Notes on Ellipsis
Syntax and Information

Satoshi Oku

1. Introduction
It is known since Oku (1998) that argument ellipsis (AE) is syntactically available in Japanese.
(1) a. Mary-wa [zibun-no teian-ga
tooru-to] omotteiru.
Mary-TOP [self-GEN proposal-NOM pass-C] think‘Mary2 thinks that her2 proposal will pass.’b. John-mo [ [e] tooru-to]omotteiru
John-also [pass-C]
think‘Lit. John also thinks that [e] will pass.’ [e] = Mary’s proposal or John’s proposal[e] in (1b) can be interpreted either as Mary’s proposal (strict identity reading) or John’s proposal(sloppy identity reading), the latter being considered as a hallmark of AE. As discussed in Oku (2016),
however, it has been argued that some type of argument is ellipsis-resistant as in (2) (e.g., Ikawa
2013) and adjuncts are also ellipsis-resistant as in (3) (e.g., Oku 1998).
(2) a. John-wa
nani-okatta no?
John-TOP
what-ACC
bought Q‘What did John buy?’
b.*Bill-wa[e]katta no?
Bill-TOPbought Q*(intended) ‘What did Bill buy?’ (Possible only as ‘Did Bill buy something?’)(3) a. Bill-wa
kuruma-oteineiniarattta
Bill-TOP
car-ACC
carefully
washed‘Bill washed the car carefully.’b. John-wa
kuruma-o[e]araw-anak-atta
John-TOP
car-ACC
wash-NEG-PAST
Having (2a) as the antecedent clause, [e] in (2b) cannot be interpreted as nani-o ‘what-ACC’: whphrases are ellipsis-resistant even when they are an argument. Likewise, even with (3a) as theantecedent clause, [e] in (3b) cannot be interpreted as teineini ‘carefully.’ The most naturalinterpretation of (3b) is that John did not wash the car at all: manner adjuncts are ellipsis-resistant.
In this report, expanding Oku (2016), I argue that ellipsis-tolerance is heavily dependent on if thetarget constituent (whether it is an argument or an adjunct) is focused. Assuming (4), I will examine
two representative instances of ellipsis-resistant constituents and claim that they do not satisfy (4).
(4) Defocusing Requirement
Ellipsis presupposes the defocusing of the target constituent.
(Cf. Tancredi 1992)
Wh-phrases are intrinsically focused and thus it is their lexicio-semantic property that makes themellipsis-resistant. If the manner adjunct teineini ‘carefully’ appears in [e] in (3b), it is inevitably under
the focus of negation, and thus ellipsis-resistant, not satisfying (4). Focused constituents are ellipsisresistant; otherwise, adjuncts as well as arguments can be ellipsis-tolerant in Japanese.
2. It is Focus, not an Operator-Variable Chain
Under the LF-Copy analysis of ellipsis, Saito (2017) proposes that wh-phrases are ellipsisresistant because they make an Operator-Variable chain (Op-V chain) and a chain cannot be copied
to reconstruct the missing argument at LF. Oku (2016), on the other hand, argues that there are cases
in which argument ellipsis is possible even when the antecedent is a quantifier phrase which makes
an Op-V chain at LF. Thus, it is the violation of (4), not the Op-V chain, that makes wh-phrases
ellipsis-resistant. First of all, it is fair to assume that wh-phrases in a normal question is a focus; forinstance, in (2a), the speaker presupposes that John bought something and is asking the identity ofthis ‘something:’ that is, the information carried by the subject and the verb are presupposed, and theinformation carried by the object wh-phrase is the focus. Secondly, in (5a), the inverse scope readingis the most salient in which the universally quantified object takes scope over the existentiallyquantified subject; that is, quantifier raising applies and the Op-V chain of the object is created at LF.
Nonetheless, AE is easily available with the intended inverse scope reading as in (5b): the “[e] = everygate” reading is available. The existence of an Op-V chain does not block AE.
(5) a. A-too-de-wa
keikan-ga
hitori dono iriguti-mo gaado-sitei-ru
A-building-at-TOP police officer-NOMone
every gate-also guard-PROG-PRES‘At building A, a police officer is guarding every gate’(∀>∃)
b. B-too-de-wa
keibiin-ga
hitori[e]gaado-sitei-ru
B-building-at-TOP security guard-NOM one
guard-PROG-PRES‘At building B, a security guard is guarding [e]’(∀>∃)
The assumed ‘every gate’ at the [e] position in (5b) satisfies (4). Hence, AE is possible.

3. Manner Adjunct Ellipsis
As Simpson (2022) rightly points out, with (3a) as the antecedent, there is a clear contrast between(6b) (AE) and (6c) (the attempted adjunct ellipsis), which leads him to conclude that adjunct ellipsis
is not possible. I will argue, however, that there are many cases in which adjunct ellipsis is availableand (6c) is not good in the adjunct-inclusive reading because such a reading violates (4).
(6)
a. Mary-wa
kuruma-oteineini
araw-anak-attaMary-TOP
car-ACC
carefully
wash-NEG-PAST‘Lit. Mary did not wash [e1] carefully.’[no ellipsis]b. Mary-wa[e1]teineini
araw-anak-atta
Mary-TOP
carefully
wash-NEG-PAST[AE]‘Lit. Mary did not wash [e1] carefully.’c. Mary-wa
kuruma-o([e2])araw-anak-atta
Mary-TOP
car-ACC
wash-NEG-PAST[attempted adjunct E]
Although both ‘car’ and ‘carefully’ are recoverable from the antecedent clause (3a), AE in (6b) ispossible but adjunct ellipsis as in (6c) is not: the adjunct-inclusive reading is difficult to obtain for [e2].
Note that the adjunct is the sole focus of negation while the object argument is not in (6a); that is,(6a) means that Mary actually washed the car but not in a careful manner. I suggest therefore thatthe adjunct-inclusive reading is not possible in (6c) because the sole focus of negation is elided while
retaining everything else: a specific case of the violation of (4). As reported in Oku (2016), adjunctinclusive reading (i.e., adjunct ellipsis) is available when the condition in (4) is met.
(7) a. Ziroo-wazibun-no burasi-desono kuruma-o aratta
Jiro-TOP
self-GEN brush-withthe car-ACC
washed‘Jiro2 washed the car with his2 brush.’
b. Taroo-wa[e]kono kuruma-o aratta
Taro-TOP
this car-ACC
washed‘Lit. Taro washed this car [e].’ ([e] = Taro’s car is available) [manner adjunct ellipsis]
In this paper, I argued that condition (4) is one crucial factor for ellipsis. Japanese AE is available but
also conditioned by (4) as shown in (2). Manner adjuncts in Japanese are ellipsis-resistant when theyviolate (4) as in (6c) while they are ellipsis-tolerant when they met (4) as shown in (7).
References: Ikawa, H. (2013) “What the Ineligibility of Wh-Phrases for Argument Ellipsis Tells Us: On
the Inertness of Phonetically Null Elements,” Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia 2012. / Oku, S. (1998)
A Theory Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D. diss. UConn. / Oku, S. (2016)“A Note on Ellipsis-Resistant Constraints,” Nanzan Linguistics 11, 56-70. / Saito, M. (2017) “Ellipsis.” In
Shibatani, M., S. Miyagawa & H. Noda eds., Handbook of Japanese Syntax, De Gruyter Mouton, 701750. / Simpson, A. (2022) “In Defense of Verb-Stranding VP-Ellipsis,” ms. Univ. of Southern California.
/ Tancredi, C. (1992) Deletion, Deaccenting, and Presupposition, Ph.D. diss. MIT.