Constraints on contrast sluicing*
Teruyuki Mizuno
Kyoto University

Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore

Japanese/Korean Linguistics 24, NINJAL, October 2016

Today
We investigate contrast sluicing in Japanese and English, as in (1) and its translation:(1)

Single-wh – single-wh contrast sluicing in Japanese (and English):[A Taro-ga dono-ZASSI-o
yon-daka]-wa shi-tteiru-ga,
Taro-NOM which-magazine-ACC read-PAST KA TOP know-PROG-but[B dono-HON-oka]-wa shira-nai.
which-book-ACC KA TOP know-NEG‘I know [A which MAGAZINES Taro read], but I don’t know [B which BOOKS].’We call B the remnant (‘which book’) and the corresponding material in the antecedent clause
A the correlate (‘which magazine’). We assume following Ross (1969), Chung, Ladusaw &McCloskey (1995), Merchant (2001) a.o. that the remnant reflects an underlying clause at LF,
the sluicing clause.
While much work has investigated sluicing with indefinite antecedents, relatively little
attention has been paid to contrast sluicing. See (some) discussion in Merchant (2001, 2008),
Fukaya (2003, 2012), and Barros (2014).
 Restrictions on contrast sluicing reflect independent requirements of the syntax
and semantics of contrast (contrastive topic) and sluicing.

Roadmap

A syntactic restriction on contrast sluicing
o Observed in novel data on contrast sluicing with multiple wh-questionso Explained by syntactic requirements on the pronunciation of wh-phrases andcontrastive phrases
A semantic restriction on contrast
o Contrastive topics must be disjoint (see e.g. Rojas-Esponda 2014; see also
Mayr 2012 on focus alternatives)* We thank Scott AnderBois, Hadas Kotek, and audiences at the 152 nd meeting of the LinguisticSociety of Japan and Theoretical Linguistics at Keio 2016, especially Makoto Kanazawa, Manfred
Krifka, Yamada Masahiro, Uli Sauerland, Chris Tancredi, for helpful comments and discussion.
Errors are our own.

11.

Contrast sluicing and multiple wh-questions

1.1.

A restriction on multiple-wh – multiple-wh contrast sluicing
 In contrast sluicing between antecedent and sluicing clauses with two wh-phrases
each, with pair-list interpretation, simplex contrast sluicing is grammatical only withthe surface-lower wh-phrase as the remnant. Multiple sluicing is always
grammatical.1,2(2)

Generalization:a. ok [A … wh1 … wh2 … ] … [B … wh1 … wh2’ … ]b. * [A … wh1 … wh2 … ] … [B … wh1’ … wh2 … ]c. ok [A … wh1 … wh2 … ] … [B … wh1’ … wh2 … ]

(3)
(4)
(5)

先生は [A どの生徒が 北棟のどの教室を 掃除した か]は 知っているが、[B 南棟のどの教室を か]は 知らない。
Sensei-wa [A dono-seito-ga
KITATOO-nodono-kyooshitsu-oteacher-TOP which-student-NOM North Building-GEN which-classroom-ACC
souji-shi-taka]-wa shi-tteiru-ga,
clean-do-PAST KA TOP know-PROG-but[B MINAMITOO-nodono-kyooshitsu-oka]-wa shir-anai.
South Building-GEN which-classroom-ACC KA TOP know-NEG‘The teacher knows [A which student cleaned which North Building classroom],but doesn’t know [B which student cleaned which South Building classroom].’

(3)

ok

(4)

* 先生は [A A 組のどの生徒が どの教室を 掃除した か]は 知っているが、[B B 組のどの生徒が か]は 知らない
Sensei-wa [A A-GUMI-no dono-seito-ga
dono-kyooshitsu-oteacher-TOP Class A-GEN which-student-NOM which-classroom-ACC
souji-shi-taka]-wa shi-tteiru-ga,
clean-do-PAST KA TOP know-PROG-but[B B-GUMI-no dono-seito-gaka]-wa shir-anai.
Class B-GEN which-student-ACC KA TOP know-NEG
Intended: ‘The teacher knows [A which st. in Class A cleaned which classroom],but doesn’t know [B which st. in Class B cleaned which classroom].’

Scrambling in the A clauses in (3–4) to reverse the order of the wh-phrases makes (4)grammatical and (3) ungrammatical, further supporting the generalization in (2).

The Japanese paradigm here seems robust across speakers. We also surveyed English speakers witha similar paradigm, but there was less agreement in judgment in English and we therefore do notreport these results here and concentrate on the Japanese facts.
2 Examples (3–4) also have readings where the A clause is a single-pair question, where the B clause isinterpreted as a single-wh question with ‘that student’ or ‘that classroom.’12

In addition, the configuration in (4) is improved by preserving the lower wh. Example (5)has the same underlying structure as (4) above, but differs only in the extent of deletion:(5)ok

先生は [A A 組のどの生徒が どの教室を 掃除した か]は 知っているが、[B B 組のどの生徒が どの教室を か]は 知らない
Sensei-wa [A A-GUMI-no dono-seito-ga
dono-kyooshitsu-oteacher-TOP Class A-GEN which-student-NOM which-classroom-ACC
souji-shi-taka]-wa shi-tteiru-ga,
clean-do-PAST KA TOP know-PROG-but[B B-GUMI-no dono-seito-ga dono-kyooshitsu-o ka]-wa shir-anai.
Class B-GEN which-st.-ACC which-classroom-ACC KA TOP know-NEG≈ ‘The teacher knows [A which student in Class A cleaned which classroom], butdoesn’t know [B which student in Class B, which classroom, cleaned].’We can restate the generalization in (2) above as follows: The lower wh-phrase and the contrastive phrase must always be pronounced.
o With contrast between lower wh-phrases (3) (and between simplex whquestions), the lower wh-phrase properly contains the contrasting phrase.
Pronouncing just the lower wh-phrase satisfies both requirements.
o With contrast between higher wh-phrases (4–5), pronouncing just the higher
wh-phrase (4) or just the lower wh-phrase is insufficient. Both must be
pronounced, as in (5).
Q: But why is the lower wh-phrase special?
1.2.

Background: the syntax and semantics of multiple wh-questions

Constituent questions are requests for a unique, maximal answer, and presuppose theexistence of such an answer:(6)

Which student read the book?
Presupposition: Some unique student read the book.

In pair-list wh-questions, the two wh-phrases have different functions. The higher wh-phrase
is a sorting key (Kuno 1982), raising multiple simplex wh-questions which must be answered.
(7)

Which student read which book?
≈ ‘For each studenti, which book did theyi read?’
Presupposition: For each studenti, theyi read a unique book.

(See Dayal 1996)

In other words, the higher wh-phrase functions as a quantifier (see also Chierchia 1993).3

The higher wh is a universal quantifier in paraphrases here but, depending on the approach to whquestion syntax/semantics taken, it could be an existential quantifier (Karttunen 1977, Fox 2012) or analternative generator in a distinct syntactic position, above an AltShift operator (Kotek 2014, 2016).
3

3

The different status of these wh-phrases is reflected overtly in the syntax of Hungarian:(8)

Hungarian left periphery: (É Kiss 1987, Brody 1995, Szabolcsi 1997)(TOPIC+) [DistP (DIST+) [FocusP (FOCUS) [VP V…
DIST+ = one or more distributive quantifiers
FOCUS = a unique, immediately preverbal position for wh or contrastive focus4(9)Single wh-question: wh-phrase must be in focus position: (É Kiss 2002 p. 90)
János [FocusP kit [VP mutatott be Marinak?
John
whointroduce VM Mary-DAT‘Who did John introduce to Mary?’(10)

Pair-list multiple wh-question: one wh in distributive pos., one wh in focus:a. [DistP Ki[FocusP melyik ajándékot [VP választotta?
whowhich present
chose‘Who chose which present?’ ≈ ‘For each person, which present did they choose?’b. [DistP Melyik ajándékot [FocusP ki[VP választotta?
which present
who
chose
‘Which present did which person choose?’ ≈ ‘For each present, who chose it?’

Summary: The wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions are not equivalent in function. This isreflected overtly in the syntax of Hungarian.
Van Craenenbroeck & Lipták (2006) propose that sluicing in Hungarian is deletion of thecomplement of Focus  sluicing will always include the phrase in the FOCUS position.
1.3.

Proposal The different functions of the two wh-phrases are also reflected syntactically at LF in
Japanese multiple wh-questions. Japanese sluicing also deletes the complement ofFocus. The sluicing remnant must include Spec,FocusP.5
 In addition, contrastive material must be pronounced.

These constraints together derive the pattern observed above in (3–5):(11)

Contrast sluicing against the lower wh in (3): grammatical
A = [ which student [FocusP which NORTH BUILDING classroom [ cleaned
B = [ which student [FocusP which SOUTH BUILDING classroom [ cleaned
Deletion of the higher wh-phrase is independently possible due to the availabilityof argument ellipsis in Japanese (Oku 1998, Saito 2007, Takahashi 2008, a.o.).

A “unique” position because, if there are multiple only-phrases or a wh-phrase and an only-phrase,
only one can move to the preverbal focus position. The position of the verbal marker (VM) can be used
to diagnose whether something is in the focus position or not. See É Kiss (2002) and references there.
5 Takahashi (1994) proposed the move-and-delete approach for Japanese sluicing. See Fukaya (2003,2012) for evidence that contrast sluicing remnants are island-sensitive and therefore have moved to ahigher position in Japanese.
4

4

(12)

Contrast sluicing against the higher wh in (4): ungrammatical
A = [ which CLASS A student [FocusP which classroom cleaned
B = [ which CLASS B student [FocusP which classroom cleaned
Sluicing does not allow for deletion of Spec,FocusP.

(13)

Contrast sluicing against the higher wh in (5): grammatical
A = [ which CLASS A student [FocusP which classroom [ cleaned
B = [ which CLASS B student [FocusP which classroom [ cleaned
This follows both requirements: that Spec,FocusP be pronounced and that thecontrastive phrase be pronounced.

Our analysis also explains the unavailability of contrast sluicing with a multiple-wh sluicing
clause against a single-wh antecedent clause, as in the following configurations:(14)

Single-wh – multiple-wh contrast sluicing is impossible:
a. * [A JON-ga/wa
dono-kyooshitsu-o sooji-shi-taka]-waJohn-NOM/CT which-classroom-ACC clean-do-PAST KA TOP
shi-tteiru-ga,[B dono-sensei-gaka]-wa shir-anai.
know-PROG-but which-teacher-NOM KA TOP know-NEG* ‘I know [A which classroom JOHNF/CT cleaned],but I don’t know [B which TEACHERS cleaned which classroom].’b. * [A dono-gakusei-ga
ASUPEKUTSU-o yon-daka]-wawhich-student-NOM Aspects-ACC
read-PAST KA TOP
shi-tteiru-ga, [B dono-IMIRON-nohon-oka]-wa shir-anai.
know-PROG-but which-semantics-GEN book-ACC KA TOP know-NEG* ‘I know [A which student read ASPECTS],
but I don’t know [B which SEMANTICS books which student read].’The ungrammaticality of (14) may be surprising given the availability of contrast sluicing
between single-wh sluicing clauses and declarative antecedents with referential correlates:6(15)

Declarative – single-wh contrast sluicing:I think [A John read ASPECTS], but I don’t know [B which SEMANTICS books].

The A clauses in (14) are single-wh questions and therefore their wh-phrases must be inSpec,FocusP. By ellipsis parallelism, the corresponding wh-phrases must be in Spec,FocusPin the B clauses and must be pronounced. Instead, the contrast sluices here in both (14a) and(14b) correspond to higher wh-phrases in the B clauses at LF.
Summary: The novel pattern of contrast sluicing between multiple wh-questions shows thatboth the lower wh-phrase and the contrasting phrase must be pronounced in contrast sluicing.
This is explained by the unique syntactic position of lower wh-phrases at LF.

6

We discuss such cases in section 2.3 below.

5

2.

A semantic constraint on contrasting questions

We now turn to the nature of contrast in contrast sluicing. Consider the following contrast:(16)

I don’t remember [A which SEMANTICISTS we invited], and I also can’t recall…
a. ok [B which SYNTACTICIANS (we invited)].
b. * [B which LINGUISTS (we invited)].

Example (14b) is ungrammatical/infelicitous unless semanticists are understood to be
disjoint from linguists. Note that this requirement holds of contrasting questions as well as
contrast sluicing in (14).
The equivalent of (14b) in Japanese is also degraded:(17) * [A Dono-IMIRONGAKUSHA-o shoutai-shi-ta ka] oboe-tei-nai-shi,
which-semanticist-ACC
invite-do-PAST KA remember-PROG-NEG-CONJ[B dono-GENGOGAKUSHA-o (shoutai-shi-ta) ka]-mo omoidas-e-nai.
which-linguist-ACC
invite-do-PAST KA also recall-able-NEG‘I don’t remember [A which SEMANTICISTS we invited], and I also can’t
remember [B which LINGUISTS (we invited)].’ The NPs of contrasting wh-phrases in contrast sluicing and similar contrastingquestions must be disjoint — except where they don’t:
(18)
ok

2.1.

A potential counterexample to this disjointness requirement:
ANN knows [which SYNTACTICIANS came to the party], andBEN knows [which LINGUISTS (came to the party)].

Background: contrastive topics and discourse strategies

Contrasting assertions use focus (F) to indicate positions of contrast. The focus structures ofcontrasting phrases must match. See Rooth (1985, 1992) and references there.
(19) It’s false to say that Dave [BOUGHT]F a new bicycle; he [STOLE]F a new bicycle!
Similarly, questions can contrast using contrastive topics (CT) (Büring 2003, Constant 2014):(20) A:
A’:
B:
B’:[Which rooms]F did [JOHN]CT clean?
[JOHN]CT cleaned [room number 3]F.
Ok. Then, [which rooms]F did [MARY]CT clean?
[MARY]CT cleaned [room number 2]F.

Questions with CT are required to be sister questions in a discourse strategy (Büring 2003).

6

We follow the notion of strategy trees and sub-questions from Rojas-Espondas (2014):(21) The strategy tree for (18):Which rooms did the students clean?

A = Which rooms did [John]CT clean?

B = Which rooms did [Mary]CT clean?

 As suggested by Rojas-Espondas (p. 41), (the choice of answers to) sister questions
must be logically independent; i.e. contrastive topics must be disjoint.7
2.2.

Proposal Contrasting nominal domains in contrast sluicing are contrastive topics embedded
within wh-phrases in focus.

CTs must scope higher than focused phrases, and therefore these CT nominals must move.
We can see this explicitly in Japanese. We can use CT-marking (contrastive wa) for thesecontrastive domains and explicitly separate them from their whs:
(22) A:B:[Which books]F did you read?
Then, [which [MAGAZINES]CT]F did you read?

(23) A:[Dono hon-o]F yon-dano?
which book-acc read-PAST Q
Jyaa, [dono [ZASSHI]CT-o]F yon-dano?
then which magazines -ACC read-PAST Q
Jyaa, [ZASSHI-wa]CT [dore-o]F yon-da no?
then magazines-CT which-ACC read-PAST Q

B:
B’:(24) The strategy tree for (22/23):
What did you read?

A = Which [books]CT did you read?

B = Which [magazines]CT did you read?

 The disjointness requirement on contrast sluicing (and contrasting questions) follows
from the disjointness requirement on contrastive topics.

7

See also Mayr (2012) who proposes that focus alternatives must be disjoint.

7

2.3.

An extension to declarative antecedents

A version of this disjointness requirement is also observed in contrast sluicing with adeclarative antecedent clause with referential correlate (cf Barros, 2014):(25)

Referential correlate – single-wh contrast sluicing:I think [A John read ASPECTS], but I don’t know…
a. ok [B which SEMANTICS books (he read)].
b. * [B which SYNTAX books (he read)].

(26)[A Jon-ga ASUPEKUTSU-o yon-dano]-wa shi-tteiru-ga, …
Jon-NOM Aspects-ACC
read-PAST NO-TOP know-PROG-but‘I know [John read ASPECTS]…’a. ok [B dono IMIRON-nohon-oka]-wa shir-anai.
which semantics-GEN book-ACC KA-TOP know-NEG‘but I don’t know [which SEMANTICS books].’b. * [B dono TOUGORON-no hon-oka]-wa shir-anai.
which syntax-GEN
book-ACC KA-TOP know-NEG‘but I don’t know [which SYNTAX books].’

Contrast (CT) on semantics/syntax in (25) indicates the presence of a sister question in the
discourse strategy. The answer A with focus on Aspects indicates the presence of a (possibly
implicit) question A’ in the discourse, which A answers:(27) The strategy tree for (25):Which books did John read?

A’ = Which [syntax]CT books did John read?

B = Which [sem]CT books did John read?

A = Answer: John read [Aspects]F
In (25a), CT is satisfied by B being a sister to A’, the (implicit) question that A answers.
In (25b), B is equal to the question A’ answered by A, not a sister question.8

Alternatively, A is already a complete answer to the super-question ‘Which books did John read?’
The question A’ in (24) will therefore not be reflected in the discourse, and the resolution of the superquestion makes discussion of B no longer valid as well.
8

8

2.4.

The potential counterexample

Consider our potential counterexample (18), repeated here as (28):(28)
okA potential counterexample to this disjointness requirement:
ANN knows [which SYNTACTICIANS came to the party], andBEN knows [which LINGUISTS (came to the party)].

 It is crucial here that there is another contrasting phrase higher: Ann and Ben.
(29)

Without the higher contrasting phrases:* I don’t know [which LINGUISTS came to the party], andI (also) don’t know [which SYNTACTICIANS (came to the party)] (either).

Note that in (26), it is logically possible to not know which linguists came but know whichsyntacticians came,9 so the second sentence in (26) is informative. (26) is still ungrammatical.
We propose that the lower contrast on syntacticians and linguists in (25) is licensed bycongruence with questions at the matrix level, above the know embeddings:
(30)
ok

(31)

LFs for (18/28):[A [ANN]CT λx [SYNTACTICIANS]F λP x knows [which P came to the party]][B [BEN]CT λx [LINGUISTS]FλP x knows [which P (came to the party)]]
The strategy tree for (30):
Which groups P do people know the answer to [which P came to the party]

A’ = Which groups P does [Ann]CT know theanswer to [which P came to the party]

B’ = Which groups P does [Ben]CT know theanswer to [which P came to the party]

A = Answer: [Ann]CT knows, for[syntacticians]F, [which came to the party]

B = Answer: [Ben]CT knows, for [linguists]F,[which came to the party]

 Contrast in (25) is licensed because syntacticians is the answer A to question A’ andlinguists is the answer B to question B’. A’ and B’ are sister questions, licensing thehigher CT on Ann and Ben. Because A and B answer different questions, there is no
disjointness requirement. The disjointness requirement applies to sister questions.

Imagine there were separate check-in sheets at the party for syntacticians, semanticists, andphonologists. I only have the check-in sheet for the syntacticians. I therefore know whichsyntacticians came to the party but it’s false that I know which linguists came to the party.
9

9

3.

Summary
1. We presented new data on contrast sluicing between multiple wh-questions, which
to our knowledge has not been previously studied in any language. We observe:(32)

Generalization, repeated from (2):a. ok [A … wh1 … wh2 … ] … [B … wh1 … wh2’ … ]b. * [A … wh1 … wh2 … ] … [B … wh1’ … wh2 … ]c. ok [A … wh1 … wh2 … ] … [B … wh1’ … wh2 … ]

(3)
(4)
(5)

2. This complex pattern in (2/32) is explained by the following independent premises:o In pair-list multiple wh-questions, the lower wh is in Spec,FocusP.
o Sluicing deletes the complement of Focus and must retain Spec,FocusP.
o Contrastive phrases (CT) must be pronounced.
3. We propose that the contrast sluices involves the nesting of a contrastive topic10
within a wh-phrase: e.g. [which [MAGAZINE]CT]F.
4. Disjointness requirements on contrast sluicing and contrastive questions — andtheir exceptions — are explained by the interpretation of CT.

References
Barros, Matthew. 2014. Sluicing and identity in ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University.
Brody, Michael. 1995. Focus and checking theory. In Approaches to Hungarian, ed. Istvan Kenesei, volume 5,
29–44. Szeged: JATE.
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511-545.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1: 181-234.
Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural
Language Semantics 3: 239–282.
Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Doctoral Dissertation, UMass Amherst.
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen and Anikó Lipták. 2006. The crosslinguistic syntax of sluicing: Evidence from
Hungarian relatives. Syntax 9:3. 248–274.
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
É Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.
É Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Danny. 2012. The semantics of questions. Class notes, MIT seminar.
Fukaya, Teruhiko. 2003. Island (In)sensitivity in Japanese sluicing and stripping and some implications. In
Proceedings of WCCFL 22, 179–192.
Fukaya, Teruhiko. 2012. Island (In)sensitivity in Japanese sluicing and some implications. In Sluicing: CrossLinguistic Perspectives, ed. Jason Merchant and Andrew Simpson, 123–163.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy1(1):3–44.
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing questions. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Kotek, Hadas. 2016. On the semantics of wh-questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20: 424–447.
Kuno, Susumu. 1982. The focus of the question and the focus of the answer. In Papers from the Parasession on
Nondeclarative Sentences, ed. Robinson Schneider, Kevin Tuite, and Robert Chametzky, 134–157.
Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 18).
10

Or in the case of (28), a focus that takes scope in a higher clause.

10

Mayr, Clemens. 2012. Focusing bound pronouns. Natural Language Semantics 20: 299–348.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Kyle Johnson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the Minimalist Program. UConn dissertation.
Rojas-Esponda, Tania. 2014. A discourse model for überhaupt. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(1): 1-45.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, UMass Amherst.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 5, ed. Robert Binnick, Alice Davison,
Georgia Green, and Jerry Morgan, 252–286.
Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43: 203–227.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for Scope Taking. In Ways of Scope Taking, ed. Anna Szabolcsi, 109–154.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 265–300.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2008. Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 307–326.

11