NP-INTERNAL HONORIFICATION AND N’-DELETION IN JAPANESE*
Kensuke Takita
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
The aim of this paper is two fold. First, we will show that N’-deletion may repair aviolation of some grammatical rule by looking at its interaction with NP-internal
honorification in Japanese. 1 The observation that we will make below suggests that N’deletion works in the same way as IP- and VP-deletion in that PF-deletion of a structure
removes degradation that would arise if it were pronounced, as extensively studies in Lasnik(1995, 1999, 2001) and Merchant (2001), among others. Second, we will explore implicationsof the relevant property of N’-deletion for the analysis of honorification in Japanese. To be
more concrete, we will compare two previous approaches to honorification and show that oneof them is inadequate for explaining the observation while the other can capture it.

* I am especially grateful to Howard Lasnik and Mamoru Saito for their valuable comments andsuggestions. I also would like to thank Yasuaki Abe, Masumi Aono, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Masatake
Arimoto, Chisato Fuji, Tomohiro Fujii, Masayuki Komachi, Keiko Murasugi, Fumikazu Niinuma,
Koji Sugisaki, Tatsuya Suzuki, and Yuji Takano for their helpful comments. Of course, all remaining
errors are my own. The material of this paper was presented at the 133rd Meeting of the LinguisticSociety of Japan held at Sapporo Gakuin University in November 2006 and at Cambridge-NanzanTsing Hua Workshop on Word Order and Functional Categories held at Nanzan University inDecember 2006. I would like to thank the audience for their questions and comments.
1

Lobeck (1990) and Saito and Murasugi (1990) reanalyze N’-deletion as NP-deletion, adopting
Abney’s (1987) DP-hypothesis. That is, the typical example of N’-deletion in (ia), which had been
considered to have the structure in (ib), is reanalyzed to have the structure in (ic).
(i) a. This book is John’s ∅ (= book).
b. [NP John’s [N’ book]]c. [DP John [D0 ’s] [NP book]]
In this paper, however, we will use the term N’-deletion to refer to the relevant phenomenon.
Similarly, we will use the label NP instead of DP, where the difference between them is irrelevant.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2, 45-67© 2007 Kensuke Takita

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

In particular, we will discuss the following paradigm.2(1)

a. # [NP Senpai -no gakki-noo -toriatukai]-wa teinei -da ga,
senior -Gen instrument-Gen HP -treatment -Top careful -Pres though[NP kouhai -no gakki-no o -toriatukai]-wa sozatu-da
junior -Gen instrument-Gen HP -departure -Top rude-Presb. [NP Senpai -no gakki-no o -toriatukai]-wa teinei -da ga,
senior -Gen instrument-Gen HP -treatment -Top careful -Pres though[NP kouhai -no ∅] -wa sozatu -da
junior -Gen -Top rude -Pres‘The senior player’s treatment of musical instruments is careful, but the junior player’s
is rude.’There is a clear contrast in acceptability between them.3 The crucial difference between thesesentences is that the example in (1b) lacks the head of subject NP (indicated by ∅), whosecounterpart in the antecedent clause contains the honorific prefix, henthforth HP, o-. First, we
will argue that the sentence in (1b) is in fact derived by N’-deletion and that the improvementof its acceptability ensues from this operation, thereby this provides an argument for Lasnik’s
position that some defective structures can be saved by deletion.
Then, we will provide an explanation for the observation, comparing two previous
approaches to honorification. One of them regards honorification as an instance of agreement(Harada 1976, Shibatani 1977, Toribio 1990, Niinuma 2003, 2005, Ivana and Sakai 2003,
2005, Boeckx and Niinuma 2004, and Boeckx 2006, among others), while the other claims
that honorification is not agreement, but licensing (Takita 2006). Their major claims can be
briefly summarized as in (2) and (3).
(2) Honorification as Agreementa. Honorification is an instance of agreement between NPs and functional categories;
honorification is a symmetric relation.
b. NPs are divided into two groups; one can trigger agreement and the other cannot.
(3) Honorification as Licensinga. HP is a realization of a feature on a predicate which is licensed by an argument;
honorification is an asymmetric relation.
b. All NPs can potentially license the feature.

2

Abbreviations are the following; Nom = nominative, Acc = accusative, Dat = dative, Gen = genitive,
Top = topic marker, Pres = present tense, Past = past tense, Prog = progressive, Plu = plural, and HP =honorific prefix3

We will discuss the status of the notation # in Section 2.1.

- 46 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

Discussing the observed contrast in (1), we will argue that the former approach cannot deal
with it because it is odd with the generalization on deletion (Lobeck 1990, Saito andMurasugi 1990).
(4) Generalization on Deletion
An XP which is a complement of a functional category can be deleted iff the functional
head has a specifier which it agrees with.
On the other hand, we will show that the latter approach can explain the observation inquestion without contradicting the generalization in (4), assuming Lasnik’ claim.
This paper is organized as follows. In the rest of this section, we will briefly review thetheory proposed by Lasnik (2001), which shows that VP- and IP-deletion can repair theviolation of head movement. In Section 2 we will discuss the basic properties of NP-internal
honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese. Then we will provide some examples whichindicate that N’-deletion can remedy the otherwise unacceptable sentences which contain NPinternal honorification. Section 3 shows that the approach which regards honorification as
licensing can explain the paradigm whereas the other one fails to. Section 4 concludes.
1.2. Repair by Deletion
Series of works by Lasnik (1995, 1999, 2001) argue that deletion can save someungrammatical sentences, based on his analysis of pseudogapping and matrix sluicing. The
relevant examples are indicated in (5) and (6) (examples of pseudogapping are taken from
Levin 1978).
(5) Pseudogaping
a. If you don’t believe me, you will [VP ∅ the weatherman].
b. I rolled up a news paper, and Lynn did [VP ∅ a magazine].
c.

Kathy likes astronomy, but she doesn’t [VP ∅ meteorology].

(6) Matrix Sluicing
Speaker A: Mary will see someone.
Speaker B: Who [IP ∅]?
Let us start with pseudogapping. Jayaseelan (1990) observes that pseudogapping displays
some properties of VP-deletion. If the former process is subsumed under the latter, the factthat the direct object is pronounced is mysterious because the direct object, as opposed to thesubject, is often analyzed as being inside a VP. To solve this puzzle, Jayaseelan (1990)
proposes that a pseudogapping survivor evacuates the deletion site via Heavy NP Shift.
Adopting Jayaseelan’s (1990) basic idea, Lasnik (1995, 1999) proposes that the survivor infact moves up to Spec, AgrOP before the VP, which is the complement of AgrO, is deleted in
PF. Subsequently, following Ochi (1999), Lasnik (2001) assumes that a strong feature- 47 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(Chomsky 1995) on AgrO attracts its counterpart [F] on V, and once [F] has been attracted,
the lower head, namely V, becomes phonologically defective, so that it induces a PF-crash, if
nothing happens. This situation is illustrated in (7a). Here, Lasnik (2001) claims that there are
two ways to save the structure. One way is to move the entire defective head by generalizedpied-piping, as in (7b). This yields the normal SVO order. The other is to delete the XP whichcontains the defective head, as in (7c), where the VP which contains believe is deleted.
(7) Pseudogapping as VP-deletiona. * You might not believe me, but you will [vP [AgrOP Bobi AgrO[F]j [VP believe[t]j ti]]].
b. You might not believe me, but you will [vP v+AgrO+believej [AgrOP Bobi t’j [VP tjti]]].
c.

You might not believe me, but you will [vP [AgrOP Bobi AgrO[F]j [VP believe[t]j ti]]].4

In this way, the mysterious aspect of pseudogapping is explained.
The example of matrix sluicing in (6) is analyzed in the same way. In this case, theviolation of the obligatory T-to-C movement is repaired by deletion of IP.
(8) Matrix Sluicing as IP-deletion
Speaker A: Mary will see someone.
Speaker B:
a. * [CP Whoi C[F]j [IP Mary will[t]j see ti]]?
b. [CP Whoi C+willj [IP Mary tj see ti]]?
c.

[CP Whoi C[F]j [IP Mary will[t]j see ti]]?

The structure in (8a) is ungrammatical because of the PF-crash induced by the defective I,
namely will. If it moves to C via generalized pied-piping as in (8b), the structure becomesgrammatical. On the other hand, deletion of IP can save the structure because the PFdefective I is deleted in PF, as shown in (8c). That is, matrix sluicing is ascribed to IPdeletion.
In sum, VP- and IP-deletion can ameliorate the illegitimate structure that arises due tothe failure of required head-movement. If these repair phenomena are one of the generalproperties of deletion, we expect that N’-deletion also repairs some kind of violation. In
Section 2, we show that this expectation is borne out.
2. NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion
In this section, we provide examples repaired by N’-deletion. To do so, we briefly
4Deletion site is indicated by double strike-through throughout this paper.

- 48 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

review the basic syntactic properties of NP-internal honorification and N’-deletion in
Japanese first. Then, we provide crucial examples.
2.1. Basic Facts of NP-internal Honorification
This subsection concerns the basic facts of NP-internal honorification. First, look at theexamples in (9) and (10).
(9)

a.

[NP1 [NP2 Yamada -sensei -no] boosi]-Prof. -Gen hat

b. [NP1 [NP2 Yamada-sensei -no] o- boosi]-Prof. -Gen HP- hat‘Prof. Yamada’s hat’(10) a.

[NP1 [NP2 Yamada-sensei-no] tootyaku]-Prof.-Gen arrival

b. [NP1 [NP2 Yamada -sensei-no] go- tootyaku]-Prof. -Gen HP- arrival‘Prof. Yamada’s arrival’
In these examples, the NP2 Yamada-sensei ‘Prof. Yamada’ is the argument of the larger
nominal, namely NP1; in (9), NP2 is the possessor argument, and NP2 in (10) is the argumentof the complex event nominal (Grimshaw 1990) or Verbal Noun (Kageyama 1993, henthforth
VN). The speaker can show his honor to the referent of the NP2 by attaching HP to the headof NP1, as shown in (9b) and (10b).5 Following Harada (1976), we call the constituent whosereferent is the target of honor “Socially Superior to the Speaker,” henthforth SSS, and it isunderlined throughout this paper. Note that the presence or absence of HP does not affect thegrammaticality of the examples above. That is, honorification is optional.
Next, consider the following paradigm.
(11) a.

[NP1 [NP2 Taroo-no] tootyaku]-Gen arrival

b. # [NP1 [NP2 Taroo-no] go- tootyaku]-Gen HP- arrival

5

HP is realized as o- or go-, depending on the nominal to which it is affixed.

- 49 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

c. * [NP1 [NP2 Taroo-no] go- tootyaku]-Gen HP- arrival‘Taroo’s arrival’
If an expression like Taroo, which is arguably inappropriate as an SSS in ordinary context,
appears as opposed to an expression like Yamada-sensei ‘Prof. Yamada,’ the sentence getsdegraded, as in (11b). This kind of violation is indicated by #. Following Niinuma (2003) andTakita (2006), we assume that it is syntax that determines which constituent is an SSS, butwhether it is appropriate as an SSS is determined by extra-grammatical factors.6 Note that if
HP does not appear on the head of NP1, the sequence is grammatical, as shown in (11a). Notealso that the representation in (11c) is ungrammatical, because there is no SSS in spite of thepresence of HP. In other words, the structure like [NP2-Gen … HP-N1] always induces
unacceptability indicated by # when the referent of NP2 is not appropriate.
When more than one argument appears inside of the NP, as in (12), it is not the surface
order but the theta-hierarchy that is crucial to determine which argument is an SSS. The
highest argument in the hierarchy is understood as an SSS. Consider the following examples.
(12) a.

[NP1 [NP2 Yamada -sensei -no] [NP3 Taroo -e -no] go- hihan]-Prof. -Gen-to -Gen HP- criticism‘Prof. Yamada’s criticism to Taroo’b. # [NP1 [NP2 Taroo -no] [NP3 Yamada-sensei -e -no] go- hihan]-Gen-Prof. -to -Gen HP-criticism‘Taroo’s criticism to Prof. Yamada’c. * [NP1 [NP2 Taroo -no] [NP3 Yamada-sensei -e -no] go- hihan]-Gen-Prof. -to -Gen HP-criticism‘Taroo’s criticism to Prof. Yamada’d. # [NP1 [NP3 Yamada -sensei -e -no]i [NP2 Taroo -no] ti go -hihan]-Prof. -to -Gen
-Gen HP -criticism‘Taroo’s criticism to Prof. Yamada’
It is the agent that is an SSS in (12a) and (12b) since it is the highest argument. Thus, only theexample in (12b) induces unacceptability. It is impossible to skip the agent, as theungrammaticality of the representation in (12c) indicates. Further, unacceptability of (12b)6

For instance, the felicitous use of the example like (11b) requires some special context such as ajoke or an irony.

- 50 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

cannot be avoided by scrambling of Yamada-sensei-e-no ‘to Prof. Yamada’ before Taroo, asshown in (12d). These are the basic properties of NP-internal honorification.
2.2. N’-deletion in Japanese
Let us turn to the basic properties of N’-deletion in Japanese. First, compare the typicalEnglish N’-deletion in (13a) with its Japanese equivalent in (13b).
(13) N’-deletion in English and Japanesea. This book is John’s [book].
b. Kono hon -wa John-no dathis book -Top-NO be.Pres‘This book is John’s’
Can we analyze the example in (13b) in the same way as we analyze that in (13a)? The
answer is not immediately clear, because the morpheme no in Japanese is ambiguous between
a genitive marker and a pronoun.7 The pronominal use of no is exemplified in (14).
(14)

Akai no -o
mittu kudasai
red one-Acc three give.me‘Please give me three red ones.’Thus, we have to ensure that no in N’-deletion is a genitive marker.
In this light, Kamio’s (1983) generalization in (15) is very useful.
(15) Kamio’s (1983) generalization
The pronoun no can occur as a pro-form of concrete nouns, but not as a pro-form ofabstract nouns.
This generalization is confirmed by the contrast in (16), taken from Arimoto and Murasugi(2005, p. 174).
7

In addition, some instances of C are realized as no. Look at the following examples, taken form
Hashimoto and Murasugi (2001, p. 57).
(i) a. Robusutaa-o tabe-ta no-wa bosuton-de dalobster-Acc eat-Past C-Top Boston-at be.Pres‘It was at Boston that we ate lobsters.’
b. Meru-o kat -tei -ru no-wa Saito-san da-Acc keep-Prog -Pres C -Top Mr. be.Pres‘It is Mr. Saito that keeps Meru.’
Yet, this instance of no is irrelevant here.

- 51 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(16) a.

[NP [RC Taroo -ga
motteki-ta] ringo]-wa amari oisiku-nai no dat-ta-Nom bring -Past apple -Top too delicious-not NO be-Past‘The apple which Taroo brought with him was not too delicious.’b. * [NP Taroo -no sinnen] -wa totemo katai no dat-ta-Gen conviction -Top very
firm NO be-Past‘Taroo’s conviction was very firm.’
The example in (16a) is grammatical because no is the pro-form of the concrete noun ringo‘apple.’ On the other hand, the sentence in (16b) is ungrammatical because no is intended tobe the pro-form of the abstract noun sinnen ‘conviction.’
Based on this generalization, Saito and Murasugi (1990) provide the examples in (17),and argue that Japanese has N’-deletion.
(17) Examples of N’-deletion in Japanese (Saito and Murasugi 1990, p. 288)
a. [NP Gakubusei-no sensei -e -no izon] -wa yurus -e -ru ga,
undergraduates -Gen teacher -on -Gen reliance -Top tolerate -can-Pres though[NP insei-no] -wa yurus -e -na -i
graduate.student -NO -Top tolerate -can-not-Pres‘I can tolerate the undergraduate’s reliance on the faculty, but not the graduate
student’s.’b. [NP Taroo -no kenkyuu -ni-taisuru taido] -wa ii
ga,-Gen research -toward attitude -Top good though[NP Hanako -no] -wa yoku-na -i-NO -Top good-not -Pres‘Taroo’s attitude toward research is good, but Hanako’s is not.’In these examples, the abstract nouns like izon ‘reliance’ and taido ‘attitude’ are used, so thatno cannot be pronominal. Hence, it is ensured that they are derived by N’-deletion, as in (18).
(18) Structures of (17)a. [Gakubusei-no [sensei-e-no izon]]-wa yurus-e-ru ga,[insei-no [sensei-e-no izon]]-wa yurus-e-na-ib. [Taroo-no [kenkyuu-ni-taisuru taido]]-wa ii ga,[Hanako-no [kenkyuu-ni-taisuru taido]]-wa yoku-na-i
In these cases, no is unambiguously the instance of a genitive marker.

- 52 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

2.3. Observation
With the basic properties in previous subsections in mind, look at the examples in (19)through (21).
(19) a. # [NP Senpai -no gakki-no o- toriatukai] -wa teinei -da ga,
senior -Gen instrument-Gen HP- treatment -Top careful -Pres though[NP kouhai-no gakki-no o- toriatukai] -wa sozatu -da
junior-Gen instrument-Gen HP- departure -Top rude -Presb. [NP Senpai-no gakki-no o- toriatukai] -wa teinei -da ga,
senior -Gen instrument-Gen HP- treatment -Top careful -Pres though[NP kouhai -no ∅]-wa sozatu -da
junior -Gen
-Top rude -Pres‘The senior player’s treatment of musical instruments is careful, but the junior player’s
is rude.’(20) a. #[NP Yamada -sensei-no go- syuppatu]-wa itumo haya -i
ga,-Prof. -Gen HP- departure-Top always early -Pres though[NP Taroo -no go- syuppatu]-wa itumo oso -i-Gen HP- departure-Top always late-Presb.

[NP Yamada-sensei-no go -syuppatu]-wa itumo haya -i
ga,-Prof. -Gen HP -departure-Top always early -Pres though[NP Taroo-no ∅]-wa itumo oso -i-Gen-Top always late-Pres‘Prof. Yamada’s departure is always early, but Taroo’s is always late.’(21) a. #[NP Katyoo -no kureemu -e -no go -taiou] -wa subarasi -iga,manager -Gen complaint-to -Gen HP -response -Top excellent-Pres though[NP sinnyu-syain-no kureemu -e -no go -taiou] -wa yoku -na -i
new -employee -Gen complaint -to -Gen HP -response -Top good -not -Presb. [NP Katyoo -no kureemu -e -no go -taiou] -wa subarasi -iga,manager -Gen complaint -to -Gen HP -response-Top excellent-Pres though[NP sinnyu-syain-no ∅]-wa yoku-na -i
new -employee -Gen
-Top good-not -Pres‘Our manager’s response to the complaint is excellent, but the new employee’s is not.’The sentences in (19a), (20a) and (21a) are all unacceptable. They, however, become
acceptable when N’-deletion applies to them, as in (19b), (20b) and (21b). In these examples,
abstract nouns like o-toriatukai ‘HP-treatment,’ go-syuppatu ‘HP-departure,’ and go-taiou‘HP-response’ are used, to ensure that no is a genitive marker.

- 53 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

In addition, the fact that the example in (22) supports a sloppy reading suggests that theconstruction under consideration may be derived by deletion.
(22)[NP Senpai -no zibun -no -gakki-no o- toriatukai] -wa
senior -Gen self -Gen -instrument-Gen HP-treatment -Topteinei -da ga,[NP kouhai -no ∅]-wa sozatu -da
careful-Pres thoughjunior -Gen
-Top rude -Pres‘The senior player’s treatment of self’s musical instruments is careful, but thejunior player’s is rude.’a. Strict reading: The junior player’s treatment of the senior player’s instruments is
rude.
b. Sloppy reading: The junior player’s treatment of his own instruments is rude.

In (22), the anaphor zibun ‘self’ is contained in the deletion site and the sentence has the strictreading in (22a) and the sloppy reading in (22b). The availability of the sloppy interpretationis accounted for under the deletion analysis easily, because the structure represented by ∅may have a form of the kind: [x’s treatment of x’s instruments], where x is bound by koohaino ‘junior-Gen.’ The pro-form analysis, on the other hand, can say little about the very factthat the sloppy reading is obtained, as it stands. This strongly suggests that the relevant
examples undergo deletion.
Summarizing this section, after reviewing the basic properties of NP-internal
honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese, we showed that N’-deletion can also repair somekind of violation. In the next section, we compare two approaches to honorification in
Japanese and illustrate how they explain the relevant observation.
3. Analysis
3.1. Two Approaches to Honorification in Japanese
As already noted in (2) and (3), there are two approaches to honorification proposed in
the literature. (2) and (3) are repeated here as (23) and (24), respectively:(23) Honorification as Agreementa. Honorification is an instance of agreement between NPs and functional categories;
honorification is a symmetric relation.
b. NPs are divided into two groups; one can trigger agreement and the other cannot.
(24) Honorification as Licensinga. HP is a realization of a feature on a predicate which is licensed by an argument;
honorification is an asymmetric relation.
b. All NPs can potentially license such a feature.

- 54 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

The previous studies of honorification in the generative framework have mainly
discussed the properties of clausal honorification, exemplified in (25).
(25) Clausal Honorification; Subject Honorification and Object Honorificationa. Yamada-sensei-ga
hon -oo- yomi-ni -nar-u-Prof. -Nom book -Acc HP- read -Dat -become -Pres‘Prof. Yamada reads a book.’b. Taroo-ga
Yamada-sensei -oo- tasuke -su-ru-Nom-Prof. -Acc HP- help -do-Pres‘Taroo helps Prof. Yamada.’
The example in (25a) is called Subject Honorification, because the subject NP is an SSS. The
most remarkable property of this construction is that its predicate has morphologicallycomplex form, HP-verb-ni-naru. Ni-naru roughly corresponds to a dative Case marker +become.8 On the other hand, the example in (25b) is called Object Honorification, because itis the object that is an SSS. In this construction, its predicate has different form. It consists of
HP-verb-suru. Suru is roughly corresponds to the verb do.
The mainstream of the analysis assumes that these constructions are instances ofagreement. Harada (1976) claims that the morphologically complex predicates are derived bytransformational rules, optionally triggered by the inherent property of a subject or object.
Later, Toribio (1990) claims that Spec-head agreement affects the morphological form of thepredicates. Recently, Niinuma (2003, 2005) and Boeckx and Niinuma (2004) update Harada’s
and Toribio’s theory incorporating Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) Agree, induced byuninterpretable features on T/v. One crucial assumption of this approach is that there are twokinds of nominals, one of them can Agree with T/v, and the other cannot.
Yet, this approach, which we call the agreement-approach, has at least two problems.9
One of the problems is that honorification is optional as we have seen above, while theoperation Agree is obligatory. Therefore, it is inadequate to employ Agree to explain thisphenomenon.
Another problem is that in the case of Object Honorification, a dative NP can be an SSS
as in (26a), in addition to the case where an accusative NP is an SSS as in (26b).

8

For a more fine-grained morphological analysis of the predicate of clausal honorification, see Takita(2006).
9

See Takita (2006) and Bobalijk and Yatsushiro (2006) for a more detailed criticism to theagreement-approach.

- 55 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(26) a.

Taroo -ga
Yamada-sensei-ni o- awi -su -ru-Nom-Prof. -Dat HP- meet -do -Pres‘Taroo meets Prof. Yamada.’b. Taroo -ga
Yamada-sensei -oo- tasuke -su-ru-Nom-Prof. -Acc HP- help -do-Pres‘Taroo helps Prof. Yamada.’This situation is incompatible with the view that agreement and Case are closely related.
Against the agreement-approach, Takita (2006) proposes an alternative which we callthe licensing-approach, pointing out an asymmetry between HP and an SSS. Consider thefollowing examples.
(27) Honorificationa. Yamada-sensei-ga hon -o
yom-u-Prof. -Nom book-Acc read-Pres‘Prof. Yamada reads a book.’b. Yamada-sensei-ga hon -oo- yomi -ni -nar -u-Prof. -Nom book-Acc HP- read -Dat -become-Pres‘Prof. Yamada reads a book.’c. *Yamada-sensei-ga
hon -oo- yomi-ni -nar-u-Prof. -Nom book -Acc HP- read -Dat-become-Pres‘Prof. Yamada reads a book.’(28) Negative Polarity Items
a. Taroo-ga hon -oyoma -na -i-Nom book-Acc read -not -Pres‘Taroo does not read books.’b. Taroo-sika hon -oyoma -na -i-only book -Acc read -not -Pres‘Only Taroo reads books.’c. * Taroo-sika hon-o
yom-u-only book-Acc read-Pres‘Taroo does not read books.’
The example in (27a) suggests that nominals which can be appropriate SSSs can appear in- 56 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

non-honorific sentences without being SSSs. They show the property of being SSSs only if
HP appears on the predicate, as in (27b). This indicates that being an SSS is not an inherent
property of nominals. The fact that the example in (27c) is ungrammatical suggests that HP
cannot appear without an SSS. This is reminiscent of the cases of Negative Polarity Items(henthforth NPIs), as shown in (28). The pattern is that negation can appear independent of
NPIs, but not vice versa. Based on this similarity, Takita (2006) claims that HP must be
syntactically licensed by nominals in the parallel way in which NPIs are licensed by negation.
Contra the agreement-approach, the licensing-approach claims that every nominal canpotentially license HP. Under this approach, the sentence in (29) is analyzed as syntacticallywell-formed.
(29)# Taroo -ga hon -oo- yomi -ni -nar-u-Nom book-Acc HP- read -Dat-become-Pres‘Taroo reads a book.’

Rather, they are unacceptable because of extra-grammatical factors (see Section 2.1 also). In
this respect, the agreement-approach and the licensing-approach also diverge.
In the rest of this section, we show that the agreement-approach cannot deal with theobservation made in Section 2.3, while the licensing-approach can naturally accommodate it.
3.2. Extension of the agreement-approach to NP-internal Honorification
Recently, Ivana and Sakai (2005) extend the agreement-approach to the NP-internal
honorification, proposing the analysis summarized in (30).
(30) Ivana and Sakai’s (2005) Analysis
a. HP heads the functional category Honorific, which takes an NP as its complement.
b. The head Honorific has a feature [Honorific], which acts as a probe.
c. One class of NPs has a lexical feature [+honorific], and the other does not.
d. The feature [Honorific] Agrees with an NP which has [+honorific].
Being faithful to the spirit of the agreement-approach, Ivana and Sakai (2005) assumes thedivision between NPs with the implementation in (30c). One novel point of their analysis ispostulation of the functional category Honorific, which has an uninterpretable feature.
Under their analysis, the example in (31a) has the structure in (31b).10

10

Ivana and Sakai (2005) assume that VNs are derived by syntactic nominalization, as English
gerunds (Baker 1985).

- 57 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(31) a.

[[NP1 Yamada-sensei-no] [NP2 watasi -tati-no] o- miokuri]-Prof. -Gen
me -Pl -Gen HP- send.off‘Prof. Yamada’s seeing us off’b.

HonorificP
Agree

NP

Honorific

VP

N

NP1

V’

Yamada-sensei-no[+h]

o-[H]

-i

NP2

V

watasi-tati-no[-h]miokurIn this structure, the head Honorific Agrees with the NP1, which has the lexical feature[+honorific], so that the example in (31a) is grammatical. The order o-miokuri ‘HP-send.off’is derived via successive cyclic head-movement, which is omitted here.
On the other hand, the unacceptable example in (32a) has the structure in (32b).
(32) a. #[[NP1 Watasi-tati-no]
me -Pl -Gen

[NP2 Yamada -sensei -no] o- miokuri]-Prof. -Gen HP- send.off‘Our seeing Prof. Yamada off’b.

HonorificPNP

Honorific

VP

N

NP1
watasi-tati-no[-h]

V’
NP2

o-[H]

-i
V

Yamada-sensei-no[+h] miokur
In this case, the NP1, which has [-honorific], is the closest goal, so that Agree does not holdeven though NP2 has [+honorific]. In other words, the unacceptable case in (32a) is analyzed
as an instance of the defective intervention.

- 58 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

At this point, the generalization in (33), which is proposed by Lobeck (1990) and Saito
and Murasugi (1990) poses a serious problem to Ivana and Sakai’s (2005) analysis.
(33) Generalization on Deletion
An XP which is a complement of a functional category can be deleted iff the functional
head has a specifier which it agrees with.
This generalization distinguishes the case in (34c) from (34a) and (34b).
(34) a.

FP
F

b.
XP

*deletion

FP
YP

c.
F’

FP
YP

F

XP
*deletion

F’
F

XP
ok

deletion

The case in (34a), where the functional head F does not have a specifier, is exemplified in(35b) and (36b). On the other hand, in the examples in (35a) and (35b) represent the case in(34c) where the functional head has a specifier which it agrees with, so that they aregrammatical.
(35) Spec-head Agreement in N’-deletion (Arimoto and Murasugi 2005, p. 150-152)
a. John’s criticism of Bush is interesting, but [DP Bill’s [NP criticism of Bush]]isannoying.
b. * I wanted to read a book, so I bought [DP a [NP book]].
(36) Spec-head Agreement in IP-deletion (ibid, p. 153)
Mary said that somebody went to Boston,a.

but I don’t know [CP who [IP went to Boston]].

b. * but I don’t know [CP whether [IP he went to Boston]].
The case in (34b), in which there is a specifier but no Spec-head agreement, is shown in (37).
(37) Spec-head Agreement in VP-deletion (Takahashi 1994, Martin 1996)* John believes [IP Mary to [VP be a genius]], but I don’t believe [IP her to [VP be a
genius]].
In this example, her in the second clause agrees with the ECM verb believe, not with the head
to. Thus deletion of the complement of to cannot be licensed, even though to has a specifier.
To see how the generalization poses a problem for Ivana and Sakai’s (2005) analysis,
consider the structure in (38b), which represents the relevant part of the example in (38a).

- 59 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(38) a.

[ Senpai -no gakki-no o- toriatukai] -wa teinei -da ga,
senior -Gen instrument -Gen HP- treatment -Top careful -Pres though[ kouhai -no ∅]-wa sozatu -da
junior -Gen
-Top rude -Pres‘The senior player’s treatment of musical instruments is careful, but the juniorplayer’s is rude.’b.

HonorificPNP

Honorific

VP

N

NP1
kouhai-no[-h]V’[o-[H] [[toriatuka]i -i]j]

tj

NP2

V

gakki-no[-h]tihead-movement

Under their analysis, the functional category Honorific cannot enter into an agreement
relation with anything, since both NP1 and NP2 have [-honorific]. Therefore, deletion of theNP, which is the complement of Honorific, cannot be licensed, so that the example in (38a)cannot be derived.
Besides, there is another problem. In (38b), the sequence o-toriatukai ‘HP-treatment’ isderived via successive cyclic head-movement, so that it is located outside of the NP.
Therefore, even if deletion of the NP becomes possible for somehow, the example in (38a)cannot be derived.
Can some minor modification of their analysis make it possible to account for the fact?
For instance, suppose that there is another functional head above the HonorificP. This head isarguably D, and the structure in (38b) is modified to (39).

- 60 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)(39) Minor Modification I; DP above HonorificP
DP
NP1

D’

kouhai-no[-h]HonorificPNP

Honorific

VP
tNP1

D

N
V’

φ

[o-[H] [[toriatuka]i -i]j]

tj

NP2

V

gakki-no[-h]tiokhead-movement

deletion

Suppose further that there is some kind of Spec-head agreement between the NP1 and D.
These modifications are inevitable for their analysis to deal with deletion in non-honorificconfigurations. And as shown in (39), it seems possible to derive the desired word order.
This story, however, does not work. Recall that the uninterpretable feature [Honorific]
on the head Honorific must probe its domain before D is introduced to the derivation. Thus,
the derivation crashes before deletion of HonorificP is licensed by Spec-head agreement at
DP.
Let us explore another possibility. How about some functional category F between NP
and HonorificP? Unfortunately, this possibility does not work either. Look at the structure in(40).

- 61 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(40) Minor Modification II; a Functional Category between NP and HonorificP
HonorificP
FP

Honorific

NP1F’kouhai-no[-h]

NP

F

VP

N

tNP1

o-[H]

V’

!!!

φ

-i

NP2

V

gakki-no[-h] toriatuka
okdeletion

Even if the NP can be deleted by Spec-head agreement at FP, the head Honorific, namely
o-/go- cannot be deleted, as indicated in (40). Therefore, the desired order cannot be derived.
To sum up this subsection, the agreement-approach cannot explain the relevant
observation even though it is modified.
3.3. Extension of the licensing-approach to NP-internal Honorification
In this subsection, by extending the licensing-approach to NP-internal honorification, weshow that the observation can be explained. First, let us review the analysis by Takita (2006).
(41) The Nature of the Feature [Honorific]a. [H] is licensed iff it binds the closest XP in a theta-position.
b. If [H] is not licensed, the derivation crashes.
c. An XP is interpreted as an SSS iff it is bound by [H].
d. [H] optionally attached to a head Y0, and phonologically realized as o-/go-.
The assumptions in (41a), (41b) and (41c) capture the asymmetry between an SSS and HP;
the presence of HP always requires an XP which is appropriate as an SSS, but not vice versa.
Note that unlike the assumptions in agreement-approach, our theory does not divide nominals
into two groups; any XP can potentially license [H]. Note also that [H] is not the head of afunctional category, but a feature attached to predicates.
To see how the mechanism works, consider the following illustration of some sample- 62 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

cases. First, look at (42b), which is the structure of the example in (42a).11(42) a.

[[NP1 Senpai -no] [NP2 gakki-no] o- toriatukai]
senior -Gen
instrument -Gen HP- treatment‘The senior player’s treatment of musical instruments’b.

DPbinding

VNP

NP1
senpai-no

D[H]
VN’

[D [VN o-[H]toriatukai]iφ]

NP2

VN

gakki-notihead-movement

In this structure, [H] is introduced to syntax by being attached to toriatukai ‘treatment’ andreaches to D via head-movement. Then, it binds the closest XP in a theta-position,12 in thiscase senpai ‘senior,’ so that it is licensed and realized as o-. In turn, the NP1 senpai ‘senior’
is interpreted as an SSS. Because it is appropriate as an SSS, the example in (42a) is perfect.
Next, consider the following case.
(43) a. #[[NP1 Kouhai-no] [NP2 gakki-no] o- toriatukai]
senior -Gen
instrument-Gen HP- treatment‘The junior player’s treatment of musical instruments’b.

DPbinding

VNP

NP1kouhai-no

D[H]
VN’

[D [VN o-[H]toriatukai]iφ]

NP2

VN

gakki-notihead-movement

In this case, the closest XP is kouhai ‘junior,’ and it licenses [H]. Thus, the derivation itself
11

We simply assume that complex event nominals like toriatukai ‘treatment’ belong to VN, contra
Ivana and Sakai (2005) (see footnote 8 above). Yet, this does not affect the argument.
12

Takita (2006) argues that licensing takes place when the relevant part of the structure undergoes
spell-out. Consequently, [H] binds NP1, not NP2, regardless of whether D is a phase head or not.

- 63 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2

converges, but because the expression kouhai ‘junior’ is not appropriate as an SSS, theexample in (43) gets #. In other words, syntax conditions NP1 to be an SSS, but it becomesunacceptable by extra-grammatical factors.
What happens if VN is introduced to syntax without [H]? (44) is the relevant case.
(44) a.

[[NP1 Kouhai-no] [NP2 gakki-no] toriatukai]
junior -Gen
instrument-Gen treatment‘The junior player’s treatment of musical instruments’
b.

DP
VNP
NP1

kouhai-no

DVN’[D [VN toriatukai]i

NP2

VN

gakki-noti

φ]head-movement

Nothing but N-to-D movement takes place because there is no [H] on the head. Thus, thesentence is perfect.
Here, we slightly revise the proposals in (41b), by claiming (45).
(45) Proposal
If [H] is not licensed it induces a PF-crash, because it cannot be phonologicallyrealized.
More over, we claim that there are two ways to avoid PF-crash, as summarized in (46).
(46) Two Ways to Avoid PF-crasha. To be licensed by whatever the closest XP in a theta-position.
b. PF-deletion of the YP which contains the phonologically “defective” [H].
Look at the examples in (47a). It represents the stage where [H] has not been licensed byanything. Thus, [H] does not have any phonological realization.
(47) a. * [[NP1 Kouhai -no] [NP2 gakki-no] [H]+toriatukai] ( -wa sozatu -da)junior -Gen
instrument-Gen HP-treatment-Top rude -Pres‘The junior player’s treatment of musical instruments (is rude.)’b. # [[NP1 Kouhai-no] [NP2 gakki-no]o-[H]toriatukai] (-wa sozatu-da)- 64 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)c. ok [[NP1 Kouhai-no] [NP2 gakki-no][H]+toriatukai] (-wasozatu-da)

If nothing happens, it causes a PF-crash. If we employ the option in (46a), the closest XP
kouhai ‘junior’ licenses [H], so that the PF-crash is avoided, but the sentence gets #. If theoption in (46b) is chosen, the maximal projection which contains the defective [H] is deleted,so that the PF-crash can be circumvented.
The example in (47c) has the following structure.
(48) Structure of (47c)
DP
NP1

D’

kouhai-no

VNP

D

tNP1

VN’

φ[F]j

NP2

VN

gakki-no[H]+toriatukai[t]jok

deletion

Suppose that a strong feature on D attracts its matching feature on the head VN, rendering it
phonologically defective. Note that this assumption falls into line with Lasnik (2001).
Suppose further that NP1 moves to Spec, DP to check its genitive Case, as a reflex of Agree
induced by an uninterpretable feature on D. This in turn makes it possible to delete thecomplement of D, namely VNP. At this point, the phonologically defective [H] is deleted
along with VN, without being licensed. Therefore, (41c) is correctly expected to be perfect.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, we have shown that in addition to VP- and IP-deletion, N’-deletion canalso repair some kind of violation, and that this observation can be explained by the licensingapproach to honorification in Japanese in the parallel way to Lasnik (2001). In addition,
illustrating how the agreement-approach fails to explain it, we have argued that the existenceof functional category Honorific, proposed by Ivana and Sakai (2005), is highly implausible.
Finally, we point out one implication of this study. Consider the following schema.

- 65 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2(49) Set of Features contained in the antecedent and the deletion sitea. antecedent; {F1, F2, F3}  deletion site; {F1, F3}
b. antecedent; {F1, F2, F3}  deletion site; {F1, F2, F3}
Suppose that there are two theories; one assumes that deletion can be executed if the featuresof the deletion site constitute the subset of the features of the antecedent, and the other claims
that deletion is possible if and only if the set of features of the antecedent and the deletion site
is identical. The former theory allows both cases in (49), but the latter allows only the case in(49b), so that the latter is more restrictive.
Suppose further that [H] corresponds to F2 in (49). If one claims that the deletion site in
the relevant observation does not have [H] at the beginning, he must give up the latter theory,
because the formal parallelism between the antecedent and the deletion site is lost. That is, hehas to assume the case in (49a) is possible.
On the other hand, if the analysis of this paper is on the right track, we can maintain the
more restrictive theory. One instance of this theory is proposed by Fox and Lasnik (2003).
Because this paper enables us to retain the more restrictive theory, it is a desirable result.

References
Abney, S. (1987) The English Noun Phrases in its Sentential Aspect, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Arimoto, M. and K. Murasugi. (2005) Syouoo-to Sakuzyo, Kenkyusya, Tokyo.
Baker, M. (1985) “Syntactic Affixation and English Gerunds,” Proceedings of the West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics 4, 1-11.
Bobaljik, J. and K. Yatsushiro. (2006) “Problems with Honorification-As-Agreement in Japanese: A
Reply to Boeckx and Niinuma,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24, 355-384.
Boeckx, C. (2006) “Honorification as Agreement,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24, 385398.
Boeckx, C. and F. Niinuma. (2004) “Conditions on Agreement in Japanese,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 22, 453-480.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in R. Martin, J. Uriagereka, and D.
Michaels, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89-151.
Chomsky, N. (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” in M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1-52.
Fox, D. and H. Lasnik. (2003) “Successive Cyclic Movement and Island Repair: The Difference
between Sluicing and VP Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-154.
Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hashimoto, T. and K. Murasugi. (2001) “‘No’- de Arawasareru Bunpoo-hantyuu-no Kakutoku:
Zissyouteki-kenkyu,” ACADEMIA Literature and Language (70), 55-87.

- 66 -

NP-internal Honorification and N’-deletion in Japanese (K. Takita)

Harada, S.-I. (1976) “Honorifics,” in M. Shibatani, ed., Syntax and Semantics Vol. 5, Japanese
Generative Grammar, Academic Press, New York, 449-561.
Ivana, A. and H. Sakai. (2003) “Keigobun-no Koozoo to Keidooshi,” The Handbook of the 127th
Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 62-67.
Ivana, A. and H. Sakai. (2005) “Fukuzatu-zisyoo Meisiku-ni okeru Sonkei-ka,” The Handbook of the
131st Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 22-27.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (1990) “Incomplete VP Deletion and Gapping,” Linguistic Analysis 20, 64-81.
Kageyama, T. (1993) Bumpoo to Go-keisei. Hituzi Shoboo, Tokyo.
Kamio, A. (1983) “Meisiku-no Koozoo,” in K. Inoue, ed., Nihongo-no Kihonkoozoo, Sanseidoo,
Tokyo, 77-126.
Lasnik, H. (1995) “A Note on Pseudogapping,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27, 143-163.
Lasnik, H. (1999) “Pseudogapping Puzzles,” in E. Benmamoun and S. Lappin, eds., Fragments:
Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 141-174.
Lasnik, H. (2001) “When Can You Save a Structure by Destroying It?,” NELS 31, 301-320.
Levin, N. (1978) “Some Identity-of-Sense Deletions Puzzle Me. Do They You?,” Proceedings of the
14th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 229-240.
Lobeck, A. C. (1990) “Functional Heads as Proper Governors,” NELS 20, 348-362.
Martin, R. (1996) A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control, Doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut.
Merchant, J. (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and Identity in Ellipsis, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Ochi, M. (1999) “Some Consequences of Attract F,” Lingua 109, 81-107.
Niinuma, F. (2003) The Syntax of Honorification, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Niinuma, F. (2005) “Unaccusativity and Honorification in Japanese,” Gengo Kenkyu 127, 51-81.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi. (1990) “N’-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,” Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 1, 285-301.
Shibatani, M. (1977) “Grammatical Relations and Surface Cases,” Language 53, 780-809.
Takahashi, D. (1994) “Sluicing in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 263-300.
Takita, K. (2006) Japanese Honorifics: Its Syntax and Morphology, MA Thesis, Keio University.
Toribio, A. J. (1990) “Specifier-Head Agreement in Japanese,” Proceedings of the 9th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, 535-548.

- 67 -