Korean.)
where (i) Y = N or D, X is [-V], and(ii) Y is overt. (Only in Korean.)On the theoretical side, we presented arguments for the LF copying analysis of ellipsis
throughout this paper. In Section 2, we discussed Shinahara’s (2006) paradigm in (11), which
provided the initial motivation for pursuing the LF copying analysis. In Section 3, we developed
the discussion in Sohn 2000, and pointed out a genuine discrepancy between cleft and “sluicing.”
We then argued that the discrepancy is expected under the LF copying analysis. Finally, in
Section 4, we compared N’-ellipsis with right-node raising and argued that their differences fall
into places if the former involves LF copying and the latter PF deletion. This suggests that othertypes of constituent ellipsis, such as VP-ellipsis and sluicing, should be treated in the same way.

References
An, Duk-Ho. 2007. Syntax at the PF interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
An, Duk-Ho. 2009. A note on genitive drop in Korean. Nanzan Linguistics 5: 1-16, Center for
Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Bošković, Željko and Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29:
347-366.
Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form.
Natural Language Semantics 3: 239-282.
Fiengo, Robert and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

20

Mamoru Saito and Duk-Ho An

Fox, Danny and Howard Lasnik. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The
difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143-154.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Remarks on empty categories in Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 321337.
Kim, Jeong-Seok. 1997. Syntactic focus movement and ellipsis: A minimalist approach. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Kim, Soowon. 1999. Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8: 255-284.
Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia Ross. 1982. Prenominal modification in Chinese and Japanese.
Linguistic Analysis 9: 19-53.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D. dissertation,MIT.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese.
Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47.
Lobeck, Ann. 1990. Functional heads as proper governors. NELS 20: 348-362.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nishiyama, Kunio, John Whitman and Eun-Young Yi. 1996. Syntactic movement of overt whphrases in Japanese and Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 337-351.
Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist program, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Otani, Kazuyo and John Whitman. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 345358.
Park, Bum-Sik. 2005. Island-insensitive fragment answers in Korean. WCCFL 24: 317-325.
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? CLS 5: 252-286.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Mark R. Baltin andAnthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 182-200.
Saito, Mamoru. 2004. Ellipsis and pronominal reference in Japanese clefts. Nanzan Linguistics 1:
21-50, Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Saito, Mamoru. 2005. Further notes on the interpretation of scrambling chains. In Joachim Sabel
and Mamoru Saito (eds.), The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources anddiversity, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 335-376.
Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi. 1990. N’-deletion in Japanese: A preliminary study.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1: 285-301.
Shinohara, Michie. 2006. On the differences between argument ellipsis and other major deletion
phenomena. Unpublished manuscript, Nanzan University.
Sohn, Keun-Won. 2000. A non-sluicing, non-clefting approach to copular constructions. Studies
in Generative Grammar 10: 267-294.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 241-265.
Takita, Kensuke. 2008. Remarks on the proper binding condition effects on overt and covert
merge. Unpublished manuscript, Nanzan University.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1994. On economizing the theory of A’-dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101-139.