Abstract

This dissertation aims to contribute to the understanding of the nature of
successive-cyclicity. It is shown that close examinations of several constraints onmovement and ellipsis support a particular approach to successive-cyclicity, called
Cyclic Linearization, which proposes that the computational system of natural language
sends information about linear order of syntactic units to the interface between syntax
and phonology in a cyclic and cumulative way, and that successive-cyclicity follows
from this property of the computational system.
Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 examine a constraint on the application of Merge. Chapter
2 concerns the Proper Binding Condition effect found in Japanese scrambling, which isan instance of overt Merge. It is shown that under Cyclic Linearization, the effect can be
explained as an instance of failure of linearization at PF. Chapter 3 discusses anotherempirical fact that has motivated the constraint on Merge. The relevant fact concerns
ellipsis of arguments, which is taken as an instance of covert Merge. It is shown that thefact can be captured without appealing to the constraint in question. It is also shown that
other types of ellipsis such as sluicing and VP-ellipsis involve deletion at PF.
In Chapter 4, certain constraints on VP-scrambling in Japanese are examined.
Building on insights of previous studies on Japanese VP-scrambling, more fine-grained
generalizations are provided. It is argued then that Cyclic Linearization explains therelevant generalizations, offering several novel empirical observations andcross-linguistic predictions on possible variations of movement of VP.
Chapter 5 consists of two parts. It is argued in the first half that Japanese does havesluicing, based on a close scrutiny of a novel set of data. Based on this result, a newgeneralization on sluicing survivors is proposed. The second half tries to derive theeffect of the new generalization in terms of Cyclic Linearization. In particular, it isshown that the effect follows once the independently proposed account of the difference
between sluicing and VP-ellipsis in their abilities of repair effects is implemented under
Cyclic Linearization.

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to show my deepest gratitude to the members of my committee,
Mamoru Saito (chair), Keiko Murasugi, Masatake Arimoto, and Hisatsugu Kitahara. I
was extremely fortunate to have Mamoru Saito as my major adviser. It was reallyexciting to work with him, and I never forget uncountable hours of meeting with him,
where many of the ideas presented in this dissertation (and elsewhere) have originated.
Without his insightful comments and constructive criticism, I could not finish thisdissertation. Discussions with Keiko, as well as constant moral support from her, havehelped me to keep expectations high. Masatake never fails to encourage me throughout
the period I spent in Nanzan. I thank Hisatsugu for his detailed comments on the earlier
versions of this dissertation, and his suggestion of going to Nanzan while I was in the
Master’s program at Keio University.
Other members of the faculty have been great help to me as well: Yasuaki Abe,
Hiroshi Aoyagi, and Tatsuya Suzuki. Special thanks go to Howard Lasnik for his series
of intensive Summer lectures taught at Nanzan in 2006 - 2008, through which I thoughtof the ideas presented in Chapter 5. I also thank Tomohiro Fujii and Tomoko Kawamura
for their suggestions and helps on various kinds of things. I am grateful to the following
people I could interact with through the activities supported by Center for Linguistics at
Nanzan University: Hideki Kishimoto, Roger Martin, Yoichi Miyamoto, Takashi
Munakata, Masashi Nomura, Koji Sugisaki, Daiko Takahashi, and Yuji Takano. Thanks
also go to my fellow students: Masumi Aono, Chisato Fuji, Tomoko Haraguchi, Atsushi
Ito, Yoshie Kabuto, Nobuko Mizushima, Tomomi Nakatani-Murai, Masato Niimura,
Keiko Ogawa, Naoko Sawada, Michie Shinohara, Seichi Sugawa, Hajime Takeuchi,
Yurie Tsuruhara, Yasuki Ueda, Eriko Watanabe, and Keiko Yano.
It was quite a great experience for me to participate in the international consortium
held among Nanzan University and the following institutes: the University ofCambridge (UK), the University of Connecticut (USA), the English and Foreign
Languages University (Hyderabad, India), National Tsing Hua University (Taiwan), andthe University of Siena (Italy), starting from spring 2006 through present. I am sincerelyindebted to the researchers who generously shared their knowledge with me: R.
Amritavalli, Adriana Belletti, Željko Boškoviü, Yuen-Chin Chang, K. A. Jayaseelan,
Diane Lillo-Martin, T.-H. Jonah Lin, P. Madhavan, Luigi Rizzi, Ian Roberts, William
Snyder, W.-T. Dylan Tsai, and Susi Wurmbrand. I also thank the people for theirii

ii

discussions and friendship through the consortium: In particular, Tasneem Firdaus Ali,
Duk-Ho An, M. T. Hany Babu, Ana Bastos, Elisa Bennati, Jeff Bernath, Giulia Bianchi,
Theresa Biberauer, Giuliano Bocci, Vineet Chaturvedi, Cristiano Chesi, Liching Livy
Chiu, Jean Crawford, Lila Daskalaki, Ida Ferrari, Natasha Fitzgibbons, Irene Franco,
Simone Guesser, T.-T. Christina Hsu, C.-H. Grace Kuo, Chao-Lin Li, Marios
Mavrogiorgos, Mythili Menon, Vincenzo Moscati, Glenda Newton, Marc Richards,
Natalia Rakhlin, Paroma Sanyal, Tsuyoshi Sawada, Shigeki Taguchi, Takuro Tanaka,
H.-C. Joyce Tsai, Irene Utzeri, C.-H. Ally Weng, Edward Wilford, Sandra Wood, C.-Y.
Barry Yang, S.-C. Stella Yeh, and X.-X. Rex Yu, among many others.
I cannot help showing my gratitude to the professors of the Department ofLinguistics at University of Connecticut, Storrs, where I spent about one year (fall 2008
- spring 2009) as a visitor, for their invaluable lectures and interactions with me:
Jonathan Bobaljik, Željko Boškoviü, Jon Gajewski, Harry van der Hulst, Diane
Lillo-Martin, Yael Sharvit, William Snyder, and Susi Wurmbrand. My gratitude extends
to the following people for their friendship before, during, and after my visit: Masahiko
Aihara, Ana Bastos, Jeff Bernath, Carlos Buesa García, H.-T. Johnny Cheng, Jean
Crawford, Miloje Despiü, Natasha Fitzgibbons, Zhanna Glushan, Corina Goodwin, I.-T.
Chris Hsieh, Jungmin Kang, Helen Koulidobrova, Pei-Jung Kuo, Toshiko Oda, Koichi
Otaki, Nina Radkevich, JoĞe Riqueros Morante, Jelena Runiü, Tsuyoshi Sawada, Niluferùener, Serkan ùener, Masahiko Takahashi, Lyn Tieu, Julio Villa-García, Ting Xu, andCynthia Zocca. Special thanks go to Catalina Ritton for her administrative helps.
I also thank the following people outside Nanzan, who have helped me a lot atvarious stages of my linguistics career: Jun Abe, Seiki Ayano, Cedric Boeckx, Takuya
Goro, Tomio Hirose, C.-T. James Huang, Masayuki Ike-uchi, Noriko Imanishi, Miwa
Isobe, Takaomi Kato, Masatoshi Koizumi, Masayuki Komachi, Masakazu Kuno,
Thomas H.-T. Lee, W.-W. Roger Liao, C.-M. Louis Liu, Shigeru Miyagawa, Tomoko
Monou, Hiroki Narita, Fumikazu Niinuma, Jairo Nunes, Akira Omaki, Jong Un Park,
Masaki Sano, Tohru Seraku, Yasutada Sudo, Yoko Sugioka, Takeru Suzuki, Hisako
Takahashi, Satoshi Tomioka, Masahiro Yamada, Hideaki Yamashita, Masaya Yoshida,
Y.-Y. Iris Wang, to name a few, and especially, Yukio Otsu.
Outside the field of linguistics, I have so many people who I am really indebted tofor sharing their time with me, both good and bad (in various senses), although I do notlist their names individually. Finally, I would like to give my deepest thanks to myfamily and relatives for their constant help and support. Especially, I owe everything I
have achieved to my parents, Atsushi and Midori Takita, who always allow me to dowhat I want.
iii

iii

Table of ContentsiAbstract
Acknowledgementsii
iv

Table of contents
List of abbreviationsvii

Chapter 1: Introduction

1
1
6
9

1.1. Introduction
1.2. Outline of the dissertation
Notes to Chapter 1
Chapter 2: Cyclic Linearization and the Proper Binding Condition Effect on Overt Merge
2.1. Introduction
2.2. The Problem and the Previous Approaches
2.2.1. The Minimal Link Condition Analysis
2.2.2. The Derivational PBC Analysis
2.3. Proposals and Analysis
2.3.1. Cyclic Linearization and Linearization Preservation
2.3.2. Analysis
2.3.3. On Licit Remnant Movement in English and German
2.3.4. Summary
2.4. Empirical Evidence for the Proposed Analysis
2.4.1. A Puzzle on the Possible Landing Sites of Long-Distance Scrambling

10
10
14
16
19
23
23
28
37
43
44
44

2.4.2. On Restrictions on Scrambling of ECM and Small Clause Complements
2.5. Conclusion
Notes to Chapter 2

51
58
61

Chapter 3: A Note on the Proper Binding Condition Effect on Covert Merge
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Arguments for Argument Ellipsis

72
72
75

3.2.1. Previous Analyses of the Basic Data
3.2.2. Arguments for the Argument Ellipsis Analysis
3.3. PBC Effect on Argument Ellipsis

75
77
82

iv

iv

3.3.1. PBC Effect on Argument Ellipsis with the Derivational PBC
3.3.2. PBC Effect on Argument Ellipsis without the Derivational PBC
3.4. Conclusion
Notes to Chapter 3

82
87
96
97

Chapter 4: Cyclic Linearization and VP-scrambling in Japanese
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Background on VP-scrambling
4.2.1. Basic Properties of VP-scrambling and Previous Approaches
4.2.2. Problems of the Previous Studies
4.3. A Solution in Terms of Cyclic Linearization
4.3.1. Analysis
4.3.1.1. VP-scrambling in the Raising Structure
4.3.1.2. VP-scrambling in the Control Structure
4.3.2. Evidence for the Proposed Analysis
4.3.3. Summary
4.4. Implications and Remaining Issues
4.4.1. On Strandable Non-subjects

102
102
103
103
113
116
117
118
123
126
129
130
130

4.4.2. On the Expletive Su ‘do’
4.4.3. Possible Cross-linguistic Variations of Movement of Verbal Projections
4.5. Conclusion
Notes to Chapter 4
Chapter 5: Sluicing in Japanese and Cyclic Linearization
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Sluicing in Japanese Revisited

135
138
141
143
148
148
150

5.2.1. Background on the SLCFC
5.2.2. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC
5.2.2.1. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (I): Clause-types
5.2.2.2. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (II): “Mention-some” modification

152
156
157

5.2.2.3. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (III): Else-modification
5.2.2.4. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (IV): Aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases
5.2.2.5. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (V): Case-marker/postposition drop

161
163
165

5.2.2.6. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (VI): Island-repair
5.2.2.7. Interim Summary
5.2.3. Genuine Sluicing in Finite Clauses As V-stranding Sluicing

167
170
171

v

v

160

5.2.3.1. Initial Evidence for V-stranding Sluicing
5.2.3.2. Further Evidence: A Comparison with V-stranding VP-ellipsis
5.2.4. Summary and Implication
5.3. Island-repair, Cyclic Linearization and the Sluicing-COMP Effect5.3.1. Island-repair in Sluicing and VP-ellipsis
5.3.1.1. Previous Approaches to the Difference between Sluicing and VP-ellipsis
5.3.1.2. Cyclic Linearization and the Difference between Sluicing and VP-ellipsis
5.3.2. Cyclic Linearization and the Sluicing-COMP Effect5.4. Remaining Issues and Some Speculative Suggestions
5.4.1. Spell-out and Head-movement
5.4.2. Failure of Island-repair

172
178
182
185
185
187
191
198
206
206

5.5. Conclusion
Notes to Chapter 5

210
216
218

Chapter 6: Conclusion

228

References

230

vi

vi

List of Abbreviations

1SG
2FSG

1st person singular
2nd person female singular

ACC

Accusative
Aspect

ASP
AUX
C
CL
COP
DAT
ERG
FUT
GEN
IND
INF
NEG
NOM
PL
PASS
PAST
PRES
Q
TOP

AuxiliaryComplementizer
Classifier
CopulaDativeErgative
Future tense
Genitive
Indicative
Infinitive
Negation
Nominative
PluralPassive
Past tense
Present tense
Question-marker
Topic

vii

vii

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1. Introduction
One of the characteristic properties of natural language is displacement, where anelement is pronounced in a position different from one where it is interpreted. For
instance, the wh-phrase what in (1a) is interpreted as the object of the verb buy, just likesomething in (1b) is. Despite this fact, what appears in a position different fromsomething.
(1) Displacement in natural language
a. I know [what John will buy]
b. I know [John will buy something]Within the framework put forth by Chomsky (1955/1975, 1957, et seq.), in which thisdissertation is written, displacement is captured in terms of movement. That is, what in(1a) occupies the object position, on a par with something in (1b), at some point ofderivation as in (2a), and then it is moved to the position where it is pronounced, as in(2b).
(2) Displacement as movementa. I know [CP John will buy what]b. I know [CP whati John will buy ti]

Furthermore, it has been claimed that movement leaves a trace (see, among many others,
Chomsky 1973, Fiengo 1977), notated as t (in more recent terms, a copy; see Chomsky
1993, et seq.).
In the case of (1a), movement takes place within a single clause. As shown in (3a-c),
however, movement can create a long-distance dependency, crossing several clausal
boundaries.
(3) Long-distance dependencies
a. I know [CP1 whati Bill thinks [CP2 John will buy ti]]1

-1-

b. I know [CP1 whati Mary says [CP2 Bill thinks [CP3 John will buy ti]]]c. I know [CP1 whati Sam believes [CP2 … [CP3 … [CPn-2 Mary says [CPn-1 Bill thinks[CPn John will buy ti]]] …] …]]
In fact, a dependency created by movement can be unbounded, as in (3c).
One question that arises from the existence of such a long-distance dependency is
how movement proceeds in examples like (3a). There are at least two possibilities. One
possibility is that movement takes place in a one-fell-swoop fashion, as in (4a). The
other possibility is that a long-distance dependency results from successive-cyclic
applications of relatively short steps of movement. For instance, in (4b), what firstmoves to the edge of CP2, just like it does in (2b), and from there it reaches the final
landing site, namely the edge of CP1.
(4) How does movement proceed?
a. I know [CP1 whati Bill thinks [CP2 John will buy ti]]b. I know [CP1 whati Bill thinks [CP2 t‫މ‬i John will buy ti]]Since Chomsky 1973, it has been argued that movement proceeds in the manner
depicted in (4b), and there has been provided cumulative evidence for successive-cyclic
movement (see, among so many others, Kayne & Pollock 1978, McCloskey 1979, 2000,
2002, Chung 1982, Torrego 1984, Barss 1986, McDaniel 1989, Henry 1995; see also
Boeckx 2008 for a recent overview).
Several theoretical devices have been proposed in literature in order to capture
successive-cyclicity of movement. Among them are bounding nodes (Chomsky 1973,
1977, 1981), barriers (Chomsky 1986b), and phases (Chomsky 2000, 2001, et seq.).
For illustration, let us consider how successive-cyclicity is captured under the approach
employing phases. Under this approach, the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)
given in (5) plays a crucial role.1(5) Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2000:108)
In phase Į with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to outside Į, only H and
its edge are accessible to such operations.
The PIC states that in a structure like (6a), where HP is a phase and H0 is a phase-head,2-2-

a higher head W0 can access to XP and H0, but not to the domain of H0, namely its
complement YP. As a result, ZP in (6a), which is located within YP, cannot enter into a
relation such as movement with W0. In order for ZP to be accessible from W0, it mustmove to the edge of HP, as in (6b).
(6) PIC and successive-cyclicity
a. [WP W0 … [HP XP H0 [YP … ZP …]]]b. [WP W0 … [HP ZPi XP H0 [YP … ti …]]]

Taking (3a) as a concrete example, I illustrate how its derivation proceeds under the
PIC-based approach. Let CP be a phase. Suppose that the embedded CP, namely CP2 in(3a), is constructed with the wh-phrase what staying in-situ, as in (7a). When that thederivation proceeds to the step in (7b), the higher head C01 fails to enter into an
appropriate relation with what. This is because the wh-phrase is located in thecomplement domain of the lower phase-head C02 (indicated by shading).
(7) Derivation without successive-cyclic movement
a. [CP2 C02 [TP2 John will buy what]]b. [CP1 C01 [TP1 Bill thinks [CP2 C02 [TP2 John will buy what]]]]Thus, one-fell-swoop movement is not allowed under the PIC approach. Given that
there are certain requirements that need to be satisfied by the movement of what to Spec,
CP1, the derivation illustrated in (7) fails to converge.
If what moves to the edge of CP2 as in (8a), however, it becomes accessible from0
C 1 as in (8b). Consequently, what can move to the final landing site as in (8c),satisfying the requirements.
(8) Derivation with successive-cyclic movement
a. [CP2 whati C02 [TP2 John will buy ti]]b. [CP1 C01 [TP1 Bill thinks [CP2 whati C02 [TP2 John will buy ti]]]]3-3-

c. [CP1 whati C01 [TP1 Bill thinks [CP2 t‫މ‬i C02 [TP2 John will buy ti]]]]In this way, successive-cyclic movement is forced under the PIC-based approach.
Given that there is no upper boundary for the number of phases in a single
derivation, an element must move to the edge of every phase on the way to its final
landing site, as schematically shown in (9).
(9) Movement crossing phase-boundaries
a. [HP1 XPi H01 [… ti …]]
b. [HP2 XPi H02 [… [HP1 t‫މ‬i H01 [… ti …]]]]c. [HP3 XPi H03 [… [HP2 t‫މމ‬i H02 [… [HP1 t‫މ‬i H01 [… ti …]]]]]]

Hence, a long-distance dependency crossing phase-boundaries must consist of several
short steps of movement. Under the PIC-based approach, the problem arises in narrowsyntax. In the case of (7b) above, the problem is that C01 cannot reach what, failing tosatisfy the requirements.
Fox & Pesetsky (2003, 2005, henceforth F&P) put forth an alternative approach tosuccessive-cyclicity, which ascribes the source of the problem to the mapping between
syntax and PF.2 To be more specific, one-fell-swoop movement creates a problem onlinearization at PF, which can be circumvented by successive-cyclic movement. F&P
assume as in the PIC-based approach that a derivation proceeds in a bottom-up fashion
via iterated applications of Merge, which takes two syntactic objects and forms a newone from them.3 F&P also assume that at a certain point of a derivation, which basicallycorresponds to a phase, an operation Spell-out applies to the structure constructed so far,and that Spell-out applies multiply in a single derivation (Uriagereka 1999, Chomsky
2000, 2001). Under the PIC-based approach, Spell-out is conceived to hand over thecomplement of a phase to the interfaces (namely, PF and LF).4 Unlike the PIC-based
approach, however, F&P propose that when Spell-out applies to a Domain D, syntactic
units within D are linearized and fixed with respect to their relative linear orders. The
established orders are added to an Ordering Table. If an Ordering Table contains twocontradictory ordering statements, for instance one of which says Į precedes ȕ and theother says ȕ precedes Į, the derivation crashes at PF, because Į cannot precede and4-4-follow ȕ at the same time. Since linearization via Spell-out takes place cyclically, theirapproach is called Cyclic Linearization.
Let us take (3a) as a concrete example again. Let CP be a domain that is subject tolinearization via Spell-out. Suppose that what stays in-situ. When Spell-out applies toCP2, the Ordering Table of the current derivation receives the ordering statement where
what is specified to linearly follow John, will, and buy (‘<’ means ‘precede’), as in (10a).
Unlike the PIC-based approach, F&P argue that movement out of a previously
Spelled-out domain is possible. Given this, what can undergo one-fell-swoop movement
to Spec, CP1 as in (10b). Then, Spell-out of CP1 establishes a new ordering statement
given in boldface, where what is specified to precede every other element.5 At thispoint, the Ordering Table of this derivation contains a contradiction, however. That is,what is required to precede and follow John, will, and buy at the same time. Thisordering contradiction eventually leads the derivation to a PF-crash.
(10) Derivation without successive-cyclic movement
a. [CP2 C02 [TP2 John will buy what]]
Ordering Table: John<will<buy<whatb. * [CP1 whati C 1 [TP1 Bill thinks [CP2 C02 [TP2 John will buy ti]]]]0

Ordering Table: John<will<buy<whatwhat<Bill<thinks<John<will<buy
On the other hand, if what moves to the edge of CP2 before Spell-out, the ordering
statement where it precedes John, will, and buy is established, as in (11a).
(11) Derivation with successive-cyclic movement
a. [CP2 whati C02 [TP2 John will buy ti]]Ordering Table: what<John<will<buy0b. [CP1 whati C 1 [TP1 Bill thinks [CP2 t‫މ‬i C02 [TP2 John will buy ti]]]]
Ordering Table: what<John<will<buywhat<Bill<thinks<John<will<buy
Then, Spell-out of CP1 in (11b) can establish the ordering statement (given in boldface)which is consistent with the one previously established. Hence, the derivation can
5-5-converge, yielding the surface linear order of the relevant part of (3a).
Note that under Cyclic Linearization, movement out of a previously Spelled-out
domain is possible, as mentioned above. Hence, the movement of what to Spec, CP1 in(10b) above is licit. Since what can be moved to Spec, CP1, the requirements thatdemand the movement in question are indeed satisfied. Therefore, the structure in (10b)is legitimate with respect to narrow syntax. The problem arises at the mapping between
syntax and PF, namely a contradiction between the ordering statements establishedthrough the derivation. Successive-cyclic movement is required to circumvent such anordering contradiction.
This dissertation aims to argue for the theory of Cyclic Linearization, by examining
several constraints on movement and ellipsis. In the rest of this chapter, I briefly
overview the issues discussed in the subsequent chapters.
1.2. Outline of the Dissertation
In Chapter 2, I examine a constraint on the application of overt instances of Merge
proposed by Saito (2003). The constraint, which I call the derivational Proper Binding
Condition (PBC; cf. Fiengo 1977, Saito 1989, and Lasnik & Saito 1992), restricts
Merge from taking a constituent that contains a subpart of a chain as its input. The
principal empirical motivation for the derivational PBC has to do with Saito’s (1989)
finding that the PBC effect is observed for scrambling in Japanese, which is an instanceof overt application of Merge. I argue that the theory of Cyclic Linearization allows us
to capture the empirical basis of the derivational PBC, by combining it with someindependently motivated assumptions, especially with Ko’s (2005a, 2007) hypothesisthat the whole vP is subject to linearization via Spell-out in languages like Japanese.
Hence, the derivational PBC can be eliminated from the grammar. Meanwhile, I
propose a parameter that specifies the size of the domain of linearization via Spell-out. I
illustrate that the difference between languages like Japanese and those like English
with respect to the range of possible remnant movement follows from this parameter,
which is independently required under the system advocated in this dissertation in orderto capture some facts about word order possibilities in those languages. Finally, I showthat the proposed system can gain a wider empirical coverage, discussing constraints on
possible landing sites of long-distance scrambling noted by Saito (1985) and on
scrambling of ECM (see Kuno 1972) and of Small Clause complements (see Kikuchi &Takahashi 1991).
Chapter 3 examines a constraint on an ellipsis process called argument ellipsis (Oku
1998, Kim 1999), which has been taken by Shinohara (2006a, b) and Saito (2007) as
6-6-

another piece of evidence for the derivational PBC. Argument ellipsis can target anargument of a predicate under identity with an appropriate antecedent. However, it isobserved by Shinohara (2006a, b) and Saito (2007) that if subextraction such as
long-distance scrambling takes place from a constituent, the constituent in question
cannot be elided, even though it is otherwise legitimate to elide it. Following Oku’s(1998) idea that argument ellipsis is a covert instance of Merge, Shinohara (2006a, b)
argues that the relevant observation follows from the derivational PBC. Shinohara(2006a, b) further argues that the fact that argument ellipsis is constrained by thederivational PBC while other ellipsis constructions like sluicing and VP-ellipsis is notsuggests that argument ellipsis involves LF-copying, (Williams 1977, Fiengo & May
1994, and Chung, Ladusaw & McCloskey 1995, among others) conceived as covert
Merge, while sluicing and VP-ellipsis involve PF-deletion (Sag 1976, Merchant 2001,
Fox & Lasnik 2003, among others). In Chapter 3, I first show that the observation on
the interaction of subextraction and argument ellipsis can be explained by anindependently required mechanism of arguments, without appealing to the derivational
PBC. Then, I argue that the proposed analysis still maintains Shinohara’s (2006a, b)
point that argument ellipsis is an instance of LF-copying whereas sluicing and
VP-ellipsis are PF-deletion.
In Chapter 4, I examine several constraints on VP-scrambling in Japanese.
VP-scrambling is a construction where a maximal projection headed by a predicate
undergoes movement together with its dependents such as objects (see Hoji, Miyagawa& Tada 1989, Hasegawa 1990, Ohkado 1991, Tateishi 1991, Kubo 1994, Hoshi 1994,
Yatsushiro 1997, 1999, Saito & Hoshi 2000, and Saito 2006, among many others). I
argue that although Japanese VP-scrambling appears to be a counterexample for the
analysis of the PBC effect on scrambling based on the theory of Cyclic Linearization
advocated in Chapter 2, it does provide support for it. Following the insights of theprevious studies on Japanese VP-scrambling that the raising/control distinction is a
crucial factor that distinguishes licit cases from illicit ones, I first provide morefine-grained generalizations on Japanese VP-scrambling. Then, I show that thegeneralizations follow nicely from the analysis advocated in Chapter 2, offering novel
observations concerning the behavior of certain adjuncts in VP-scrambling. Finally, I
discuss several implications and remaining issues. Among them is a novel prediction on
possible cross-linguistic variations about movement of VP, which I believe stimulates
further research in the relevant domain.
Chapter 5 principally concerns sluicing (see Ross 1969a and Merchant 2001, among
many others). The first half of Chapter 5 is devoted to the question of whether sluicing,7-7-

namely deletion of TP and concomitant wh-movement, exists in Japanese. Although
Takahashi (1994) provides a positive answer to this question, several subsequent works
argue against it (see Shimoyama 1995, Nishiyama, Whitman & Yi. 1996, Kuwabara
1997, Kizu 1997, 2005, Fukaya & Hoji 1999, Sakai 2000, Hiraiwa & Ishihara 2002,
Fukaya 2003, Saito 2004, and Nakao & Yoshida 2005, among many others). Based on anovel set of data, I show that Japanese indeed has sluicing. In particular, I show that byusing non-finite verbs, we can obtain the structure where a wh-phrase and the Q-makersurvive deletion, which unambiguously results from deletion of TP preceded by
wh-movement. Then, I argue that when a finite verb is involved, it undergoes
head-movement to C0, so that deletion of TP results in a structure which I callV-stranding sluicing, a hitherto unnoticed type of sluicing. Based on these results, I
point out that the pattern of sluicing found in Japanese constitutes a clear
counterexample for Merchant’s (2001) Sluicing-COMP generalization, which roughly
prohibits non-wh-elements from surviving under sluicing. I propose an alternative
generalization that accommodates the Japanese pattern.
The second half of Chapter 5 tries to derive the effect of this alternative
generalization from the theory of Cyclic Linearization. To be more specific, I argue that
this goal can be achieved once we implement under the theory of Cyclic Linearization
Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) approach to a difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis withrespect to island-repair (Ross 1969a, Chomsky 1972, Chung, Ladusaw, & McCloskey
1995, Lasnik 2001, 2006, 2008, Merchant 2001, 2004, 2008, and Fox & Lasnik 2003, toname a few). As reviewed in Chapter 5, Fox & Lasnik (2003) assume that both sluicing
and VP-ellipsis involve PF-deletion. The analysis advocated in Chapter 5 thus allows us
to maintain the conclusion reached in Chapter 3 that both sluicing and VP-ellipsis are
PF-deletion, despite the difference between them. Furthermore, Fox & Lasnik (2003)
crucially employ the idea that one-fell-swoop movement is possible. Recall
one-fell-swoop movement is never possible under the PIC-based approach tosuccessive-cyclicity, as illustrated in Section 1.1, while under the theory of Cyclic
Linearization it creates no problem in narrow syntax but a problem arises at the
mapping between narrow syntax and PF. F&P suggest that the problem can be
circumvented not only by successive-cyclic movement but also by ellipsis. Hence, theanalysis advocated in Chapter 5 can be taken as a concrete implementation of theirsuggestion, though I show that my implementation can be extended to the novel issue
concerning the Sluicing-COMP generalization. Finally, I discuss some remaining issues,suggesting certain directions to pursue.
8-8-Notes to Chapter 1
1

The choice of the version of the PIC given in Chomsky 2000 is only for expository purpose.

2

See Section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2 for more detailed illustrations.

3

A syntactic object is defined as follows (see Chomsky 1995:226-227, 243): Į is a syntactic

object =df (i) Į is a lexical item, or (ii) Į is an output of Merge.
4

To be more precise, Chomsky (2004, 2007, 2008) calls the operation that sends information to

the interfaces Transfer, and Spell-out is conceived as the mapping between syntax and PF, which is apart of Transfer.
5

F&P argue that Spell-out under their conception targets the whole domain, including its edge.

They assume that traces are not subject to the linearization procedure.

9-9-Chapter 2
Cyclic Linearization and the Proper Binding Condition Effect on
Overt Merge

2.1. Introduction
This chapter examines Saito’s (2003) derivational reformulation of the Proper
Binding Condition (henceforth PBC).1 The PBC, originally proposed by Fiengo (1977),
states that traces must be bound. Saito’s (2003) formulation of the PBC is shown in (1),which I call the derivational PBC as opposed to Fiengo’s classical PBC.
(1) Derivational PBC (Saito 2003:507-508)
a. Į is subject to Merge only if Į is a complete constituent.
b. Į is a complete constituent =df (i) Į is a term, and (ii) if a position within Į is amember of a chain Ȗ, then every position of Ȗ is contained within Į.
The derivational PBC is a constraint on the application of Merge, and it prevents Merge
from applying to a constituent that contains only a subpart of a chain. Let us consider theschematic structure in (2), where WP has been extracted out of ZP:(2) Structure where WP moves out of ZP
XP
X

YP
WP

Yƍ
Y

ZP
… tWP …

According to the derivational PBC, XP and YP in (2) can be Merged with anotherconstituent because they contain both WP and its trace, while ZP cannot be, since it
contains only the trace of WP. Given that Move involves Merge as its part, it follows that
only XP and YP but not ZP can be moved further. That is, the derivational PBC rules out
10

-10-

structures like (3a), which involves remnant movement, while it allows those like (3b),which involves no remnant movement.
(3) Structures with and without remnant movement
a.

XP
ZP

Xƍ

… tWP …

X

YP
WP

Yƍ
Y

b.

tZP

UP
YP
WP

Uƍ
Yƍ

Y

U

XP

ZP

X

tYP

… tWP …

In (3a), the trace of WP is left unbound, while it is bound in (3b). Hence, the classicalPBC also rules out only the former. In this sense, the effect of the classical PBC issubsumed under the derivational PBC.2
Saito (2003) proposes the derivational PBC to deal with the theoretical and empiricalproblems regarding the classical PBC effect on Japanese scrambling. The relevant
paradigm, originally discussed in Saito 1989, is given in (4) below (based on Saito
2003:498-499).3(4) PBC effect on Japanese scramblingto] omottei-ru (koto)a. Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga [PP Sooru-ni] i-ru
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM
Seoul-in be-PRES that think-PRES fact
‘Taroo thinks [that Hanako lives [in Seoul]]’
11

-11-

b. [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga
ti i-ruto] omottei-ru (koto)
Hanako-NOM
be-PRES that think-PRES fact
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM‘(lit.) [In Seoul]i, Taroo thinks [that Hanako lives ti]’c. [CP Hanako-ga [PP Sooru-ni] i-ruto]i Taroo-ga ti omottei-ru (koto)
Seoul-in be-PRES that Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact
Hanako-NOM‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives [in Seoul]]i, Taroo thinks ti’
d. * [CP Hanako-ga ti i-ruto]j [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga tj omottei-ru (koto)
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact
Hanako-NOM be-PRES that‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives ti]j, [in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks tj’(4b) is derived from (4a) via scrambling of the PP Sooru-ni ‘in Seoul’, and (4c) involves
scrambling of CP. The grammaticality of (4b-c) indicates that there is no problem withscrambling of the PP or of the CP. Then, the ungrammaticality of (4d) indicates that once
the PP is scrambled, it is not possible to further scramble the remnant CP that contains thetrace of the scrambled PP.
Note that multiple application of scrambling is possible, as shown by the fact that
there is no contrast between (5a) and (5b) below.
(5) Multiple application of scramblinga. Taroo-ga [CP Ziroo-ga
Hanako-ni sono hon-oage-tato]
Ziroo-NOM Hanako-to that book-ACC give-PAST that
Taroo-NOM
omottei-ru (koto)
think-PRES fact
‘Taroo thinks [that Ziroo gave that book to Hanako]’b. Sono hon-oi
Hanako-nij Taroo-ga [CP Ziroo-ga tj ti age-ta
to]Ziroo-NOM
give-PAST thatthat book-ACC Hanako-to Taroo-NOM
omottei-ru (koto)
think-PRES fact‘(lit.) That booki, to Hanakoj, Taroo thinks [that Ziroo gave ti tj]’(5a) is the baseline example. (5b) involves scrambling of sono hon-o ‘that book’ andHanako-ni ‘to Hanako’, and the sentence is grammatical. Hence, the ungrammaticalityof (4d) cannot be attributed to the multiple application of scrambling.
Saito (1989) argues that (4d) is straightforwardly ruled out by the classical PBC, since
the trace of the PP contained within the scrambled CP is left unbound. Saito’s (1989)
account, however, is not free from problems (see, for instance, Lasnik & Saito 1992,
12

-12-

Collins 1994, Müller 1996, Kitahara 1997, and references cited thereinfor earlier
discussions). One of the most important problems is that Saito’s (1989) account,
combined with his argument that scrambling has the so-called “radical reconstruction”
property, which I review in the next section, requires the classical PBC to apply at
S-structure (in addition to LF), which no longer exists under the Minimalist assumptions(Chomsky 1995).
As I review in the next section, various approaches have been made to solve thisproblem, mainly attributing the source of the effect to derivation itself. Among them is
Saito (2003), who suggests that the derivational PBC provides a straightforward solution
to this problem: Since it is a constraint on derivation, no notion of S-structure is involved.
Although the derivational PBC seems to provide a solution to the problem, there
arises another problem: It is far from clear why the derivational PBC exists in thegrammar. To put it another way, we are left with the question how such a constraint on theapplication of Merge follows from general principles. In this chapter, I argue that theempirical facts that have motivated the derivational PBC can be explained by someindependently motivated mechanisms, so that the derivational PBC can be eliminatedfrom the grammar.
To be more specific, I claim that the PBC effect on scrambling, exemplified by (4d),can be captured as a consequence of linearization at PF. In particular, I argue that thetheory of Cyclic Linearization, proposed by Fox & Pesetsky (2003, 2005, henceforth
F&P) plays a crucial role in explaining the PBC effect on scrambling. It is shown that
the PBC effect on scrambling follows by combining F&P’s theory of Cyclic
Linearization with Ko’s (2005a, 2007) hypothesis that the whole vP, including its edge,
constitutes the relevant domain for linearization in languages like Korean and Japanese.
This chapter is organized as follows: In Section 2.2, I review the above mentioned
problem of Saito’s (1989) analysis and previous approaches to it. Then, Section 2.3
introduces F&P’s theory, and proposes an explanation of the paradigm in (4). Specifically,
I illustrate that given F&P’s theory, which claims that linear orderings of syntactic units
are cyclically fixed, derivations which give rise to surface linear orders like (4d)necessarily crash at PF. I also discuss certain licit cases of remnant movement found inlanguages like English and German. In Section 2.4, I argue that the analysis advocated inthis chapter has wider empirical coverage than the derivational PBC. In particular, I
illustrate that the analysis can solve a long-standing puzzle regarding the possible landingsites of long-distance scrambling, originally discussed by Saito (1985), and it explainscertain restrictions on scrambling of the ECM and Small Clause complements in a
uniform fashion. Section 2.5 concludes this chapter.
13

-13-

2.2. The Problem and the Previous Approaches
This section introduces the problem regarding Saito’s (1989) analysis of theparadigm in (4), repeated as (6) below, and reviews the previous approaches to solve theproblem.
(6) PBC effect on Japanese scramblinga. Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga [PP Sooru-ni] i-ru
Taroo-NOM

Hanako-NOM

Seoul-into] omottei-ru (koto)be-PRES that think-PRES

fact‘Taroo thinks [that Hanako lives [in Seoul]]’b. [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga
ti i-ruto] omottei-ru (koto)
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM
be-PRES that think-PRES fact‘(lit.) [In Seoul]i, Taroo thinks [that Hanako lives ti]’c. [CP Hanako-ga [PP Sooru-ni] i-ruto]i Taroo-ga ti omottei-ru (koto)
Seoul-in be-PRES that Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact
Hanako-NOM‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives [in Seoul]]i, Taroo thinks ti’to]j [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga tj omottei-ru (koto)d. * [CP Hanako-ga ti i-ru
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact
Hanako-NOM be-PRES that‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives ti]j, [in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks tj’
As mentioned above, the problem regarding Saito’s (1989) explanation of the paradigm in(6) with the classical PBC is that it requires the condition to apply at S-structure, given hisargument that scrambling has the radical reconstruction property.
To see why it is the case, let us consider the following examples first:(7) Structural condition on wh-phrases and the Q-morphemesono hon-okat-taka] sittei-ru(koto)
a. Taroo-ga [CP dare-ga
Taroo-NOM
who-NOM that book-ACC buy-PAST Q know-PRES fact
‘Taroo knows [who bought that book]’kat-taka] sittei-ru(koto)
b. * Dare-ga [CP Taroo-ga sono hon-oTaroo-NOM that book-ACC buy-PAST Q know-PRES fact
who-NOM‘(lit.) Who knows [Taroo bought that book]’
In (7a-b), only the embedded clause is a question CP. In (7a), the wh-phrase dare-ga‘who’ is contained within the question CP, headed by the Q-morpheme ka, while it is notin (7b). Saito (1989), following Harada (1972), argues that the contrast in (7a-b) can be
14

-14-

accounted for if we assume that a wh-phrase must be contained within the CP where it
takes scope.
Then, Saito (1989) observes that a wh-phrase can undergo long-distance scramblingout of a question CP, as in shown (8).
(8) Long-distance scrambling of a wh-phrase out of an interrogative clausea. Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga
dono hon-okat-taka] sittei-ru(koto)
know-PRES fact

Taroo-NOM Hanako-NOM which book-ACC buy-PAST Q‘Taroo knows [which book Hanako bought]’
b. Dono hon-oi
Taroo-ga [CPHanako-ga ti kat-taka] sittei-ru(koto)

which book-ACC Taroo-NOM Hanako-NOM

buy-PAST Q know-PRES fact‘(lit.) Which booki, Taroo knows [Hanako bought ti]’In (8b), the wh-phrase dono hon-o ‘which book’ undergoes long-distance scrambling. As
a result, it is not contained within the embedded CP, where it takes scope, unlike (8a).
Therefore, (8b) should be ungrammatical, on a par with (7b), contrary to fact.
To accommodate this observation, Saito (1989) proposes that scrambled phrases areplaced back into their original position at LF, as in (9), assuming that the requirement on
wh-phrases applies at LF.
(9) Radical reconstruction of scramblinga. S-structure: dono hon-oi Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti kat-ta ka] sittei-ru (koto)b. LF:___ Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga dono hon-o kat-ta ka] sittei-ru (koto)

This is called the radical reconstruction property of scrambling. As a result, the sentencein (8b) has an LF-representation identical to that of (8a). Thus, this hypothesis explains
why both (8a-b) are grammatical: The requirement on wh-phrases is satisfied at LF inboth examples.
Returning to the paradigm in (6), let us reconsider the examples (6a) and (6d),repeated as (10a) and (10b), respectively:(10) PBC effect on Japanese scramblingto] omottei-ru (koto)a. Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga [PP Sooru-ni] i-ru
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM
Seoul-in be-PRES that think-PRES fact
‘Taroo thinks [that Hanako lives [in Seoul]]’
15

-15-

b. * [CP Hanako-ga

ti i-ruto]j [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga tj omottei-ru (koto)
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact
Hanako-NOM be-PRES that‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives ti]j, [in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks tj’

Since both the PP and the CP in (10b) have undergone scrambling, both of them should be
able to be reconstructed into their original positions at LF. Hence, the LF representationof (10b) can be obtained in the manner depicted in (11) below.
(11) LF representation of (10b)a. S-structure: [CP Hanako-ga ti i-ru to]j [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga tj omottei-ru (koto)b. LF:___ [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti i-ru to] omottei-ru (koto)c. LF:___ ___ Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga [PP Sooru-ni] i-ru to] omottei-ru (koto)

Therefore, the LF representation of (10b) is indistinguishable from that of (10a), which
has no unbound trace. Thus, if the classical PBC applies solely at LF, it fails to capture thecontrast between them. Saito (1989) then claims that the classical PBC applies at
S-structure. This proposal, however, faces another problem, since it is impossible toformulate an S-structure condition under the Minimalist assumptions. In the rest of thissection, I review some previous attempts to solve this problem, which we call the
S-structure application problem of the classical PBC.
2.2.1. The Minimal Link Condition Analysis
One of the intriguing suggestions to the S-structure application problem of theclassical PBC is made by Kitahara (1997). He tries to explain Müller’s (1996)
generalization in terms of the Minimal Link Condition (henceforth MLC), which requires
a head to attract the structurally closest element to it (see, for instance, Chomsky 1995).
Let us start with Müller’s (1996) generalization, stated in (12).
(12) Müller’s generalization (Müller 1996:375)
Remnant XPs cannot undergo a certain type of movement if the antecedent of theunbound trace has undergone the same type of movement.
Müller (1996) observes that sentences with unbound traces are in fact grammatical incertain cases, and argues that the generalization in (12) can correctly distinguish the licit
16

-16-

cases from illicit ones.
For instance, let us consider the following German examples (based on Müller
1996:357-358):(13) Licit and illicit remnant movement in Germana. [ti Zu lesen]j hat keiner [das Buch]i tj versucht
to readhas no one

the booktried‘No one has tried to read the book’
b. * daß [ti zu lesen]j keiner [das Buch]i tj versucht hat
that
to read no one the book‘that no one has tried to read the book’

tried

has

In both (13a-b), the object das Buch ‘the book’ has been extracted from the infinitive
clause zu lessen ‘to read’ by scrambling. In (13a), the infinitive clause undergoes
topicalization, which is, according to Müller, distinct from scrambling, while theinfinitive clause is moved by scrambling in (13b). Only in (13b), the unbound tracecontained in the infinitive clause is created by the same type of movement which theinfinitive clause itself undergoes. Hence, it results in ungrammaticality. The following
examples from English also confirm the generalization in (12) (based on Müller
1996:392; see also Lasnik & Saito 1992, Kitahara 1997, and Saito 2003).
(14) Licit remnant movement in English
a. [Criticized ti by his boss]j, Johni has never been tj
b. [How likely ti to win the game]j is Maryi tj?
In (14a) the subject John undergoes A-movement to Spec, TP, and then VP-fronting
takes place. In (14b), A-movement of Mary is followed by wh-movement of the AP. The
grammaticality of the relevant examples indicates that remnant movement is indeed
allowed in these cases.
Then, Kitahara (1997) provides an elegant explanation of Müller’s generalization interms of the MLC. Let us consider the schematic derivation in (11):(15) The MLC analysis of Müller’s generalization
a. [XP … X0[ȕ] [… [YP … Y0[Į] [ … [ZP … WP …]]]]]
b. [XP … X0[ȕ] [… [YP WP Y0[Į] [ … [ZP … tWP …]]]]]
17

-17-

c. [XP [ZP … tWP …] X0[ȕ] [… [YP WP Y0[Į] [ … tZP]]]]

Suppose that as in (15a) Y0 and X0 have a feature Į and ȕ, respectively, and that they must
be checked for convergence. Suppose further that in order to check these features, WP
moves to Spec, YP, attracted by Į as in (15b), and subsequently the remnant ZP moves toSpec, XP, attracted by ȕ as in (15c). Since ZP can check ȕ by assumption, if Į and ȕ are of
the same type, ZP should be capable of checking Į as well. Then, the MLC demands Į toattract ZP, instead of WP, at the step in (15b), given that ZP is structurally closer to Y0
than WP. In other words, a MLC violation arises if Į attracts WP skipping ZP in asituation where both of them are possible candidates for feature checking. Therefore, thederivation in (15) can be legitimate only if Į and ȕ are not of the same type, which in turnmeans they induce different types of movement. Hence, Müller’s generalization follows.
Kitahara (1997) then suggests that the ungrammaticality of (10b) also follows ifscrambling in Japanese is feature-driven (see, among many others, Miyagawa 1997,
2001, 2003, Grewendorf & Sabel 1999, and Kawamura 2004 for this view). Under thisanalysis, (10b), repeated as (16a), is analyzed as having a structure like (16b) below as
its underlying structure (irrelevant details are omitted). For the sake of concreteness,
suppose that some heads X and Y located above the matrix TP bear the feature which
triggers scrambling, called Ȉ-feature. Since the embedded CP and the PP are intended toundergo scrambling, they also possess the Ȉ-feature.4(16) The MLC analysis of the PBC effect on Japanese scramblinga. * [CP Hanako-ga ti i-ruto]j [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga tj omottei-ru (koto)
Hanako-NOM be-PRES that
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives ti]j, [in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks tj’

18

-18-

b.

XP
X0[Ȉ]

YP
Y0[Ȉ]

TP
Taroo-ga

Tƍ
T0

VP
V0

CP[Ȉ]
Hanako-ga

PP[Ȉ]i-ru to-ruomottei

Sooru-ni
In order to derive the surface string of (16a), the PP must be attracted by Y0. Since theembedded CP, whose head bears the Ȉ-feature, is the closest candidate for Y0, theintended attract relation is blocked by the MLC. Hence, the surface string of (16a) fails
to be derived. Since the MLC is a constraint on derivation, no notion of S-structure is
involved. Therefore, the MLC analysis resolves the S-structure application problem of
the classical PBC.
2.2.2. The Derivational PBC Analysis
Although Kitahara’s (1997) analysis is highly principled, Saito (2003) points out
some empirical problems. He first suggests that scrambling is not feature-driven, so that
the MLC is simply irrelevant to the ungrammaticality of (16a). One argument for theidea that scrambling is not feature-driven discussed by Saito & Fukui (1998) (see also
Takano 1995 for earlier discussion) has to do with the multiple application ofscrambling. As shown in (5b), repeated as (17b) below, multiple elements can undergoscrambling. In addition to (17b), multiple scrambling can apply so as to reverse thelinear order between the two scrambled phrases, as in (17a).
(17) Multiple application of scramblinga. Sono hon-oi

Hanako-nij Taroo-ga [CP Ziroo-ga tj ti age-ta
to]Ziroo-NOM
give-PAST thatthat book-ACC Hanako-to Taroo-NOM
omottei-ru (koto)
think-PRES fact‘(lit.) That booki, to Hanakoj, Taroo thinks [that Ziroo gave ti tj]’
19

-19-

b. Hanako-nij sono hon-oi

Taroo-ga [CP Ziroo-ga tj ti age-ta
to]Ziroo-NOM
give-PAST that
Hanako-to that book-ACC Taroo-NOM
omottei-ru (koto)
think-PRES

fact‘(lit.) To Hanakoj, that booki, Taroo thinks [that Ziroo gave ti tj]’That is, in (17a) sono hon-o ‘that book’ precedes Hanako-ni, while in (17b) the latter
precedes the former.
Under the feature-driven view of scrambling, these examples are analyzed as being
derived in the manners depicted in (18), respectively (I pretend that XP and YP arehead-initial).
(18) Schematic structures of (17a-b)
a. [XP X0[Ȉ] [YP Y0[Ȉ] [TP … [CP … Hanako-ni … sono hon-o …]]]]b. [XP X0[Ȉ] [YP Y0[Ȉ] [TP … [CP … Hanako-ni … sono hon-o …]]]]

In (18a), X0 attracts sono hon-o ‘that book’, and Y0 does Hanako-ni, yielding (17a). In(18b), on the other hand, X0 attracts Hanako-ni, and Y0 does sono hon-o ‘that book’,
yielding (17b). It is quite clear that the structure in (18b) violates the MLC, since Y0
tries to attract sono hon-o ‘that book’ skipping Hanako-ni, which also bears theȈ-feature to check its counterpart on X0. How about (18a)? Suppose that when
Hanako-ni is attracted to Spec, YP, the Ȉ-feature of Y0 but not that of Hanako-ni isdeleted. Then, a MLC violation results when X0 tries to reach sono hon-o ‘that book’skipping Hanako-ni. Suppose on the other hand that the Ȉ-feature of Hanako-ni is alsodeleted when it is attracted to Spec, YP in (18a). Then, no MLC violation should arise
for attraction of sono hon-o ‘that book’ by X0. Hence, it is predicted either that both(18a) and (18b) are illegitimate, or that there is a contrast between them. The fact that(17a-b) are equally grammatical thus suggests that scrambling is not feature-driven,
inducing no MLC violation.
More important problem for the MLC analysis is that it fails to capture the paradigmin (19) below (based on Saito 2003:501).

20

-20-

(19) PBC effect on Japanese scramblinga. Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni [PRO [PP Sooru-made] ik-ukoto]-oHanako-NOM Taroo-to
Seoul-togo-PRES fact-ACC
meizi-ta(koto)
order-PAST fact
‘Hanako ordered Taroo [to go [to Seoul]]’b. Hanako-ga[PP Sooru-made]i Taroo-ni [PRO ti ik-ukoto]-oSeoul-toTaroo-togo-PRES fact-ACC
Hanako-NOM
meizi-ta(koto)
fact

order-PAST‘(lit.) Hanako, [to Seoul]i, ordered Taroo [to go ti]’c. [PRO [PP Sooru-made] ik-ukoto]-gai Taroo-ni ti meizi-rare-ta (koto)order-PASS-PAST fact
Seoul-togo-PRES fact-NOM Taroo-to‘(lit.) [To go [to Seoul]]i was ordered Taroo ti’koto]-gaj [PP Sooru-made]i Taroo-ni tj meizi-rare-ta (koto)d. * [PRO ti ik-u
go-PRES fact-NOM Seoul-to
Taroo-toorder-PASS-PAST fact‘(lit.) [To go ti]j, [to Seoul]i, was ordered Taroo tj’
In (19a), the embedded clause is a control complement, whose head is the nominalizer
koto ‘fact’. (19b) is derived from (19a) via scrambling of the PP Sooru-made ‘to Seoul’.
(19c) shows that the complement clause can be passivized because of its nominal nature.
The crucial example is (19d). In (19d), the PP is scrambled first, and then the complement
clause is passivized. Saito (2003) argues that the MLC analysis makes a wrong prediction,
since the relevant types of movements in (19d) are different: A-movement to Spec, TP
and scrambling out of a control complement.5
Concretely speaking, (19d) would be derived in the manner depicted in (20) under
the MLC analysis.
(20) A possible derivation of (19d)a. Scrambling of PP[XP [PP Sooru-made] i [VP Taroo-ni [PRO ti ik-u koto]-ga meizi-rare-ta] X0[Ȉ]]b. Passivization of the control complement[TP [PRO ti ik-u koto]-ga j [XP [PP Sooru-made]i [VP Taroo-ni tj meizi-rare-ta] X0[Ȉ]] T0]

21

-21-

Since scrambling out of a control complement can target the position between thematrix subject and the matrix indirect object as in (19b) (in this case Hanako-ga andTaroo-ni, respectively), there must be a head X that bears the Ȉ-feature. At the step in(20a), the PP moves to Spec, XP to check the Ȉ-feature. At the step in (20b), then, thecontrol complement moves to Spec, TP, being attracted by T0. Since each step observes
the MLC, the derivation is legitimate, contrary to fact. Something more thus seems to benecessary to explain the paradigm in (19).
Then, to solve the problem of the S-structure application of the classical PBC,
providing a uniform explanation of the ungrammaticality of (16a) and (19d) at the sametime, Saito (2003) proposes the derivational PBC in (1), repeated as (21).
(21) Derivational PBC
a. Į is subject to Merge only if Į is a complete constituent.
b. Į is a complete constituent =df (i) Į is a term, and (ii) if a position within Į is amember of a chain Ȗ, then every position of Ȗ is contained within Į.
The derivational PBC rules out (16a) and (19d), repeated as (22a-b) below, because bothof them involve movement of a constituent that contains only the tail of a chain, namely,
scrambling of the remnant CP in (22a) and A-movement of the remnant control
complement clause in (22b).
(22) PBC effect on Japanese scramblinga. * [CP Hanako-ga ti i-ruto]j [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga tj omottei-ru (koto)
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact
Hanako-NOM be-PRES that‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives ti]j, [in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks tj’koto]-gaj [PP Sooru-made]i Taroo-ni tj meizi-rare-ta (koto)b. * [PRO ti ik-u
go-PRES fact-NOM Seoul-to
Taroo-toorder-PASS-PAST fact‘(lit.) [To go ti]j, [to Seoul]i, was ordered Taroo tj’
Since it is a constraint on the application of Merge, namely, a part of derivation, no notionof S-structure is involved. Hence, the S-structure application problem is resolved.
Meanwhile, Saito (2003) suggests that the examples in (14), repeated as (23) below,
are grammatical because A-movement does not have to leave a trace (Lasnik 1999a,
Kuno 2001).

22

-22-

(23) Licit remnant movement in English
a. [Criticized ti by his boss]j, Johni has never been tj
b. [How likely ti to win the game]j is Maryi tj?
That is, the traces left by A-movement in (23a-b), namely ti, are not represented. Then,
VP-fronting and wh-movement in the relevant examples count legitimate with respect tothe derivational PBC. He further suggests that German scrambling is indeed likeA-movement in that it does not leave a trace. Thus, the grammaticality of examples like(13a) follows: Since the fronted infinitival clause no longer contains the trace of thescrambling, the derivational PBC is not violated.
Although the derivational PBC analysis solves the S-structure application problem,
capturing the classical PBC effect on Japanese scrambling, it is far from clear why it
exists in the grammar, as pointed out in Section 2.1. Recall here that there are threepossible places to which the source of the classical PBC effect on Japanese scrambling is
attributed under the Minimalist framework: LF, PF, and derivation. The first possibility is
not plausible, given the fact that scrambling has the radical reconstruction property, as
originally discussed in Saito 1989.6 The third possibility, explored by Kitahara (1997)
and Saito (2003), does not seem to be without problems. In what follows, I explore thesecond possibility, claiming the effect can be captured as a consequence of linearization at
PF.
2.3. Proposals and Analysis
In this section, I propose a novel solution for the S-structure application problem of
the classical PBC. Specifically, I argue that the PBC effect on Japanese scrambling can be
explained as a consequence of F&P’s theory of Cyclic Linearization. In Section 2.3.1, I
introduce F&P’s theory. Section 2.3.2 illustrates that the PBC effect follows from thistheory, combined with some independently motivated assumptions. Section 2.3.3 deals
with the licit cases of remnant movement found in English and German. Section 2.3.4 isa summary.
2.3.1. Cyclic Linearization and Linearization Preservation
Assuming that structure is built from bottom to top, F&P propose that when Spell-out
applies to a domain D, which they call a Spell-out Domain, the relative orderings ofsyntactic units within the domain are established, which may not be revised orcontradicted in a later step of the derivation. This property is termed Linearization
Preservation, as in (24).7
23

-23-

(24) Linearization Preservation (Fox & Pesetsky 2003:2)
The linear ordering of syntactic units is affected by Merge and Move within aSpell-out Domain, but is fixed once and for all at the end of each Spell-out Domain.
More concretely, at the end of Spell-out Domains, which roughly correspond to phases(Chomsky 2000, 2001), ordering statements are established and added to an Ordering
Table. Given that Spell-out multiply applies to a single derivation (see Uriagereka 1999,
Chomsky 2000, 2001, among others), an Ordering Table of a particular derivation
cumulatively receives ordering information at each application of Spell-out.
F&P further propose that if an Ordering Table contains two contradicting orderings,
the derivation eventually crashes at PF. For instance, suppose that an Ordering Table
contains the ordering statements Į<ȕ (‘<’ means ‘precede’) and ȕ<Į. Then, Į is forced toprecede and follow ȕ simultaneously, which is impossible by assumption. Thus, if aderivation has established the ordering statement Į<ȕ at a Spell-out point, the derivation
can converge only if it keeps establishing consistent ordering statements at the later
Spell-out points. In this way, the effect of Linearization Preservation follows as aconsequence of their model.
To see how the system works more closely, let us consider the schematic derivation in(25).8(25) Schematic derivation under Cyclic Linearizationa. Construction of D Æ Spell-out of D
[D X Y Z]
b. Merge of Į with DĮ [D X Y Z]

Ordering Table: X<Y<Z

Ordering Table: X<Y<Z
c. Movement of X across Į Æ Spell-out of the next higher domain Dƍ[Dƍ … Xi … Į [D ti Y Z]
Ordering Table: X<Y<Z

X<Į<Y<Z
c’. Movement of Y across Į Æ Spell-out of the next higher domain Dƍ*[Dƍ … Yi … Į [D X ti Z]
Ordering Table: X<Y<Z
Y<Į<X<Z
Suppose that Spell-out applies to D, which consists of X, Y, and Z, as shown in (25a).
Then, the Ordering Table gets an ordering statement X<Y<Z.9 Suppose further that a new
constituent Į is Merged with D, as in (25b). Given that Spell-out does not apply at this
24

-24-

step, the Ordering Table does not receive any information about the relative order
between Į and the other constituents. Now, (25c) and (25c’) are possible subsequent steps.
In (25c), the leftmost element within D, namely X, moves across Į.10 When the higher
Spell-out Domain Dƍ is Spelled-out, the Ordering Table gets a new ordering statement
X<Į<Y<Z, which is consistent with the previously established ordering.11 Hence, thederivation can eventually converge. On the other hand, in (25c’), Y moves across Į and X,
and then Dƍ is Spelled-out. As a result, the ordering statement Y<Į<X<Z is added to theOrdering Table, which causes a contradiction: Y simultaneously precedes and follows X.
Given Linearization Preservation, if the derivation proceeds to the step in (25c’), it
crashes at PF.
Then, is it impossible to move non-edge element Y in (25a) to a higher domain? F&P
argue that successive-cyclic movement of Y within D makes this possible. Let us consider
the following derivation:(26) Successive-cyclic movement of a non-edge elementa. Movement of Y within D Æ Spell-out of D
[D Y X tY Z]

Ordering Table: Y<X<Z

b. Movement of Y across Į Æ Spell-out of Dƍ[Dƍ ... Y Į [D tƍY X tY Z]]
Ordering Table: Y<X<Z
Y<Į<X<Z
In (26a), Y moves to the edge of D, crossing X, and then D is Spelled-out. As a result, theordering statement Y<X<Z is added to the Ordering Table at this point. Then, thederivation proceeds to the step in (26b), where Y moves up further and the ordering
statement Y<Į<X<Z is established at the Spell-out of Dƍ. Since the Ordering Table of thisderivation contains no contradiction, the derivation can eventually converge with the
movement of Y to the higher domain.
Let us consider a concrete example like (27a), where the embedded wh-object has
moved to the matrix clause.
(27) Successive-cyclic long-distance wh-movement
a. What do you think that John bought?
b. * [CP1 whati do you think [CP2 that John bought ti]]

25

-25-

c. [CP1 whati do you think [CP2 tƍi that John bought ti]]Since Chomsky 1973, it has been assumed that what in (27a) cannot move to the matrix
Spec, CP1 in a one-fell-swoop fashion as in (27b), but must move through the embedded
Spec, CP2 as in (27c) (I omit the vP-domain for a while). The question is why the
structure in (27b) is illegitimate. F&P argue that their theory of Cyclic Linearization
gives an answer to this question.
If what in (27a) undergoes one-fell-swoop movement, the derivation proceeds in themanner depicted in (28).
(28) Long-distance wh-movement without successive-cyclic movementa. Construction of CP2 Æ
Spell-out of CP2[CP2 that John bought what] Ordering Table: that<John<bought<whatb. Movement of what Æ Spell-out of CP1*[CP1 whati do you think [CP2 that John bought ti]]Ordering Table: that<John<bought<whatwhat<do<you<think<that<John<bought

When Spell-out applies to CP2 as in (28a), the ordering statement
that<John<bought<what is established. Then, the derivation proceeds to the step in(28b), where what moves to the matrix Spec, CP1. Spell-out establishes the ordering
statement what<do<you<think<that<John<bought at this point, leading the derivation to
crash at PF. Specifically, what is required to precede and follow that, John, and bought
simultaneously.
On the other hand, if what undergoes successive-cyclic movement, the derivation
proceeds in the manner illustrated in (29).
(29) Long-distance wh-movement with successive-cyclic movementa. Movement of whatÆ
Spell-out of CP2[CP2 whati that John bought ti] Ordering Table: what<that<John<bought

26

-26-

b. Movement of what Æ Spell-out of CP1[CP1 whati do you think [CP2 tƍi that John bought ti]]Ordering Table: what<that<John<bought
what<do<you<think<that<John<bought

At the step in (29a), what moves to the edge of CP2. As a result, Spell-out of CP2
establishes the ordering statement what<that<John<bought. Then, what moves to thematrix Spec, CP1 as in (29b). Spell-out of CP1 establishes the ordering statement
what<do<you<think<that<John<bought. Unlike in the case of (28), what is required toprecede that, John, and bought in both of the ordering statements. The derivation thus
converges successfully. In this way, F&P explain why movement must proceedsuccessive-cyclically: Movement must go through the edge of each Spell-out Domain andotherwise the derivation crashes at PF.12
F&P further argue that their system gives an explanation of Holmberg’s
Generalization (see Holmberg 1999, among others). Simply put, Holmberg’s
Generalization states that object shift is possible only if the verb moves out of the VP, as
the Swedish examples in (30) show (based on Fox & Pesetsky 2005:17).
(30) Licit and illicit object shift in Swedisha. Jag kysstei hennej inte [VP ti tj]
Ikissed her
notb. * … att jag hennei inte [VP kysste ti]… that I
hernotkissedc. *Jag har hennei inte [VP kysst ti]Ihave hernotkissedIn (30a), the verb kysste ‘kissed’ moves to the V2-position, and the object henne ‘her’
undergoes object shift. On the other hand, the verb stays within VP in (30b-c) because of
the presence of the complementizer att ‘that’ or of the auxiliary har ‘have’, and object
shift is not possible in either case.
F&P’s explanation of Holmberg’s generalization goes as follows. First, they assume
that Spell-out Domains include at least CP and VP in languages like Swedish.13 Then,assuming that object shift, unlike certain other instances of movement such as
Ɩ-movement, does not make use of the edge of VP, they claim that the derivations of thesentences in (30) commonly involve the step depicted in (31).
27

-27-

(31) Construction of VP Æ Spell-out of VP[VP V Obj]

Ordering Table: V<Obj

Then, the derivations of the examples in (30) send the following ordering statements totheir Ordering Tables at the Spell-out of CP, respectively:(32) Subsequent steps of (31)a. Object-Shift + V-movement (= (30a))[CP … Vi [TP Objj Neg [VP ti tj]]]

Ordering Table: V<Obj
V<Obj<Negb. Object-Shift in an embedded clause (= (30b))*[CP … [TP … Obji Neg [VP V ti]]]Ordering Table: V<Obj
Obj<Neg<V
c. Object-Shift in a clause with an auxiliary (= (30c))*[CP … [TP Obji Neg [VP V ti]]]Ordering Table: V<Obj
Obj<Neg<V

Since the Ordering Table of each derivation has already received the ordering statement
where the verb precedes the object at the step in (31), (32b-c) induce ordering
contradictions. On the other hand, if the verb moves out of the VP so as to precede theshifted object as in (32a) before the Spell-out of CP, it can establish an ordering statementthat is consistent with the previously established ordering statement, namely V<Obj.
F&P argue that this is the reason why object shift correlates with verb-movement.
2.3.2. Analysis
Having introduced the mechanics of F&P’s theory of Cyclic Linearization, I argue inthis subsection that it explains the PBC effect on Japanese scrambling. The crucial
examples is (22) are repeated below as (33).
(33) PBC effect on Japanese scramblinga. * [CP Hanako-ga

ti i-ruto]j [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga tj omottei-ru (koto)
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact
Hanako-NOM be-PRES that‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives ti]j, [in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks tj’

28

-28-

b. * [PRO ti ik-ukoto]-gaj [PP Sooru-made]i Taroo-ni tj meizi-rare-ta (koto)
Taroo-toorder-PASS-PAST fact
go-PRES fact-NOM Seoul-to‘(lit.) [To go ti]j, [to Seoul]i, was ordered Taroo tj’

In particular, I illustrate that their derivations necessarily crash at PF, if we combine
F&P’s system with the following three assumptions:(34) Assumptions
a. Japanese is head-final.
b. Complement-to-Spec movement is not allowed.
c. Spell-out Domains in Japanese and Korean include at least CP and vP.
First, I assume that Japanese is head-final in the sense that the linearization procedure
specifies that in Japanese a head linearly follows everything contained within its
projection. This assumption allows a complement to precede its head even when it stays
in its base-generated position, contra Kayne 1994. Note that this assumption makes
rightward adjunction/movement impossible in the language.14 Second, I assume, in linewith Fukui 1993, Boškoviü 1994, Murasugi & Saito 1995, Arimoto 1999, Saito &Murasugi 1999, Abels 2003, Grohmann 2003, and Kayne 2005, among others, that if XP
is a complement of YP, XP cannot be moved to Spec, YP. This property is called
Anti-locality. The idea behind this notion is that movement cannot be “too local.” Finally,following Ko (2005a, 2007), I assume that vP, including its edge, constitutes a Spell-out
Domain in Japanese and Korean.15
Before proceeding, I briefly review Ko’s (2005a, 2007) argument for (34c). Her
claim is based on the account of the Korean examples in (35) and (36) below, which
involve Numeral Quantifier (NQ) floating (based on Ko 2007:50-51). In these examples,the NPs associated with NQs, which are called host NPs, and floating NQs areunderlined.
(35) Behavior of object-related NQs in Koreana. John-i
maykcwu-lul sey-pyeng masiessta
John-NOM beer-ACC
3-CL
drank
‘John drank three bottles of beer’b. Maykcwu-lul John-i
sey-pyeng masiessta
beer-ACC
John-NOM 3-CL
drank‘John drank three bottles of beer’
29

-29-

(36) Behavior of subject-related NQs in Korean
a. Haksayng-tul-i sey-myeng maykcwu-lul masiessta
student-PL-NOM 3-CL
beer-ACC
drank‘Three students drank beer’b. *Haksayng-tul-i maykcwu-lul sey-myeng
3-CLstudent-PL-NOM beer-ACC‘Three students drank beer’masiessta
drank

As shown in (35b), the object-related NQ sey-pyeng ‘three’ and its host NP maykcwu-lul‘beer’ can be separated by the subject John-i, while the subject-related NQ sey-myeng‘three’ and its host NP haksayng-tul-i ‘students’ cannot be intervened by the object
maykcwu-lul ‘beer’, as in (36b).
The same pattern is found in Japanese, as shown in (37) and (38) below (see Kuroda
1980, Saito 1985 and Miyagawa 1989a, among others).
(37) Behavior of object-related NQs in Japanesea. John-ga
biiru-osan-bon nonda
drankJohn-NOM beer-ACC 3-CL
‘John drank three bottles of beer’
b. Biiru-oJohn-gasan-bon nonda
drank
beer-ACC John-NOM 3-CL
‘John drank three bottles of beer’(38) Behavior of subject-related NQs in Japanesea. Gakusei-tati-ga san-nin biiru-o
nonda
student-PL-NOM 3-CL
beer-ACC drank‘Three students drank beer’san-nin nonda
b. *Gakusei-tati-ga biiru-ostudent-PL-NOM beer-ACC 3-CL
drank‘Three students drank beer’If we assume that an NQ and its host NP form a constituent, and that scrambling may
strand an NQ (see, for intasnce, Kuroda 1980, Sportiche 1988), the behavior of
object-related NQs in (35b) and (37b) indicate that (37b), repeated as (39a), can beanalyzed as having a structure like (39b).

30

-30-

(39) Scrambling of the object leaving the NQ behinda. Biiru-oJohn-gasan-bon nonda
beer-ACC John-NOM 3-CL
drank‘John drank three bottles of beer’b. [… Obji … Subj [VP … [NP ti NQObj] …] …]

On the other hand, the behavior of subject-related NQs in (36b) and (38b) has been apuzzle in the literature. This is because nothing seems to prevent (38b), repeated as (40a),from having a structure like (40b).
(40) Scrambling of the object leaving the NQ behind
san-nin nonda
a. *Gakusei-tati-ga biiru-ostudent-PL-NOM beer-ACC 3-CL
drank‘Three students drank beer’b. [… Subjj … Obji … [NP tj NQSubj] [VP … ti …] …]

In (40b), the object undergoes scrambling first, and then the subject is further scrambled
across the scrambled object, stranding the NQSubj. This derivation gives rise to the surface
order of (40a).
One way of excluding the structure in (40b) is to assume that subjects cannot be
scrambled from the subject position, as proposed by Saito (1985). However, Ko (2005a,
2007) argues that such a scrambling of subjects are indeed attested in certain contexts.16
More importantly, once we adopt the VP-internal subject hypothesis (Kuroda 1988,
Sportiche 1988, among many others), such a ban on subject scrambling fails to work,
since nothing appears to exclude the structure in (41), where the object undergoes
scrambling to the vP-edge and the subject undergoes A-movement to Spec, TP.
(41) Possible structure of (40a) under the VP-internal subject hypothesis[TP Subjj [vP Obji [NP tj NQSubj] [VP … ti …] …] …]

Ko (2005a, 2007) then proposes an alternative account which employs F&P’s
Linearization Preservation.
Let us consider the schematic derivation in (42).
31

-31-

(42) Schematic derivation of (36b)/(38b) under Cyclic Linearization
a. Movement of ObjÆSpell-out of vP[vP Obji [NP Subj NQSubj] [VP … ti …] …]
Ordering Table: Obj<Subj<NQSubj
Spell-out of CP

b. Movement of Subj
Æ*[CP … Subjj … [vP Obji [NP tj NQSubj] [VP … ti …] …] …]
Ordering Table: Obj<Subj<NQSubj

Subj<Obj<NQSubj
In (42a), the object undergoes scrambling to the edge of vP. Then, Spell-out applies to vP
so that the relative orderings of the elements including those on the edge of vP are fixedand sent to the Ordering Table. It is necessary for the object to undergo scrambling at thispoint of the derivation in order to precede the NQSubj at the surface order. Otherwise, theordering statement where the NQSubj precedes the object is established at this point. Notehere that this scrambling of the object necessarily gives rise to a linear order where thescrambled object precedes not only the NQSubj but also the subject, due to theconstituency of the subject and NQSubj. Hence, if the subject moves up, stranding the NQ
behind, and the CP is Spelled-out as in (42b), the Ordering Table gets the ordering
statement that contradicts with the previously established ones. Thus, the surface order inwhich the object intervenes between a subject and a subject-related NQ is ruled out. Then,the ungrammaticality of examples like (36b) and (38b) above follows.
Meanwhile, examples like (35b) and (37b) are derived in the manner schematically
depicted in (43).
(43) Schematic derivation of (35b)/(37b) under Cyclic Linearization
a. Movement of ObjÆSpell-out of vP[vP Obji Subj [VP … [NP ti NQObj] …] …]
Ordering Table: Obj<Subj<NQObj
b. Movement of Subj and Obj Æ Spell-out of CP[CP … Obji … Subjj … [vP tƍi tj [VP … [NP ti NQObj] …] …] ...]
Ordering Table: Obj<Subj<NQObj
Obj<Subj<NQObj
In (43a) the object undergoes scrambling across the subject, stranding the NQObj behind.
Spell-out of vP then establishes the ordering statement where the subject intervenes
32

-32-

between the object and the NQObj, which is consistent with the ultimate surface order ofthe relevant sentences. In (43b), the subject moves out of the vP. Then the object
undergoes further scrambling so as to precede the moved subject. When Spell-out
applies to the CP, the ordering statement Obj<Subj<NQObj is established. Since theordering statements are consistent, the derivation successfully converges, yielding thesurface linear order where the subject appears between the object-related NQ and its
host.
What is crucial for Ko’s (2005a, 2007) analysis is that the elements on the edge of vP
are also subject to linearization so that the relative order between the subject and theobject is established at the Spell-out of vP. Otherwise, the Subj<Obj order established at
the step in (42b) may not induce any contradiction in the way we want.17
With this much as background, let us turn to the PBC effect on Japanese scrambling.
In what follows, I illustrate that the PBC effect on scrambling can be captured by F&P’s
Linearization Preservation combined with the three assumptions in (34), in particular,
Ko’s (2005a, 2007) hypothesis that the whole vP is subject to linearization. First, let us
consider the schematic structure in (44a). For the sake of discussion, I assume that V0
does not move to v0 and that v0 is phonologically null, as indicated by Ø. Thus, v0 is
excluded from ordering statements.18(44) Configurational possibility 1 at Spell-out of vP: No movementa.

b. Ordering Table: Subj<Obj<V0

vP
Subj

vƍ
v0

VP
Obj

V0

Ø

In the structure in (44a), no movement has taken place. Hence, when Spell-out applies to
vP, the ordering statement Subj<Obj<V0 in (44b) is established. What is important for our
purpose is that both the subject and the object are specified to precede the verb in thiscase. Note that any derivation which has gone through this step must preserve thisordering at each later Spell-out point. This implies that the derivation fails to converge if
it yields a surface linear order where the verb precedes either the subject or the object.
Suppose next that the object undergoes movement to the edge of vP before Spell-out,
as illustrated in (45a).
33

-33-

(45) Configurational possibility 2 at Spell-out of vP: Movement of Obj
a.

b. Ordering Table: Obj<Subj<V0

vP
Obj

vƍ
Subj

vƍ
v0

VP
V0

tObj

Ø

Then, the ordering statement in (45b), where the object precedes the subject is added to
the Ordering Table when vP is Spelled-out. This enables us to derive the surface OSVorder. Notice that the predicate still cannot precede its arguments in a later Spell-out pointof the derivation since such a step will necessarily induce an ordering contradiction.
Now, let us consider the structure in (46a) below.
(46) Configurational possibility 3 at Spell-out of vP: Movement of VP
a.

b. Ordering Table: # Obj<V0<Subj

vP
VP
Obj

vƍ
V0

Subj

vƍ
v0

tVP

Ø
In the structure in (46a), the VP has undergone movement to the edge of vP before
Spell-out, and as a result, the verb precedes the subject. If this movement is possible, theordering statement in (46b), where the subject follows the verb can be established.
However, this VP-movement is an instance of Complement-to-Spec movement. Hence,
this movement is not allowed due to Anti-locality. Consequently, such an ordering
statement cannot be established (notated as #).
The final configuration to be examined is (47a) below. In this structure, the object has
been scrambled first, and then the VP has been moved. Spell-out of vP establishes theordering statement in (47b) where the verb precedes all the other vP-internal elements.

34

-34-

(47) Configurational possibility 4 at Spell-out of vP: Movement of Obj and VP
a.

b. Ordering Table: #V0<Obj<Subj

vP
VP
tObj

vƍ
V0

Obj

vƍ
Subj

vƍ
tVP

v0
Ø

This structure, however, also violates Anti-locality. Therefore, the ordering where theverb precedes the other elements within vP cannot be established.
The results of the discussion so far are summarized in (48).
(48) Possible and impossible ordering statements established at the Spell-out of vP
a. Subj<Obj<V0 (= (44b))b. Obj<Subj<V0 (= (45b))c. # Obj<V0<Subj (= (46b))d. # V0<Obj<Subj (= (47b))
Among the four ordering statements, only (48a-b) are allowed under the system
advocated here. This means that in Japanese, V0 cannot precede any vP-internal element
at the point where vP is Spelled-out.19 Given Linearization Preservation, it follows thatthe fixed orderings are preserved at each point of later Spell-out.
Then, we can explain the PBC effect on Japanese scrambling. (49) are the relevant
examples, repeated from (33).
(49) PBC effect on Japanese scramblingto]j [PP Sooru-ni]i Taroo-ga tj omottei-ru (koto)a. * [CP Hanako-ga ti i-ru
Seoul-in Taroo-NOM think-PRES fact
Hanako-NOM be-PRES that‘(lit.) [That Hanako lives ti]j, [in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks tj’koto]-gaj [PP Sooru-made]i Taroo-ni tj meizi-rare-ta (koto)b. * [PRO ti ik-u
go-PRES fact-NOM Seoul-to
Taroo-toorder-PASS-PAST fact‘(lit.) [To go ti]j, [to Seoul]i, was ordered Taroo tj’
35

-35-

Let us start with (49a). When Spell-out applies to the embedded vP of (49a), we have
two possible configurations, as depicted in (50).
(50) Possible ordering statements for (49a) at the Spell-out of the embedded vP
a. Sooru-ni stays in-situ
Æ[vP Hanako-ga [VP Sooru-ni i]]

Spell-out of the embedded vP

Ordering Table: Hanako-ga<Sooru-ni<ib. Movement of Sooru-niÆSpell-out of the embedded vP[vP Sooru-nii Hanako-ga [VP ti i]] Ordering Table: Sooru-ni<Hanako-ga<i

In (50a), the PP Sooru-ni ‘to Seoul’ stays in-situ, so that the ordering statement
Hanako-ga<Sooru-ni<i is established by Spell-out and sent to the Ordering Table. In(50b), on the other hand, Sooru-ni ‘to Seoul’ undergoes scrambling to the vP-edge prior
to the Spell-out of vP. As a result, the ordering statement Sooru-ni<Hanako-ga<i isobtained. Crucially, in both cases Sooru-ni ‘to Seoul’ is specified to precede theembedded verb i ‘be’. In order to yield the surface linear order of (49a), however,Spell-out must apply to the root CP so as to establish the ordering statement
Hanako-ga<i<ru<to<Sooru-ni<Taroo-ga<omottei<ru. Then, Sooru-ni ‘to Seoul’ isrequired to precede and follow at least the embedded verb i ‘be’ simultaneously, leading
the derivation to a PF-crash. Thus, the ungrammaticality of (49a) follows.20
In the case of (49b), since the subject of the embedded clause is PRO, the ordering
statement established at the Spell-out of the embedded vP are virtually identical,
irrespective of whether the PP Sooru-made ‘to Seoul’ undergoes scrambling to thevP-edge, as in (51).
(51) Possible ordering statements for (49b) at the Spell-out of the embedded vP
a. Sooru-made stays in-situ Æ Spell-out of the embedded vP[vP PRO [VP Sooru-made ik]]
Ordering Table: Sooru-made<ikb. Movement of Sooru-made Æ Spell-out of the embedded vP[vP Sooru-madei PRO [VP ti ik]] Ordering Table: Sooru-made<ikAs shown in (51a-b), the PP Sooru-made ‘to Seoul’ is specified to precede the mainverb ik ‘go’ in either case. Recall that this is the only possible ordering possibility at theSpell-out of the embedded vP. When Spell-out applies to the root CP of (49b), theordering statement ik<u<koto-ga<Sooru-made<Taroo-ni<meizi<rare<ta is established
36

-36-

and sent to the Ordering Table. As a result, Sooru-made ‘to Seoul’ is required to precedeand follow the embedded verb ik ‘go’ at the same time. The derivation crashes at PF,
hence the ungrammaticality of (49b).21
Summarizing so far, I argued that the S-structure application problem of the classicalPBC can be solved, since the PBC effect on Japanese scrambling is explained in terms oflinearization at PF. As the proposed analysis explains the examples that have motivatedSaito’s (2003) derivational PBC, it allows its elimination from the grammar. Moreover, it
provides additional evidence for Ko’s (2005a, 2007) hypothesis that the whole vP,
including its edge, constitutes a Spell-out Domain in languages like Japanese.
2.3.3. On Licit Remnant Movements in English and German
This subsection deals with the licit cases of remnant movement found in English andGerman mentioned in Section 2.2.1. The relevant examples are given in (52) below((52a-b) are repeated from (23a-b), and (52c) is repeated from (13a)).
(52) Licit remnant movements in English and German
a. [Criticized ti by his boss]j, Johni has never been tj
b. [How likely ti to win the game]j is Maryi tj?
c. [ti Zu lesen]j hat keiner [das Buch]i tj versucht
to read has no one the booktried
‘No one has tried to read the book’
Recall that these examples are legitimate with respect to the MLC: For instance, in(52a) John undergoes A-movement to Spec, TP, and the remnant criticized by his boss
undergoes VP-fronting. Since the derivational PBC has been eliminated from thegrammar, the existence of the traces left by the first movement (namely, ti in the relevant
examples) no longer causes a problem. The question, then, boils down to how the theoryof Cyclic Linearization advocated so far can ensure that their derivations converge
yielding their respective surface linear orders.
Recall here that F&P have suggested to ignore the vP-VP distinction for a Spell-out
Domain in Swedish in their explanation of the Holmberg’s Generalization. One of theprincipal reasons is to allow elements on the vP-edge such as an external argument tolinearly follow a verb, as in (53).22

37

-37-

(53) Yes/no-questions in Swedish
Hittade han faktist pengarna under sängen?
found he actually money.the under bed.the‘Did he actually find the money under the bed?’
As a general property of the V2 languages, the main verb hittade ‘found’ undergoes
V-to-C movement in yes/no-questions (den Besten 1983), crossing the subject han ‘he’.
If the whole vP including its edge is subject to linearization in Swedish just like
Japanese/Korean, then, the ordering statement where the subject han ‘he’ precedes theverb hittade ‘found’ is established, as in (54a).
(54) Spell-out of the verbal domain in Swedisha. Construction of vP Æ Spell-out of vP[vP han [VP hittade pengarna under sängen]]Ordering Table: han<hittade<pengarna<under<sängen
b. Construction of VP Æ Spell-out of VP[VP hittade pengarna under sängen]
Ordering Table: hittade<pengarna<under<sängen
On the other hand, if Spell-out targets VP in this language, the linear order between han‘he’ and hittade ‘found’ can be left unspecified as in (54b) at this point of the derivation.
Since hittade ‘found’ precedes han ‘he’ in the surface structure of (53), Spell-out must
apply to VP, but not vP.
Bearing this in mind, let us consider the example in (55).
(55) Topicalization of the object in Swedish
Pengarna hittade han faktist under sängen
money.the found he actually under bed.the‘The money, he actually find under the bed’
In (55), the object pengarna ‘the money’ appears in front of the verb hittade ‘found’.
Recall however that the ordering statement in (54b) specifies that pengarna ‘the money’follows hittade ‘found’. Thus, it is necessary to move the object across the verb before
Spell-out applies to VP, as in (56).

38

-38-

(56) Movement of pengarna Æ Spell-out of VP[VP pengarnai hittade ti under sängen]
Ordering Table: pengarna<hittade<under<sängen
This movement, however, instantiates a Complement-to-Spec movement, which is notallowed under the system advocated in this chapter (see (34b)).
To resolve this discrepancy, I propose the following parameter, assuming that
Spell-out universally applies to vP:23(57) Spell-out Domain Parameter for vP
When Spell-out applies to vP,
a. Linearize the whole vP, including the elements on its edge, orb. Linearize the complement of v0.
That is, in a schematic structure (58a), when Spell-out applies to vP, a language with theparametric value (57a) establishes the ordering statement in (58b), whereas one with thevalue in (57b) establishes the ordering statement in (58c).
(58) Schematic structure of vP
a.

vP
XP

vƍ
v0

VP
V0

YP

b. Ordering statement established with the value (57a): XP<v0<V0<YPc. Ordering statement established with the value (57b): V0<YP
Recall that it is crucial for the analysis of the PBC effect that elements on the vP-edge
are included when Spell-out applies to vP. The value in (57a) is thus for languages like
Japanese and Korean.
On the other hand, if we assume that Swedish takes the value (57b), thegrammaticality of the examples in (53) and (55), repeated in (59) below, can be
explained.

39

-39-

(59) Swedish examples
a. Hittade han faktist
pengarna under sängen?
found he actually money.the under bed.the‘Did he actually find the money under the bed?’b. Pengarna hittade han faktist under sängen
money.the found he actually under bed.the‘The money, he actually find under the bed’
The problem raised by sentences like (59a) is that the subject han ‘he’ can be precededby the verb hittade ‘found’ through the verb raising to C0. Given the parameter setting in(57b), the derivation of (59a) proceeds in the manner depicted in (60).24(60) Derivation of (59a)a. Construction of vP Æ Spell-out of vP[vP han [VP hittade pengarna under sängen]]Ordering Table: hittade<pengarna<under<sängen
b. Construction of CP Æ Spell-out of CP[CP hittadei [TP hanj faktist [vP tj [VP ti pengarna under sängen]]]]Ordering Table: hittade<pengarna<under<sängen
hittade<han<faktist<pengarna<under<sängen
When Spell-out applies to vP as in (60a), the linearization procedure specifies the linear
ordering of elements within the complement of v0, namely VP, establishing the ordering
statement hittade<pengarna<under<sängen. Since han ‘he’ is located outside of the VP,
the ordering statement does not contain the information regarding it at this point of thederivation. At the step in (60b), Spell-out applies to the root CP, establishing theordering statement hittade<han<faktist<pengarna<under<sängen. 25 The derivation
successfully converges, yielding the surface order of (59a).
In a similar vein, the derivation of (59b) proceeds as follows:(61) Derivation of (59b)a. Movement of pengarna ÆSpell-out of vP[vP pengarnai han [VP hittade ti under sängen]]Ordering Table: hittade<under<sängen
40

-40-

b. Construction of CP Æ Spell-out of CP[CP pengarnai hittadej [TP hank faktist [vP tƍi tk [VP tj ti under sängen]]]]Ordering Table: hittade<under<sängen
pengarna<hittade<han<faktist<under<sängen
At the step in (61a), the object pengarna ‘the money’ undergoes movement to thevP-edge prior to the Spell-out of vP. As a result, it establishes the ordering statement
hittade<under<sängen, which does not include the information regarding not only the
subject but also the moved object. Then, the derivation proceeds to the step in (61b),
where the object, the main verb, and the subject undergo movement their respective
landing sites. When Spell-out applies to the root CP, the ordering statement
pengarna<hittade<han<faktist<under<sängen is established, without inducing acontradiction. Thus, the grammaticality of (59b) follows.
Note that the parameter in (57) is required to generate examples like (59), which do
not involve remnant movement. Returning now to the examples in (52), repeated in (62)
below, I suggest that the licit cases of remnant movement are also explained by claimingthat languages like English and German is like Swedish in that they take the value in(57b).26 Taking (62a) as representative, I claim that it is derived in the manner depicted
in (63).
(62) Licit remnant movement in English and German
a. [Criticized ti by his boss]j, Johni has never been tj
b. [How likely ti to win the game]j is Maryi tj?
c. [ti Zu lesen]j hat keiner [das Buch]i tj versucht
to read has no one the booktried
‘No one has tried to read the book’(63) Derivation of (62a)a. Movement of John to the vP-edge Æ Spell-out of vP[vP Johni [VP criticized ti by his boss]]
Ordering Table: criticized<by<his<boss
b. Movement of John to Spec, TP[TP Johni has never been [vP tƍi [VP criticized ti by his boss]]]
Ordering Table: criticized<by<his<boss

41

-41-

c. VP-fronting of vP Æ Spell-out of CP[CP [vP tƍi [VP criticized ti by his boss]] j [TP Johni has never been tj]]
Ordering Table: criticized<by<his<boss
criticized<by<his<boss<John<has<never<been
At the step in (63a), John moves to the vP-edge.27 When Spell-out applies to vP, theordering statement criticized<by<his<boss is established given the parametric value in(57b).28 Then, John undergoes further movement to Spec, TP, as in (63b). At the step in(63c), VP-fronting takes place. I assume with Huang (1993) that VP-fronting in fact
moves vP to the sentence-initial position.29 Subsequently, Spell-out of the root CPestablishes the ordering statement criticized<by<his<boss<John<has<never<been. The
derivation successfully converges, yielding the surface linear order of (62a).30
The crucial point of the derivation in (63) is that the linear ordering between Johnand the elements contained within the fronted vP is allowed to be specified at asignificantly later point of the derivation, due to the parametric value in (57b).
Assuming that Mary in (62b) and das Buch ‘the book’ (62c) can make use of the
vP-edge, their linear orderings with respect to the elements within the fronted phrases(how likely to win the game and zu lesen ‘to read’, respectively) are allowed to be left
unspecified until a later point of their respective derivations. Moreover, there is noMLC-violation in the derivation. Thus, the grammaticality of the sentences in (62)follows.31
The analysis advocated so far then confirms the MLC analysis of (13b), repeated as(64), since it is legitimate in terms of the theory of Cyclic Linearization: Moreconcretely, the surface linear ordering between zu lesen ‘to read’ and das Buch ‘thebook’ in (64) is legitimate, on a par with (62c).
(64) Illicit remnant movement in German*daß [ti zu lesen]j keiner [das Buch]i tj versucht hat
that
to read no one the book
tried
has
‘that no one has tried to read the book’
On the other hand, the explanation of the PBC effect in Japanese scrambling discussed
in the previous subsection attributes the illicitness of the relevant Japanese examples toan ordering contradiction at PF, keeping the MLC intact. Indeed, the MLC is (trivially)observed in the Japanese examples. Thus, the proposed system restricts remnant
42

-42-

movement so as not to violate the MLC (for instance, German cases), and not to inducea PF-violation (for instance, Japanese cases).
To recap, I suggested in this subsection that licit remnant movements in English andGerman can be explained once we admit the parameter in (57), which specifies what
portion of the structure is subject to the linearization procedure at the Spell-out of vP. In
particular, I claimed that in languages like Japanese and Korean, the whole vP is subject
to the linearization procedure, whereas in languages like English, German, and Swedish,only the complement of v0 is subject to it. Note that the parameter setting for the latter
type of the languages is necessary in order to account for the facts concerning theirword order possibilities, which are independent of the issue of remnant movement. In
this way, the proposed system captures the restrictions on remnant movement in various
languages in a uniform fashion.
2.3.4. Summary
In this section, I argued that F&P’s theory of Cyclic Linearization, which requiresthat linear orderings established by Spell-out must be preserved at the end of each later
cycle, provides a solution to the S-structure application problem of the classical PBC,
conjoined with the following three independently motivated assumptions: Head-finalityof Japanese, Anti-locality, which essentially forbids Complement-to-Spec movement,
and Ko’s (2005a, 2007) hypothesis that the relevant domains for linearization inlanguages like Japanese include the whole vP. Based on these assumptions, I illustrated
that derivations of the sentences that have been explained by the derivational PBC always
end up with establishing contradicting ordering statements, so that they necessarily
induce a PF-crash.
Based on this result, I discussed how the proposed system deals with the licit
remnant movement cases found in English and German. I first suggested that it isnecessary to postulate a parameter that specifies what of portion of the structure is
subject to the linearization procedure at the Spell-out of vP, in order to capture the facts
regarding basic word order in languages like Swedish (for instance, verb-raising acrossthe subject in yes/no-questions). Then, I illustrated that licit remnant movement cases
are explained by assuming that English and German are like Swedish in the parametricchoice of the parameter. These languages, unlike Japanese and Korean, allow theelements on the vP-edge to be excluded from the ordering statement established by theSpell-out of vP, so that remnant movement do not induce an ordering contradiction at PF.
In this way, the proposed system explains various patterns of licit and illicit remnant
movement, revealing the nature of the restrictions on remnant movement.
43

-43-

2.4. Empirical Evidence for the Proposed Analysis
This section shows that the proposed system has wider empirical coverage than thederivational PBC. Section 2.4.1 concerns with a puzzle regarding the possible landingsites of long-distance scrambling, and Section 2.4.2 deals with certain restrictions on
scrambling of ECM and Small Clause complements.
2.4.1. A Puzzle on the Possible Landing Sites of Long-Distance Scrambling
In this subsection I show that the proposed analysis can solve a puzzle regarding thepossible landing sites of long-distance scrambling. The puzzle has to do with thefollowing examples (based on Saito 1985:267):(65) Long-distance scrambling out of a finite clausea. Taroo-ga minna-ni [CP Hanako-ga
sono hon-omottei-ru to]book-ACC have-PRES that

Hanako-NOM that
Taroo-NOM all-to
it-ta(koto)
say-PAST fact
‘Taroo said to all [that Hanako has that book]’b. Sono hon-oi
Taroo-ga minna-ni [CP Hanako-ga
ti mottei-ru
that book-ACC Taroo-NOM all-to
Hanako-NOM
have-PRES
it-ta(koto)
say-PAST fact‘(lit.) That booki, Taroo said to all [that Hanako has ti]’??
minna-ni [CP Hanako-ga
ti mottei-ruc. Taroo-ga sono hon-oi
Taroo-NOM that book-ACC all-to
Hanako-NOM
have-PRES
it-ta(koto)
say-PAST fact
‘Taroo, that booki, said to all [that Hanako has ti]’

to]
that

to]
that

(65b) is derived from (65a) via long-distance scrambling of the embedded object sono
hon-o ‘that book’ to the sentence-initial position. Saito (1985) observes that the sentence
becomes marginal if a phrase that has undergone long-distance scrambling out of a finite
clause follows the subject of the higher clause, as in (65c). Note that the presence of theindirect object minna-ni ‘to all’, which belongs to the matrix clause, indicates that theobject has indeed been moved to the matrix clause.
The examples in (65b) and (65c) are presumably analyzed as having the following
44

-44-

structures, respectively:32(66) Structures of (65b-c)a. [CP1 sono hon-o i [TP1 Taroo-gaj [vP1 tƍi tj … [CP2 … ti …]]]]b. [CP1 [TP1 Taroo-gaj [vP1 sono hon-o i tj … [CP2 … ti …]]]]

In (66a), the embedded object, sono hon-o ‘that book’, has been moved to the edge of thematrix vP1 first, and then it has been further scrambled over the matrix subject Taroo-ga
in Spec, TP1. This gives rise to the surface order of (65b). On the other hand, in (66b), thescrambled object stays in the edge of the matrix vP1, and this results in the surface order of(65c). The contrast found in (65b-c) suggests that although the structure in (66a) islegitimate, the one in (66b) has some problem. The puzzle is that nothing seems to force
the second scrambling of the object over the matrix subject.
This puzzle, however, can be solved if vP constitutes a Spell-out Domain in Japanese,
as extensively discussed in the previous section. Let us consider the derivation in (67):33(67) Derivation of (65b-c)a. Long-distance scrambling of the object Æ Spell-out of vP1[vP1 sono hon-o i Taroo-ga [VP1 minna-ni [CP2 ti …] it]
Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<minna-ni<CP2<itb. Movement of Taroo-ga to Spec, TP1[TP1 Taroo-gaj [vP1 sono hon-o i tj [VP1 minna-ni [CP2 ti …] it] -ta]
Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<minna-ni<CP2<itc. Construction of CP1 without scrambling Æ Spell-out of CP1*[CP1 [TP1 Taroo-gaj [vP1 sono hon-o i tj [VP1 minna-ni [CP2 ti …] it] -ta]]
Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<minna-ni<CP2<it
Taroo-ga<sono<hon-o<minna-ni<CP2<it<tac’. Construction of CP1 with scrambling Æ Spell-out of CP1[CP1 sono hon-o i [TP1 Taroo-gaj [vP1 tƍi tj [VP1 minna-ni [CP2 ti …] it] -ta]]
Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<minna-ni<CP2<itsono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<minna-ni<CP2<it<ta
45

-45-

As shown in (67a), if the embedded object sono hon-o ‘that book’ is moved to the edge ofmatrix vP1, the Ordering Table receives the ordering statement where the object precedes
the matrix subject when the matrix vP1 is Spelled-out. Then, the matrix subject Taroo-ga
moves to the Spec of the matrix TP1, as in (67b). If the derivation proceeds to the step in(67c), where the scrambled object stays in the edge of the matrix vP1, Spell-out of thematrix CP1 establishes the ordering statement where the embedded object is followed by
the matrix subject. Consequently, the derivation cannot converge because of an ordering
contradiction. On the other hand, if the step in (67c’) is chosen as the next step of (67b),
the derivation can converge. This is because the embedded object has been scrambled
again over the matrix subject in (67d), so that Spell-out of the matrix CP1 establishes theordering statement which is consistent with previously established ones. In this way, thepuzzle can be solved: A phrase which undergoes long-distance scrambling cannot follow
the matrix subject because the long-distance scrambling makes the phrase precede thematrix subject at the Spell-out of vP.
Note that this analysis presupposes that the edge of the matrix VP is not available as alanding site for phrases that has undergone long-distance scrambling out of a finite clause.
If this position is available, Spell-out of the matrix vP may establish the ordering
statement where the matrix subject Taroo-ga precedes the embedded object sono hon-o‘that book’, which has undergone long-distance scrambling, as shown in (68) below.
(68) Scrambling to the edge of the matrix VP Æ Spell-out of the matrix vP[vP Taroo-ga [VP sono hon-o i … [CP2 ti …]]]
Ordering Table: Taroo-ga<sono<hon-oIn the rest of this subsection, I argue that although the VP-edge is in principle available,
long-distance scrambling out of a finite clause cannot make use of this option,completing the analysis of the paradigm in (65) discussed above.
As Saito (1985) observes, the subject of the higher clause may precede or follow thephrase which has been scrambled out of a control complement, contrary to cases like (65),as shown in (69) below (based on Saito 1985:225).
(69) Long-distance scrambling out of a control complement
a. Taroo-ga

Hanako-nii [PROi sono hon-oyomuyoo] it-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM Hanako-tothat book-ACC read.tosay-PAST fact
‘Taroo said Hanako [to read that book]’
46

-46-

b. Sono hon-oi

Taroo-ga Hanako-nij [PROj ti yomuyoo] it-ta(koto)
read.tosay-PAST factthat book-ACC Taroo-NOM Hanako-to‘(lit.) That booki, Taroo said Hanako [to read ti]’c. Taroo-ga

sono hon-oi
Hanako-nij [PROj ti yomuyoo] it-ta(koto)
read.tosay-PAST fact
Taroo-NOM that book-ACC Hanako-to‘(lit.) Taroo, that booki, said Hanako [to read ti]’(69a) is the baseline. (69b) and (69c) are derived from (69a) via long-distance scramblingof the embedded object sono hon-o ‘that book’ to the sentence-initial position and theposition between the matrix subject and the indirect object, respectively. Unlike (65b) and(65c), there is no contrast between (69b) and (69c): Both of them are equally acceptable.
Given the discussion so far, the grammaticality of (69b) follows, since it can bederived in the manner depicted in (70).34(70) Derivation of (69b)a. Long-distance scrambling of the object Æ Spell-out of vP1[vP1 sono hon-o i Taroo-gaj [VP1 Hanako-nik [PROk ti …] …]]Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<Hanako-ni
b. Movement of sono hon-o and Taroo-ga Æ Spell-out of CP1[CP1 sono hon-o i [TP Taroo-gaj [vP tƍi tj [VP Hanako-nik [PROk ti …]]]]]
Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<Hanako-ni
sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<Hanako-ni
On the other hand, if the derivation illustrated in (71) is the only option, we fail tocapture the fact that (69c) is significantly better than (65c).
(71) Derivation of (69c)a. Long-distance scrambling of the object Æ Spell-out of vP1[vP1 sono hon-o i Taroo-gaj [VP1 Hanako-nik [PROk ti …] …]]Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<Hanako-ni

47

-47-

b. Construction of CP1 Æ Spell-out of CP1*[CP1 [TP Taroo-gaj [vP sono hon-o i tj [VP Hanako-nik [PROk ti …]]]]]
Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Taroo-ga<Hanako-ni
Taroo-ga<sono<hon-o<Hanako-ni
That is, if the object sono hon-o ‘that book’ can make use of only the vP-edge, thederivation fails to derive the surface linear order of (69c).
Suppose however that the edge of VP is indeed available. Then, the derivation
depicted in (72) is available for (69c).
(72) Derivation of (69c)a. Long-distance scrambling to the VP-edge Æ Spell-out of vP1[vP1 Taroo-gaj [VP1 sono hon-o i Hanako-nik [PROk ti …] …]]Ordering Table: Taroo-ga<sono<hon-o<Hanako-ni
b. Construction of CP1 Æ Spell-out of CP1[CP1 [TP Taroo-gaj [vP tj [VP sono hon-o i Hanako-nik [PROk ti …]]]]]
Ordering Table: Taroo-ga<sono<hon-o<Hanako-ni
Taroo-ga<sono<hon-o<Hanako-ni
Thus, the VP-edge is available if long-distance scrambling takes place out of a control
complement.
The question is why the edge of VP is not available for cases of long-distancescrambling out of a finite clause. I suggest that the difference between scrambling out of afinite clause and out of a control complement in their availability of the VP-edge stems
from the fact that the former is an Ɩ-movement (see Saito 1992, among others) while thelatter qualifies as A-movement (see Mahajan 1990, Nemoto 1993, among others; see alsofootnote 5). Let us consider the following examples:(73) Long-distance scrambling out of a finite clausea. *Taroo-ga otagai-no
sensei-ni [CP Hanako-ga

karera-o home-ta
they-ACC praise-PAST

Hanako-NOM
Taroo-NOM each.other-GEN teacher-toto] it-ta(koto)
that say-PAST fact
‘Taroo said to each other’s teacher [that Hanako praised them]’
48

-48-

b. * Karera-oi Taroo-ga otagai-no
sensei-ni [CP Hanako-ga
Hanako-NOM
they-ACC Taroo-NOM each.other-GEN teacher-to
home-tato] it-ta(koto)

tipraise-PAST that say-PAST fact‘(lit.) Themi, Taroo said to each other’s teacher [that Hanako praised ti]’(74) Long-distance scrambling out of a control complementa. * Taroo-ga otagai-no
sensei-ni [PRO karera-o homeruyoo]
they-ACC praise.to
Taroo-NOM each.other-GEN teacher-to
it-ta(koto)
say-PAST fact
‘Taroo said to each other’s teacher [to praise them]’b. Karera-oi Taroo-ga otagai-no
sensei-ni [PRO ti homeruyoo]
praise.tothey-ACC Taroo-NOM each.other-GEN teacher-to
it-ta(koto)
say-PAST fact‘(lit.) Themi, Taroo said to each other’s teacher [to praised ti]’sensei-ni [PRO ti homeruyoo]c. Taroo-ga karera-oi otagai-no
praise.to
Taroo-NOM they-ACC each.other-GEN teacher-to
it-ta(koto)
say-PAST fact‘(lit.) Taroo, themi, said to each other’s teacher [to praised ti]’(73a) and (74a) are ungrammatical because the anaphor otagai ‘each other’ is not boundin these examples. As shown in (73b), long-distance scrambling of karera-o ‘them’ out ofa finite CP does not save the sentence. The ungrammaticality of (73b), thus, suggests that
this scrambling is an instance of Ɩ-movement. On the other hand, the fact that (74b) isgrammatical indicates that long-distance scrambling out of a control complement counts
as A-movement. The same effect is observed if the scrambled object appears between thematrix subject and the indirect object, as shown in (74c).
Then, if the scrambling to the VP-edge strictly has an A-property, while scrambling to
the vP-edge can have both A- and Ɩ-properties, we can capture the difference between
scrambling out of a finite complement and out of a control complement with respect tothe availability of that position. That is, in the latter case, the relevant movement can be
an A-movement, so that it can make use of the VP-edge without any problem. On theother hand, the relevant movement is unambiguously an Ɩ-movement in the former case.
Hence, if it stops at the VP-edge, it results in an improper movement. Therefore, if a
49

-49-

phrase undergoes long-distance scrambling out of a finite clause, only the vP-edge is thepossible landing site for it.35 As a result, the scrambled phrase necessarily precedes the
subject of the higher clause at the Spell-out of the relevant vP. In this way, the proposed
theory of Cyclic Linearization solves a puzzle regarding the possible landing sites oflong-distance scrambling.36
The analysis advocated so far makes a novel prediction. Recall that Japanese selects
the parametric value (57a). Hence, Spell-out of vP specifies the element that undergoes
long-distance scrambling to the matrix vP-edge to precede the matrix subject. Then, it ispredicted that if a language with the parametric value (57b) allows long-distancescrambling, the element that undergoes long-distance scrambling out of a finite clausecan follow the matrix subject. Let us now consider the following examples from
Russian, focusing on the word order within the embedded clause:37(75) Word order possibilities in Russiana. Ya dumayu [chto mal'þiki þitajut knigi]
I think
that boys.NOM read books.ACC‘I think that boys read books’
b. Ya dumayu [chto mal'þiki knigi þitajut]c. Ya dumayu [chto knigi mal'þiki þitajut]
d. Ya dumayu [chto knigi þitajut mal'þiki]e. Ya dumayu [chto þitajut mal'þiki knigi]
f. Ya dumayu [chto þitajut knigi mal'þiki]

(SVO)

(SOV)
(OSV)
(OVS)
(VSO)
(VOS)

As shown in (75), Russian allows all the six possible word orders for a sentence with asubject, an object and a verb.38 This fact (in particular the availability of the orders
where the subject linearly follows the verb, namely the OVS, VSO, VOS ones) suggeststhat Russian selects the parametric value (57b).
As shown in (76a), long-distance scrambling of etu knigu ‘that book’ to the sentence
initial position is possible. In addition to this, the object can undergo long-distancescrambling to the position immediately after the matrix subject, as in (76b). There is nocontrast in (76a-b), unlike the case of (65b-c) in Japanese.39(76) Long-distance scrambling out of a finite clause in Russiana. Etu kniguiMashaskazala/dumala/znala [chto Ivan

prochjol ti]that book.ACC Masha.NOM said/thought/knowthat Ivan.NOM read‘(lit.) That booki, Masha said/thought/knows [that Ivan read ti]’
50

-50-

skazala/dumala/znala [chto Ivan
prochjol ti]
b. Mashaetu knigui
that Ivan.NOM read
Masha.NOM that book.ACC said/thought/know‘(lit.) Masha, that booki said/thought/knows [that Ivan read ti]’
Therefore, the prediction is borne out, providing further support for the proposed
analysis.
2.4.2. On Restrictions on Scrambling of ECM and Small Clause Complements
This subsection deals with certain restrictions on scrambling of ECM and Small
Clause (SC) complements in Japanese. Relevant examples are given in (77).
(77) ECM and SC constructions in Japanesea. Taroo-ga Ziroo-otensai-da to sinzitei-ru (koto)
Taroo-NOM Ziroo-ACC genius-COP that believe-PRES fact
‘Taroo believes Ziroo to be a genius’b. Taroo-ga Ziroo-okasikoku omottei-ru(koto)
consider-PRES fact
Taroo-NOM Ziroo-ACC smart‘Taroo considers Ziroo smart’(77a) is an instance of the ECM construction in Japanese (see, among many others,
Kuno 1972, 1976, Saito 1983, Kaneko 1988, Sakai 1998, Breuning 2001a, b, Hiraiwa
2001, 2005, Tanaka 2002, Takano 2003, Kawai 2006, Taguchi 2009), where thethematic subject of the embedded clause, namely Ziroo, is marked with the accusative
Case-marker -o. (77b) is an example of the SC construction, extensively discussed in
Kikuchi & Takahashi (1991) (see also Nakau 1973, Inoue 1976, Kitagawa 1985,
Fukumitsu 2001, Takahashi 2002). Again, the subject of the SC Ziroo is marked with -o.
Let us start with the pattern exhibited by the ECM construction. Since at least Kuno
1972, it has been pointed out that there is a restriction on scrambling of the ECM
complement. As in (78a), the ECM complement tensai-da to ‘to be a genius’ cannot be
moved across the accusative-marked subject Ziroo-o.
(78) Scrambling of an ECM complementa. * Tensai-datoTaroo-ga

Ziroo-osinzitei-ru(koto)

genius-COP that Taroo-NOM Ziroo-ACC believe-PRES fact‘(lit.) To be a genius, Taroo believes Ziroo’
51

-51-

b * Taroo-ga

tensai-da to Ziroo-osinzitei-ru (koto)
Taroo-NOM genius-COP that Ziroo-ACC believe-PRES fact‘(lit.) Taroo, to be a genius, believes Ziroo’c. Ziroo-otensai-da to Taroo-ga sinzitei-ru (koto)
Ziroo-ACC genius-COP that Taroo-NOM believe-PRES fact‘(lit.) Ziroo to be a genius, Taroo believes’
As shown in (78b), the ECM complement cannot appear between the matrix subject
Taroo-ga and Ziroo-o, either. On the other hand, if the accusative-marked subject is
moved so as to precede the moved ECM complement as in (78c), the sentence
improves.
Kikuchi & Takahashi (1991:85) make a similar observation for the SC construction,
as shown in (79).
(79) Scrambling of an SC complementa. * Kasikoku Taroo-ga Ziroo-oomottei-ru(koto)
smart
Taroo-NOM Ziroo-ACC consider-PRES fact‘(lit.) Smart, Taroo considers Ziroo’
b. * Taroo-ga kasikoku Ziroo-oomottei-ru(koto)
Taroo-NOM smart
Ziroo-ACC consider-PRES fact‘(lit.) Taroo, smart, considers Ziroo’c. Ziroo-okasikoku Taroo-ga omottei-ru(koto)
Ziroo-ACC smart
Taroo-NOM consider-PRES fact‘(lit.) Ziroo smart, Taroo considers’That is, the SC complement kasikoku ‘smart’ cannot be moved across Ziroo-o, as in(79a-b), while it can be moved when Ziroo-o is also moved, as in (79c).
The movement of Ziroo-o itself does not save the sentence, if it follows the moved
ECM/SC complement, as in (80).
(80) Scrambling of an ECM/SC complement
Taroo-ga sinzitei-ru (koto)a. * Tensai-da to Ziroo-o
genius-COP that Ziroo-ACC Taroo-NOM believe-PRES fact‘(lit.) To be a genius, Ziroo, Taroo believes’

52

-52-

b. * Kasikoku Ziroo-o

Taroo-ga omottei-ru(koto)
smart
Ziroo-ACC Taroo-NOM consider-PRES fact‘(lit.) Smart, Ziroo, Taroo considers’In (80a-b), Ziroo-o is moved across the matrix subject Taroo-ga. Unlike (78c) and (79c),
however, it linearly follows the moved ECM/SC complement, and the sentences areungrammatical.
The generalization that can be drawn from the examples in (78)-(80) is something
like (81):(81) Generalization on scrambling of ECM/SC complements
An ECM/SC complement can undergo scrambling if its accusative-marked subject
linearly precedes the ECM/SC complement at the surface.
One might claim that the patterns observed so far can be explained if an ECM/SC
complement and its accusative-marked subject form a constituent so that movement
cannot apply in a way to break the constituency. For instance, Kikuchi & Takahashi(1991) employ this idea to explain the pattern in (79). However, there is evidence thatindicates that it is not the whole story.
To see this, let us first consider the examples in (82a), comparing it with (77a),
which is repeated as (82b).
(82) Case-marking on ECM/SC subjects
a. Taroo-ga Ziroo-ga
tensai-da to sinzitei-ru (koto)
Taroo-NOM Ziroo-NOM genius-COP that believe-PRES fact
‘Taroo believes that Ziroo is a genius’b. Taroo-ga Ziroo-o tensai-da
to sinzitei-ru (koto)
Taroo-NOM Ziroo-ACC genius-COP that believe-PRES fact
‘Taroo believes Ziroo to be a genius’(82a) minimally differs from (82b) in that the embedded subject is marked with thenominative Case-marker -ga.
Although the sentences in (82) look quite similar, Kuno (1972, 1976) observes thefollowing contrast with respect to the placement of the adverb which is intended tomodify the matrix predicate.
53

-53-

(83) Adverb-placementa. * Taroo-ga Ziroo-ga

orokanimo tensai-datosinzitei-ru(koto)

Taroo-NOM Ziroo-NOM stupidly

genius-COP that believe-PRES fact
‘Stupidly, Taroo believes that Ziroo is a genius’b. Taroo-ga Ziroo-oorokanimo tensai-da to sinzitei-ru (koto)genius-COP that believe-PRES fact
Taroo-NOM Ziroo-ACC stupidly‘Stupidly, Taroo believes Ziroo to be a genius’
That is, the matrix adverb orokanimo ‘stupidly’ can appear between the ECM
complement and its accusative-marked subject as in (83b), whereas it cannot in theposition after the nominative-marked subject as in (83a).
Kuno (1972, 1976) then suggests that the nominative-marked subject in (83a) is
located within the embedded clause as in (84a) below, whereas the accusative-marked
subject in (83b) is located within the matrix clause as in (84b).40(84) Structures of (83a-b)
a. Taroo-ga [Ziroo-ga (*orokanimo) tensai-da to] sinzitei-ru
b. Taroo-ga Ziroo-o orokanimo [tensai-da to] sinzitei-ru
He further suggests that the accusative-marked subject undergoes raising-to-object(Postal 1974, Lasnik & Saito 1991, Chomsky & Lasnik 1993, Koizumi 1995, Boškoviü
1997, among many others), as in (85).
(85) Raising-to-object analysis of (83b)
Taroo-ga Ziroo-oi orokanimo [ti tensai-da to] sinzitei-ru

That is, Ziroo-o in (85) is base-generated as the subject of the embedded clause, andthen undergoes raising to the matrix object position.41
The fact that the accusative-marked subject of the SC complement can follow thematrix adverb as in (86a) below indicates that it has a structure like (86b).
(86) Structure of the SC construction
a. Taroo-ga Ziroo-oorokanimo kasikoku omottei-ru(koto)
Taroo-NOM Ziroo-ACC stupidly
smart
consider-PRES fact
‘Stupidly, Taroo considers Ziroo smart’
54

-54-

b. Taroo-ga Ziroo-oi orokanimo [ti kasikoku] omottei-ru

That is, Ziroo-o is moved to the matrix clause, crossing the matrix adverb orokanimo‘stupidly’. The grammaticality of (83b) and (86b) thus indicate that theaccusative-marked subjects in the ECM/SC constructions do not have to form a
constituent with the ECM/SC complements at the surface.
The structures in (85) and (86b), schematically shown in (87a), provides a key to thegeneralization in (81).
(87) Schematic structures of the ECM/SC constructions
a. … DPnom… DPacci … [XP ti …] Vmatrix
b. … [XP ti …] j … DPacci … tj … Vmatrix

In order to derive the surface word order where the accusative-marked subject(indicated as DPacc) linearly follows the ECM/SC complement (represented as XP), theXP has to be moved across DPacc, as in (87b). This results in a violation of the classical
PBC, because the trace ti contained in the XP is left unbounded, as has been frequently
suggested in the previous literature (see, for instance, Breuning 2001a, b, and Tanaka
2002 for the ECM cases). Note at the same time that if the movement of DPacc to thematrix clause in (87a) is indeed an instance of A-movement, the structures in (87) countlegitimate under the MLC analysis and the derivational PBC analysis: For the former,
the feature that triggers the A-movement of DPacc differs from the one that triggers
scrambling of the ECM/SC complement; for the latter, since the A-movement of DPacc
does not have to leave a trace by assumption, the trace ti in the moved XP does not exist.
In what follows, I illustrate that the proposed analysis of the PBC effect successfully
captures the generalization in (81), irrespective of the nature of the movement of DPacc.
Before proceeding to the concrete analysis, I introduce a piece of stronger evidence
for the idea that the accusative-marked phrase is indeed base-generated as a subject of
the ECM/SC complement, discussed in Sakai 1998 and Hiraiwa 2001, 2005. The
evidence has to do with distribution of the Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) formed by
combining an indeterminate pronoun such as dare ‘who’ and the quantificational
particle -mo ‘any’ (Kuroda 1965).42 Let us consider the examples in (88).
55

-55-

(88) Distribution of the NPIs
a. Dare-mo ko-nakat-ta(koto)
who-any come-NEG-PAST fact
‘No one came’b. Taroo-ga [dare-ga ku-ruto]-mo omottei-na-i(koto)
Taroo-NOM who-NOM come-PRES that-any think-NEG-PRES fact
‘Taroo thinks that no one will come’to]-mo omottei-na-i(koto)
c. * Dare-ga [Taroo-ga ku-ru
who-NOM Taroo-NOM come-PRES that-any think-NEG-PRES

fact‘No one thinks that Taroo will come’In (88a), the particle -mo is directly attached to the indeterminate pronoun dare ‘who’,forming the NPI dare-mo ‘anyone’. Since Kuroda 1965, it has been observed that anindeterminate pronoun can function as an NPI if it is in the c-command domain of theparticle -mo, as in (88b): The particle -mo is attached to the embedded clause, andc-commands the indeterminate pronoun dare ‘who’. However, if the indeterminate isbase-generated outside of the c-command domain of -mo as in (88c), it cannot beinterpreted as an NPI.
Bearing this in mind, let us consider the examples in (89).
(89) Distribution of the NPIs in the ECM construction
a. Taroo-ga dare-ga
tensai-da to-mosinzitei-na-i(koto)
Taroo-NOM who-NOM genius-COP that-any believe-NEG-PRES fact
‘Taroo believes that no one is a genius’b. Taroo-ga dare-o tensai-da to-mosinzitei-na-i(koto)
Taroo-NOM who-ACC genius-COP that-any believe-NEG-PRES fact
‘Taroo believes no one to be a genius’
In both of the examples in (89), -mo is attached to the embedded clause. In (89a), theindeterminate pronoun dare ‘who’ is marked with the nominative Case-marker, whereas
the one in (89b) is marked with the accusative Case-marker. The fact that there is nocontrast between (89a-b) indicates that both of them are base-generated within theembedded clause.
The same argument can be constructed for the SC construction, as shown in (90).

56

-56-

(90) Distribution of the NPIs in the SC construction
Taroo-ga dare-okasikoku-mo omottei-na-i(koto)
Taroo-NOM who-ACC smart-any
consider-NEG-PRES fact
‘Taroo considers no one smart’
In (90), the particle -mo is attached to the SC predicate, and the accusative-marked
subject can function as an NPI, on a par with the examples in (89).
Having established that accusative-marked subjects in the ECM/SC constructions
are indeed base-generated as a subject of the embedded ECM/SC complement, I provide
an explanation of the generalization in (81), repeated as (91).
(91) Generalization on scrambling of ECM/SC complements
An ECM/SC complement can undergo scrambling if its accusative-marked subject
linearly precedes the ECM/SC complement at the surface.
Under the proposed analysis of the PBC effect in terms of the theory of Cyclic
Linearization, (91) follows if Spell-out applies to the ECM/SC complement so as tospecify that the accusative-marked subject linearly precedes the other elements within
the ECM/SC complement.
For the sake of concreteness, I assume, following Nishiyama (1999, 2005), that the
ECM/SC complements involve the following structures:(92) Structures of ECM/SC predicates
a.

PredP
Ziroo-o

b.
Predƍ

PredP
Ziroo-o

Predƍ

NP

Pred0

AP

Pred0

tensai-dakasiko-ku

In (92), -da and -ku project their own projection, labeled as Pred(icative)P (Bowers
1993).43 They take the predicative NP tensai ‘genius’ and AP kakiso ‘smart’ as theircomplements, respectively. Ziroo-o is base-generated as their subjects. Then, assumingthat Spell-out applies to PredP, the ordering statements in (93) are established,respectively.44
57

-57-

(93) Ordering statements established at the Spell-out of PredPa. Ziroo-o<tensai<dab. Ziroo-o<kasiko<kuThen, if the derivation proceeds so that it establishes an ordering statement where theaccusative subject Ziroo-o follows the other elements within the ECM/SC complements,
namely tensai-da ‘genius’ and kakuko-ku ‘smart’ for the cases at hand, it induces anordering contradiction at PF. On the other hand, the derivation successfully converges
even if the ECM/SC complements undergo scrambling, as long as theaccusative-marked subject precedes them at each point of Spell-out. This derivation
yields the surface linear order where the accusative-marked subject precedes the
ECM/SC complement at the surface. Thus, the generalization in (91) follows.
2.5. Conclusion
In this chapter, I proposed a novel explanation of the PBC effect on Japanesescrambling in terms of linearization at PF, solving the long-standing problem regarding
this effect, namely, the S-structure application problem. Specifically, I argued that F&P’s
theory of Cyclic Linearization, which requires that linear orderings established by
Spell-out must be preserved at the end of each later cycle, provides a straightforward
solution. The crucial notion of Linearization Preservation in (24) is repeated as (94).
(94) Linearization Preservation
The linear ordering of syntactic units is affected by Merge and Move within aSpell-out Domain, but is fixed once and for all at the end of each Spell-out Domain.
Then, combining the theory with the three assumptions in (34), repeated as (95), I
illustrated that derivations of the sentences that have been explained by the derivational
PBC always end up with contradicting ordering statements, so that they necessarily
induce a PF-crash.
(95) Assumptions
a. Japanese is head-final.
b. Complement-to-Spec movement is not allowed.
c. Spell-out Domains in Japanese and Korean include at least CP and vP.
Since the relevant derivations are excluded by a PF-problem, no notion of S-structure is
58

-58-

involved in the proposed explanation. thus, it solves the S-structure application problemof the classical PBC.
Furthermore, I examined the licit cases of remnant movement found in English andGerman. I first suggested that it is necessary to postulate a parameter that specifies what
portion of the structure is subject to the linearization procedure at the Spell-out of vP, inorder to capture the facts regarding word order possibilities in languages like Swedish.
The relevant parameter in (57) is repeated as (96) below.
(96) Spell-out Domain Parameter for vP
When Spell-out applies to vP,
a. Linearize the whole vP, including the elements on its edge, orb. Linearize the complement of v0.
Then, I illustrated that the licit cases of remnant movement are explained by assumingthat English and German are like Swedish in they choose the parametric value in (96b).
These languages, unlike Japanese and Korean, allow the elements on the vP-edge to be
excluded from the ordering statement established by the Spell-out of vP, so that remnant
movement do not induce an ordering contradiction at PF. Meanwhile, the proposed
explanation of the PBC effect on Japanese scrambling provides strong evidence for Ko’s
(2005a, 2007) hypothesis that the whole vP is subject to Spell-out in languages like
Japanese/Korean. This is because the explanation crucially assumes for languages like
Japanese the choice of the parametric value in (96a), which embodies the essential ideaof Ko’s (2005a, 2007) hypothesis under the assumed framework. In this way, theproposed system explains various patterns of licit and illicit remnant movement in a
uniform fashion, revealing the nature of the restrictions on remnant movement.
I also argued that the proposed analysis has wider empirical coverage than thederivational PBC, discussing two phenomena. The first one has to do with Saito’s (1985)
observation that a phrase that undergoes long-distance scrambling out of a finite clausecannot follow the subject of the higher clause. I argued that once a phrase undergoes
long-distance scrambling out of a finite clause, it must be moved to the edge of the vP of
the higher clause. Consequently, Spell-out of the vP always establishes an ordering
statement where the scrambled phrase precedes the subject of the higher clause.
Therefore, the former cannot follow the latter at the surface structure, due to Linearization
Preservation. The second phenomenon is a restriction on scrambling of the ECM/SC
complements. I first illustrated that scrambling of the ECM/SC complements is allowed
when their accusative-marked subjects linearly precede the moved ECM/SC
59

-59-

complements. It is then argued that the proposed analysis of the PBC effect in terms ofthe theory of Cyclic Linearization provides a uniform explanation of this generalization.
The analysis advocated in this section captures one kind of the empirical facts thathave motivated Saito’s (2003) derivational PBC, namely the PBC effect on overt Merge.
In the next chapter, I turn to another empirical motivation of the derivational PBC, whichis called the PBC effect on covert Merge.

60

-60-

Notes to Chapter 2
1

This chapter is a revised and extended version of Takita (2009).

2

Under the strict interpretation of the classical PBC, it excludes lowering and sideward

movement, as well as remnant movement. The status of lowering and sideward movement in thegrammar, however, is not quite clear. For instance, although Chomsky (1995) argues that overt
lowering is excluded in terms of linearization (cf. Kayne 1994), Boškoviü & Takahashi (1998) argue
that covert lowering is allowed in some circumstance. As for sideward movement, various studies
such as Nunes (1995, 2001, 2004) argue that it is indeed a possible type of movement. Hence, I will
restrict the discussion to remnant movement in this chapter.
3

To make the examples more natural, I will place koto ‘the fact that’ at the end of them ifnecessary. Note that the English translations I provide for the Japanese examples are intended to show
the rough structure of the sentences, and the sentence final koto is excluded from the translations.
4

More precisely, the Ȉ-feature is borne by the respective head of the CP and the PP.

5

Scrambling out of a control complement shows both A- and Ɩ-properties (see Mahajan 1990,

Nemoto 1993, among others). The example in (ia) indicates that such a scrambling has Ɩ-properties.
Meanwhile, the grammaticality of (ib) suggests that it qualifies as A-movement.

(i)a. Hanako-ga

otagai-oi[Taroo-to Ziroo]-ni [PRO ti hihansu-ru

Hanako-NOM each.other-ACC Taroo-and Ziroo-to
meizi-ta(koto)

order-PASTfactkoto]-ocriticize-PRES fact-ACC‘(lit.) Hanako, each otheri, ordered Taroo and Ziroo [to criticize ti]’b. Hanako-ga[Taroo-to Ziroo]-oi otagai-no

hahaoya-ni [PRO ti hihansu-ru

Hanako-NOM Taroo-and Ziroo-ACC each.other-GEN mother-tokoto]-omeizi-tafact-ACC

order-PAST fact

criticize-PRES(koto)‘(lit.) Hanako, [Taroo and Ziroo]i, ordered each other’s mother [to criticize ti]’Thus, even if scrambling in Japanese is feature-driven, the relevant feature should be distinct fromthe one which triggers A-movement to Spec, TP.
6

See Collins & Sabel (2007) for a recent approach that attributes the PBC effect to LF. As far as

I can see, however, their analysis does not seem to be extended to the PBC effect on Japanesescrambling.
7

F&P notethat an application of Spell-out may establish some other relations among syntactic

units. However, I will concentrate on linear order, as in F&P.

61

-61-

8

For ease of exposition, I will use more informal notation for ordering statements. I will indicate

the ordering statement which is newly added to the Ordering Table at the relevant step in boldface.
Finally, elements in ordering statements that induce an ordering contradiction are indicated byshading. See also footnote 9 and 11.
9

The ordering statement X<Y<Z is indeed an abbreviated form of the two ordering statements

X<Y and Y<Z, which instruct that the phonologically non-null elements dominated by X precede
those dominated by Y, and that the phonologically non-null elements dominated by Y precede thosedominated by Z, respectively (Fox & Pesetsky 2005:7, fn.7 note that “dominate” means “reflexively
dominate” to cover the cases where X, Y, or Z is a word). For ease of exposition, however, I will
indicate the terminal elements, namely words, when the actual examples are discussed.
10

Movement out of the previously Spelled-out domains is excluded under the Phase

Impenetrability Condition (PIC, Chomsky 2000, 2001), which prohibits operations to access to thosedomains. F&P’s theory, however, is designed to derive the effects of the PIC, so that the PIC can beabandoned. Hence, nothing blocks such a movement. F&P also assume that traces are invisible forlinear order establishments.
11

More precisely, Spell-out of Dƍ establishes the ordering statement X<Į<D. Since X has moved

out of D, the first phonologically non-null element within D at this point is Y. The ordering statement
X<Į<D is then interpreted so as that X and Į precede Y and Z. The ordering statement X<Į<Y<Z isan abbreviated notation of this information. Note that under this conception Spell-out does not apply
to the domains that have been already Spelled-out.
12

Note that under the theory of Cyclic Linearization, the source of illicitness in one-fell-swoop

long-distance movement is attributed to an ordering contradiction at PF. It is predicted then that
one-fell-swoop movement counts legitimate if ellipsis somehow removes the ordering contradiction.
as pointed out by F&P. See Chapter 5 for more detailed discussion.
13

Following F&P, I ignore the distinction between vP and VP at this point. I come back to thisissue in Section 2.3.2. and Section 2.3.3.
14

Focus particles like -sae ‘even’ and -mo ‘also’ linearly follow the head of a projection

although they seem to be adjoined to the projection in question, as shown in (i).

(i)

a. Taroo-ga[hon-oyomi]-sae/-mo si-ta

Taroo-NOM book-ACC read-even/-also do-PAST‘Taroo even/also [read a book]’b. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM[wakaku]-sae/-mo at-ta
young-even/-also be-PAST‘Taroo was even/also [young]’

62

-62-

They behave like adjuncts but not heads in that they do not affect the selectional relations between
the main predicate and the higher element, as pointed out by Sells (1995) and Aoyagi (1998). For
instance, insertion of these particles requires some verbal element to appear right before tense
morphemes. If the main predicate is a verb as in (ia), su ‘do’ appears, while if it is an adjective as in(ib), ar ‘be’ does. Note that the relation between the main predicate and the higher verbal element
cannot be local if the particle has its own projection. Then, these particles are adjuncts that appear toright-adjoin to the projection. One remarkable property of these adjuncts is that they are suffixes.
Assuming, essentially in line with Aoyagi (1998), that these particles are adjuncts having a feature[+suffixal], I suggest that the linearization procedure specifies that these [+suffixal] elements tofollow a head so as to satisfy their morphological properties..
15

Ko (2005a) argues that Spell-out Domains in these languages also include VP (recall that F&P

assume that VP constitutes a Spell-out Domain for languages like Swedish). See Section 2.3.3 for thisissue.
16

One potential piece of evidence that argues for the idea that a subject can undergo scramblingleaving an NQ has to do with the fact that certain class of adverbs such as way ‘why’ can intervene
between an subject-related NQ and its host in Korean, as in (i) (based on Ko 2007:52). The same
holds for Japanese, as in (ii) (see Miyagawa 1989a, Koizumi 1994, among others).

(i)[Haksayng-tul-i way sey-myeng hakkyo-lul

ttenass nunci] anta

student-PL-NOM

left

why 3-CLschool-ACC

Q

know

‘(I) know why three students left the school’(ii) [Gakusei-tati-ga

naze

san-ningakkoo-oyameta ka]

sitteiru

student-PL-NOM

why

3-CL

school-ACC

left

know

Q

‘(I) know why three students left the school’

Suggesting that the wh-adjuncts like way ‘why’ are base-generated in CP (see Ko 2005b andreferences cited therein), Ko (2005a, 2007) argues that the relevant part of (i) and (ii) have thefollowing schematic structure, where the subject first undergoes A-movement to Sepc, TP and thendoes clause-internal scrambling across ‘why’.

(iii) [CP Subji why [TP tƍi… [vP [NP ti NQSubj] …] …]17

The sentence where an adverb appears between a subject-related NQ and its host discussed infootnote 16 is derived in the manner depicted in (i) below:

63

-63-

(i)

a. Spell-out of vP[vP [NP Subji NQSubj] …]Ordering Table: Subj<NQSubj

b. Movement of Subj Æ Spell-out of CP[CP Subji why [TP tƍi… [vP [NP ti NQSubj] …] …]
Ordering Table: Subj<NQSubj
Subj<Adv<NQSubj

Given that the adverb is base-generated outside of vP, it is not included in the ordering statement
established by the Spell-out of vP, as in (ia). Subsequently the adverb is introduced to the derivationand the subject is moved across it (via A-movement to Spec, TP), stranding the NQ, as in (ib). Then,
Spell-out of the CP establishes the ordering statement Subj<Adv<NQSubj, which is consistent withthe previously established one. Hence, it follows that the adverb can appear between thesubject-related NQ and its host.
18

These assumptions do not affect the analysis in the text. See also footnote 19.

19

Let us suppose that V0 obligatory moves at least to v0 in Japanese, contrary to the assumption

made in the text. Then, no matter what movement takes place within vP, Spell-out of the vP
establishes the ordering statements where the v-V complex follows everything within it.
Consequently, it follows that V0 cannot precede any other vP-internal element at the Spell-out of vP.
The conclusion that V0 cannot precede any other vP-internal element at the Spell-out of vP stillholds for cases in which the verb has three arguments if we assume that all the internal arguments arebase-generated within VP (Hoji 1985, Larson 1988). Things become a little complicated if we assume
that there is an independent functional head like Appl(icative) that introduces the indirect object (seeMarantz 1993, Ura 1996, Pylkkänen 2002, and Yatsushiro 2003, among others). One potential
problem is that if ApplP is located between v0 and V0, the VP-movement to the edge of vP cannot be
blocked by Anti-locality. That is, a structure like (i) becomes available.

(i)[vP [VP DO V0] i Subj [ApplP IO ti Appl0] v0]

Ordering Table: DO<V0<Subj<IO

Hence, the ordering statement where a verb precedes some vP-internal elements may be established.
There are at least two possible solutions to this problem. The first one is to assume that V0 always
undergoes head-movement up to v0, picking up Appl0, as shown in (ii).
(ii) [vP Subj [ApplP IO [VP DO ti] tj] [v0 [Appl0 V0i+Appl]j+v]]

64

-64-

Because of head-movement, V0 always appears on the right-edge. Thus, the ordering statements inwhich V0 precedes other vP-internal elements can never be established. Note that this solution
enables us to explain the ungrammatical cases without assuming Anti-locality, since VP-movement
no longer brings V0 in front of other vP-internal elements.
The other solution is to assume that the ApplP also constitutes a Spell-out Domain in this language.
This option forces the VP to move through the edge of ApplP to derive the intended surface order, but
it is not allowed due to Anti-locality. In Takita (2008), I argued for this assumption by examining
interaction of scrambling and quantifier scope (see McGinnis 2001 for independent evidence that
ApplP, in addition to vP, constitutes a phase in some languages). I leave this issue for future research.
20

Note that the verb i ‘be’ is an unaccusative verb. I assume, following Ko (2005a, 2007), that

Spell-out applies to not only transitive but also unaccusative/passive vP. See Chapter 4 for more
direct evidence for this assumption (see also Legate 2003 for an independent argument for thephase-hood of unaccusative/passive vP).
21

The analysis advocated in the text appears to be incompatible with the movement theory ofcontrol advocated by Hornstein (1999), among many others, who argues that an obligatory control
relation is created via Merge of the controller in the position of PRO followed by raising of it to thehigher ș-position. That is, if the controller of PRO in (49b), namely Taroo-ni ‘to Taroo’, is Merged in
the position of PRO before the Spell-out of the embedded vP, the linear order between Taroo-ni ‘toTaroo’ and the embedded verb ik ‘go’ is determined so as that the former precedes the latter. Then, it
is predicted that the embedded verb ik ‘go’ never precedes Taroo-ni ‘to Taroo’ at the surface. Thisprediction is not borne out, as shown in (i), repeated from (19c), however (See also Ko 2005a:72,
fn.60 for a similar remark on independent grounds).

(i)[PRO [PP Sooru-made] ik-u
Seoul-tokoto]-gai Taroo-ni

go-PRES fact-NOM Taroo-toti meizi-rare-ta
order-PASS-PAST(koto)
fact‘(lit.) [To go [to Seoul]]i was ordered Taroo ti’
See Takita (to appear d) for a modification of the movement theory of control, which may solve theapparent incompatibility between the theory of Cyclic Linearization and the standard version of the
movement theory of control.
22

The Swedish example in (53) discussed by Fox & Pesetsky (2003:41), are indeed based on theexamples in Peter Svenonius’ on-line “A Minimal Syntax of Swedish” (http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/lingua/flow/li/minig/enmini_sv.html). The example in (55) is also taken from there.
23

Fox & Pesetsky (2003) discuss various options that allow external arguments to be excluded

65

-65-

from the ordering statement established at the Spell-out of the verbal domain. Related to this issue,
Ko (2005a) proposes that in language like Japanese and Korean, not only vP but also VP is subject toSpell-out. It might be possible under her assumptions to postulate a parameter that distinguishes
Japanese/Korean-type languages from the others in that Spell-out applies to vP in the former but not
the latter (note that her system does not necessarily exclude a derivational step like (56), where theobject moves within the VP). I leave for future work a comparison of the approach presented in the
text with these various possibilities.
24

If V0 moves to v0 prior to Spell-out, the information regarding the verb is also absent from theordering statement established at the step in (60a). If this is the case, however, we must give up
F&P’s account of Holmberg’s generalization reviewed in Section 2.3.1, since the ordering relation
between the verb and the object is also left unspecified. Hence, I keep assuming that V0 stays within
VP when the ordering statement is established. See also Section 5.4.1 of Chapter 5 for a discussion
on the interaction between Spell-out and head-movement.
25

I assume in the absence of counterevidence that Spell-out of CP universally linearizes thewhole CP, including the elements on its edge. One conceptual argument for this assumption is that it
eliminates one awkward aspect of Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) conception of Spell-out. Under his
conception, Spell-out sends the information of the complement of a phase-head to the interfaces.
Limiting ourselves to the PF-interface, when Spell-out applies to the root CP of a sentence like (i)below, only the information of the TP is sent to PF. In order to pronounce the sentence appropriately,
however, the information of the elements on the CP-edge must be Spelled-out somehow.

(i)[CP whati did [TP John buy ti]]

Under the assumed conception of Spell-out, however, it sends all the information to PF when theroot CP is Spelled-out. Hence, no extra device/step is required. I leave for future work whether thisassumption is empirically tenable or not.
On the other hand, it is also theoretically elegant if the proposed parameter can be generalized toboth vP and CP so as that the Spell-out of CP in languages like Japanese linearizes the whole CP
while the Spell-out of CP in languages like English linearizes TP. Mamoru Saito (p.c.) suggests thata detailed examination of multiple wh-questions can provide a key to this issue. I also leave thisissue for future research.
26(i)

As German is a V2-language, it allows both SVO and OVS orders, just like Swedish, as in (i).

a. Hans kaufte das Buch
Hans bought the book

(SVO)
‘Hans bought the book’

66

-66-

b. Das Buch kaufte Hans
thebook bought Hans

(OVS)
‘The book, Hans bought’

Even in English, main verbs can precede the subject in certain contexts. Quotative inversion
discussed by Collins (1997) and Collins & Branigan (1997) is one such case. In (iib), the verb
thought precedes the subject Mary (based on Collins 1997:31).

(ii) a. “I am so happy”, Mary thoughtb. “I am so happy”, thought Mary

Given these facts, it is not unlikely to assume that German and English select the value in (57b).
27

Recall that in the explanation of Holmberg’s Generalization in Section 2.3.1, F&P assume that

object shift demands an object to stay in-situ. It is thus necessary to assume that A-movement suchas passivization differs from object shift in that the former allows movement to the vP-edge (cf.
Legate 2003) but the latter does not.
28

Recall that it has been assumed that Spell-out applies to unaccusative/passive vPs (seefootnote 20).
29

See Section 4.2.1 of Chapter 4 for a review of Huang’s (1993) idea that VP-fronting involves

movement of vP. Note at the same time that for the specific example discussed in the text it does notmatter whether vP or VP moves in VP-fronting, because virtually identical linear strings are derived
in either case.
30

If all auxiliaries including has and been project their own VP and vP, and that their vPs arealso subject to Spell-out, the derivation in (63) proceeds as follows (see also Section 5.3.1.2 ofChapter 5 for a related discussion):(i)a. Movement of John
[vPbeen Johni [VP been [vP tƍi [VP criticized ti by his boss]]]]

Ordering Table: criticized<by<his<boss
b. Movement of the lowest vP Æ Spell-out of vPbeen[vPbeen [vP tƍi [VP criticized ti by his boss]] j Johni [VP been tj]]Ordering Table: criticized<by<his<boss
been

67

-67-

c. Movement of John and the lowest vP Æ Spell-out of vPhas[vPhas [vP tƍi [VP criticized ti by his boss]] j Johni [VP has [vPbeen tƍj tƍƍi [VP been tj]]]]Ordering Table: criticized<by<his<boss
beenhas<beend. Construction of TP[TP Johni hask never [vPhas [vP tƍi [VP criticized ti by his boss]] j tƍƍƍi [VP tk [vPbeen tƍj tƍƍi [VP been tj]]]]]


Ordering Table: criticized<by<his<boss
beenhas<beene. Construction of CP Æ Spell-out of CP[CP [vP tƍi [VP criticized ti by his boss]] j [TP Johni hask never [vPhas tƍƍj tƍƍƍi [VP tk [vPbeen tƍj tƍƍi [VP been tj]]]]]]


Ordering Table: criticized<by<his<boss
beenhas<been
criticized<by<his<boss<John<has<never<beenThough it seems to be quite complicated, what happens in this derivation is that John and the lowest
vP move successive-cyclically. At each point of Spell-out, the derivation establishes an ordering
statement that is consistent with the ones previously established. Hence, the derivation converges
without an ordering contradiction.
31

The proposed analysis thus predicts that the following examples, discussed in Lasnik & Saito

1992 (see also Kroch & Joshi 1985), are legitimate in terms of the theory of Cyclic Linearization:(i)*[How likely ti to be a riot]j is there tj? (cf. There is likely to be a riot)(ii) *[How likely ti to be taken of John] is advantagei tj? (cf. Advantage is likely to be taken ofJohn)

In (i), the expletive there undergoes A-movement, and in (ii) a part of idiom chunk does. In eachcase, the second instance of the movement is wh-movement. Thus, these examples are formally
identical to the examples in (62), although there is a contrast in grammaticality. See Nomura (2001),
Abels (2002), and Boeckx (2002) for recent analyses of this contrast.

68

-68-

32

Iomit the successive-cyclic movement within the embedded clause for simplicity.

33

Omitting successive-cyclic movement within the embedded clause, scrambling of the object

starts from the edge of CP2 in (67a). The derivation within CP2 proceeds as follows:(i)a. Construction of vP2 Æ Spell-out of vP2[vP2 sono hon-o i Hanako-ga [VP2 ti mottei]]

Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Hanako-ga<mottei
b. Construction of CP2 Æ Spell-out of CP2[CP2 sono hon-o i [TP2 Hanako-gaj [vP2 tƍi tj [VP2 ti mottei]] -ru] to]Ordering Table: sono<hon-o<Hanako-ga<mottei
sono<hon-o<Hanako-ga<mottei<ru<to34

For the sake of simplicity, in the derivations (70), (71) and (72), the elements contained within

the embedded complement are excluded from the ordering statements.
35

The analysis presented in the text presupposes that scrambling is not a tucking-in operation in

the sense of Richards 2001 (see also Takano 2008 for a similar argument). That is, if the inner Spec,vP is available for a scrambled phrase, the linear order where the matrix subject precedes thescrambled phrase may be established at the Spell-out of matrix vP. Suppose on the other hand that ascrambled phrase is marginally allowed to use the inner Spec position for its landing site. Then, we
may capture the difference in acceptability between the cases of the PBC effect in (65) and the cases
where a scrambled phrase follows a subject of the higher clause in (69). If the inner Spec, vP is
marginally available, the scrambled phrase may follow the subject of the higher clause at theSpell-out of vP. On the other hand, tucking-in does not help to avoid an ordering contradiction in thecases of the PBC effect.
36

We saw in footnote 5 that scrambling out of a control complement shows Ɩ-properties, inaddition to A-properties, as exemplified by (i). Since the anaphor otagai ‘each other’ follows thematrix subject in (i), the analysis advocated in the text implies that otagai-o ‘each other’ is moved tothe matrix VP-edge. However, if it stops there, it should induce a Condition C violation since thematrix VP-edge is an A-position.

69

-69-

(i)

Hanako-ga

otagai-oi

Hanako-NOM each.other-ACC
meizi-ta(koto)

order-PAST

fact[Taroo-to Ziroo]-ni [PRO ti hihansu-ru
Taroo-and Ziroo-tokoto]-ocriticize-PRES fact-ACC‘(lit.) Hanako, each otheri, ordered Taroo and Ziroo [to criticize ti]’Then, I suggest that (i) has a structure like (ii), where otagai-o ‘each other’ is further scrambled tothe matrix vP-edge after the Spell-out of the matrix vP. Because of the movement of Hanako-ga toSpec, TP1, the derivation can converge with the intended surface linear order.
(ii) [TP1 Hanako-gaj [vP1 otagai-oi tj [VP1 tƍi [Taroo-to Ziroo-ni] [CP2 … ti …] …] …] …]Since the matrix vP-edge can be an Ɩ-position by hypothesis, a Condition C violation can be
circumvented, provided that Condition C is a condition on the output of the derivation, as argued by
Saito (2003, 2005).
37

I thank Elena Koulidobrova (p.c.) for collecting the Russian data. Serbo-Croatian seems to

exhibit a similar pattern (Miloje Despic, p.c.).
38

Japanese apparently allow the word orders other than SOV and OSV, but they are restricted

only in matrix clauses. See Takita (to appear b) for a summary of such constructions.
39

Elena Koulidobrova (p.c.) points out to me that (76b) might require a certain context like thefollowing: Ivan wrote a paper about a book. Someone has suggested that Masha, who is Ivan’s teacher,
did not think he had read the book itself (but only heard what people say about the book), and that is
why he got a bad grade. But, in fact, this is not the case: “Masha etu knigu znala chto Ivan prochjol (lit.
Marsha, that booki, knows that Ivan read ti)”, but he is just a bad writer. What is important for our
purpose is that such a context does not seem to improve the relevant sentences in Japanese.
40

Kuno (1972, 1976) provides several observations that indicate the accusative-marked subject

is indeed in the matrix clause, which I do not repeat here. See Kuno (1972, 1976) and the papers
mentioned in the text.
41

One issue related to the raising-to-object analysis is that it seems to involve A-movement outof a tensed CP: This is because the ECM complements in Japanese seem to be headed by to ‘that’,
which is taken as a complementizer, and the embedded predicates appear to be specified for tense.
Taking these facts seriously, it has been occasionally suggested that the accusative phrase isbase-generated as a matrix object, and from there it binds/controls a phonologically null element in
the embedded subject position (see Saito 1982, Oka 1988, Nemoto 1993, and Takano 2003, among

70

-70-

many others). Under this analysis, which is sometimes called the prolepsis analysis, (82b) would beanalyzed as having a structure like (i).

(i)

Taroo-ga

Ziroo-oi [CP pro/PROitensai-dato] omottei-ru

That is, the sentence is structurally similar to a sentence like Taroo thinks of Ziroo that he is a genius
in English. Furthermore, the structure in (i) is also compatible with the observation that theaccusative-marked phrase can be followed by a matrix adverb.
Various researchers, however, have revealed that A-movement out of a tensed CP (or, at leastCase-licensing across a tensed clause-boundary) is cross-linguistically attested, and have madeseveral proposals to accommodate it (see Massam 1985, Ura 1994, Uchibori 2000, 2001, Breuning
2001a, b, Hiraiwa 2001, 2005, Tanaka 2002, ùener 2008, and Taguchi 2009, among many others).
Recall also that long-distance scrambling out of a control complement, which is taken as a CP evenin English, counts as A-movement, as discussed in Section 2.4.1 (see also footnote 5). Thus, I
assume that the accusative-marked subject is base-generated in the embedded subject position,
unlike the prolepsis analysis. I provide more convincing evidence for this position in the text.
42

See also McGloin (1976), Muraki (1978), Nishigauchi (1990), Watanabe (1992), Aoyagi &Ishii (1994), Kishimoto (2001), Kratzer & Shimoyama (2002), Takahashi (2002), and Hiraiwa(2005) for previous discussions on this type of the NPIs.
43

More precisely, Nishiyama (1999) assumes that -da is a contracted form of de-ar-u (see also

Nakayama 1988 and Urushibara 1993), and proposes that de projects PredP, which is then taken as acomplement of the verb ar ‘be’. As far as I can tell, this does not affect the argument presented in thetext, however.
44

The assumption that PredP is subject to Spell-out is not implausible, since Bowers (1993)

originally proposes that in a transitive sentence Pred0 introduces an external argument, taking a VP
as its complement. That is, PredP plays a role of vP in more current term. Put differently, I suggestthat Pred is a variety of v.

71

-71-

Chapter 3
A Note on the Proper Binding Condition Effect on Covert Merge

3.1. Introduction
The analysis advocated in Chapter 2, which is based on the theory of Cyclic
Linearization, captures one of the empirical facts that have motivated Saito’s (2003)
derivational Proper Binding Condition (PBC), namely the PBC effect on scrambling,which is an instance of overt Merge. In this chapter, I examine another piece ofevidence for the derivational PBC, focusing on a constraint on an ellipsis process calledargument ellipsis. As is well known, Japanese is among the languages that allow
phonologically null arguments. Thus, both subjects and objects can be null, as shown in(1).1(1) Null arguments in Japanese'i kooen-de 'j mikaketa to] itta (koto)
Tarooi-ga Hanakoj-ni [kinoo
Taroo-NOM Hanako-DAT yesterdaypark-in
saw
that said fact‘(lit.) Tarooi said to Hanakoj that ['i (= he) saw 'j (= her) in the park yesterday]’
Since Kuroda 1965, these null arguments have been analyzed as pro, which is thephonologically null counterpart of pronouns.
It has been noticed that there are some cases where this pro analysis does not seem
to work, however. The examples in (2), discussed in Otani & Whitman 1991, illustrate
one such case (see also Huang 1987 for similar observations in Chinese). In (2a), theobject contains the anaphor zibun ‘self’, and it sets up the context for the sentences in(2b) and (2c). (2b), where the object is missing, is ambiguous, allowing the missing
object to refer to either Taroo’s mother as in (2b-i), or Hanako’s mother as in (2b-ii).
The former reading is called the strict reading, and the latter the sloppy reading (see Sag
1976, Williams 1977). On the other hand, the example in (2c), where the overt pronounkanozyo-o ‘her’ appears in the object position, is unambiguous: The sloppy reading is
not available for this sentence.

72

-72-

(2) Sloppy reading with null argumentsa. Taroo-wa [zibun-no hahaoya]-o sonkeisiteiru
Taroo-TOP self-GEN mother-ACC respect‘Taroo respects his mother’b. Hanako-mo ' sonkeisiteiru
Hanako-also
respect‘(lit.) Hanako also respects '’(i) ¨ = Taroo’s mother(ii) ¨ = Hanako’s mother’c. Hanako-mo kanozyo-o sonkeisiteiru
respect
Hanako-also her-ACC‘Hanako also respects her’(i) her = Taroo’s mother(ii) *her = Hanako’s mother

This observation suggests that it is not likely that the null element in (2b) is pro, giventhat pro is the phonologically null counterpart of overt pronouns. Hence, something
more is involved in (2b).
To accommodate this observation, several types of analyses have been proposed in
the literature. Among them is the argument ellipsis analysis, independently proposed by
Oku (1998) and Kim (1999).2 They propose that in languages like Japanese and Korean,arguments can be directly elided if appropriate antecedents are provided. Under theargument ellipsis analysis, then, (2b) with the sloppy reading is analyzed as having a
structure like (3), where the object zibun-no hahaoya-o ‘self’s mother’ undergoes
ellipsis under identity with the object in the antecedent clause, namely (2a).3(3) Structure of (2b) under the argument ellipsis analysis
sonkeisiteiru
Hanako-mo
In (3) the elided object contains the anaphor zibun ‘self’. Then, if it is bound by the
subject Hanako, the sloppy reading results.4
Since argument ellipsis targets arguments by proposal, it is expected that not only
nominal but also clausal arguments are also subject to it. This expectation is confirmedby the examples in (4).

73

-73-

(4) Argument ellipsis of clausal argumentsa. Taroo-wa [CP zibun-no teian-ga

saiyoosareru to] omotteiru

Taroo-TOP

self-GEN proposal-NOM is.accepted‘Taroo thinks [that his proposal will be accepted]’

that thinkb. Hanako-mo ¨ omotteiru
Hanako-also
think‘(lit.) Hanako also thinks ¨ (= that her proposal will be accepted)’c. Hanako-moomotteiru(4a) is the antecedent for (4b). The fact that (4b) has the sloppy reading indicates thatargument ellipsis also applies to CP arguments. That is, (4b) can have a representation
like (4c).
The constraint on argument ellipsis which I focus on in this chapter has to do withthe following examples in (5), discussed by Shinohara (2006a, b) and Saito (2007). In(5a), the embedded object hon-o ‘book’ undergoes long-distance scrambling, and thesentence sets up the context for (5b-c). In (5b), the object zassi-o ‘magazine’ isscrambled to the sentence-initial position. If we elide the argument CP of (5b), thesentence becomes totally ungrammatical, as in (5c).
(5) Interaction of scrambling and argument ellipsis
Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
ti katta
to] ittaa. Hon-oi
book-ACC Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM
bought that said‘(lit.) A booki, Taroo said [that Hanako bought ti]’b. Zassi-oj
Ziroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
tj katta
to] ittamagazine-ACC Ziroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM
bought that said‘(lit.) A magazinej, Ziroo said [that Hanako bought tj]’c. * Zassi-o
Ziroo-wa ¨ itta
saidmagazine-ACC Ziroo-TOP‘(lit.) A magazinej, Ziroo said ¨ (= that Hanako bought tj)’
Note that the scrambling of the object should not be problematic since (5b) isgrammatical. Note further that CP arguments are subject to argument ellipsis, as wehave seen in (4). Thus, the ungrammaticality of (5c) suggests that there is a certain
constraint on argument ellipsis.
Following Oku’s (1998) idea that argument ellipsis involves a covert instance ofMerge, Shinohara (2006a, b) argues that the constraint follows from the derivational
74

-74-

PBC, as I review later. In this chapter, however, I argue that the constraint can be
explained without appealing to the derivational PBC. I show that it follows from an
independently required licensing mechanism of arguments. Meanwhile, I show that theessential aspect of Shinohara’s (2006a, b) analysis is still maintained, even if thederivational PBC is abandoned.
In order to achieve the goals of this chapter mentioned above, I first argue in Section
3.2 that argument ellipsis is indeed required to explain the null argument phenomena inlanguages like Japanese. Reviewing Shinohara’s (2006a, b) analysis in detail, Section
3.3 then offers an alternative explanation of the constraint on argument ellipsis. Section
3.4 summarizes this chapter.
3.2. Arguments for Argument Ellipsis
In this section, I introduce several arguments for the argument ellipsis analysis of
the null argument phenomena in Japanese. In Section 3.2.1, I briefly review theprevious analyses of the basic data. Then, Section 3.2.2 argues that the argument ellipsis
analysis is empirically superior to the others.
3.2.1. Previous Analyses of the Basic Data
This subsection reviews some of the previous analyses by illustrating how theyaccount for the basic data exemplified by (2), repeated as (6).
(6) Sloppy reading with null argumentsa. Taroo-wa [zibun-no hahaoya]-o sonkeisiteiru
Taroo-TOP self-GEN mother-ACC respect‘Taroo respects his mother’b. Hanako-mo ' sonkeisiteiru
Hanako-also
respect‘(lit.) Hanako also respects '’(i) ¨ = Taroo’s mother(ii) ¨ = Hanako’s mother’c. Hanako-mo kanozyo-o sonkeisiteiru
respect
Hanako-also her-ACC‘Hanako also respects her’(i) her = Taroo’s mother(ii) *her = Hanako’s mother
What is important for our purpose is that (6b), whose object is null, allows the sloppy
reading.
75-75-

Let us start with Otani & Whitman’s (1991) analysis, which we call the VP-ellipsis
analysis. They try to relate the observation that sentences with null objects in Japaneseallows the sloppy reading to the fact that English VP-ellipsis exhibits a similar pattern
as shown in (7).
(7) Sloppy reading in English VP-ellipsis
a. John respects his mother, and Mary does ', too
b. John respects his mother, and Mary respects her, too
In (7a) VP-ellipsis applies to the VP of the second clause, while (7b) contains a full VP
with an overt pronoun. Only (7a) allows the sloppy reading where the object contained
within the elided VP refers to Mary’s mother.
Otani & Whitman (1991), following Huang’s (1987) analysis of similar examples in
Chinese, claim that VP-ellipsis is indeed involved in null object cases like (6b). They
argue that verbs in the languages in question evacuate VP via V-raising, so that
VP-ellipsis targets a VP that contains nothing but an object. That is, a sentence with null
objects like (6b) is analyzed to have a schematic structure like (8a) below.5 On the other
hand, VP-ellipsis in English targets a VP that contains both a verb and an object, since V
does not move to T overtly in this language (see Emonds 1978, Pollock 1989, andChomsky 1993, among others). Then, a sentence like (7a) has a structure like (8b).
(8) Schematic structures of (6b) and (7a) under the VP-ellipsis analysis
a. Japanese: VP-ellipsis with V-raising
Vi+T][TP … Subj …
b. English: VP-ellipsis without V-raising[TP … Subj … T]
Since both of (8a) and (8b) involve ellipsis, the availability of the sloppy readings canbe easily captured.
The argument ellipsis analysis briefly introduced in Section 3.1 is similar to the
VP-ellipsis analysis in that it invokes ellipsis. However, under this analysis what iselided is not VP but an argument of the predicate. Thus, (6b) is analyzed as having aschematic structure like (9) under the argument ellipsis analysis, where the object isdirectly elided (cf. (3)).6
76

-76-

(9) Schematic structure of (6b) under the argument ellipsis analysis[TP … Subj … [VP …

… V] T]

Since ellipsis is involved, the availability of the sloppy reading follows.7
Let us turn to the null indefinite analysis proposed by Hoji (1998). Under thisanalysis, Japanese is claimed to have a phonologically null indefinite noun (see also
Ishii 1991 for such null indefinites in Japanese). Thus, (6b) is analyzed to have astructure like (10) (ecindef stands for the null indefinite).8(10) Schematic structure of (6b) under the null indefinite analysis[TP … Subj … [VP … ecindef … V] T]
Notice that unlike the other analyses discussed above, ellipsis is not involved in thisanalysis. Why then is the sloppy reading available for (6b)?
Hoji (1998) explicitly denies that sentences like (6b) have the sloppy reading.
According to this analysis, the reading where Hanako respects her own mother, which
we are calling the sloppy reading, appear to be available for (6b) because it iscompatible with the situation described by a sentence like (11). In (11), the overt
indefinite noun hahaoya-o ‘mother’ appears in the object position.
(11) Sentence with an indefinite noun
Hanako-mo hahaoya-o sonkeisiteiru
Hanako-also mother-ACC respect‘Hanako also respects a mother’(11) is true in a situation where Hanako respects a mother, including her own mother.
Thus, it follows that the relevant reading is available for (6b).
So far, all the previous analyses can account for the basic data in some way or
another. In the next subsection, I discuss several arguments for the argument ellipsis
analysis.
3.2.2. Arguments for the Argument Ellipsis Analysis
Let us start with Saito’s (2007) argument against the null indefinite analysis. Hisargument is based on examples like (12) below. (12a) sets up the context for both (12b)and (12c). Both (12b) and (12c) contain negation, but (12b) has a null object whereas(12c) has the overt indefinite noun booru-o ‘ball’ as its object.
77

-77-

(12) Sentences with null objects and indefinite nouns
a. Sensei-wa subete-no itinenseii-ni[zibuni-no booru]-o keraseta
first.graders-DAT self-GEN ball-ACC made.kickteacher-TOP all-GEN‘The teacher let all the first-graders kick their own balls’
b. Demo, ninensei-ni-wa' kerase-nakat-ta
make.kick-NEG-PAST
butsecond.graders-DAT-TOP‘(lit.) But, she/he didn’t let the second-graders kick '’c. Demo, ninensei-ni-wa
booru-o kerase-nakat-ta
but

second.graders-DAT-TOP ball-ACC make.kick-NEG-PAST‘But, she/he didn’t let the second-graders kick balls’
If the null object in (12b) is the null counterpart of the overt indefinite noun in (12c), it
should be possible for these two sentences to have the same interpretation. However,this is not the case: Suppose that there are two second-graders, John and Bill. Although(12b) is true in the situation where John kicked Bill’s ball and Bill kicked John’s ball,(12c) is false in this situation. This fact leads Saito (2007) to conclude that the nullindefinite analysis cannot deal with these cases.
On the other hand, the VP-ellipsis analysis and the argument ellipsis analysis
straightforwardly accommodate the relevant data, assigning the following structures to(12b), respectively:(13) Structures of (12b) under the VP-ellipsis and the argument ellipsis analysis
a. … [TP ninensei-ni-wa
kerasei-nakat-ta]
b. … [TP ninensei-ni-wa [VPkerase] -nakat-ta]

In (13a), the verb kerase ‘make kick’ undergoes V-raising, and the VP that contains theobject is elided via VP-ellipsis. In (13b), on the other hand, the object itself is elided via
argument ellipsis. Hence, either analysis captures the availability of the intended
reading naturally. Thus, Saito’s (2007) observation argues for the analyses that employ
ellipsis.
Let us now turn to some pieces of empirical evidence that favors the argument
ellipsis analysis over the VP-ellipsis analysis. The first one has to do with part-wholeconstructions in Korean, discussed by Kim (1999). The relevant example is given in(14a) (based on Kim 1999:258).9
78

-78-

(14) Part-whole constructions in Koreana. Mike-nun James-lul tali-lul ketecha-ss-ta
Mike-TOP James-ACC leg-ACC kicked-PAST-IND‘Mike kicked James on the leg’b. [TP Subj [VP whole-NP part-NP V] T]
As schematically shown in (14b), a whole-NP precedes a part-NP in this construction.
Let us then consider the examples in (15) below (based on Kim 1999:259). (15a) has
the anaphor caki ‘self’ within the whole-NP, and it sets up the context for (15b).
(15) Part-whole constructions in the ellipsis context
a. Jerry-nun [caki-uy ai]-lul
phal-ul ttayli-ess-ta
Jerry-TOP self-GEN child-ACC arm-ACC hit-PAST-IND‘Jerry hit his child on the arm’b. Kulena Sally-nun
but
Sally-TOP' tali-lul ttayli-ess-ta
leg-ACC hit-PAST-IND‘(lit.) But Sally hit ' (= Jerry’s child/Sally’s child) on the leg’(15b) allows the reading in which the missing whole-NP refers to Sally’s own child.
That is, the sloppy reading is possible for sentences with missing whole-NPs.
Given the structure in (14b) for the relevant construction, (15b) would be analyzed
as having a structure like (16) under the VP-ellipsis analysis.
(16) Structure of (15b) under the VP-ellipsis analysis… [TP Sally-nun [part-NP tali]-luli

ttaylij-ess-ta]

Under the VP-ellipsis analysis, V-raising is required anyway. Thus, the verb ttayli ‘hit’
has evacuated the VP in (16). In this structure, the whole-NP, namely caki-uy ai-lul‘self’s child’, stays within the VP, whereas the part-NP, namely tali-lul ‘leg’, has moved
out of the VP, crossing the whole-NP. If the VP is elided, the surface string of (15b)results.
The ungrammaticality of (17) below suggests that a part-NP cannot be moved acrossa whole-NP, however (based on Kim 1999:259).
79

-79-

(17) Movement of a part-NP across a whole-NP*Kulena Sally-nun tali-luli [caki-uyai]-lulbut
Sally-TOP leg-ACC self-GEN child-ACC‘But Sally hit her child on the leg’tittayli-ess-ta
hit-PAST-IND

Hence, the VP-ellipsis analysis fails to capture the availability of the sloppy reading insentences such as (15b).
On the other hand, (15b) has the structure depicted in (18) under the argument
ellipsis analysis.
(18) Structure of (15b) under the VP-ellipsis analysis… [TP Sally-nun [VP[part-NP tali]-lul ttayli] ess-ta]
Since argument ellipsis directly targets the whole-NP, which is an argument of the verb,
the part-NP does not have to move across it. Therefore, the availability of the sloppy
reading is readily captured.10
The second piece of evidence for the argument ellipsis analysis has to do with theexamples given in (19), discussed by Oku (1998) and Saito (2007).
(19) Adjunct ellipsis not possible
a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no sippai]-de kaisya-okubininatta
Taroo-TOP self-GEN mistake-for company-ACC was.fired‘Taroo was fired from the company because of his mistakes’' zimusyo-o kubininatta
office-ACC was.fired‘(intended) Hanako was fired from the office because of her mistakes’

b. * Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP

In (19a), the anaphor is contained in the adjunct. The fact that (19b) lacks the intendedsloppy reading suggests that adjuncts cannot be null.
The fact that arguments can be null as in (6) but adjuncts cannot be null as in (19)suggests that it is necessary for the required ellipsis process to be sensitive to theargument/adjunct distinction. Although argument ellipsis meets this requirement bydefinition, VP-ellipsis is blind to such a distinction since it targets the VP withoutlooking into it. Therefore, it would assign a structure like (20) to (19b).

80

-80-

(20) Structure of (19b)[TP Hanako-wa zimusyo-oi

kubininatj-ta]

Since the adjunct is contained within the elided VP, it is not clear why the intended
reading is not available for (19b).
In fact, Oku (1998:172-173) notes that English VP-ellipsis allows adjuncts to be
included into the ellipsis site, based on the following example:(21) Adjuncts in English VP-ellipsis
a. Bill washed the car carefully, but John didn’t ¨
b. … [TP John didn’t]
According to Oku (1998:173), “the most prominent reading of [(21a)] is that John didn’t
wash the care carefully, implying that John did wash the car but not in a carefulmanner”. This fact indicates that (21a) has a structure like (21b), where the adjunct isincluded in the elided VP.
One might claim that the lack of the intended reading for (19b) has to do with thefact that the object zimusyo-o ‘office’ has been moved out of the elided VP in (20). We
can show that it is not the case by comparing examples in (22) and (23) below, however.
In the examples in (22a-b), which are repeated from (19a-b) with slight modifications,the objects undergo scrambling across the subjects in both conjuncts. Thus, theVP-ellipsis analysis would assign a structure like (22c) to (22b), where the adjunct isincluded in the ellipsis site. On the other hand, the sentences in (23a-b) contain aditransitive verb, and the direct objects undergo scrambling to the sentence-initial
positions in both conjuncts. Thus, (23b) can be analyzed as having a structure like (23c).
(22) Adjuncts in the ellipsis context
Taroo-wa [zibun-no sippai]-detia. Kaisya-oi
company-ACC Taroo-TOP self-GEN mistake-forkubininatta
was.fired‘Taroo was fired from the company because of his mistakes’
b. * Zimusyo-oi Hanako-wa ¨ kubininatta
office-ACC

Hanako-TOP
was.fired‘(intended) Hanako was fired from the office because of her mistakes’c. [TP zimusyo-oi Hanako-wa
kubininatj-ta]
81

-81-

(23) Indirect objects in the ellipsis context
a. Ringo-oi

Taroo-wa[zibun-no kodomo]-ni ti ageta

apple-ACC Taroo-TOP self-GEN child-DAT‘Taroo gave his child an apple’
Hanako-wa ¨ ageta
b. Mikan-oi
gaveorange-ACC Hanako-TOP‘(intended) Hanako gave her child an orange’c. [TP mikan-oi Hanako-wa

gave

agej-ta]

Just like in the case of (19), the intended sloppy reading for the missing adjunct, which
would be allowed if the structure in (22c) is possible, is not available for (22b). On theother hand, the intended sloppy reading for the missing indirect object is available for(23b). This contrast suggests that the movement of the object out of the elided VP
should not matter. What plays a role here is the argument/adjunct distinction.
Recall at this point that in the case of the part-whole constructions in Korean,ellipsis is possible, despite the restricted word order. In the case of adjunct ellipsis,
ellipsis is not possible, despite the free word order between an object and an adjunct (cf.
(22a). Therefore, the VP-ellipsis analysis undergenerates in the former case and it
overgenerates in the latter case.
To sum up, I first reviewed three types of approaches to the fact that null arguments
in Japanese allow the sloppy reading. Then, I discussed some facts which indicate thatthe argument ellipsis analysis is empirically superior to the VP-ellipsis analysis and thenull indefinite analysis.11
3.3. PBC Effect on Argument Ellipsis
3.3.1. PBC Effect on Argument Ellipsis with the Derivational PBC
Having established that argument ellipsis is indeed necessary to explain the nullargument phenomena in Japanese, let us return to the constraint on argument ellipsis
discussed by Shinohara (2006a, b) and Saito (2007). The relevant paradigm in (5) is
repeated as (24) below.
(24) Interaction between scrambling and argument ellipsis
a. Hon-oi
Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
ti katta
to] itta
book-ACC Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM
bought that said‘(lit.) A booki, Taroo said [that Hanako bought ti]’
82

-82-

b. Zassi-oj

Ziroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
tj katta
to] itta
Hanako-NOM
bought that saidmagazine-ACC Ziroo-TOP‘(lit.) A magazinej, Ziroo said [that Hanako bought tj]’
Ziroo-wa ¨ itta
c. * Zassi-omagazine-ACC Ziroo-TOP
said‘(lit.) A magazinej, Ziroo said ¨ (= that Hanako bought tj)’(24a) is the antecedent, followed by (24b) and (24c). In (24b), the clausal argument
remains as it is, while it is elided in (24c). Given that long-distance scrambling ofzassi-o ‘magazine’ and argument ellipsis of clausal arguments are independently
attested (see (4) for the latter point), the puzzle is why (24c) results in ungrammaticality.
Moreover, the same pattern is observed even if the scrambled phrases are identical.
To see this, observe first that argument ellipsis of clausal arguments is possible even if
the matrix verbs are different, as in (25).12(25) Argument ellipsis of clausal arguments with different matrix verbs
a. Taroo-wa [CP zibun-ga sakini sono teiri-osyoomeisita to]self-NOM first that theorem-ACC provedthat
Taroo-TOP
syutyoosita
claimed‘Taroo claimed that he (= Taroo) proved the theorem first’b. Ziroo-wa ¨ hanronsita
counter-argue
Ziroo-TOP‘(lit.) Ziroo counter-argued ¨ (= that Ziroo proved the theorem first)’(25a), which serves as an antecedent, contains the verb syutyoosu ‘claim’ as the matrix
verb, while (25b) contains the verb hanronsu ‘counter-argue’ as the matrix verb. The
fact that (25b) have the sloppy reading suggests that the complement CP undergoes
argument ellipsis.
Let us now consider the examples in (26) below. In all the examples in (26), thesame phrase, namely sono hon-o ‘that book’ undergoes long-distance scrambling.

83

-83-

(26) Interaction between scrambling and argument ellipsis
a. Sono teiri-oithat

Taroo-wa [CP zibun-ga

theorem-ACC Taroo-TOPsyutyoosita

sakini ti syoomeisita to]self-NOM firstprovedthatclaimed‘(lit.) That theoremi, Taroo claimed [that he proved ti first]’
b. Sono teiri-oj
Ziroo-wa [CP zibun-ga sakini tj syoomeisita to]that theorem-ACC Ziroo-TOP
self-NOM firstprovedthathanronsita
counter-argued‘(lit.) That theoremj, Ziroo counter-argued [that he proved tj first]’
c. * Sono teiri-o
Ziroo-wa ¨ hanronsita
counter-argued
that theorem-ACC Ziroo-TOP‘(lit.) That theoremj, Ziroo counter-argued ¨ (= that Ziroo proved tj first)’
Just like (24), (26b) is without any problem, whereas (26c) is hopeless. Note that thedifference between syutyoosu ‘claim’ in (26a) and hanronsu ‘counter-argue’ in (26c) has
nothing to do with the ungrammaticality of (26c), given the observation in (25).
Based on the pattern found in (24) and (26), Shinohara (2006a, b) posits thefollowing generalization:(27) Generalization on the interaction of ellipsis and subextraction
Constituents that contain only a subpart of a chain cannot be elided.
This generalization, however, does not hold for other ellipsis constructions such as
sluicing and VP-ellipsis, as Shinohara (2006a, b) points out. Let us consider theexamples in (28).
(28) Sluicing and VP-ellipsis in English
a. John met someone, but I don’t know [CP whoib. What VP-ellipsis can do, and [CP whati it can’t]] (cf. Johnson 2001)(28a) is an example of sluicing, where the TP is elided in the second conjunct. (28b)exemplifies VP-ellipsis, where the VP in the second conjunct is elided. The
grammaticality of these examples suggests that the constituents that contain only asubpart of a chain can be elided, contrary to what the generalization (27) states. Then,
84

-84-

Shinohara (2006) tries to answer why (27) holds for argument ellipsis but not forsluicing and VP-ellipsis.
Shinohara (2006a, b) argues that the derivational PBC gives an elegant explanationof this peculiar behavior of argument ellipsis. She further suggests that her analysis
sheds new light on the debate regarding the mechanism of ellipsis, namely whether
ellipsis involves LF-copying (Williams 1977, Fiengo & May 1994, and Chung,
Ladusaw & McCloskey 1995, among others) or PF-deletion (Sag 1976, Merchant 2001,
Fox & Lasnik 2003, among others).
First, Shinohara (2006a, b) claims that argument ellipsis involves LF-copying, whilesluicing and VP-ellipsis are derived by PF-deletion. Specifically, following Oku (1998),
she argues that at LF the missing argument in argument ellipsis is copied from theantecedent clause, and the copy is Merged into the missing argument position. For easeof exposition, let us take the examples in (29) as a concrete case.
(29) Sentence with a null object
Taroo-ga hon-okattasi, Hanako-mo ¨ katta
Taroo-NOM book-ACC bought and Hanako-alsobought‘(lit.) Taroo bought a book, and Hanako also bought ¨ (= a book)’
Under the LF-copying analysis of argument ellipsis, (29) is derived in the manner
depicted in (30).
(30) Derivation of (29) under the LF-copying analysis
a. Overt syntax: Taroo-ga hon-o katta si, Hanako-mo ___ katta
b. LF:
Taroo-ga hon-o katta si, Hanako-mo <hon-o> katta
Copy<hon-o>Merge
The object position of the second conjunct is empty in overt syntax, as in (30a). Then, at
LF, the missing argument, namely hon-o ‘book’, is copied from the first conjunct, and is
Merged into the object position of the second conjunct, as illustrated in (30b).13 Notethat the copied element, surrounded by angled brackets, does not have any phonetic
realization, since the relevant operation takes place at LF. Thus, (30b) involves a covert
instance of Merge.
Given that argument ellipsis involves covert Merge, the derivational PBC provides a
straightforward answer to the question of why the generalization (27) holds forargument ellipsis. Let us consider the examples in (26a) and (26c), repeated as (31a) and
85

-85-

(31b), respectively.
(31) Interaction between scrambling and argument ellipsis
a. Sono teiri-oithat

Taroo-wa [CP zibun-ga

theorem-ACC Taroo-TOPsyutyoosita

sakini ti syoomeisita to]self-NOM firstprovedthatclaimed‘(lit.) That theoremi, Taroo claimed [that he proved ti first]’
Ziroo-wa ¨ hanronsita
b. * Sono teiri-othat

theorem-ACC Ziroo-TOP
counter-argued‘(lit.) That theoremj, Ziroo counter-argued ¨ (= that Ziroo proved tj first)’

At the surface structure, (31b) contains a gap in the object position.
Now, suppose that (31b) is interpreted by LF-copying. Then, the CP argument in theantecedent clause, namely (31a) is copied and Merged into that position at LF, as
illustrated in (32) below.
(32) LF-copying of the clausal argument
sono teiri-oi Taroo-wa [CP zibun-ga sakini ti syoomeisita to] syutyoosita (= (31a))
Copy & Merge
sono teiri-o Ziroo-wa <[CP zibun-ga sakini ti syoomeisita to]> hanronsita (= (31b))
This operation violates the derivational PBC, given in (33).
(33) Derivational PBC (Saito 2003:507-508)
a. Į is subject to Merge only if Į is a complete constituent.
b. Į is a complete constituent =df (i) Į is a term, and (ii) if a position within Į is amember of a chain Ȗ, then every position of Ȗ is contained within Į.
That is, in (32), the CP argument contains the trace of the scrambled element sono hon-o‘that book’, namely ti, but excludes the head of the chain. Thus, it does not count as acomplete constituent. As a result, it fails to be subject to Merge, rendering the derivationin (32) impossible.
Recall now that Shinohara (2006a, b) claims that sluicing and VP-ellipsis involve
PF-deletion. Let us take the sluicing example in (34) as a concrete case.
86

-86-

(34) Sluicing in English
John met someone, but I don’t know who ¨
Under the PF-deletion analysis, (34) has the derivation depicted in (35) (strikethroughindicates that they are deleted at PF).
(35) Derivation of (34) under the PF-deletion analysis
a. Overt syntax: John met someone, but I don’t know [CP whoi [TP John met ti]]b. PF:

John met someone, but I don’t know [CP whoi [TP John met ti]]In (35a), the wh-phrase who moves to Spec, CP in narrow syntax, and then, the TP isdeleted at PF, as in (35b). What is crucial for our purpose is that the ellipsis site, the TP
here, is not Merged at LF unlike the argument ellipsis cases. This is the reason why thederivational PBC does not prevent an ellipsis site of sluicing or of VP-ellipsis fromcontaining a subpart of a chain. In this way, Shinohara (2006a, b) answers the question
why the generalization (27) does not hold for sluicing and VP-ellipsis: The difference
between argument ellipsis on the one hand and sluicing and VP-ellipsis on the otherstems from the difference in the operations involved, namely LF-copying for the former
and PF-deletion for the latter.
3.3.2. PBC Effect on Argument Ellipsis without the Derivational PBC
In this subsection, I argue that the PBC effect with argument ellipsis can be
explained without the derivational PBC, by a close examination of the nature of the
trace contained within the covertly Merged phrase. Moreover, I show that the analysis
can maintain the essential point of Shinohara’s (2006a, b) analysis.
Under the analysis reviewed in Section 3.3.1 above, the schematic derivation in (36),where XP and YP correspond to the scrambled phrases, violates the derivational PBC.
(36) Schematic derivation of examples with the PBC effecta. Overt syntax: [Clause1 … XPi … [CP … ti …] …], [Clause2 … YP … [CP ___ ] …]
b. LF:[Clause 1 … XPi … [CP … ti …] …], [Clause2 … YP … <[CP … ti …]> …]
Copy & Merge

Specifically, the step in (36b), where the CP argument is covertly Merged, violates the
87

-87-

derivational PBC. This step, however, should be legitimate if the derivational PBC iseliminated from the grammar as we have been claiming. Furthermore, linearization
seems to be irrelevant because the relevant operation is covert so that it does not affectlinear orderings at PF. Then, what is the source of illicitness of the derivation in (36)? I
propose that the LF representation of (36b) is ruled out because there is no place for the
YP to be integrated into the interpretation of the sentence.
Let us consider the nature of the trace contained in the covertly Merged CP moreclosely. Recall that the trace in question is that of scrambling. As reviewed in Section
2.2 of Chapter 2, scrambling exhibits the radical reconstruction property (Saito 1989).
The relevant examples are given in (37) and (38) below.
(37) Structural condition on wh-phrases and the Q-morphemesono hon-okattaka] siritagatteiru (koto)a. Taroo-ga [CP dare-ga
who-NOM that book-ACC bought Q want.to.know fact
Taroo-NOM‘Taroo wants to know [who bought that book]’b. * Dare-ga [CP Taroo-ga sono hon-okattaka] siritagattei-ru (koto)
who-NOM
Taroo-NOM that book-ACC bought Q want.to.know fact‘(lit.) Who wants to know [Taroo bought that book]’
First, the contrast between (37a) and (37b) indicates that a wh-phrase like dare-ga ‘who’must be contained within the CP where it takes scope so that it is c-commanded by the
Q-morpheme ka. Then, (38) is the crucial paradigm.
(38) Long-distance scrambling of a wh-phrase out of an interrogative clausedono hon-okatta ka] siritagattei-ru (koto)a. Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga
Taroo-NOM Hanako-NOM which book-ACC bought Q want.to.know fact
‘Taroo wants to know [which book Hanako bought]’
b. Dono hon-oi
Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti katta ka] siritagattei-ru (koto)
which book-ACC Taroo-NOM

Hanako-NOM bought Q want.to.know fact‘(lit.) Which booki, Taroo wants to know [Hanako bought ti]’
The point is that (38b), in which the wh-phrase dono hon-o ‘which book’ undergoes
scrambling out of an interrogative CP where it takes scope, is grammatical on a par with(38a). Saito (1989) argues the grammaticality of (38b) follows if the scrambled
wh-phrase can be reconstructed into its original position at LF so that it is c-commandedby the Q-morpheme.
88

-88-

Under the derivational theorizing in the minimalism, Saito (2003, 2005) updates theanalysis of radical reconstruction in terms of chain interpretation based on Chomsky’s(1993) copy and deletion analysis of movement.14 Under Saito’s implementation of
copy and deletion analysis of movement, deletion of features applies in a cyclic fashion
as movement takes place. To see how the system works, let us take a sentence like (39),which involves wh-movement, as a concrete example.
(39) Simple wh-movement in English
Whoi did John see ti?
Assuming that a wh-phrase is a bundle of features, at least including phonetic features ʌ,a wh-operator feature Op, and an argument feature arg, that is responsible for theargumenthood of the phrase, this sentence is analyzed as being derived in a manner
depicted in (40), where the relevant copies are indicated by bold underline.15(40) Derivation of (39)
a. Movement of who via copy of features[CP whoi [TP John see whoi]{ʌ, Op, arg}{ʌ, Op, arg}b. Deletion of features[CP whoi [TP John see whoi]{ʌ, Op, arg}{ʌ, Op, arg}c. Result of (40b)[CP whoi [TP John see whoi]{ʌ, Op}{arg}

When the wh-phase is attracted to Spec, CP, all the features of the wh-phrase are copied,
as in (40a), since movement is nothing but copying of features under the copy theory of
movement. Then, deletion applies to the copies of features so as to retain each of themat only one position, as in (40b) (deleted features are indicated by double-strikethrough).
First, Saito assumes that the ʌ-features are retained at Spec, CP since the movement inquestion is an overt movement. Then, he claims that a copy of a feature is retained in
the position where the feature enters a selectional relation to a head in a broad sense. In
the case of the arg-feature of (40), the higher copy is deleted, retaining the lower copy at
the tail position of the chain, because the arg-feature is selected by a verb. On the other
89

-89-

hand, deletion targets the lower copy of the Op-feature, retaining the higher one at thehead position of the chain. This is because the wh-phrase is attracted by theinterrogative C head, and this attraction relation counts as a selectional relation between
the C head and the wh-phrase in the relevant sense. As a result, we obtain the
representation in (40c), in which the Op-feature in Spec, CP acts as an operator and thearg-feature in the object position is interpreted as a variable for the wh-operator.
Applying this mechanism to scrambling, Saito argues that the radical reconstruction
property of scrambling naturally follows. For instance, (38b), repeated as (41), is
derived in a manner depicted in (42):(41) Long-distance scrambling of a wh-phrase out of an interrogative clause
Dono hon-oi
Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti kattaka] siritagattei-ru (koto)
Hanako-NOM bought Q want.to.know factwhich book-ACC Taroo-NOM‘(lit.) Which booki, Taroo wants to know [Hanako bought ti]’(42) Derivation of (41)a. Scrambling of dono hon-o to the embedded CP-edge via copy of features[CP dono hon-oi [TP Hanako-ga dono hon-oi katta] ka]{ʌ, Op, arg}{ʌ, Op, arg}b. Deletion of features[CP dono hon-oi [TP Hanako-ga dono hon-oi katta] ka]{ʌ, Op, arg}{ʌ, Op, arg}c. Result of (42b)[CP dono hon-oi [TP Hanako-ga dono hon-oi katta] ka]{ʌ, Op}{arg}
d. Scrambling of dono hon-o to the matrix clause via copy of features[dono hon-oi Taroo-ga [CP dono hon-oi [TP … dono hon-oi …] ka] siritagatteiru]{ʌ, Op}{ʌ, Op}{arg}e. Deletion of features[dono hon-oi Taroo-ga [CP dono hon-oi [TP … dono hon-oi …] ka] siritagatteiru]{ʌ, Op}{arg}{ʌ, Op}f. Result of (42e)[dono hon-oi Taroo-ga [CP dono hon-oi [TP … dono hon-oi …] ka] siritagatteiru]
{ʌ}
{Op}
{arg}
90

-90-

First, the wh-phrase dono hon-o ‘which book’ is moved to the embedded Spec, CP, as in(42a). Since the wh-phrase takes scope at that position, deletion of features applies tothe chain as in (42b), which is parallel to the step in (40b). As a result, we obtain the
representation in (42c). Then, the derivation proceeds to the step in (42d), where thewh-phrase in the embedded Spec, CP undergoes further scrambling to the matrix
sentence-initial position. Note that the features copied onto that position are only theʌ-features and the Op-feature, since the arg-feature on the copy in the embedded Spec,CP has been deleted by this step. Then, deletion of features applies again, as in (42e).
This time, the higher copy of the Op-feature is deleted, retaining the lower copy because
it is selected at the departure site but not at the landing site. On the other hand, theʌ-features are retained at the head of the chain. Then, the representation in (42f) is
obtained. Since the wh-phrase takes embedded scope through the Op-feature in theembedded Spec, CP, binding a variable in the object position, provided by thearg-feature retained in that position, the representation in (42f) is legitimate with theintended interpretation of (41). Thus, the grammaticality of (41) follows. Note that thisanalysis captures the radical reconstruction property of scrambling without literally“reconstructing” (namely, putting back) the scrambled phrase: Radical reconstruction
stems from the fact that scrambling leaves some features of the scrambled phrase in its
departure and intermediate landing sites.
What is important for our purpose is that under this analysis, a trace of scrambling is
nothing but the features retained by the copy-deletion procedure, which at least includes
an argument feature. Now, let us reconsider the derivation in (36), repeated as (43),under this view of scrambling chains:(43) Schematic derivation of examples with the PBC effecta. Overt syntax: [Clause1 … XPi … [CP … ti …] …], [Clause2 … YP … [CP ___ ] …]
b. LF:[Clause 1 … XPi … [CP … ti …] …], [Clause2 … YP … <[CP … ti …]> …]
Copy & Merge

Minimally, XP and YP consist of their own phonetic features and an argument feature,since both of them are intended to be an argument of the embedded clause. Then, thestructure in (43a) is derived in the following manner:

91

-91-

(44) Derivation of (43a) under the copy and deletion analysis
a. Underlying structure[Clause1 … [CP … XPi …] …], [Clause2 … YP … [CP ___ ] …]
{ʌYP, argYP}{ʌXP, argXP}
b. Scrambling of XP via copy of features[Clause1 … XPi … [CP … XPi …] …], [Clause2 … YP … [CP ___ ] …]
{ʌXP, argXP} {ʌXP, argXP}{ʌYP, argYP}
c. Deletion of features[Clause1 … XPi … [CP … XPi …] …], [Clause2 … YP … [CP ___ ] …]
{ʌYP, argYP}{ʌXP, argXP} {ʌXP, argXP}
d. Result of (44c)[Clause1 … XPi … [CP … XPi …] …], [Clause2 … YP … [CP ___ ] …]
{argXP}{ʌYP, argYP}{ʌXP}
Since the embedded clause in the second clause is empty in overt syntax, YP must bebase-generated in the matrix position, as in (44a). On the other hand, XP is Merged in
its argument position, as in (44a). Omitting successive-cyclic movement within theembedded clause, XP then undergoes long-distance scrambling to the matrix clause, asin (44b). As in (44c), deletion of features applies so as that the ʌ-features of XP are
retained in the moved position whereas the argument feature of XP remains in theargument position. As a result, the representation in (44d) is obtained.16
Then, when LF-copying applies to (44d), we obtain the representation in (45), which
is an articulated version of (43b).
(45) LF-copying of the clausal argument[Clause1 … XPi … [CP … XPi …] …], [Clause2 … YP … <[CP … XP …]> …]{ʌXP}{argXP}{ʌYP, argYP}{argXP}
Copy & Merge
Note that in (45) YP has its own argument feature, argYP, which is distinct from that ofXP, namely, argXP. In order to be interpreted, argYP must be connected to the embeddedverb, contained within the copied CP argument. However, the intended argument
position of the verb has been already occupied by XP, or more precisely argXP, so that
there is no place for YP to be interpreted.
In this sense, the relevant part of (45) is formally identical to that of the example in
92

-92-

(46a), illustrated in (46b) below, omitting the phonetic features.
(46) Sentence with two objects
a. * Zassi-o

Ziroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga

hon-o

katta

to] ittamagazine-ACC Ziroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM book-ACC bought that said‘(lit.) A magazine, Ziroo said that Hanako bought a book’
b. [zassi-oi … [… hon-oj … katta] …]{ʌ, argi}{ʌ, argj}
Intuitively, (46a) is ungrammatical because zassi-o ‘magazine’ and hon-o ‘book’ cannot
be an object of the embedded verb kaw ‘buy’ at the same time. Under the analysis
advocated so far, this intuition is formally expressed as a competition between theargument feature of zassi-o ‘magazine’ and that of hon-o ‘book’: Both of them must be
licensed to receive an appropriate interpretation, but the verb is capable of licensing
only one of them as its object.
Then, the ungrammatical cases of argument ellipsis in (24) and (31), repeated as(47) and (48), can be explained by the same mechanism that rules out (46a), whatever
the relevant principle is (for instance, the T-criterion).
(47) Interaction between scrambling and argument ellipsis
Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
ti katta
to] ittaa. Hon-oi
book-ACC Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM
bought that said‘(lit.) A booki, Taroo said [that Hanako bought ti]’b. * Zassi-o
Ziroo-wa ¨ itta
magazine-ACC Ziroo-TOP
said‘(lit.) A magazinej, Ziroo said ¨ (= that Hanako bought tj)’(48) Interaction between scrambling and argument ellipsis
a. Sono teiri-oi
Taroo-wa [CP zibun-ga sakini ti syoomeisita to]thattheorem-ACC Taroo-TOP
self-NOM firstprovedsyutyoosita
claimed‘(lit.) That theoremi, Taroo claimed [that he proved ti first]’
b. * Sono teiri-o

Ziroo-wa ¨ hanronsita
Ziroo-TOP
counter-argued

that

that theorem-ACC‘(lit.) That theoremj, Ziroo counter-argued ¨ (= that Ziroo proved tj first)’
93

-93-

In particular, (47b) corresponds to (46a) above, and (48b) corresponds to (49a), given in
below.
(49) Sentence with two objects
a. * Sono teiri-o
Ziroo-wa [CP zibun-ga sono teiri-osyoomeisita
self-NOM that theorem-ACC provedthat theorem-ACC Ziroo-TOPto] hanronsita
that counter-argued‘(lit.) That theorem, Ziroo counter-argued that he proved that theorem first’b. [sono teiri-oi … [… sono teiri-oj … katta] …]{ʌ, argj}{ʌ, argi}
Since the two instances of sono teirio ‘that theorem’ in (49a) do not form a single chain
but do form two independent (trivial) chains, their respective argument features are
distinct from each other, on a par with the case of (46). Hence, they compete with eachother, so that the sentence is ruled out by the same mechanism that excludes (46a).17
Crucially, the derivational PBC is unnecessary to account for the ungrammaticalityof (46a) and (49a). Therefore, we can explain why the generalization in (27) holds forargument ellipsis without appealing to the derivational PBC.
Meanwhile, this refinement is consistent with Shinohara’s (2006a, b) conclusion thatargument ellipsis involves LF-copying, that is, covert Merge, while sluicing and
VP-ellipsis are derived by PF-deletion. Her conclusion is based on the fact that thegeneralization in (27) does not hold for sluicing and VP-ellipsis. That is, sluicing and
VP-ellipsis, unlike argument ellipsis, freely allow a constituent which contains a “free”
trace to be elided, as the sluicing example in (50) shows (cf. (34)).
(50) Sluicing in English
John met someone, but I don’t know [CP whoi [TP John met ti]]
If sluicing and VP-ellipsis involve PF-deletion, unlike argument ellipsis, this fact
naturally follows. A wh-phrase and its trace within an ellipsis site can be connected via
movement in narrow syntax, prior to deletion at PF. That is, the relevant part of (50) is
derived in the manner depicted in (51).

94

-94-

(51) Derivation of (50) under the PF-deletion analysis
a. Wh-movement of who via copy of features
John met someone, but I don’t know [CP whoi [TP John met whoi]]{ʌ, Op, arg}{ʌ, Op, arg}b. Deletion of features
John met someone, but I don’t know [CP whoi [TP John met whoi]]{ʌ, Op, arg}{ʌ, Op, arg}c. Result of (51b)John met someone, but I don’t know [CP whoi [TP John met whoi]]{ʌ, Op}{arg}

d. Deletion at PFJohn met someone, but I don’t know [CP whoi [TP John met whoi]]{ʌ, Op}{arg}
The steps from (51a) through (51c) take place in narrow syntax. The wh-phrase who
undergoes movement via copy and deletion of features. As a result, the representation in(51c) results. Then, PF-deletion of TP yields the required surface string without
affecting the semantic aspects of the representation in (51c). Thus, the grammaticality of(50) follows.
On the other hand, suppose that the wh-phrase in (50) is base-generated in Spec, CP,and the content of the empty TP, is supplied by LF-copying, as shown in (52).
(52) Derivation of (50) under the LF-copying analysis
a. Overt syntax: [TP John met someone], but I don’t know [CP who [TP ___ ]]{ʌ, arg}b. LF:{ʌ, Op, arg}

[TP John met someone], but I don’t know [CP who <[TP John met someone]>]{ʌ, arg}{ʌ, Op, arg}

{ʌ, arg}

Copy & Merge
Since someone is an argument of the verb meet in the first clause, it must have its own
argument feature. Then, the copied TP, that replaces empty TP of the second clause,must also contain the argument feature of someone. Hence, the argument feature of thewh-phrase fails to be interpreted, on a par with the argument ellipsis cases. That is, theargument feature of who and that of someone contained in the copied TP compete witheach other. Thus, (50) is incorrectly predicted to be ungrammatical.18
95

-95-

Therefore, only when we assume that argument ellipsis involves LF-copying,namely covert Merge, while sluicing and VP-ellipsis involve PF-deletion, it follows that
only the former disallows a constituent which contains a subpart of a chain to be elided.
In this way, we can maintain Shinohara’s (2006a, b) conclusion without the derivational
PBC.
3.4. Conclusion
In this chapter, I examined the constraint on covert instance of Merge, which has
been taken as empirical evidence for the derivational Proper Binding Condition.
Specifically, it was shown that the constraint can be explained without appealing to thederivational PBC. Therefore, the analysis advocated so far enable us to eliminate thederivational PBC from the grammar, capturing a wider range of empirical facts.
First, I discussed several facts that favor the analysis in terms of argument ellipsis,
which directly elides an argument of a predicate under identity with its appropriate
antecedent. Then, I examined the constraint on argument ellipsis. The core observationis the following: If subextraction such as long-distance scrambling takes place from a
constituent, the constituent in question cannot be elided, even though it is otherwise
elidable. This leads Shinohara (2006a, b) to posit the following generalization.
(53) Generalization on the interaction of ellipsis and subextraction
Constituents that contain only a subpart of a chain cannot be elided.
Even more interestingly, (53) holds for argument ellipsis while it does not for otherellipsis constructions such as sluicing and VP-ellipsis. After reviewing Shinohara(2006a, b) analysis of this difference based on the derivational PBC, I argued that theempirical facts can be explained by an independently necessary licensing mechanism ofarguments, so that the derivational PBC is not necessary. Meanwhile, I illustrated thatthe proposed analysis can maintain the essential point of her analysis, which attributes
the difference between argument ellipsis on the one hand and sluicing and VP-ellipsis
on the other to whether the ellipsis operation in question is LF-copying or PF-deletion.
Specifically, it was shown that the difference follows from the assumption that argument
ellipsis is an instance of LF-copying whereas sluicing and VP-ellipsis involve
PF-deletion.

96

-96-

Notes to Chapter 3
1

Throughout this chapter, I use the symbol ' to indicate a phonologically null element

theory-neutrally.
2

Although Oku (1998) and Kim (1999) originally called the operation in question NP-ellipsis, I

adopt the term argument ellipsis, following Saito 2004, 2007 and Takahashi 2007, 2008a, b. One of
the reasons for this choice is that not only NPs/DPs but also CPs and PPs can be elided as long as they
are arguments of a verb, as we see later in the text.
3

Materials given in outline are intended to indicate that they are elided, without committing towhether the ellipsis process in question is an instance of PF-deletion (Sag 1976, Merchant 2001, Fox& Lasnik 2003, among others) or of LF-copying (Williams 1977, Fiengo & May 1994, and Chung,
Ladusaw & McCloskey 1995, among others).
4

When the strict reading obtains, I assume in line with Saito 2004 that pro appears in the relevant

position. In what follows, I omit the strict reading, which seems to be always available, when it is not
at issue.
5

Although Otani & Whitman (1991) assumes that VP-ellipsis is an instance of LF-copying, I

abstract away from this aspect of their analysis.
6

Unlike the VP-ellipsis analysis, the argument ellipsis analysis does not directly bear on the issueof whether V raises to T. Throughout this chapter, I use the structure where a verb remains in-situ if
V-to-T raising is not an issue in order to avoid unnecessary complications.
7

Although space limitations prohibit me from going into detail, Tomioka (2003) and Moriyama &Whitman (2004) suggest that the null arguments in question result from NP-ellipsis (traditionallycalled N’-ellipsis; see Jackendoff 1971, Lobeck 1990, 1995 and Saito & Murasugi 1990, among manyothers). As Takahashi (2008b) points out, it is not clear how their approaches accommodate the factthat arguments other than DP/NP (such as CP) can be elided.
8

As far as the materials discussed in this chapter are concerned, V-to-T raising is not an issue forthe null indefinite analysis. Hence, I use the structure where V remains in-situ.
9See, for instance, Yoon 1989 and Maling & Kim 1992 for detailed discussions of the part-wholeconstructions in Korean.
10

It is not completely impossible to replicate Kim’s (1999) point using Japanese examples, though

the result is obscured by the double-o constraint (Harada 1973), which, roughly speaking, blocks asingle predicate from having more than one instance of accusative-marked NPs. However, his point
can be replicated by using dative-marked NPs. As shown in (ia), some verbs like kisusu ‘kiss’ canappear in the part-whole construction which involve two dative-marked NPs. Moreover, the part-NP(odeko-ni ‘on the forehead’ in this case) cannot move across the whole-NP, as in (ib).

97

-97-

(i)

a. Taroo-ga[whole-NP Hanako]-ni[part-NP odeko]-ni

Hanako-DAT

Taroo-NOM

kisusita (koto)

forehead-DAT kissed

fact‘Taroo kissed Hanako on the forehead’
b.* Taroo-ga [part-NP odeko]-nii[whole-NP Hanako]-ni

forehead-DAT

Taroo-NOM

ti kisusita (koto)

Hanako-DAT

kissedfact‘(lit.) Taroo kissed, on the foreheadi, Hanako ti’Then, let us consider the sentences in (ii). (iia) contains the anaphor zibun ‘self’ within the whole-NP,
and it serves as an antecedent for (iib).

(ii) a. Taroo-wa[zibun-no kodomo]-ni hoho-ni

Taroo-TOP self-GENchild-DAT

kisusitacheek-DAT kissed‘Taroo kissed his child on the cheek’
b. Hanako-mo ¨ odeko-ni
Hanako-alsokisusita

forehead-DAT kissed‘(intended) Hanako also kissed her child on the forehead’

Importantly, (iib) allows the sloppy reading for the missing whole-NP, on a par with the Korean
examples in (15) in the text. I thank William Snyder (p.c.) for raising this issue, and Hideaki
Yamashita (p.c.) for pointing out the usefulness of the relevant examples.
11

In Takita (to appear a), I provided further evidence for the argument ellipsis analysis, based ona novel set of data concerning so-called -sika NPIs (see, for instance, Muraki 1978, Takahashi 1990,
Aoyagi & Ishii 1994, Kato 1994, Tanaka 1997, and Saito 2005 for detailed discussion of the propertiesof -sika NPIs).
12(i)

Otani & Whitman (1991:351) makes a similar observation, providing examples like (i).

a. Jane-ga

zibun-no kodomo-oJane-NOM self-GEN child-ACC

taiensaseta

node

withdrew.from.kindergarten since‘Since Jane withdrew her child from kindergarten,’b. Mary-wa ¨ nyuuensaseta
Mary-TOP

enrolled.in.kindergarten‘(lit.) Mary enrolled ¨ (= Mary’s child) in kindergarten’

Despite the verbs in (ia) and (ib) differ from each other, the sentence in (ib), which involves the null
object, allows the sloppy reading. See also Xu (1986) for a similar observation in Chinese.

98

-98-

13

Elaborating Shinohara’s (2006a, b) analysis, Saito (2007) points out that if covert Merge takes

place during the overt structure building, as proposed by Boballjik (1995) and Nissenbaum (2000),for instance, the derivation in question does not necessarily invoke counter-cyclicity. To be more
specific, he suggests that a derivation can use LF objects that are constructed in the preceding
discourse, in addition to the elements taken from the Lexicon. Given that legitimate LF objects
cannot have phonological features, Merge of those LF objects always results in a covert instance ofit. Note that under this conception of LF-copying, it is not necessary to assume that Copy is anindependent operation: Just like a lexical item is selected from the Lexicon, a legitimate LF object isselected from the preceding discourse. For ease of exposition, however, I continue to use the notionsof LF (as a component where covert Merge takes place) and of copying.
14

Chomsky’s (1993) copy and deletion analysis, on which Saito (2003, 2005) builds his analysis,

does not seem to be compatible with Chomsky’s (2007, 2008) No-Tampering Condition, which
demands that Merge of X and Y leave the two syntactic objects unchanged. Saito’s (2003, 2005)
analysis is chosen just for the ease of exposition, and nothing hinges upon this choice as long as it isensured that a copy is left behind under movement. I thank Hisatsugu Kitahara (p.c.) and Mamoru
Saito (p.c.) for this issue.
15

For ease of exposition, I omit successive-cyclic movement if it is not at issue. As far as I cantell, this does not affect the argument. Features of irrelevant phrases are also omitted hereafter.
16

Without omitting successive-cyclic movement to the embedded CP, the derivation of Clause 1

in (43a) proceeds as follows:(i)a. Underlying structure[Clause1 … [CP … [VP … XPi …] …] …]{ʌXP, argXP}
b. Scrambling of XP to the embedded CP-edge via copy and deletion of features[Clause1 … [CP XPi … [VP … XPi …] …] …]{ʌXP, argXP} {ʌXP, argXP}
c. Result of (ib)[Clause1 … [CP XPi … [VP … XPi …] …] …]{ʌXP}{argXP}d. Scrambling of XP to the matrix clause via copy and deletion of features[Clause1 XPi … [CP XPi … [VP … XPi …] …] …]
{ʌXP}

{ʌXP}

{argXP}



99

-99-

e. Result of (id)[Clause1 XPi … [CP XPi … [VP … XPi …] …] …]
{ʌXP}

{

}

{argXP}At the step in (ib), XP undergoes scrambling to the embedded CP-edge, and deletion of features
applies so as that the ʌ-features of XP are retained in the moved position whereas the argument
feature of XP remains its argument position. As a result, the representation in (ic) is obtained.
Subsequently, XP undergoes further scrambling to the matrix clause, as in (id). This time, only theʌ-features are copied onto the landing site, and those of the intermediate copy in the embedded
CP-edge are deleted. Since the all the features of the intermediate copy are deleted in the course of
the derivation, it receives no interpretation either at LF or at PF, which is a desired result.
Consequently, the representation in (ie) is obtained, which is essentially identical to the output of thederivation in (44).
17

Hisatsugu Kitahara (p.c.) points out to me that if we assume the principle proposed by

Chomsky (2000:103), which states that “[external] Merge in ș-position is required of (and restrictedto) arguments” (see also Section 4.4.2 of Chapter 4 on this principle), the ungrammaticality of therelevant examples follows, since this principle rules out the structure where the “scrambled”
argument in the second conjunct (more generally, YP in (45)) is Merged in non-ș-position to begin
with. I fully agree with his point, but note at the same time that the logic of the analysis presented in
the text is not affected by this particular interpretation of the ș-criterion.
18

The grammaticality of (50) can be accounted for even under the LF-copying analysis if we

assume that the wh-phrase base-generated in the Spec, CP of the second clause consists of only
phonetic features and a wh-operator feature, lacking an argument feature. This amounts to admitting
the existence of two types of who in the lexicon; who with {ʌ, Op, arg} and who with {ʌ, Op}. This
assumption, then, requires postulating such a counterpart for all the wh-phrases. Hence, theLF-copying analysis seems to be less elegant than the PF-deletion analysis, which does not require
such an assumption.
One possible argument for the existence of who {ʌ, Op} is that English allows resumptive
pronouns in some special contexts like islands. However, they cannot appear in the usual situation,
as in (i).

(i) * Who did you see him?

The ungrammaticality of (i) is hard to capture under the theory that admits two types of wh-phrases.
This is because in such a theory the representation like (ii) should be possible for (i).

100

-100-

(ii) [CP who [TP … him …]]{ʌ, Op}{ʌ, arg}

This representation should be legitimate as long as the wh-chain concerns, because it is formally
identical to (51), omitting the phonetic features. On the other hand, the analysis presented in the text
easily deals with the ungrammaticality of (i), because it assigns a representation like (iii) for (i).

(iii) [CP who [TP … him …]]{ʌ, Op, arg} {ʌ, arg}

In (iii) the arg-feature of who and that of him compete with each other for the argument position of
the verb. Thus, it is excluded by the argument licensing mechanism, as in the case of (49). Therefore,
the LF-copying analysis with two types of wh-phrases is problematic in both conceptual andempirical respects.

101

-101-

Chapter 4
Cyclic Linearization and VP-scrambling in Japanese

4.1. Introduction
This chapter examines the so-called VP-scrambling in Japanese in light of the theoryof Cyclic Linearization developed in Chapter 2. One concrete example of
VP-scrambling in Japanese is given in (1).1(1) VP-scrambling in Japanesea. Taroo-ga[ringo-otabe]-sae si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM apple-ACC eat-even do-PAST fact
‘Taroo [even ate an apple]’ti si-ta(koto)
b. [Ringo-otabe]-saei Taroo-ga
apple-ACC eat-even Taroo-NOM
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Even eat an apple]i, Taroo did ti’(1a) is the baseline example. In (1b), a constituent consisting of the object and the verb,
which is suffixed by the particle -sae ‘even’, appears in the sentence-initial position.2
Since -sae ‘even’ separates the main verb and a tense morpheme (in the case of (1a-b),tabe ‘eat’ and -ta, respectively), the verb su ‘do’ is required to appear right before thetense morpheme, irrespective of whether the VP undergoes scrambling.3 In (1b), thesubject linearly follows the verb. Recall here that under the analysis of the Proper
Binding Condition (PBC) effect in terms of the theory of Cyclic Linearization
advocated in Chapter 2, a derivation induces a PF-crash in Japanese if it gives rise to thesurface linear order in which a predicate precedes its argument. Thus, VP-scrambling inJapanese seems to be a direct counterexample to the proposed analysis.
As is reviewed in the following section, several studies have attributed the source ofsome restrictions on Japanese VP-scrambling to the PBC in some or other way (see,among many others, Hoji, Miyagawa & Tada 1989, Hasegawa 1990, Hoshi 1994, Saito& Hoshi 2000, Hiraiwa 2003, and Saito 2006). In particular, Saito (2006) argues that
VP-scrambling provides evidence for the derivational PBC, which I tried to eliminate
from the grammar in the preceding chapters. Despite this background, I argue in thischapter that the theory of Cyclic Linearization plays a crucial role to explain the
restrictions on Japanese VP-scrambling.
102

-102-

By introducing the basic properties of Japanese VP-scrambling, I first illustrate thatthe verb su ‘do’ appearing in Japanese VP-scrambling is a control verb (see Hasegawa
1990, Ohkado 1991, Hoshi 1994, Saito & Hoshi 2000, and Saito 2006, among others).
Then, I propose an explanation of the properties of VP-scrambling in terms of thetheory of Cyclic Linearization. In a nutshell, it is shown that in all the illicit cases ofJapanese VP-scrambling, the constituent that appears after the scrambled VP at thesurface structure is necessarily Merged within the projection of the main verb. Then, therelative linear order between the constituent in question and the main verb is fixed so asthat the former precedes the latter. As a result, the derivation of the illicit cases of
VP-scrambling always end up with establishing contradicting ordering statements,
inducing a PF-crash. Therefore, the restrictions on Japanese VP-scrambling can be
explained without the PBC, further supporting the approach pursued in the previous
chapters.
This chapter is organized as follows: In Section 4.2, I introduce background on
Japanese VP-scrambling, reviewing some previous analyses. In particular, it is shownthat the raising-control distinction is a crucial factor. Section 4.3 gives an analysis of theobservation in terms of the theory of Cyclic Linearization. In Section 4.4, I discuss
some implications of the proposed analysis and remaining issues raised by it. Section
4.5 summarizes this chapter.
4.2. Background on VP-scrambling
4.2.1. Basic Properties of VP-scrambling and Previous Approaches
In this subsection, I introduce background of Japanese VP-scrambling, reviewing
some virtues and problems of the previous analyses. Let us start with Hoji, Miyagawa,& Tada’s (1989) observations. The paradigm in (2) suggests that VP-scrambling canstrand a subject but not an object of a transitive verb ((2a-b) are repeated from (1)).
(2) VP-scrambling with a transitive verb
a. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM[ringo-otabe]-sae si-ta

apple-ACC eat-even

do-PAST(koto)
fact‘Taroo [even ate an apple]’ti si-ta(koto)
b. [Ringo-otabe]-saei Taroo-ga
apple-ACC eat-even Taroo-NOM
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Even eat an apple]i, Taroo did ti’

103

-103-

c. * [Tabe]-saei Taroo-ga

ringo-oti si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
eat-even Taroo-NOM apple-ACC‘(lit.) [Even eat]i, Taroo did ti an apple’Taroo-gati si-ta(koto)
d. * [Tabe]-saei ringo-oeat-even apple-ACC Taroo-NOM
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Even eat]i, Taroo did ti an apple’e. * [Taroo-gatabe]-saei ringo-oti si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM eat-evenapple-ACC
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Taroo even eat]i, did ti an apple’
As in (5c-e), it is not possible for an object to be stranded in any linear order.
Subjects of ditransitive and unergative verbs can be stranded, as shown in (3) and(4). The examples in (3) involve a ditransitive verb, and those in (4) do an unergativeverb.
(3) VP-scrambling with a ditransitive verb
a. Taroo-ga[Hanako-ni hon-oage]-sae si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-DAT book-ACC give-even do-PAST fact
‘Taroo [even gave a book to Hanako]’b. [Hanako-ni hon-oage]-saei Taroo-ga ti si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
Hanako-DAT book-ACC give-even Taroo-NOM‘(lit.) [Even gave a book to Hanako]i, Taroo did ti’(4) VP-scrambling with an unergative verb
a. Taroo-ga[warai]-sae si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM
laugh-even do-PAST fact
‘Taroo [even laughed]’b. [Warai]-saei Taroo-ga
ti si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
laugh-even Taroo-NOM‘[Even laugh]i, Taroo did ti’
Hoji, Miyagawa, & Tada (1989) point out that unaccusative and passive verbs
exhibit a different pattern, as shown in (5) and (6). The examples in (5) contain an
unaccusative verb, and those in (6) do a passive verb.4

104

-104-

(5) VP-scrambling with an unaccusative verb
a. Fune-ga [sizumi]-sae si-ta(koto)
ship-NOM sink-even do-PAST fact‘(lit.) A ship [even sank]’(koto)
b. * [Sizumi]-saei fune-ga ti si-ta
do-PAST factsink-evenship-NOM‘(lit.) [Even sink]i, a ship did ti’(6) VP-scrambling with a passive verb
a. Ringo-ga
apple-NOM[Taroo-niyotte tabe-rare]-sae
Taroo-bysi-ta

eat-PASS-even do-PAST‘An apple was [even eaten by Taroo]’b. * [Taroo-niyotte tabe-rare]-saei ringo-gatiTaroo-byeat-PASS-even apple-NOM‘(lit.) [Even eaten by Taroo]i, an apple was ti’(koto)
fact

si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact

The ungrammaticality of (5b) and (6b) suggests that it is not possible for subjects of
unaccusative and passive verbs to be stranded.
Based on these kinds of observations, it has been suggested that the following
generalization holds (cf. Hoji, Miyagawa, &Tada 1989).
(7) Generalization on VP-scrambling
Japanese VP-scrambling allows an external argument but not an internal argument
to be stranded.
That is, a subject of (di)transitive and unergative verbs is an external argument, so that itis strandable under VP-scrambling (cf. (2b), (3b) and (4b)); on the other hand, a subjectof unaccusative and passive verbs and an object of transitive verbs are internalarguments, so that they cannot be stranded (cf. (2c-e), (5b) and (6b)). Hoji, Miyagawa,&Tada (1989) offer one account for the generalization in (7), proposing that what moves
in Japanese VP-scrambling is a projection excluding the base-generated position of an
external argument (see also Yatsushiro 1997, 1999). Rephrasing their insight in morecurrent terms, it is the VP in (8) below, but not vP, that undergoes movement in
VP-scrambling. Before VP-scrambling applies, sentences in which an external argument
is intended to be stranded have a structure like (8a), while those in which an internalargument is intended to be stranded have a structure like (8b) (the landing site of the DPin (8b) may differ, depending on whether A-movement or scrambling is involved).
105

-105-

(8) Structures before VP-scrambling applies
a.

TP
DPi

b.
Tƍ

vƍ
VP

DPi
T0

vP
ti

TP
Tƍ
T0

vP

si-ta

…

v0

vƍ
VP

… V-saesi-ta
v0… ti … V-sae

Note that the VP in (8b) but not the one in (8a) contains a trace. Thus, movement of the
VP creates an unbound trace only in (8b), inducing a violation of the classical PBC(Fiengo 1977, Saito 1989).
There is, however, a hitherto unnoticed fact that suggests what is moved in Japanese
VP-scrambling is not a VP but a vP. To see this, let us first consider the examples in (9),cited from Huang (1993:108). (9a) involves topicalization of the object those pictures ofhimself, whereas (9b) involves VP-fronting of criticize himself.
(9) Reconstruction asymmetry between topicalization and VP-fronting in English
a. Those pictures of himselfi/j, Johni thinks Billj will buy t
b. Criticize himself*i/j, Johni thinks Billj will not t
The crucial point here is that the reflexive himself contained within the moved phrase
can be bound by the matrix subject John in (9a) but not in (9b).
Rephrasing Huang’s (1993) insight in more current terms, the asymmetry between
topicalization and VP-fronting can be explained if English VP-fronting moves a vP,
which includes a trace of the embedded subject. When reconstruction takes place to theembedded Spec, CP, (9a) and (9b) have the structures in (10a) and (10b), respectively.
(10) VP-fronting in English as vP-movement
a. Johni thinks [CP [DP those pictures of himselfi/j]k [TP Billj will [vP tj [VP buy tk]]]]b. Johni thinks [CP [vP tj [VP criticize himself*i/j]]k [TP Billj will not tk]]
106

-106-

In (10a), the DP in the embedded Spec, CP does not contain a trace of Bill. On the other
hand, the vP in the embedded Spec, CP contains a trace of Bill, namely tj, in (10b).
Therefore, the Specified Subject Condition (SSC, Chomsky 1973) effect is observed
only in the latter configuration, blocking the binding relation between John and himself.
Bearing this in mind, let us consider the examples in (11) from Japanese. The
ungrammaticality of (11a), which sets the standard for (11b-c), indicates that thereflexive karezisin requires a local masculine antecedent (see Nakamura 1987, 1989,
Katada 1988, 1991, Aikawa 1993). In (11b), the reflexive is contained within theembedded object karezisin-no syasin-o ‘pictures of himself’, which undergoes
long-distance scrambling, and it can be bound by the matrix subject Taroo. On the other
hand, in (11c), which involves VP-scrambling, the reflexive fails to be bound by Taroo,
on a par with (11a).
(11) Reconstruction asymmetry between scrambling and VP-scrambling in Japanese[[karezisin-no syasin]-ohome]-sae
a. * Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM himself-GEN picture-ACC praise-evensi-tato] it-ta(koto)
do-PAST that say-PAST fact‘(lit.) Taroo said that [Hanako [even praised [pictures of himself]]]’Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga[ti home]-saeb. [Karezisin-no syasin]-oi
himself-GEN picture-ACC Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM
praise-evensi-tato] it-ta(koto)
do-PAST that say-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Pictures of himself]i, Taroo said that [Hanako [even praised ti]]’home]-saei Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-gatic. * [[Karezisin-no syasin]-ohimself-GEN picture-ACC praise-even Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM
si-tato] it-ta(koto)
do-PAST that say-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Even praised [pictures of himself]]i, Taroo said that [Hanako did ti]’This asymmetry between long-distance scrambling and VP-scrambling follows if
Japanese VP-scrambling moves a vP, on a par with English VP-fronting. When
reconstruction takes place into the embedded Spec, CP, (11b) and (11c) have thestructures in (12a) and (12b), respectively.
107

-107-

(12) Structures of (11b-c)
a. Taroo-ga [CP [DP karezisin-no syasin]-oi [TP Hanako-gaj [vP tj [VP ti home]]-sae sita] to] itta
b. Taroo-ga [CP [vP tj [VP karezisin-no syasin-o home]]-saei [TP Hanako-gaj ti sita] to] itta

The SSC effect arises only in (12b). Note that if what moves in VP-scrambling is indeed
a VP, (11c) would have a structure like (13).
(13) Structure of (11c) with movement of VP
Taroo-ga [CP [VP karezisin-no syasin-o home]-saei [TP Hanako-gaj [vP tj ti] sita] to] itta

Since the scrambled VP in (13) contains no trace of Hanako, the SSC effect should beabsent, on a par with (12a). Thus, the contrast between (11b) and (11c) provides
evidence for the idea that VP-scrambling moves a vP.
Returning now to the structures in (8), it should be clear that movement of vP
necessary creates unbounded traces in both (8a) and (8b). Recall that the trace containedin the VP of (8a) is unambiguously created by A-movement while the one contained inthe VP of (8b) can result from either A-movement or scrambling, depending on thetypes of the stranded constituent. Thus, it might be possible to accommodate somehow
the cases where a trace of scrambling is involved. It becomes difficult, however, tocapture the difference between (di)transitive and unergative verbs on the one hand andunaccusative and passive verbs on the other with respect to the possibility of subject
stranding, since a trace of A-movement is contained within vP in both cases.
One of the solutions to this discrepancy pursued in the literature is that Japanese
VP-scrambling involves control. In particular, Hasegawa (1990) and Ohkado (1991)
independently suggest that the verb su ‘do’ in Japanese VP-scrambling is a control verb
which selects its own agentive subject. Examples like (14) indicate that su ‘do’ can beused as an independent verb which takes an agentive subject.
(14) Su ‘do’ as a main verb
Taroo-gaanna koto-o
si-ta(to-wa odoroki-da)
Taroo-NOM such thing-ACC do-PAST that-TOP surprise-COP‘(lit.) (It’s surprising that) Taroo did such a thing’
108

-108-

Given this, the sentence in (2b), repeated here as (15a), is analyzed as having a structure
like (15b) before VP-scrambling applies.
(15) VP-scrambling with a transitive verb
a. [Ringo-otabe]-saei Taroo-ga

ti si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
apple-ACC eat-even Taroo-NOM‘(lit.) [Even eat an apple]i, Taroo did ti’b.

TPTaroo-gai

Tƍ
T0

vP1
ti

vƍ1

v0 1

VP1
V01

vP2
vP2
PROi

-ta

-sae

si

vƍ2
VP2

v0 2

ringo-o tabe
Scrambling of vP2 in (15b) gives rise to the surface linear order of (15a). This
scrambling is without any problem since vP2 contains no trace. In order to strand theobject ringo-o ‘apple’ as in (2c-e) above, however, it must be moved out of vP2, leaving
a trace. Then, movement of vP2 results in a violation of the PBC. According to thissolution, a structure like (8b) is the only option for unaccusative and passive verbs, sothat movement of vP results in a violation of the PBC, irrespective of whether
A-movement or scrambling is involved. The control structure is not available forunaccusative and passive verbs, because the control su ‘do’ requires an agentive subject
while unaccusative and passive verbs select non-agentive subjects. Note that this line ofapproach treats a trace left by A-movement and the one left by scrambling in the sameway in that both of them are subject to the PBC.
A similar, but significantly different approach is taken by Hoshi (1994), Saito &Hoshi (2000), and Saito (2006). They share with Hasegawa (1990) and Ohkado (1991)
109

-109-

the idea that su ‘do’ in licit Japanese VP-scrambling is a main verb, selecting anagentive subject and an eventive complement.
Evidence for this idea comes from the behavior of stative verbs, independently
observed by Ohkado (1991), Kubo (1992) and Hoshi (1994). The relevant examples are
given in (16).
(16) VP-scrambling with a stative verb
a. Taroo-ga[eigo-gawakari]-sae
si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM English-NOM understand-even do-PAST fact
‘Taroo [even understood English]’wakari]-saei
Taroo-gab. * [Eigo-ga
English-NOM understand-even Taroo-NOM‘[Even understand English]i, Taroo did ti’ti si-ta
do-PAST(koto)
fact

The ungrammaticality of (16b) indicates that the subject of stative verbs like wakar‘understand’ cannot be stranded, even though it is an external argument. Hoshi (1994)
suggests that this fact follows from the assumption that su ‘do’ in VP-scrambling
requires an eventive control complement, so that it cannot take the stative vP projectedby verbs like wakar ‘understand’ as its complement.5 Hence, the stative verbs patternwith unaccusative and passive verbs.
The approach advocated by Hoshi 1994, Saito & Hoshi 2000 and Saito 2006 differ
from the one advocated by Hasegawa 1990 and Ohkado 1991 in their treatment of su‘do’ in sentences without VP-scrambling, namely, su ‘do’ in (16a), (5a), and (6a) ((5a)
and (6a) are repeated as (17a) and (17b) below).
(17) Su ‘do’ in unaccusative and passive sentences
a. Fune-ga[sizumi]-sae si-ta(koto)
sink-even do-PAST fact
ship-NOM‘(lit.) A ship [even sank]’b. Ringo-ga [Taroo-niyotte tabe-rare]-sae si-ta(koto)
apple-NOM Taroo-by
eat-PASS-even do-PAST fact
‘An apple was [even eaten by Taroo]’Su ‘do’ in these examples should be different from the control one, because the control
one is incompatible with unaccusative and passive verbs.
Saito (2006), following Hoshi (1994) and Saito & Hoshi (2000), argues that su ‘do’
110

-110-

in question is an expletive verb, which must be somehow replaced by a meaningful
element at LF, on a par with the expletive there in the English existential construction(Chomsky 1986a). Based on the similarity between (18a) and (18b), Chomsky (1986a)
suggests that a man in (18a) moves and replaces the expletive there at LF.
(18) Existential construction in English
a. There is a man in the roomb. A mani is ti in the room
According to Chomsky (1986a), this expletive replacement is regulated by the twogeneral principles: Full Interpretation, which requires every element receive
interpretation at the interface levels (namely, PF and LF), and Last Resort, which bans
operations from applying without any motivation.
The basic insight of Saito’s (2006) analysis of sentences with the expletive su ‘do’
can be illustrated as follows.6 For the sake of concreteness, I take (17a), repeated hereas (19a), as a representative example. Assuming that the expletive su ‘do’ projects its
own phrase, (19a) can in principle be analyzed as having structures like (19b) or (19c)
below before the subject moves to Spec, TP. In order to distinguish the expletive su ‘do’from the control one explicitly, the projection of the expletive one is labeled as VexplP.
(19) Structures of sentences with the expletive su ‘do’a. Fune-ga [sizumi]-sae si-ta(koto)
ship-NOM sink-even do-PAST fact‘(lit.) A ship [even sank]’
b.

TP
T0

VexplP
Vexpl0vP
fune-ga sizumi-sae

-ta

si

ș-assignment

111

-111-

c.

TP
T0

VexplP
Vexplƍ

fune-ga-ta
Vexpl0vP
sizumi-saei<sizumi-sae>i
ș-assignment

Vexpl0si

In (19b), the internal argument fune-ga ‘ship’ is base-generated within the projection of
the verb sizum ‘sink’, and receives a ș-role there. On the other hand, fune-ga ‘ship’ isbase-generated outside of the projection of sizum ‘sink’ in (19c). Then, the verb covertly
adjoins to the expletive su ‘do’, and from the adjoined position it assigns a ș-role(elements surrounded by angled brackets do not have any phonological realization).
According to Saito (2006), the expletive su ‘do’ becomes an interpretable LF-object byvirtue of this covert adjunction of the main verb, so that the structure in (19c) counts aslegitimate in terms of Full Interpretation. Furthermore, the adjunction is motivated by
ș-assignment, so that it observes Last Resort. Thus, (19c) is fully legitimate. On theother hand, no adjunction takes place to the expletive su ‘do’ in (19b). Moreover, there
is no reason for the main verb to adjoin, since all ș-roles can be discharged within its
projection. Hence, the expletive su ‘do’ remains uninterpretable. Thus, adjunction of themain verb is barred by Last Resort. Consequently, structures like (19b) always result ina violation of Full Interpretation.
Then, what happens if vP in (19c) undergoes VP-scrambling? Since it is assumed in
Hoshi 1994 that covert movement take place after overt movement, VP-scrambling,which is overt, blocks covert replacement of the expletive su ‘do’ by the verb at LF.
Saito (2006) points out that such an account becomes insufficient, once it is assumed
that covert movement can be interwoven with overt movement, as is advocated by
Bobaljik (1995) and Nissenbaum (2000). Alternatively, he suggests that VP-scramblingof vP in (19c) is blocked by his (2003) derivational PBC, given in (20).
(20) Derivational PBC (Saito 2003:507-508)
a. Į is subject to Merge only if Į is a complete constituent.
b. Į is a complete constituent =df (i) Į is a term, and (ii) if a position within is amember of a chain Ȗ, then every position of Ȗ is contained within Į.
112

-112-

Given the derivational PBC, the vP in (19c) cannot be moved, because it is not acomplete constituent: Due to the covert adjunction of the main verb, the vP contains thetail but not the head of the chain. Therefore, it follows that VP-scrambling is impossible
once the expletive su ‘do’ is involved. Combining this result with the fact that
unaccusative, passive, and stative verbs are not compatible with the control su ‘do’, theillicitness of VP-scrambling stranding the subject of these verbs can be captured.7
Note that under Saito’s (2006) analysis, the source of ungrammaticality in illicit
VP-scrambling is the lower copy of the main verb left by covert adjunction. In thisrespect, it differs from the analyses put forth by Hoji, Miyagawa, & Tada (1989) and
Hasegawa (1990), which attribute the ungrammaticality of illicit VP-scrambling to a
trace left by A-movement. In fact, Saito (2006:268-269) suggests that thegrammaticality of the sentences in (21) follows from the assumption that a trace ofA-movement is somehow insensitive to the derivational PBC.8(21) English VP-fronting with unaccusative and passive sentencesa. They said that the ball might fall into a ditch, and [fall ti into a ditch]j, iti did tj
b. Mary said she would be praised by the clitics, and [praised ti by the critics]j,shei was tj
Unlike Japanese, English VP-fronting is possible with unaccusative and passive
sentences. Assuming that su ‘do’ in Japanese VP-scrambling but not do in do-support inEnglish is an expletive, this difference between English and Japanese supports Saito’s(2006) analysis.
4.2.2. Problems of the Previous Studies
Although Saito’s (2006) analysis has wide empirical coverage, it is not without
problems. First, the derivational PBC, on which his analysis crucially depends, has been
eliminated from the grammar, as extensively discussed in the preceding chapters. In
addition to this theoretical problem, there is an empirical problem.
The crucial example is given in (22a) below, which involves an adjunct like kinoo‘yesterday’. In (22a), the adjunct appears between -sae ‘even’ and su ‘do’.9 Since themain verb is unaccusative, su ‘do’ cannot be the control one. Then, under Saito’s (2006)
analysis, (22a) would be analyzed as having a structure like (22b) as its
pre-VP-scrambling structure.
113

-113-

(22) VP-scrambling with adjuncts
a. Fune-ga [sizumi]-sae kinoo(-wa)
si-ta(koto)
ship-NOM sink-even yesterday-TOP do-PAST fact‘(lit.) A ship [even sank] yesterday’
b.

TP
Tƍ

fune-gai

T0

VexplP
VexplPkinoo-ta
Vexplƍ

ti

Vexpl 0vP
sizumi-saej<sizumi-sae>jVexpl0si

In (22b), fune-ga ‘ship’ is base-generated in Spec, VexplP. Then, the main verb covertly
adjoins to the expletive su ‘do’, discharging its ș-role. In order to derive the surface
order of (22b), the vP must move across kinoo ‘yesterday’. This movement, however,induces a violation of the derivational PBC, on a par with the case where the subject
fune-ga ‘ship’ is intended to be stranded. Hence, (22a) is incorrectly ruled out under
Saito’s (2006) analysis.
Recall that one of the important assumptions of Saito’s (2006) analysis is that theverb su ‘do’ in VP-scrambling is ambiguous between the control one and the expletive
one. Ohkado (1991), however, points out that in addition to the transitive usage, su ‘do’
can be used as an unaccusative verb, as in (23).10(23) Su ‘do’ as an unaccusative verb
a. Ii
nioi-ga(daidokoro-kara) su-ru(koto)
good smell-NOM kitchen-from
do-PRES fact‘(lit.) A good smell does from kitchen (meaning: It smells good from the
kitchen)’

114

-114-

b. Henna oto-ga

kinoo

si-te-i-ta

toomotta-ra,

strange sound-NOM yesterday do-ASP-be-PAST that thought-thenkyoo-mo pro si-te-i-ru(koto)
today-also
do-ASP-be-PRES fact‘(lit.) I heard that a strange sound did yesterday, then it also did today(meaning: I heard a strange sound occurred yesterday, then it also occurs
today)’The subject ii nioi ‘a good smell’ in (23a) cannot be agentive. Thus, su ‘do’ in (23a)must have a different argument structure from the transitive one. It cannot be theexpletive one, either, because nothing in (23a) seems to be able to replace it, assigning a
ș-role to the subject. This point is confirmed by the fact that pro can be a subject of theverb, as in the second clause of (23b).
The problem raised by examples like (22a) can be solved once we admit that theunaccusative su ‘do’ can take a vP as its complement, as in (24a). In (24a), su ‘do’ takes
vP2 as its sole argument, and the subject receives a ș-role from the lower verb. Then thesubject moves to Spec, TP. In other words, (24a) instantiates the raising structure. This
structure is fully legitimate with respect to Full Interpretation, since no expletive
element is involved to begin with. Furthermore, since the trace within vP2 is created via
A-movement, it is insensitive to the derivational PBC by assumption. Then, if vP2
moves to the vP1-adjoined position as in (24b), the surface order of (22a) results.
(24) Possible underlying structure of (22a)a.

TP
fune-gai

b.

TP

Tƍ
T0

vP1
kinoo

fune-gai

vP1

vP2

V01

ti sizumi-sae

su

T0

vP1

-ta

vP2

v0 1

VP1

Tƍ

vP1

ti sizumi-sae kinoo

-ta
vP1
v0 1

VP1
tvP2

V01
su

115

-115-

This suggests that that scrambling of vP2 is in principle possible even with theunaccusative verbs. Note at the same time scrambling of vP2 in (24a) cannot cross the
subject, since it yields a surface string similar to (5b). The question, then, boils down towhat prohibits vP2 from crossing the subject while allowing it from crossing the adjunct.
To sum up this section, I reviewed the previous analyses of Japanese VP-scrambling.
It was revealed that although Saito’s (2006) analysis has wide empirical coverage andtheoretically interesting implications, it also has theoretical and empirical problems,
namely appeal to the derivational PBC and illicit VP-scrambling with the raising
structure. In the next section, I provide an alternative analysis, which is free from these
problems.
4.3. A Solution in Terms of Cyclic Linearization
Let us recapitulate what we need to capture. The representative examples are givenin (25).
(25) The paradigm
a. [Ringo-o tabe]-saei Taroo-ga (kinoo-wa)
ti si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
apple-ACC eat-even Taroo-NOM yesterday-TOP‘(lit.) [Even eat an apple]i, Taroo did ti (yesterday)’ti si-ta(koto)
b. * [Sizumi]-saei fune-ga
do-PAST factsink-evenship-NOM‘(lit.) [Even sink]i, a ship did ti’ti si-ta(koto)
c. Fune-ga [sizumi]-saei kinoo(-wa)
ship-NOM sink-even yesterday-TOP
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) A ship [even sank] yesterday’(Taroo-ga) ti si-ta(koto)
d. * [Tabe]-saei (Taroo-ga) ringo-oeat-even
Taroo-NOM apple-ACC Taroo-NOM
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Even eat]i, Taroo did ti an apple’(25a) involves a transitive verb, and VP-scrambling can strand a subject. Moreover, an
adjunct is also allowed to be stranded. Ditransitive and unergative verbs belong to thisclass. On the other hand, VP-scrambling cannot strand a subject if the main verb is
unaccusative, as in (25b). Nevertheless, VP-scrambling itself is possible withunaccusative verbs, as long as what follows the scrambled VP is an adjunct, as in (25c).
Passive and stative verbs pattern with unaccusative verbs. Finally, the ungrammaticalityof (25d) indicates that VP-scrambling cannot strand non-subject arguments.
116

-116-

Following the insights of the previous studies reviewed in the previous section thatthe raising-control distinction plays a crucial role, we can draw the following
generalizations on Japanese VP-scrambling:(26) Generalizations on Japanese VP-scramblinga. If the raising structure is involved, VP-scrambling is not allowed whenarguments are stranded.
b. If the control structure is involved, VP-scrambling is allowed when a subject
but not other argument is stranded.
c. A scrambled VP can precede an adjunct regardless of the types of main verb.
Given that unaccusative, passive, and stative verbs are compatible only with the raisingsu ‘do’, the pattern in (25b) falls into the generalization in (26a). The patterns in (25a)and (25d), on the other hand, fall into the generalization in (26b). The patterns in (25a)and (25c) is covered by the generalization in (26c). In what follows, I provide an
explanation of these generalizations, based on the theory of Cyclic Linearization
developed in Chapter 2.
4.3.1. Analysis
Before moving to the explanation directly, I briefly re-introduce the effect of thetheory of Cyclic Linearization, by considering the schematic derivation in (27).
(27) Schematic derivation under Cyclic Linearizationa. Construction of D Æ Spell-out of D
[D X Y Z]
b. Merge of Į with DĮ [D X Y Z]

Ordering Table: X<Y<Z

Ordering Table: X<Y<Z
c. Movement of X across Į Æ Spell-out of the next higher domain Dƍ[Dƍ … Xi … Į [D ti Y Z]

Ordering Table: X<Y<Z

X<Į<Y<Z
c’. Movement of Y across Į Æ Spell-out of the next higher domain Dƍ*[Dƍ … Yi … Į [D X ti Z]
Ordering Table: X<Y<Z
Y<Į<X<Z
When Spell-out applies to the domain D in (27a), the linear order of the elements within
D is established. In this case, the ordering statement X<Y<Z is sent to the Ordering
117

-117-

Table, and this newly added statement is indicated by boldface, following the notations
introduced in Chapter 2. In (27b), the new constituent Į is introduced to the derivation.
Since no Spell-out applies at this point, no new ordering statement is sent to theOrdering Table. Suppose now that X undergoes movement across Į, and the next higher
domain Dƍ is Spelled-out, as in (27c). Then, the ordering statement X<Į<Y<Z is sent to
the Ordering Table (recall that by assumption traces are invisible for establishingordering statements). At this point, the information stored on the Ordering Table,
namely the ordering statements X<Y<Z and X<Į<Y<Z, is totally consistent, inducing
no problem. Suppose on the other hand that Y instead of X undergoes movement acrossĮ, and the next higher domain Dƍ is Spelled-out, as in (27c’). Then, the Ordering Table
gets the ordering statement Y<Į<X<Z, which contradicts the previously established one,
namely X<Y<Z. In particular, X is required to linearly precede and follow Y at the sametime. This contradiction ultimately leads the derivation to a PF-crash, since byassumption an element cannot precede and follow another element.
In Chapter 2, it was proposed that the size of the domain subject to linearization via
Spell-out is parameterized. In particular, I proposed the Spell-out Domain Parameter
given in (28), together with the assumption that languages like Japanese select the value(28a) while ones like English do the value (28b).
(28) Spell-out Domain Parameter for vP
When Spell-out applies to vP,
a. Linearize the whole vP, including the elements on its edge, orb. Linearize the complement of v0.
It was also illustrated there how VP-fronting with unaccusative and passive verbs arederived in languages like English, which selects the value (28b) (see also Section 4.4.3
below for a related discussion). Thus, the grammaticality of examples like (21) above
has been already captured. In the rest of this subsection, I illustrate how the theory of
Cyclic Linearization with the Spell-out Domain Parameter captures the Japaneseparadigm in (25), by explaining the generalization in (26).
4.3.1.1. VP-scrambling in the Raising Structure
Let us start with the cases involving the raising structure. The representative
examples, which involve an unaccusative verb, are given in (29).

118

-118-

(29) VP-scrambling with an unaccusative verb
a. Fune-ga [sizumi]-sae si-ta(koto)
ship-NOM sink-even do-PAST fact‘(lit.) A ship [even sank]’(koto)
b. * [Sizumi]-saei fune-ga ti si-ta
do-PAST factsink-evenship-NOM‘(lit.) [Even sink]i, a ship did ti’(29a) is derived in the manner depicted in (30).
(30) Derivation of (29a)a. Construction of vP2ÆSpell-out of vP2[vP2 [VP2 fune-ga sizumi]]-saeb. Construction of vP1Æ

Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
Spell-out of vP1[vP1 [VP1 [vP2 [VP2 fune-ga sizumi]]-sae si]]Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
fune-ga<sizumi-sae<sic. Construction of CPÆ
Spell-out of CP[CP [TP fune-gai [vP1 [VP1 [vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]]-sae si]] -ta]]
Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
fune-ga<sizumi-sae<sifune-ga<sizumi-sae<si<ta
In (30a), vP2 is constructed. As is extensively discussed in Chapter 2, the whole vP,
including its edge, is subject to Spell-out in Japanese, due to the choice of theparametric value (28a). As a result, the ordering statement fune-ga<sizumi-sae is sent to
the Ordering Table at this point.11 Note that even if fune-ga ‘ship’ moves to the edge ofvP2 before Spell-out, essentially the same ordering information is established. In (30b),
the raising su ‘do’ is introduced to the derivation. Finally, fune-ga ‘ship’, moves to Spec,
TP in (30c). When Spell-out applies to the root CP in (30c), the ordering statement
fune-ga<sizumi-sae<si<ta is established. Throughout the derivation, the ordering
information stored on the Ordering Table is consistent. Thus, the derivation successfully
converges, yielding the surface order of (29a).
In order to derive the surface linear order of (29b), however, it is necessary toestablish the linear order sizumi-sae<fune-ga when Spell-out applies to vP2. More
119

-119-

generally, the main verb should linearly precede its arguments base-generated within
vP2 to derive the desired surface linear order of sentences with VP-scrambling from theraising structure. However, this is not possible, given the discussions in Chapter 2. In
particular, it has been assumed that Complement-to-Spec movement is not allowed.
Thus, although fune-ga ‘ship’ can move out of VP2 as in (31a) below, VP2 itself is notallowed to move to the edge of vP2, crossing fune-ga ‘ship’ as in (31b) (for the sake of
discussion, the particle -sae ‘even’ is attached to the VP2).
(31) Complement-to-Spec movement of VP
a. Movement of an argument to the edge of vP2[vP2 fune-gai [VP2 ti sizumi]-sae]b. Movement of VP2 to the edge of vP2[vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]-sae j fune-gai tj]

As a result, the ordering statements that can be established at the Spell-out of vP2 are theones where the main verb linearly follows everything within vP2. In this case,fune-ga<sizumi-sae is the only possible ordering statement at the Spell-out of vP2.
It then follows that any derivation that yields the surface linear order of (29b)always results in a ordering contradiction at PF. In particular, such a derivation crashes
as follows (the position of -sae ‘even’ does not affect the point):(32) Derivation of (29a)a. Construction of vP2ÆSpell-out of vP2[vP2 [VP2 fune-ga sizumi]]-sae Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
b. Movement of fune-ga to vP1-edge[vP1 fune-gai [VP1 [vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]]-sae si]]Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
c. Movement of vP2 to vP1-edge Æ Spell-out of vP1*[vP1 [vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]]-sae j fune-gai [VP1 tj si]]Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
sizumi-sae<fune-ga<si
As discussed above, the ordering statement fune-ga<sizumi-sae is established at the
120

-120-

point in (32a). Suppose then that fune-ga ‘ship’ undergoes scrambling to the edge of vP1
as in (32b). Suppose further that vP2 also undergoes movement to the edge of vP1, as in(32c). This movement itself is legitimate with respect to the ban onComplement-to-Spec movement. When Spell-out applies to vP1, however, the ordering
statement sizumi-sae<fune-ga<si is established. Then, a contradiction arise at PF;
fune-ga ‘ship’ is required to precede and follow sizumi-sae ‘sink-even’ at the same time.
As a result, linearization fails, leading the derivation to a PF-crash.
Note at this point that under the analysis advocated so far, the assumption that
Spell-out also applies to unaccusative/passive vPs (Ko 2005a, 2007; see also Chapter 2)
plays a crucial role. Recall that vP2 in the derivation (32) is headed by sizum ‘sink’,
which is unaccusative. Then, if Spell-out does not apply to vP2 at the step in (32a), it is
not possible to establish the ordering statement fune-ga<sizumi-sae, which ultimately
prohibits the subject fune-ga ‘ship’ from being preceded by the main verb sizumi-sae‘sink-even’ at the surface. Thus, our analysis offers a direct support for the assumption.
The analysis advocated so far focuses on the case of unaccusative verbs. Moregenerally, when the higher verb is a raising verb, all the arguments is Merged within vP2,
regardless of the types of the main verb. (33) schematizes this configuration (the particle-sae ‘even’ is omitted).
(33) Schematic structure with a raising verb
vP1
v0 1

VP1
V01

vP2
XP

vƍ2
v0 2

VP2
YP

Spell-out of vP2

V02
V2

XP and YP are arguments of the main verb V2. Since VP2 in (33) cannot be moved tothe edge of vP2, Spell-out of vP2 necessarily establishes an ordering statement in which
V2 linearly follows both of XP and YP. Then, if an ordering statement where V2
precedes XP and/or YP is established at a later point, the derivation crashes at PF.
121

-121-

Therefore, the generalization (26a) follows: If the raising structure is involved,
VP-scrambling is not allowed when arguments are stranded.
Given the discussion so far, a derivation with the raising structure can converge even
if it involves VP-scrambling, as long as the ordering statement established at theSpell-out of vP2 is not contradicted at any later application of Spell-out in the derivation.
Specifically, the proposed system allows (22a), repeated as (34), to be derived in themanner depicted in (35).
(34) Fune-ga
ship-NOM[sizumi]-sae kinoo(-wa)
sink-evensi-ta(koto)

yesterday-TOP do-PAST

fact‘(lit.) A ship [even sank] yesterday’(35) Derivation of (34)Æ
Spell-out of vP2
a. Construction of vP2[vP2 [VP2 fune-ga sizumi]]-sae Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
b. Scrambling of fune-ga to VP1-edge[vP1 [VP1 fune-gai [vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]]-sae si]]Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
c. Merge of kinoo with vP1[vP1 kinoo [VP1 fune-gai [vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]]-sae si]]Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
d. Scrambling of fune-ga and vP2 to vP1-edge Æ Spell-out of vP1[vP1 fune-gai [vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]]-sae kinoo [VP1 tƍi tvP2 si]]Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
fune-ga<sizumi-sae<kinoo<si
e. Construction of CP Æ Spell-out of CP[CP [TP fune-gai [vP1 tƍƍi [vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]]-sae kinoo [VP1 tƍi tvP2 si]] -ta]]
Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
fune-ga<sizumi-sae<kinoo<sifune-ga<sizumi-sae<kinoo<si<ta
In (35a), Spell-out applies to vP2, establishing the ordering statement
fune-ga<sizumi-sae, on a par with the cases illustrated so far. Then, fune-ga ‘ship’undergoes scrambling to VP1, as in (35b). Recall that the VP-edge is a possible landingsite for A-scrambling, as is discussed in Chapter 2. When the derivation proceeds to the
122

-122-

step in (35c), the adjunct kinoo ‘yesterday’ is Merged with vP1. Then, as in (35d),
fune-ga ‘ship’ and vP2 undergo scrambling to the edge of vP1. Scrambling of vP2 isallowed, since it is not an instance of Complement-to-Spec movement. When Spell-out
applies to vP2 at this point, the ordering statement fune-ga<sizumi-sae<kinoo<si isestablished. Finally, when the derivation proceeds to the step in (35e), Spell-out applies
to the root CP, establishing the ordering statement fune-ga<sizumi-sae<kinoo<si<ta. The
derivation successfully converges since the established ordering statements are totallyconsistent, yielding the surface linear order of (34).12
Recall at this point that the question raised by an example like (34), whichunambiguously involves raising, is why the scrambled VP can precede an adjunct but
not a subject. Under the proposed analysis, the crucial difference between an adjunctand a subject is that the former can be base-generated outside of vP2, while the lattermust be inside of it. As a consequence, the linear order between the main verb and a
subject is fixed at the point of the Spell-out of vP2, while the linear order between themain verb and an adjunct can be fixed later, leaving a chance for changing it. Given thatthe raising structure is in principle compatible with any types of main verb, thegeneralization (26c) follows in the case of raising: A scrambled VP can precede an
adjunct regardless of the types of main verb.
4.3.1.2. VP-scrambling in the Control Structure
Let us now turn to the control structure. The problem is why the surface linear orderof (36b), in which the scrambled VP precedes the subject, is possible, as well as that of(36a), while that of (36c), where the scrambled VP precedes the object, is not possible.
(36) VP-scrambling with a transitive verb
a. Taroo-ga [ringo-otabe]-sae si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM apple-ACC eat-even do-PAST fact
‘Taroo [even ate an apple]’(koto)
b. [Ringo-o tabe]-saei Taroo-ga ti si-ta
apple-ACC eat-even Taroo-NOM
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Even eat an apple]i, Taroo did ti’(Taroo-ga) ti si-ta
c. * [Tabe]-saei (Taroo-ga) ringo-oeat-even

Taroo-NOM apple-ACC Taroo-NOM‘(lit.) [Even eat]i, Taroo did ti an apple’

do-PAST(koto)
fact

The theory of Cyclic Linearization provides a rather straightforward answer to the
123

-123-

problem. Let us consider the schematic structure in (37).13(37) Schematic structures with a control verb
vP1
XPi

vƍ1
v0 1

VP1
V01

vP2
PROi

vƍ2

Spell-out of vP2
v0 2

VP2
YP

V02
V2

Unlike the raising structure, the controller XP can be base-generated outside of vP2.
Hence, the relative order between XP and the main verb V2 is left unspecified when
Spell-out applies to vP2.
To see this, let us consider the derivation of (36a), depicted in (38).
(38) Derivation of (36a)a. Construction of vP2ÆSpell-out of vP2[vP2 PRO [VP2 ringo-o tabe]]-sae Ordering Table: ringo-o<tabe-sae
b. Construction of vP1ÆSpell-out of vP1[vP1 Taroo-gai [VP1 [vP2 PROi [VP2 ringo-o tabe]]-sae si]]Ordering Table: ringo-o<tabe-sae
Taroo-ga<ringo-o<tabe-sae<sic. Construction of CP Æ Spell-out of CP[CP [TP Taroo-gai [vP1 ti [VP1 [vP2 PROi [VP2 ringo-o tabe]]-sae si]] -ta]]
Ordering Table: ringo-o<tabe-sae
Taroo-ga<ringo-o<tabe-sae<siTaroo-ga<ringo-o<tabe-sae<si<ta
In (38a), Spell-out applies to vP2, establishing the ordering statement ringo-o<tabe-sae.
At this step in (38b), the controller Taroo-ga and the control su ‘do’ are introduced to
124

-124-

the

derivation. When Spell-out applies to vP1, the ordering statement
Taroo-ga<ringo-o<tabe-sae<si is established. Finally, the derivation proceeds to thestep in (38c), where Spell-out applies to the root CP, establishing the ordering statement
Taroo-ga<ringo-o<tabe-sae<si<ta. Since the Ordering Table contains no linear ordercontradiction, the derivation successfully converges.
The crucial difference between the derivation involving the raising su ‘do’ and theone in (38) is that the information about the subject is included in the ordering statement
established at the Spell-out of vP2 in the former but not in the latter. Then, the derivationin (39) below successfully converges, yielding the surface linear order of (36b).
(39) Derivation of (36b)a. Construction of vP2

Æ[vP2 PRO [VP2 ringo-o tabe]]-saeb. Construction of vP2

Spell-out of vP2
Ordering Table: ringo-o<tabe-sae[vP1 Taroo-gai [VP1 [vP2 PROi [VP2 ringo-o tabe]]-sae si]]Ordering Table: ringo-o<tabe-sae
c. Scrambling of vP2 to vP1 Æ Spell-out of vP1[vP1 [vP2 PROi [VP2 ringo-o tabe]]-sae Taroo-gai [VP1 tvP2 si]]Ordering Table: ringo-o<tabe-sae
ringo-o<tabe-sae<Taroo-ga<si
d. Movement of Taroo-ga to Spec, TP and scrambling of vP2 Æ Spell-out of CP[CP [TP [vP2 PROi [VP2 ringo-o tabe]]-sae Taroo-gai [vP1 tƍvP2 ti [VP1 tvP2 si]] -ta]]
Ordering Table: ringo-o<tabe-sae
ringo-o<tabe-sae<Taroo-ga<siringo-o<tabe-sae<Taroo-ga<si<ta
The step in (39a) is identical to (38a). After Taroo-ga and the control su ‘do’ areintroduced to the derivation as in (39b), vP2 undergoes scrambling to the vP1-edge, as in(39c). When Spell-out applies to vP1 at this step, the ordering statement
ringo-o<tabe-sae<Taroo-ga<si is sent to the Ordering Table. Unlike the case of raising,in particular the step in (32c) above, the ordering statements stored on the Ordering
Table are consistent with each other. In (32d), Taroo-ga moves to Spec, TP, andsubsequently vP2 undergoes further scrambling across Taroo-ga.14 When the root CP is
Spelled-out, the ordering statement ringo-o<tabe-sae<Taroo-ga<si<ta is established.
125

-125-

Since the Ordering Table contains no contradiction, the derivation converges. In thisway, a sentence where the scrambled VP precedes the subject is allowed to be derived
under the proposed system.
On the other hand, non-subject arguments, for instance the object ringo-o ‘apple’,must be base-generated within vP2 even in the control structure, since they have to
receive ș-roles there. Consequently, the relative linear order between the main verb andthese non-subject arguments are fixed at the Spell-out of vP2, prohibiting the scrambled
VP from preceding them at the surface structure. Thus, the generalization (26b) follows:
If the control structure is involved, VP-scrambling is allowed when a subject but notother argument is stranded. Since adjuncts can be base-generated outside of the vP2 on apar with the case of raising as discussed in Section 4.3.1.1, they can follow thescrambled VP. Therefore, the generalization (26c) follows in the case of control as well:
A scrambled VP can precede an adjunct regardless of the types of main verb.
4.3.2. Evidence for the Proposed Analysis
This subsection provides empirical evidence for the proposed analysis. The crucial
point of the analysis advocated so far is that an element must be base-generated outsideof the projection of the main verb in order to linearly follow the scrambled VP at thesurface structure. Agentive subjects, which can serve as a subject of the control su ‘do’,
and adjuncts like kinoo ‘yesterday’ meet this requirement, so that they are allowed tofollow the main verb. Then, the analysis makes the following prediction:(40) Prediction
If an adjunct is forced to modify the main verb so as to be base-generated within its
projection, the adjunct fails to linearly follow the scrambled VP.
In what follows, I show that this prediction is borne out.
As in (41a), VP-scrambling with the temporal adjunct kinoo ‘yesterday’ is possible.
A similar example, which involves odorokubekikotoni ‘surprisingly’, is given in (41b).
(41) VP-scrambling with temporal and epistemic adjuncts
a. Fune-ga[sizumi]-sae kinoo(-wa)
si-ta(koto)
sink-even yesterday-TOP do-PAST fact
ship-NOM‘(lit.) A ship [even sank] yesterday’

126

-126-

b. Fune-ga[sizumi]-sae odorokubekikotoni si-ta

ship-NOM

sink-even surprisingly‘(lit.) A ship [even sank] surprisingly’

do-PAST(koto)
fact

Assuming that these adjuncts can be base-generated outside of the projection of themain verb, the grammaticality of (41a-b) follows.
The crucial examples are given in (42) and (43) below. (42) involves the locative
adjunct kaitei-made ‘onto the seafloor’, and (43) involves the manner adjunct ikinari‘suddenly’. (42a) and (43a) are the baseline examples, where the adjuncts precede themain verb which they modify. When these adjuncts appear after the main verb, as in theb-examples, the sentences become ungrammatical.
(42) VP-scrambling with locative adjuncts
a. Fune-ga [kaitei-made sizumi]-sae si-ta(koto)
ship-NOM seafloor-to sink-even do-PAST fact‘(lit.) A ship [even sank onto the seafloor]’b. * Fune-ga [sizumi]-sae kaitei-made si-ta(koto)
ship-NOM sink-even seafloor-to do-PAST fact‘(lit.) A ship [even sank] onto the seafloor’(43) VP-scrambling with manner adjuncts
a. Fune-ga [ikinari
sizumi]-sae si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
ship-NOM suddenly sink-even‘(lit.) A ship [even sank suddenly]’b. * Fune-ga [sizumi]-sae ikinari
si-ta(koto)
ship-NOM sink-even suddenly do-PAST‘(lit.) A ship [even sank] suddenly’

fact

Given that locative and manner adjuncts must be base-generated within the projection of
the main verb they modify, the ungrammaticality of the relevant examples follows.
Sentences with passive and stative verbs exhibit the same pattern, as in (44)-(45)below. (44a) involves the locative adjunct kooen-de ‘in the park’, (45b) does the manner
adjunct sugoi hayasa-de ‘quicky’, (45a) does the locative adjunct kyoositu-de ‘in theclassroom’, and finally (45b) does the manner adjunct suguni ‘easily’. In all theexamples, these adjuncts can precede but cannot follow the main verb.

127

-127-

(44) VP-scrambling with a passive verb
a. Ringo-ga
apple-NOM[Taroo-niyotte (kooen-de) tabe-rare]-sae(*kooen-de)Taroo-bypark-ineat-PASS-evensi-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
‘An apple was eaten by Taroo in the park’

park-inb. Ringo-ga [Taroo-niyotte (sugoi hayasa-de) tabe-rare]-sae
apple-NOM Taroo-by
great speed-at
eat-PASS-even(*sugoi hayasa-de) si-ta(koto)
great speed-at
do-PAST fact
‘An apple was eaten by Taroo quickly’(45) VP-scrambling with a stative verb
a. Taroo-ga [eigo-ga(kyoositu-de) wakari]-sae(*kyoositu-de)classroom-in
Taroo-NOM English-NOM classroom-in understand-evensi-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
‘Taroo even understood English in the classroom’b. Taroo-ga [eigo-ga(suguni) wakari]-sae(*suguni) si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM English-NOM easily understand-even easily do-PAST fact
‘Taroo even understood English easily’Testing the prediction with (di)transitive and unergative verbs has a slightcomplication, because they are also compatible with the control su ‘do’, which locativeand manner adjuncts can modify.15 Thus, those adjuncts may be base-generated outsideof the projection of the main verb. To avoid this potential problem, let us first consider
the following examples, containing two adjuncts.
(46) Sentences with two manner adjuncts
tabe-ta (koto)a. * Isoide Taroo-ga yukkuri ringo-ohastily Taroo-NOM slowly apple-ACC eat-PAST fact‘(lit) Hastily, Taroo ate an apple slowly’
b. Isoide Taroo-ga [yukkuri ringo-otabe]-sae si-ta(koto)
hastily Taroo-NOM slowly apple-ACC eat-even do-PAST fact‘(lit) Hastily, Taroo [even ate an apple slowly]’(46a) is ungrammatical presumably because it is not possible to eat an apple hastily and
128

-128-

slowly at the same time. On the other hand, (46b) is grammatical, if the sentence isinterpreted as something like following; Taroo hastily did eating an apple slowly. That is,isoide ‘hastily’ modifies the control su ‘do’, and yukkuri ‘slowly’ modifies the mainverb tabe ‘eat’. In this way, we can force a manner adverb to modify the main verb in
the control structure.
Taking (46b) as the baseline, let us compare the sentences in (47) with it. In (47a),the scrambled VP appears in the sentence-initial position, and in (47b), it is in theposition right after the subject Taroo-ga. In either case, the scrambled VP precedes the
adjunct yukkuri ‘slowly’, which is intended to modify the main verb.
(47) VP-scrambling with two manner adjuncts
a. * [Ringo-o tabe]-sae isoide Taroo-ga

yukkuri si-ta(koto)
apple-ACC eat-even hastily Taroo-NOM slowly do-PAST fact‘(lit) [Even eat an apple], hastily, Taroo did slowly’
tabe]-sae yukkuri si-ta(koto)
b. * Isoide Taroo-ga [ringo-ohastily Taroo-NOM apple-ACC eat-even slowly do-PAST fact‘(lit) Hastily, Taroo [even ate an apple] slowly’
c. Taroo-ga [yukkuri ringo-otabe]-sae isoide si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM slowly apple-ACC eat-even hastily do-PAST fact‘(lit) Hastily, Taroo [even ate an apple slowly]’

The ungrammaticality of (47a-b) confirms the prediction in (40). Note at the same timethat VP-scrambling itself is possible, indicated by the grammaticality of (47c), where
the adverb modifying the control su ‘do’, namely isoide ‘hastily’, follows the scrambled
VP.
Therefore, the prediction in (40) is borne out, supporting the proposed explanationof the properties of VP-scrambling.
4.3.3. Summary
To sum up this section, I illustrated how the theory of Cyclic Linearization
combined with the Spell-out Domain Parameter explains the generalizations on
Japanese VP-scrambling. First, it was shown that in the case of raising, all thearguments are required to be base-generated within the projection of the main verb. As aresult, their relative linear order with respect to the main verb is fixed so as not tofollow it at any later point of Spell-out. On the other hand, in the case of control, thesubject, namely the controller of PRO, is allowed to be base-generated outside of the
129

-129-

projection of the main verb, while non-subject arguments are not. Hence, it is allowed
only for the subject to leave unspecified its relative order with respect to the main verb
until a later point of the derivation. As a result, the derivation that yields the surface
linear order where the subject follows the scrambled VP can converge, while the onethat yields the surface linear order where non-subject arguments follow the scrambled
VP always results in an ordering contradiction. Contrary to the cases of arguments,
adjuncts do not have to be Merged within the projection of the main verb. Therefore, itfollows that they can follow the scrambled VP regardless of the types of main verb.
Finally, I provided a piece of evidence for the proposed analysis by confirming theprediction that VP-scrambling becomes impossible even with adjuncts if they are forced
to be base-generated within the projection of the main verb.
4.4. Implications and Remaining Issues
In this section, I discuss certain implications of the proposed analysis and remaining
issues raised by it.16 In particular, I discuss the following three topics: (i) apparent
counterexamples of the generalization in (26), (ii) the theoretical status of the expletivesu ‘do’, and (iii) possible cross-linguistic variations regarding VP-scrambling.
4.4.1. On Strandable Non-subjects
Yatsushiro (1997, 1999) observes that in a sentence with a ditransitive verb, not only
the subject but also the indirect object can linearly follow the scrambled VP. The
relevant examples are given in (48). In (48a), which is repeated from (3b), the subject
Taroo-ga is left behind.
(48) VP-scrambling with a ditransitive verb
a. [Hanako-ni hon-oage]-saei Taroo-ga
ti si-ta(koto)
Hanako-DAT book-ACC give-even Taroo-NOM
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Even gave a book to Hanako]i, Taroo did ti’b. [Hon-oage]-saei Taroo-ga Hanako-ni ti si-ta(koto)
book-ACC give-even Taroo-NOM Hanako-DAT
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) [Even gave a book to Hanako]i, Taroo did ti’
In addition to the subject, the indirect object Hanako-ni is preceded by the scrambled
VP, as in (48b). 17 Thus, (48b) seems to constitute a counterexample to thegeneralizations in (26).
Based on this kind of observation, Yatsushiro (1997, 1999) argues that ditransitive
130

-130-

verbs have a schematic structure like in (49), where the dative argument is introduced as
an argument of an independent head (see, among others, Marantz 1993, Ura 1996,
Pylkkänen 2002, and Yatsushiro 2003).
(49) Structure of ditransitive verbs[vP DPNOM [VP1 DPDAT [VP2 DPACC V2] V1] v]
She then suggests that VP-scrambling can target the lowest VP, namely VP2 in (49),leaving behind both the nominative and dative arguments. Her suggestion cannot
accommodate the observation in (11), which suggests that VP-scrambling always targets
a vP, however. Thus, we cannot appeal to this line of approach.
If the analysis of Japanese VP-scrambling advocated in this chapter is correct, theindirect object in (48b) cannot be the argument of the main verb. This is because, if it
indeed receives a ș-role from the main verb, it must be base-generated within the
projection of the main verb, being fixed their relative linear order. In fact, there isevidence that suggests that the indirect object is an argument of su ‘do’. Recall first thatsu ‘do’ can be used as a main verb, as in (50a), which is repeated from (14).
(50) Su ‘do’ as a main verb
a. Taroo-ga anna koto-o
si-ta(to-waodoroki-da)
Taroo-NOM such thing-ACC do-PAST that-TOP surprise-COP‘(lit.) (It’s surprising that) Taroo did such a thing’b. Taroo-ga Hanako-ni anna koto-o
si-ta(to-waodoroki-da)
Taroo-NOM Hanako-NI such thing-ACC do-PAST that-TOP surprise-COP‘(lit.) (It’s surprising that) Taroo did such a thing to Hanako’
In addition to the pattern in (50a), su ‘do’ can optionally take a ni-marked argument, asin (50b).18
Given this fact, (48b) can be analyzed as having a structure like (51) as its
underlying structure (irrelevant details are omitted).
(51) Possible underlying structure of (48b)[… [vP1 Taroo-gai [VP1 Hanako-nij [vP2 PROi [VP2 proj hon-o age]]-sae si]] -ta]
In (51), Hanako-ni is base-generated within the projection of su ‘do’, and from there it
binds pro, which receives a ș-role from the main verb age ‘give’. Then, the surface
131

-131-

linear order of (48b) results if vP2 undergoes scrambling. No ordering contradiction
arises, because Hanako-ni is base-generated outside of vP2.
If pro is indeed involved in the relevant examples, we expect that it can be overtly
realized. Furthermore, it is expected that pro can have a referent other than that of theovert ni-marked argument (in the case of (51), Hanako). The examples in (52) confirm
these expectations.
(52) Sentences with two ni-marked arguments
a. ?Taroo-ga
Hanako-nii [kanozyo-nii Ziroo-o
Taroo-NOM

Hanako-NI

she-DATsyookaisi]-sae

Ziroo-ACC introduce-evensi-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact‘(lit.) Taroo did to Hanako even introducing Ziroo to her’yakuza-ob. Taroo-ga
Hanako-nii [[proi musume]-ni
daughter-DAT gangster-ACC
Taroo-NOM Hanako-NI
syookaisi]-sae si-ta(koto)
introduce-even do-PAST fact‘(lit.) Taroo did to Hanako even introducing a gangster to her daughter’
Although (52a) is slightly awkward, it is grammatical.19 In (52b), the higher ni-marked
argument is Hanako-ni, and the lower one is musume-ni ‘daughter’, and the sentence isfairly acceptable.
As is expected from the structure in (51), the two ni-marked arguments behave
differently in VP-scrambling, as shown in (53) below. In (53a), the genuine dativeargument of the main verb, namely musume-ni ‘daughter’, is included within thescrambled VP, whereas it is left behind in (53b).
(53) VP-scrambling in sentences with two ni-marked argumentsa. [[proj musume]-ni
daughter-DAT

yakuza-osyookaisi]-saei
gangster-ACC introduce-even

Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM

Hanako-nij ti si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
Hanako-NI‘(lit.) [Even introducing a gangster to her daughter]i, Taroo did to Hanako ti’

132

-132-

b. * [Yakuza-osyookaisi]-saei Taroo-ga
Hanako-nij[proj
gangster-ACC introduce-even Taroo-NOM Hanako-NI
musume]-ni
ti si-ta(koto)
do-PAST fact
daughter-DAT‘(lit.) [Even introducing a gangster]i, Taroo did to Hanako ti to her daughter’

This contrast is expected under the proposed analysis, further supporting the structure in(51).
One issue arising from the structure in (51) has to do with the Principle of Minimal
Distance (PMD), originally proposed by Rosenbaum (1970). Its effect is exemplified bysentences like (54a) below, where the subject of the infinitival complement must be
Mary, but not John.
(54) The Principle of Minimal Distance effecta. John persuaded Mary to go to schoolb. Johni persuaded Maryj [PRO*i/j to go to school]

One well-known counterexample to the PMD is the so-called promise-type verbs.
The relevant example is given in (55a), where the subject of the infinitival complement
is construed as John, despite the presence of Mary.
(55) Promise-type verbs and the null P analysis
a. John promised Mary to go to schoolb. Johni promised [PP ø [DP Mary]] [PROi to go to school]c. Johni vowed/committed [PP to [DP Mary]] [PROi to go to school]
Hornstein (2001) and Boeckx & Hornstein (2003) suggest that Mary in (55a) is indeed acomplement of a null P, as in (55b), so that John can control PRO.20 They also note thatthe existence of the null P is not implausible because verbs like vow and commit, which
are semantically similar to promise, can take an overt PP argument, as in (55c).
Bearing this in mind, let us consider the structure in (51), repeated as (56).
(56) [… [vP1 Taroo-gai [VP2 Hanako-nij [vP2 PROi [VP2 proj hon-o age]]-sae si]] -ta]
In this structure, Hanako-ni appears between Taroo-ga and PRO, though there is no
133

-133-

PMD effect. I suggest, following Hornstein (2001) and Boeckx & Hornstein’s (2003)
idea, that Hanako-ni in (56) is a PP.
It has been observed that the particle -ni in Japanese is ambiguous between a
Case-marker and a post-position (Miyagawa 1989a, Sadakane & Koizumi 1995, among
others). The examples in (57) (based on Sadakane & Koizumi 1995:7) indicate that thedative Case-marker -ni in (57a) can host a floating NQ while the post-position -ni in(57b) cannot.21(57) Case-maker vs. post-positiona. Kanta-wa

yuuenti-de
uma-nisan-tooamusement.park-at horse-DAT 3-CL

not-taride-PAST

Kanta-TOP‘Kanta rode three horses at the amusement park’b. * Kanta-no ronbun-wa riron-ni hutatu motozuitei-ru
based.on-PRES
Kanta-gen paper-TOP theory-on 2.CL
‘Kanta’s paper is based on two theories’

Then, it is predicted that the dative argument of the control su ‘do’ fails to host afloating NQ, on a par with (57b).
This prediction is borne out, as in (58) below. (58a) is modified from (53a). The
ni-marked argument hahaoya-tati-ni ‘mothers’ cannot host the NQ san-nin ‘three’.
(58) Association of floating NQs with ni-marked phrases*[[(Sorezore-noj) musume]-ni yakuza-osyookaisi]-saei
each-GENdaughter-DAT gangster-ACC introduce-even

Taroo-ga

Taroo-NOM
hahaoya-tati-nij san-nin ti si-ta(koto)
3-CL
do-PAST fact
mother-PL-NI‘(lit.) [Even introducing a gangster to their own daughter]i, Taroo did ti to threemothers’

The contrast in (59) is more suggestive. In (59a), where no VP-scrambling takes
place, the ni-marked argument gakusei-ni ‘student’ can be associated with the NQ
san-nin ‘three’. On the other hand, in (59b), in which VP-scrambling applies so as thatthe ni-marked phrase is left behind, the association is not possible.

134

-134-

(59) Association of floating NQs with ni-marked phrases
a. Taroo-ga

gakusei-ni san-nin sensei-osyookaisi-sae

si-ta(koto)

Taroo-NOM student-NI 3-CL
teacher-ACC introduce-even do-PAST fact
‘Taroo introduced a teacher to three students’syookaisi]-sae Taroo-ga gakusei-ni san-nin si-ta(koto)
b. * [Sensei-odo-PAST factteacher-ACC introduce-even Taroo-NOM student-NI 3-CL‘(lit.) [Even introduce a teacher], Taroo did three students’Given the discussion so far, this contrast can be captured as follows: In the former,
gakusei-ni ‘student’ can be an argument of the main verb, so that -ni can be a
Case-marker; in the latter, however, the ni-marked argument is unambiguously anargument of su ‘do’, so that -ni must be a post-position. Hence, the intended associationis allowed only in the former case. In this way, the proposed analysis allows us to reveal
some hitherto unnoticed fact concerning VP-scrambling in Japanese.
4.4.2. On the Expletive Su ‘do’
Let us turn to the issue concerning the expletive su ‘do’. Schematic structures
involving it are given in (60) (cf. (19b-c)).
(60) Structures with the expletive su ‘do’
a.

TP

DP

TP

T0

VexplP
Vexpl0vPb.

T0

VexplP
Vexplƍ

DP

V

Vexpl0vP
ș-assignment

Vi

<V>i

Vexpl0ș-assignment
Recall that under Saito’s (2006) analysis, at least one argument must be base-generated
outside of the projection of the main verb as in (60b) but not (60a) so as that covert
adjunction to the expletive su ‘do’ is forced.
Under the proposed analysis, elements Merged within the projection of the mainverb cannot follow the scrambled VP because their relative linear order with respect tothe main verb is fixed upon the completion of vP. Now, in (60b), the DP is
135

-135-

base-generated outside of the vP. Hence, the linear order between the DP and the mainverb can be left unspecified at the Spell-out of vP. Then, scrambling of vP across the DP
does not induce any ordering contradiction. Since the DP in question can be an internalargument of an unaccusative verb (see (19)), it is incorrectly predicted that thescrambled VP can precede the subject of an unaccusative verb.
Notice that the DP in (60a) is base-generated in a ș-position of the main verb, while
the one in (60b) is not. Chomsky (2000:103) postulates the principle in (61), adopting
Hale & Kayser’s (1993) “conception of ș-roles as a relation between two syntactic
objects, a configuration and an expression selected by its head”.
(61) Condition on External Merge of arguments[External] Merge in ș-position is required of (and restricted to) arguments
Given (61), the structure in (60a) is forced. Consequently, the structure with theexpletive su ‘do’ always induces a violation of Full Interpretation.22 If this is the case,the expletive su ‘do’ plays little role in explaining the properties of Japanese
VP-scrambling.
The above discussion seems to lead us to the elimination of the expletive su ‘do’from the grammar. On the other hand, the expletive su ‘do’ also plays a crucial role in
Saito’s (2006) analysis of the properties of the light verb construction discussed in
Grimshaw & Mester (1988) (see also Miyagawa 1989b, Terada 1990, Tsujimura 1990,
Hoshi 1994, Saito & Hoshi 2000, to name a few). Suppose now that we could restrict
the distribution of the expletive su ‘do’ appropriately so that it can occur in the lightverb construction but not in VP-scrambling. Then, we can maintain the explanation of
the properties of VP-scrambling developed in this chapter without totally abandoning
the expletive su ‘do’.
In this regard, Mamoru Saito (p.c.) makes one promising suggestion. Recall that thepresence of the expletive su ‘do’ has no syntactic function in the case of VP-scrambling.
In particular, it never participates ș-role assignment nor Case-marking; both of theseproperties are taken care of by the main verb and functional heads associated with it. On
the other hand, there is evidence that indicates that the expletive su ‘do’ does play a rolein Case-checking/assignment in the case of the light verb construction. To see this, let us
consider the examples in (62).

136

-136-

(62) Case-assignment in the light verb construction
a. Taroo-ga eigo-o[rikai]si-ta(koto)
Taroo-NOM English-ACC understanding do-PAST fact
‘Taroo understands English’
rikai]-osi-ta(koto)
b. * Taroo-ga [eigo-no
Taroo-NOM English-GEN understanding do-PAST fact‘(lit.) Taroo did understanding English’c. [(Taroo-no) eigo{-no/*-o}rikai]
Taroo-GEN English-GEN/-ACC understanding‘(lit.) (Taroo’s) understanding of English’(62a) is an example of the light verb construction, where the verbal noun rikai‘understanding’ appears in front of su ‘do’. Notice that the object eigo ‘English’, whichis the logical object of the verbal noun, is marked with the accusative Case-marker -o. If
the relevant instance of su ‘do’ is the transitive one, the appearance of the accusative
Case-marker is straightforward. Recall however that the transitive su ‘do’ is compatible
only with event-denoting complements, although the verbal noun rikai ‘understanding’describes a state. The ungrammaticality of (62b) confirms that the transitive su ‘do’ is
not compatible with the complement headed by rikai ‘understanding’. On the other hand,the verbal noun cannot assign the accusative Case-marker in its own right. If it could, it
becomes mysterious why the object eigo ‘English’ in (62c) cannot be marked with theaccusative Case-marker. Finally, it is not likely the case that su ‘do’ in (62a) is theunaccusative one, so that the accusative Case-marker is assigned by it. This is because
unaccusative verbs cannot assign accusative Case by definition.
These considerations lead us to the idea that the accusative Case-marker is licensed
by a combination of the verbal noun and the expletive su ‘do’, which is reminiscent of
Grimshaw & Mester’s (1988) original analysis of the light verb construction (although
in their analysis su ‘do’ is the sole source of the Case-marker). In this sense, theexpletive su ‘do’ does play a syntactic role in the light verb construction, whereas it
does never in Japanese VP-scrambling. Then, if there is a kind of economy condition on
representation that allows an expletive to appear just in case it plays a certain syntacticrole, we can appropriately restrict the distribution of the expletive su ‘do’ in the way wewant. I leave it as a remaining issue if and to what extent such a line of approach allows
us to gain further insights on the properties of the constructions in question and thenature of expletive elements in general.
137

-137-

4.4.3. Possible Cross-linguistic Variations of Movement of Verbal Projections
This subsection discusses an implication of the proposed analysis of VP-scramblingfrom a broader perspective. Restricting ourselves to the cases where the fronted VP
crosses the subject, Japanese differs from English in that only the former prohibits a VP
containing unaccusative/passive/stative verbs from being moved. The contrast between(63a) repeated from (29b) and (63b) repeated from (21a) confirms this point.
(63) Movement of VP containing an unaccusative verb in Japanese and English
a. * [Sizumi]-saei fune-ga
ti si-ta(koto)
do-PASTsink-evenship-NOM‘(lit.) [Even sink]i, a ship did ti’fact

b. They said that the ball might fall into a ditch, and [fall ti into a ditch]j, iti did tj
Under the theory of Cyclic Linearization combined with the Spell-out Domain
Parameter (28), the contrast is explained in the following way: Since English selects thevalue (28b), which specifies only the elements within the complement of v0 to be
subject to linearization, the linear order between the internal argument and the verb can
be left unspecified at the Spell-out of vP once the internal argument is moved to thevP-edge, as schematically shown in (64a). Hence, the derivation that yields (63b) can
eventually converge. On the other hand, since Japanese selects the value (28a), which
specifies all the elements within v0 to be linearized, the relative linear order of the verb
and its arguments are fixed at the Spell-out of vP as in (64b), even if an internalargument moves to the edge of vP prior to Spell-out. Consequently, the derivation
yielding (63a) necessarily results in an ordering contradiction.
(64) Spell-out of vP and established ordering statementsa. [vP DPi v0 [VP V0 ti]]Ordering Table: V0b[vP DPi [VP ti V0] v0]
Ordering Table: DP<V0<v0

More generally, in English, elements on the edge of vP, either base-generated or
moved, can escape from being fixed their relative ordering with respect to the verb, sothat any type of verbs can participate VP-fronting. English is a head-initial languagewith the parametric value (28b). Suppose that a head-final language selects the value(28b). This language patterns with English with respect to the range of possible
138

-138-

VP-fronting, because the edge of vP functions as an escape hatch in the sense mentioned
above. Therefore, a language with the parametric value (28b), be it head-initial orhead-final, is predicted as imposing no restriction on VP-scrambling.
On the other hand, in Japanese, a head-final language with the parametric value(28a), all the arguments base-generated within the vP of the main verb are specified toprecede the main verb. If an argument is intended to be left behind the scrambled VP, it
must be base-generated outside of the scrambled VP. The control su ‘do’ provides a wayof establishing this, by allowing the structure in (65).
(65) Structure with the control su ‘do’[vP1 DPi [VP1 [vP2 PROi [VP2 … V02]] su]]
Since the DP in (65) has not been introduced to the structure when Spell-out applies to
vP2, the linear order between the DP and the main verb V02 can be specified at asignificantly later point of the derivation. Furthermore, the structure (65) is allowed
only when the subject is compatible with the control su ‘do’. Therefore, the proposed
analysis explains not only why VP-scrambling in Japanese is not possible withunaccusative/passive/stative verbs but also why licit VP-scrambling must recourse to
the control structure.
Suppose then that a head-initial language selects the parametric value (28a). Given aschematic structure like (66), the external argument XP is always specified to precede
the main verb at the Spell-out of vP in this type of languages. Thus, the English-type
VP-fronting is predicted to be impossible not only with (di)transitive/unergative verbs
but also with stative ones.
(66) Schematic structure of vP
vP
XP

vƍ
v0

VP
V0

YP

As for the internal arguments, YP in (66), some discussion seems necessary. First,
suppose that an internal argument, which eventually moves to Spec, TP as a surface
subject, must be moved to the vP-edge when the main verb is unaccusative or passive.
139

-139-

Then, Spell-out of vP always establishes the ordering statement where theunaccusative/passive verb linearly follows its surface subject. As a result, theEnglish-type VP-fronting is barred for unaccusative/passive verbs, on a par with thecases involving (di)transitive/unergative/stative verbs. If the language in question has acounterpart of the control su ‘do’, we predict that the language patterns with Japanese: A
fronted VP can linearly precede the subject only when the VP involves(di)transitive/unergative verbs, which can make use of the control structure.
On the other hand, suppose that a head-initial language selecting the parametricvalue (28a) allows an internal argument of unaccusative/passive verbs to stay in the
VP-internal position, as in (67a). Then, the ordering statement where the verb isspecified to precede its complement is established. Then, the derivation depicted in (67)
eventually converges, without inducing any ordering contradiction.
(67) A possible derivationa. Construction of vP0Æ

Spell-out of vP0

Ordering Table: v0<V0<DP[vP v [VP V DP]]b. Construction of TP[TP DPi T0 [vP v0 [VP V0 ti]]]c. Movement of vPÆ00[CP [vP v [VP V ti]] C0 [TP DPi T0 tvP]]

Ordering Table: v0<V0<DP
Spell-out of CP
Ordering Table: v0<V0<DP
v0<V0<C0<DP<T0

That is, the English-type VP-fronting with unaccusative/passive verbs is allowed in thiscase. Therefore, when VP-fronting takes place, the language is predicted to exhibit thefollowing three patterns: If the main verb is (di)transitive/unergative, the control
structure is employed; if the main verb is unaccusative/passive, the English-type
VP-fronting is employed; if the main verb is stative, the VP cannot be fronted.
To summarize the discussion so far, the theory of Cyclic Linearization combinedwith the Spell-out Domain Parameter predicts the following cross-linguistic variations
on fronting of VP crossing the subject:(68) Possible cross-linguistic variations on VP-fronting
a. The English-type: No restriction is imposed on the type of verbs involved.
140

-140-

b. The Japanese-type: VP-fronting is possible only if the stranded subject iscompatible with a control verb.
c. The third type: For unaccusative/passive verbs, the language patterns withEnglish; for (di)transitive/unergative verbs, it patterns with Japanese; and forstative verbs, VP-fronting is simply impossible.
Note that whether the third type (68c) is indeed attested or not depends on the validityof the assumption that the surface subject of unaccusative/passive verbs has an option of
staying within VP at the Spell-out of vP. Hence, the third type is presumably a marked
one. If so, it is expected that a large part of languages falls into either (68a) or (68b).
Verifying this cross-linguistic prediction is no small task and beyond this dissertation, so
I leave it as a remaining issue. However, it is worth pointing out that the analysis
proposed in this chapter not only explains the restrictions on VP-scrambling in Japanese,but also makes a novel prediction concerning cross-linguistic distributions of fronting of
VP, which has not been attested in the previous studies on Japanese VP-scrambling.
4.5. Conclusion
To summarize this chapter, I examined the properties of Japanese VP-scrambling inlight of the theory of Cyclic Linearization. I argued that although Japanese
VP-scrambling appears to be a counterexample of the analysis of the Proper Binding
Condition effect on scrambling based on the theory of Cyclic Linearization, it does
provide support for the analysis advocated in the previous chapters.
Following the insights of the previous studies, I drew the following generalizations:(69) Generalizations on Japanese VP-scramblinga. If the raising structure is involved, VP-scrambling is not allowed whenarguments are stranded.
b. If the control structure is involved, VP-scrambling is allowed when a subject
but not other argument is stranded.
c. A scrambled VP can precede an adjunct regardless of the types of main verb.
I then offered an explanation of these generalizations in terms of the theory of
Cyclic Linearization and the Spell-out Domain Parameter. In particular, I argued that in
the raising structure, all the arguments are base-generated inside of the projection of themain verb, while in the control structure, the controller argument which qualifies anagentive argument of the control verb su ‘do’ can be Merged outside of it. As a result,
141

-141-

the relative linear order between the main verb and the controller can be fixed at a later
point of the derivation, allowing linear order flexibility. As for adjuncts, they areallowed to be base-generated outside of the relevant projection because they do notreceive a ș-role. Hence, they pattern alike the controller arguments. I provided a pieceof evidence for the proposed analysis, by illustrating that even an adjunct fails to
linearly follow the scrambled VP, if it is forced to modify the main verb.
Finally, I discussed some implications and remaining issues. First, it was shown thata certain exception of the generalization in (69) is in fact not an exception but rather
provides a supporting argument for the proposed analysis. Second, I pointed out that the
proposed analysis calls for future research on the theoretical status of the expletive su‘do’ and on possible cross-linguistic variations of fronting of VP.
Therefore, the proposed analysis based on the theory of Cyclic Linearization and theSpell-out Domain Parameter allows us not only to explain the basic properties ofJapanese VP-scrambling, discovering some novel empirical facts, but also to stimulate
further inquiry from a broader perspective through a detailed analysis of the relevant
phenomena.

142

-142-

Notes to Chapter 4
1

The term VP-scrambling is intended to refer to the construction in which an XP containing a

predicate such as a verb undergoes scrambling. Hence, it is neutral with respect to the categoricalstatus of the XP, although I show in Section 4.2.1 that it is indeed vP. See, among many others, Hoji,
Miyagawa & Tada 1989, Hasegawa 1990, Ohkado 1991, Tateishi 1991, Kubo 1992, Hoshi 1994,
Yatsushiro 1997, 1999, Saito & Hoshi 2000, and Saito 2006 for previous discussions on
VP-scrambling in Japanese, though some of them are reviewed later in the text.
2

Following Aoyagi (1998), I assume that -sae ‘even’ is attached to the projection of a predicate(see also Sohn 1995:223, fn.163 for a remark on similar elements in Korean), rather than a verb itself(see, for instance, Kishimoto 2001; see also Choi & Sells 1995, Sells 1995 for Korean), althoughnothing hinges on this assumption in the following discussions, as far as I can tell. In addition to -sae‘even’, particles like -mo ‘also’, -dake ‘only’, and the topic marker -wa also appear in Japanese
VP-scrambling. It is not possible for VP to appear in the sentence-initial position if there is no suchparticle attached to the verb, as shown in (i) below (see, for instance, Kuno 1978 and Saito 1985).

(i)a. Taroo-ga[ringo-otabe]-ta(koto)

Taroo-NOM apple-ACC eat-PAST

fact‘Taroo ate an apple’b.* [Ringo-otabe]i Taroo-ga

apple-ACC eatti (si)-ta

Taroo-NOM(koto)

do-PAST

fact‘(lit.) [Eat an apple]i, Taroo did ti’Note that the presence of su ‘do’ does not affect the grammatical status of (ib).
3

The nature of the verb su ‘do’ has been subject to much debate in the history of Japanesesyntax. See, among many others, Kuroda (1965), Inoue (1976), Kageyama (1976-77, 1982, 1993),
Grimshaw & Mester (1988), Miyagawa (1989b), Terada (1990), Tsujimura (1990), Ohkado (1991),
Hoshi (1994), Saito & Hoshi (2000), and Saito (2006).
4

Although Japanese has several types of passives (see Hoshi 1999 for an overview), I restrict

myself to the so-called niyotte-passives (Kuroda 1979), in order to avoid unnecessary complications
concerning VP-scrambling with passives.
5

Hoshi’s (1994) suggestion is supported by the contrast between (ia) and (ib), which involve agenuine control verb like try (cited from Lasnik & Fiengo 1974:553). According to Lasnik & Fiengo(1974), get-passives can denote a controllable action while be-passives cannot, so that only theformer can be a complement of try, which requires a complement denoting an event.

143

-143-

(i)

a. * John tried to be arrested by the policeb. John tried to get (himself) arrested by the police
6

Since Saito (2006) seems to assume that VP-scrambling moves a VP, I adjust his explanation

so as to make it compatible with the idea that VP-scrambling moves a vP.
7

Nothing prevents the expletive su ‘do’ from appearing in sentences with (di)transitive andunergative verbs. Thus, those sentences without VP-scrambling can be structurally ambiguous. For
instance, a sentence with a transitive verb like (ia), repeated from (1a), would be analyzed as having
a structure like (ib), which contains the expletive su ‘do’.

(i)a. Taroo-ga[ringo-otabe]-sae si-ta

Taroo-NOM apple-ACC eat-even

do-PAST(koto)
fact‘Taroo [even ate an apple]’b. [TP Taroo-gai [VexplP ti [vP ringo-o tabe-saej] [Vexpl0 <tabe-sae>j si]] -ta]
In (ib), the main verb undergoes convert adjunction to the expletive su ‘do’, assigning a ș-role to theexternal argument Taroo-ga, base-generated in Spec, VexplP. Then, scrambling of vP results in a
violation of the derivational PBC, on a par with the cases with unaccusative, passive and stative
verbs. Recall however that (di)transitive and unergative verbs are also compatible with the control su‘do’. Hence, VP-scrambling is licit for these verbs.
8

In his formulation of the derivational PBC, Saito (2003), following Lasnik (1999a) and Kuno

(2001), assumes that A-movement does not have to leave a trace. See also Chapter 2 for a relevant
discussion.
9(i)

A similar example can be constructed with passive and stative verbs, as in (i).

a. Hooseki-ga [doroboo-niyotte nusum-are]-sae kinoo(-wa)
jewel-NOM

thief-bysi-ta

steal-PASS-even yesterday-TOP do-PAST(koto)
fact‘The jewels were [even stolen by the thief] yesterday’b. Taroo-ga
Taroo-NOM[numuko-no kimoti-ga
son-GEN

wakari]-sae

sono koro(-wa) si-ta(koto)

feeling-NOM understand-even that time-TOP do-PAST fact

‘Taroo [even understood his son’s feeling] at that time’I thank Masatake Arimoto (p.c.) for his help in constructing the relevant examples.
10

In addition to the nouns used in the text, the unaccusative su ‘do’ seems to take nouns likekaori ‘smell’, hibiki ‘peal’, azi ‘taste’, which are related to the Speaker’s senses, as its subject.
Moreover, it also takes nouns like ki ‘atomosphere’, kanzi ‘feeling’, yokan ‘premonition’, which

144

-144-

denote the Speaker’s mental attitude, as its subject.
11

Recall from the discussion in Chapter 2, that we are assuming that not onlytransitive/unergative vPs but also unaccusative/passive ones are subject to Spell-out, following Ko(2005a, 2007). As is discussed soon in the text, our analysis provides a further argument for thisassumption.
12

The proposed system does not exclude the following alternative derivation for (34a) depicted

in (i), as pointed out by Mamoru Saito (p.c.).

(i)a. Construction of vP2

Æ[vP2 [VP2 fune-ga sizumi]]-sae

Spell-out of vP2
Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae

b. Merge of kinoo with vP1[vP1 kinoo [VP1 [vP2 [VP2 fune-ga sizumi]]-sae si]]Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
c. Scrambling of vP2 to vP1-edge Æ Spell-out of vP1[vP1 [vP2 [VP2 fune-ga sizumi]]-sae kinoo [VP1 tvP2 si]]

Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
fune-ga<sizumi-sae<kinoo<si

d. Construction of CPÆ

Spell-out of CP[CP [TP fune-gai [vP1 [vP2 [VP2 ti sizumi]]-sae kinoo [VP1 tvP2 si]] -ta]]

Ordering Table: fune-ga<sizumi-sae
fune-ga<sizumi-sae<kinoo<sifune-ga<sizumi-sae<kinoo<si<ta

The derivation in (i) crucially differs from the one in (35) in that the subject fune-ga ‘ship’ moves toSpec, TP after vP2 undergoes scrambling to the vP1-edge. This movement is legitimate because it has
been noticed that scrambling out of a scrambled phrase is possible (see, for instance, Takahashi 1994,
Saito & Fukui 1998, among others). Moreover, no contradicting orderings statements are established.
Thus, the derivation successfully converges, yielding the intended surface linear order.
13

In this dissertation, I assume the PRO-based theory of control (Chomsky 1981, Chomsky &Lasnik 1993, Martin 1996, 2001, Landau 2000, 2003, 2004, to name a few). For recent discussions
on the nature of control, see Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003, Manzini & Roussou 2000, Culicover &Jackendoff 2001, 2005, 2006, Boeckx & Hornstein 2003, 2004, 2006a, b, Jackendoff & Culicover
2003, Polinsky & Potsdam 2006, and Runner 2006. See also footnote 16.
14

Nothing hinges upon whether this scrambling targets TP or CP.

145

-145-

15

(i)

Tateishi (1991:100) discusses examples like (i), judging it ungrammatical.

benkyoosi]-wai Taroo-ga*[Eigo-oEnglish-ACC study-TOP

isshookenmei

Taroo-NOM hardti si-ta
do-PAST‘(lit.) [Study English]i, Taroo did ti hard’Because the adverb isshookenmei ‘hard’ can also modify su ‘do’, the status of (i) is not quite clear. I
provide clearer examples in the subsequent text.
16

One issue I do not discuss in this dissertation is the interaction between the proposed analysis

and the movement theory of control put forth by Hornstein (1999), which reduces control tomovement (see also Bowers 1973, 2008, O’Neil 1997 and references mentioned in footnote 13; see
Fujii 2006 and Takano 2008 for evidence from Japanese). Under the movement theory of control, thecontroller is Merged in a ș-position of the control complement, and then raises to the higher
ș-position. Given the movement theory of control, every argument must be Merged within the
projection of the main verb, irrespective of whether the control or the raising su ‘do’ appears. As aresult, the account of the generalizations in (26) is lost. See Takita (to appear d) for a possible
solution to this problem and some pieces of evidence.
17

In fact, there seem to be variations among speakers with respect to the status of (48b). For

instance, Tateishi (1991) judges a similar example as ungrammatical. If the stranded dative argument
is indeed an argument of su ‘do’ but not that of the main verb, as is claimed in the subsequent text, it
might be possible to attribute the source of the variations to the difference regarding the argument
structure of su ‘do’.
18

Anticipating the suggestion below in the text that the ni-marked argument of su ‘do’ is a PP, I

use NI as the gloss for the relevant instances of -ni.
19(52a) is awkward presumably because the overt pronoun kanozyo-ni ‘her’ is adjacent to

Hanako-ni. As in (i) below, a similar effect is observed even when no clausal complement isinvolved.

(i) Taroo-ga

Hanako-nii

Taroo-NOM Hanako-DAT[(?kanozyo-e-noi)
her-to-GEN

hon-nookurimono]-obook-GEN present-ACC

si-ta(koto)

do-PAST

fact‘Taroo did to Hanako [a present of a book for her]’20

Hornstein (2001) and Boeckx & Hornstein (2003) assume the movement theory of control.

According to the movement theory of control, the effect of the PMD is subsumed under the locality
constraints on movement, for instance, the Minimal Link Condition. Hence, by postulating the null P,(55a) is analyzed as having a structure like (ia).

146

-146-

(i)

a. Johni promised [PP ø [DP Mary]] [ti to go to school]b. Johni seems [PP to [DP Mary]] [ti to go to school]In (ia), John is base-generated within the embedded clause, receiving a ș-role from go, and then it
raises to the matrix clause, receiving another ș-role from promise. Since Mary in (ia) is thecomplement of the null P, the movement of John across Mary does not induce a locality violation, on
a par with the case in (ib), where the experience PP to Mary does not block the raising of John.
Although the analysis advocated in this chapter assumes the rather traditional PRO-based theory,the null P analysis does not seem to be inconsistent with the PRO-based theory. Hence, I believe thatthe choice of this particular analysis of control does not affect the point being made in the text.
21

Following the notation in Chapter 2, NQs and their host NPs are underlined.

22

Mamoru Saito (p.c.) points out that the structure in (60b) might be allowed even under the

principle (61) if the adjunction of the main verb to the expletive su ‘do’ takes place first so thatbase-generation of an argument to VexplP counts an application of External Merge into a ș-position.
One possible solution is to assume that the expletive su ‘do’ is a subtype of v, so that it is subject toSpell-out. Then, the main verb and the expletive su ‘do’, to which it adjoins, are specified to follow
all the other elements within the VexplP.

147

-147-

Chapter 5
Sluicing in Japanese and Cyclic Linearization

5.1. Introduction
This chapter principally concerns with the so-called sluicing construction,
exemplified by the English examples in (1) below (see, among many others, Ross 1969aand Merchant 2001).1 In sluicing, the embedded interrogative clauses of the second
conjuncts are reduced to containing only a wh-phrase (in these cases, what and whichmagazine), which is called a remnant.2(1) Sluicing in English
a. John bought something, but I don’t know [what ¨]b. John knows [which book Mary bought], and Bill knows [which magazine ¨]In (1a), the remnant has the indefinite noun something as its correlate in the antecedentclause, whereas in (1b) the wh-phrase which book in the antecedent clause serves as acorrelate (remnants and correlates are boxed throughout this chapter).
A similar construction is found in Japanese, as shown in (2) below.3 Although they
are quite similar to the examples in (1), there is an interesting difference between theones in (2) and the ones in (1): The copula da may appear in the clause to which ellipsis
has applied (let us call it the target clause).
(2) Sluicing-like construction in Japanesea. Taroo-ga
nanika-okatta
rasii ga,
Taroo-NOM something-ACC bought seem but
boku-wa [nani-o¨ (da) ka] sir-anai
I-TOP
what-ACC
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Taroo seems to have bought something, but I don’t know [what ¨]’
b. Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
dono hon-okattaka] sitteiru si,
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM which book-ACC bought
Ziroo-wa [dono zassi-o ¨ (da) ka] sitteiru
Ziroo-TOP

which-ACC

COP

Q

Q

know

and

know

‘(lit.) Taroo knows which book Hanako bought, and Bill knows [whichmagazine ¨]’
148

-148-

Thus, this construction is referred to as the sluicing-like construction (SLC).
There has been some controversy as to how to analyze the SLC. Takahashi (1994)
proposes that the SLC has essentially the same structure as the sluicing construction in
English. That is, it results from TP-deletion preceded by wh-movement.4 On the other
hand, it has been argued that the SLC has a different structure from sluicing (seeShimoyama 1995, Nishiyama, Whitman & Yi. 1996, Kuwabara 1997, Kizu 1997, 2005,
Fukaya & Hoji 1999, Sakai 2000, Hiraiwa & Ishihara 2002, Fukaya 2003, Saito 2004,
and Nakao & Yoshida 2005, among many others). According to this view, the relevant
part of (2a) is analyzed either as a copula construction with a null pronominal subject,
namely pro, or as a cleft construction with ellipsis of the presupposition CP (details arereviewed in Section 5.2).
I illustrate in this chapter that Japanese does have a construction comparable tosluicing in English, which is derived by by TP-deletion and concomitant wh-movement,
based on a novel set of data involving non-finite complements. Meanwhile, I argue thatexamples like (2), which contain finite complements, are best analyzed as having the
copula/cleft constructions as their underlying sources. Furthermore, I argue that
TP-deletion and concomitant wh-movement in finite clauses yields a hitherto unattested
type of sluicing, which we call V(erb)-stranding sluicing. Finally, I point out that thepattern of sluicing found in Japanese constitutes a clear counterexample to Merchant’s(2001) Sluicing-COMP generalization, which informally states that no elements otherthan wh-phrases can survive deletion under sluicing. Then, I posit an alternative
generalization that incorporates the Japanese pattern.
After establishing the existence of sluicing in Japanese and its implication for the
study of sluicing in general, I argue that the theory of Cyclic Linearization developed in
the previous chapters can provide a way of deriving the effect of the alternative
generalization. In particular, I argue that the effect is derived once we implement under
the theory of Cyclic Linearization Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) approach to island-repair (seealso Ross 1969a, Chomsky 1972, Chung, Ladusaw, & McCloskey 1995, Lasnik 2001,
2006, 2008, and Merchant 2001, 2004, 2008, to name a few, for various approaches toisland-repair), which is introduced there. Thus, the theory of Cyclic Linearization
receives further support to the extent that the account is successful.
This chapter is organized as follows: Section 5.2 is devoted to show that Japanese
has sluicing. It is also shown that the Japanese pattern of sluicing requires areconsideration of Merchant’s (2001) Sluicing-COMP generalization. Section 5.3 aims
at deriving the effect of the alternative generalization in terms of Cyclic Linearization.
149

-149-

In Section 5.4, I discuss some remaining issues and suggest a direction of future study
by making some speculations. Section 5.5 is the conclusion.
5.2. Sluicing in Japanese Revisited
As mentioned in Section 5.1, previous studies on sluicing in Japanese have been
focusing on the construction which is referred to as the sluicing-like construction (SLC).
The relevant examples are given in (3), repeated from (2).
(3) Sluicing-like construction in Japanesea. Taroo-ga

nanika-okatta

rasii ga,

Taroo-NOM something-ACC bought seem but
boku-wa [nani-o¨ (da) ka] sir-anai
I-TOP
what-ACC
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Taroo seems to have bought something, but I don’t know [what ¨]’
b. Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga
dono hon-okattaka] sitteiru si,
Taroo-TOP Hanako-NOM which book-ACC bought Q know andZiroo-wa [dono zassi-o ¨ (da) ka] sitteiru
Ziroo-TOP which-ACC
COP Q
know
‘(lit.) Taroo knows which book Hanako bought, and Bill knows [whichmagazine ¨]’
Takahashi (1994) proposes that the SLC results from TP-deletion and concomitant
wh-movement, on a par with sluicing in English. Under this view, the target clause of(3a) has a structure like (4), where the wh-phrase nani-o ‘what’ undergoes
wh-movement to the Spec of CP, whose head is the Q-morpheme ka, and thecomplement TP gets deleted. I call this view the genuine sluicing analysis of the SLC.
(4) Genuine sluicing analysis of (3a)… boku-wa [CP nani-o i [TP Taroo-ga ti katta] [C0 ka]] sir-anai

On the other hand, many works cited in Section 5.1 have argued that the SLC has
the copula/cleft constructions as its underlying source. According to this view, therelevant part of (3a) is analyzed either as a copula construction with a null pronominal
subject, namely pro, as in (5a), or as a cleft construction with ellipsis of thepresupposition CP as in (5b).5
150

-150-

(5) Pseudo-sluicing analysis of (3a)a. … boku-wa [pro nani-o(da) ka] sir-nai
I-TOP
what-ACC COP Q know-NEG‘(lit.) … I don’t know [what it is]’b. … boku-wa [[CP Taroo-ga kattano]-ga nani-o(da) ka] sir-anai
I-TOP
Taroo-NOM bought C-NOM what-ACC COP Q know-NEG‘(lit.) … I don’t know [what it is [that Taroo bought]]’

Adopting Merchant’s (1998, 2001) terminology, I call this type of analysis thepseudo-sluicing analysis of the SLC.
As reviewed in Section 5.2.1 below, one of the major sources of controversy
regarding the SLC is the optional presence of the copula da. As far as I can tell, all theprevious studies on the SLC in Japanese mentioned above have examined sentences
containing predicates like ‘know’, which take finite clausal complements. 6 These
predicates can also take the copula and cleft constructions as their complements. Thus,
it is far from clear whether Japanese allows genuine sluicing. This state of affairs
undermines the basis of the theoretical implications of Takahashi’s (1994) work:
Evidence for wh-movement and for the functional category that licenses TP-deletion(namely, C0) in Japanese, contrary to the view that argues for the non-existence of suchfunctional categories in languages like Japanese (see, for instance, Fukui 1986).
Observe at this point that the copula and cleft constructions are never allowed ascomplements of control predicates like mayotteiru ‘hesitate’, as shown in (6) below.
(6) Copula in control complementsa. Taroo-wa [PRO doko-e ik-oo (*da) ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
where-to go-INF COP Q hesitate
cannot.decideTaroo-TOP‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where to go]’b. * Taroo-wa [(sore-ga) doko-e da ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
cannot.decideTaroo-TOP it-NOM where-to COP Q hesitate‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where it is]’c. * Taroo-wa [[CP iku no]-ga doko-e da ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
Taroo-TOP
go C-NOM where-to COP Q hesitate
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where it is [to go]]’In (6a), the verb ik ‘go’ is accompanied with the infinitive marker -(y)oo.7 It is not
151

-151-

possible for the copula da to appear between the verb and the Q-morpheme in this kindof syntactic context. In (6b), the embedded clause is the copula construction, and thesentence is ungrammatical irrespective of the presence of the pronominal subject
sore-ga ‘it’. Finally, the ungrammaticality of (6c) indicates that the cleft construction
cannot appear as a complement of these predicates.8
Hence, this kind of predicates allows us to examine whether Japanese has genuine
sluicing without the interference of pseudo-sluicing. In this section, it is shown thatJapanese indeed has genuine sluicing, based on a novel set of data regarding the SLC
with non-finite (namely, control) complements (hereafter SLCNFC). Meanwhile, it is also
shown that the SLC with finite complements (hereafter SLCFC) exemplified by (3) isbest analyzed as pseudo-sluicing, contrasting it with the SLCNFC. Therefore, our results
support Takahashi’s (1994) idea and consequently its aforementioned theoretical
implications from a slightly different angle, simultaneously maintaining thepseudo-sluicing analysis of the “standard” examples, that is, of the SLCFC.
In Section 5.2.1, I provide a brief background on the genuine sluicing andpseudo-sluicing analyses. In Section 5.2.2, I argue that the SLCNFC instantiates thegenuine sluicing structure, while the SLCFC unambiguously has the pseudo-sluicing
structure, based on several diagnostic tests. In Section 5.2.3, I return to the question of
why the SLCFC does not allow the genuine sluicing structure. Section 5.2.4 discusses theimplications of the findings of this section for the study of sluicing.
5.2.1. Background on the SLCFC
Let us start with one of Takahashi’s (1994) arguments for the genuine sluicing
analysis. He observes that, as shown in (7) below, the SLCFC allows the sloppy reading
given in (7b-ii) (see Ross 1969a for sluicing; see Sag 1976, Williams 1977 and Fiengo& May 1994 for VP-ellipsis; see also Chapter 3 for argument ellipsis), in addition to thestrict reading given in (7b-i).9(7) Sloppy reading in the SLCFC
a. Taroo-wa [zibun-ga doko-de sikarareru
Taroo-TOP self-NOM where-at is.scoldedka] sitteiru ga,
Qknow but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [where he will be scolded],’

152

-152-

b. Hanako-wa[doko-de¨ (da) ka] sir-anai

Hanako-TOP
where-at
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [where ¨]’(i) Hanako doesn’t know [where he (= Taroo) will be scolded](ii) Hanako doesn’t know [where she (= Hanako) will be scolded]
That is, (7b) allows the missing embedded subject of the target clause to refer either to
Taroo or to Hanako. Taking the availability of the sloppy reading as a hallmark of
ellipsis, Takahashi (1994) argues that sentences like (7b) results from wh-movement of
doko-de ‘where’ followed by deletion of the TP, which contains the anaphor zibun ‘self’,as in (8) (cf. (4)).
(8) Genuine sluicing analysis of (7b)
Hanako-wa [CP doko-de i [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareru] ka] sir-anai

The genuine sluicing analysis, however, cannot deal with the presence of the copula,as Takahashi (1994) himself notes. If the alleged TP-deletion has not applied, (7b)would be like (9), in which the copula da cannot appear.
(9) (7b) without ellipsis
Hanako-wa [CP doko-de [TP zibun-ga sikarareru] (*da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
where-atself-NOM is.scolded
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [where he will be scolded],’Thus, the copula should be disallowed in (7b) if (9) is the underlying source of it.
Takahashi (1994) then discusses one version of the pseudo-sluicing analysis, which
treats the SLCFC as an instance of the copula construction with the null pronominal
subject (cf. (5a)). Under this analysis, (7b) would be analyzed as having a structure like(10a). Given that pro is a phonologically null counterpart of pronouns, (10a) would look
like (10b) if pro is replaced with the overt pronoun sore ‘it’.
(10) SLCFC as copula construction
a. Hanako-wa [pro doko-de (da) ka] sir-anai

153

-153-

b. Hanako-wa [sore-ga doko-de (da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP it-NOM where-at COP Q‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [where it is]’know-NEG

As seen in (10b), the copula is optional in this construction. Thus, if (10b) is theunderlying source of (7b), the optional presence of the copula in the SLCFC can be
captured.
This analysis is rejected by Takahashi (1994), however. This is because it fails to
capture the observation that the SLCFC allows the sloppy reading. Suppose that (7a),repeated as (11a), is followed by (10b), repeated as (11b).
(11) Absence of sloppy reading in the copula construction
a. Taroo-wa [zibun-ga doko-de sikarareru ka] sitteiru ga,
Taroo-TOP self-NOM where-at is.scolded Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [where he will be scolded],’b. Hanako-wa [sore-ga doko-de (da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP it-NOM where-at COP Q know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [where it is]’(i) Hanako doesn’t know [where he (= Taroo) will be scolded](ii) * Hanako doesn’t know [where she (= Hanako) will be scolded]
Crucially, (11b) does not allow the sloppy reading in (11b-ii), which is indeed availablefor (7b). Hence, it is not likely the case that something like (10a-b) is the underlying
source for (7b). The puzzle then boils down to how we can capture the two properties
exhibited by the SLCFC; the availability of the sloppy reading and the (optional)
presence of the copula.
To solve this problem, Saito (2004) proposes the other version of thepseudo-sluicing analysis mentioned in Section 5.2.1 (cf. (5b)). In particular, he argues,
following Nishiyama, Whitman & Yi (1996), that the cleft construction underlies the
SLCFC. According to Saito (2004), (7b) would be analyzed as having a structure like(12) as its underlying source, whose embedded clause is a cleft construction.
(12) SLCFC as cleft construction
Hanako-wa [[CP zibun-ga
Hanako-TOP

self-NOM

sikarareru no]-ga doko-de (da) ka] sir-anaiis.scolded C-NOM where-at COP Q know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [where self will be scolded]’
154

-154-

In the cleft construction, the copula appears optionally. Moreover, the presupposition CP
in this construction qualifies as a subject: For instance, it can be marked by thenominative Case-marker -ga, as in (12).
Recall at this point that Japanese allows arguments, including subjects, to be directly
deleted via argument ellipsis, as is extensively discussed in Chapter 3. (13) exemplifies
one concrete case of argument ellipsis involving clausal subjects. (13a) sets up thecontext for (13b-c), and the clausal subject of the embedded clause contains zibun ‘self’.
In (13b), the clausal subject is missing, while in (13c) the overt pronoun sore-ga ‘it’occupies the embedded subject position.
(13) Argument ellipsis of clausal subjects
a. Taroo-wa [[CP zibun-ga iku no]-ga taisetuda to] omotteiru
Taroo-wa
self-NOM go C-NOM important that think‘(lit.) Taroo thinks [that [that he would go] is important]’b. Hanako-wa [¨ taisetude-nai to] omotteiru
Hanako-TOP
important-NEG that think‘(lit.) Hanako thinks [that ¨ is not important]’(i) Hanako thinks [that [that he (= Taroo) would go] is not important](ii) Hanako thinks [that [that she (= Hanako) would go] is not important]c. Hanako-wa [sore-ga taisetude-nai to] omotteiru
Hanako-TOP it-NOM important-NEG that think‘(lit.) Hanako thinks [that it is not so important]’(i) Hanako thinks [that [that he (= Taroo) would go] is not important](ii) * Hanako thinks [that [that she (= Hanako) would go] is not important]
Crucially, (13b) has the sloppy reading where the subject of the clausal subject refers to
Hanako, namely the reading in (13b-ii), whereas (13c) does not have such a reading.
This fact can be explained if the missing clausal subject in (13b) results from argument
ellipsis.
Given argument ellipsis, Saito (2004) argues that the surface string of the SLCFC
derives from ellipsis of the presupposition CP subject and omission of the copula.
Taking (7b) as a concrete example, it is derived from (12) by applying argument ellipsis
to the presupposition CP subject, as in (14) (following the conclusion reached in
Chapter 3, I assume that argument ellipsis is an instance of LF-copying, where copied
elements are indicated by angled brackets).
155

-155-

(14) SLCFC as cleft construction with ellipsis of the presupposition CP subject
Hanako-wa [<[CP zibun-ga

sikarareru no]-ga> doko-de (da) ka] sir-anai

Hanako-TOP
self-NOM is.scolded C-NOM where-at COP Q‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [where self will be scolded]’know-NEG

Thus, this analysis can explain not only the optional presence of the copula but also theavailability of the sloppy reading in the SLCFC, since it involves ellipsis.10
To sum up, the pseudo-sluicing analysis seems to be promising, as far as the SLCFC
is concerned. However, this state of affairs does not necessarily exclude the possibilityof genuine sluicing in Japanese. In the next subsection, I examine the SLCNFC, toexplore whether genuine sluicing is available in Japanese.
5.2.2. SLCNFC vs. SLCFCAs we have seen in the previous section, the predicates of the SLCFC examined in
the previous studies can take the copula and cleft constructions as their complements, aswell as the normal interrogative complements. Thus, to see whether Japanese allows
genuine sluicing, it is necessary to find a syntactic context where the copula and cleft
constructions cannot appear. We can satisfy this requirement by using control predicatesthat unambiguously select interrogative non-finite complements such as mayotteiru‘hesitate’ and kimekaneteiru ‘cannot decide’, as pointed out in Section 5.2.1. The
relevant examples are repeated from (6) as (15).
(15) Copula in control complementsa. Taroo-wa [PRO doko-e ik-oo (*da) ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
Taroo-TOP
where-to go-INF COP Q hesitate
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where to go]’b. * Taroo-wa [(sore-ga) doko-e da ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
cannot.decideTaroo-TOP it-NOM where-to COP Q hesitate‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where it is]’c. * Taroo-wa [[CP iku no]-ga doko-e da ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
Taroo-TOP
go C-NOM where-to COP Q hesitate‘(lit.) Taroo hesitates/cannot decide [where it is [to go]]’cannot.decideNow, let us consider (16). (16a) serves as the antecedent for (16b), in which only thewh-phrase dono zyaanaru-ni ‘to which journal’ and the Q-marker ka appear in the
156

-156-

embedded clause.
(16) Initial observation on SLCNFC
a. Taroo-wa [PRO dono zyaanaru-ni ronbun-o das-ooka] kimeta ga,
Taroo-TOP
which journal-topaper-ACC submit-INF Q decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to which journal to submit a paper],’b. Hanako-wa [doko-ni¨ (*da) ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP where-to
COP Q
hesitatecannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako hesitates/cannot decide [to where ¨]’
It is independently known that obligatory control PRO is always interpreted as a boundvariable (see, for instance, Fodor 1975, Chomsky 1981, Reinhart 1983, Lebeaux 1984,and Higginbotham 1992), so that it cannot assume the strict reading under ellipsis(Bouchard 1984, Higginbotham 1992, Hornstein 1999; see Fujii 2006 for Japanese).
The fact that (16b) allows only the sloppy reading for the subject of the embedded
clause suggests that ellipsis is indeed involved in (16b). Finally, the copula da cannot
appear in this construction. This observation already suggests that Japanese does havegenuine sluicing. In the rest of this subsection, I illustrate that the SLCNFC, instantiatedby (16), exhibits the characteristic properties of genuine sluicing, while the SLCFC
unambiguously exhibits those of pseudo-sluicing.11
5.2.2.1. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (I): Clause-types
The first property has to do with the types of clauses. We have already seen that the
SLCs are possible with wh-remnants, irrespective of whether the complements are finite
or not (see (7) and (16)). It is well-known since Ross 1969a that sluicing is compatible
only with wh-questions in many languages (see also Lobeck 1990, 1995 and Saito &Murasugi 1990), as shown by the English examples in (17).12(17) English sluicing and clause types
a. They say that John loves someone, but I don’t know [who ¨]
b. * They say that John will leave, but I don’t know [whether ¨]c. * They say that John loves Mary, but I don’t know [that ¨]
Let us examine how the SLCNFC and SLCFC behave when the remnant is non-wh-phrase.
I start the discussion by examining the SLCNFC examples whose remnant is a
non-wh-phrase. The relevant examples are given in (18) and (19) below. The examples
157

-157-

in (18) contain a yes/no-question complement, while those in (19) contain a declarative
one. The sentences in (18a) and (19a) serve as the antecedent for (18b-c) and (19b-c),
respectively. The b-examples are the baseline, which does not involve ellipsis. In thec-examples, everything other than the remnant and the complementizer is elided.
(18) SLCNFC with yes/no-question complementsa. Taroo-wa [PRO LI-ni ronbun-o das-ooto] kimeta ga,
Taroo-TOP
LI-to paper-ACC submit-INF that decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to submit a paper to LI],’
b. Hanako-wa [PRO LI-ni ronbun-o das-oo
kadooka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
LI-to paper-ACC submit-INF whether cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [whether to submit a paper to LI]’c. * Hanako-wa [LI-ni ¨ kadooka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP LI-towhether cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [to LI whether ¨]’(19) SLCNFC with declarative complementsa. Taroo-wa [PRO LI-ni ronbun-o das-ooto] kimeta ga,
Taroo-TOP
LI-to paper-ACC submit-INF that decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to submit a paper to LI],’
b. Hanako-wa [PRO NLLT-ni ronbun-o das-ooto] kimeta
Hanako-TOP
NLLT-to paper-ACC submit-INF that decided‘(lit.) Hanako has decided [whether to submit a paper to NLLT]’
c. * Hanako-wa [NLLT-ni ¨ to] kimeta
Hanako-TOP
NLLT-tothat decided‘(lit.) Hanako has decided [to NLLT ¨]’
The ungrammaticality of (18c) and (19c) indicates that the SLCNFC does not allow
non-wh-remnants. Hence, the pattern found in (18) and (19) suggests that the SLCNFC
does have the genuine sluicing structure.
On the other hand, it has been observed that the SLCFC freely allows
non-wh-remnants (see, for instance, Nishiyama, Whitman, & Yi 1996 and Kuwabara
1997). Relevant examples are given in (20) and (21). (20a) and (21a) are the antecedentfor (20b) and (21b), and the former involves a yes/no-question complement and thelatter does a declarative complement.

158

-158-

(20) SLCFC with yes/no-question complementsa. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
LI-ni ronbun-o dasitato] itteita ga,
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM LI-to paper-ACC submitted that itteita but‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo submitted a paper to LI],’
b. Hanako-wa[LI-ni¨ (da) kadooka] sir-anai

Hanako-TOP
LI-to
COP whether
know-NEG‘ (lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [to LI whether ¨]’(21) SLCFC with declarative complementsa. Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOP[Ziroo-ga

LI-ni ronbun-odasitato]itteita ga,

Ziroo-NOM LI-to paper-ACC submitted thatsaid but‘(lit.) Though Taroo said that Ziroo submitted a paper to LI,’
b. Hanako-wa [NLLT-ni ¨ (da) to] itteita
Hanako-TOP NLLT-to
COP that said‘(lit.) Hanako said [to NLLT that ¨]’
The grammaticality of (20b) and (21b) readily follows under the pseudo-sluicing
analysis of the SLCFC, because their cleft counterparts are also grammatical, as in (22).
(22) Cleft counterparts of (20b) and (21b)ronbun-o dasitano]-ga LI-ni (da)a. Hanako-wa [[CP Ziroo-ga
Hanako-TOP
Ziroo-NOM paper-ACC submitted C-NOM LI-to COP
kadooka] sitteiru
whether know‘(lit.) Hanako knows [whether it is to LI [that Ziroo submitted a paper]]’b. Hanako-wa [[CP Ziroo-ga ronbun-o dasitano]-ga NLLT-ni (da)Hanako-TOP
to] itteita
that said

Ziroo-NOM paper-ACC submitted C-NOM NLLT-to

COP‘(lit.) Hanako said [that it is to NLLT [that Ziroo submitted a paper]]’(22a) corresponds to (20b) and (22b) does to (21b). If the presupposition CP subjects in(22) are elided, the surface strings of the relevant target clauses are obtained.
Thus, the patterns found in (18) and (19) support the claim that the SLCNFC has thegenuine sluicing structure. On the other hand, the patterns found in (20) and (21) showthat the SLCFC may have the pseudo-sluicing structure.
159

-159-

5.2.2.2. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (II): “Mention-some” modification
Discussing the possibility of the pseudo-sluicing analysis of English sluicing,
Merchant (1998, 2001) observes that modifiers like for example, which induces the“mention-some” interpretation, cannot appear in the cleft construction, while it canappear in sluicing, as in (23) (based on Merchant 2001:122).
(23) “Mention-some” modification in sluicing and cleft
A: You should talk to somebody in the legal department for help with that.
B: Could you tell me who (*it is), for example?
He relates this difference to the exhaustivity entailed by the pivot of the cleft
construction (see Kiss 1998). That is, a wh-phrase in the pivot is compatible only with a“mention-all” interpretation (Groenendijk & Stokhof 1997), so that the cleft version of
B’s utterance in (23b) is ungrammatical; on the other hand, sluicing does not impose
such a restriction on the remnants, so that the sluicing version is grammatical.
Let us apply this test to the SLCs. The case of the SLCNFC is given in (24).
(24) SLCNFC with “mention-some”-modification
a. Taroo-wa [PRO aru zyaanaru-ni ronbun-o das-ooto] kimeta ga,
Taroo-TOP
some journal-topaper-ACC submit-INF that decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to submit a paper to some journal],’b. Hanako-wa [PRO tatoeba
doko-ni ronbun-o das-ooka]Taroo-TOP
for.example where-to paper-ACC submit-INF Q
kimekaneteiru
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [to where, for example, to submit a paper]’c. Hanako-wa [tatoeba
doko-ni ¨ ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
for.example where-toQcannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [to where, for example ¨]’
The modifier tatoeba ‘for example’ can modify the wh-phrase doko-ni ‘to where’irrespective of whether ellipsis has applied or not, suggesting that (24c) does instantiate
genuine sluicing.
On the other hand, the SLCFC exhibits a different pattern, as shown in (25) below.
The contrast between (25b) and (25c) indicates that the “mention-some” interpretation
is not compatible with the SLCFC.
160

-160-

(25) SLCNFC with “mention-some”-modification
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-gaaruzyaanaru-ni ronbun-o dasitato] itteita ga,

Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM some journal-to paper-ACC submitted that said but‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo had submitted a paper to some journal],’b. Hanako-wa [kare-ga tatoeba
doko-ni ronbun-o dasitaka]
Hanako-TOP he-NOM for.example where-to paper-ACC submitted Q
siritagatteiru
want.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where, for example, he submitted a paper]’c. * Hanako-wa [tatoeba
doko-ni ¨ (da) ka] siritagatteiru
Hanako-TOP for.example where-to COP Q want.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where, for example ¨]’
As shown in (26), tatoeba ‘for example’ is not compatible with the pivot of the cleft
constructions, either.
(26) “Mention-some” modification in cleft constructions*Hanako-wa [[CP kare-ga ronbun-o dasu-tumorina no]-ga tatoeba

doko-ni
Hanako-TOP
he-NOM paper-ACC submit-intend C-NOM for.example where-to(da) ka] siritagatteiru
COP Q
want.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where, for example, it was [that he intends tosubmit a paper]]’Thus, the ungrammaticality of (25c) follows if (26) is the underlying source. Meanwhile,the ungrammaticality of (25c) indicates that the genuine sluicing structure is notavailable for the SLCFC, otherwise it should pattern with (24c).13
5.2.2.3. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (III): Else-modification
Similarly to the case of “mention-some” modification, sluicing remnants can be
modified by expressions like else, as in (27a), whereas pivots of the cleft constructions
cannot be, as in (27b) (based on Merchant 2001:122).
(27) Else-modification in sluicing and cleft
a. Harry was there, but I don’t know who else (was there)
161

-161-

b. * Harry was there, but I don’t know [who else it was]Let us apply this diagnostic test to the SLCs. The examples in (28) are those of the
SLCNFC.
(28) SLCNFC with else-modification
a. Taroo-wa [PRO LI-ni ronbun-o das-ooto] kimeta ga,
Taroo-TOP
LI-to paper-ACC submit-INF that decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to submit a paper to LI],’
b. Hanako-wa [PRO hokani doko-ni ronbun-o das-ooka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
else where-to paper-ACC submit-INF Q‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [to where else to submit a paper]’c. Hanako-wa [hokani doko-ni ¨ ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP else where-to Q cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [to where else ¨]’

cannot.decide(28b) is the baseline example, which does not involve ellipsis. The wh-phrase doko-ni‘to where’ is modified by the modifier hokani ‘else’. The grammaticality of (28c), which
does involve ellipsis, indicates that else-modification is possible in the case of SLCNFC.
The examples in (29) illustrate the case of SLCFC.
(29) SLCFC with else-modification
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
LI-ni ronbun-odasitato] itteita ga,

Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM LI-to paper-ACC submitted that said but‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo submitted a paper to LI],’
b. Hanako-wa [kare-ga hokani doko-ni ronbun-o dasitaka]
Hanako-TOP he-NOM else where-to paper-ACC submitted Q
siritagatteiru
want.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where else he submitted a paper]’c. * Hanako-wa[hokani doko-ni ¨ (da) ka] siritagatteiru

Hanako-TOP
else where-to COP Q want.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where else ¨]’
Unlike the case of SLCNFC in (28) above, there is a contrast between (29b) and (29c)((29c) is grammatical if hokani ‘else’ is removed). Indeed, else-modification is not
162

-162-

possible in the cleft constructions, as shown in (30) (again, the sentence is grammatical
if hokani ‘for example’ is removed).
(30) Else-modification in cleft*Hanako-wa [[CP kare-ga

ronbun-odasitano]-ga hokani doko-ni

Hanako-TOP
he-NOM paper-ACC submitted C-NOM else(da) ka] siritagatteiru
COP Q
want.to.know

where-to‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where else it was [that he submitted a paper]]’
Therefore, the claim that SLCNFC is genuine sluicing whereas SLCFC is not is supported
in terms of else-modification.
5.2.2.4. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (IV): Aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases
Aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases (Pesetsky 1987) are not allowed as sluicing
remnants, as is observed by Merchant (1998, 2001). The relevant examples are given in(31) (based on Merchant 2001:122).
(31) Aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases in English sluicing
a. Someone dented my car last night --b. I wish I knew who (*the hell)!
c. I wish I knew who the hell it was!
(31a) serves as the antecedent for (31b-c). As in (31b), sluicing is possible if theremnant is a simple wh-phrase like who, while the sentence becomes ungrammatical if it
is an aggressively non-D-lined wh-phrase such as who the hell, which can appear as apivot of the cleft construction, as in (31c).
As shown in (32), aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases like ittai doko-ni ‘to where
the hell’ (Pesetsky 1987, Huang & Ochi 2004) are possible if no ellipsis is involved,
whereas they cannot appear in the SLCNFC, as the contrast between (32b) and (32c)indicates ((32c) is grammatical if ittai is removed).
(32) SLCNFC with aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases
a. Taroo-wa [PRO dono zyaanaru-ni ronbun-o das-ooka] kimeta ga,

Taroo-TOP
which journal-topaper-ACC submit-INF Q decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to which journal to submit a paper],’
163

-163-

b. Hanako-wa [PRO ittai

doko-ni ronbun-o das-ooka] kimekaneteiru

Hanako-TOP
the.hell where-to paper-ACC submit-INF Q cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [to where the hell to submit a paper]’c. * Hanako-wa [ittai
doko-ni ¨ ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
the.hell where-to Q cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [to where the hell ¨]’
On the other hand, there is no such a contrast between (33b) and (33c), which
instantiates the SLCFC.
(33) SLCFC with aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dono zyaanaru-ni ronbun-o dasitaka] sitteiru ga,
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which journal-to paper-ACC submitted Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [to which journal Ziroo submitted a paper],’b. Hanako-wa [kare-ga ittai
doko-ni ronbun-o dasitaka]
Hanako-TOP he-NOM the.hell where-to paper-ACC submitted Q
siritagatteiru
want.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where the hell he submitted a paper]’c. Hanako-wa [ittai
doko-ni ¨ (da) ka] siritagatteiru
Hanako-TOP
the.hell where-to COP Q want.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where the hell ¨]’
As shown in (34), aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases can be a pivot of the cleft
construction.
(34) Aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases in cleft
Hanako-wa [[CP kare-ga ronbun-o dasitano]-ga ittai

doko-ni

Hanako-TOP
he-NOM paper-ACC submitted C-NOM the.hell where-to(da) ka] siritagatteiru
COP Q
want.to.know‘(lit.) Hanako wants to know [to where the hell it was [that he submitted a paper]]’
Therefore, the contrast between (32c) and (33c) indicates that the pseudo-sluicing
structure is available for the SLCFC but not for the SLCNFC.
164

-164-

5.2.2.5. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (V): Case-marker/postposition drop
Merchant (2001) posits the so-called P(reposition)-stranding generalization, whichroughly states that P-stranding is allowed under sluicing in a language iff it allows
P-stranding under regular movement. 14 In languages like English, P-stranding isallowed under sluicing and regular wh-movement, as shown in (35) (based on Merchant2001:92).
(35) P-stranding in English
a. Peter was talking with someone, but I don’t know (with) who
b. Whoi was he talking with ti?
In languages like German, which does not allow P-stranding under regular
wh-movement, on the other hand, it is not allowed under sluicing, as shown in (36)(based on Merchant 2001:94).
(36) P-stranding in German
a. Anna hat mit jemandem gesprochen, aber ich weiß nicht, *(mit) wem
Anna has with someone spoken
b. * Wemi hat sie mit ti gesprochen?
who has she withspokenbut Iknow notwith someone

As shown in (37), Case-markers/postpositions cannot be stranded under movementin Japanese. In (37a), the accusative Case-marker -o is left behind, and in (37b) the
postposition to ‘with’ is stranded.
(37) Case-marker/postposition drop in Japanese
ti-o
katta
ka] sitteiru
a. * Taroo-wa [nanii Hanako-ga
Taroo-TOP what Hanako-NOM-ACC bought Q know‘(lit.) Taroo knows [whati Hanako bought ti]’ti-to hanasita ka] sitteiru
b. * Taroo-wa [darei Hanako-ga
Taroo-TOP who Hanako-NOM-with talked
Qknow‘(lit.) Taroo knows [whoi Hanako talked with ti]’
They cannot be dropped from the remnants in the SLCNFC, as in (38) below.

165

-165-

(38) SLCNFC with Case-marker/postposition dropa. Taroo-wa [PRO nanika-o
kaw-oo to] kimeta ga,
Taroo-TOP
something-ACC buy-INF that decided but
Hanako-wa [nani*(-o) ¨ ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
what-ACC
Q
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to buy something], Hanako cannot decide[what ¨]’b. Taroo-wa
Taroo-TOP[PRO dareka-to

hanas-oo to] kimeta ga,

someone-with talk-INF

that decided but

Hanako-wa [dare*(-to) ¨ ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
who-withQ
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to talk with someone], Hanako cannot decide[who ¨]’As shown in (39), however, they can be dropped from the remnants in the SLCFC(see, for instance, Nishiyama, Whitman, & Yi 1996 and Fukaya & Hoji 1999).
(39) SLCFC with Case-marker/postposition dropa. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
nanika-okattato] itteita ga,
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM something-ACC bought that said but
Hanako-wa [nani(-o) ¨ (da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP what-ACC
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo bought something], Hanako doesn’t know[what ¨]’b. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dareka-tohanasita ka] itteita ga,
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM someone-with talked
Q
said but
Hanako-wa [dare(-to) ¨ (da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP who-with
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo talked with someone], Hanako doesn’tknow [who ¨]’
Meanwhile, Case-markers/postpositions can be dropped from the pivot of the cleft inJapanese (Hoji 1990), as in (40).15

166

-166-

(40) Case-marker/postposition drop in cleft
a. Hanako-wa [[CP kare-ga katta
Hanako-TOP

he-NOMno]-ga nani(-o) ¨ (da) ka] sir-anaibought C-NOM what-ACC
COP Q know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [what it is [that Ziroo bought]]’b. Hanako-wa [[CP kare-ga hanasita no]-ga dare(-to) ¨ (da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
he-NOM talked C-NOM what-ACC
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [who it is [that Ziroo talked]]’Hence,

thedifference

betweenthe

SLCNFC

and

the

SLCFC

regardingCase-marker/postposition drop provides further support for the claim that only the lattercan have the pseudo-sluicing structure.
5.2.2.6. SLCNFC vs. SLCFC (VI): Island-repair
The final property to be examined has to do with the observation, originally due toRoss (1969a), that island violations can be repaired by sluicing. Some representative
examples are given in (41), based on Merchant (2001:87). (41a) serves as the antecedentfor (41b-c), and the correlate a Balkan language is contained within a relative clause.
(41) Island-repair under sluicing
a. They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language,
b. * but I don’t remember [which (Balkan language) they want to hire someone
who speaks]c. but I don’t remember [which (Balkan language) ¨]
The ungrammaticality of (41b), which does not involve sluicing, indicates thatextraction of which (Balkan language) out of a relative clause induces an island
violation. On the other hand, the grammaticality of (41c), which does involve sluicing,suggests that island violations can be repaired by ellipsis (see also Section 5.3.1 below
for more detail).
In what follows, I show that although island violations cannot be repaired in the
SLCFC as pointed out by Takahashi (1994), Nishigauchi (1998), and Fukaya & Hoji
(1999) among others, they can indeed be repaired in the SLCNFC.16
Let us start with the SLCNFC. The relevant examples are given in (42) below. (42a) isthe antecedent, which contains zibun ‘self’ in the relative clause (RC stands for relative
clause). In (42b), the wh-phrase nani-o ‘what’ is extracted from the relative clause, so
the sentence is ungrammatical. The crucial example is (42c), which allows the sloppy
167

-167-

reading (42c-ii) in addition to the strict reading (42c-i).
(42) Island-repair in SLCNFC
a. Taroo-wa [PRO mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de nanika-okowasita]
Taroo-TOP
first
self-GEN store-in something-ACC brokeotoko]-o sirabe-yoo to] kimeta ga,
man-ACC check-INF that decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo decided [to check first [the man [who has broken ti in his
store]]],’
b. * Hanako-wa [nani-o i

PRO mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de ti kowasita]

Hanako-TOP what-ACC
first
self-GEN store-inbrokeotoko]-o sirabe-yoo ka] kimekaneteiru
man-ACC check-INF Q cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [whati to check first [the man [who has broken ti inher store]]],’c. Hanako-wa [nani-o¨ ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
what-ACC
Q
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [what ¨](i) Hanako cannot decide [whati to check first [the man [who has broken ti inhis (= Taroo’s) store]]]’(ii) Hanako cannot decide [whati to check first [the man [who has broken ti inher (= Hanako’s) store]]]’Recall at this point that the SLCNFC cannot have the copula/cleft construction as its
underlying source. Hence, the only available source for (42c) with the sloppy reading is(42b). Thus, the fact that (42c) allows the sloppy reading suggests that the island
violation in (42b) can indeed be repaired in the SLCNFC.
Turning now to the SLCFC, let us consider the examples in (43) below. (43a) is theantecedent, and (43b) exhibits an island violation. (43c) is an instance of the SLCFC.
Although the sentence itself is grammatical, it does not have the sloppy reading(43c-ii).17

168

-168-

(43) (Failure of) island-repair in SLCFC
a. Taroo-wa [keisatu-ga
mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de nanika-oTaroo-TOP police-NOM firstself-GEN store-in something-ACC
kowasita] otoko]-o sirabeta to] omotteiru ga,
but
broke
man-ACC checked that think‘(lit.) Though Taroo thinks [that the police checked first [the man [who had
broken something in his store]]],’
b. * Hanako-wa [nani-o ikeisatu-ga
Hanako-TOP

mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de ti

what-ACC police-NOM firstself-GEN store-inkowasita] otoko]-o sirabeta ka] sir-anai
brokeman-ACC checked Q know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in her store]]]’c. Hanako-wa [nani-o¨ (da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
what-ACC
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doen’t know [what ¨](i) Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in his (= Taroo’s) store]]]’(ii) * Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in her (= Hanako’s) store]]]’Note that the copula sentence in (44a), which has the overt pronominal subject sore-ga‘it’, patterns with (43c) in its range of the available readings.
(44) Copula counterpart of (43c)a. Hanako-wa [sore-ga nani-o(da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP it-NOM what-ACC COP Q know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doen’t know [what it is]’(i)

Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had

broken ti in his (= Taroo’s) store]]]’(ii) * Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in her (= Hanako’s) store]]]’b. Hanako-wa [pro nani-o (da) ka] sir-anai
It is then plausible to assume that (43c) with the strict reading has pro as its embedded
subject, as in (44b), so that there is no island violation to begin with.
169

-169-

Comparing to the case of the SLCNFC in (42), the absence of the sloppy reading in
the SLCFC then suggests that the SLCFC unambiguously has the pseudo-sluicing
structure. If the SLCFC were structurally ambiguous between genuine sluicing andpseudo-sluicing, it would be unclear why the sloppy reading is not available for the
SLCFC with the genuine sluicing structure on a par with the case of the SLCNFC.18
Before leaving this topic, one remark is in order. Suppose that a cleft sentence like(45) is the underlying source of (43c).
(45) Cleft source of (43c)*Hanako-wa [[CP keisatu-ga mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de ti kowasita]
police-NOM firstself-GEN store-in
broke
Hanako-TOP
otoko]-o sirabeta no]-ga nani-o i(da) ka] sir-anaiman-ACC checked C-NOM what-ACC COP Q know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [whati it is [that the police will check first [the man[who stole ti from her room]]]]’The ungrammaticality of (45) suggests that the cleft construction in Japanese exhibits
island effects, as observed by Hoji (1990). Suppose now that argument ellipsis of thepresupposition CP subject of (45), which contains the island, could ameliorate suchisland violations. Then, the sloppy reading is predicted to be available for (43c),
contrary to fact. Thus, the lack of sloppy reading for (43c) indicates that argument
ellipsis cannot repair island violations. I return to this issue in Section 5.4.2.
5.2.2.7. Interim Summary
The results of the diagnostic tests examined so far are summarized in (46).
(46) Summary of results
Sluicing

SLCNFC

SLCFC

Cleft

only whonly whall

all“Mention-some”-modification

¥

¥

*

*

Else-modification

¥

¥

*

*

Aggressively non-D-linked wh

*

*

¥

¥

Case-marker/postposition drop

* (in non-P-stranding lgs)

*

¥

¥

¥

¥

*

N/A

Clause-types

Island-repair

170

-170-

The SLCNFC exhibits the characteristic properties of sluicing. Thus, I conclude that the
SLCNFC is indeed an instantiation of genuine sluicing, namely, of wh-movement
followed by TP-deletion. In contrast, the SLCFC exhibits a quite different pattern: It
always patterns with the copula/cleft constructions. Note that if the SLCFC is structurally
ambiguous between genuine sluicing and pseudo-sluicing, it should pass all the tests,
contrary to fact. Thus, we can conclude that the underlying source of the SLCFC isunambiguously the copula/cleft constructions, further supporting the pseudo-sluicing
analysis of it.
5.2.3. Genuine Sluicing in Finite Clauses As V-stranding Sluicing
In the previous subsection, I illustrated that the SLCNFC has the genuine sluicing
structure. Thus, (47b) would be analyzed as having a structure like (47c).
(47) SLCNFC as genuine sluicing
a. Taroo-wa [PRO nani-o

yom-oo ka] kimetaga,

Taroo-TOP
what-ACC read-INF Q decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [what to read],’b. Hanako-wa [nani-o¨ ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
what-ACC
Q
cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decided [what ¨]’
c. … Hanako-wa [CP nani-o i [TP PRO ti yom-oo] [C0 ka]] kimekaneteiru

One question which arises at this point is why the genuine sluicing structure is notavailable for the SLCFC. If Japanese allows (at least superficially optional)
wh-movement and C0 can license deletion of TP in non-finite clauses as in (47c), why is
it not the case that wh-movement followed by TP-deletion is also licensed in finite
clauses as in (48c) below, giving rise to the surface string of (48b)?
(48) SLCFC as genuine sluicing?
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
nani-okattaka] sitteiru ga,

Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM what-ACC bought Q know‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [what Ziroo bought],’b. Hanako-wa [nani-o¨ ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP

what-ACC

Q

know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [what ¨]’
171

-171-

but

c. … Hanako-wa [CP nani-o i [TP Ziroo-ga ti katta] [C0 ka]] sir-anai

In this subsection, I provide an answer to this question by proposing that the genuine
sluicing is indeed available in finite clauses, but the resultant surface string of the target
clause differs from that of the SLCFC because of verb-movement.
Specifically, I propose that in Japanese, finite verbs move to C0 (via T0) (seeKoizumi 1995, 2000, among others), while non-finite verbs do not.19 That is, I claimthat a sentence like (49a) has a structure like (49b) before TP-deletion applies.20(49) Verb-movement in a finite clause
Ziroo-gakattaka] sir-anaia. Hanako-wa [CP nani-oHanako-TOP
what-ACC Ziroo-NOM bought Q know-NEG‘Hanako doesn’t know [what Ziroo bought]’
b. Hanako-wa [CP nani-o i [TP Ziroo-ga [VP ti tj] tk] [C0 [T0 [V0 kat]i-ta]j-ka]] sir-anaiSince the verb has evacuated the TP, deletion of TP cannot yield the surface string of the
SLCFC, where only wh-phrases and the Q-morpheme are retained (cf. (48b)). Therefore,
the pseudo-sluicing structure is the only way to derive the surface string of the SLCFC.
The next question is whether ellipsis can target the TP in (49b) or not. In the rest of
this subsection, I illustrate that it can indeed do so. Thus, I argue that in Japanese,genuine sluicing results in two different surface structures, depending on the finitenessof verb, as schematically shown in (50).21(50) Genuine sluicing with and without verb-movement to C0
a. … [CP whi [TP … ti … tV … tT] [C0 V-T-C]] … (= finite clauses)
b. … [CP whi [TP … ti … V … T] [C0 C]] …

(= non-finite clauses)

For ease of reference, let us call the structure in (50a) V(erb)-stranding sluicing.
5.2.3.1. Initial Evidence for V-stranding Sluicing
In order to show that V-stranding sluicing is indeed available, I take recourse to thefact that adjuncts cannot be elided by themselves, discussed in Section 3.2.2 of Chapter
172

-172-

3 (see Oku 1998 and Saito 2007). Let us consider the examples in (51).
(51) Adjunct ellipsis not possible
a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no yarikata-de] ano mondai-o
toita
ga,
Taroo-TOP self-GEN way-inthat problem-ACC solved but‘(lit.) Though Taroo solved that problem [in his way]’b. Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP¨ kore-o tok-anakat-ta
this-ACC solve-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Hanako didn’t solve this one ¨’(i) Hanako didn’t solve this problem in any way(ii) * Hanako didn’t solve this problem in her way
In (51a), which serves as the antecedent for (51b), zibun ‘self’ is contained in the
adjunct. (51b) does not have the reading (51b-ii), which would be available if adjuncts
can be elided freely.
Those adjuncts can be missing only if they are contained in a larger constituent
which undergoes ellipsis. The relevant examples are given in (52) below, which
involves the SLCNFC.22(52) Adjunct ellipsis in SLCNFC
a. Taroo-wa [PRO dono mondai-oTaroo-TOPwhichka] kimeta ga,

problem-ACC[zibun-no yarikata-de] tok-oo
self-GEN way-in

solve-INF

decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [which problem to solve in his way],’b. * Hanako-wa [dore-o¨ tok-oo ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP which-ACC
solve-INF Q cannot.decide‘(intended) Hanako cannot decide [which one to solve in her way]’Q

c. Hanako-wa [dore-o¨ ka] kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
which-ACC
Q
cannot.decide‘(intended) Hanako cannot decide [which one to solve in her way]’
In (52a), zibun ‘self’ is contained in the adjunct, on a par with (51a). (52b) minimallydiffers from (52c) in that the former retains the verb tok-oo ‘to solve’ while the latterdoes not. The intended reading, which includes the adjunct, is available for (52c) but notfor (52b). Given the conclusion reached in the previous subsection, this observation
173

-173-

indicates that (52c) has a structure like (53).
(53) Structure of (52c)
Hanako-wa [CP dore-o i [TP PRO [zibun-no yarikata-de] ti tok-oo] ka] kimekeneteiru

Since the adjunct is contained in the ellipsis site, the availability of the relevant reading
readily follows.
Then, given the proposal that finite verbs move to C0, it is predicted that the
adjuncts can be missing only when a wh-phrase and the verbal complex (namely a verb,
tense and C0) are retained, giving rise to the V-stranding sluicing structure. Thisprediction is borne out, as in (54).
(54) Adjunct ellipsis in V-stranding sluicing
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dono mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which problem-ACC self-GEN way-in
once
toita
ka] sitteiru ga,
solved Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [which problem Ziroo once solved in his (=Taroo’s) way]’
kare-ga ¨ toitaka] sir-anaib. * Hanako-wa [dore-o
Hanako-TOP

which-ACC he-NOM

solvedQknow-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [which one he once solved in her (=Hanako’s) way]’c. * Hanako-wa [dore-oizen ¨ toita ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
which-ACC once
solved Q know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [which one he once solved in her (=Hanako’s) way]’d. Hanako-wa [dore-o¨ toitaka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
which-ACC
solved Q know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [which one he once solved in her (=Hanako’s) way]’
In (54b-d), the wh-phrase dore-o ‘which’ appears in the left-edge of the embedded
clause. The presence of the subject kare-ga ‘he’ in (54b) and that of izen ‘once’ in (54c)suggest that the TP is not elided. The intended reading is not available for these
174

-174-

examples, though their surface strings are fine with irrelevant readings. On the other
hand, it is available for (54d), which retains only the wh-phrase and the verbal complex.
This observation follows if the embedded clause of (54d) has the V-stranding sluicing
structure, as in (55).
(55) Structure of the embedded clause of (54d)[CP dore-o i [TP Ziroo-ga [VP [zibun-no yarikata-de] izen ti tj] tk] [C0 [T0 [V0 toi]j-ta]k-ka]]

Recall from Section 5.2.2.1 above that sluicing is compatible only withwh-questions. It is then predicted that V-stranding sluicing is not licensed when theembedded clause is either yes/no-question or declarative. Specifically, it is predictedthat the contrast found between (54b-c) and (54d) disappears in the relevant
configurations. This prediction is also borne out, as shown in (56) and (57) below.
(56) Adjunct ellipsis in V-stranding sluicing with yes/no-question complementsa. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
ano mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM that problem-ACC self-GEN way-in
once
toita
to] itteita ga,solved that said but‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo once solved that problem in his (= Taroo’s)way]’
b. * Hanako-wa [kore-okare-ga ¨ toitakadooka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
this-ACC he-NOM
solved whether know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [whether he once solved this one in her (=Hanako’s) way]’izen ¨ toitakadooka] sir-anaic. * Hanako-wa [kore-o
Hanako-TOP this-ACC once
solved whether know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [whether he once solved this one in her (=Hanako’s) way]’¨ toitakadooka] sir-anaid. * Hanako-wa [kore-o
Hanako-TOP this-ACC
solved whether know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [whether he once solved this one in her (=Hanako’s) way]’

175

-175-

(57) Adjunct ellipsis in V-stranding sluicing with declarative complementsa. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
ano mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM that problem-ACC
toitato] itteita ga,

self-GEN way-in

once

solved that said but‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo once solved that problem in his (= Taroo’s)way]’
b. * Hanako-wa [kore-okare-ga ¨ toita
to] iw-anaka-ta
Hanako-TOP
this-ACC he-NOM
solved that say-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Hanako didn’t say [that he once solved this one in her (= Hanako’s)way]’
c. * Hanako-wa [kore-oizen ¨ toita
to] iw-anaka-ta
Hanako-TOP
this-ACC once
solved that say-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Hanako didn’t say [that he once solved this one in her (= Hanako’s)way]’
d. * Hanako-wa [kore-o¨ toitato] iw-anaka-ta
Hanako-TOP
this-ACC
solved that say-NEG-PAST‘(intended) Hanako didn’t say [that he once solved this one in her (= Hanako’s)
way]’
Unlike the case of (54d), the intended reading is not available for either (56d) or (57d),suggesting that TP-deletion fails to be licensed.
V-stranding sluicing also exhibits the properties of genuine sluicing with respect tothe other tests examined in Section 5.2.2.23 The remnant in (58b) is modified bytatoeba ‘for example’ (Section 5.2.2.2), and the one in (59b) is by hokani ‘else’ (Section
5.2.2.3). In either case, the sentence allows the intended reading, on a par with (54d).
On the other hand, if the remnant is changed into an aggressively non-D-linked
wh-phrase (Section 5.2.2.4) as in (60d), the intended reading is lost. The same holds if
the accusative Case-maker -o is dropped from the remnant (Section 5.2.2.4), as in (61b).

176

-176-

(58) V-stranding sluicing and the “mention-some” modification
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
aru
mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM some problem-ACC
toita to] itteita ga,

self-GEN way-in

once

solved that said but‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo had once solved a problem in his (=Taroo’s) way]’b. Hanako-wa [tatoeba
dore-o¨ toitaka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
for.example which-ACC
solved Q know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [which problem for example he had once
solved in her (= Hanako’s) way]’(59) V-stranding sluicing and else-modification
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
mondai san-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM problem three-ACC
self-GEN way-in
once
toita
to] itteita ga,solved that said but‘(lit.) Though Taroo said [that Ziroo had once solved Question #3 in his (=Taroo’s) way]’b. Hanako-wa [hokani dore-o¨ toitaka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
elsewhich-ACC
solved Q know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [which problem else he had once solved inher (= Hanako’s) way]’(60) V-stranding sluicing and aggressively-non-D-linked wh-phrases
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dono mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which problem-ACC self-GEN way-in
once
toita
ka] sitteiru ga,
solved Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [which problem Ziroo once solved in his (=Taroo’s) way]’b. * Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP[ittaidore-o¨ toitaka] sir-anaithe.hell which-ACC
solved Q know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [which problem the hell he once solved inher (= Hanako’s) way]’

177

-177-

(61) V-stranding sluicing and Case-marker/post-positon dropa. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dono mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which problem-ACC self-GEN way-in
once
toita
ka] sitteiru ga,
solved Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [which problem Ziroo once solved in his (=Taroo’s) way]’b. * Hanako-wa [dono¨ toitamondaika] sir-anai

Hanako-TOP which problem-ACC
solved Q know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [which problem he once solved in her (=Hanako’s) way]’
Therefore, these observations constitute initial evidence for the existence of V-stranding
sluicing schematized in (50a).
5.2.3.2. Further Evidence: A Comparison with V-stranding VP-ellipsis
Further evidence comes from a comparison with the so-called V(erb)-stranding
VP-ellipsis extensively studied by Goldberg (2005) (see also McCloskey 1991 andDoron 1999 for earlier discussion). V-stranding VP-ellipsis is a construction where
VP-ellipsis targets a VP whose head has evacuated the VP by head-movement. One
concrete example of V-stranding VP-ellipsis is given as (62a) from Irish (based on
McCloskey 1991:273).
(62) V-stranding VP-ellipsis in Irish
a. Dúirt mé go gceannóinn é agus [cheannaigh ¨]said I C buy
it andbought‘I said that I would buy it and I did’b. Dúirt mé go [IP gceannóinni [VP pro ti é]] agus [IP cheannaighj [VP pro tj é]](62a) is analyzed as having a structure like (62b), where the verbs undergo movement toI0 and the complement VP in the second conjunct is deleted.
One important property of V-stranding VP-ellipsis extensively discussed inGoldberg (2005) is that the stranded verb of the target clause must be identical to theone of the antecedent clause to some extent. In (62a), the two verbs are identical in theirroot, so the sentence is grammatical. On the other hand, as in (63) (based on Goldberg
178

-178-

2005:168), the sentence becomes ungrammatical if the two verbs are not identical intheir root.
(63) V-stranding VP-ellipsis in Irish with different verbs
a. * Léigh mé an dán
ach níor [thuig
¨]
read

I

the poem but notunderstand‘(intended) I read the poem, but I didn’t understand it’
b. [IP Léighi [VP mé ti an dán]] ach níor [IP thuigj [VP mé tj an dán]]Assuming that (63a) has a structure like (63b) (omitting irrelevant details), Goldberg(2005) argues that the two VPs are not identical, so that deletion of the second VP is notlicensed.
V-stranding sluicing exhibits the same behavior, as in (64). (64a) and (64b) are
structurally quite similar to (54a) and (54d), respectively, but they crucially differ in thatthe embedded verb of the target clause (64b) is not identical to the one of the antecedentclause (64a).
(64) V-stranding sluicing with different verbs
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
nani-o [zibun-no yarikata-de] katta ka] sitteiru ga,
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM what-ACC self-GEN way-inbought Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [what Ziroo bought in his (= Taroo’s) way]’b. * Hanako-wa [nani-o¨ utta ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP what-ACC
sold Q know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [what Ziroo sold in her (= Hanako’s) way]’
The fact that (64b) lacks the intended reading, unlike (54d), suggests that deletion of TP
fails to be licensed, just like deletion of VP does in (63).
Although V-stranding sluicing shares the verb-identity requirement with V-stranding
VP-ellipsis, there is an important difference between them. 24 Notice that thegrammaticality of (62a) already suggests that verbs in the antecedent and the target does
not have to be totally identical. Examining more examples from Hebrew, anotherlanguage that allows V-stranding VP-ellipsis, Goldberg (2005) points out that thestranded verb in the target clause does not have to be identical to the one in theantecedent in their inflectional properties, namely tense and agreement, as shown in (65)(based on Goldberg 2005:163).
179

-179-

(65) V-stranding VP-ellipsis in Hebrew with different inflections
A: Tazmini
et Dvora la-mesiba?
B: Kvar[hizmanti¨].
invite.FUT.2FSG ACC Dvora to.the-party
already invite.PAST.1SG‘Will you invite Dvora to the party?’‘(intended) I already did.’In (65), the verbs in the antecedent and the target are identical in their root, but not intheir inflectional morphology. Nonetheless, the sentence is grammatical, suggesting that
V-stranding VP-ellipsis is indeed licensed. Assuming that the information regarding
inflections are located outside of the VP, Goldberg (2005) argues that this observation
can be captured by the idea that V-stranding VP-ellipsis is an instance of VP-ellipsis,
where identity of antecedent and target VPs is crucial to license ellipsis.
Although Goldberg (2005) primarily focuses on the inflectional properties of verbs,
a similar point can be made for negation. Let us consider the examples given in (66)from Irish (based on McCloskey 1991:274).
(66) V-stranding VP-ellipsis in Irish and negation
A: Cheannaigh siad teach.
B: Nior [cheannaigh ¨].
boughtthey housenotbought‘They bought a house’‘(intended) They did not’In (66), only the target clause contains negation. The grammaticality of B’s utterance
indicates that V-stranding VP-ellipsis is allowed. This observation supports Goldberg’s(2005) argument if the information regarding negation is also located outside of VP.25
Let us now turn to V-stranding sluicing. The claim being made in this subsection isthat V-standing sluicing is an instance of sluicing, namely, ellipsis of TP. Thus, identityof the antecedent and the target is calculated at the level of TP. Then, we expect that
V-stranding sluicing requires not only the roots of verbs but also their properties
concerning inflections and negation to be identical. This expectation is indeed met. Let
us first consider the examples in (67) and (68) (cf. (54a) and (54d)).

180

-180-

(67) V-standing sluicing and negation only in the target
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dono mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which problem-ACC self-GEN way-in
once
toita
ka] sitteiru ga,
solved Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [which problem Ziroo once solved in his (=Taroo’s) way]’b. * Hanako-wa [dore-o
Hanako-TOP

which-ACC¨ tok-anakat-ta
solve-NEG-PASTka] siritagatteiru
Qwant.to.know‘(intended) Hanako wants to know [which one he didn’t solved once in her (=Hanako’s) way]’(68) V-standing sluicing and negation both in the antecedent and the target
a. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dono mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which problem-ACC self-GEN way-in
once
tok-anakat-taka] sitteiru ga,
solve-NEG-PAST Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [which problem Ziroo didn’t solve once in his (=Taroo’s) way]’b. Hanako-wa [dore-o¨ tok-anakat-taka] siritagatteiru
Hanako-TOP which-ACC
solve-NEG-PAST Q want.to.know‘(intended) Hanako wants to know [which one he didn’t solve once in her (=Hanako’s) way]’
In (67), only the target contains negation, and the intended reading is not available for(67b). Once negation is added to the antecedent clause as in (68), however, the intended
reading becomes available. Thus, this contrast suggests that V-stranding sluicing
requires the properties concerning polarity to be identical.
Furthermore, tense properties are also required to be identical, as shown in (69).
(69a) is repeated from (54a), whose embedded verb bears past tense.

181

-181-

(69) V-standing sluicing with different tensea. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dono mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de]Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which problem-ACC self-GEN way-in
toi-taka] sitteiru ga,
solve-PAST Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [which problem Ziroo solved in his (= Taroo’s)way]’
b. * Hanako-wa [dore-o
Hanako-TOP

which-ACC¨ toku(-daroo) ka] siritagatteiru
solve-willQwant.to.know‘(intended) Hanako wants to know [which one he {solves/will solve} in her (=Hanako’s) way]’
The intended reading is not available if the stranded embedded verb bears either present
or future tense, as in (69b). Therefore, this observation indicates that V-stranding
sluicing is not licensed in this example.
Note that the observations in (67)-(69) confirm Goldberg’s (2005) conclusion that
V-stranding VP-ellipsis is not allowed in Japanese: Otherwise, the intended readings
should be available for (67b) and (69b), because the antecedent and target VPs can be
identical to each other, just like Irish and Hebrew cases. This consideration further
corroborates the arguments in Section 3.2.2 of Chapter 3 that Japanese lacks the
English-type VP-ellipsis. That is, neither the English-type (verb-contained) nor the
Irish/Hebrew-type (verb-stranding) VP-ellipsis is licensed in Japanese.26
Based on the facts observed so far, then, I conclude that wh-movement followed by
TP-deletion is indeed available for finite clauses, although it yields what we are callingV-stranding sluicing due to verb-movement to C0.
5.2.4. Summary and Implication
Summarizing the discussion so far, I argued in Sections 5.2.2 that Japanese does
have genuine sluicing, namely TP-deletion and concomitant wh-movement, based on anovel set of data regarding the SLCNFC. On the other hand, I proposed in Section 5.2.3
that finite verbs in Japanese, unlike non-finite ones, move to C0, so that genuine sluicing
in finite clauses giving rise to the structure what we are calling V-stranding sluicing. As
a result, genuine sluicing in Japanese yields the following two schematic structures,
repeated from (50), depending on the finiteness of verb.

182

-182-

(70) Two outcomes of genuine sluicing in Japanesea. … [CP wh i [TP … ti … tV … tT] [C0 V-T-C]] …
b. … [CP wh i [TP … ti … V … T] [C0 C]] …

(= finite clauses)(= non-finite clauses)

In this subsection, I discuss the implication of the pattern found in (70) for the study ofsluicing in general.
Specifically, I focus on Merchant’s (2001:62) Sluicing-COMP generalization, givenin (71). The term COMP refers to the area that includes Spec, CP and C0.
(71) Sluicing-COMP generalization
In sluicing, no non-operator material may appear in COMP.
Merchant (2001) posits this generalization by examining various languages. As
shown in (72), otherwise obligatory head-movement to C0 is prohibited under sluicing
in the Germanic languages (based on Merchant 2001:63).
(72) Sluicing and head-movement in the Germanic languages
a. A: Max has invited someone.
B: Who (*has) ¨?
b. A: Max hat jemand eingeladen.
B: Wen (*hat) ¨?

[English][German]c. A: Max heeft iemand uitgenodigd.

B: Wie (*heeft) ¨?

[Dutch]d. A: Max har inviteret en eller anden.

B: Hvem (*har) ¨?

[Danish]Similarly, the so-called “Wackernagel” clitics found in the South Slavic languages
like Slovene, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Macedonian cannot appear under sluicing,although they must occur in the second position otherwise. The relevant example isgiven in (73) from Slovene, where the aspectual auxiliary je is the relevant clitic (basedon Merchant 2001:66).
(73) Sluicing and the “Wackernagel” cliticsŠpela jepopravila nekako,anisem
vprašal, kako
Spela AUX fixedsomething but NEG.AUX asked
what

(*je)

¨

AUX

‘Spela fixed something, but I didn’t ask what’
In the above cases, the offending elements (namely auxiliaries and clitics) are
183

-183-

moved from the ellipsis site. Merchant (2001) provides another set of facts that has to
do with the base-generated complementizers. He observes that even in languages wherea wh-phrase and a complementizer can co-occur (namely, the Doubly-filled COMP
effect is absent), sluicing fails to retain a complementizer. One example from Irish is
given in (74) (based on Merchant 2001:76).
(74) Sluicing and base-generated complementizers in Irish
Cheannaigh sé leabhar inteacht ach níl fhios
agam céacu ceann (*a/*ar) ¨boughthe book some but not.is knowledge at.me which one‘He bought a book, but I don’t know which’CC

Neither of the complementizers a or ar is allowed to appear under sluicing.
The Japanese pattern in (70) constitutes a clear counterexample to the
Sluicing-COMP generalization. In particular, (70a) corresponds to (72) and (73), and(70b) does to (74). Thus, the Japanese pattern requires a reconsideration of the
Sluicing-COMP generalization.
Meanwhile, Merchant (2001:81-82) himself notes a potential counterexample from
Hungarian, given in (75a). In Hungarian, the complementizer hogy can be retained
under sluicing. Merchant (2001) suggests that wh-movement is Hungarian does nottarget Spec, CP (cf. Puskás 1999), so that it is immune from the Sluicing-COMP effect,
namely the ban on non-operator element in COMP. Furthermore, Mahajan (2005:7)
observes, contrary to Merchant (2001:82), that Hindi patterns with Hungarian in that thecomplementizer ki is allowed to appear under sluicing, as in (75b) (see also Chandra &Ince 2008, Malhotra 2009, and Bhattacharya & Simpson to appear for similar
judgments).
(75) Sluicing and base-generated complementizers in Hungarian and Hindi
a. A gyerekek találkoztak valakivel
de nem emlékszem, (hogy) kivel ¨
the children met
someone.with but not I.remember that
‘The kids met someone, but I don’t remember who’

who.withb. Salmaa-ne ek ciiz khariidii par mujhe nahii pataa [(ki) kyaa ']Salma-ERG a thing bought but I.DAT NEG know that what
‘Salma bought something but I don’t know [what ¨]’
The Japanese pattern given in (70), taken together with the potential
counterexamples in (75) provides a way to draw a new generalization. As a first step, let
184

-184-

us schematically summarize the observed patterns as in (76).
(76) Possible and impossible configurations
a. * [CP whi C0 [TP … ti …]](= Germanic (72)/Slavic (73)/Irish (74))
b. ¥ [CP whi [TP … ti …] C0](= Japanese (70)))c. ¥ [CP C0 whi [TP … ti …]](= Hungarian (75a)/Hindi (75b)))Now, I posit the generalization in (77) as an alternative to the Sluicing-COMP
generalization.
(77) New generalization on the Sluicing-COMP effect
The Sluicing-COMP effect emerges only when the remnant wh-phrase linearlycrosses the overt elements in C0.
In the next section, I try to explain why a generalization like (77) holds, by employing
the theory of Cyclic Linearization.
5.3. Island-repair, Cyclic Linearization and the Sluicing-COMP EffectThis section aims at showing that the theory of Cyclic Linearization provides a wayof deriving the effect of the new generalization in (77). Specifically, I argue that theeffect of (77) is derived once Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) approach to a difference between
sluicing and VP-ellipsis regarding island-repair is implemented under the theory of
Cyclic Linearization. In Section 5.3.1, I first review the background on island-repair,and then propose a specific implementation of Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) idea under Cyclic
Linearization. Then, Section 5.3.2 illustrates how the proposed system derives the effectof (77).
5.3.1. Island-repair in Sluicing and VP-ellipsis
Among the phenomena where ellipsis ameliorates certain grammatical violations,island-repair may be the most explored one since its discovery by Ross (1969a).27 One
representative example of island-repair is given in (78), repeated from (41).

185

-185-

(78) Island-repair under sluicing
a. They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language,
b. * but I don’t remember [which (Balkan language) i they want to hire someone
who speaks ti]
c. but I don’t remember [which (Balkan language) ¨]
Meanwhile, it has been also noticed that VP-ellipsis fails to repair island violations
in certain syntactic environments, as the contrast between (79b) and (79c) indicates(based on Merchant 2001:5) (see, among many others, Chung, Ladusaw, & McCloskey
1995, Lasnik 2001, 2006, 2008, Merchant 2001, 2008, Fox & Lasnik 2003).
(79) Sluicing vs. VP-ellipsis with respect to island-repair
a. They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language,b. but I don’t remember [which (Balkan language) ¨]
c. * but I don’t remember [which (Balkan language) they do ¨](79a) and (79b) are repeated from (78a) and (78c), respectively. The ungrammaticalityof (79c), which involves VP-ellipsis, indicates that the island violation cannot be
remedied.
Recall at this point that in Chapter 3 we reached the conclusion that both sluicing
and VP-ellipsis involve PF-deletion, based on the possibility of subextraction from
ellipsis sites. Then, (79b) and (79c) would be analyzed as having a structure in (80a)and (80b), respectively.
(80) Structures of (79b-c) under the PF-deletion analysis
a. but I don’t remember [CP which (Balkan language) i [TP they want to hiresomeone who speaks ti]]b. * but I don’t remember [CP which (Balkan language) i [TP they do [VP want to hiresomeone who speaks ti]]]Then, it is not immediately clear why there is a difference between sluicing and
VP-ellipsis with respect to island-repair as shown in (79) above. Indeed, Chung,
Ladusaw & McCloskey (1995) argue that although VP-ellipsis is a case of PF-deletion,sluicing is an instance of LF-copying. As I review in Section 5.3.1.1 below, however,Fox & Lasnik (2003) offer an explanation of the difference maintaining that bothsluicing and VP-ellipsis involve PF-deletion. Thus, the proposal to be made in Section
186

-186-

5.3.1.2 that implements Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) analysis to the theory of Cyclic
Linearization also allows us to maintain the conclusion of Chapter 3 that both sluicing
and VP-ellipsis involve PF-deletion.28
5.3.1.1. Previous Approaches to the Difference between Sluicing and VP-ellipsis
Let us start the discussion by reviewing some previous approaches to the difference
between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Originally, Ross (1969a) appealed to some global
constraints to explain island-repair observed for sluicing: In order to apply
wh-movement out of an island under Ross’ system, the island has to be deleted bysluicing prior to the application of the wh-movement. However, the information whether
sluicing applies so as to remove the node containing the island becomes available after
the wh-movement, since the applicability of sluicing depends on whether the
wh-movement has applied. To solve this puzzle, it is claimed that at the step where awh-phrase is moved out of the island, the computational system can have access to theinformation whether sluicing can delete the island.
Rejecting such a global constraint, Chomsky (1972) proposes that when an island iscrossed by a movement operation, a marker * (# in his notation) is assigned to it. For
instance, the relevant part of (78b) is represented as (81).
(81) *-marking on islands… [CP which (Balkan language) i [TP they want to hire [NP* someone who speaks ti]]]Assuming that there is a condition that prohibits *-marked elements on the surface
structure, the structure in (81) counts illegitimate if nothing more happens: On the other
hand, if sluicing deletes the TP, which contains the *-marked island, the structure counts
legitimate, yielding (79b).
However, this approach does not extend to the case of VP-ellipsis, as pointed out by
Fox & Lasnik (2003) (see also Lasnik 2001 and Merchant 2001), since the *-marked
island is also contained within the VP. Hence, if the VP is deleted, the resultant structure,
namely (79c), should be as legitimate as (79b), contrary to fact.
Fox & Lasnik (2003) point out that the difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis
found in (79) is not limited to the cases where islands are involved. Let us consider theexamples in (82) (based on Fox & Lasnik 2003:148; see also Lasnik 2001).

187

-187-

(82) Sluicing vs. VP-ellipsis where islands are not at issue
a. They said they heard about a Balkan language,b. but I don’t know [which Balkan language i they said they heard about ti]
c. but I don’t know [which Balkan language ¨]
d. * but I don’t know [which Balkan language they did ¨]
As in (82b), the movement of which Balkan language from the embedded clause does
not induce any problem. Sluicing is possible in this configuration, as in (82b). On theother hand, as in (82d), VP-ellipsis renders a sentence ungrammatical which isotherwise grammatical. Based on this observation, they argue that the difference
between sluicing and VP-ellipsis is not directly linked to their ability of island-repair.
To explain the difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis, Fox & Lasnik (2003)
first propose that certain parallelism conditions on deletion, which they call Parallelism,
are at work (see also Fiengo & May 1994 and Fox 2000 for parallelism conditions). In
effect, Parallelism demands the target clause to be identical to its antecedent in thepositions of their respective operators and variables. Let us take (83a) as a concrete
example, which is formally identical to the case in (82) in that the correlate is anindefinite and that no island is involved. The semantic representation of the antecedentclause is something like (83b), where the indefinite noun a certain girl is bound by anexistential quantifier over choice functions (Reinhart 1997).
(83) Sluicing with an indefinite correlatea. Fred said that I talked to a certain girl, but I don’t know [which girl ¨]b. f Ofƍ [Fred said that I talked to fƍ(girl)]
Suppose then that wh-movement of which girl in the target clause of (83a) proceed
either in one-fell-swoop fashion as in (84a), or in a successive cyclic way as in (84b).29(84) Wh-movement in the target clausea. [CP which girl i [TP Fred [VP said [CP that [TP I [VP talked to ti]]]]]]
b. [CP which girl i [TP Fred [VP tiƍ said [CP tiƍƍ that [TP I [VP talked to tiƍƍƍ]]]]]]

Assuming that the word which is an existential quantifier over choice functions andpied-piped materials are reconstructed into their original position, Fox & Lasnik (2003)
188

-188-

argue that the syntactic structures in (84a) and (84b) are converted into the semantic
representations in (85a) and (85b), respectively.
(85) Semantic representations of (84a-b)a. which g Ogƍ [Fred said that I talked to gƍ(girl)]b. which g Ogƍ [Fred gƍ Ogƍƍ said gƍƍ Ogƍƍƍ that I talked to gƍƍƍ(girl)]
In (85a), the variable gƍ(girl) is bound by the operator in the position parallel to the one
in which the variable in the antecedent clause, namely fƍ(girl), is bound. Thus, (85a) isparallel to (83b). On the other hand, the variable in (85b) fails to be bound in theparallel manner to that of the antecedent clause because of the intermediate traces
created by successive-cyclic movement. Hence, Parallelism is not satisfied in this case.
As a consequence, deletion is licensed only when wh-movement proceeds in a
one-fell-swoop fashion, avoiding all the possible intermediate landing-sites.
Then, if sluicing applies to (84a), repeated as (86a) below, the structure in (86b)results, and if VP-ellipsis applies to it, the one in (86c) results.
(86) Sluicing vs. VP-ellipsis
a. [CP which girl i [TP Fred [VP said [CP that [TP I [VP talked to ti]]]]]]
b. [CP which girl i [TP Fred [VP said [CP that [TP I [VP talked to ti]]]]]]
c. [CP which girl i [TP Fred T [AspP did [VP say [CP that [TP I [VP talked to ti]]]]]]]
Assuming that all maximal projections are barriers for movement (cf. Chomsky 1986b),
Fox & Lasnik (2003) argue that the one-fell-swoop movement in (86a) crosses a bunchof barriers. In the case of sluicing, however, the all the maximal projections traversed by
the wh-phrase are deleted as in (86b). As a result, all the barriers are removed, yielding a
legitimate structure. On the other hand, not all the maximal projections are deleted
under VP-ellipsis as in (86c). Specifically, Fox & Lasnik (2003) suggest that VP-ellipsis
leaves Tense and Aspect pronounced. They assume, following Fox (2000) andNissenbaum (2000), that there is an intermediate landing site between the subject and
VP, and argue that at least one of TP and AspP counts as a barrier, which must be
circumvented by successive-cyclic movement or deletion. Since VP-ellipsis fails todelete them, a locality violation is inevitable. Thus, one-fell-swoop movement is notpossible in this case. Given that one-fell-swoop movement is a prerequisite for deletion
when a correlate is an indefinite, it follows that VP-ellipsis is not licensed in this
189

-189-

configuration.
Under Fox and Lasnik’s (2003) analysis, the relevant parts of (79b) and (79c) above,
which involve an island, are analyzed as having a structure like (87a) and (87b),
respectively. Since the correlate is an indefinite, the remnant should undergo
one-fell-swoop movement.
(87) Sluicing vs. VP-ellipsis
a. [CP which (Balkan language) i [TP they want to hire [NP someone who speaks ti]]]b. [CP which (Balkan language) i [TP they T [AspP did [VP want to hire [NP someone who speaks ti]]]]]

In both cases, the complex NP is deleted so that its barrier-hood is nullified. However,just like (86), only sluicing succeeds to delete all the barriers crossed by the
one-fell-swoop movement. Therefore, only (87a) counts legitimate.
Suppose then that the remnant which girl undergoes “partial” one-fell-swoop
movement to an intermediate position and then further undergoes successive-cyclic
movement to the final landing site, as in (88a). Since VP-ellipsis can delete all the
maximal projections traversed by the one-fell-movement, and the later successive-cyclic
movement can circumvent all the potential barriers, the structure in (88a) appears to belegitimate. However, as noted by Fox & Lasnik (2003), the semantic representation of(88a), given as (88b), is not parallel to that of the antecedent, namely (83b).
(88) Partial one-fell-swoop movement followed by successive-cyclic movement
a. [CP which girl i [TP Fred tƍi did [VP say [CP that [TP I [VP talked to ti]]]]]]
b. which g Ogƍ [Fred gƍ Ogƍƍ did say that I talked to gƍƍ(girl)]
In particular, the intermediate trace in (88a) breaks Parallelism. Thus, VP-ellipsis fails
to be licensed, rendering the structure in (88a) illegitimate.
Then, Fox & Lasnik (2003) argue that their analysis predicts that the difference
between sluicing and VP-ellipsis disappears if successive-cyclic movement takes placein the antecedent so that Parallelism requires successive-cyclic movement in the second
clause. This prediction is confirmed by the examples in (89) and (90) (based on Fox &Lasnik 2003:151). In (89a), the correlate is an indefinite noun, just like (79), (82) and(83a) above. Thus, there is a contrast between sluicing and VP-ellipsis, as found in
190

-190-

(89b) and (89c). In (90a), on the other hand, the correlate is the wh-phrase which book.
Then, the contrast in question disappears.30(89) Sluicing vs. VP-ellipsis with an indefinite correlatea. I know that John said that Mary read a certain book,b. but I don’t know [which one ¨]
c. * but I don’t know [which one he did ¨](90) Sluicing vs. VP-ellipsis with a wh-correlatea. I know which book John said that Mary read,b. but YOU don’t know [which one ¨]
c. ?? but YOU don’t know [which one he did ¨]
Since the correlate which book in (90a) moves successive-cyclically, circumventing all
the potential barriers, the remnant which one does so, given Parallelism. Thus, there is
no offending maximal projection in (90b) and (90c) to begin with, allowing either
sluicing or VP-ellipsis to apply. In this way, Fox & Lasnik (2003) explain the difference
between sluicing and VP-ellipsis, maintaining the idea that those two ellipsis processes
share the same character, namely PF-deletion.
5.3.1.2. Cyclic Linearization and the Difference between Sluicing and VP-ellipsis
In this subsection, I propose to implement Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) barrier-based
analysis in term of the theory of Cyclic Linearization. In a nutshell, I argue that
one-fell-swoop movement, which is required by Parallelism if a correlate is anindefinite, results in creating contradictory ordering statements. Such an ordering
contradiction can be ameliorated by applying deletion in the case of sluicing, but not in
the case of VP-ellipsis. In other words, I claim that the nature of what Fox & Lasnik(2003) call barriers for movement is an ordering contradiction at PF.31
To recall how the system works under the theory of Cyclic Linearization, let us
consider how a sentence like (91a) is derived. Omitting the vP domain for a while, whatin (91a) can be moved successive-cyclically as in (91b) or one-fell-swoop as in (91c).
(91) Long-distance wh-movement
a. What do you think that John bought?
b. [CP1 whati do you think [CP2 tƍi that John bought ti]]

191

-191-

c. [CP1 whati do you think [CP2 that John bought ti]]Given that CP is a Spell-out Domain, the successive-cyclic derivation in (91b) proceeds
as follows:(92) Long-distance wh-movement with successive-cyclic movementa. Movement of whatÆ
Spell-out of CP2[CP2 whati that John bought ti] Ordering Table: what<that<John<boughtb. Movement of what Æ Spell-out of CP1[CP1 whati do you think [CP2 tƍi that John bought ti]]Ordering Table: what<that<John<bought
what<do<you<think<that<John<bought
At the step in (92a), what undergoes successive-cyclic movement to the edge of CP2. As
a result, Spell-out of CP2 establishes the ordering statement what<that<John<bought. At
the step in (92b), what undergoes further movement to Spec, CP1. Spell-out of CP1 thenestablishes the ordering statement what<do<you<think<that<John<bought, which isconsistent with the one established previously. Since there is no ordering contradiction,
the derivation successfully converges.
On the other hand, the one-fell-swoop derivation in (91c) proceeds as in (93).
(93) Long-distance wh-movement without successive-cyclic movementÆ
Spell-out of CP2
a. Construction of CP2[CP2 that John bought what]
Ordering Table: that<John<bought<whatb. Movement of what Æ Spell-out of CP1*[CP1 whati do you think [CP2 that John bought ti]]Ordering Table: that<John<bought<whatwhat<do<you<think<that<John<bought

When CP2 is Spelled-out as in (93a), the ordering statement that<John<bought<what isestablished. When the derivation proceeds to the step in (93b), what moves to Spec, CP1.
As a result of Spell-out of CP1, the Ordering Table receives the ordering statement
192

-192-

what<do<you<think<that<John<bought. Since what is specified to precede and follow
that, John, and bought at the same time, the derivation crashes at PF. This is the reason
why one-fell-swoop movement is blocked in normal environments.
Note that under the theory of Cyclic Linearization, one-fell-swoop movement itself
does not create any problem in narrow syntax: At PF, an ordering contradiction arises.
Then, if such an ordering contradiction in question can be circumvented somehow, theone-fell-swoop derivation is allowed. Ellipsis, taken as PF-deletion, does have thiseffect by rendering the offending materials that induce the contradiction unpronounced.
Taking (83a), repeated as (94a), as a concrete example, the antecedent clause has thesemantic representation in (94b).
(94) Sluicing with an indefinite correlatea. Fred said that I talked to a certain girl, but I don’t know [which girl ¨]b. f Ofƍ [Fred said that I talked to fƍ(girl)]
To observe Parallelism, the remnant which girl must move in a one-fell-swoop fashion.
Hence, the relevant part of the target clause of (94a) is derived in the manner depicted in(95) below (the vP domain is still omitted). At the step in (95a), the remnant stays in-situ,
and Spell-out applies to CP2.
(95) Derivation of the target clausea. Construction of CP2 Æ Spell-out of CP2[CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to which girl]]]
Ordering Table: that<I<talked<to<which<girlb. Movement of which girl Æ Spell-out of CP1*[CP1 which girl k [TP1 Fredj [vP1 tj [VP1 said [CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to tk]]]]]]]

Ordering Table: that<I<talked<to<which<girlwhich<girl<Fred<said<that<I<talked<toc. Deletion of TP1[CP1 which girl k [TP1 Fredj [vP1 tj [VP1 said [CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to tk]]]]]]]

Ordering Table: talked<to<which<girl
that<I<talked<to<which<girlsaid<that<I<talked<to<which<girlwhich<girl<Fred<said<that<I<talked<to
193

-193-

At the step in (95b), which girl undergoes one-fell-swoop movement to Spec, CP1.
When Spell-out applies to CP1, the Ordering Table receives the ordering statement
which<girl<Fred<said<that<I<talked<to, which contradicts the previously establishedordering statement. Specifically, which girl is specified to simultaneously precede andfollow the materials contained in CP2. However, deletion of TP1 renders the materials
contained in it unpronounced, as in (95c). As a result, the ordering contradiction iscircumvented.32 In this way, one-fell-swoop movement, which is required to satisfy
Parallelism, is indeed allowed in the sluicing context. The final syntactic representationof (95) can be mapped to the semantic representation which is parallel to that of theantecedent (namely (94b)) in the positions of the operator and the variable.33
Let us now turn to the case of VP-ellipsis. To deal with VP-ellipsis, I make thefollowing claims:(96) Claimsa. All auxiliaries, including do in do-support, project their own VP and vP, andtheir vP is subject to Spell-out.
b. T0, together with an appropriate Spec, licenses deletion of any vP in its
complement domain, which is identical to the one in the antecedent.
c. Spell-out of vP linearizes the whole vP, including the elements on its edge, evenin languages like English.
As for (96a), the idea that an auxiliary is a head of a verbal projection goes back at least
to Ross (1969b). This assumption plays an important role in the proposed analysis, as
we see later. The claim in (96b) slightly relaxes a strict local relation between theellipsis site and its licensor (see Aelbrecht 2009 for a similar idea). Finally, I claim (96c),
though it is not consistent with the claim about the Spell-out Domain Parameter made in
Chapter 2, for the sake of discussion (I return to this point in Section 5.4.1).
Let us start the discussion by considering the example in (97a) below. (97b)illustrates the structure of the relevant part of the antecedent and (97c) illustrates that of
the target clause where VP-ellipsis has not applied yet. Projections of the auxiliaries arelabeled as vAuxP and VAuxP for ease of exposition. Furthermore, head-movement oflexical verbs to v0 is omitted for simplicity. Given the assumption in (96a), the subject
John in (96b) must move through Spec, vAuxP: Otherwise, Spell-out of vAuxP establishes
the ordering statement should<John, which clearly contradicts with the intended surface
word order of (97a). Similary, the subject he in (96c) must move through Spec, vAuxP.34
194

-194-

(97) Simple VP-ellipsis
a. I know John should swim, but I don’t know he can [swim]
b. … [TP Johni shouldj [vAuxP tƍi tƍj [VAuxP tj [vP ti [VP swim]]]]]
c. … [TP hei canj [vAuxP tƍi tƍj [VAuxP tj [vP ti [VP swim]]]]]

It has been assumed in the literature that VP-ellipsis targets a complement of T0, and it
is licensed by T0 in the presence of an appropriate Spec (Lobeck 1990, 1995 and Saito& Murasugi 1990). Under the assumption that an auxiliary is base-generated under T0,
the difference of auxiliaries in the antecedent and the target clauses is not a problem.
However, once we assume (96a), it is not clear if the difference can be ignored.
Concretely speaking, the vAuxP in (97b) might not be identical to the one in (97c).
Notice now that if the vAuxP of (97c) is deleted, it results in a configuration of
V-stranding VP-ellipsis discussed in Section 5.2.3.2. As emphasized there, one
important property of V-stranding VP-ellipsis is that the stranded verbs in the antecedentand target clauses must be identical (at least in their root and derivational morphology).
However, it is not likely the case that the two vAuxPs in (97b-c) above count to be
identical to each other. Then, what is deleted in (97a)?
At this point, the assumption in (96b) comes in. It allows the T0 in (97c) to license
the deletion of the vP under identity with the one in (97b), although the vP is not acomplement of the T0.35 However, there is a piece of evidence for such a relaxation. Let
us consider the examples in (98) (based on Lobeck 1995:149). In these examples, a VP
which is not a complement of T0 is subject to VP-ellipsis.
(98) VP-ellipsis targeting a non-complement of T0
a. Mary might have been writing, and John might have been [VP writing] too
b. Mary might have written and John might have [VP written] too
Under the current assumptions, the relevant part of (98a) is represented as in (99)(irrelevant details are omitted).
(99) Structure of (98a)… [TP John mighti [vAuxP1 [VAuxP1 ti [vAuxP2 [VAuxP2 have [vAuxP3 [VAuxP3 been [vP [VP writing]]]]]]]]]

Thus, if the deletion of vP in (99) is licensed by virtue of being in the complement
195

-195-

domain of the licensing T0, the deletion of the vP in (97) should be licensed in the sameway.36
Let us now consider how the proposed analysis works. The VP-ellipsis version of(94a) is given in (100a). Since the correlate is an indefinite, the antecedent clause has
the semantic representation in (100b).
(100) VP-ellipsis with an indefinite correlatea. * Fred said that I talked to a certain girl, but I don’t know [which girl he did ¨]b. f Ofƍ [Fred said that I talked to fƍ(girl)]
Then, the derivation of the target clause proceeds in the manner depicted in (101) below.
Let us start with the step where the matrix vP, namely vP1, gets Spelled-out, illustratedin (101a) (ordering statements established before (101a) are omitted). At the step in(101b), vAuxP is constructed, and Spell-out applies to it, establishing the ordering
statement where he and did precedes the remnant which girl. When TP1 is constructed,
he and did further undergo movement to the appropriate positions, as in (101c). At thestep in (101d), the remnant undergoes one-fell-swoop movement to Spec, CP1, on a parwith the case of sluicing. Finally, Spell-out applies to CP1 as in (101e), sending theordering statement and information that vP1 is licensed to be deleted.
(101) Derivation of the target clausea. Construction of vP1 Æ Spell-out of vP1[vP1 he [VP1 say [CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to which girl]]]]]
Ordering Table: he<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girlb. Construction of vAuxP Æ Spell-out of vAuxP[vAuxP hej didk [VAuxP tk [vP1 tj [VP1 say [CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to which girl]]]]]]]

Ordering Table: he<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girlhe<did<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girlc. Construction of TP1[TP1 hej didk [vAuxP tƍj tƍk [VAuxP tk [vP1 tj [VP1 say [CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to which girl]]]]]]]]

Ordering Table: he<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girlhe<did<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girl

196

-196-

d. Construction of CP1 Æ Movement of which girl[CP1 which girl l [TP1 hej didk [vAuxP tƍj tƍk [VAuxP tk [vP1 tj [VP1 say [CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to tl]]]]]]]]]

Ordering Table: he<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girlhe<did<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girle. Spell-out of CP1 Æ Deletion of vP1*[CP1 which girl l [TP1 hej didk [vAuxP tƍj tƍk [VAuxP tk [vP1 tj [VP1 say [CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to tl]]]]]]]]]

Ordering Table: he<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girlhe<did<say<that<I<talked<to<which<girlwhich girl<he<did<say<that<I<talked<toIn this case, however, an ordering contradiction still arises, since which girl is specified
to precede and follow he and did at the same time. Therefore, the derivation fails toconverge.
Note that what is crucial in this account is that the linear ordering between aremnant and the elements that survive VP-ellipsis (namely, the subject and theauxiliary) is determined so as that the former follows the latter at the Spell-out of vAuxP.
Suppose then that the remnant which girl moves to the edge of vAuxP before Spell-out
applies to vAuxP, as in (102). Then, it becomes possible to establish the ordering
statement which is consistent with the one established at the Spell-out of CP1.
(102) Another continuation from (101b)
Movement of which girl Æ Spell-out of vAuxP[vAuxP which girl l hej didk [VAuxP tk [vP1 tj [VP1 say [CP2 that [TP2 Ii [vP2 ti [VP2 talked to tl]]]]]]

Ordering Table: which<girl<he<did<that<I<talked<toHowever, this kind of partial one-fell-swoop movement followed by successive-cyclic
movement results in a semantic representation which is not parallel to that of theantecedent, as we have seen above (cf. (88)). Thus, deletion is not allowed, failing toyield (100a).
On the other hand, if the remnant can move successive-cyclically through the edgeof each Spell-out Domain, no ordering contradiction arises. Thus, the case where thecorrelate undergoes successive-cyclic movement in (90a), repeated as (103a),
VP-ellipsis is allowed as in (103c), as well as sluicing as in (103b).37
197

-197-

(103) Sluicing vs. VP-ellipsis with a wh-correlatea. I know that which book John said that Mary read,b. but YOU don’t know [which one ¨]
c. ?? but YOU don’t know [which one he did ¨]
So far, the analysis in terms of the theory of Cyclic Linearization covers the data
captured under Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) barrier-based analysis. Armed with this
implementation, the next subsection tries to derive the effect of the generalization in(77).
5.3.2. Cyclic Linearization and the Sluicing-COMP EffectThis subsection aims at deriving the effect of the generalization posited in Section
5.2.4, repeated here as (104).
(104) New generalization on the Sluicing-COMP effect
The Sluicing-COMP effect emerges only when the remnant wh-phrase linearlycrosses the overt elements in C0.
As originally done by Merchant (2001), I divide the relevant cases into the following
two types: Ones where the relevant elements in C0 are moved heads, and others where
the relevant element in C0 is a base-generated complementizer. In what follows, I
examine these two cases one by one, reviewing some previous approaches andcomparing the one to be proposed with them.
Let us start with the case where head-movement is involved. One concrete exampleof this kind is found in sluicing taking place in matrix clauses (so-called matrix
sluicing).38 Let us consider the example in (105a) (cf. (72a)).
(105) Illegitimate English matrix sluicing
a. A: Mary will see someone.
B: *Who will?
0b. [CP who i [C willj C] [TP Mary tj [VP see ti]]]B’s utterance in (105a) has the structure in (105b), where the auxiliary will undergoes
head-movement to C0 and TP is deleted. Then, let us consider (106a).

198

-198-

(106) Legitimate English matrix sluicing
a. A: Mary will see someone. B: Who ¨?
b. [CP who i [TP Mary will see ti]]In (106a), unlike (105a), the auxiliary will is absent from B’s utterance, so that who is
the only element that survives deletion as in (106b). Thus, the contrast between (105a)and (106a) confirms Merchant’s original Sluicing-COMP generalization given in (71).
Lasnik (2001) points out that the grammaticality of (106a) raises a puzzle. In
English matrix questions, auxiliaries must move across a subject, as in (107a). However,
the alleged source of B’s utterance in (106a) is something like (107b), which isungrammatical.
(107) English matrix questions
a. Who will Mary see?
b. * Who Mary will see?
Thus, the violation found in (107b), namely the lack of otherwise obligatory
head-movement to C0, is repaired by sluicing.
Lasnik (2001) then provides an analysis of this instance of repair effects in terms ofChomsky’s (1995) Move F theory and Ochi’s (1999) modification of it.39 First, it isassumed that the matrix interrogative C0 contains a formal feature F that needs to bechecked by its counterpart located on T0. Under the Move F theory, the minimal elementthat C0 attracts is the feature F of T0. Hence, a sentence like (107a) is analyzed ashaving an underlying structure like (108) below, where only F of T0 is attracted andadjoined to C0.

199

-199-

(108) Attraction of F to C0 under the Move F theory
CP
Cƍ

whoi
C0
[F]j

TP
C0

Mary

Tƍ
T0

VP

will

see

[F]

ti

tj
Note that in (108), the features of will are split into two different positions, namely C0
and T0. Chomsky (1995) argues that these split features induce a problem at PF. One
way to save the structure is to move the whole T0 by generalized pied-piping, as in(109a) below. This option yields (107a). In addition to this option, Lasnik (2001)
proposes that the structure can be saved by deleting TP as in (109b), following Ochi’s(1999) idea that a head from which a feature is attracted (in this case, will) becomes
PF-defective. Since everything except for the remnant who in (109b) is deleted, thesurface string of B’s uttererance in (106a) is obtained.
(109) Generalized pied-piping or deletion
a. [CP whoi [C0 willj C] [TP Mary tj [VP see ti]]]b. [CP whoi [C0 C] [TP Mary will [VP see ti]]]That is, although the feature movement from T0 to C0 renders the T0 unpronounceable
by splitting its features, deletion of TP provides a way of avoiding to the problem. In
this way, the repair effect concerning the lack of otherwise obligatory head-movement
can be captured.
Returning to (105a), it is analyzed as involving generalized pied-piping of will anddeletion of TP. Since generalized pied-piping has taken place, the auxiliary will is no
more PF-defective (cf. (109a)). Meanwhile, deletion targets the TP, which is acomplement of a wh-question C0 having a wh-phrase as its Spec just like (109b), so that
nothing appears to prevent deletion.
200

-200-

Lasnik (2006, 2008) suggests several possible solutions of this puzzle. One of themis that the Spec-head agreement relation between the wh-phrase and C0, which is crucial
to license deletion of TP, is disrupted by the moved auxiliary. That is, in the case of(105a), the auxiliary will has agreed with the subject Mary in Spec, TP, but the remnant
wh-phrase who is the object. Hence, C0, containing will, cannot enter in an appropriate
Spec-head relation with who, failing to license deletion of TP. However, it is not clear
how a Spec-head relation can be affected by an element that merely adjoins to the head.
Another possible account noted in Lasnik (2008), which is attributed to Johannes
Jurka (p.c.), ascribes the source of ungrammaticality of (105a) to a violation of strict
formal identity conditions imposed on deletion. Suppose that the antecedent and thetarget in (105a) are represented as in (110), respectively. In the antecedent clause (110a),the indefinite is bound by an operator Op, and in the target clause (110b), the trace of
wh-movement is bound by the wh-operator WH.
(110) Structures of (105a)a. Opi [TP Mary will see xi]
b. WHi willj [TP Mary tj see xi]
Since the auxiliary moves only in the target clause, the TP in the antecedent is notformally identical to the one in the target clause. Thus, deletion of TP is not allowed.
Put simply, this analysis requires that if head-movement takes place in one clause,either antecedent or target, it also takes place in the other. The strict formal identity
conditions, however, seem to be too strict, since they rule out the following examples,
contrary to fact (based on Lasnik 2008:9)(111) Negative inversion and sluicing
A: Never willi [TP Susan ti understand some linguists].
B: Which linguists [TP Susan will never understand]?
In Speaker A’s utterance, will moves out of TP because of the presence of never. On theother hand, it stays within TP in Speaker B’s utterance. Nevertheless, deletion ispossible.
Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) barrier-based analysis reviewed in the previous subsection
cannot capture the ungrammaticality of (105), either. First, all the maximal projections
that are barriers for one-fell-swoop movement of the remnant are deleted. Moreover,head-movement of will from T0 to C0 should not cross a barrier, otherwise any instance
201

-201-

of T-to-C movement induces a locality violation, contrary to fact. Therefore, (105b) ispredicted to be without any problem.
The analysis in terms of the theory of Cyclic Linearization can provide astraightforward solution to the puzzle, maintaining Lasnik’s (2001) insight. First, theantecedent of (105a), repeated as (112a), has the semantic representation in (112b).
(112) Semantic representation of (112a)a. Mary will see someoneb. f Ofƍ [Mary will see fƍ(person)]
Given Parallelism, the remnant who must undergo one-fell-swoop movement. Thus,
when Spell-out applies to vAuxP of the target clause of (105a), the ordering statement
where the auxiliary will precedes who is established, as in (113).
(113) Spell-out of vAuxP in the target clause[vAuxP Maryi willj [VAuxP tj [vP ti [VP see who]]]]Ordering Table: Mary<will<see<who
In the surface structure of (105b), who precedes will, however. Hence, the derivationthat yields (105b) necessarily induces an ordering contradiction, just like the case of
impossible case of VP-ellipsis illustrated in (101).40 Therefore, the auxiliary will must
be contained within TP, which is ultimately subject to deletion at PF.41
Recall that Japanese, unlike languages like Engilsh, allows V-stranding sluicing.
One representative example of V-standing sluicing is given in (114) (cf. (54)). (114b) is
the target, which is claimed to have a structure like (114c) repeated from (55).
(114) V-stranding sluicing in Japanesea. Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga
dono mondai-o[zibun-no yarikata-de] izen

Taroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which problem-ACC self-GEN way-in
once
toita
ka] sitteiru ga,
solved Q know but‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [which problem Ziroo once solved in his (=Taroo’s) way]’

202

-202-

b. Hanako-wa[dore-o¨ toitaka] sir-anai

Hanako-TOP
which-ACC
solved Q know-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [which one he once solved in her (=Hanako’s) way]’c. [CP dore-o i [TP Ziroo-ga [VP [zibun-no yarikata-de] izen ti tj] tk] [C0 [T0 [V0 toi]j-ta]k-ka]]

We can now derive this difference between Japanese and English from a more
fundamental difference between these two languages: Japanese is head-final, whereas
English is head-initial. The reason why the auxiliary will in (105b) cannot appear is that
Spell-out of vAuxP establishes the ordering statement where will precedes the remnant
who, as in (113) above. On the other hand, Spell-out of vP establishes the ordering
statement where the verb follows the remnant in Japanese, as schematically shown in(115).
(115) Spell-out of vP in Japanese[vP … [VP … wh … V] …]Ordering Table: wh<V

Therefore, head-movement of V0 to C0 does not induce an ordering contradiction at theSpell-out of CP, unlike the case of English. In this way, the difference between Japaneseand English with respect to the possibility of V-stranding sluicing can be derived.42
This analysis maintains Lasnik’s (2001) insight that either generalized pied-piping
or TP-deletion can render the PF-defective element unproblematic. In languages like
English, applying both strategies results in ungrammaticality since the derivationnecessarily ends up with inducing an ordering contradiction, which is independent ofthese repair-strategies. In this sense, Japanese is good language to show that both
strategies are independent of and compatible with each other, since applying both
strategies can yield a legitimate structure.
To sum up so far, I argued that the linear ordering between the remnant and the headthat moves to C0 is specified before the derivation reaches to the CP-domain. Since
English is head-initial, the ordering statement where the auxiliary precedes the remnant
is established, so that it induces an ordering contradiction when the derivation yields thesurface string of (72a). On the other hand, Japanese is head-final, so that the linear
ordering between the remnant and the verb can be preserved throughout the derivation.
This analysis seem to be able to extended to other languages, because many languages
examined in Merchant (2001) is head-initial.43 Then, the half of the effect of the new
203

-203-

generalization in (104) is derived.
Then, let us turn to the second case where the relevant element in C0 is abase-generated complementizer. One concrete example from Irish is repeated as (116)from (74).
(116) Sluicing and base-generated complementizers in Irish
Cheannaigh sé leabhar inteacht ach níl fhios
agam céacu ceann (*a/*ar) ¨boughthe book some but not.is knowledge at.me which one
C C‘He bought a book, but I don’t know which’This is the opposite of what we observed for Japanese, exemplified by (117) (cf. (16)).
(117) SLCNFC
a. Taroo-wa [PRO dono zyaanaru-ni ronbun-o das-ooka] kimeta ga,

Taroo-TOP
which journal-topaper-ACC submit-INF Q decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to which journal to submit a paper],’b. Hanako-wa [doko-ni¨ ka] mayotteiru / kimekaneteiru
Hanako-TOP
which-toQ
hesitatecannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako hesitates/cannot decide [to which journal ¨]’
One possible account for the ungrammaticality of sentences like (116) is proposedby Baltin (2006), who claims that the complementizer is contained within the ellipsis
site, assuming Rizzi’s (1997, 2001) split CP-system. Under this analysis, the relevant
part of (116) is analyzed as having a structure like (118).
(118) Structure of (116)… [CP1 céacu ceann i [C01 Ø] [CP2 [C02 a/ar] [TP … ti …]]]

Under this analysis, the relevant complementizer in Japanese (namely, the Q-marker ka)
happens to be base-generated under the head of the higher CP, namely C01, whichhappens to be phonologically null in languages like Irish.
I suggest another possibility that relates the case of the base-generated
complementizers to the case of V-stranding sluicing. Suppose that CP is recursive, as in
Baltin’s (2006) account, and that each CP constitutes a Spell-out Domain. Then, thederivation of the relevant part of (118) involves the step depicted in (119).
204

-204-

(119) Spell-out of CP2 in Irish[CP2 [C02 a/ar] [TP … céacu ceann …]]Ordering Table: a/ar<céacu ceann

Assuming that the landing site for wh-phrases is Spec, CP1, the remnant stays in-situ at
the step in (119) in order to satisfy Parallelism. Then, Spell-out of CP2 establishes theordering statement where the complementizer precedes the remnant. Therefore, thederivation induces an ordering contradiction if the remnant precedes thecomplementizer at the surface structure. On the other hand, due to the head-finality ofJapanese, the linear ordering between the remnant and the complementizer can bepreserved throughout the derivation. Specifically, Spell-out of CP2 establishes theordering statement where the remnant precedes the complementizer ka, as in (120).
(120) Spell-out of CP2 in Japanese[CP2 [TP … wh …] [C02 ka]] Ordering Table: wh<ka
One advantage of this analysis is that the difference between Japanese and Irish canbe derived from independent factors, namely head-directionality, assuming a unified
structure for these two languages. Furthermore, this analysis can cover the Hungarianand Hindi examples in (121), repeated from (75).
(121) Sluicing and base-generated complementizers in Hungarian and Hindi
a. A gyerekek találkoztak valakivel
de nem emlékszem, (hogy) kivel ¨
the children met
someone.with but not I.remember that who.with‘The kids met someone, but I don’t remember who’b. Salmaa-ne ek ciiz khariidii par mujhe nahii pataa [(ki) kyaa ']Salma-ERG a thing bought but I.DAT NEG know that what
‘Salma bought something but I don’t know [what ¨]’
No matter where the ultimate landing site of wh-phrases in these languages, the linear
order between the complementizer and the remnant is kept constant throughout thederivation just like Japanese. The minimal difference between Hungarian and Hindi on
the one hand and Japanese on the other is that in the former the complementizer
precedes the remnant while the opposite linear order is achieved in the latter. Again, thisdifference is reduced to another difference between them, namely head-directionality.
205

-205-

5.4. Remaining Issues and Some Speculative Suggestions
This section discusses some remaining issues, and suggests some directions topursue for future study. In Section 5.4.1 discusses the conflict between the proposals
made in Section 5.3 and the Spell-out Domain Parameter proposed in Chapter 2. Section
5.4.2 examines some cases where ellipsis fails to repair island violations.
5.4.1. Spell-out and Head-movement
Recall that it was claimed in Section 5.3.1.2 that Spell-out of vP linearizes the wholevP, including the elements on its edge, even in languages like English (see (96c)). This
assumption allows us to establish the ordering statement where the remnant is precededby the materials that survive deletion. Let us reconsider the relevant cases. (122a)
illustrates the case of illegitimate VP-ellipsis, and (123a) does the case of illegitimate
matrix sluicing.
(122) Illegitimate VP-ellipsis
a. * Fred said that I talked to a certain girl, but I don’t know [which girl he did ¨]
b. [vAuxP hei didj [VAuxP tj [vP ti [VP … [CP … which girl]]]]]
Ordering Table: he<did<which<girl(123) Illegitimate matrix sluicing
a. A: Mary will see someone.
B: *Who will?
b. [vAuxP Maryi willj [VAuxP tj [vP ti [VP see who]]]]Ordering Table: Mary<will<see<who
The derivation of the relevant part of the target clause in (122a) contains the step in(122b), where Spell-out of vAuxP specifies the remnant to follow he and did (cf. (101b)).
This step ultimately induces an ordering contradiction. Similarly, the derivation thatyields the surface string of B’s utterance in (123a) involves the step in (123b), where
Spell-out of vAuxP specifies the remnant to follow will (cf. (113)). Since will follows theremnant in (123a), an ordering contradiction is inevitable. In this way, we can uniformly
capture these two cases.
The assumption that Spell-out of vP linearizes the whole vP in English is notconsistent with the proposal made in Chapter 2, however. In Chapter 2, I proposed theSpell-out Domain Parameter given in (124), and I argued that languages like English
choose the parametric value in (124b).

206

-206-

(124) Spell-out Domain Parameter for vP
When Spell-out applies to vP,
a. Linearize the whole vP, including the elements on its edge, orb. Linearize the complement of v0.
Furthermore, under the system assumed in this chapter, subject-aux inversion found in
yes/no-question always results in an ordering contradiction, contrary to fact. This isbecause the linear order between the subject and the auxiliary is specified so as that theformer precedes the latter, as in (122b) and (123b).
Once the parametric value in (124b) is chosen for English, subject-aux inversion
becomes possible, since in the schematic structure in (125), the linear ordering between
the subject and the auxiliary can be left unspecified. This is because, given theparametric value (124b), the linearization procedure targets VAuxP, and both the subject
and the auxiliary have evacuated the domain that is subject to linearization.
(125) Spell-out of vAuxP under the parametric value (123b)[vAuxP Subji [vAux0 Auxj vAux] [VAuxP tj [vP ti [VP V Obj]]

Ordering Table: V<Obj

Note however that the linear ordering of the subject and the auxiliary with respect to theelements within VAuxP is also left unspecified. Suppose then that the object in (125) is
indeed a remnant that stays in-situ (due to Parallelism). Its linear ordering with respect
to the subject and the auxiliary is not specified at this step, so that nothing prohibits theremnant from preceding them in a later point of the derivation. Thus, the explanation of
the ungrammaticality of the cases in (122) and (123) is lost.
To resolve the discrepancy, I stipulate that head-movement, unlike phrasal
movement, takes place after Spell-out. To be more specific, I suggest that although therelevant relation between heads that causes head-movement is established in narrowsyntax, actual displacement of a head takes place at PF (cf. Chomsky 2000). In fact,
Boeckx & Stjepanoviü (2001) point out, based on Lasnik’s (1995, 1999b) analysis of
pseudogapping, which is in turn adopted in Lasnik 2001, that head-movement, unlike
phrasal movement, is best considered to be a PF-phenomenon. That is, if deletion is a
PF process, generalized pied-piping of a head (namely, head-movement) should also be
a PF process: Otherwise it becomes unclear why PF-deletion may apply prior tohead-movement conceived as a narrow syntactic operation.
Given the idea suggested above, I claim that the structure in (125) can be refined as
207

-207-

in (126). In narrow syntax, the subject undergoes phrasal movement, while the auxiliary
stays within VAuxP, though it enters the relation with vAux0 (indicated by dotted line in(126a)), which eventually induces actucal displacement of it at PF as in (126b).
(126) Refinement of (125)a. Narrow syntax: [vAuxP Subji vAux0 [VAuxP Aux [vP ti [VP V Obj]]
b. PF:

Ordering Table: Aux<V<Obj[vAuxP Subji [vAux Auxj vAux] [VAuxP tj [vP ti [VP V Obj]]
0

Since the auxiliary stays within VAuxP, which is subject to the linearization procedure,
its linear ordering with respect to the other elements contained in VAuxP is specified in
the way we want. Meanwhile, the relative ordering between the subject and the otherelements, including the auxiliary, can be left unspecified, because the subject moves toSpec, vAuxP, which is outside of the relevant linearization domain. In this way, we canmaintain the core idea of the explanation of the illegitimate instances of deletion.
This refinement has a consequence once we reconsider the F&P’s explanation of
Holmberg’s generalization discussed in Chapter 2. Let us first review how the contrast
in (127a-b) is explained under the original view where head-movement takes place
within narrow syntax, on a par with phrasal movement.
(127) Licit and illicit object shift in Swedisha. Jag kysstei hennej inte [VP ti tj]
Ikissed her
notb. * … att jag hennei inte [VP kysste ti]… that I
hernotkissedThe step in (128a) is common to (127a-b), where the ordering statement kysste<henne isestablished. The derivation that yields (127a) proceeds on to the step in (128b), where
both the verb and the object undergoes movement. Since Spell-out of CP can establish aconsistent ordering statement, the derivation succeeds to converge. On the other hand,the derivation that results in (127b) involves the step in (128c), where Spell-out of CP
establishes an ordering statement where the object is specified to precede the verb,
which stays within vP. As a result, the derivation crashes because of an ordering
contradiction.
208

-208-

(128) Derivational steps involved in (127a-b)
a. Construction of vPÆ
Spell-out of vP0[vP … v [VP kysste henne]]
Ordering Table: kysste<henneb. Construction of CPÆ
Spell-out of CP[CP … kysstei [TP … hennej inte [vP ti tj]]]] Ordering Table: kysste<henne
kysste<henne<intec. Construction of CPÆ
Spell-out of CP*[CP … [TP … hennei inte [vP kysste ti]]]] Ordering Table: kysste<henne
henne<inte<kysste
Now, let us reconsider this explanation under the refinement where head-movementtakes place at PF. As for cases like (127b), where no verb-movement is involved, theaccount remains essentially the same as before: At the Spell-out of vP, the verb isspecified to precede the object, and at the Spell-out of CP, the shifted object is specified
to precede the verb, hence an ordering contradiction. On the other hand, we have to saysomething about the derivation that yields (127a). Under the refined view tohead-movement, the derivation proceeds in a manner depicted in (129).
(129) Derivation of (127a)a. Construciton of vPÆ[vP … v0 [VP kysste henne]]b. Construction of CPÆ

Spell-out of vP
Ordering Table: kysste<henne
Spell-out of CP*[CP … C0 [TP … T0 … hennei inte [vP … v0 [VP kysste ti]]]]
Ordering Table: kysste<henne
henne<inte<kysste
Although the relations between heads, which ultimately raise the verb to C0 at PF isestablished, the verb itselt stays within vP. Hence, the derivation crashes because of anordering contradiction, on a par with (127b). Recall at this point that we saw in Section
5.3.1.2 above that a derivation that results in an ordering contradiction can be saved byapplying deletion at PF (cf. (95)). Then, I speculate that displacement of a head at PF
has an effect similar to PF-deletion that nullifies an ordering contradiction.44 In thissense, the refinement suggested here provides another way of circumventing ordering
209

-209-

contradictions, requiring further explorations.
At this point, there are many problems regarding the relation between Spell-out andhead-movement, so that the suggestions made above remain speculative at best. I hope
to return to this issue in future works.
5.4.2. Failure of Island-repair
Lasnik (2006, 2008) observes that when the remnant is an adjunct like why and how,island violations cannot be repaired (see also Nakao & Yoshida 2007). As shown in(130a), although sluicing is possible with how/why as the remnant (based on Nakao &Yoshida 2007:322-323), the sentence becomes ungrammatical if the correlate is
contained within an island as in (130b).
(130) Sluicing with how/why as remnantsa. John fixed the car in a certain way/for a certain reason, but I don’t know
[how/why ¨]
b. *John wants to hire someone who fixes cars in a certain way/for a certain reason,
but I don’t know [how/why ¨]Lasnik (2006, 2008) suggests, following Lasnik & Saito (1984, 1992), that there is anadditional constraint on traces of adjuncts that must be satisfied at LF. Since it is an
LF-constraint, PF-deletion cannot ameliorate its violation. Hence, an island violation
still persists in (130b) even under sluicing.
Lasnik (2006, 2008) further observes that adjunct wh-phrases cannot be moved outof complement clauses under sluicing (based on Lasnik 2008:23).
(131) Sluicing with how/why as remnants without islands
a. * Mary claimed that John left for some reason, but I don’t know [CP exactly why i[IP Mary claimed [that John left ti]]]b. * Bob thinks that Mary fixed the car somehow, but I don’t know [CP exactly how i[IP Bob thinks [that Mary fixed the car ti]]]Taking the constraint on adjuncts as the ECP, which requires an empty category to beeither antecedent-governed or head-governed by a lexical head, Nakao & Yoshida(2007) argue that this observation can be explained in terms of Fox & Lasnik’s (2003)
Parallelism. Given Parallelism, the adjuncts in the target clauses in (131) must undergo
one-fell-swoop movement. As a result, their traces fail to be antecedent-governed. Since
210

-210-

adjuncts are not governed by a lexical head, the ECP is violated.
Some mechanism that yields the ECP effect is also required under the analysis of
island-repair in terms of the theory of Cyclic Linearization. In fact, the mechanism isnecessary to capture the fact that in-situ adjunct wh-phrases such as naze ‘why’ inJapanese and weishenme ‘why’ in Chinese exhibits an island effect (see Huang 1982,
Lasnik & Saito 1984, 1992, Nishigauchi 1986, 1990, Tsai 1994, 1999). One Japaneseexample is given in (132).
(132) Naze ‘why’ in a complex NP island*Taroo-wa [NP [RC Hanako-ga

naze kaita] hon]-okatta

Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM why wrote book-ACC bought‘(lit.) Whyi did Taroo buy [a book [which Hanako wrote ti]]’no?
Q

Since no overt movement of naze ‘why’ has happened in (132), it is not likely that theungrammaticality of the sentence is an ordering contradiction between naze ‘why’ andsome other elements. Thus, the mechanism that regulates the distribution of adjuncts isrequired independent of the issue of the lack of island-repair with adjunct wh-phrases.
Another case of failure of island-repair has to do with the SLCFC mentioned in
Section 5.2.2.6. The relevant examples are given in (133), repeated from (43).
(133) Failure of island-repair in SLCFC
a. Taroo-wa [keisatu-ga mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de nanika-oTaroo-TOP police-NOM firstself-GEN store-in something-ACC
kowasita] otoko]-o sirabeta to] omotteiru ga,
broke
man-ACC checked that thinkbut‘(lit.) Though Taroo thinks [that the police checked first [the man [who had
broken something in his store]]],’
keisatu-ga mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de tib. * Hanako-wa [nani-o i
Hanako-TOP
what-ACC police-NOM firstself-GEN store-inkowasita] otoko]-o sirabeta ka] sir-anai
brokeman-ACC checked Q know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in her store]]]’

211

-211-

c. Hanako-wa[nani-o¨ (da) ka] sir-anai

Hanako-TOP
what-ACC
COP Q
know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doen’t know [what ¨](i) Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in his (= Taroo’s) store]]]’(ii) * Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in her (= Hanako’s) store]]]’The lack of the sloppy reading in (133c) indicates that it is not the case that (133c) is
derived from (133b) by deleting the TP which contains the complex NP.
Given that the SLCFC unambiguously has the pseudo-sluicing structure, the sourceof (133c) can be either a copula sentence like (134a) (cf. (44)) or a cleft sentence like
(134b). Recall that the fact that (133c) lacks the sloppy reading in (133c-ii) follows if(134a) is the underlying source, since it also lacks the reading.
(134) Possible underlying sources of (133c)a. Hanako-wa [sore-ga nani-o(da) ka] sir-anai
Hanako-TOP
it-NOM what-ACC COP Q know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doen’t know [what it is]’(i) Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in his (= Taroo’s) store]]]’(ii) * Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had
broken ti in her (= Hanako’s) store]]]’b. * Hanako-wa [[CP keisatu-ga mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de ti nusunda]
Hanako-TOP
police-NOM firstself-GEN store-instoleotoko]-o siraberu no]-ga nani-o i(da) ka] sir-anaiman-ACC check
C-NOM what-ACC COP Q
know-NEG‘Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had stolenti from her (= Hanako’s) store]]]’The lack of the sloppy reading in (133c) also indicates that an island violation found in(134b) cannot be ameliorated by argument ellipsis of the presupposition CP subject.
This is one of the conclusions that we reached in Section 5.2.2.6.
Note at this point that the cleft construction involves movement of a phonologicallynull operator (Hoji 1990). Hence, the embedded clause of (134b) is analyzed as having aschematic structure in (135).
212

-212-

(135) Structure involved in (134b)… [[CP Opi … [NP [RC … ti …] …] …] nani-oi (da) ka] …

In (135), the null operator Op undergoes movement to Spec, CP of the presupposition
CP subject, crossing the island. From that position, it is related to the pivot nani-o‘what’. Note that the null operator in the relevant case originates an argument position,
so that the ungrammaticality of (134) cannot be attributed to the ECP-like mechanism
mentioned above, which is designed to regulate the distribution of adjuncts. Under thecurrent approach to island-repair, then, the fact that the null operator induces an island
violation suggests that movement of the null operator does create an ordering
contradiction.
Given that the null operator lacks its phonological features, in what sense does it
induce an ordering contradiction? I tentatively speculate that Spell-out linearizes a more
abstract entity (for instance, a label of a syntactic object), not just phonological features,and that PF cannot deal with the two ordering statement where an element X precedes
and follows another element Y, no matter whether X and/or Y have overt phonologicalfeatures. If so, empty elements such as the null operator are subject to the linearization
procedure. On the other hand, it has been assumed in this dissertation that traces areinvisible to the linearization procedure. I further speculate that this difference between
these two types of empty elements has to do with the fact that elements like the null
operator intrinsically lacks its phonological features, whereas a trace, being considered
as a lower copy left by movement, loses its phonological realization in the course ofderivation. Recall here that the elements that undergo PF-deletion also lose theirphonological realizations in the course of derivation. The fact that traces and ellipsis
sites behave as if they are invisible to the linearization procedure further supports thedistinction, although further investigation is required.45
Let us turn to the question of why island-repair is not possible with argument ellipsis
of a presupposition CP subject. Given the discussion above, an ordering contradiction
induced by the movement of the null operator should be ameliorated, contrary to fact,
since an island contained in the CP is elided.
One solution to this puzzle is proposed by Sugawa (2008), who develops the idea
suggested by Saito (2004). As pointed out by Saito (2004) and Sugawa (2008),
argument ellipsis found in the SLCFC differs from sluicing in that the former targets a
CP while the latter does a TP, as schematically shown in (136) (Op here stands for any
213

-213-

kind of operators, including the null operator and wh-operators).46(136) Targets of argument ellipsis and sluicing
a. [CP Opi [TP … ti …] …] (= argument ellipsis)b. [CP Opi [TP … ti …] …] (= sluicing)Note that Op itself is contained within the ellipsis site in the case of (136a), while it is
not in the case of (136b).
The antecedent clause of (136a) has a schematic structure in (137), which isintended to cover the cases where the correlate is a quantifier, especially an indefinite,(indicated as QP), a wh-phrase (indicated as WH), or a focused phrase (indicated as
XPFoc). At the first sight, (136a) and (137) do not look identical to each other enough tolicense ellipsis. Saito (2004) then suggests that Fiengo & May’s (1994) vehicle change
plays an important role in licensing ellipsis in the case at hand.
(137) Schematic structure of the antecedent clause[CP [TP … QP/WH/XPFoc …] …]
Let us consider the examples in (138). If (138b) is the underlying source of (138a),
which involves VP-ellipsis, it is not clear why (138a) is free from a Condition C
violation. To accommodate this observation, Fiengo & May (1994) proposes theoperation vehicle change, which turns a name into a corresponding pronoun, so that the
VP in (138c) counts as identical to the antecedent VP.
(138) Vehicle change in VP-ellipsis
a. Mary loves Johni’s mother, and hei does ', toob. * Mary loves Johni’s mother, and hei does [VP love Johni’s mother]c. Mary loves Johni’s mother, and hei does [VP love hisi mother]
Since (138a) can have (138c) as its underlying source, it exhibits no Condition C
violation.
Saito (2004) points out that if vehicle change can turn a name into a pronoun, whichcontains less specific information, it is also plausible to assume that it can turn
wh-phrase phrase into a null operator, which also contains less specific information(Sugawa 2008 further extends Saito’s 2004 idea to a quantifier and a focused phrase).
Given this idea, the structure in (137) is turned into something like (139a).
214

-214-

(139) Structure of (137) after vehicle changea. [CP [TP … Op …] …]
b. [CP Opi [TP … ti …] …]

After vehicle change, the operator undergoes movement to Spec, CP as in (139b). As aresult, the antecedent becomes identical to the target in (136), so that ellipsis is properly
licensed.
Then, Sugawa (2008) points out that although island violations in the target clausecan be repaired by ellipsis, island violations induced by the operator movement in theantecedent cannot be repaired, simply because no ellipsis applies to the antecedent.
Suppose that the antecedent and the target have the schematic structures in (140a-b),
respectively.
(140) Configurations involving an islanda. … [CP [TP … [island … QP/WH/XPFoc …] …] …] …
b. … [CP Opi [TP … [island … ti …] …] …] …

(= antecedent)(= target)

In (140b), the null operator, which moves to Spec, CP of the presupposition CP of thecleft construction, crosses an island. However, since everything within the CP is subject
to ellipsis, such an island violation can be nullified. Rephrased in terms of the analysis
developed in this chapter, an (abstract) ordering contradiction induced by the null
operator is circumvented by deletion.
On the other hand, after vehicle change, (140a) is turned into (141a).
(141) Structure of (140a) after vehicle change
a. … [CP [TP … [island … Op …] …] …] …
b. * … [CP Opi [TP … [island … ti …] …] …] …

Then, the null operator undergoes movement, crossing an island. Unlike the case of(140b), however, there is no ellipsis, so that an island violation cannot be repaired.
Since an appropriate antecedent cannot be constructed, ellipsis is not licensed. In thisway, failure of island-repair with argument ellipsis is captured.
215

-215-

To sum up, this subsection discussed the two cases where ellipsis fails to repair
island violations. Each case has to do with the question of whether all the island
phenomena can be attributed to ordering contradictions. Although many suggestions
made in this subsection remain tentative and incomplete, I believe they contribute todeepen our understanding of the nature of islands and their interactions with ellipsis.
5.5. Conclusion
In this chapter, I examined the interaction between ellipsis and the theory of Cyclic
Linearization. First, I addressed the issue of whether Japanese has the genuine sluicing
structure, namely wh-movement followed by TP-deletion. I argued that Japanese does
have genuine sluicing, by examining what we are calling the sluicing-like constructions
with finite and non-finite complements. Based on the results of various diagnostic tests
that distinguish genuine sluicing from pseudo-sluicing, which has the copula/cleft
constructions as its underlying source, I illustrated that the genuine sluicing structure is
attested when the complement is a non-finite clause, whereas the pseudo-sluicing
structure is the only available option when the complement is a finite clause. I further
argued that finite verbs in Japanese move to C0, so that deletion of TP whose verb isfinite yields what we are calling V-stranding sluicing, where everything except for theremnant and the elements located under C0 is deleted. Several pieces of evidence for
V-stranding sluicing were provided from Japanese-internal and comparative facts.
Based on these results, we reached the conclusion that TP-deletion in Japanese results in
two different surface structures depending on the finiteness of verb, as schematicallyshown in (142).
(142) Two outcomes of genuine sluicing in Japanesea. … [CP wh i [TP … ti … tV … tT] [C0 V-T-C]] …
b. … [CP wh i [TP … ti … V … T] [C0 C]] …

(= finite clauses)(= non-finite clauses)

Then, I pointed out that the structures in (142) requires a reformulation of
Merchant’s (2001) Sluicing-COMP generalization, which states that nothing but an
operator can survive deletion under sluicing. I proposed an alternative generalization in(143) to accommodate the Japanese pattern.

216

-216-

(143) New generalization on the Sluicing-COMP effect
The Sluicing-COMP effect emerges only when the remnant wh-phrase linearlycrosses the overt elements in C0.
Having established the existence of genuine sluicing in Japanese and its implications
for the study of sluicing, I tried to derive the effect of the new generalization in terms ofthe theory of Cyclic Linearization. To achieve this, I first illustrated that the theory of
Cyclic Linearization, combined with Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) Parallelism, can explain the
difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis with respect to island-repair. To be more
specific, Parallelism requires the remnant to undergo one-fell-swoop movement, so that
contradicting ordering statements are established by Spell-out. Such an ordering
contradiction can be removed by sluicing, since it deletes every offending element otherthan the remnant. On the other hand, VP-ellipsis fails to do so, so that one-fell-swoop
movement is not allowed in this case. In particular, a contradiction concerning the linear
ordering between the remnant and an auxiliary cannot be resolved in the case of
VP-ellipsis. Then, I illustrated that the difference between languages like English thatexhibit the Sluicing-COMP effect and ones like Japanese that do not is reduced to amore fundamental difference between these two types of languages, namely,
head-directionality.
Although there are several remaining issues and problems, some of which werediscussed in this chapter, the analysis advocated in this chapter has the following two
implications. First, it confirms the conclusion reached in Chapter 3 that both sluicing
and VP-ellipsis are best analyzed in terms of PF-deletion. Second, and more importantly,
the fact that Japanese does have genuine sluicing allows us to contribute tocross-linguistic studies of sluicing from the language on a more solid ground.

217

-217-

Notes to Chapter 5
1

Part of the materials discussed in this chapter (especially those in Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2) isbased on Takita (to appear c).
2

Following the notation introduced in Chapter 3, the symbol ¨ is used to indicate aphonologically null gap without any theoretical commitment.
3

In this chapter I restrict myself to the “merger” type sluicing, where a correlate appears overtly

in the antecedent, and do not discuss the “sprouting” type, where a correlate is implicit (see Chung,
Ladusaw & McCloskey 1995 for these types). This choice is not without reasons; first, it is not clear
if it is possible to construct clear examples of sprouting type because of the radical pro-drop propertyof Japanese; second, it is well-known since Chung, Ladusaw & McCloskey (1995) that merger typesluicing behaves differently from the sprouting type in several respect (see Nakao 2009 for recent
discussion), and it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to examine their differences in Japanese. I
hope to return to this important issue in future works.
4

Although Japanese is a wh-in-situ language, Takahashi (1994) assumes that scrambling of

wh-phrases counts as wh-movement, following Takahashi (1993).
5

See Hoji (1990) and Murasugi (1991) for detailed discussions on the structure of the cleft

constructions in Japanese.
6

In this dissertation I do not discuss sluicing taking place in matrix clauses in Japanese. See

Hasegawa (2006, 2008) and Abe (2008) for recent discussions on Japanese matrix sluicing.
7

See Fujii (2006) and references cited therein for the control properties of the clauses whose

predicates have the infinitive marker -(y)oo.
8

I do not go into any detail why the copula and cleft constructions are not allowed under thepredicates in question.
9

Merchant (2001) notes that sluicing in English does not easily allow the sloppy reading, contrary

to Ross’ (1969a) observation. As shown in Section 5.2.2, the SLCNFC in Japanese, which I claim to be
an instance of genuine sluicing, allows the sloppy reading. I leave the difference between English andJapanese for future research.
10

There appears to be no identical clausal subject in the antecedent clause, namely (11a). See

Section 5.4.2 on this issue.
11

As far as I can tell, mayotteiru ‘hesitate’ and kimekaneteiru ‘cannot decide’ behave in the sameway, so that the same result obtains if kimekaneteiru ‘cannot decide’ is replaced by mayotteiru‘hesitate’ in the SLCNFC examples provided later in the text. Hence, I use only kimekaneteiru ‘cannot
decide’ as the matrix predicate for the relevant examples.
12(17b-c) are still ungrammatical if something is moved from the elided TP, as in (i), no matter

whether the complementizers are retained or not.

218

-218-

(i)

a. * They say that John will go to Tokyo, but I don’t know [CP to Tokyo (whether) ¨]
b.* They say that John loves Mary, but I don’t know [CP Mary (that) ¨]
13There seem to exist certain variations regarding the grammatical status of examples like (25c).

For instance, Mihara & Hiraiwa (2006:279-280) report that examples like (25c) are fine when the
copula da is missing, while they sound marginal when the copula is present. Yet another group of
speakers finds that (25c) is, independent of the existence or absence of the copula, not so
ungrammatical as indicated in the text. As far as I can tell, however, there is no speaker in this group
who gets a contrast between (25c) and (26). Thus, it might be the case that for those speakers tatoeba‘for example’ is not a good expression to invoke the “mention-some” interpretation.
Related to this point, Mamoru Saito (p.c.) points to me that changing the indefinite correlates ofthe examples in the text to the wh-phrases as in (i) below somehow strengthens the contrast between
the SLCNFC (= (ia), corresponding to (24)) and the SLCFC (= (ib), corresponding to (25)).
(i)a. Taroo-wa [PRO dono zyaanaru-ni ronbun-o das-oo
Taroo-TOP

which journal-to

Hanako-wa[tatoeba

doko-ni

Hanako-TOP

for.example where-toka] kimeta

paper-ACC submit-INF Q¨

ka]kimekaneteiruQ

cannot.decidega,

decided but‘(lit.) Though Taroo has decided [to which journal to submit a paper], Hanako cannot decide[to where, for example ¨]
b.* Taroo-wa [Ziroo-ga

dono zyaanaru-ni ronbun-oTaroo-TOP Ziroo-NOM which journal-to
Hanako-wa[tatoeba

Hanako-TOP

for.example where-to

doko-ni¨dasu-tumorika] sitteiru ga,

paper-ACC submit-intend Q

know

but

(da) ka] siritagatteiru
COP Q

want.to.know‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [to which journal Ziroo intends to submit a paper], Hanako
wants to know [to where, for example ¨]’Thus, although further careful investigation is required, I believe that the “mention-some”
interpretation can still be used as a diagnostic test.
14

For recent discussions on the P-stranding generalization, see, for instance, Almeida & Yoshida(2007), Stjepanoviü (2008), and Sato (2008).
15

To be more precise, Hoji (1990) suggests that when the Case-markers/post-positions are

dropped, the sentence can be analyzed as the copula construction. I ignore the distinction between
the copula and cleft constructions since it is not important for the current purpose.
16

Fukaya & Hoji (1999) observe that island effects are not observed if the remnant lacks

219

-219-

Case-marker, and suggest that the construction involving Case-marked remnants has a different
structure from the one involving Case-less remnants (see also footnote 15). Following theirsuggestion, I focus on the cases which involve Case-marked remnants to avoid unnecessary
complications.
17

In fact, in many earlier works on sluicing in Japanese, for instance Takahashi (1994) andFukaya & Hoji (1999), the surface strings of examples like (43c) are judged as ungrammatical.
However, Saito (2004) points out that certain instances of the surface strings of examples like (43c)are not so ungrammatical, with much individual variation, and that it is safer to investigate their
deeper properties. Thus, I used the availability of the sloppy reading in the text as one such property.
I refer readers to Saito (2004) for the property that is used to show the island-sensitivity of the
SLCFC (see also Fukaya 2003 for a similar consideration and for yet another property used there). I
thank Jun Abe (p.c.) for pointing out the importance of clarifying this point.
18

In Takita (to appear c), I used the examples in (i) and (ii) to examine the possibility ofisland-repair of the SLCs (they are slightly modified from the original ones in order to make themmore natural). While the correlates in (42) and (43) in the text are indefinites, the ones in theseexamples are wh-phrases.

(i)a. Taroo-wa [PRO mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de nani-oTaroo-TOP

firstsirabe-yoo ka]

kimetacheck-INF

decided but

Qkowasita] otoko]-oself-GEN store-in what-ACC brokeman-ACCga,‘(lit.) Though Taroo decided [whati to check first [the man [who had broken ti in his
store]]],’
b.* Hanako-wa[nani-o i

Hanako-TOP

PRO mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de ti kowasita] otoko]-owhat-ACC

firstsirabe-yoo ka]

kimekaneteiru

check-INF

cannot.decideQ

self-GEN store-in

broke

man-ACC‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [whati to check first [the man [who had broken ti in her store]]]’c. Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP[nani-owhat-ACC¨ka]kimekaneteiruQ

cannot.decide‘(lit.) Hanako cannot decide [what ¨](i)Hanako cannot decide [whati to check first [the man [who has broken ti in his (=Taroo’s) store]]]’(ii)

Hanako cannot decide [whati to check first [the man [who has broken ti in her (=Hanako’s) store]]]’

220

-220-

(ii) a. Taroo-wa [keisatu-ga

mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de nani-oTaroo-TOP police-NOM firstsirabeta ka]

sitteiru ga,

checked Q

knowkowasita] otoko]-oself-GEN store-in what-ACC brokeman-ACCbut‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [whati the police checked first [the man [who had broken ti in his
store]]],’
b.* Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP
otoko]-o[nani-o ikeisatu-ga

mazu [NP [RC zibun-no mise-de ti kowasita]

what-ACC police-NOM firstsirabeta ka]

man-ACC checked Q

self-GEN store-in

broke

sir-anai
know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had broken ti inher store]]]’c. Hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP[nani-o¨what-ACC(da) ka]

sir-anai

COP Q

know-NEG‘(lit.) Hanako doen’t know [what ¨](i)Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had broken ti inhis (= Taroo’s) store]]]’(ii) *Hanako doesn’t know [whati the police checked first [the man [who had broken ti inher (= Hanako’s) store]]]’These examples pattern with the ones in (42) and (43) (and the contrast with respect to theavailability of the sloppy reading seems to be even clearer for some speakers; see also footnote 13).
One potential problem of these examples is that they appear to belong to a subtype of ‘contrast’sluicing in the sense of Merchant (2008), which is known to be island-sensitive (see also Merchant2001, Fukaya 2003). One concrete example of contrast sluicing that fails to repair island violations isgiven in (iii) (cited from Merchant 2008:148 ).

(iii) * ABBY wants to hire someone who speaks GREEK, but I don’t remember what OTHER
languages she wants to hire someone who speaks

Hence, the fact that island-repair is observed for (ic) might be rather surprising. Although there seemto be several ways to pursue, I leave this topic for future research. I thank Jun Abe (p.c.) and Daiko
Takahashi (p.c.) for bringing this issue to my mind and advising me to use examples involving
indefinite correlates.
19

One piece of evidence for overt verb-movement in Japanese discussed in Koizumi (1995,

221

-221-

2000) concerns examples like (i), where each conjunct appear to consist of the subject and the object,excluding the verb (based on Koizumi 2000:230). Assuming that subjects overtly raise to Spec, TP,
Koizumi (1995, 2000) argues that (i) involves coordination of TP where the verbs of both conjuncts
have been moved to C0 (via T0) in the “across-the-board” manner, as in (ii) (irrelevant details areomitted).

(i)[[Mary-ga

ringo-ohutatu] toMary-NOM apple-ACC 2.CLand[Nancy-ga

banana-osan-bon]] tabeta

Nancy-NOM banana-ACC 3-CL

ate‘(lit.) [Mary two apples] and [Nancy three bananas] ate (meaning: Mary ate two apples, andNancy three bananas)’(ii) [CP [TP [TP Mary-ga ringo-o hutatu ti] to [TP Nancy-ga banana-o san-bon ti]] [C0 [tabeta]i C]]

It is then predicted under the proposal made in the text that coordination of TP fails if we use
non-finite verbs, since non-finite verbs are claimed not to move to C0. However, since non-finite
clauses cannot host overt subjects (in particular, the subject of a control complement is PRO), it is
not possible to test this prediction by making a similar example.
20

When it is not crucial, the distinction between vP and VP is suppressed in this chapter.

21

It is not at issue whether non-finite verbs move to T0 or stay within VP, because what is

important for our purpose is that non-finite verbs do not reach C0 so that TP-deletion does yield thesurface string of the SLCNFC. Thus, I use the structure where V stays within VP for the SLCNFC,
leaving open whether non-finite verbs move or not.
22

The asterisk assigned to (52b) indicates that the sentence lacks the intended reading, though

the string itself is grammatical with irrelevant readings. Similar remarks apply to the subsequent
examples provided in the text when I supply only the intended reading as their translations.
23

As for island-repair (see Section 5.2.2.6), it is quite difficult to check whether V-stranding

sluicing exhibits the effect. This is because V-stranding sluicing seems to be impossible if theremnant undergoes long-distance wh-movement, even when there is no island is involved. To see
this, let us consider the examples in (i). In (ia), which is the antecedent, the correlate doko-kara‘from where’ undergoes long-distance movement from the lowest clause. By assumption, thepredicate itta ‘said’ has been moved to C0 of CP1. Then, it should be possible to delete thecomplement of CP1, giving rise to the surface string of (ib). However, (ib) does not have theintended interpretation.

222

-222-

(i)

a. Taroo-wa [CP1 doko-karai Ziroo-ga
Taroo-TOP[CP2 Yoko-ga

where-from Ziroo-NOM

ti kita

Yoko-NOM

to] ittaka] sitteiru ga,

come t hat said Q

know

but

‘(lit.) Though Taroo knows [from wherei Ziroo said [that Yoko come ti]]’b.* Hanako-wa [CP1 doko-kara
Hanako-TOP¨

where-fromittaka] sir-anai

said Qknow-NEG‘(intended) Hanako doesn’t know [from wherei Ziroo said [that Yoko come ti]]’
Whatever is the source of the ungrammaticality of (ib), this interfering factor prevents us fromtesting island-repair in V-stranding sluicing.
24

I thank Daiko Takahashi (p.c.) for pointing out the importance of this issue.

25

McCloskey (1991:269, fn. 7) notes that negation in Irish is realized in C0.

26

Since exploring why VP-ellipsis is not allowed in Japanese is beyond the scope of thisdissertation, I leave it as an open question.
27

For recent discussions on other kinds of repair-by-ellipsis effects that I do not discuss in thischapter, see Lasnik 1995, 1999b, 2001, 2006, 2008, Merchant 2001, 2002, 2008, Lasnik & Park
2003, van Craenenbroeck 2004, Boeckx & Lasnik 2006, and van Craenenbroeck & den Dikken 2006,
among many others.
28

In fact, Fox & Pesetsky (2003, 2005) and Lasnik (2006, 2008) have already suggested that thetheory of Cyclic Linearization provides a way to explain the repair effects. Thus, the analysis I argue
for in this subsection can be considered as a concrete implementation of their suggestions. See alsofootnote 31.
29

Following Fox & Lasnik’s (2003) presentation, successive-cyclic movement to the lowest VP

is omitted in (84b).
30

Fox & Lasnik (2003) suggest that the ??-status of (90c) may have to do with Merchant’s (2008)

MaxElide, which roughly demands that ellipsis targets the largest constituent possible.
31

Fox & Pesetsky (2003, 2005) have already suggested that certain instances of islands can be

captured in terms of an ordering contradiction at PF. For instance, Fox & Pesetsky (2003) assume
that the phrase headed by after in (i) constitutes a Spell-out Domain that lacks a left-edge landingsite for movement (based on Fox & Pesetsky 2003:21).

(i) * John left after he talked to a certain boy, but I don’t remember [CP which boyi [TP John left
[Adjunct after he talked to ti]]]Since the wh-phrase cannot make use of the left-edge of the adjunct clause, the linear order between
which boy and the elements within the adjunct clause, in particular after, is specified so as that the

223

-223-

former follows the latter. This linear ordering contradicts the surface one of (i), so that the sentence
becomes ungrammatical. They further argue that deletion of the TP of (i) via sluicing renders theelements within the adjunct clause unpronounced, nullifying the contradiction. Thus, island-repair
under sluicing is captured. However, they do not discuss the difference between sluicing and
VP-ellipsis. Since the problematic ordering relation is the one between the wh-phrase and theelements within the adjunct clause, it is not immediately clear why VP-ellipsis fails to nullify thecontradiction. Basically following their approach to island-repair, I provide an analysis that allows us
to explain the relevant difference.
32

I am not claiming that deletion of TP1 takes place after Spell-out of CP1. Rather, theinformation that TP1 is subject to deletion is sent to the Ordering Table via Spell-out of CP1. This is
not unnatural assumption because deletion of TP is locally licensed by the head of CP1 (together withthe wh-phrase in its Spec; see Lobeck 1990, 1995, Saito & Murasugi 1990, and Merchant 2001),
which is the target of Spell-out.
33

Although Fox & Lasnik (2003) do not discuss about A-movements of Fred and I in (95), I

believe these movements should not disrupt the identity relation between the antecedent and theellipsis site, because their counterparts in the antecedent also undergo A-movement.
34

At this point, one may wonder how sentences involving subject-aux inversion like What canJohn eat? are derived, since under the claims in (96), Spell-out of vAUXP of can never succeed toestablish the ordering statement where can precedes John. I come back to this point in Section 5.4.1.
35

Recall that Fox & Lasnik (2003) also assume (at least tacitly) that VP-ellipsis targets acomplement of Asp, not that of T (cf. (86c)).
Mamoru Saito (p.c.) suggests an alternative possibility, where the lowest v0 licenses deletion of
its complement VP. That is, v0 in (i) licenses deletion of the VP in the presence of he in Spec, vP.

(i)… [vP he v0 [VP swim]]

This alternative allows us to maintain the strict local relation between the ellipsis site (in this caseVP) and its licensor (in this case v0). Based on examples like (ii) below, however, Aelbrecht(2009:96-99) argues that VP-ellipsis requires the presence of T0.

(ii) a. * I hadn’t thought about it, but I recall Morgani having
b.* Pat having shown up at the game and Pete not having was a surprise to everyone
If v0 is the sole licensor of deletion of its complement VP as in (i), it is not clear why (iia), forinstance, cannot have a structure like (iii), where deletion of the complement VP is intended to be

224

-224-

licensed by v0.
(iii) Ii hadn’t [vP ti v0 [VP thought about it]], but I recall Morganj having [vP tj v0 [VP thought about it]]Hence, I keep assuming (96b).
36

Given that an auxiliary projects its own vP (labeled as vAuxP), it is expected that it is also

subject to deletion. Lobeck (1995), however, observes the following (based on Lobeck 1995:163):(i)a. * Mary might have been writing and John might [have been writing] too
b.* Mary might have been writing and John might have [been writing] tooThat is, VP-ellipsis cannot target the projection of the intermediate auxiliaries (see also Zagona
1988). Rather surprisingly, however, Akmajian, Steele, & Wasow (1979:15) report the opposite
judgment for a quite similar sentence, as in (ii).

(ii) John couldn’t have been studying Spanish, but Bill could (have (been (studying Spanish)))For them, any variant of (ii) is regarded as possible. At this point, I do not have any clear answer tothe question of why such a variation exists.
37

I follow Fox & Lasnik (2003) in that the status of (103c) is due to something like MaxElide,which is at work independent of Cyclic Linearization. See footnote 30.
38

Lasnik (2001) offers one piece of evidence that matrix sluicing is indeed an instance of

sluicing. It is based on the so-called swiping phenomena, where a preposition and its complement
wh-phrase are inverted in their linear order only in the sluicing context (see also Merchant 2001,
2002). As in (i), the preposition to can be preceded by its complement whom, although it cannot be
in normal environments (based on Lasnik 2001:306).

(i)

Lois was talking, but I don’t know [to whom/whom to](cf. … *but I don’t know [whom to Lois was talking])

The same pattern is observed for matrix sluicing, indicating that the same process is involved (basedon Lasnik 2001:306):(ii) Lois was talking. To whom?/Whom to? (cf. *Whom to was Lois talking?)
39

Lasnik (2001) bases the analysis on his earlier works on pseudogapping (cf. Levin 1978,

225

-225-

1979/1986) given in Lasnik (1995, 1999b), which revive the insight of Jayaseelan (1990). I leave it
for future research to explore the consequences of the analysis being made in the text forpseudogapping (But see Takahashi 2004 for an analysis of pseudogapping based on Fox &Pesetsky’s 2003, 2005 framework).
40

Given that a subject can precede an auxiliary when Spell-out applies to vAuxP, it is predictedthat if the remnant is a subject, the auxiliary can appear, without inducing any ordering
contradictions. In fact, Lasnik (2001:318) observes that in addition to sluicing, the VP-ellipsis
version is also allowed in such cases, as in (i).

(i)

A: Someone solved the problem. B: Who (?did)?

According to Lasnik (2001), the VP-ellipsis version is not perfect, but I believe this degraded status
has nothing to do with linearization, but an effect of MaxElide (see fn. 30), following suggestions by
Lasnik (2006, 2008).
41

Following Lasnik (2001), I assume that generalized pied-piping is required when TP-deletion

has not applied.
42

In Section 5.4.1 below in the text, I suggest that head-movement takes place in the PFcomponent. Then, the analysis discussed in the text implies that within the PF component
head-movement happens before deletion. If these processes are not ordered in this way, deletion of
TP may yield the surface string of the SLCFC, contrary to the conclusion reached in Section 5.2.2.
Furthermore, it implies that an application of head-movement in PF must refer to the ordering
statements established in narrow syntax so as not to create an ordering contradiction. Otherwise
English matrix sluicing is never derived. To see this, suppose that an object remnant is specified tofollow an auxiliary at the Spell-out of the vAuxP, just like (113), as in (ia). Then, if head-movement
blindly applies before TP-deletion, as in (ib), PF always receives contradictory instructions about thelinear ordering between the remnant and the auxiliary, leading the derivation to a PF crash.

(i)a. [vAuxP … Aux … [vP … Obj …]]b.

Ordering Table: Aux<Obj[CP Obj i [C0 Auxj C0] [TP … [vAuxP … tj … [vP … ti …]]]
Therefore, I have to stipulate that PF must take into account ordering statements in appliying
head-movement. The idea behind this stipulation is that PF cannot disobey instructions provided bynarrow syntax. I leave it to future work if we can find independent evidence for this stipulation. See
also footnote 44 for further elaborations.

226

-226-

43

One potential problem is Germanic OV languages such as German and Dutch. However, theproblem may disappear if we can assume that these languages are underlying head-initial (cf. Kayne
1994) and that their head-initiality is maintained in the sluicing context (possibly to satisfy
Parallelism).
44

Two things are noteworthy here. First, the speculation that head-movement can nullify anordering contradiction does not undermine the account of illegitimate matrix sluicing. In the case of
Holmberg’s generalization, the landing site of the shifted object is structurally lower than that ofverb-movement; on the contrary, in the case of illegitimate matrix sluicing, the landing site of theremnant is Spec, CP, which is structurally higher than that of an auxiliary. Hence, irrespective ofwhether head-movement applies, the remnant still precedes the auxiliary, so that an ordering
contradiction is inevitable in the latter.
Second, I suggested in footnote 42 that PF cannot apply head-movement if the result contradicts
with the ordering statement established in narrow syntax. Now, the result of the head-movement thatsaves the derivation from a PF-crash in (129) seems to contradict with the ordering statement
established at the Spell-out of CP. The crucial difference between the case discussed in footnote 42
and the one in the text is that in the case of the former the result of head-movement contradicts withthe ordering statement established at an earlier point of Spell-out, while in the latter the result
contradicts with the one established at the same point of Spell-out. The generalization is, then, thathead-movement can nullify an ordering contradiction induced by the ordering statement establishedin the same cycle.
45

Discussing an issue quite independent from the one in the text, Fox & Pesetsky (2003:24)

briefly note the similarity between traces and ellipsis sites, based on King’s (1970) constraint on
contraction. As in (ia), contraction is not possible right before an ellipsis site. It is not possible before
a trace, as in (ib), either.

(i)a. Is Mary French? No, Sue is [French]./*No, Sue’s [French].
b. Mary is smart, {whichi John is ti too/*whichi John’s ti too}46

I pretend as if argument ellipsis is a PF-deletion, contrary to the conclusion reached in Chapter

3, for the sake of illustration.

227

-227-

Chapter 6
Conclusion

In this dissertation, I argued for a particular approach to successive-cyclicity, namely
the theory of Cyclic Linearization proposed by Fox & Pesetsky (2003, 2005), throughclose examinations of various constraints on movement and ellipsis. In this concluding
chapter, I briefly summarize the results.
In Chapter 2, I illustrated that the theory of Cyclic Linearization provides an
explanation of the Proper Binding Condition effects found in Japanese scrambling,where scrambling of a constituent that results in a creation of an unbound trace isstrictly barred. It was shown that once the theory of Cyclic Linearization is combinedwith a few independent assumptions, especially with Ko’s (2005a, 2007) hypothesis thatthe whole vP is linearized via Spell-out in languages like Japanese, a derivation thatinvolves such a remnant movement in this language always results in inducing anordering contradiction at PF, so that the derivation fails to converge. Meanwhile, I
proposed the parameter concerning a domain of linearization via Spell-out, in order tocapture the basic facts about languages like English, German and Swedish. I further
argued that this parameter allows us to capture the difference between languages like
Japanese and those like English and German with respect to the possibility of remnant
movement. It was also shown that the proposed analysis explains the constraints on thepossible landing sites and on scrambling of ECM and Small Clause complements,
receiving further empirical support.
In Chapter 3, I examined a constraint on argument ellipsis, where ellipsis of aconstituent from which subextraction has taken place is not possible, although it iselidable when no such subextraction has occurred. I argued that this constraint can be
explained by the mechanism that is independently necessary to license arguments. It
was also argued that the analysis maintains Shinohara’s (2006a, b) idea that argument
ellipsis is an instance of LF-copying while sluicing and VP-ellipsis involve PF-deletion.
Chapter 4 discussed the constraints on VP-scrambling in Japanese in light of thetheory of Cyclic Linearization. Building on the insights of the previous studies, I
provided more fine-grained generalizations on licit and illicit VP-scrambling. Then, I
illustrated that the theory of Cyclic Linearization nicely explains the generalizations inquestion. Furthermore, I discussed several implications of the proposed analysis,
making some novel empirical observations and predictions on possible cross-linguistic
228

-228-

variations regarding movement of VP, which I believe invoke further research on this
topic.
In the first part of Chapter 5, I addressed the issue of whether Japanese allows
sluicing, namely deletion of TP preceded by wh-movement. I argued that Japanese does
have a construction comparable to sluicing in English and other languages, based on anovel set of data. It was shown that sluicing in Japanese yields two types of structures
depending on the finiteness of the verb: If it is non-finite, sluicing yields the surface
string consisting of the wh-phrase and the Q-marker; if it is finite, on the other hand,sluicing yields what is called V-stranding sluicing, consisting of the wh-phrase and theverbal complex formed by (successive-cyclic) head-movement of the verb to C0. Then, I
pointed out that the pattern of sluicing found in Japanese constitutes a clear
counterexample for Merchant’s (2001) Sluicing-COMP generalization, which states that
nothing but wh-elements can survive sluicing. An alternative generalization is proposedin order to accommodate the Japanese pattern. The second half of Chapter 5 tries toderive the effect of this new generalization from the theory of Cyclic Linearization. In
order to achieve this goal, I first proposed to implement under the theory of Cyclic
Linearization Fox and Lasnik’s (2003) idea that one-fell-swoop movement is required
under deletion, which is originally proposed to explain the difference between sluicing
and VP-ellipsis with respect to the possibilities of the island-repair. Then, I argued that
under the proposed analysis, the effect of the new generalization on the Sluicing-COMP
effect follows from a more fundamental difference among languages, namely
head-directionality.

229

-229-

References

Abe, Jun. (2008). Embedded sluicing in Japanese. In Pragmatic Functions and Syntactic
Theory: In View of Japanese Main Clauses, a Report for Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (pp. 121-174). Chiba: Kanda University of International
Studies.
Abels, Klaus. (2002). On an alleged argument for the Proper Binding Condition. In
Tanya Ionin, Heejeong Ko, and Andrew Nevins (Eds.), Proceedings of HUMIT
2001. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43 (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, Mass.:
MITWPL.
Abels, Klaus. (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Aikawa, Takako. (1993). Reflexitivity in Japanese and LF-analysis of zibun-binding.
Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Akmajian, Adrian, Susan M. Steele, and Thomas Wasow. (1979). The category AUX in
Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 1-64.
Almeida, Diogo, and Masaya Yoshida. (2007). A problem for the Preposition Stranding
Generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 349-362.
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. (1998). On the nature of particles in Japanese and its theoretical
implications. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
Calif.
Aoyagi, Hiroshi, and Toru Ishii. (1994). On NPI licensing in Japanese. In Noriko
Akatsuka (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4 (pp. 295-311). Stanford University,
Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Arimoto, Masatake. (1999). The Minimal Link Condition and existential constructions inEnglish. In Masatake Muraki, and Enoch Iwamoto (Eds.), Linguistics: In search of
the human mind: A festschrift for Kazuko Inoue (pp. 57-83). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Baltin, Mark. (2006). Doubly-filled Comps are not doubly-filled Comps. Ms., NewYork University.
Barss, Andrew. (1986). Chains and anaphoric dependence: On reconstruction and its
implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, and Andrew Simpson. to appear. Sluicing in Indo-Aryan: An
investigation of Bangla and Hindi. In a volume edited by Jason Merchant, John
Benjamins.
230

-230-

den Besten, Hans. (1983). On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive
rules. In Werner Abraham (Ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania (pp.
47-131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. (1995). Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Ph.D.
Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Boeckx, Cedric. (2002). Agree or Attract? A Relativized Minimality solution to a
Proper Binding Condition puzzle. In Artemis Alexiadou (Ed.), Theoretical
approaches to universals (pp. 41-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boeckx, Cedric. (2008). Understanding minimalist syntax: Lessons from locality inlong-distance dependencies. Malden: Blackwell.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. (2003). Reply to “Control is not movement”.
Linguistic Inquiry 34, 269-280.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. (2004). Movement under control. Linguistic
Inquiry 35, 431-452.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. (2006a). Control in Icelandic and theories ofcontrol. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 591-606.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. (2006b). The virtues of control as movement.
Syntax 9, 118-130.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Howard Lasnik. (2006). Intervention and repair. Linguistic Inquiry
37, 150-155.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Sandra Stjepanoviü. (2001). Head-ing toward PF. Linguistic
Inquiry 32, 345-355.
Boškoviü, Željko. (1994). D-Structure, ș-Criterion, and movement into ș-positions.
Linguistic Analysis 24, 247-286.
Boškoviü, Željko. (1997). The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy
approach. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Boškoviü, Željko, and Daiko Takahashi. (1998). Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic
Inquiry 29, 347-366.
Bouchard, Denis. (1984). On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bowers, John. (1973). The theory of grammatical relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Bowers, John. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656.
Bowers, John. (2008). On reducing control to movement. Syntax 11, 125-143.
Breuning, Benjamin. (2001a). Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and thesyntax of Passamaquoddy. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
231

-231-

Breuning, Benjamin. (2001b). Raising to object and proper movement. Ms., Universityof Delaware, Newark.
Chandra, Pritha, and Atakan Ince. (2009). Genitive subject induced derivational islands.
In Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman (Eds.),
Proceedings of NELS 38 (pp. 427-440). Amherst: GLSA, University of
Massachusetts.
Choi, Young-Mee Yu, and Peter Sells. (1995). A lexical account of inflectional suffixes
in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 119-174
Chomsky, Noam. (1955/1975). Logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard
University/MIT. [Published in part, 1975, New York: Plenum.]
Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (1972). Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational
grammar. In Paul Stanley Peters (Ed.), The Goals of Linguistic Theory (pp. 63-130).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Chomsky, Noam. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Stephen Anderson and Paul
Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232-286). New York: Holt
Rinehart &Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. (1977). On wh-movement. In Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, andAdrian Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71-132). New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam (1986a) Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New
York: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam. (1986b). Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Ken Hale andSamuel J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honorof Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, Juan
Uriagereka, and David Michaels (Eds.) Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax inhonor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: Alife in language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

232

-232-

Chomsky, Noam. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (Ed.),
Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3 (pp.
104-131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland andHans-Martin Gärtner (Eds.), Interface + recursion = language?: Chomsky’s
minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 1-30). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. (2008). On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, Maria L.
Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor ofJean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133-167). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters.
In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo
Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research(pp. 506-569). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Chung, Sandra. (1982). Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic
Inquiry 13, 39-77.
Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. (1995). Sluicing and logicalform. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239-282.
Collins, Chris. (1994). Economy of derivation and the Generalized Proper Binding
Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 45-61.
Collins, Chris. (1997). Local economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Collins, Chris, and Phil Branigan. (1997). Quotative inversion. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 15, 1-41.
Collins, Chris, and Joachim Sabel. (2007). An LF-Interface Constraint on Remnant
Movement. Ms., New York University and Université catholique de Louvain.
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. (2004). Ellipsis in Dutch dialect. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden
University, Leiden.
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Marcel den Dikken. (2006). Ellipsis and EPP repair.
Linguistic Inquiry 37, 653-664.
Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. (2001). Control is not movement. Linguistic
Inquiry 32: 493-511.
Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Culicover, Peter and Ray Jackendoff. (2006). Turn over control to the semantics! Syntax
9, 131-152.
233

-233-

Doron, Edit. (1999). V-movement and VP ellipsis. In Shalom Lappin and Elabbas
Benmamoun (Eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping (pp. 124-140).New
York: Oxford University Press.
Emonds, Joseph. (1978). The verbal complex V’-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9,
49-77.
Fiengo, Robert. (1977). On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 35-61.
Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May, (1994), Indices and identity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Foder, Jerry A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Fox, Danny. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Fox, Danny, and Howard Lasnik. (2003). Successive-cyclic movement and island repair:
The difference between sluicing and VP-Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-154.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky (2003) “Cyclic Linearization and the typology of
movement. Ms., MIT. [Downloadable from: http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/
faculty/fox/July_19_handout.pdf.]
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. (2005). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure.
Theoretical Linguistics 31, 1-45.
Fujii, Tomohiro. (2006). Some theoretical issues in Japanese control. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Maryland, College Park.
Fukaya, Teruhiko. (2003). Island (in)sensitivity in Japanese sluicing and stripping. In
Gina Garding and Mimu Tsujimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 179-192). Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla
Press.
Fukaya, Teruhiko, and Hajime Hoji. (1999). Stripping and sluicing in Japanese andsome implications. In Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter
Norquest (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics (pp. 145-158). Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
Fukui, Naoki. (1986). A theory of category projection and its applications. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Fukui, Naoki. (1993). A note on improper movement. The Linguistic Review 10, 111-126.
Fukumitsu, Yuichiro. (2001). Covert incorporation of small clause predicates inJapanese. In María Cristina Cuervo, Daniel Harbour, Ken Hiraiwa, and Shinichiro
Ishihara (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Formal Approaches to Japanese
Linguistic. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41 (pp. 251-266). Cambridge,
Mass.: MITWPL.
234

-234-

Goldberg, Lotus. (2005). Verb-stranding VP-ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Ph.D.
dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
Grewendorf, Günther, and Joachim Sabel. (1999). Scrambling in German and Japanese:
Adjunction versus multiple specifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17,
1-65.
Grimshaw, Jane, and Armin Mester. (1988). Light verbs and ș-marking. Linguistic
Inquiry 19, 205-235
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. (1997). Questions. In Johan van Benthem andAlice ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 1055-1124).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Grohmann, Kleanthes. (2003). Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement
dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harada, Kazuko. (1972). Constraints on WH-Q binding. Studies in Descriptive andApplied Linguistics 5, 180-206.
Harada, Shin-ichi. (1973). Counter Equi NP deletion. In Annual Bulletin 7 (pp. 113-147).
Tokyo: The Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatirics, University of Tokyo.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. (1990). On the VP-internal subject hypothesis. In Tadashi
Sakamoto and Yasuaki Abe (Eds.), Proceedings of Nanzan Daigaku Nihongo gakka
sooritu kinen nihongo kyooiku kokusai sinpoziumu (pp. 249-254). Nagoya: Nanzan
University.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. (2006). Sluicing and truncated wh-questions. In Yubun Suzuki,
Keizo Mizuno, and Ken-ichi Takami (Eds.), Search of the essence of language
science: Festschrift for Professor Heizo Nakajima on the occasion of his sixtiethbirthday (pp. 453-470). Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. (2008). Wh-movement in Japanese: Matrix sluicing is different fromembedded sluicing. In Cedric Boeckx and Suleyman Ulutas (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 4 (pp. 63-74). Cambridge, MA.:
MITWPL.
Henry, Alison. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation andparameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Higginbotham, James. (1992). Reference and control. In Richard Larson, Sabine
Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri and James Higginbotham (Eds.), Control and grammar (pp.
79-108). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

235

-235-

Hiraiwa, Ken. (2001). Multiple Agree and the defective intervention constraint inJapanese. In Ora Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance
Nathan and Adam Szczegielniak (Eds.), Proceedings of the HUMIT 2000. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 40 (pp. 67-80). Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
Hiraiwa, Ken. (2003). Movement and derivation: Eliminating the PBC. In Elsi Kaiser
and Sudha Arunachalam (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 26th Penn Linguistics
Colloquium. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 9:1 (pp. 89-103). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania.
Hiraiwa, Ken. (2005). Indeterminate-agreement: Some consequences for the Casesystem. In Ken Hiraiwa and Joseph Sabbagh (Eds.), Minimalist approaches toclause structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 50 (pp. 93-128). Cambridge,
Mass.: MITWPL.
Hiraiwa, Ken, and Shin-ichiro Ishihara. (2002). Missing links: Clefts, sluicing, and “noda” construction in Japanese. In Tanya Ionin, Heejeong Ko, and Andrew Nevins(Eds.), Proceedings of HUMIT 2001. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43 (pp.
35-54). Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
Hoji, Hajime. (1985). Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese,
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Hoji, Hajime. (1990). Theories of anaphora and aspects of Japanese syntax. Ms.,
University of Southern California.
Hoji, Hajime. (1998). Null objects and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29,
127-152.
Hoji, Hajime, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hiroyuki Tada. (1989). NP-movement inJapanese. Ms., University of Southern California, Ohio State University, and MIT.
[Downloadable from: http://web.mit.edu/miyagawa/www/pdfs/Hoji%20Miyagawa%20Tada%201989.pdf]
Holmberg, Anders. (1999). Remarks on Holmberg’s Generalization. Studia Linguistica
53, 1-39.
Hornstein, Norbert. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.
Hornstein, Norbert (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Malden, Mass.:
Blackwell.
Hornstein, Norbert. (2003). On control. In Randall Hendrick (Ed.), Minimalist syntax(pp. 6-81). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Hoshi, Hiroto. (1994). Passive, causative, and light verbs: A study on theta roleassignment. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
236

-236-

Hoshi, Hiroto. (1999). Passives. In Natsuko Tsujimura, (Ed.), The Handbook ofJapanese Linguistics (pp. 191-235), Oxford: Backwell.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1987). Remarks on empty categories in Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry
18, 321-337.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1993). Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoreticalconsequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103-148.
Huang, C.-T. James, and Masao Ochi. (2004). Syntax of the hell: Two types ofdependencies. In Keir Moulton and Matthew Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 34(pp. 279-293). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Inoue, Kazuko. (1976). Henkeibunpoo to Nihongo [Transformational grammar andJapanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Ishii, Yasuo. (1991). Operators and empty categories in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Jackendoff, Ray. (1971). Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21-36.
Jackendoff, Ray, and Peter Culicover. (2003). The semantic basis of control in English.
Language 79, 517-556.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (1990). Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20,
64-81.
Johnson, Kyle. (2001). What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In Mark
Baltin and Chris Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp.
439-479). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kageyama, Taro. (1976-77). Incorporation and Sino-Japanese verbs. Papers in Japanese
Linguistics 5, 117-156.
Kageyama, Taro (1982) Word formation in Japanese. Lingua 57, 215-258.
Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpoo to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation]. Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo.
Kaneko, Yoshiaki. (1988). On exceptional Case-marking in Japanese and English.
English Linguistics 5, 271-289.
Katada, Fusa. (1988). LF-binding of anaphors. In Hagit Borer (Ed.), Proceedings of the
7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 171-186). Stanford:
Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford University.
Katada, Fusa. (1991). The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 22,287-314.
237

-237-

Kato. Yasuhiko. (1994). Negative polarity and movement. In Masatoshi Koizumi and
Hiroyuki Ura (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 24 (pp. 101-120), Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
Kawai, Michiya. (2006). Raising to object in Japanese: A small clause analysis.
Linguistic Inquiry 37, 329-339.
Kawamura, Tomoko. (2004). A feature-checking analysis of Japanese scrambling.
Journal of Linguistics 40, 45-68.
Kayne, Richard. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard. (2005). Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference toEnglish and French. In Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne (Eds.) The Oxford
handbook of comparative syntax (pp. 3-69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard and Jean-Yves Pollock. (1978). Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity,and Move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 595-621.
Kikuchi, Akira, and Daiko Takahashi. (1991). Agreement and small clauses. In Heizo
Nakajima and Shigeo Tonoike (Eds.), Topics in small clauses: Proceedings ofTokyo Small Clause Festival (pp. 75-105). Tokyo: Kurosio.
Kim, Soowon. (1999). Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 8, 255-284.
King, Harold. (1970). On blocking the rules for contraction in English. Linguistic
Inquiry 1, 134-136.
Kishimoto, Hideki. (2001). Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in.
Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 597-633.
Kiss, Katalin É. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74,
245-273.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. (1985). Small but clausal. In William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber,
Karen L. Peterson (Eds.), CLS 21 (pp. 210-220). Chicago: Chicago LinguisticSociety.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. (1997). Elementary operations and optimal derivations Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Kizu, Mika. (1997). Sluicing in wh-in-situ languages. In Kora Singer, Randall Eggert,
and Gregory Anderson (Eds.), CLS 33 (pp. 231-244). Chicago: Chicago LinguisticSociety.
Kizu, Mika. (2005). Cleft constructions in Japanese syntax. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ko, Heejeong. (2005a). Syntactic edges and linearization. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
238

-238-

Ko, Heejeong. (2005b). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt
syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 867-916.
Ko, Heejeong. (2007). Asymmetries in scrambling and Cyclic Linearization. Linguistic
Inquiry 38, 49-83.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. (1994). Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3,25-79.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. (1995). Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. (2000). String-vacuous overt verb movement. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 9, 227-285.
Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view
from Japanese. In Yukio Otsu (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conferenceon Psycholinguistics (pp. 1-25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Kroch, Anthony, and Aravind Joshi. (1985). The linguistic relevant of Tree Adjoining
Grammar. Ms., Department of Computer and Information Science, Moore School,
University of Pennsylvania.
Kubo, Miori. (1994). Japanese syntactic structure and their constructional meanings.
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Kuno, Masakazu. (2001). Why does movement sometimes leave a trace and sometimes
not? Ms., University of Tokyo.
Kuno, Susumu. (1972). Evidence for subject raising in Japanese. Papers in Japanese
Linguistics 1, 24-51.
Kuno, Susumu. (1976). Subject raising. In Masayoshi Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax andsemantics 5: Japanese generative grammar (pp. 17-49). New York: Academic
Press.
Kuno, Susumu. (1978). Japanese: A characteristic OV language. In Winfred Lehmann(Ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in phenomenology of language (pp. 57-138).
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kuroda, Shige-yuki. (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda, Shige-yuki. (1979). On Japanese passives. In George Bedell, Eichi Kobayashi,
and Masatake Muraki, (Eds.), Exploration in linguistics: Papers in honor of
Kazuko Inoue (pp. 305-347). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Kuroda, Shige-yuki. (1980). Bunkoozoo no hikaku [The comparison of grammaticalstructures]. In Tetsuya Kunihiro (Ed.), Niti eigo hikaku kooza 2: Bumpoo[Comparing Japanese and English 2: Grammar], (pp. 25-61). Tokyo: Taishukan.
239

-239-

Kuroda, Shige-yuki. (1988). Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English
and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.
Kuwabara, Kazuki. (1997). On the properties of truncated clauses in Japanese. In
Kazuko Inoue (Ed.), Report (1): Researching and verifying an advanced theory ofhuman language, (pp. 61-84). Chiba: Kanda University of International Studies.
Landau, Idan. (2000). Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitive
constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau, Idan. (2003). Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 471-498.
Landau, Idan. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 811-877.
Larson, Richard. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19,335-391.
Lasnik, Howard. (1995). A note on pseudogapping. In Rob Pensalfini and Hiroyuki Ura(Eds.), Papers on minimalist syntax. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27 (pp.
143-163). Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
Lasnik, Howard. (1999a). Chains of arguments. In Samuel D. Epstein and NorbertHornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 189-215). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Lasnik, Howard. (1999b). Pseudogapping puzzles. In Shalom Lappin and Elabbas
Benmamoun (Eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping (pp. 141-174).New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lasnik, Howard. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Min-Joo
Kim and Uri Strauss (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 31 (pp. 301-320). Amherst:
GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Lasnik, Howard. (2006). Repair by ellipsis. Handout for the intensive Summer lectures
taught at Nanzan University, August.
Lasnik, Howard. (2008). Repair by ellipsis revisited. Handout for the intensive Summer
lectures taught at Nanzan University, August. [Downloadable from: http://www.
nanzan-u.ac.jp/GENGOKAGAKU/gp/i-aegs/ronbun/pdf/Nanzan_course_HO.pdf.]
Lasnik, Howard, and Robert Fiengo. (1974). Complement object deletion. Linguistic
Inquiry 5, 535-571.
Lasnik, Howard, and Myung-Kwan Park. (2003). The EPP and the subject condition
under sluicing. Linguistic inquiry 34, 649-660.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. (1984). On the nature of proper government.
Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235-289.
240

-240-

Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. (1991). On the subject of infinitives. In Lise M.
Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez (Eds.), CLS 27 (pp. 324-343).
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. (1992). Move Į. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lebeaux, David. (1984). Anaphoric binding and the definition of PRO. In Charles Jonesand Peter Sells (Eds.). Proceedings of NELS 14 (pp. 253-274). Amherst.: GLSA,
University of Massachusetts.
Legate, Julie. (2003). Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34,
506-516.
Levin, Nancy. (1978). Some identity-of-sense deletions puzzles me. Do they you? In
Donka Farkas, Wesley M. Jacobsen, and Karol W. Todrys (Eds.), CLS 14 (pp.
229-240). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Levin, Nancy (1979/1986) Main-verb ellipsis in Spoken English. Ph.D. dissertation,
Ohio State University, Columbus. [Published 1986. New York: Garland.]Lobeck, Anne. (1990). Functional heads as proper governors. In Juli Carter, Rose-Marie
Dé-chaine, Bill Philip, and Tim Sherer (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 20 (pp.
348-362). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Lobeck, Anne. (1995). Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Mahajan, Anoop. (1990). The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Mahajan, Anoop. (2005). Slooping in Hindi. Ms., UCLA.
Malhotra, Shiti. (2009). Intervention effects and wh-movement. In Laurel MacKenzie(Ed.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15 (pp. 135-144).
Philadelphia: Penn Linguistic Club.
Maling, Joan, and Soowon Kim. (1992). Case assignment in the inalienable possession
constructions in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 37-68.
Manzini, M. Rita, and Anna Roussou. (2000). A minimalist theory of A-movement andcontrol. Lingua 110, 409-447.
Marantz, Alec. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In
Sam A. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1 (pp. 113-151).
Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Martin, Roger. (1996). A minimalist theory of PRO and control. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Martin, Roger. (2001). Null Case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32,
141-166.
241

-241-

Massam, Diane. (1985). Case theory and the projection principle. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
McCloskey, James. (1979). Transformational syntax and model-theoretic semantics: A
case study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel.
McCloskey, James. (1991). Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish.
Lingua 85, 259-302.
McCloskey, James. (2000). Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English.
Linguistic Inquiry 3, 57-84.
McCloskey, James. (2002). Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality ofoperations. In Samuel D. Epstein and Daniel Seely (Eds.), Derivation andexplanation in the minimalist program (pp. 184-226). Oxford: Blackwell.
McDaniel, Dana. (1989). Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 7, 565-604.
McGinnis, Martha. (2001). Variation in the phrase structure of applicatives. Linguistic
Variation Yearbook 1, 105-146.
McGloin, Naomi H. (1976). Negation. In Masayoshi Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax andsemantics 5: Japanese generative grammar (pp. 371-419). New York: Academic
Press.
Merchant, Jason. (1998). ‘Pseudosluicing’: Elliptical clefts in Japanese and English. In
Artemis. Alexiadou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Paul Law, and Ursula Kleinhenz (Eds.), ZAS
Working Papers in Linguistics 10 (pp. 88-112). Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft.
Merchant, Jason. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of
ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason. (2002). Swiping in Germanic. In Jan-Wouter Zwart and Werner
Abraham (Eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax (pp. 295-321).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Merchant, Jason. (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27,
661-738.
Merchant, Jason. (2008). Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Kyle Johnson (Ed.),
Topics in ellipsis (pp. 132-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mihara, Ken-ichi, and Ken Hiraiwa. (2006). Shin nihongo no toogo koozoo [thesyntactic structures of Japanese (new edition)]. Tokyo: Shoohakusya.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. (1989a). Syntax and semantics 22: Structure and case marking inJapanese. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.
242

-242-

Miyagawa, Shigeru. (1989b). Light verbs and the ergative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry
20, 659-668.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. (1997). Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 1-25.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. (2001). EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz(Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 293-338). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. (2003). A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In
Simin Karimi (Ed.), Word order and scrambling (pp. 177-200). Oxford: Blackwell.
Moriyama, Yoshiyuki, and John Whitman. (2004). Null objects in Japanese revisited.
Paper presented at a linguistics colloquium at Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan,
September.
Muraki, Masatake. (1978). The sika nai construction and predicate restructuring. In John
Hinds and Irwin Howard (Eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics (pp.
155-177). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Murasugi, Keiko. (1991). Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax,
learnability and acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Murasugi, Keiko, and Mamoru Saito. (1995). Adjunction and cyclicity. In Raul
Aranovich, William Byrne, Susanne Preuss, and Martha Senturia (Eds.),
Proceedings of the thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.
302-317). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Müller, Gereon. (1996). A constraint on remnant movement. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 14, 355-407.
Nakamura, Masaru. (1987). Parameterized extension of binding theory. In Maggy
Browning, Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and Elizabeth Ritter (Eds.), MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 9 (pp. 193-223). Cambridge, Mass.: MTTWPL.
Nakamura, Masaru. (1989). Reflexives in Japanese. Gengokenkyuu 95, 206-230.
Nakao, Chizuru. (2009). Island-repair and non-repair by PF strategies. Ph.D. diss.,
University of Maryland.
Nakao, Chizuru, and Masaya Yoshida. (2005). Japanese sluicing as a specificational
pseudo-cleft. In Yukio Otsu (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Sixth Tokyo Conferenceon Psycholinguistics (pp. 243-267). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Nakao, Chizuru, and Masaya Yoshida. (2007). “Not-so-propositional” islands and theirimplications for swiping. In Erin Bainbridge and Brian Agbayani (Eds.),
Proceedings of WECOL 2006 (pp. 322-333). Fresno, Calif.: Department ofLinguistics, California State University.
Nakau, Minoru. (1973). Sentential complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
243

-243-

Nakayama, Mineharu. (1988). Empty copulas. In Yukio Otsu (Ed.), Mita Working
Papers in Psycholinguistics 1 (pp. 121-128). Tokyo: Mita Psycholinguistics Circle,
Keio University.
Nemoto, Naoko. (1993). Chains and Case positions: A study from scrambling in Japanese.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. (1986). Quantification in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. (1990). Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. (1998). “Multiple sluicing” in Japanese and the functional natureof wh-phrases. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 121-151.
Nishiyama, Kunio. (1999). Adjectives and the copulas in Japanese. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 8, 183-222.
Nishiyama, Kunio. (2005). Morphological boundaries in Japanese adjectives: Reply toNamai. Linguistic Inquiry 36,134-143.
Nishiyama, Kunio, John Whitman, and Eun-Young Yi. (1996). Syntactic movement ofovert wh-phrases in Japanese and Korean. In Noriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki,
and Susan Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5 (pp. 337-351). Stanford
University, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Nissenbaum, Jon. (2000). Investigations of covert phase movement, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Nomura, Masashi. (2001). Extraposition or scattered deletion? Ms., University ofConnecticut, Storrs.
Nunes, Jairo. (1995). The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the
Minimalist Program. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.
Nunes, Jairo. (2001). Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 303-344.
Nunes, Jairo. (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Ochi, Masao. (1999). Some consequences of Attract F. Lingua 109, 81-107.
Ohkado, Masayuki. (1991). A note on suru in Japanese. Linguistic Analysis 21, 148-169.
Oka, Toshifusa. (1988). Abstract Case and empty pronouns. Tsukuba English Studies 7,
187-227.
Oku, Satoshi. (1998). A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist
perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
O’Neil, John H. (1997). Means of control: Deriving the properties of PRO in theminimalist program. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
244

-244-

Otani, Kazuyo, and John Whitman. (1991). V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry
22, 345-358.
Pesetsky, David. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric
Reuland and Alice ter Meulen (Eds.) The representation of (in)definiteness (pp.
98-129). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Polinsky, Marsha, and Eric Potsdam. (2006). Expanding the scope of control and raising.
Syntax 9, 171-192.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP.
Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424.
Postal, Paul. (1974). On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical
implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pusás, Genoveva. (1999). Word order in Hungarian: The syntax of A’-positions.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Pylkkänen, Liina. (2002). Introducing arguments, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
Storrs.
Reinhart, Tanya. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of theanaphora question. Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 47-88.
Reinhart, Tanya. (1997). Quantifier-scope: How labor is divided between QR andchoice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335-397.
Richards, Norvin. (2001). Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (Ed.),
Elements of Grammar (pp. 281-337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. (2001). On the position of “Int(errogative)“ in the left periphery of theclause. In Guglielmo Cinque and Gianpaolo Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italiansyntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (pp.287-296). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1970). A principle governing deletion in English sentential
complementation. In Roderick Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in
English transformational grammar (pp. 20-29). Waltham, Mass.: Ginn andCompany.
Ross, John Robert. (1969a). Guess who? In Robert Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia
Green, and Jerry Morgan (Eds.), CLS 5 (pp. 252-286). Chicago: Chicago LinguisticSociety.
Ross, John Robert. (1969b). Auxiliaries as main verbs. Journal of Philosophical
Linguistics 1, 77-102.
245

-245-

Runner, Jeffrey T. (2006). Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object andobject-control constructions. Syntax 9, 193-213.
Sadakane, Kumi, and Masatoshi Koizumi. (1995). On the nature of the ‘dative’ particle
ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33, 5-33.
Sag, Ivan. (1976). Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Saito, Mamoru. (1982). Case marking in Japanese: A preliminary study. Ms., MIT.
Saito, Mamoru. (1983). Comments on the papers on generative syntax. In Yukio Otsu,
Hans van Riemsdijk, Kazuko Inoue, Akio Kamio, and Noriko Kawasaki (Eds.),
Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition: A report on recent trends
in linguistics (pp. 79-89) Tokyo: International Christian University.
Saito, Mamoru. (1985). Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Saito, Mamoru. (1989). Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Mark
Baltin and Anthony Kroch (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure (pp.
182-200), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saito, Mamoru. (1992). Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 1, 69-118.
Saito, Mamoru. (2003). A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling
chains. Lingua 113, 481-518.
Saito, Mamoru. (2004). Ellipsis and pronominal reference in Japanese clefts. In Nanzan
Linguistics 1 (pp. 21-50). Nagoya: Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.
Saito, Mamoru. (2005). Further notes on the interpretation of scrambling chains. In
Joachim Sabel and Mamoru Saito (Eds.), The free word order phenomenon (pp.
335-376). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saito, Mamoru. (2006). Expletive replacement reconsidered: Evidence from expletive
verbs in Japanese. In Patrick Brandt and Eric Fuss (Eds.), Form, structure, andgrammar: A festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on occasion of his 60thbirthday (pp.255-273). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Saito, Mamoru. (2007). Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. In Language Research 43(pp. 203-227). Seoul: Seoul National University.
Saito, Mamoru, and Naoki Fukui. (1998). Order in phrase structure and movement.
Linguistic Inquiry 29, 439-474.
Saito, Mamoru, and Hiroto Hoshi. (2000). The Japanese light verb construction and theminimalist program. Roger Martin, Juan Uriagereka, and David Michaels (Eds.)
Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 261-95).
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
246

-246-

Saito, Mamoru, and Keiko Murasugi. (1990). N’-deletion in Japanese: A preliminary
study. In Hajime Hoji (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1 (pp. 285-301). Stanford
University, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Saito, Mamoru, and Keiko Murasugi. (1999). Subject predication within IP and DP. In
Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts (Eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters: Essays inmemory of Osvaldo Jaeggli (pp. 167-188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sakai, Hiromu. (1998). Raising asymmetry and improper movement. In Noriko
Akatsuka, Hajime Hoji, Shoichi Iwasaki, Sung-Ock Sohn, and Susan Strauss (Eds.),
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 7 (pp. 481-497). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Sakai, Hiromu. (2000). Predicate ellipsis and nominalization in Japanese. In
Proceedings of 2000 Seoul International Conference on Language andComputation (pp. 85-113). Seuol: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Sato, Yosuke. (2008). Minimalist interfaces: Selected issues in Indonesian and Javanese.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.
Sells, Peter. (1995). Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective.
Linguistic Inquiry 26, 277-325.
ùener, Serkan. (2008). Non-canonical Case licensing: Accusative subjects in Turkish.
Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Shimoyama, Junko. (1995). On ‘sluicing’ in Japanese. Ms., University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Shinohara, Michie. (2006a). Nihongo no koosakuzyobun no LF-kopii bunseki: Konseki ohukumu yooso no kanten kara [An LF-copy analysis of argument ellipsis inJapanese: A view from the constituent involving traces], MA. thesis, Nanzan
University, Nagoya, Japan.
Shinohara, Michie. (2006b). On some differences between the major deletion phenomena
and Japanese argument ellipsis. Ms., Nanzan University.
Sohn, Keun-Won. (1995). Negative polarity items, scope, and economy. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Sportiche, Dominique. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries forconstituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-450.
Stjepanoviü, Sandra. (2008). P-stranding under sluicing in a non-P-stranding language?
Linguistic Inquiry 39, 179-190.
Sugawa, Seichi. (2008). Ellipsis and repair effects. In Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue
3, Vol. 2 (pp. 165-183). Nagoya: Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University.

247

-247-

Taguchi, Shigeki. (2009). Japanese ECM as embedded bare topicalization. In Anisa
Schardl, Martin Walkow, Muhammad Abdurrahman (Eds.), Proceedings NELS 38(pp. 415-426). Amherst.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Takahashi, Daiko. (1990). Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP. English
Linguistics 7, 129-146.
Takahashi, Daiko. (1993). Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 11, 655-678.
Takahashi, Daiko. (1994). Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3,
265-300.
Takahashi, Daiko. (2002). Determiner raising and scope shift. Linguistic Inquiry 33,
575-615.
Takahashi, Daiko. (2007). Argument ellipsis from a cross-linguistic perspective: Aninterim report. Paper presented at GLOW in Asia VI, Chinese University of Hong
Kong, December 27-29.
Takahashi, Daiko. (2008a). Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis. Linguistic
Inquiry 39, 307-326.
Takahashi, Daiko. (2008b). Lecture notes, taught at University of Connecticut, Storrs,
October-November.
Takahashi, Shoichi. (2004). Pseudogapping and Cyclic Linearization. In Keir Moulton
and Matthew Wolf, Proceedings of NELS 34 (pp. 571-585). Amherst: GLSA,
University of Massachusetts.
Takano, Yuji. (1995). Scrambling, Relativized Minimality, and economy of derivation.
In Raul Aranovich, William Byrne, Susanne Preuss, and Martha Senturia (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.
385-399). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Takano, Yuji. (2003). Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: A
prolepsis analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 779̺834.
Takano, Yuji. (2008). Scrambling and control. Ms., Kinjoo Gakuin University.
Takita, Kensuke. (2008). String-vacuous scrambling and Cyclic Linearization. In Yukio
Otsu (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Ninth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics(pp. 225-249). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Takita, Kensuke. (2009). The Proper Binding Condition effect as a consequence of
Cyclic Linearization. In Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow, Muhammad Abdurrahman(Eds.), Proceedings NELS 38 (pp. 427-440). Amherst.: GLSA, University of
Massachusetts.
248

-248-

Takita, Kensuke. (to appear a). An argument for argument ellipsis from -sika NPIs. In
Proceedings of NELS39. Amherst.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Takita, Kensuke. (to appear b). Argument ellipsis in Japanese right dislocation. In
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Takita, Kensuke. (to appear c). ಫGenuineಬ Sluicing in Japanese. In CLS 45. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Takita, Kensuke (to appear d). VP-scrambling, Linearization Preservation, and thetheories of control. In Proceedings of NELS 40. Amherst.: GLSA, University of
Massachusetts.
Tanaka, Hidekazu. (1997). Invisible movement in sika-nai and the Linear Crossing
Constraint. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 143-188.
Tanaka, Hidekazu. (2002). Raising to object out of CP. Linguistics Inquiry 33, 637-652.
Tateishi, Koichi. (1991). The syntax of ‘subjects’. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Terada, Michiko. (1990). Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tomioka, Satoshi. (2003). The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its
cross-linguistic implications. In Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (Eds.), Theinterfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures (pp. 321-339). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Torrego, Esther. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic
Inquiry 15, 103-129.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (1994). On economizing the theory of A-bar dependences. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (1999). On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8,
39-73.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. (1990). Ergativity of nouns and Case assignment. Linguistic
Inquiry 21, 277-287.
Uchibori, Asako. (2000). The syntax of subjunctive complements: Evidence fromJapanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Uchibori, Asako. (2001). Raising out of CP and C-T relations. In María Cristina Cuervo,
Daniel Harbour, Ken Hiraiwa, and Shinichiro Ishihara (Eds.), Proceedings of theThird Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistic. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 41 (pp. 145-162). Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
249

-249-

Ura, Hiroyuki (1994) Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure
theory. In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT,
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
Ura, Hiroyuki. (1996). Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function
splitting. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Uriagereka, Juan. (1999). Multiple Spell-out. In Samuel D. Epstein and NorbertHornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 251-282). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Urushibara, Saeko. (1993). Syntactic categories and extended projections in Japanese.
Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University.
Watanabe, Akira. (1992). Wh-in-situ, subjacency, and chain formation. In MIT
Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department ofLinguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
Williams, Edwin. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101-139.
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. (1997). VP Scrambling in Japanese. In Jeong-Seok Kim, Satoshi
Oku, and Sandra Stjepanoviü (Eds.), Is the logic clear: Papers in honor of HowardLasnik, UConn Working Papers in Linguistics 8. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. (1999). Case licensing and VP structure. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. (2003). VP-internal scrambling. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
12, 141-170.
Yoon, James H.-S. (1989). The grammar of inalienable possession constructions in
Korean, Mandarin and French. In Susumu Kuno (Ed.), Harvard Studies in Korean
Linguistics III (pp. 357-368). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Xu, Liejiong. (1986). Free empty category. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 75-93.
Zagona, Karen. (1988). Verb phrase syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

250

-250-