ELLIPSIS OF ARGUMENTS IN JAPANESE AND TURKISH*
Serkan Şener and Daiko Takahashi
University of Connecticut and Tohoku University

1. Introduction
In this paper we consider the phenomenon of argument ellipsis, where arguments such as
subjects and objects are elided under identity with antecedents nearby. Several researchers
including Kim (1999), Oku (1998), Otani and Whitman (1991) have argued in one way or
another that some null argument constructions are best analyzed as involving ellipsis rather
than empty pronouns. For instance, suppose that the null object construction in (1b) is
preceded by (1a), and that the null object in (1b) is somehow anaphoric to the object in (1a).
In this context, (1b) is ambiguous between the two readings in (2): (1b) means either that
Hanako hates Taro’s mother, which is called the strict reading, or that Hanako hates her own
mother, which is called the sloppy reading.
(1)a.

Taro-wa
zibun-noTaro-NOM self-GEN

hahaoya-oaisiteiru.
mother-ACC loves‘Lit. Taro loves self’s mother.’b.

Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOPenikundeiru.
hates‘Lit. Hanako hates e.’(2)a.

Hanako hates his (= Taro’s) mother. (strict)b.

Hanako hates her own mother. (sloppy)*

The material reported here was presented in one form or another at the 3rd Workshop of theInternational Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition held at Nanzan
University in March, 2009 and at the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics held at Nagoya
University in September, 2009. For their valuable comments and questions, we are grateful to Željko
Bošković, Hideki Kishimoto, Jaklin Kornfilt, Hideki Maki, Shigeru Miyagawa, Mamoru Saito,
Nilüfer Gültekin Şener, Asako Uchibori, and James Yoon as well as the audiences at those meetings.
The present research was financially supported by the Nanzan International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition (the first author) and by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (C) (21520392) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (the second author). A
shortened version of this paper will appear in Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics to be published by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Nanzan Linguistics 6, 79-99©2010 Serkan Şener and Daiko Takahashi

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

When (1b) has the strict reading, it may contain a pronoun in the object position. In thisregard, let us consider the data from English in (3). (3a) is taken to antecede (3b), where theobject is a pronoun anaphoric to the object in (3a). When we use a personal pronoun as in(3b), the sentence is not ambiguous and only has the strict reading.
(3)a.

John loves his mother.

b.

Bill hates her.
= Bill hates John’s mother. / ≠ Bill hates his own mother.

If the null object in (1b) were unanimously an empty pronoun, we would expect the sentence
to be like (3b), being restricted to the strict interpretation. Since (1b) can have the sloppy
reading in addition to the strict reading, we need something other than an empty pronoun for
the null object. And argument ellipsis just provides us with what is needed. According to theargument ellipsis analysis of null arguments, (1b) is analyzed as in (4b), where the object
position is occupied by the full-fledged noun phrase self’s mother in the syntactic andsemantic component, and it is elided in the PF component to yield a null object construction.
(4)a.

Taro-wa
zibun-noTaro-NOM self-GEN

hahaoya-oaisiteiru.
mother-ACC loves‘Lit. Taro loves self’s mother.’b.

Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP

zibun-noself-GENhahaoya-onikundeiru.
mother-ACC hates‘Lit. Hanako hates self’s mother.’
While null arguments in languages like Japanese can be elliptic, not every null argumentattested in natural languages can be analyzed similarly. Oku (1998) observes that nullsubjects in Spanish cannot be derived by ellipsis; rather, they are empty pronouns as has beenstandardly assumed. Consider the data in (5), cited from Oku (1998). (5a) serves as theantecedent sentence for (5b), where the embedded subject is empty. If it were able to be
elliptic, we would expect (5b) to permit the sloppy interpretation as well as the strict reading
just like (1b). The fact is, however, that the null subject only means Maria’s proposal, but not
Juan’s proposal. This puts the null subject in Spanish in the same category as the pronoun in
(3b).
(5)

a.

María
Maria

cree
que
believes thatsu propuesta
her proposal

será
will.be‘Maria believes that her proposal will be accepted.’-80-

aceptada.
acceptedEllipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)

b.

Juan
Juan

también
also

cree
que
believes that

e
it

será
will.beaceptada.
accepted‘Juan also believes that it will be accepted.’= Juan believes that Maria’s proposal will be accepted.
≠ Juan believes that Juan’s proposal will be accepted.
Given that some null arguments in natural languages can be elliptic while others areunambiguously pronominal, we are led to ask what is responsible for the variation. Since nullarguments themselves do not have a visible indication, it is natural to assume that it issomehow related to some other visible evidence. In this respect, Oku (1998) proposes the
hypothesis that argument ellipsis correlates with scrambling: the basic idea is that whereas
Japanese allows argument ellipsis because it has scrambling, Spanish does not allow
argument ellipsis because it does not permit scrambling. The purpose of this paper is to
examine Oku’s hypothesis with data from Turkish, which is just like Japanese in allowing
null arguments and scrambling.
2. Argument Ellipsis in Japanese
Before looking at Turkish data, let us consider some basic observations that have been
made in the literature for Japanese. The data in (1), repeated as (6) below, illustrates object
ellipsis in Japanese.
(6)a.

Taro-wa
zibun-noTaro-NOM self-GEN

hahaoya-oaisiteiru.
mother-ACC loves‘Lit. Taro loves self’s mother.’b.

Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOPenikundeiru.
hates‘Lit. Hanako hates e.’
Taking (6a) as the antecedent, (6b) permits the sloppy interpretation, which has been taken in
the literature to be an indication of ellipsis.
Another argument that null objects in Japanese can be elliptic is obtained from cases likethe following:(7)a.

Taro-wa
Taro-TOPsannin-no
three-GENsensei-osonkeisiteiru.
teacher-ACC respects‘Taro respects three teachers.’-81-Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010b.

Hanako-mo
Hanako-alsoesonkeisiteiru.
respects‘lit. Hanako respects e, too.’Takahashi (2008a, 2008b) observes that when anteceded by (7a), (7b) allows the reading that
Hanako respects three teachers in addition to the interpretation that Hanako respects the threeteachers that Taro respects. Comparison of (7) with the following data in English may be
useful here:(8)a.

John respects three teachers.

b.

Mary respects them, too.

c.

Mary does, too.

The examples in (8b-c) are intended to be anteceded by (8a); (8b) contains a pronoun that issomehow associated with the quantificational object in (8a), while (8c) involves VP-ellipsis.
The fact is that whereas (8b) only means that Mary respects the three teachers that John
respects, (8c) permits the reading that Mary respects three teachers. The two readings can be
distinguished as follows: the first reading, called the E-type reading here, necessarily implies
that Mary respects the same set of teachers as John does, while the second reading, called thequantificational reading, allows the set of teachers Mary respects to be different from the setof teachers John respects. That (8c) permits the quantificational reading is natural given that it
can be analyzed as follows:(9)

Mary does [VP respect three teachers], too.

Here the VP contains the quantifier three teachers and is elided under identity with the VP in(8a). Since (8c) contains a quantifier in the syntactic and semantic component, it comes as no
surprise that the sentence has the quantificational reading.
Bearing this in mind, let us return to (7b). If the null object were always pronominal, thesentence should only have the E-type reading, just like (8b). On the other hand, the ellipsis
analysis of null objects correctly predicts the possibility of the quantificational reading,because it analyzes (7b) as in (10b):(10) a.

Taro-wa
Taro-TOPsannin-no
three-GENsensei-osonkeisiteiru.
teacher-ACC respects‘Taro respects three teachers.’b.

Hanako-mo
Hanako-alsosannin-no
three-GENsensei-osonkeisiteiru.
teacher-ACC respects‘Lit. Hanako respects three teachers, too.’-82-

Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)

Here (10b) contains a quantifier in the object position, which is elided under identity with theobject in the antecedent sentence in (10a). Since (10b) (or (7b)) has a full-fledged quantifier,
it is natural that it has the quantificational reading.
We have assumed above that elliptic null objects arise from elision of objects. We
should note here that there is an alternative approach to the phenomenon in question.
Following Huang (1991), Otani and Whitman (1991) argue that elliptic null object
constructions are derived by VP-ellipsis with concomitant V-raising (or what is now called
V-stranding VP-ellipsis (Goldberg (2005)). In that case, (7) is analyzed as in (11), where theexamples are shown with English words for convenience.
(11) a.
b.

[TP Taro [T’ respects-T [VP tV three teachers]]][TP Hanako [T’ respects-T [VP tV three teachers]]], too

According to the proponents of the V-stranding VP-ellipsis analysis, Japanese should allow
raising of main verbs to T in overt syntax, as indicated in (11). The VP in (11b) is identical to
the VP in the antecedent sentence in (11a) and is elided by VP-ellipsis. Since the verb
evacuates from VP prior to VP-ellipsis, it remains as a remnant, unlike main verbs in English,
which are elided by VP-ellipsis because they do not undergo V-to-T raising.
Though V-stranding VP-ellipsis may be available in some languages such as Hebrew(Goldberg (2005)), that it is not an option for Japanese is shown by Oku (1998) (see also Kim(1999)). The data below, cited from Oku (1998), shows that adjuncts cannot be elliptic:(12) a.

Bill-wa kuruma-oBill-TOP car-ACC

teineini
carefully

aratta.
washed‘Bill washed a car carefully.’b.

John-wa
John-TOPearawanakatta.
not.washed‘Lit. John didn’t wash e.’= John did not wash a car. / ≠ John did not wash a car carefully.
Taking (12a) as the antecedent sentence, (12b) is a null object construction. Notice that (12a)has the adverb corresponding to carefully, but it is not understood in the interpretation of(12b), which means that John didn’t wash a car, but not that John didn’t wash a car carefully.
This fact is important because it indicates that the elliptic null object construction is notderived by V-stranding VP-ellipsis. Let us consider how (12b) would be analyzed under theV-stranding VP-ellipsis analysis. (12a-b) would be analyzed as in (13a-b), respectively.
(13) a.

[TP Bill [T’ wash-T [VP tV a car carefully]]]-83-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010b.

[TP John [T’ wash-NEG-T [VP tV a car carefully]]]

Here the main verbs undergo V-to-T raising (in (13b), V may move to T via NEG). Since themanner adverb carefully is arguably contained in VP, VP-ellipsis should be able to elide theadverb and the object as well as the verbal trace. This should predict (12b) to have theinterpretation that John did not wash a car carefully, which is in fact impossible.1 On theother hand, the argument ellipsis analysis restricts targets of deletion to arguments, so that theabsence of adjunct ellipsis can be an automatic consequence (readers are referred to Oku(1998) for a way to derive the desired consequence).
Arguments are not limited to objects. Subjects are arguments as well, and Oku (1998)
observes that they can equally be elliptic. Consider the data in (14). (14a) antecedes (14b),
where the embedded subject is empty. Just like the null object in (1b) and unlike the nullsubject in Spanish in (5b), the null subject in (14b) is ambiguous between the strict and thesloppy interpretation. In particular, that (14b) can have the sloppy reading that Hanako said
that her child knew French indicates that the null subject can be elliptic.
(14) a.

Taro-wa
Taro-TOP[zibun-no kodomo-ga[self-GEN child-NOM

eigo-ositteiru
English-ACC knows

to]
that

itta.
said

‘Lit. Taro said that self’s child knew English.’b.

Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP[efuransugo-o sitteiru
French-ACC knows

to]
that

itta.
said

‘Lit. Hanako said that e knew French.’
Further, the null subject in (15b) can yield a quantificational interpretation, another indicationof ellipsis.
(15) a.

Sannin-no
three-GEN

onnanoko-ga
girl-NOM

Taro-niai-niTaro-DAT see-to

kita.
came

‘Three girls came to see Taro.’b.

eKen-ni-mo
Ken-DAT-alsoai-nisee-tokita.
came‘Lit. e came to see Ken, too.’1

That the adverb in question is contained in VP is indicated by the fact that it is part of the constituent
dislocated by what is called VP-preposing, as shown below:(i)(i)[VP Kuruma-o[VP car-ACC

teineini arai]-sae
carefully wash-evenBill-gaBill-NOM‘Lit. Even wash a car carefully, Bill did.’

-84-

tVP

sita.
did.

Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)

Anteceded by (15a), (15b) can mean that three girls came to see Ken, too, and hence can betrue even if the group of the girls who came to see Ken was different from the group of thegirls who came to see Taro.
At this point, let us attend to the formal analysis of argument ellipsis proposed by Oku(1998), who, as we noted above, tries to relate it to scrambling. As for scrambling, Oku
assumes with Bošković and Takahashi (1998) that the weakness of θ-features (namely, θroles taken as features) is responsible for it. The weak/strong dichotomy of features is a
notion proposed by Chomsky (1995). Informally speaking, strong features are those featuresthat must be checked as soon as possible (in most cases, in overt syntax) once they are
introduced in a derivation with lexical items containing them; on the other hand, weakfeatures do not have to be checked in overt syntax and can wait to be checked until LF.
Assuming that θ-roles are weak features in Japanese, Bošković and Takahashi (1998) analyze
scrambling as base-generation of “scrambled” elements in adjoined positions followed bytheir LF movement to θ-positions. This is schematically indicated in (16a-c).
(16) a.

Object Subject VTRb.

[TP Object [TP Subject [T’ [VP VTR]]]]<overt syntax>c.

[TP __ [TP Subject [TP’ [VP Object VTR]]]]|____________________↑<LF>

Suppose we have a sentence where the object is “scrambled” over the subject as in (16a).
According to Bošković and Takahashi (1998), the object in fact is base-generated in thesurface position (namely, in TP-adjoined position or in an extra specifier of TP) as in (16b).
Notice that at this point, the verb, which is transitive and has an internal θ-role to assign, isobject-less. This is allowed by assumption because the θ-role is a weak feature. But it must be
checked at LF, and the required checking is established by moving the object into thecomplement position of VP as shown in (16c).
Oku (1998) adopts this idea and applies it to the analysis of argument ellipsis, as shownin (17).
(17) a.

Taro loves self’s mother.

b.

Hanako hates e.

a’.

[TP Taro [VP loves self’s mother]]<overt syntax>b’.

[TP Hanako [VP hates]]<overt syntax>a”.

[TP Taro [VP loves self’s mother]]

<LF>

b”.

[TP Hanako [VP hates self’s mother]]

<LF>

-85-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010(17a-b) correspond to (1a-b), respectively, which are shown in English wording just for
convenience. Oku assumes that they are represented as in (17a’-b’) in overt syntax: what isnoteworthy here is that (17b’) literally lacks an object though the verb is transitive. Thisshould be allowed in Japanese, however, since θ-roles do not have to be checked (orassigned) in overt syntax in Japanese. (17a”-b”) are the LF representations, where the object
in the antecedent sentence in (17a”) is copied in the object position in (17b”) and checks (or is
assigned) the θ-role of the verb.
Note that this sort of derivation is made possible by the weakness of θ-role features andhence that in non-scrambling languages, where θ-roles are strong, argument ellipsis should be
disallowed. Thus, languages like English and Spanish do not allow scrambling, so that theyshould not permit argument ellipsis, either. Bearing this background in mind, let us turn ourattention to Turkish to examine whether the alleged correlation between argument ellipsis andscrambling holds.
3. Argument Ellipsis in Turkish
Let us start with a very cursory look at Turkish. It is a head-final, SOV language just like
Japanese, but crucially it exhibits subject-predicate agreement unlike Japanese. (18a-b) showthat the form of the agreement suffix varies according to the type of subject in person andnumber.
(18) a.

(Ben)
(I)

bu
this

makale-yi
article-ACCyavaşyavaş
slowlyoku-yacağ-ım.
read-FUT-1SG‘I will read this article slowly.’
b.

(Biz)
(we)

her
hafta
every weeksinema-ya
movies-DAT

gid-er-iz.
go-AOR-1PL‘We go to the movies every week.’
Also, Turkish is similar to Japanese in allowing null subjects and null objects (Aygen (2001),
Erguvanlı-Taylan (1984), Kornfilt (1987, 1997), Özsoy (1988), Öztürk (2004), Turan (1995),
among others). In (19), both the subject and the object are empty: the agreement on the verb
indicates that the subject is first-person, singular, while the reference of the object isdetermined by the context.
(19)

e

e

at-tı-m.
throw-PAST-1SG‘Lit. I threw e.’
Another important property of the Turkish grammar relevant to us is the presence ofscrambling (Aygen (2001), Erguvanlı-Taylan (1984), Kural (1993, 1997), Kornfilt (2003),-86-Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)Şener (to appear), Öztürk (2004), among others). In (20) and (21), the internal arguments (thedative phrase in (20) and the accusative phrase in (21)) are relocated by scrambling,exhibiting a free word order alternation.
(20) a.

Can
John

her
hafta
every weeksinema-ya
gid-er.
movies-DAT go-AOR‘John goes to the movies every week.’
b.

Can
John

sinema-ya
movies-DAT

her
hafta
every week

gid-er.
go-AOR‘John goes to the movies every week.’(21) a.

Mete
Mete

dün
yesterdaysabahmorning

ders-iclass-ACC

ek-miş.
skip-EVID.PAST‘Mete skipped the class yesterday morning.’
b.

Mete
Mete

ders-iclass-ACC

dün
yesterdaysabahmorning

ek-miş.
skip-EVID.PAST‘Mete skipped the class yesterday morning.’
We are now ready to examine the correlation between argument ellipsis and scrambling
proposed by Oku (1998). It would be predicted that Turkish should behave like Japanese andpermit argument ellipsis. First of all, (22) and (23) show that Turkish can have elliptic null
objects.
(22) a.

Can
John[pro anne-si]-nieleştir-di.
[his mother-3SG-ACC criticize-PAST‘John criticized his mother.’b.

Mete-yseeMete-howeveröv-dü.
praise-PAST‘Lit. Mete, however, praised e.’= Mete praised John’s mother. / = Mete praised Mete’s mother.
(23) a.

Kim
whokendi-niself-ACCeleştir-di?
criticize-PAST‘Who criticized himself?’-87-Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

b.

Can
John

e

eleştir-di.
criticize-PAST‘Lit. John criticized e.’= John criticized himself.
Anteceded by (22a), (22b) can have the sloppy reading that Mete praised his own mother, in
addition to the strict reading that Mete praised John’s mother. The sloppy reading is anindication of ellipsis. Also, preceded by (23a), (23b) can mean that John criticized himself.
Notice that this fact could not be accounted for if null objects were always pronominal: as
shown in (24a), to get the relevant reading in (23b), the object must be coindexed with thesubject, and hence if the object were an empty pronoun, the sentence would be ruled out as a
violation of Condition (B) of the Binding Theory. On the other hand, the argument ellipsis
analysis can handle the case easily: as shown in (24b), it postulates a reflexive in the object
position, and it is elided under identity with the preceding object.
(24) a. * John1 criticized pro1.
b.

John1 criticized self1.

In the same vein, (22) is analyzed as in (25) when (22b) has the sloppy reading.
(25) (for (22) when (22b) has the sloppy interpretation)a.
John1 criticized his1 mother.
b.

Mete2 praised his2 mother.

The empty position in (22b) is in fact occupied by the full-fledged noun phrase corresponding
to his mother, which is elided under identity with the object in the antecedent sentence.
Additional evidence that provides support for an ellipsis analysis of null objects inTurkish concerns the availability of quantificational interpretations. Consider the following
example:(26) a.

Can
John

üç
hırsızthree burglar

yakala-dı.
catch-PAST‘John caught three burglars.’b.

Filiz-sePhylis-howeveresorgula-dı.
interrogate-PAST‘Lit. Phylis, however, interrogated e.’
The null object in (26b) has the quantificational object in (26a) as its antecedent. While (26b)
can mean that Phylis interrogated the same three burglars that John caught, it mayalternatively mean that Phylis interrogated three burglars. Under the second interpretation, the-88-Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)

sentence can be true even if the set of the three burglars Phylis interrogated was different
from the set of the three burglars John caught.
To ensure that the null object constructions in (22), (23), and (26) involve argument (orobject) ellipsis rather than V-stranding VP-ellipsis, it is necessary to consider whether VPadverbs can be included in ellipsis sites. In this regard, let us consider the following data:(27) a.

Can
John

sorun-uproblem-ACC

hızla
quicklyçöz-dü.
solve-PAST‘John solved the problem quickly.’b.

Filiz-sePhylis-howevereçöz-me-di.
solve-NEG-PAST‘Lit. Phylis, however, did not solve e.’= Phylis did not solve the problem.
≠ Phylis did not solve the problem quickly.
The antecedent sentence in (27a) contains the adverb corresponding to quickly as well as theobject. The sentence in (27b) is a null object construction, and crucially it does not mean that
Phylis did not solve the problem quickly; it only means that Phylis did not solve the problem.
If the elliptic null object construction in Turkish were derived by V-stranding VP-ellipsis, theimpossible reading should be available. Since it is impossible, it is safe to conclude that theelliptic null object construction in Turkish involves object ellipsis instead of VP-ellipsis.
Another argument against the V-stranding VP-ellipsis analysis of null objects in Turkish
can be constructed on the model of an argument developed by Oku (1998) for Japanese.
Consider the following examples in Turkish, each of which contains two internal arguments:(28) a.

Can
John[pro öğrenciler-i-ni][his students-3SG-ACC[birbirleri-yle]tanıştır-dı.
[each.other-INST introduce-PAST‘John introduced his students to each other.’b. * Can
John[birbirleri-yle][pro öğrenciler-i-ni][each.other-INST [his students-3SG-ACCtanıştır-dı.
introduce-PAST‘John introduced his students to each other.’(29) a.

Can
John[pro öğrenciler-i-ni][his students-3SG-ACC[birbirleri-yle]yarış-tır-dı.
[each.other-INST race-CAUS-PAST‘John raced his students with each other.’-89-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010b. * Can
John[birbirleri-yle][pro öğrenciler-i-ni][each.other-INST [his students-3SG-ACCyarış-tır-dı.
race-CAUS-PAST‘John raced his students with each other.’
In (28a) and (29a), the accusative objects precede and bind the reciprocal anaphors realized as
the instrumental arguments. (28b) and (29b) show that the instrumental phrases cannot
precede the accusative objects in these contexts.2 Bearing this in mind, let us consider (30).
(30) a.

Can
John[pro öğrenciler-i-ni][his students-3SG-ACC[birbirleri-yle]tanıştır-dı.
[each.other-INST introduce-PAST‘John introduced his students to each other.’b.

Mete-yseeMete-however[birbirleri-yle]yarış-tır-dı.
[each.other-INST race-CAUS-PAST‘Lit. Mete, however, raced e with each other.’(30a) is intended as the antecedent sentence for (30b), where the accusative object is empty.
An important observation about (30b) is that it allows the sloppy reading that Mete raced
Mete’s own students with each other, which shows that it somehow involves ellipsis. Now
let us consider how it would be derived by VP-ellipsis. The reciprocal anaphor is a remnant
and hence it must be dislocated out of VP prior to the point where VP is elided. In that case,(30b) should be analyzed as follows:(31)[TP Mete-yse [birbirleri-yle]1 [VP [pro öğrenciler-i-ni] t1 tV] [T yarışV-tır-dı]]

Here the instrumental phrase is in the outside of VP, probably in the specifier position ofsome functional head such as v or AgrO, and VP undergoes ellipsis so that the accusative
object is elided. Notice that we know from (28b) and (29b) that the representation in (31)should be ill-formed, and hence that the analysis in terms of VP-ellipsis would predict (30b)
to be impossible, contrary to the fact. In contrast, argument ellipsis can handle it without
difficulty. It analyzes (30b) in the following way (it is immaterial to the argument ellipsis
analysis whether the verb undergoes raising or not):(32)[TP Mete-yse [VP [pro öğrenciler-i-ni] [birbirleri-yle] yarış-tır-dı]]

In (32), the instrumental phrase is in VP and follows the accusative phrase. The accusative
object is elided by argument ellipsis, so that the surface form is derived. There is nothing
wrong with this analysis; in particular, the alignment of the internal arguments is licit.
Let us now turn our attention to subject ellipsis. Consider (33) first.
2This is probably due to Condition (C) of the Binding Theory: if the instrumental phrases are in Apositions in (28b) and (29b), they bind their antecedents (namely, his students) in violation ofCondition (C).

-90-

Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)(33) a.

Can
John[[pro oğl-u][[his son-3SGİngilizce
Englishöğren-iyor
learn-PRES

diye]
COMP

bil-iyor.
know-PRES‘John knows that his son learns English.’b.

Filiz-sePhylis-however[eFransızca
Frenchöğren-iyor
learn-PRES

diye]
COMP

bil-iyor.
know-PRES‘Lit. Phylis, however, knows that e learns French.’(33a-b) have finite embedded clauses, and the embedded subject in (33b) is empty.
Anteceded by (33a), (33b) can have the strict reading that Phylis knows that John’s son learns
French, but significantly it does not have the sloppy reading that Phylis knows that Phylis’
son learns French. This observation is confirmed by (34).
(34) a.

Can [[pro öneri-si]-nin
kabul ed-il-eceğ-i]-nidüşün-üyor.
John [[his proposal-3SG-GEN accept do-PASS-NM-3SG-ACC think-PRES‘John thinks that his proposal will be accepted.’b.

Aylin-seEileen-however[eredded-il-eceğ-i]-ni
reject-PASS-NM-3SG-ACCdüşün-üyor.
think-PRES‘Lit. Eileen, however, thinks that e will be rejected.’
The embedded clauses in (34a-b) are nominalized but they are like finite clauses in exhibiting
subject agreement. The null embedded subject in (34b) yields the strict reading, but not thesloppy reading. The fact here indicates that unlike objects, subjects cannot be elliptic in
Turkish: then, the null subject in (34b) may be an empty pronoun, just like null subjects in
Spanish.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that null subjects in Turkish do not allow
quantificational interpretations, either.
(35) a.

Üç
threeöğretmenteacherCan-ı
John-ACCeleştir-di.
criticize-PAST‘Three teachers criticized John.’b.

eFiliz-i-yse
Phylis-ACC-howeveröv-dü.
praise-PAST‘Lit. e praised Phylis.’
Anteceded by (35a), (35b) contains a null subject. While the subject can be understood as thethree teachers that criticized John, it cannot be taken as the quantificational phrase threeteachers. This observation again shows that null subjects in Turkish can be pronominal but
cannot be elliptic.

-91-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

The considerations above show that while Turkish is similar to Japanese in allowing
object ellipsis, it differs from Japanese in not allowing subject ellipsis. Given the alleged
correlation between argument ellipsis and scrambling, Turkish would be expected to behave
exactly like Japanese. That Turkish behaves differently from Japanese appears to pose a
problem to Oku’s hypothesis, but in the next section, we will show that it does not undermine
it because the lack of subject ellipsis in Turkish can be independently accounted for by thetheory of agreement put forth by Chomsky (1995, 2000). Basically we try to capitalize on thepresence of subject agreement in Turkish and its absence in Japanese in approaching thediscrepancy in subject ellipsis.
4. Copying and Agreement
In fact, Saito (2007) considers the relevance of agreement to argument ellipsis andargues that the copying analysis of argument ellipsis plus Chomsky’s (1995, 2000) theory ofagreement restricts ellipsis to arguments that do not participate in agreement. We illustrate
Saito’s reasoning below:(36) a.

... F1{φ} ... DP1{φ, Case} ...

The φ-features of F1 need to be checked; DP1 with
φ-features is activated by virtue of possessing an
unchecked Case feature.

a’.

... F1{–φ–} ... DP1{φ, —C—ase–} ...

Checking erases F1’s φ-features and DP1’s
Case-feature: DP1 becomes inert.

b.

... F2{φ} ... __ ...

F2’s checking mate is elliptic.

b’. * ... F2{φ} ... DP1{φ, —C—ase–} ...

DP1 is copied from (36a’): since it is already inert,
it cannot check F2’s φ-features.

In (36a), there is a functional head F1 with uninterpretable φ-features, which must be checkedand erased. There is a DP (DP1) in the neighborhood, and its φ-features can check the φfeatures of F . Here, the Case feature of DP1 plays an important role: it activates DP1 so that it
can enter into checking relation with F1. After the checking, the φ-features of F1 are erased,
and by assumption the Case feature of DP1 is also erased, as shown in (36a’). Suppose thatthe structure in (36a’) serves as the antecedent of argument ellipsis in (36b), where there is afunctional head F2 with φ-features. The underlined part in (36b) marks the elliptic site. DP1 iscopied onto the elliptic site from (36a’), deriving (36b’). Now we have a problem. The Casefeature of the copied DP has already been checked off in the antecedent sentence, so that the
copied DP cannot be activated for the purpose of checking with F2. The result is that theuninterpretable φ-features of F2 are not checked or erased, causing a crash.
1

We claim that this kind of failed checking takes place in ungrammatical subject ellipsis
in Turkish. We assume that the presence of subject-predicate agreement in Turkish meansthat Tense (or T) in the language possesses φ-features, which must be erased by checking:-92-

Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)

hence, subject ellipsis is ruled out in Turkish.3 To see how it works, let us consider (33),
which is repeated as (37) with English wording for convenience. The antecedent sentence in(37a) goes through the derivation in (38), where we only show the embedded clause.
(37) a.
b.

John knows that his son learns English.
Phylis, however, knows that e learns French.

(38) a.

... [TP T{φ} [vP his son{φ, Case} [v’ v [VP learns English]]]]b.

... [TP T{–φ–} [vP his son{φ, —C—ase–} [v’ v [VP learns English]]]]c.

... [TP his son{φ, —C—ase–} [T’ T{–φ–} [vP tDP [v’ v [VP learns English]]]]]In (38a), the embedded T is to enter into checking relation with the subject his son to have its
φ-features checked; in (38b), the checking results in erasure of the φ-features of T and theCase feature of the subject; and irrelevantly, in (38c), the subject moves to the specifier
position of T to satisfy the EPP. Turning to the elliptic sentence in (37b), its embedded clauseshould be derived as below:(39) a.

... [TP T{φ} [vP __ [v’ v [VP learns French]]]]b. * ... [TP T{φ} [vP his son{φ , —C—ase–} [v’ v [VP learns French]]]]Initially, the subject position is just vacant as in (39a), and it is filled by the preceding subject
his son copied from the antecedent clause, as shown in (39b). But the Case feature of thecopied subject has already been erased in the antecedent clause, so that it cannot enter intochecking relation with T. This way, we can rule out subject ellipsis in Turkish.
The fact that argument ellipsis can apply to subjects as well as objects in Japanese isconsistent with the idea made by Fukui (1986) and Kuroda (1988) that the language lacks
agreement, which we understand to mean that functional heads such as T and v lack φfeatures. For example, the case of object ellipsis in (1) is repeated in (40) with English
wording.
(40) a.
b.
(41) a.

Taro loves self’s mother.
Hanako hates e.
[TP ... [vP Taro [v’ v [VP love [DP self’s mother{φ, ACC}]]]]]

3Öztürk (2006) makes an important assumption concerning Agree in Turkish, which is that Turkish
lacks case-driven Agree entirely. This is different from what we assume in the text, because we
assume that Agree is relevant at least for the licensing of subject predicate agreement in Turkish. We
will provide support for our position below.

-93-Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010b.

[TP ... [vP Hanako [v’ v [VP hate __ ]]]]b’.

[TP ... [vP Hanako [v’ v [VP hate self’s mother{φ , ACC} ]]]]

The antecedent sentence in (40a) is analyzed as in (41a), where the functional head v lacks φfeatures by assumption. Since there is no agreement between v and the object, (41a) itself
becomes the source of copying. The elliptic sentence in (40b) is analyzed as in (41b-b’): theobject position is vacant in (41b) and has the preceding object copied in (41b’). Since v does
not have uninterpretable φ-features, (41b’) has no problem, whether or not the Case feature ofself’s mother is checked in the antecedent prior to the copying. Though we do not go into thestatus of accusative case in Japanese, there is a proposal in the literature that it is an inherent
case (see Fukui and Takano (1998) and Takahashi (1996)). In that case, accusative case has
nothing to do with agreement in Japanese.
We assume that basically the same thing holds for subject ellipsis in Japanese. The
relevant case in (14) is repeated in (42) with English words.
(42) a.
b.
(43) a.
b.
(44) a.
b.

Taro said that self’s child knew English.
Hanako said that e knew French.
... [TP T [vP self’s child{φ, NOM} [v’ v [VP knew English]]]] ...
... [TP self’s child{φ, NOM} [T’ T [vP tDP [v’ v [VP knew English]]]]] ...
... [TP T [vP __ [v’ v [VP knew French]]]] ...
... [TP T [vP self’s child{φ, NOM} [v’ v [VP knew French]]]]] ...

The embedded clause in the antecedent in (42a) is analyzed as in (43). The subject self’s childis in the specifier position of vP in (43a). It does not enter into checking relation with T,
which by assumption lacks φ-features. Irrelevantly, the subject may move to the specifier
position of TP due to the EPP as in (43b). The elliptic sentence in (42b) is analyzed as in (44).
The base position of the subject is vacant as shown in (44a); the antecedent subject is copied
to derive (44b). Here again, since T lacks uninterpretable φ-features, (44b) causes noproblem, whether or not the copied subject has the Case feature checked prior to the copying.
Though we do not go into the analysis of nominative case in Japanese, we mention that ouranalysis is compatible with Saito’s (1985) idea that nominative case in Japanese iscontextually determined in such a way that it is assigned to elements that are immediately
dominated by projections of Tense, which accounts for the presence of the multiple
nominative construction in Japanese as indicated below:4

4

In this regard, it is interesting to note that Kornfilt (1991) shows that Turkish, unlike Japanese, lacks
multiple nominative constructions.

-94-

Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)(45)[TP DP-NOM [T’ DP-NOM [T’ DP-NOM ... [T’ VP T]]]]As for object ellipsis in Turkish, we are naturally led to assume that v lacks
uninterpretable φ-features in the language just as in Japanese. Though this initially seems to
be natural since Turkish does not exhibit object-verb agreement, we have to leave it to future
research to provide evidence for that.
We now turn our attention to consequences of the line of analysis we are pursuing here.
One is that even in Turkish, subjects that do not participate in agreement are predicted to beable to be elliptic. We begin by the fact noted by Öztürk (2006) that subject drop does not
require predicate agreement in Turkish in a certain type of adjunct clause (see also Aygen(2001) and Kornfilt (2002)). This is illustrated by the examples below cited from Öztürk(2006):(46) A:

John1
John

[Bill2 gel-ince][Bill come-whenmi gid-ecek?
Q go-FUT‘Will John go when Bill comes?’
B:

Evet,
Yes

[pro2 gel-ince][hecome-whenpro1
hegid-ecek.
go-FUT‘Yes, he will go when he comes.’In (46B), which is intended as a reply to the question in (46A), the subject of the adjunctclause is empty though the predicate shows no agreement. Given this, we can test whether
null subjects of such clauses can be elliptic. The judgment for the example below points inthat direction:(47) a.

Can [[pro oğl-u]İngilizce
John [[his son-3SG.POSS English

öğren-ince]
sevin-di.
learn-because be.pleased-PRES.PERF‘John is pleased because his son has learned English.’b.

Filiz-sePhylis-however[eFransızca
Frenchöğren-ince]
learn-because

sevin-di.
be.pleased-PRES.PERF‘Lit. Phylis, however, is pleased because e has learned French.’(47b) can have the sloppy reading that Phylis is pleased because Phylis’ son has learned
French, indicating that the null subject is elliptic.
Another piece of evidence that bears out the prediction that subjects that do notparticipate in agreement can be elliptic can be found in ECM constructions, exemplified
below:-95-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

(48)

Pelin
Pelin

[ben-i/sen-i/on-u[I/you/he/she-ACC

lise-yebaşla-yacak]high-school-DAT start-FUT

san-ıyor.
think-PRES‘Pelin thinks I/you/he/she will start high school.’
In (48), the matrix verb corresponding to think takes a complement clause where the subject
is accusative and the form of the predicate remains the same irrespective of the type of thesubject. It is safe to say that there is no subject-predicate agreement in the complement clausein (48). Now let us consider (49) to observe how subjects of ECM clauses behave withrespect to the diagnostic tests for ellipsis.
(49) a.

Pelin [[pro yeğen-i]-nilise-yebaşla-yacak] san-ıyor.
Pelin [[her niece-3SG-ACC high-school-DAT start-FUT
think-PRES‘Pelin thinks her niece will start high school.’b.

Suzan-se
Susan-however[eilkokul-a
grade-school-DAT

başla-yacak] san-ıyor.
start-FUT
think-PRES‘Susan, however, thinks that e will start grade school.’(49a) serves as the antecedent for (49b), where the embedded subject is empty. Comparedwith (33b) and (34b), which have subject agreement, (49b) allows the sloppy interpretation
more easily. Thus we have further confirmation of the correlation between the absence ofagreement and the possibility of argument ellipsis.
Finally, let us attend to the phenomenon of subject honorification in Japanese, whichsome researchers like Toribio (1990) and Ura (1996) regard as an instance of subject
agreement. The phenomenon is illustrated in (50), where the predicate is in the honorific form
and it is compatible with the honorable subject Prof. Suzuki but not with the humble subject
Taro.
(50)

{Suzuki{Suzukisensei-ga / #Taro-ga}
prof.-NOM / #Taro-NOM

ronbun-opaper-ACCo-kaki-ninatta.
HON-write-HON‘Prof. Suzuki / Taro wrote a paper.’If this is really an instance of agreement, we expect that subjects of honorific predicatesshould not be able to be elliptic. The following is a case in point:(51) a.

Taro-wa
Taro-TOPomotteiru.
think[zibun-no sensei-ga
eigo-oo-hanasi-ninaru
to][self-GEN teacher-NOM English-ACC HON-speak-HON that

‘Lit. Taro thinks that self’s teacher speaks English.’-96-

Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)b.

Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP[efuransugo-o o-hanasi-ninaru
to]French-ACC HON-speak-HON thatomotteiru.
think‘Lit. Hanako thinks that e speaks French.’
In (51a-b), the embedded verbs are accompanied by the honorific marker. If (51b) allows thesloppy interpretation that Hanako thinks that her own teacher speaks French, the null
embedded subject can be elliptic. If, on the other hand, the sentence is limited to the strictreading that Hanako thinks that Taro’s teacher speaks French, it shows that the null subject
cannot be elliptic and is arguably pronominal. We consulted six native speakers of Japanese
about the interpretation of (51b) and the result was that they split into two groups: three ofthem said that it was very difficult or almost impossible to get the sloppy reading in (51b);
and the other three reported that they had no problem getting the sloppy interpretation. In theformer case, honorification may function as an instance of formal agreement, whereas in thelatter case, it may not be taken as such. We leave it for future research to have a clearer
picture of the issue.
5. Conclusion
To sum up, we have considered Turkish data to examine the alleged correlation between
argument ellipsis and scrambling. The correlation is partially confirmed: Turkish is like
Japanese in allowing object ellipsis, but it disallows subject ellipsis unlike Japanese. The
immediate question to ask is why the two languages differ this way though they are similar inallowing scrambling. Our solution has been to take advantage of the presence of subject
agreement in Turkish and its absence in Japanese. Here we have basically followed Saito’s(2007) idea that argument ellipsis is not allowed in the environment where we haveagreement, and we have provided some arguments for our position. We have had to leave anumber of tasks for the future study. Among them is to determine exactly what correlateswith argument ellipsis. According to Oku (1998), the presence of scrambling is a key factor
in permitting argument ellipsis. Saito (2007) argues that agreement also plays a role in(dis)allowing argument ellipsis. It is necessary to examine exactly to what extent scrambling
and/or agreement are/is involved in the phenomenon in question. This requires us to broaden
our range of investigation to other related languages, but it is beyond the scope of the present
work. Despite that, we believe that our study here can be an important contribution to thecomparative research of Turkish and Japanese, which look similar in large parts but differ insome minute details.

References
Aygen, G. (2001) Finiteness, Clause Structure, and Case, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Bošković, Ž. and D. Takahashi (1998) “Scrambling and Last Resort,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347-366.

-97-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

Chomsky, N. (1995) “Categories and Transformations,” In The Minimalist Program, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass, 219-394.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework,” In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 89-155.
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1984) The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, California.
Fukui, N. (1986) A Theory of Category Projection and Its Application, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Fukui, N. and Y. Takano (1998) “Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and Demerge,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 7, 27-86.
Goldberg, L. M. (2005) Verb-stranding VP-ellipsis: A Cross-linguistic Study,” Ph.D. dissertation,
McGill University.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1991) “Remarks on the Status of the Null Object,” In R. Freidin, ed., Principles andParameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 56-76.
Kim, S. (1999) “Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 255-284.
Kornfilt, J. (1987) “Turkish and the Turkic Languages,” In B. Comrie, ed., The World’s Major
Languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 619-644.
Kornfilt, J. (1991) “A Case for Emerging Functional Categories,” In S. Rothstein, ed., Syntax and
Semantics, vol. 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Academic
Press, New York, 11-35.
Kornfilt, J. (1997) Turkish Grammar, Routledge, London.
Kornfilt, J. (2002) “Functional Projections and their Subjects in Turkish Clauses,” In E.
ErguvanlıTaylan, ed., The Verb in Turkish, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 183212.
Kornfilt, J. (2003) “Scrambling, Subscrambling, and Case in Turkish,” In S. Karimi, ed., Word Orderand Scrambling, Blackwell, Oxford, 125-155.
Kural, M. (1993) “Scrambling and Mixed Positions in Turkish,” In The Proceedings of the NELS
Conference 22, GLSA Publications, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 259-271.
Kural, M. (1997) “Postverbal Constituents in Turkish and the Linear Correspondence Axiom,”
Linguistic Inquiry 28, 498-519.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”
Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Otani, K. and J. Whitman (1991) “V-raising and VP-ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345-358.
Özsoy, S. (1988) “Null Subject Parameter and Turkish,” In H. Boeschoten and L. Th. Verhoeven,eds., Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the Third Conference on Turkish
Linguistics, Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, 82-91.
Öztürk, B. (2004) Case, Referentiality, and Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Öztürk, B. (2006) “Null Arguments and Case-driven Agree in Turkish,” In C. Boeckx, ed., Minimalist
Essays, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 268-287.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203-227.
Şener, S. (2008) “Non-canonical Case Licensing Is Canonical: Accusative Subjects in Turkish,”unpublished ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.

-98-

Ellipsis of Arguments in Japanese and Turkish (S. Şener and D. Takahashi)Şener, S. (to appear) “Right Adjunction in the Right Peripheries,” In The Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
Takahashi, D. (1996) “On Antecedent-contained Deletion,” University of Connecticut Working
Papers in Linguistics 6, 65-80.
Takahashi, D. (2008a) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis,” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 394-422.
Takahashi, D. (2008b) “Quantificational Null Objects and Argument Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 39,
307-326.
Toribio, A. J. (1990) “Specifier-head Agreement in Japanese,” In Proceedings of the West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics 9, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford University,
535-548.
Turan, Ü. (1995) Null vs. Overt Subjects in Turkish Discourse: A Centering Analysis, Ph.D.
dissretation, University of Pennsylvania.
Ura, H. (1996) Multiple Feature-checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.

-99-