筑波英語学会第 44 回大会
共同研究発表Unified Analysis of Repairability of Islands:
With Special Reference to Contrastive and Informational Focus
橋本龍弥・今井俊吾・田村心・酒井啓史・中村直樹
1. Introduction➢ 省略現象a. NP ellipsis
b. VP ellipsis
c. TP ellipsis (e.g. sluicing, fragment answer)
・ Sluicing(1) a.
b.
c.

Jack bought something, but I don’t know what.
Anne invited someone, but I don’t know who.
I remember meeting him, but I don’t remember when.

(Merchant (2001:3))(Merchant (2001:40))(Merchant (2001:23))

・ Fragment Answer(2) a.
Who did she see?
b.
John.
(intended: She saw John)(3) a.
What’s left for me to eat?
b.
Some turkey.
(intended: There’s some turkey)(Merchant (2004:673))➢ Merchant (2001, 2004, 2008): Movement and PF Deletion Approach(4) [CP1 [TP Jack bought something]], but I don’t know[sluicing][CP2 whati [TP Jack bought ti]].
(5) A: [CP1 Who did [TP she see]]?
[fragment answer]
B: [CP2 John [TP she saw]].
→ 先行節と同一の構造が省略節内にも存在する (isomorphic structure)。
➢ 節省略における島の敏感性 (Island-(In)sensitivity)
・ 島の制約：島の領域からの要素の取り出しはできない。
(6) a. * Whati did you hear the claim John said ti?
b. * Which booki did John meet a child who read ti?

(Chomsky (1973:233))(Chomsky (1986:34))

・ Sluicing:(7) a.
They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember which.
b. * …I don’t remember [CP which (Balkan language) [TP they want to hire [island someonewho speaks]]].
1

2023/11/18 (土)

(8)

a.
b.

Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers, but she couldn’t remember which.
* … but she couldn’t remember [CP which (of the teachers) [TP Ben will be mad [island ifshe talks to]]].

→(Merchant (2001:87-88))
島を含む構造であれば非文となるはずだが、節省略を伴う場合は文法的。

➢ Island Repair Approach vs. Evasion Approach【Island Repair Approach】
・ 島の修復効果 (Island Repair effects)：
島の制約の違反はその構造に PF 削除が適用されることで修復される。
⇒ 島は PF レベルで課される制約
(9)

a.
b.

…I don’t remember [CP which (Balkan language) [TP they want to hire [island someonewho speaks]]]… but she couldn’t remember [CP which (of the teachers) [TP Ben will be mad [island ifshe talks to]]].

・ Fragment Answer(10) A: Does Abby speak the same Balkan language that Ben speaks?
B: * No, Charlie.
(Merchant (2004:688))(11) A: Did Ben leave the party because Abby wouldn’t dance with him?
B: * No, Beth.
(Merchant (2004:688))【Evasion Approach】➢ 省略節の構造(12) They hired someone who speaks a Balkan language – guess which!

→⇒(Barros et al. (2014:4))
a.
which he speaks!
[short source]b. * which they hired someone who speaks!
[long source]
島の制約に反応しない sluicing は島を含まない構造を省略節内に含んでいる。
島は統語レベルで課される制約➢ 情報焦点 vs. 対比焦点(13) A: Does Abby speak the same Balkan language that someone in your syntax class speaks?
B: Yeah, Charlie.
(Griffiths and Lipták (2014:193))(14) A: I heard they hired someone who speaks a Balkan language fluently.
B: Yeah, Serbo-Croatian.
(Griffiths and Lipták (2014:205))→ Fragment Answer であっても remnant が情報焦点として解釈される場合文法的。

2

筑波英語学会第 44 回大会
共同研究発表(15) a.

b.

* The detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed ABBY, but I don’t know
[who ELSEi [the detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed ti]].
(Fox and Lasnik (2003:152))* Abby wants to hire someone who speaks GREEK, but I don’t remember[what OTHER languagesi [she wants to hire someone who speaks ti]]

(Merchant (2008:148))
Sluicing であっても remnant が対比焦点として解釈される場合非文法的。

→
問い

a.
b.

節省略が関わる現象はどのように統一的に分析できるのか。
なぜ節省略現象において島の違反が観察される場合とされない場合があるのか。

主張
a.
→
b.
→

節省略現象は Evasion Approach の下で、Scope Identity を満たす必要がある。
long/short source が使用可能だが、Scope Identity を満たさない場合節省略は認可されない。
対比焦点が関わる節省略は long source のみ使用可能で、情報焦点が関わる節省
略は long/short source のみ使用可能。
対比焦点が置かれる remnant は、Scope Identity のもと、島を越えて主節の左周辺部に移動するため島の制約に違反する（＝島は統語制約）。

2. Previous Studies
2.1. Evasion Approach (Barros et al. (2014))➢ Non-isomorphic Sourcea. Short sourceb. Cleft sourcec. Predicative source
・ Short Source(16) They hired someone who speaks a Balkan language – guess which!
a.
which he speaks!
b. * which they hired someone who speaks!
(17) a.

→(= (12))[short source][long source]John seems to me to be lying about something, but I don’t know what he is lying about.
(≠ what he seems to me to be lying about.)(Barros, et al. (2014:4))b.
I remember meeting him, but I don’t remember when I met him.
(cf. ≠ #when I remember meeting him.)(Merchant (2001:23))
Short Source の解釈のみ可能な場合がある

3

2023/11/18 (土)・ Cleft Source (truncated cleft; Mikkelsen (2005))(18) They hired someone who speaks a Balkan language – guess whichi it was ti!
(19) a.
b.

(Barros et al. (2014:5))
Either something’s on fire, or Sally’s baking a cake, but I don’t know which.
Either something’s on fire, or Sally’s baking a cake, but I don’t know which it is.
(Barros et al. (2014:6))→

先行節と同一の構造は使えないが、cleft source は利用可能

・ Predicative Source(20) She bought a big car, but I don’t know how big it/[the car that she bought] was(Barros et al. (2014:7))(21) * She bought a big car, but I don’t know how big she bought a car.
(Barros et al. (2014:7))→ correlate が限定修飾要素は isomorphic source が使われる場合抜き出しができないが、predicative source では可能。
(22) John will kiss anyone after the first date, it doesn’t matter whoa.
... who they are t
b. # ... who John will kiss/kisses t after the first date(23) John will fight any man, no matter how talla.
... how tall he is tb. #/*... how tall John will fight a t man/fights a t manc. # ... how tall a man John will fight t(Barros et al. (2014:7))(Barros et al. (2014:8))➢ 省略節内の構造を isomorphic source にすると本来の節省略で生じる意味と異なる場合があり、その際は non-isomorphic source のみ利用可能になる。
⇒ 当該統語環境によって選択できない source があるといえる。
2.2. (Non)Contrastivity in Clausal Ellipsis (Griffiths and Lipták (2014))➢ Grrifiths and Lipták (2014):
Sluicing も Fragments も、correlate と remnant が対比されている場合は島の制約違反がみられ、対比されていない場合は島の制約違反がみられない。
・ Non-contrastive sluicing(24) a.
They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember which.
(= (7))b.
Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers, but she couldn’t remember which.
(= (8))

4筑波英語学会第 44 回大会
共同研究発表c.

Ben left the party because one of the guests insulted him, but he wouldn’t tell me which.
(Merchant (2001:88))

・ Contrastive Sluicing(25) * Abby wants to hire someone who speaks GREEK, but I don’t remember what OTHER
languages.

(Merchant (2008: 148))

・ Non-contrastive fragments(26) A: I heard they hired someone who speaks a Balkan language fluently.
B: Yeah, Serbo-Croatian.
B´: Really? Which?
(27) A: I hear that Abby is likely to get mad if Ben speaks to one of the guys from your syntaxclass.
B: Yeah, John.
B´: Really? Who?
(Griffiths and Lipták (2014:205-206))
・ Contrastive fragments(28) Felicity condition on contrastive fragments (Griffiths and Lipták (2014:202))
Contrastive fragments are only felicitous if their correlate is contrastively focused.
(29) A: I heard they hired someone who speaks BULGARIAN fluently.
B: * No, SERBO-CROATIAN.
(30) A: Does Abby speak the same Balkan language that BEN speaks?
B: * No, CHARLE.
(Merchant (2004:688))(31) A: Did Ben leave the party because ABBY wouldn’t dance with him?
B: * No. BETH.
(Merchant (2004:688))→ 島が含まれる先行節内の correlate と省略節内の remnant に対比焦点がおかれる場合、先行節が平叙文か疑問文かにかかわらず島の制約の違反が観察される。
3. Proposal
3.1. Information Focus and Contrastive Focus(32) Cartographic Approach (Rizzi (1997), Cruschina (2006, 2011), Belletti (2001, 2004))a.
CP periphery: ForceP … TopicP … Contrastive FocusP (CFocP) … TopicP …
Information FocusP (IFocP) … Finite TPb.
vP periphery: (TopP) … IFocP … vP

5

2023/11/18 (土)【理論的仮定】・ CP 領域の IFoc は emphatic IFoc、vP 領域の IFoc は neutral IFoc を担う (Cruschina (2006,2011))。
・ CP 領域の[emphatic]IFoc と CFoc は主節の左周辺部にのみ現れる (cf. Cruschina (2006,2011), Nagata (2022))。
・ Wh 移動は CP 領域の InterrogativeP をターゲットとする。
3.2. Scope Identity under the Evasion Approach➢ 節省略における先行節と省略節の関係性
・ Griffiths and Lipták (2014:210):(33) Scopal Parallelism in ellipsis (cf. Fox and Lasnik (2003))
Variables in the antecedent and the elided clause are bound from parallel positions.
・ Abe (2015:44):(34) Identification Condition on Deletion
An E-site E is semantically identified with its antecedent A if(i) A constitutes a presupposition of E or(ii) E satisfies the truth conditions of A.
本発表の提案(35) Scope Identity:a.
先行節に correlate を伴う場合の節省略において、省略節は先行節と同一の大きさのものでなければならない（主節レベル vs. 埋め込み節レベル）。
b.
Correlate と remnant は常に同一の命題内容 (vP) をそれぞれのスコープにとらなければならない。
→ Scope Identity を 満 た し て い れ ば 省 略 節 内 は 先 行 節 と は 異 な る source (e.g.
short/cleft/predicative)を使うことができる。
➢ Sluicing(36) Non-Contrast Type:a. 先行節:[CP [TP [IFocP __ [vP … [CP [TP __ [TP [IFocP __ [vP … correlate[FOC] … ]]]]]
b. 省略節:→[CP(InterrgativeP) __ [TP … [CP(InterrgativeP) __ [TP … wh-remnant … ]]]]

correlate は埋め込みもしくは主節の Spec,IFoc に移動することで情報焦点の解釈が得られる。

6

筑波英語学会第 44 回大会
共同研究発表(37) John claimed that Mary bought some books on the Internet, but I don’t remember …
a.
which book Mary bought.
[short source]→b.
which book John claimed that Mary bought.
[long source](a): 埋め込み節内の IFoc への移動によるもので、省略節内は short source が使われる（＝最初に生じる解釈）。

⇒(b): 主節内の IFoc への移動によるもので、省略節内は long source が使われる。
主節・埋め込み節内のどちらかの同じ機能範疇に移動することで先行節と省略節内における Scope Identity が保証される。

(38) Contrast Type:a. 先行節:[CP(CFocP) __ [TP … [CP [TP … CORRELATE[FOC] … ]]]]]
b. 省略節:[CP(CFocP) __ [TP … [CP [TP … wh-remnant [FOC] … ]]]]

→ Correlate と remnant はそれぞれ主節にのみ生じる Spec,CFoc へ移動することで対比焦点の解釈が生じる。
(39) A:John denied that Mary bought OBAMA’s book on the Internet,
but I don’t know what ELSE.
A’: …, but I don’t know what ELSE (John denied that Mary bought)
A”: # …, but I don’t know what ELSE (Mary bought).

(40) A: John denied that Mary ate three APPLES, but I wonder how many GRAPES.
A’: …, but I wonder how many GRAPES (John denied that Mary ate).
A”: # …, but I wonder how many GRAPES (Mary ate).
➢ Fragments (cf. Nagata (2022))(41) Non-Contrast Type:a. 先行節:[CP [TP …[IFocP __ [vP… [CP [TP IFocP __ [vP… correlate … ]]]]]
b. 省略節:→1[CP [TP …[IFocP __ [vP… [CP [TP [IFocP __ [vP … remnant[FOC] … ]]]]1

Fragment は wh 要素が関与しないため、どちらも埋め込みもしくは主節の IFocP へ移動することで情報焦点の解釈が得られる。

F(ocus)-marked な要素は省略領域内に生起していても音韻具現が可能 (Abe (2015), Nagata (2022)他)。
7

2023/11/18 (土)(42) A:
B1:
→⇒

B2:
B1:

John reported that Mary ate something.
Yeah, an apple Mary ate.

[short source]

Yeah, an apple John reported that Mary ate.
[long source]
埋め込み節内の IFoc への移動によるもので、省略節内は short source が使われる（＝最初に生じる解釈）。

B2: 主節内の IFoc への移動によるもので、省略節内は long source が使われる。
主節・埋め込み節内のどちらかの同じ機能範疇に移動することで先行節と省略節内における Scope Identity が保証される。

(43) Contrast Type:a. 先行節:[CP(CFocP) __ [TP … [CP [TP … correlate … ]]]]]
b. 省略節:→[CP(CFocP) __ [TP … [CP [TP … remnant … ]]]]

Correlate と remnant はそれぞれ主節にのみ生じる Spec, CFoc へ移動することで対比焦点の解釈が生じる。

(44) A: John denies that Mary ate an APPLE.
B: No, a GRAPE.
B’: No, a GRAPE john denies (that Mary ate).
B’’: # No, a GRAPE Mary ate.
(45) A: John denies MARY ate the cake.
B: No, LISA.
B’: No, LISA John denies (ate the cake).
B”: # No, LISA ate the cake.
3.3. Island (In)Sensitivity in Clausal Ellipsis➢ Island INSENSITIVE Sluicing and Fragments
・ Sluicing(46) a.
Abby wants to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember
which.
(= (7))b.
Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers, but she couldn’t remember which.
(= (8))c.
Ben left the party because one of the guests insulted him, but he wouldn’t tell me which.
(= (24))8筑波英語学会第 44 回大会
共同研究発表島の違反を回避(47) 先行節（島を含む構造）:[CP [TP Abby [IFocP [vP wants to hire someone [CP[ISLAND] who [TP [IFocP __ [vP speaks a Balkanlanguage]]]]]

島違反

省略節（島を含まない構造 [short]）：[CP(InterrgativeP) which (language) [TP he speaks t ]]→主節領域への移動は島の違反により排除されるため島の領域内の IFoc への移動のみ可能。Scope Identity の下、省略節は short source のみ使用可能。

・ Fragments(48) A: I heard they hired someone who speaks a Balkan language fluently.
B: Yeah, Serbo-Croatian.
B´: Really? Which?
(= (27))(49) A: I hear that Abby is likely to get mad if Ben speaks to one of the guys from your syntax
class.
B: Yeah, John.
B´: Really? Who?
(= (28))
島の違反を回避(50) 先行節（島を含む構造）：[CP [TP I heard [CP [TP they [IFocP [vP heard someone [CP[ISLAND] who [TP IFocP __ [vP speaks a Balkan
島違反
language fluently]]]]]
省略節（島を含まない構造 [short]）：[CP [TP he [IFocP SERBO-CROATIAN[FOC] [vP speaks

t fluently ]]]]

主節領域への移動は島の違反により排除されるため島の領域内の IFoc への移動のみ可能。Scope Identity の下、省略節は short source のみ使用可能。
➢ Short Reading(51) They hired someone who speaks a Balkan language – guess which!
(= (12))a.
which he speaks!
[short source]b. * which they hired someone who speaks!
[long source](52) A: Mary hired someone who speaks one of German languages.
B1: Yeah, English (s/he speaks).
B2: # Yeah, English (John hired someone who speaks).
→92023/11/18 (土)➢ 内・外読みテスト(53) A: John hired a man who owns French restaurants.
B:Yeah, German too.
a. Interpretation1:b.

A man owns both French and German restaurants.
[short reading]Interpretation2:# John hired two men. One owns French restaurants. The otherman owns German restaurants.
[long reading](54) A: John hired a man who speaks French.
B: Yeah, German too.
a. Interpretation1:
A man speaks both French and German.
[short reading]b. Interpretation2: # John hired two men. One speaks French. The other man speaks
German.
[long reading]→ ジョンが雇った男が二人いる解釈（主節を含めた構造）は不自然⇒ short source を使用していることがわかる。
➢ Island SENSITIVE Sluicing and Fragments
・ Sluicing(55) * Abby wants to hire someone who speaks GREEK, but I don’t remember what OTHER
languages.
(= (27))(56) 先行節（島を含む構造）：[CP(CFocP) __ [TP Abby [vP wants to hire someone [CP[ISLAND] who [TP [vP speaks GREEK]]]]]
島違反

省略節（島を含む構造 [long]）:[CP(CFocP) what OTHER languages [TP Abby [vP wants to hire someone [CP[ISLAND] who [TP [vPspeaks GREEK]]]]]]
島違反→

CFoc は主節の左周辺部にのみあると仮定すると、島の内部から主節の CFoc への移動のみ可能になるはずだが、島を越えるため島の違反になる。Scope Identity の下では省略節内の構造も long source となるため、先行節と省略節で共に島に違反する。

・ Fragments(57) A: Does Abby speak the same Balkan language that BEN speaks?
B: * No, CHARLE.
(58) A: Did Ben leave the party because ABBY wouldn’t dance with him?
B: * No. BETH.

10(= (30))(= (31))

筑波英語学会第 44 回大会
共同研究発表(59) 先行節（島を含む構造）：[CP(CFocP) __ Does [TP Abby speak the same Balkan language [CP[ISLAND] that [TP BEN speaks ]]]]]
島違反

省略節（島を含む構造 [long]）:[CP(CFocP) BETH [TP Abby speaks the same Balkan language [CP[ISLAND] that [TP t speaks ]]]]
島違反(60)Non-Contrast

Contrast

Source（島無し）

Long / ShortLongSource（島あり）

Short

*

4. Stripping Construction
4.1. Positive Stripping and Negative Stripping
・ Stripping (or Bare Argument Ellipsis)(61) a.
John ate natto, but not sushi.
b.
John ate natto, but John didn’t eat sushi.
→(Yoshida et al. (2014:324))(a)は典型的な stripping の例であり、(b)の意味と同義である。

・ 2 タイプの stripping：positive stripping と negative stripping(62) Jones likes seafood a lot, and bread too.
(63) John ate natto, but not sushi.

(Johnson (2019:562))(= (61a))・ 島との関連性
Positive stripping：Island insensitive (Potter (2017))
Negative stripping：Island sensitive (Depiante (2000), May (1991), Reinhart (1991))(64) Speaker A:
Speaker B:

James met [ISLAND the student who speaks German].
Yeah, and French, too.
(Potter (2017:31))(65) a.
b.

* John loves [DP a girl who is learning Italian], but not Spanish.
* John left [ADJUNCT because Mary invited David], but not Bill.
(Yoshida (2014:344))(66) Positive stripping：情報焦点 (IFoc)
Negative stripping：対比焦点 (CFoc)

112023/11/18 (土)・ 実際、対比性の有無と Positive / Negative stripping の違いは関連している。
(67) Ann: Ingrid knows the student who sent a text to another student.
Bill:Yeah, to ALEXI.
(Yoshida et al. (2019:1519), 一部修正)(68) 先行節（島を含む構造）：[CP [TP Ingrid knows the student [CP[ISLAND] who [TP IFocP __ [vP sent a text to another student]]]]]
省略節（島を含まない構造 [short]）：[CP [TP s/he [IFocP TO ALEXI [FOC] [vPsent a text t]]]](69) Ann: Ingrid knows the student who sent a text to TIM.
Bill: * No, to ALEXI.
(Yoshida et al. (2019:1519), 一部修正)(70) 先行節（島を含む構造）：[CP(CFocP) __ [TP Ingrid knows the student [CP[ISLAND] who [TP sent a text to TIM]]]]
島違反

省略節（島を含む構造 [long]）:[CP(CFocP) to ALEXI [TP Ingrid knows the student [CP[ISLAND] who [TP sent a text t ]]]]
島違反→

対比の意味が生じるか否かで、容認性に差が生じる。

4.2. Why-Stripping
・ Why-stripping：一見、sluicing と stripping の両方の性質を有する(71) John was eating natto, but why NATTO (and not another food)?
(Yoshida et al. (2014:324))(72) A: John was eating natto.
B: I can’t believe it! Why NATTO!
→ 一種の感嘆文として振る舞うため、明確な答えを必要としない。
(73) A: My colleague often goes to Sushi-restaurants. He always eats French fries at first.
B: I can’t believe it! Why FRENCH FRIES!
A: # Because he likes it.

12筑波英語学会第 44 回大会
共同研究発表・ sluicing と異なる点(74) A: John was eating natto.
B: Why NATTO? / *How/*When/*Where NATTO?
(Yoshida et al. (2014:326))
wh 要素は why に限定される。

→・ (negative) stripping と異なる点(75) A: No linguist1 recommended [DP a book that contains his1 own article].
B: Why HIS1 OWN ARTICLE?
(Yoshida et al. (2014:343))(76) A: No politician1 hated a political commentator2 [Adjunct because he2 criticized his1campaign].
B: Why HIS1 CAMPAIGN?
(Yoshida et al. (2014:343))→ 島からの抜き出しが可能。
・ Why-stripping 固有の性質(77) [Context: John was eating natto.]* Why NATTO John was eating?
→ Why-stripping では削除が義務的。

(78) a.
b.

(Yoshida et al. (2014:343))

Shall we? [Courteous invitation to dance.]
May I? [Polite request for permission to invade a person’s space, e.g. by taking away
an unoccupied chair or performing some action that involves touching them.](Miller and Pullum (2014:4))

5. Concluding Remarks
問い
a.
b.

節省略が関わる現象はどのように統一的に分析できるのか。
なぜ節省略現象において島の違反が観察される場合とされない場合があるのか。

主張
a.
→
b.
→

節省略現象は Evasion Approach の下で、Scope Identity を満たす必要がある。
long/short source が使用可能だが、Scope Identity を満たさない場合節省略は認可されない。
対比焦点が関わる節省略は long source のみ使用可能で、情報焦点が関わる節省
略は long/short source のみ使用可能。
対比焦点が置かれる remnant は、Scope Identity のもと、島を越えて主節の左周辺部に移動するため島の制約に違反する（＝島は統語制約）。

13

2023/11/18 (土)REFERENCES
Abe, Jun (2015) The In-situ Approach to Sluicing, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Barros, Matthew, Patrick Elliott and Gary Thoms (2014) “There is no Island Repair,” ms.
Belletti, Adriana (2001) “Inversion as Focalization,” Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal
Grammar, ed. by Aafke Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock, 60–90, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Belletti, Adriana (2004) “Aspects of the Low IP Area,” The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic
Structures, Vol. 2, ed. by Luigi Rizzi, 16–51, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky, Norm (1973) “Conditions on Transformations,” A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen Anderson
and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Chomsky, Noam (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger Publishers, Westport.
Cruschina, Silvio (2006) “Informational Focus in Sicilian and the Left Periphery,” Phases of Interpretation, 363–385.
Cruschina, Silvio (2011) Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Depiante, Marcela A. (2000) The Syntax of Deep and Surface Anaphora: A Study of Null Complement Anaphora andStripping/Bare Argument Ellipsis, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Fox, Danny and Howard Lasnik (2003) “Successive-cyclic Movement and Island Repair: The Difference between
Sluicing and VP-Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143–154.
Griffiths, James (2019) “A Q-based Approach to Clausal Ellipsis: Deriving the Preposition Stranding and Island
Sensitivity Generalizations without Movement,” Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 1–41.
Griffiths, James and Anikó Lipták (2014) “Contrast and Island Sensitivity in Clausal Ellipsis,” Syntax 17(3), 189–234.
Johnson, Kyle (2019) “Gapping and Stripping,” The Handbook of Ellipsis, ed. by Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck andTanja Temmerman, 562–604, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
May, Robert (1991) “Syntax, Semantics, and Logical Form,” The Chomskyan Turn, ed. by Asa Kasher, 334–359.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis, Oxford University Press,Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2004) “Fragments and Ellipsis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.
Merchant, Jason (2008) “Variable Island Repair under Ellipsis,” Topics in Ellipsis, ed. by Kyle Johnson, 132–153.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mikkelsen, Line (2005) Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Miller, Philip, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2014) “Exophoric Verb Phrase Ellipsis,” The Core and the Periphery: Datadriven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag, ed. by Peter Hofmeister and Elisabeth Norcliffe, 5–32,CSLI, California.
Nagata, Shohei (2022) A Cartographic Approach to Contrastive/Information Focus Phenomena in English, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Tsukuba.
Potter, David (2017) The Island (In)sensitivity of Stripping, Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
Reinhart, Tanya (1991) “Elliptic Conjunctions-Non-Quantificational LF,” The Chomskyan Turn, ed. by Aka Kasher,
Blackwell, Oxford.

14筑波英語学会第 44 回大会
共同研究発表Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative
Syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Schwarzschild, Roger (1999) “GIVENness, AvoidF and other Constraints on the Placement of Accent,” Natural
language Semantics 7(2), 141–177.
Yoshida, Masaya, Chizuru Nakao and Ivan Ortega-Santos (2015) “The Syntax of Why-Stripping,” Natural Language& Linguistic Theory 33, 323–370.
Yoshida, Masaya, David Potter, and Tim Hunter (2019) “Condition C Reconstruction, Clausal Ellipsis and Island
Repair” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37, 1515–1544.

15