CATEGORY-BASED UNSELECTIVE BINDING: EVIDENCE FROM JAPANESE
Kensuke Takita[1], Chisato Fuji[1], Yoshie Kabuto[1],Eriko Watanabe[1], and Tomohiro Fujii[1][2]Nanzan University[1] and University of Maryland[2]1.

Introduction

This paper argues for Tsai’s (1994, 2006) Category-based unselective binding approach towh elements, providing new evidence from Japanese.
Based on facts concerning island effects, Tsai (1994, 2006) suggests that whether
unselective binding is applicable to a wh-phrase depends on the morphological make-up of thewh item, rather than its semantic property. More specifically, the theory argues that awh-phrase is licensed in-situ by unselective binding without moving to Spec, CP if and only if
it contains a nominal element. It follows then that no island effects are observed when
wh-in-situ involves a nominal. This predicts that if some wh-phrase does not show islandeffects, it must contain a nominal element. We show that this prediction is supported byexamining the behavior of the Japanese wh-phrase NANDE, which is at least three-way
ambiguous; it can be interpreted to mean “for what reason”, “for what purpose”, or “by whatmeans.”
2.

Category-based Unselective Binding

2.1.

Tsai (1994, 2006)
First, observe the examples in (1).

(1)

a.

ni zui xinshang [[ wei(-le) shenme gongzuo] de ren]?
you most appreciate for(-LE) what work
DE people“What is the purpose x such that you appreciate most [people [who work for x]]?”b. * ni zui xinshang [[ weishenme gongzuo] de ren]?
you most appreciate whywork
DE people“What is the reason x such that you appreciate most [people [who work for x]]?”Chinese has the lexical item weishennme ‘why’, which is ambiguous between “for what
purpose” as in (1a) and “for what reason” as in (1b). What is crucial here is that if weishennme
appears in an island (in a Complex NP island in this case) only its purpose-why reading ispossible. From this observation, one may assume that whether a wh-phrase can undergo
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2, 91-98© 2007 Kensuke Takita, Chisato Fuji, Yoshie Kabuto, Eriko Watanabe, and Tomohiro Fujii

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

unselective binding or not depends on its interpretation. That is, one may claim that
purpose-why can be licensed in-situ, while reason-why cannot be. Let us call this the
Semantics-based unselective binding approach.1
Against this type of approach, Tsai (1994, 2006) argues that it is the categorial status of
the wh-phrases that is relevant for their in-situ licensing. He claims that the instance of
weishennme receiving a reason-wh reading is a genuine adverb, since it resists the insertion of
the aspect marker -le between wei ‘for’ and shennme ‘what’, whereas the instance of
weishennme receiving a purpose-why reading contains a nominal element since it allows forthe insertion of -le. Adverbs cannot get unselectively bound, and hence, they have to move,causing an island violation if an island is involved.
As Tsai (1994) notes, a similar pattern is found in French, which is an optional wh-in-situ
language in matrix clauses. Take the pair of sentences like those given in (2).
(2)

a.

Tu es venu pour quoi?
You are come for what
“What is the purpose x such that you come here for x?”b.

*Tu es venu pourquoi?
You are come why“What is the reason x such that you come here for x?”

As indicated in (2b), if pourquoi ‘why’ is left in-situ, the reason-why reading becomes
unavailable. In this case, it is claimed that if pourquoi is interpreted as purpose-why, it consistsof a preposition pour ‘for’ and quoi ‘what’, so that it contains a wh nominal and can be licensed
in-situ. On the other hand, if it is interpreted as reason-why, it is not morphologically complex.
Thus, it must be an adverb, so that it cannot be left in-situ.
Tsai illustrates that how questions in Chinese also show the parallel behavior. Zenmeyang‘how’ has either an instrumental reading or a manner reading, as shown in (3).
(3)

ta shang-ci zeneyang dun nirou?
she last-time how
stew beefa.
b.

“By what means did she stew beef last time?”“In what manner did she stew beef last time?”

1

Tsai (2006) takes Reinhart (1998) as a proponent of the Semantics-based approach, since she argues
that wh arguments like who and what can be licensed in-situ because they can be quantified over via
choice function, while wh adjuncts like why and how cannot be, because they do not introduce anindividual type variable. In some sense, the meaning of the wh-phrases determines whether they have to
move or not under this theory as well. Yet, if the applicability of choice function correlates with thepresence of a nominal element (as Reinhart suggests), we cannot tease apart the two theories. Hence, we
assume that Reinhart’s idea can be translated into Tsai’s theory.

- 92 -

Category-based Unselective Binding (K. Takita et al.)Based on the assumption that instrumental-how is composed of zenme ‘how’ + yang ‘manner’
while manner-how cannot be morphologically decomposed, Tsai accounts for the contrast
shown in (4) that only instrumental-how survives a complex NP island.
(4)

ni zuixihuan [NP [CP Opi [IP ta zenmeyang duen ti]] de niuroui]?
you most likeshe howstew
DE beefa.
“What is the mean x such that you like best [beef [which she stewed by x]]?”b. # “What is the manner x such that you like best [beef [which she stewed in x]]?”Tsai claims that his Category-based unselective binding approach is superior to thesemantic approach. It is not clear how the difference between purpose-why andinstrumental-how follows from the fact that the former is a purpose expression while the latter
is an instrumental expression under the Semantics-based unselective binding approach. On theother hand, the Category-based unselective binding approach makes clear predictions as longas we can detect whether a given wh-phrase involves a nominal or not. According to Tsai, what
is important is not the semantic function of wh-adverbials, but their morphological make-up.
2.2.

A Prediction

Tsai’s (1994, 2006) theory predicts that wh-phrases that can survive an island must
contain a nominal wh element, and vice versa. Note that the approach in question requires that
we be able to determine whether a given wh-phrase contains a nominal or not in order to makea prediction about the island-sensitivity of that wh-phrase. The logic of the argument based on
decomposability of wh-phrases is that this property tells us the presence or absence of the P-NP
structure in those wh-phrases. If we can find another means to identify the structure of
wh-phrases that can appear in islands and if we can show that those wh-phrases in fact containnominals by that very means, then we can provide further support for his claim. In the next
section, we will provide such evidence from Japanese.
3.

Evidence from JapaneseJapanese has the lexical item nande, which is at least three-way ambiguous, as shown in

(5).
(5)

Taroo-wa nande
kaet-tano?
-Top NANDE leave-Past Q“What is the reason/purpose/means x such that Taroo left for/by x?”
a.
b.
c.

Because he got sick. reason-NANDE
In order to do his homework. purpose-NANDE
By bus. instrumental-NANDE- 93 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

Interestingly, when NANDE appears in island configurations, reason and purpose readings areunavailable.
(6) Negative Island (Rizzi 1990)
Taroo-wa [ Hanako-ga
nande
kaet-tato] iwa-nakat -ta no?
-Top-Nom NANDE leave-Past C say -not -Past Q“What is the reason/purpose/means x such that Taroo didn’t say that Hanako had
left for/by x?”
a.
b.
c.

* Because she got sick.
*In order to do her homework.
By bus.

Note that both non-wh reason and purpose phrases can appear in this structure, as shown in (7).
(7)

a.

Taroo -wa [Hanako-ga
kaze-de gakkoo-oyasun -da to]-Top-Nom flu -with school -Acc absent -Past C
iwa-nakat-ta.
say -not -Past“Taroo didn’t say that Hanako hadn’t come to school because of flu.”b.

Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga eigo -omanabu tameni
amerika-ni-Top-Nom English -Acc learn
in.order.to America-to
it -tato] iw -anakat-ta
go-Past C say -not -Past“Taroo didn’t say that Hanako had been to America in order to learn English.”

The same pattern is found in Complex NP islands (8) and Adjunct islands (9).
(8) Complex NP Island[[Hanako-ga Taroo-onandetatai-ta] koto]-ga-Nom-Acc NANDE hit -Past fact -Nomtumi -ni nat-ta no?
crime-Dat become -Past Q“What is the reason/purpose/means x such that [the fact [that Hanako had hit Taroo
for/by x]] constituted a crime?”
a.
b.
c.

* Because she hates him.
* In order to receive insurance benefits.
With a hammer.

- 94 -

Category-based Unselective Binding (K. Takita et al.)

(9) Adjunct Island
Hanako -wa [Taroo-ga nande
eigo -obenkyoosi-ta kara]-Top-Nom NANDE English -Acc study-Past becauseokot-ta no?
get.angry-Past Q“What is the reason/purpose/means x such that [Hanako got angry [because Taroo
had studied English for/by x]]”
a.
b.
c.

* Because he wanted to go to the US.
*In order to go to the US.
With textbooks.

As we have seen in the previous section, Tsai’s (1994, 2006) theory predicts that if somewh-phrase does not show island effects, it must have a nominal wh element. In other words, it
is predicted that only instrumental-NANDE must contain a nominal wh element. In theremainder of this section, we provide independent evidence that the prediction is indeed borneout.
The first evidence comes from a morphosyntactic consideration. As shown in (10), if
NANDE is replaced by nani-de ‘what-with’, which consists of a wh-word nani ‘what’ and a
postposition -de ‘with’, only the instrumental-reading is available.
(10)

Taroo -wa nani -de kaet -ta no?
-Top what -with leave -Past Q“What is the means x such that Taroo left with by?”
a.
b.
c.

* Because he got sick.
*In order to do his homework.
By bus.

This suggests that only instrumental-NANDE has nani-de as its underlying form, from which itis derived by contraction, whereas reason-NANDE and purpose-NANDE each constitute one
single lexical item, so that they cannot be morphologically decomposed.
The unavailability of reason and purpose readings in (10) becomes clearer if we make thepredicate stative because stative predicates are incompatible with instrumental modifiers.

- 95 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(11) a.

nande Taroo -wa kasiko -i
no?
NANDE
-Top smart -Pres Q
i. “What is the reason x such that Taroo is smart for x?”2
ii. * “What is the means x such that Taroo is smart by x?”b.

*nani-de Taroo-wa kasiko-i
no?
what-with-Top smart -Pres Q“What is the means x such that Taroo is smart by x?”

This confirms that nani-de, which can be decomposed into a nominal wh and a postposition,corresponds only to the instrumental NANDE.
The second and more conclusive evidence concerns the possibility of modification byrelative clauses. Observe first that (presumably non-restrictive) relative clauses can modify
wh-nominals, as shown in (12).
(12) a.

Hanako -wa [[RC Taroo -ga
ei kat -ta] nanii]-o suttee -simat-ta no?3
-Top
-Nom
buy-Past what-Acc discard-have -Past Q“What is the thing x such that Hanako has discarded x, which Taroo bought?”b.

Hanako-wa [[RC ei Taroo-ni at -ta] darei]-o tatai-ta no?
-Top-Dat meet-Past who -Acc hit -Past Q“Who is the person x such that Hanako hit x, who had met Taroo?”Nani-de can also be modified by relative clauses.
(13)

Taroo-wa [[RC Hanako-ga ei motteki-ta] nanii] -de
-Top
-Nom
bring -Past what -withkuruma -onaosi -ta no?
car-Acc fix -Past Q“What is the thing x such that Taroo fixed the car with x, which Hanako hadbrought?”

Importantly, if NANDE is modified by relative clauses, the reason and purpose readings are
impossible. That is, only the instrumental reading is allowed.

2

Although the purpose reading is also incompatible with a stative predicate, it is irrelevant here.

3

It does not matter here how relativization in Japanese is analyzed (see Ishii 1990, Murasugi 1991).

- 96 -

Category-based Unselective Binding (K. Takita et al.)(14)

Taroo -wa [[RC Hanako-o
ei yorokob-ase-ta] nani]-de
-Top
-Acc
happy-make-Past what-withkanozyo-no kokoro-o itome -ta no?
she-Genheart-Acc conquer -Past Qa.

* “What is the reason/purpose x such that Taroo won Hanako’s heart for x, which
made her happy?”b.
“What is the means x such that Taroo won Hanako’s heart by x, which made her
happy?”
Again, the situation becomes clearer if the main predicate is a stative one.
(15)

* Taroo -wa [[RC Hanako-ga ei sittei -ru] nani]-de kasiko-ino?
-Top-Nom know -Pres what-with smart -Pres Q“What is the reason x such that Taroo is smart for x, which Hanako knows about?”

These facts show that instrumental NANDE in fact has a nominal element, while neither
reason nor purpose NANDE does. Therefore, we have confirming evidence for the hypothesisthat wh-phrases which can appear in island configurations have nominal wh elements.
Summing up this section, we have observed that NANDE with the instrumental reading
does not show island effects, while NANDE with reason and purpose readings does. We havedemonstrated on independent grounds that only the former contains a nominal wh element.
This provides direct evidence for Tsai’s hypothesis that nominals, but not adverbs, are subject
to unselective binding.
4.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have provided new evidence for Tsai’s (1994, 2006) Category-based
unselective binding approach by examining the behavior of NANDE. This wh-adverbial
exhibits island effects under the reason and purpose readings but not under the instrumental
reading, because it is decomposable into the nominal nan(i) and the postposition DE only when
it has the latter reading. The contrasts in (7)-(9), then, are explained exactly like the one in (16),originally discussed by Huang (1982).
(16) a.
b.

* Who left home why?
Who left home for what reason?

It is worth pointing out that the comparison of weishennme “purpose-why” in Chinese andpurpose-NANDE in Japanese provides further evidence for Tsai’s (1994, 2006) category-based
approach. The latter is sensitive to islands but the former is not. As far as we are aware, there isno clear difference in meaning between the two ‘purpose’ adverbials. That is, if some theory
claimed that purpose weishennme can appear in islands because it is a purpose expression, it- 97 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

would incorrectly follow that purpose NANDE is also island insensitive. If so, the best
generalization seems to be that their difference comes from the fact that the former ismorphologically complex while the latter is an indecomposable adverb, as Tsai suggests. Thus,
we have cross-linguistic evidence that whether a wh-element can undergo unselective binding
or not is determined by its categorical nature.

References
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Ishii, Y. (1991) Operators and Empty Categories in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut.

Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability,
and Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Reinhart, T. (1998) "Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program." Natural
Language Semantics 6, 29-56.
Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (1994) On Economizing the Theory of A’-dependencies, Ph.D. dissertation,MIT.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (2006) "Lectures on the Syntax & Semantics of How and Why." Course
handout, Nanzan University, September 11-14, 2006.

- 98 -