慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #2: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2018[October 17, 2020]*今日のタイムテーブル
13:30-14:15

セッション

担当講師

[1]話題提供

大宗・石井取り上げる論文
論文 1: "Transformations in the Quest for a
Simpler, more Elegant Theory”

14:15-14:30[1]質疑

14:30-14:35

休憩

14:35-15:20[2]話題提供

15:20-15:35[2]質疑

15:35-15:45

休憩

15:45-17:00

全体討論

北田・永盛

論文 2: “Ellipsis"*各トーク直後の質疑セッションでは、簡単なやり取りで済む内容に絞りましょう。

1

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2

Saito, Mamoru (2018)

Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory
October 17, 2020
Zoom with a Minimalist View #2
Jun Omune (Kansai Gaidai University) and Toru Ishii (Meiji University)

Section 1:(A)

Introduction
How are transformational rules motivated in Syntactic

Structures?
(B)

How did the relevant discussion and proposals lead to theremarkable development of syntactic theory in the subsequent 60
years?

Roadmap
Section 2:

Inadequacy of phrase structure rules for discontinuous
elements

Section 3:

Phrasal movements and selection

Section 4:

A minimalist perspective on transformations

Section 5:

Conclusion

American structuralism (cf. Harris 1951)(i)

A discovery procedure
A manual of mechanical method to construct a grammar on thebasis of a given corpus(ii) The separation of levels
Linguistic research should proceed in a bottom-up fashion, fromphonemic analysis to morphology and then to syntax.

1

2

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2

Generative grammar(i)

An evaluation procedure“The point of view adopted here is that it is unreasonable todemand of linguistic theory that it provide anything more than apractical evaluation procedure for grammars.”(Chomsky 1957, p. 52)
Cf. Local maximum (Chomsky 1951)(ii) Linguistic levels
Pm, M, W, C, P, T

Section 2:(Chomsky 1955)

Inadequacy of Phrase Structure Rules for Discontinuous
Elements

Section 2.1: English Auxiliary System(1)a.

Sentence -> NP + VPb.

VP -> Verb + (NP)c.

NP -> (Art) + N

d.

Art -> thee.

N -> man, ball, book, etc.

f.

Verb -> hit, took, etc.
+： concatenation
Context-free phrase structure grammar （Type 2）
A -> ω (A ∈ VN, ω≠e)(2)

(Chomsky 1956)

Discontinuous elements
The man had been reading the book.
The perfect:

have + en

The progressive:

be + ing

A transformational analysis (cf. Harris 1951)(3)a.

Verb -> Aux + Vb.

Aux -> Tense + (Modal) + (have + en) + (be + ing)c.

V -> hit, take, walk, read, etc.

2

3

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2

(4)

d.

Tense -> past, present

e.

Modal -> will, can, may, shall, musta.

Affix hopping (phonological merger)
Let Af stand for any of the affixes past, present, en, ing. Let v
stand for any Modal or V, or have or be (i.e. for any non-affix inthe phrase Verb.)

Then:

Af + v -> v + Af #, where # is interpreted as word boundary.
b.

Insertion of word boundaries
Replace + by # except in the context v _ Af. Insert # initially andfinally.

(5)

Derivation of (2)a.

the + man + past + have + en + be + ing + read + the + book
Affix hoppingb.

the + man + have + past # be + en # read + ing # the + book
Insertion of word boundariesc.
(6)# the # man # have + past # be + en # read + ing # the # book #Morphophonemic rules

walk -> /wɔk/, take + past -> /tʊk/, have + past -> /hæd/, be + en -> /bɪn/,
…
(7)

a.

Verb -> V + Tenseb.

Verb -> Modal + Tense +V

c.

Verb -> have + Tense + V + end.

Verb -> be + Tense + V + ing

e.

Verb -> Modal + Tense + have + V + enf.

Verb -> Modal + Tense + be + V + ingg.

Verb -> have + Tense + be + en + V + ing

f.

Verb -> Modal + Tense + have + be + en + V + ing

3

4

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2(8)

Σ: SentenceF:

X1 -> Y1.
.
Xn -> Yn
T1.
.
Tn
Z1 -> W1.
.
Zn -> Wn

Phrase structure
D-structure
Transformational structure
S-structure
Morphophonemics

Section 2.2: The Generality of the Affix Hopping Analysis
Negative sentences
(9)

1

–

2

–

3

–

V…

a.

NP – Tenseb.

NP – Tense + Modal – …

c.

NP – Tense + have

–

…

d.

NP – Tense + be–…

(10) a.

The man had not taken the book.

b.

The man was not taking the book.

(11) The derivation of (10a)a. the + man + past + have + en + take + the + book
Insertion of notb.

the + man + past + have + not + en + take + the + book
Affix hoppingc.

the + man + have + past # not + take + en # the + book
Insertion of word boundariesd.

# the # man # have + past # not # take + en # the # book #45

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2“Dummy verb” do(12) The man did not take the book.
(13) The derivation of (12)a. the + man + past + take + the + book
Insertion of notb.

the + man + past + not + take + the + book
Insertion of word boundariesc.

#the # man # past # not # take # the # book #do-supportd.

#the # man # do + past # not # take # the # book #(14) Do-support#Af -> #do + Af

Yes/No questions(15) a.

Had the man taken the book?

b.

Was the man taking the book?

c.

Did the man take the book?

Question Transformation
Front the second element in (9) to the sentence-initial position.
(16) The derivation of (15c)a. the + man + past + take + the + bookThe question transformationb.

past + the + man + take + the + book
Insertion of word boundariesc.

# past # the # man # take # the # book #do-supportd.

# do + past # the # man # take # the # book #5

6

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2

Wh-questions(17) a.
b.

What did the man take?
Who took the book?

(18) The derivation of (17a)a. who + past + take + the + bookThe question transformationb.

past + who + take + the + book
The wh-fronting rulec.

who + past + take + the + book
Affix-hoppingd.

who + take + past # the + book
Insertion of word boundariese.

# who # take + past # the # book #(19) a.

Sentence -> Do + Tense + NP + VP1

b.

Sentence -> Modal + Tense + NP + VP2

c.

Sentence -> have + Tense + NP + VP3d.

Sentence -> be + Tense + NP + VP4(20) a.

VP1 -> Verb1 + (NP)b.

Verb1 -> Vc.

VP2 -> Verb2 + (NP)d.

Verb2 -> have + be + en + V + ing

e.

Verb2 -> have + V + enf.

Verb2 -> be + V + ingg.

Verb2 -> Vh.

VP3 -> Verb3 + (NP)i.

Verb3 -> be + en + V + ing

j.

Verb3 -> V + enk.

VP4 -> Verb4 + (NP)l.

Verb4 -> V + ing
6

7

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2

Section 2.3: Refinements of the Analysis(21) (=(9))
1

–

2

–

3

–

V…

a.

NP – Tenseb.

NP – Tense + Modal – …

c.

NP – Tense + have

–

…

d.

NP – Tense + be–…

(22) Was the man taking the book?
(23) The derivation of (22) (=(15b))
CP
C

TP
DP

T’
T

VP

Past

V
be

Dialectal variations(24) a.

Have you the book?

b.

Do you have a book?

(25) a.

Are you comfortable?

b. * Do you be comfortable?
(26) French vs. English (Emonds 1978)a.

Jean (n’) aime pas Marie.
(ne) love Negb.

John does not love Mary.

7

8

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2

Discussions

Elimination of the distinction between IM and EMI.

A unified formulation of phrase structure rules and transformations“A derivation involving only phrase structure rules (rewriting rules)
has a strict “Markovian” character. That is, in a derivation consistingof the successive lines σ1, ... σn (σ1 = #S#, σn = #α1 ... αk#, where each αi
is a terminal or nonterminal symbol of the vocabulary on which thegrammar is based), the rules that can be applied to form the next line
σn+1 is independent of σ1, ... σn-1 and depend completely on σn.”(Chomsky 1965, p. 89)“A grammatical transformation is, in other words, a rule that applies to
Phrase markers rather than to strings in the terminal andnonterminal vocabulary of the grammar.” (Chomsky 1965, p. 89)
φ1 , … φ n → ψ(Chomsky and Miller 1963)

Phrase structure rules: n = 1, φ, ψ: a string
Transformations: n≥1, φ1, … φn, ψ: a set of strings
A set of strings = Phrase markers like {S, NP-VP, Det-N-VP, …}II.

Both phrase structure rules and transformations apply to strings.
A grammatical transformation T is defined on ordered pairs (Z, K),
where
(a)

Z and T (Z, K) are strings in P.

(b)

K is a set of strings in P, and Z is a member of K.

Thus T operates on a string Z of P, with the analysis given by K, andproduces a new string of P which we denote by “T (Z, K).”
(Chomsky 1975, p. 311)
(P is the set of “lowest-level” strings in P.)

89

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2“Each grammatical transformation T operates on a string Z with theconstituent interpretation K and converts it into a new string Z’ withthe derived interpretation K’.”

(Chomsky 1975, p. 402)

“A grammatical transformation T operates on a given string with agiven constituent structure and converts it into a new string with a
new derived constituent structure.”(Chomsky 1957, p. 44)

Merge: the minimal operation required for Language takes two objects
a, b and forms a constituent g.
g = { a, b }III. Duality of semantics“At the semantic interface, the two types of Merge correlate well withthe duality of semantics that has been studied within generativegrammar for almost 40 years, at first in terms of “deep and surface
structure interpretation” (and of course with much earlier roots). To alarge extent, EM yields generalized argument structure (theta-roles,
the “cartographic” hierarchies, and similar properties); and IM yields
discourse-related properties such as old information and specificity,
along with scopal effects. The correlation is reasonably close, andperhaps would be found to be perfect if we understood enough.”(Chomsky 2008, p. 140)

“The interpretive systems have got to know what’s a copy and what’s arepetition. ... I think the basic answer to it is given by a generalproperty of language, which is sometimes called “duality of semantics”.
If you look quite generally at the interpretation of expressions, it falls
into two categories. There is one category which yields argument
structure (theta-roles and the interpretation of complements offunctional elements). There is another category which is involved indisplacement, which has kind of discourse-oriented or informationrelated properties or scopal properties and so on, but not argument
910

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2

properties. That’s duality of semantics. If you think about it a little
further, you see that the first type, argument structure, is invariably
given by external MERGE. The second type, non-argument structure(other factors) is always given by internal MERGE.”(Chomsky 2019, p. 43-44)“Now if you think about duality of semantics, you have a techniqueright away to determine what’s a copy and what’s a repetition. If
something is in a theta-position, it is not a copy (unless it’s been raised,
in which cases it’s a copy of what’s been raised). If it is a non-theta
position, it is a copy. And at the phrase level, the system simply has totake a look and say what’s in a theta-position, what isn’t in a thetaposition. That tells us what’s a copy and what’s a repetition.”(Chomsky 2019, p. 58)
References:

Chomsky, Noam. 1951. The morphophonemics of modern Hebrew. MA thesis, University ofPennsylvania. Revised version published in 1979. New York: Garland.
Chomsky, Noam. 1955 The logical structure of linguistic theory, Ms.. Published in part in
1975, New York: Plenum.
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. I.R.E transactions on

information theory, IT-2, Proceedings of the symposium on information theory, 113124.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures, The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Lusia
Zubizarreta eds., Foundational issues in linguistics theory, pp. 133-166, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2019. UCLA lectures with an introduction by Robert Freiden, April 29th,
30th, May 1st, 2nd, LingBuzz https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485.
Chomsky, Noam and George Miller. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural
language. In Duncan Ruce, Robert Bush, and Eugene Galanter eds., Handbook ofmathematical psychology II, pp. 269-321, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

10

11

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Toru Ishii
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sections 1-2

Harris, Zellig. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics, Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.

1112

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4

Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more
Elegant Theory
Section 3–4

Section 3: Phrasal Movement and Selection
Discussions on passive in Syntactic Structures➡ The postulation of D-structure in the later works

Section 3.1: The Passive Transformation(27)

The passive transformation:
If S1 is a grammatical sentence of the form NP1 — Aux — V — NP2, then the corresponding string of theform NP2 — Aux+be+en — V — by + NP1 is also a grammatical sentence.

(28)

a. Sincerity frightens John.
(27), (29)b. John is frightened by sincerity.

(29)

a. sincerity + present + frighten + John. (PS rule)b. John + present + be + en + frighten + by + sincerity (Passive transformation)c. John + be + present # frighten + en # by + sincerity (Affix hopping)d. # John # be + present # frighten + en # by # sincerity # (Word boundary)🤔 Possibility (rejected): Introducing be + en as part of Aux in the PS rule(30)
Aux → Tense + (Modal) + (have + en) + (be + ing) + (be + en)
Cf. (3b) Aux → Tense + (Modal) + (have + en) + (be + ing)
⚠ Heavy restriction must be placed on the selection of be + en: The following V must be transitive and at thesame time the V cannot be followed by NP.
👉 This complicates the grammar.
The argument of selectional relations is already presented in Syntactic Structures for the passive rule.
selection(31)
a. # John frightens sincerity[-animate]. ↔ (28a): Sincerity frightens John[+animate].
b. # Sincerity[-animate] is frightened by John. ↔ (28b): John[+animate] is frightened by sincerity.
🤔 Possibility (rejected): PS rule directly generates passive sentences like (31b) and (28b).
👉 The selectional requirements must be stated separately for active and passive sentences (inelegant
reduplication).
😄 Simple/Elegant Solution: The passive transformation forms passive sentences from active sentences.
12

13

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4

👉

The same selectional requirements can be imposed on the output of PS rules uniformly for both active
and passive sentences (as illustrated in (31a)).

Some may say…
“The passive transformation is motivated because an active-passive pair are synonymous.”
Or,“The active sentence is the ‘basic form’ because it directly represents the predicate-argument
structure.”👉 Neither of these is assumed in Syntactic Structures.
🤔 Possibility (rejected): The passive rule preserves the positions of the subject (NP1) and the object (NP2).
👉 This would complicate the statement of selectional requirements, deriving (31b) from (28a).
The contrast between (32) and (33) below also rejects the possibility.
(32)

a. All the people in the lab consider John a fool.
b. John is considered a fool by all the people in the lab.
💡 Derivation of (32):selectioni. All the people in the lab <consider + a fool> [John]singular👈 <consider + a fool> = complex V

transformation

ii. All the people in the lab consider [John]singular a fool.
passive transformation(=(32a))iii. [John]singular is considered a fool by all the people in the lab.

(=(32b))👍 <consider + a fool> selects a singular NP.
(33)

a. * John considers all the people in the lab a fool.
b. * All the people in the lab are considered a fool by John.
💡 Derivation of (33):selection

i. John <considers + a fool> [all the people in the lab]plural.
👎 <consider + a fool> selects a singular NP.
🤔 Possibility (rejected): The passive rule preserves the positions of the subject (NP1) and the object (NP2).
👉 The ungrammatical (33b) would be derived from the grammatical (32a) (or (32i)).
➡ A stipulation would then be required to exclude the example.
Why (32b) is grammatical despite it is derived from the ungrammatical (33a) (or (33i))?
😄 Simple/Elegant Solution: The passive rule exchanges the positions of NP1 and NP2 as in (27).
13

14

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4

📎NOTE
The argument of (32, 33) stands independently of the complex V analysis of consider + a fool.
Stowell (1981): John + a fool in (32a) constitutes a small clause with the predicate a fool and the subject John.
👉The predicate a fool selects a singular subject.
All the people in the lab consider [SC [a fool] [John]singular]John considers [SC [a fool] [all the people in the lab]plural].

🤔 Possibility (rejected): What if the “active transformation” exists?
(34)

a. The wine was drunk by the guests.
b. John was drunk by midnight.
📎 drunk = adjective (see (35)): “this adjective … originate[s] fromen + drink.” -Chomsky (1957: 80)(35)

a. * The wine was very drunk by the guests.
b. John was very drunk by midnight.

(36)

a. The guests drank wine.
b. * Midnight drank John.
💡 “Active transformation” of (36) from (34)(34a): The wine was drunk by the guests.

(36a): The guests drank wine.

(34b): John was drunk by midnight.

(36b): * Midnight drank John.

👉 The active transformation would incorrectly generate (36b).
💡 Stronger arguments to reject the active transformation under simplicity and elegance:-Two distinct rules produce active sentences.
① The active transformation (when a sentence is with a V + NP sequence (i.e. (36a)))② PS rule (when a sentence is not with a V + NP sequence)👉 The active transformation would just be redundant.
“Chomsky considers all possibilities without preconception, including the derivation of activefrom passive, and argues for a set of speciﬁc proposals on the basis of the simplicity ofsyntactic analysis and the overall system.” p.14 (or p.268)
14

15

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4

Section 3.2: The Emergence of a Model for Syntax
D-structure: selectional relations(37)

phrase structure rules → transformations → morphophonemic rules
The Standard Theory (Chomsky 1965)-D-structure: the output of PS rules (and lexical insertion)(-S-structure: the output of the transformational component)
The Extended Standard Theory (Chomsky 1981)-Selectional relations are represented at D-structure (,and Logical Form is also added).
➡ D-structure = a pure representation of selectional or thematic relations.
X’ principles applying at D-structure emerge as a result of the pursuit of the simplest theory of
constituent structure, described initially by PS rules.

(38)

CP
C

TP
DP

T’
T(ense)VP

Toward S-structure: optional vs. obligatory transformations⏣Rule ordering: affix hopping and do-support(39)

Affix hopping (=(4)):
a. Let Af stand for any of the aﬃxes past, present, en, ing. Let v stand for any Modal or V, or have or be(i.e., for any non-aﬃx in the phrase Verb.) Then:
Af + v → v + Af #, where # is interpreted as word boundary.
b. Replace + by # except in the context v — Af. Insert # initially and ﬁnally.

(40)

do-support (=(14)):# Af → # do + Af

(41)

a. the + man + past + take + the + bookb. The man took the book.

👈 underling form of (41b)🤔 Possibility (rejected): Rule ordering– 1. (39b), 2. (39a)15

16

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4(42)

a. # the # man # past # take # the # book #👈 (39b)b. # the # man # do + past # take # the # book #👈 (40): the context is set for do-support(43)* The man did take the book.

👈 No chance to apply (39a)➡ ・(39a) must apply first: Fixed rule ordering–1. (39a), 2. (39b)・(40)=“last resort”⏣Rule ordering: Wh-fronting(44)

Who took the book?

🤔 Possibility (rejected): Rule ordering– 1. (39) and (40), 2. Wh-fronting
(45)

(46)

a. who + past + take + the + bookb. past + who + take + the + bookc. # past # who # take # the # book #d. # do + past # who # take # the # book #e. # who # do + past # take # the # book #👈 1. Question rule👈 2. (39): WORD BOUNDARY👈 3. (40): DO-SUPPORT👈 4. WH-FRONTING

2, 3 MUST APPLY AFTER 4.

* Who did take the book?

😄 Correct ordering– 1. Wh-fronting, 2. (39) and (40)
(47)

(44)

a. who + past + take + the + bookb. past + who + take + the + book.
c. who + past + take + the + bookd. who + take + past # the + booke. # who # take + past # the # book #👈 1. Question rule👈 2. WH-FRONTING
👈 3. (40): DO-SUPPORT👈 4. (39): WORD BOUNDARY🆗

Who took the book?
👉(39): affix-hopping and (40): do-support are ordered after the other transformations.

(48)

phrase structure rules → D-structure → transformations → aﬃx-hopping/do-support → phonologicalcomponent
Cf. (37) phrase structure rules → transformations → morphophonemic rules

16

17

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4⏣ Rule-ordering paradox(49)

S in the context of NPsing_ø in the context of NPpl_
past

C →

📎 C = Tense in Syntactic Structures
This looks like PS rule but is context-sensitive.
This applies after the passive transformation as present
agrees with the surface subject.
👉 (49) is included among the transformational rules.

Ordering paradox(50)・(49) needs to apply after passive (E.g. The book is written in English.)⚔💥
agree・(49) needs to apply before the question formation (E.g. What do the men __ eat?)

What do the men eat?

👈 present agrees with the men, not with what.
➡ The copy (or trace) theory of movement solves the paradox.

⏣ The copy (or trace) theory of movement
(51)

CP

C

T moves to C, leaving a copy behind.
The copy agrees with the subject DP.

TP
DP

T’
T

VP

Agreement
Movement(52)

There is no rightward movement of the subject NP in passives:
The object NP simply moves to a “vacant” subject position in passives.
👉 If the subject NP moves rightward, its copy should block the
movement of the object NP.

The book was stolen (by a thief)👈 The optionality of by-phrase supports the simplification➡ The range of transformations narrowed.
(53)

D-structure ... X’ principles, selectional relationstransformations
S-structure ... agreement
affix-hopping, do-support
Phonetic Form

17

18

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4⏣ Optional and obligatory transformations
Passive: optional
affix-hopping: obligatory
Movement to the subject position: obligatory(54)

a. * (There) was stolen a book.
b. A book was stolen ___.

👈 Why these movements are obligatory?
➡ Chomsky and Lasnik (1977):
NPs are limited to the four positions in English.

(55)

a. * (It) is likely [ John to succeed].
b. John is likely [ ___ to succeed].

(56)

The distribution of NPs in English (Chomsky and Lasnik (1977)):a. the position following a transitive verbb. the position following a prepositionc. the subject position of a tensed clause👈 will be motivated by Jean-Rger Vergnaud’s Cased. the subject position of a noun phrase
theory.
👉 (54a) and (55a): a book and John appear in illicit positions.
➡ Advent of Move-a: “Move anything anywhere optionally.”(56) ➡ (57) Case filter(57)* NP if NP has phonetic content and no Case.

Figure 1 Cf. (53)D-structure ... X’ principles, selectional relations
Move-a📎NOTE
💡 This model is a direct descendent of themodel of Syntactic Structures.
💡 The very same quest for simplicity andelegance led to this model.

S-structure ... agreement, Case ﬁlter
aﬃx-hopping, do-support
Phonetic Form

Section 4: A Minimalist Perspective on Transformations
The Minimalist research began to eliminate the distinction of PS rules and transformations.

18

19

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4

Section 4.1: Merge and the Last Resort Nature of Phrasal Movement⏣ Eliminating D-structure and S-structure

Merge: the minimal operation required for Language takes two objects a, b and forms a constituent g.
(58)

g = { a, b }

(59)

a.

g

g

b.

a

b

a

b
…a…

👉 (59a)=External Merge: Merge takes two independent objects a, b and forms g.
(59b)=Internal Merge: Merge takes a and b where a is contained within b and forms g.
(60)

The man took the book.

(61)

TP
NP

📎NOTE
💡 The predicate-internal subject hypothesis:
the subject NP is extenrally merged at the
speciﬁer position of vP.
💡 The structure is straightforwardly built with
Merge.

T’
T

vP
NP

Internal Merge

v’
V

VP
V

NP

“The conception of phrasal movement as an instance of Merge eliminates its special status,
and answers the question why phrasal movement exists. Language has phrasal movement
just because it has the minimally required operation, Merge.” p.22 (or p. 276)
A few more steps…
The optional application of Move-a (i.e. Internal Merge): “Move anything anywhere optionally.”➡ Overgeneration: (62), (63)(62)

a.The man ate nothing.
b. * Nothing the man ate ___.
19

20

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4(63)

a. The man did not eat anything.
b. * Anything, the man did not eat ___.

(64)

Case filter:
John is likely [ ___ to succeed].

👈 John receives Case in the matrix subject position: Internal
Merge applies as a last resort.

➡ Problem: Internal Merge is distinguished from external Merge.
😄 Solution (Chomsky (2013)): Merge must accompany a labeling algorithm that speciﬁes the nature of
the newly formed object.
⏣ Labeling algorithm(65)

a. g = { H, aP }b. g = { aP, bP }c. g = { H1, H2 }

👈 Head-Phrase👈 Phrase-Phrase
👈 Head-Head💡 Labeling algorithm:a.
g à HP
aP

H

gà?

b.
aP

g -> ?

c.
bP

H1➡ Phrase-Phrase Relations (i.e. (65b)) occur in actual derivations.
(60)

The man took the book.

(66)?2 à <φ, φ>NP👈 (65b): Phrase-Phrase

TPT👈 Head-Phrase?1 à vPNP

👈 (65b): Phrase-PhrasevPv

👈 Head-Phrase

VP
V

NP

👈 Head-Phrase👉 ?1 is labeled as vP: ?1 only dominates a copy of this NP and does not contain it in full.
?2 is labeled as <φ, φ>: T and NP share the same φ features because of agreement.
20

21

H2

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4➡ Movement always terminates with the internal merge of two phrases that share somefeatures.
(67)[?2 which book [CP do you think [?1 which book [CP John bought which book]]]]👉 ?1 à CP: ?1 does not contain which book in full because it is a lower copy.
?2 à <Q, Q>: which book and C share the Q feature because of agreement.

(68)*Anything the man did not eat ___.

(=(63b))👉 As the negative polarity item anything does not qualify as a topic, the example is not an instance of
topicalization: Simple internal Merge of NP with TP.
(69)

?
NP

TP
… NP …

👉 No feature sharing/agreement between NP and TP
Labeling algorithm ➡ Last resort is not a property of internal Merge.
💡Internal Merge is not distinguished from external Merge: Phrasal movement transformation = Merge.

Section 4.2: Transformations and the Selectional Relations
External Merge creates conﬁgurations of selectional (thematic) relations.
Internal Merge modifies the base structure.
Bošković (1997) and Hornstein (1999,) among others: Movement into thematic positions takes place.
Hornstein 👉 D-structure is abandoned: Nothing blocks movement into a thematic position unless it isprohibited by stipulation.
(70)a. The man tried [ PRO to buy the book ].
b. The man tried [ ___ to buy the book ].

👈 Relation (subject-verb): The man-try, PRO-buy
👈 Relation (subject-verb): The man-try, the man-buy

👉 D-structure (LGB): A subject needs to appear in the matrix subject position at D-structure.
No D-structure: (70a) is best analyzed as in (70b).
➡ The distinction between external Merge and internal Merge is eliminated completely.
A language must have Merge, and phrasal movement comes with it.
Syntactic Structures initiated research on syntax as a science, and the quest for simplicity willcontinue as long as syntax continues to be pursued as a science. p.27 (or p.282)
21

22

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4

Discussion
I. Another example of movement into a thematic position?
・Chomsky (2015): IM of IA with Spec R (or V) within v*P
TP
T

v*P
v*

<φ, φ>
IA

RP
R

IA

👉 Is Spec-R a thematic position? If so, this supports movement into thematic positions. However, what is theinterpretation of the complement of R?

II. Duality of semantics and thematic positions
Duality of semantics:“At the semantic interface, the two types of Merge correlate well with the duality of semantics that has beenstudied within generative grammar for almost 40 years, at first in terms of “deep and surface structureinterpretation” (and of course with much earlier roots). To a large extent, EM yields generalized argument
structure (theta-roles, the “cartographic” hierarchies, and similar properties); and IM yields discourse-related
properties such as old information and specificity, along with scopal effects. The correlation is reasonably
close, and perhaps would be found to be perfect if we understood enough.” (Chomsky 2008: p. 140)
👉 Spec-R may have a discourse-related property.
John shot Mary.

Mary: theme

John shot at Mary. Mary: theme
👉 The complement of shoot at is a thematic position à The complement of shoot can be thematic.
<Resultatives>
John shot Mary dead.
*John shot at Mary dead.
If someone wants to say, “the bullet hit Mary,” the Spec-R may yield this special meaning.
👉 Spec-R might not be a thematic position.
22

23

Handout #1 for Zoom with a Minimalist View #2 (2020 Oct. 17) by Jun Omune
Saito (2018) “Transformations in the Quest for a Simpler, more Elegant Theory” Sec. 3–4<Double Objects>
John sent Mary a book.
ß Mary: old information
John sent the book to Mary. ß the book: old information
TP
T

v*P
v*

<φ, φ>

Mary/the book

RP
R

… IA …

👉 Mary/the book in Spec-R may be interpreted as “the old information.”
💡 Scopal effects are also observed between the two IAs in the double object construction.
I showed Mary herself.

I showed no one anything.

*I showed herself Mary.

* I showed anyone nothing.

23

24

etc.

"Ellipsis," in Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa and Hisashi Noda, eds., Handbook of Japanese Syntax, deGruyter Mouton, Berlin, 701-750.

Ellipsis
1. Introduction(1) a. N’-ellipsis
Taroo no taido wa [DP Hanako no [NP e]] yorimo yoi.
b. sluicing
Kare wa dokoka e itta ga, boku wa [CP doko e [C’[TP e] ka]] siranai.
c. argument ellipsis
Taroo wa zibun no kuruma o aratta. Hanako mo [DP e] aratta.

(=[5a])(=[5b])(=[5c])

2. A Preliminary Survey of the Phenomena
2.1 N’-ellipsis➢ Saito and Murasugi (1990): Evidence for CP/DP and N’-ellipsis in JapaneseN’-ellipsis(2) a. I read Bill’s book, but I haven’t read [NP Mary’s [N’ book]].
b. Rome’s destruction was worse than [NP London’s [N’ destruction]].

(=[6a])(=[6b])

sluicing(3) a. John bought something, but I don’t know [S’ what [S he bought]].
(=[7a])(S = T, S’ = TP)
b. John knows [S’ which girl [S Mary likes]], but he doesn’t know [S’ which boy [Sshe likes]].
(=[7b])➢ Mysterious properties:(i) Intermediate projections are elided.
(ii) N’-ellipsis is possible only with a genitive remnant. Sluicing requires a whphrase that moved out of the elided S.
(4) a. *John has a dog, but Mary doesn’t have [NP a [N’ dog]].
(=[8a])
b. *I want to read the book because I hear good thing about [NP the [N’ book]].
(=[8b])(5) a. *John said he saw a unicorn, but I don’t know [S’ if [S he saw a unicorn]]. (=[9a])b. *John denied that he cheated, but I believe [S’ that [S he cheated]].
(=[9b])➢ Saito and Murasugi (1990):
The DP hypothesis and the CP hypothesis (N’-ellipsis⇒the NP complement of D
is elided. Sluicing⇒the TP complement of C is elided.)(6) Ellipsis: The complement of a functional category F (D, C or T) can be elided only25

"Ellipsis," in Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa and Hisashi Noda, eds., Handbook of Japanese Syntax, deGruyter Mouton, Berlin, 701-750.

when F has a specifier, as illustrated below.

(=[10])

FP
ru
XP
F’
ru
F
YP
➢ Argument-adjunct asymmetry:(7) a. Taroo no taido wa [Hanako no __ ] yorimo yoi.
b. Rooma no hakai wa [Kyooto no__ ] yorimo hisan datta.

(8) a. *Saikin wa kumori no hi ga [ame no __ ] yorimo ooi.

(=[19a])(=[19b])(=[19c])b. *Taroo wa issyuukan ni san-satu no hon o yomu ga, Hanako wa [go-satu no __ ]o yomu.
(=[19d])➢ N’-ellipsis is legitimate only when the remnant genitive phrase is in Spec, DP.
Arguments but not adjuncts can move to Spec, DP.
(9) a. [DP the barbarians’i [NP ti [N’ destruction ti then]]]b. [DP the city’si [NP [N’ destruction ti then]]]c. *[DP then’si [NP [N’ destruction of the city ti]]]➢ Consequences:(i) D is present in Japanese.
(ii) Genitive Case can be assigned (or valued) within NP.
(10) [α DP/PP β]⇒[α DP/PP no β], where α and β are projections of N or D.

(=[24])

2.2 VP-Ellipsis and Sluicing➢ Otani and Whitman (1991): VP-ellipsis
Takahashi (1994): Sluicing(11) Taroo wa zibun no kuruma o aratta. Hanako mo [e] aratta.
(strict interpretation: Hanako also washed his (=Taroo’s) car)(sloppy interpretation: Hanako also washed her (=Hanako’s) car)(=[25])➢ Sloppy interpretation obtains with ellipsis but not with pronouns.
(12) a. John loves his mother, and Mary does, too. (Mary loves his/her mother) (=[26a])b. John loves his mother, and Mary loves her, too. (Mary loves his mother)(=[26b])(13) Taroo wa zibun no kuruma o aratta. Hanako mo sore o aratta.
(=[27])(strict interpretation: Hanako also washed his (=Taroo’s) car)26

"Ellipsis," in Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa and Hisashi Noda, eds., Handbook of Japanese Syntax, deGruyter Mouton, Berlin, 701-750.

➢ Otani and Whitman (1991): V-to-T raising followed by VP-ellipsis[TP DP [T’ [VP DP tV] V + T]](=[28])------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------➢ Takahashi (1994): Sluicing(14) Taroo wa [CP naze zibun ga sikarareta ka] wakatte inai ga, Hanako wa [CP naze ka]
wakatte iru.
(=[30])(✓strict interpretation, ✓sloppy interpretation)➢ Sluicing analysis(15) Kare wa dokoka e itta ga, boku wa [CP doko e ka] siranai.
(16) [CP [doko e]i [C’ [TP kare ga ti itta] ka]](=[29])(=[31])➢ Problem: there is no position for the copula da under the sluicing analysis.
(17) Taroo wa [CP naze zibun ga sikarareta ka] wakatte inai ga, Hanako wa [CP naze daka] wakatte iru.
(=[33])(✓strict interpretation, ✓sloppy interpretation)➢ Takahashi considers an alternative analysis with a pro subject.
(18) …, Hanako wa [CP [TP pro naze (da) ka]] wakatte iru.

(=[34])➢ However, Takahashi rejects this analysis on the grounds that it fails to account forthe sloppy interpretation.
(19) …, Hanako wa [CP [TP sore ga naze (da) ka]] wakatte iru.
(✓strict interpretation, *sloppy interpretation)(=[35])

2.3 Argument Ellipsis➢ Oku (1998) and Kim (1999):
There are examples with elided arguments that cannot be analyzed as instances ofV-stranding VP-ellipsis.
➢ Null subjects allow sloppy interpretation(20) a. Hanako wa [CP [TP zibun no teian ga saiyoosareru] to] omotte iru.
b. Taroo mo [CP [TP [e] saiyoosareru] to] omotte iru.

(=[36a])(=[36b])➢ Oku’s (1998) conclusion: arguments can be directly elided (i.e., argument ellipsis)➢ Saito’s (2004) solution to Takahashi’s (1994) problem:(i) The elliptic structure derives from a cleft sentence.
(ii) The embedded CP subject undergoes argument ellipsis.

27

"Ellipsis," in Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa and Hisashi Noda, eds., Handbook of Japanese Syntax, deGruyter Mouton, Berlin, 701-750.

(21) Hanako wa [CP [TP [CP Opi [C’ [TP zibun ga ti sikarareta no]] ga nazei (da)] ka]
wakatte iru.
(=[47])➢ As there is no pro subject and the example is derived by ellipsis, sloppy
interpretation is expected.
3 Descriptive Issues
3.1 Argument Ellipsis and pro➢ Hoji (1998): An indefinite pro analysis(22) a. Subete no nihonjinhuuhu ga betubetu no gakusei o suisensita.
b. Subete no amerikajinhuuhu mo [e] suisensita.
(✓strict interpretation, *sloppy interpretation)(=[51a])(=[51b])(23) a. Subete no itinensei ga zibun no booru o ketta.
b. Subete no ninensei mo [e] ketta.
(✓strict interpretation, ✓sloppy interpretation)(=[54a])(=[54b])➢ Hoji suggests that the null object is pro that stands for indefinite booru “a ball.”➢ Saito’s (2003, 2007) criticism:
Hoji’s analysis faces a problem when the second sentence contains negation.
(24) a. Taroo wa zibun no kuruma o aratta.
b. Demo, Hanako wa [e] arawanakatta.
(✓strict interpretation, ✓sloppy interpretation)(=[55a])(=[55b])➢ (24b) can be true when Hanako washed Taroo’s car but not her own. The indefinite
pro analysis fails to account for this.
(25) Hanako wa kuruma o arawanakatta.

(=[56])------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------➢ The distributions of pro and elided arguments are identical (cf. Murasugi 1991).
Pro can occur in the positions of locative and temporal phrases, in addition toargument positions, but not in positions of reason and manner phrases.
(26) a. [DP [TP Hanako ga [DP [TP (sorei o) motte iru] hito] o sagasite iru] kisyooboni]b. [DP [TP Hanako ga [DP [TP (sokoi ni) sunde iru] hito] o sitte iru] matii]c. [DP [TP Hanako ga [DP [TP *(sorei de) kubi-ni natta] hito] o sitte iru] riyuui](=[59a-c])(27) shows that argument ellipsis applies to locative phrases. (28) indicates thata reason phrase cannot be elided.
(27) a. Taroo wa [zibun no oya no ie ni] sunde iru.
b. Demo, Hanako wa [e] sunde inai.

28(=[60a])"Ellipsis," in Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa and Hisashi Noda, eds., Handbook of Japanese Syntax, deGruyter Mouton, Berlin, 701-750.

(28) a. Watasi wa [CP Taroo ga zibun no sippai de kubi-ni natta to] kiite iru.
b. Demo, [CP Hanako ga (*[e]) kubi-ni natta to] wa kiite inai.
(*strict interpretation, *sloppy interpretation)➢ (28) shows that a reason phrase cannot be expressed as pro or be elided.

29(=[60b])3.2 The Non-Applicability of Argument Ellipsis to Operators and Variables
項省略分析に対する Funakoshi (2012, 2013)の反論。
(62)

a. 太郎は [PP 花子とだけ] 遊べる。(only>can)b. * 次郎も [e] 遊べる。

項省略の分析では、(62b)の「花子とだけ」の PP を省略できると予測するが、省略できない。
V-stranding VP-ellipsis によって派生される。
(63)

次郎も [FocusP [PP 花子とだけ] [vP tPP tv] 遊べる。

しかし、前節まで見てきたように、項省略を支持する証拠がある。解くべき問題は、
The question is why argument ellipsis does not apply to a phrase that forms an operator-variablechain.
Shinohara (2006)が主張した LF コピー(LF-copying)分析を項省略の分析に採用すればよい。
► LF コピー分析を支持する議論① CP を省略することができる。
(69)

a.
b.

花子は [CP [TP 自分の提案が採用される] と] 思っているが、太郎は [CP e] 思っていない。
太郎が [CP [TP 花子がその本を買った] と] 言ったし、次郎も [CP e] 言った。

② 省略を受ける第二等位項の CP から抜き出しを適用することができない。
(70)

a. * 本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、雑誌を j 次郎は [CP e] 言った。
b. * その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、その本を j 次郎も [CP e]
言った。

③ 第一等位項の CP から抜き出しを適用すること自体はできる。
(72)

その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、次郎も [CP e] 言った。

(70)の非文法性および(72)の文法性を、LF コピー分析は捉えることができるが PF 削除分析
は捉えることができない。
PF 削除分析：(70)を文法的、(72)を非文法的になると予測してしまう。
● (70b)に対する分析(70) b. * その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、その本を j 次郎も [CP e]
言った。
(71)

その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、その本を j 次郎も [CP [TP 花子
が ti 買った] と ] 言った。

30

● (72)に対する分析(72) その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、次郎も [CP e] 言った。
(73)

その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、次郎も [CP [TP 花子がその本を買った] と] 言った。

LF コピー分析：(70)を非文法的、(72)を文法的になると予測する。
● (70b)に対する分析(76) * その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、その本を j 次郎も [CP e] 言った。
(77)[CP e] = [CP [TP 花子が その本を i 買った] と](76) * その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、その本を j 次郎も [CP [TP 花子
が その本を i 買った] と] 言った。
● (72)に対する分析(72) その本を i 太郎は [CP [TP 花子が ti 買った] と] 言ったし、次郎も [CP e] 言った。
(77') [CP e] = [CP [TP 花子が その本を i 買った] と](79)… 次郎も [CP [TP 花子が その本を i 買った] と] 言った。

この LF コピーの分析を仮定すると、operator-variable chain を構成する要素に項省略を適用できないことが説明される。
(80)

a. [CP [TP 誰がハイデラバードへ行った] か] 知っていますか。
b. * いいえ。でも、 [CP [TP [e] シエナへ行った] か] なら知っています。

(82)
(83)

a.
b.

[for which x: x a person] x went to Hyderabad((80a)の CP)[for which x: x a person] went to Siena
x went to Siena((80b)の[e]: operator の場合)((80b)の[e]: variable の場合)

したがって、Funakoshi (2012)の議論は項省略に対する強い反論とはならない。

3.3 Further Issues with Sluicing and N′-ellipsis
Takita (2012)による日本語の sluicing の存在を支持する証拠。
(88)

太郎は [CP [ModalP どこかへ行こう] と] 思っているが、[CP どこへ (??だ) か] 迷っている。

(88′) a.
b.

a copula construction + a null pronominal subject... [CP pro どこへ行こう(*だ)か] ...
a cleft construction + ellipsis of the presupposition CP* ... [[CP pro 行こうの] が どこへ (だ) か] ...

31

(88)の文は、(91)の sluicing によって派生されることになる。
(91)

4

太郎は [CP [ModalP どこかへ行こう] と] 思っているが、[CP どこへ i [ModalP pro ti 行こう]
か] 迷っている。

Toward an Explanation
1) Why is argument ellipsis observed in Japanese and Korean, but not, for example, in English?
2) Why can only constituents of specified types be elided and why is ellipsis possible only in
specific configurations?

(102) Ellipsis: The complement of a functional category F (D, C, or T) can be elided only when F has
a specifier, as illustrated below.
F
XP

F′
F

YP

4.1 Argument Ellipsis and the (Absence of) φ-feature Agreement(103) a.
b.

太郎は [DP 自分の友達] を連れてきた。
でも、花子は [DP e] 連れてこなかった。

(104) a. John brought [DP his friend].
b. * But Mary didn’t bring [DP e].
Chomsky (2000): Agree1) Case is closely tied with φ-feature agreement.
2) One condition on the Agree relation is the activation condition, which states that both the probe
and the goal must have unvalued features.
(p. 736)
Q1: Why is argument ellipsis impossible in English?
(104) a. John brought [DP his friend].
b. * But Mary didn’t bring [DP e].
(104′) a.

vP
VP

v

[φ:__]

vP

V

→
DP

VP

v

[φ: 3prsn, sg]

his friend[φ: 3prsn, sg][Case:__]VDP

his friend[φ: 3prsn, sg][Case:ACC](104) b. * But Mary didn’t bring [DP e].
(106)

vP
VP

v

[φ:__]V
bringe“As the DP is copied from the LF of (104a), its Case feature is already valued. Then, v fails to enter into
Agree relation with the copied DP because of the activation condition. Consequently, the φ-features ofv cannot be valued and the derivation crashes.” (p. 737)32

Q2: How is it possible in Japanese and Korean?
“Japanese and Korean allow argument ellipsis precisely because these languages lack φ-featureagreement.” (p. 737)
(103) a.
b.

太郎は [DP 自分の友達] を連れてきた。
でも、花子は [DP e] 連れてこなかった。

(106')

vP
VP

v

V
連れてくる

e ←

DP
自分の友達
[φ: 3prsn, sg]

4.2 Deriving the Licensing Condition on N′-ellipsis, VP-ellipsis and Sluicing(115) Ellipsis: The complement of a functional category F (D, C, or T) can be elided only when F has
a specifier, as illustrated below.
F
XP

F′
F

(120)
(121)
(124)

YP

* John denied that he cheated, but I believe [CP that [TP he cheated]].
John knows [CP which girl [TP Mary likes]], but he doesn’t know [CP which boy [TP she likes]].
John thinks [CP that [TP Mary solved the problem]].

Chomsky’s (2013, 2014) proposals on labeling ((126)) and some assumptions ((126′)):(126) a. In γ = {α, β}, if there is a unique head α and α is strong, α provides the label for γ.
γ (=α)
αβstrongb. Otherwise, search into α and β in order to locate heads. If the yielded heads α and β share afeature f of a specified type, then the label of γ is <f, f>.
(p. 745)γ (=<f, f>)
α

β

[f]

[f]

(126') a. A functional head fails to provide a label without a specifier in the context of ellipsis.
b. All functional heads are weak except T in null subject languages.
(p. 744)
(120)
(121)

* John denied that he cheated, but I believe [CP that [TP he cheated]].
John knows [CP which girl [TP Mary likes]], but he doesn’t know [CP which boy [TP she likes]].

(123) a. *XP (←label 決まらない)
C

weak

b.

TP

YP (←<Q,Q>)
wh(=(120))

XP
C

33

TP

(=(121))

(124)

John thinks [CP that [TP Mary solved the problem]].

(125)

YP(←<f, f>)
C

[f]

XP
DP

T

[f]

vP

(=(124))“Given that C is weak, (126a) is inapplicable to YP in (125). Then, heads must be searched in C andXP, according to (126b). Search into C immediately yields C…If either of D and T can count in thiscase, as assumed above, then YP can be labeled <f, f> on the premise that C and T share this feature.”(p. 746)(126) a. In γ = {α, β}, if there is a unique head α and α is strong, α provides the label for γ.
b. Otherwise, search into α and β in order to locate heads. If the yielded heads α and β share afeature f of a specified type, then the label of γ is <f, f>.
(p. 745)34