NUMERAL CLASSIFIERS, PLURAL/COLLECTIVE ELEMENTS,
AND NOMINAL ELLIPSIS *Masao Ochi
Osaka University

1. Introduction
There are many important theoretical issues surrounding the syntax of noun phrases inclassifier languages such as Chinese and Japanese. For example, because the numeralclassifier (NC) occurs in several syntactic environments in Japanese (e.g., prenominally,
postnominally, and floating), a question arises with regard to their relations, that is, whether
or not they should be analyzed as arising from the same underlying source (see Watanabe2006). More broadly speaking, the question about the presence (or absence) of ‘extended’
projections in Japanese, both in the clausal and nominal domains, has been a topic of intense
debate for several decades (see Fukui 1986, Fukui and Sakai 2003, Chierchia 1998a,b, and aseries of recent papers by Bošković among many others). Against this background, I will
investigate the syntax of noun phrases in Japanese, by primarily focusing on the ways inwhich the NC interacts with the plural/collective element and the universal quantifier. I will
discuss three issues in this connection. First, following Li (1999), I will motivate a syntactic
dependency involving the plural/collective element and an abstract functional head in Chineseand Japanese. Second, I will discuss how the NC interacts with a universal quantifier insideand outside the nominal domain (see also Kawashima 1998). Finally, I will discuss somenominal ellipsis paradigms in light of the syntax of classifiers explored in this paper. It should
be noted at the outset of this paper that each of the issues to be discussed below deserves
much more careful scrutiny. What is reported here is preliminary in a number of respects.
The NC in Japanese is known to appear in several environments, including a prenominal
position and a postnominal one, as illustrated in (1). When it appears prenominally, it isaccompanied by the particle -no, unlike when the NC appears postnominally.
(1)a.

taroo-wa
Taro-TOPgo-ko-no5-CL-GENgyooza-o
dumpling-ACC

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(prenominal NC)‘Taro ate five dumplings.’* This paper is based in part on a workshop presentation at the 143rd Meeting of the LinguisticSociety of Japan held at Osaka University on November 27, 2011. I would like to thank the workshop
participants for comments and questions.
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 89–107©2012 Masao Ochi

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012b.

taroo-wa
Taro-TOPgyoozago-ko-odumpling 5-CL-ACC

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(postnominal NC)

Following Huang and Ochi (2011), I will explore a non-uniform approach to the two NC
constructions.1 In particular, I assume, following Saito et al. (2008) and Miyamoto (2009),
that the prenominal NC is an NP-level modifier (or an adjunct), as shown in (2). I also assume
that the postnominal NC has the structure shown in (3) (which is based on Watanabe (2006)).
(2)

NP
2
CLP-no NP
5
#-CL

(3)

XP
3
NP
X′
2
CLP
X
2
#
CL′
2
tNP
CL

Although the main focus of this paper is on Japanese, I will also make crucial reference to thenominal structure of Chinese. Following Tang (1990) and Cheng and Sybesma (1999), I willassume, without any further discussion, that the NC construction in Chinese instantiates a
structure like the one in (5), where the classifier is a head selecting NP as its complement.
(4)san-ben(*-de) shu
3-CL
book

(Chinese)‘three books’
(5)

CLP
2
#
CL′
2
CL
NP

1

See Sauerland and Yatsushiro (2004) and Miyamoto (2009) for a non-uniform treatment of the NC
constructions in Japanese. See also Shlonsky (2004) for a non-uniform treatment of prenominal andpostnominal numerals in Hebrew.

- 90 -

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

One point worth mentioning here is that, under this line of approach, the NC construction in
Chinese (5) and the postnominal NC construction in Japanese (3) essentially share the samestructure, except that the latter involves overt movement of NP. This point will be taken up in
section 2. Before turning to the three issues mentioned earlier, let me briefly introduce twoarguments from Huang and Ochi (2011) in support of this line of hypothesis (for a fuller
discussion, I advise the reader to consult Huang and Ochi (2011)) .
1.1. Scope
One of the implications of the approach sketched above is the following. Comparing (2)and (3), we can see that the position of the postnominal classifier is structurally higher thanthat of the prenominal classifier: the former selects NP as its complement whereas the latter isan adjunct to NP. Generalizing this point, we might argue that a postnominal element, be it aclassifier or something else, is structurally higher than any prenominal element. The contrast
in (6) confirms this point. As discussed by Watanabe (2006) and others, universal quantifiers
like subete also occur both prenominally and postnominally. Crucially, (6a) is ungrammatical.
This contrast follows from the structures in (2) and (3), assuming that the universal quantifier
cannot be in the scope of numerals, as illustrated by the English data in (7). I therefore assume
that a postnominal element is structurally higher than a prenominal one.
(6)a.

* taroo-wa subete-no
Taro-TOP ∀-GEN

gyoozago-ko-odumpling 5-CL-ACC

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(*∀-no N NC)‘Taro ate all (of the) five dumplings.’b.

taroo-wa go-ko-no gyooza
subete-oTaro-TOP 5-CL-GEN dumpling ∀-ACC(7)

all three books vs. *three all books

1.2.

Specificity

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(NC-no N ∀)The structures in (2) and (3) also indicate that the postnominal NC construction involves
more structure than the prenominal NC, since the former always involves projections on topof NP. This point receives potential support from a particular line of approach to specificity,taken up by Hudson (1989), Ritter (1995) and Muromatsu (1998). The gist of this approach issummarized in (8), which Huang and Ochi (2011) argue is confirmed by the Chinese patternshown in (9). The point about (9) is that in order for Chinese to express a specific indefinite
reading, it needs more material than it does for expressing a non-specific indefinite reading.
(8)

Specific indefinites have a larger structure than non-specific indefinites (see Hudson
1989, Ritter 1995, and especially Muromatsu 1998).

- 91 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(9)

Chinese indefinites (setting aside the definite vs. indefinite issue; see Cheng andSybesma (1999))
Bare N (e.g., shu ‘book’)
CL + N (e.g., ben shu ‘CL book’)
Num + CL + N (e.g., san-ben shu ‘3-CL book’)

non-specific√√√specific**√

Now let us compare this table with the one in (10), which is for Japanese. As discussed by
Huang and Ochi (2011), whose discussion is based on Downing (1994), there is aninterpretive difference between the prenominal NC and the postnominal NC in Japanese.
Specifically, the postnominal NC strongly prefers a specific indefinite reading.
(10) Japanese (see Downing 1994, Huang and Ochi 2011)
Prenominal NC + N (e.g., san-satsu-no hon …)
N + Postnominal NC (e.g., hon san-satsu-o …)
Floating NC (e.g., hon-o kinoo san-satsu …)

non-specific√??
√specific√√*

We can demonstrate this point by placing prenominal and postnominal NCs in a context thatforces a non-specific reading. As shown below, the postnominal NC sounds fairly degraded insuch contexts (see Huang and Ochi 2011 for a detailed discussion of such paradigms).
(11) Non-specific context (√ prenominal; *postnominal NC; √ floating NC)
heikin-suru to, kono byooin-de-wa
maishuu…
average-do,
this hospital-at-TOP every week
‘On average, every week in this hospital, …’a.

san-nin-no
3-CL-noakanboo-ga
baby-NOM

umare-teiru.
be born‘... three babies are born.’b.

*akanboobaby

cf.

akanboo-ga
baby-NOM

san-nin-ga
3-CL-NOM

umare-teiru.
be born

san-nin3-CLumare-teiru.
be born

Note that among the various nominals listed in (9) and (10), the postnominal NC in Japaneseis exceptional in that it resists a non-specific reading. This curious property of thepostnominal NC in Japanese follows under a particular approach to specificity summarized in(8), assuming that the postnominal NC in Japanese is always sufficiently ‘large’, as discussed- 92 -

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

above.2 The postnominal NC structure shown in (3) is even larger than the Chinese NC
structure in (5); the former involves an additional projection on top of the classifier
projection, which is needed to host the moved NP. Now let us turn to the three issues
mentioned earlier.
2. Classifiers and Collective/Plural Elements
As mentioned earlier, our approach to numeral classifiers treats the postnominal NC in
Japanese and the NC structure in Chinese alike: both involve the classifier head that takes NP
as its complement. But there is an interesting difference between the two. Let us examinesome data containing plural/collective suffixes in the two languages: -men in Chinese and-tachi (-ra etc.) in Japanese. As pointed out in the previous literature (see in particular
Kurafuji 2004), these suffixes share a number of inherent semantic properties. For example,
they yield two different readings, depending on the type of the noun to which they areattached. When attached to common nouns, they typically yield the plural reading, as
illustrated in (12). In this respect, -men and -tachi are similar to -s in English.
(12) a.

xuesheng-men
student-MEN‘the students’b.

gakusei-tachi
student-TACHI‘(the) students’

When attached to proper nouns, these suffixes yield the so-called ‘collective’ reading (“…
and others”).
(13) a.

Xiao Qiang-men
Xiao Qiang-MEN‘Xiao Qiang and others’b.

taroo-tachi
Taro-TACHI‘Taro and others’

There are additional similarities between -men and -tachi. As noted by Li (1999), attachment
2

Alternatively, NP-movement to the nominal edge as depicted in (3) may be directly responsible forthis apparent specificity effect, the idea being that the landing site of NP-movement counts as acriterial position, a position dedicated to express some scope/discourse property, in the left edge of anominal domain, akin to criterial positions in the left edge of a clause (thanks to Luigi Rizzi (p.c.) for
the suggestion).

- 93 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012of -men forces the resulting nominal expression to be definite, as shown in (14b).
(14) a.

Wo qu zhao haizi.
I
go find child‘I will go find some/the child(ren).’b.

Wo qu zhao haizi-men.
Igo find child-MEN‘I will go find the children.’

According to Kurafuji (2004), the same property is observed with -tachi in Japanese.3 For
example, while (15a) is fully felicitous in a situation in which finding any child(ren) will
fulfill the speaker’s desire, (15b) sounds strange in a situation in which the speaker has no
particular group of children in mind.
(15) a.

boku-wa
I-TOP

kodomo-ochild-ACC

sagashiteiru.
look for‘I’m looking for some/the child(ren).’b.

boku-wa
I-TOP

kodomo-tachi-ochild-TACHI-ACC

sagashiteiru.
look for‘I’m looking for the children.’
There is one striking difference between -men and -tachi, however. According to Iljic (1994)
and Li (1999), -men and the classifier cannot co-occur when the former is attached to thecommon noun. No such restriction applies in the corresponding case in Japanese.4(16) a.

Wo qing [san-ge xuesheng(*-men)] chifan.
I
invite [3-CL student-MEN eat‘I invited (the) three children for a meal.’3

But see Nakanishi and Tomioka (2004) for a different view. While they offer several arguments tothe effect that -tachi is not inherently definite, what is crucial for me here is that these suffixes sharesome property P (be it definiteness or something else) and that P is tied to the syntactic dependency
between N-men/-tachi and a higher functional head. It is therefore necessary to examine whether or
not the points and observations made by Nakanishi and Tomioka for -tachi also hold for -men, a taskthat I have to leave for another occasion.

4

Previous analyses of this phenomenon include Borer’s (2005) morpho-syntactic account and Bale &Khanjian’s (2008) semantic account. The former works well for Chinese but fails to extend to
Japanese. The latter discusses some interesting fact about Armenian vs. English; but it fails to capture
the fact about Japanese.

- 94 -

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)b.

boku-wa
I-TOP
maneita.
invited[san-nin-no gakusei-tachi / gakusei-tachi san-nin]-o[3-CL-GEN student-TACHI / student-TACHI 3-CL -ACC

‘I invited (the) three students for a meal.’
As pointed out by Li (1999), there is no inherent incompatibility between -men and theclassifier. They can co-occur when -men is attached to the proper noun/pronoun occurring in
the left edge of the nominal phrase, as shown in (17a). We find a parallel example inJapanese, shown in (17b).
(17) a.

Wo qing [ta-men/ Xiao Qiang-men san-ge (ren)]I
invite [(s)he-MEN / Xiao Qiang-MEN 3-CL (person

chifan.
eat‘I invited [them three children/the three people including Xiao Qiang] for a meal’b.

boku-wa [kanojo-tachi / hanako-tachi
san-nin-no
I-TOP[she-TACHI / Hanako-TACHI 3-CL-GEN

josei]-omaneita.
lady -ACC invited‘I invited [them three ladies/the three ladies including Hanako’
What would account for the contrast in (16)? Adopting Li’s overall proposal, let us assume(18).
(18) Properties of -men and -tachi (see Li 1999)a.
They are suffixes attached to the nominal head.
b.
They bear some feature relevant for definiteness (but see also footnote 3), whichneeds to be checked against a higher functional head.
For Li (1999), the relevant functional head of (18b) is D, but I will not commit myself as tothe exact label of this functional head, simply referring to it as Y.5 I will also assume,
following Li (1999), that the head movement of N to a higher functional head is blocked by
the presence of the CL head, as shown in (19).

5This Y head may or may not be identical to X in (3). As briefly discussed in section 1.2, thepostnominal NC construction always has an extra projection on top of CLP (labeled as XP) and it istypically interpreted as a specific nominal. YP, the locus of definiteness, may be projecting on top ofXP, a possibility which is compatible with the analysis in the main text.

- 95 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

(19)

YP
(HMC violation; see Li 1999)
2
Y
CLP
2
#
CL′
2
CL
NP
5
N-men

X
Although I essentially adopt Li’s (1999) overall analysis, there is one point of departure. I
assume that this head movement in Chinese is covert. As shown in (20), adnominal adjectives
always precede the head noun in Chinese, which would be unexpected if the N head moved
up in overt syntax.
(20) a.

Wo zhaodao-leIfound-ASP

kaile-de haizi-men
le.
happy-DE child-MEN‘I found the happy children.’b.

*Wo zhaodao-leI
foundhaizi-menkaile(-de) le.
child-MEN happy

I will assume that this covert head movement of N is also available in Japanese. (21)illustrates this point for the prenominal NC structure with -tachi. Given our earlier assumptionthat the prenominal NC is an adjunct to NP, it is no surprise that it does not block the head
movement of N (see also Ueda and Haraguchi 2008 on this point).
(21)

YP
ei
NP
Y
3
[def]
CLP-noN-tachi5#-CL(prenominal NC in Japanese)

The real interesting issue here is why the postnominal NC and -tachi can co-occur. Recall ourassumption that the postnominal CL structure in Japanese is parallel to the Chinese CL
structure. In both cases, the CL head takes NP as its complement.
I believe that the structure shown in (3) would give us an answer. As shown in (22), NP,
to whose head -tachi is attached, moves out of CLP and lands in the spec of YP, upon which-tachi and the functional head Y are in a local relation. In essence, -tachi moves as a freerider, carried along with the rest of NP, which moves for an independent reason (see Huang- 96 -

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

and Ochi 2011).
(22)

YP
ei
NP
Y′
5
3
N-tachi CLP
Y
2
[def]
#
CL′
2
tNP
CL

The fact about (17), i.e., that -men and -tachi can be attached to proper nouns/pronouns that
occur in the left edge of the nominal which includes the classifier, follows from Li’s (1999)
proposal that such phrases can be base-generated fairly high (e.g., in the spec of YP) in thenominal domain. As shown in (23), -tachi and Y can enter into a checking relation “as is.”
(23)

3.

YP
(for (17b))ei
kanojo-tachi
Y′
3
NP
Y
6 [def]san-nin-no N
Floating/Stranded ∀ + Numeral

The second issue that I would like to take up here concerns the relation between
adnominal classifiers and floating classifiers. The connection between them has been
intensely debated in the literature. One prominent view, going back to Miyagawa (1989),
holds that the floating NC and the noun it modifies are “together” in the underlying structure.
Let us refer to this view as the ‘stranding’ view. There are scholars who question this view,especially those who take the floating NC to be adverbial in nature. See, for example,
Nakanishi (2007) for a recent work along this line. In this section, I present some data
pointing to the view that at least some instances of floating classifiers must involve stranding.
As a starting point of discussion, let us introduce Jenks’ (2011) cross-linguistic
generalization concerning floating/stranded NC.
(24) Only those classifier languages that have (or allow) the Noun-NC order allow NC-float(head-final languages: Burmese, Japanese, and Korean; head-initial languages: Thai,
Khmer).

- 97 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

To the extent that the stranding view is correct, (24) has an implication that it is the
postnominal NC, not the prenominal NC, that should be related to the stranded NC. The idea
is that NP-movement takes place in both cases, but they differ with respect to the final
position of NP. If NP ends up in the left edge of the nominal domain, we get the postnominal
NC construction, as shown in (25a). If NP moves out of the nominal domain, into the VP
domain or further up, we get the floating/stranded NC construction, as shown in (25b).
(25) a.

XP
3
NP
X′
2
CLP
X
2
#
CL′
2
tNP
CL

b.

2
NP 2
V′
2
CLP
V
2
#
CL′
2
tNP
CL

With this idea in mind, let us consider the examples in (26), which, like our earlier examples
in (6), contain the NC and the universal quantifier subete. But, this time, the NC and subete
both occur postnominally, and only the order in (26b) is allowed. Given our earlier discussion
based on (7), we can conclude that, as far as the postnominal domain is concerned, theelement that occurs to the right takes in its scope what occurs to its left. (26a) is
ungrammatical because the universal quantifier is within the scope of the numeral, as
illustrated in (27a). (26b) is fine because the universal quantifier is not in the scope of thenumeral, as shown in (27b).
(26) a.

* taroo-wa gyooza
subete go-ko-otabe-ta.
Taro-TOP dumpling ∀5-CL-ACC eat-PAST(*N ∀ NC)

‘Taro ate all (of the) five dumplings.’b.

taroo-wa gyooza
go-ko
Taro-TOP dumpling 5-CL

subete-o∀-ACC- 98 -

tabe-ta.
eat-PAST(N NC ∀)

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)(27) a.

*

XP
2
NP
X′
2
CLP
X
2
#
CL′
2
∀P
CL
2
tNP
∀

b.

∀P
2
XP
∀
2
NP
X′
2
CLP
X
2
#
CL′
2
tNP
CL

Let us now turn to some related cases where classifiers and/or subete are stranded.6 In (28a)and (28b), the adverbial phrase sono toki ‘that time’ is inserted in such a way to separate
go-ko ‘5-CL’ and subete ‘∀’, respectively, from the rest of the object noun phrase. The
contrast in acceptability between the two examples mirrors the word order restriction that we
witnessed in (26). The same remark applies to (29), where the noun (phrase) gyooza‘dumpling’ is separated from go-ko ‘5-CL’ and subete ‘∀’ by the adverbial phrase.
(28) a.

* taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(*N ∀ NC)gyoozasubete-odumpling ∀-ACC

sono toki go-ko
that time 5-CL

tabe-ta(koto)
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all of the five dumplings at that time’b.

taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(N NC ∀)

gyoozago-ko-odumpling 5-CL-ACC

sono toki subete tabe-ta(koto)
that time ∀eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all of the five dumplings at that time’(29) a.

* taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(*N ∀ NC)gyooza-o
dumpling-ACC

sono toki subete go-ko
that time ∀5-CLtabe-ta(koto)
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all of the five dumplings at that time.’b.

taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(N NC ∀)

gyooza-o
dumpling-ACC

sono toki go-ko
that time 5-CL

subete tabe-ta(koto)∀
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all of the five dumplings at that time.’
This is quite suggestive that examples such as (28b) and (29b) involve stranding. I will thus
explore the possibility that such examples are derived from a structure like the one in (27b)6

See Kawashima (1998) for related data and discussion.

- 99 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

(except that its subpart moves out of the nominal domain). To be more specific, if it is just the
NP that moves out of the nominal domain, we will get the word order in (29b). If XP, a larger
chunk, moves out of the nominal domain, we can derive (28b). Crucially, there is no way toyield (28a) or (29a) from the structure in (27b). For example, gyooza ‘dumpling’ and subete‘∀’ do not form a constituent to the exclusion of go-ko ‘5-CL’. Also, subete ‘∀’ and go-ko‘5-CL’ cannot form a unit in this order. In what follows, I would like to focus on data like(29b), where NP is separated from NC + subete.
It is worth introducing Cirillo’s (2010) discussion of examples corresponding to (29b) in
Dutch, Romanian, and Italian. In the Dutch example given in (30b), all drie ‘all three’modifies the subject de studenten ‘the students’. Following Cirillo, I will refer to this type of
construction as the “universal numeric quantifier” (UNQ) construction. All the Dutch
examples below are taken from his work.7(30) a.

b.

Alle drie de studenten
all three the students

hebben het boek gelezen.
havethe book readDe studenten hebben alle drie het boek gelezen.
the students have
all three the book read

Cirillo (2010) points out that that the stranded UNQ is clearly not adverbial. When theuniversal quantifier in Dutch is stranded on its own, it may (or it often does) take theadverbial form, as shown in (31b). But it cannot appear in the adverbial form in the UNQ
construction, as shown in (32b). Once again, this is a good indication that such examples arederived via stranding.
(31) a.

b.

(32) a.

b.

Al de studenten hebben het boek gelezen.
all the students havethe book readDe studenten hebben allen / allemaal
the students haveall / all (adv.)
Alle drie de studenten
all three the students

het boek gelezen.
the book readhebben het boek gelezen.
havethe book readDe studenten hebben alle / *allemaal
the students haveall / all (adv.)

drie het boek gelezen.
three the book readTo this we can add evidence from Japanese that the floating UNQ is not a base-generated
complex quantifying expression of the kind shown in (33a) for English, which has often beenpresented in the relevant literature as evidence against the stranding view. In particular, I
7

Although I accept Cirillo’s (2010) conclusion that the UNQ construction is derived via stranding,there may be some questions about the specifics of his analysis, in particular, his claim that thenumeral and the universal are base-generated as a complex head.

- 100 -

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

show below that examples like (29b) are not derived in the manner shown in (33b), with theellipsis of the pronominal part of a base-generated, appositive-like nominal.
(33) a.
b.

The students have all three of them passed the exam.
gyooza-otaroo-ga
dumpling-ACC Taro-NOM

sore-ra go-ko
them
5-CL

subete tabe-ta(koto)∀
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate the dumplings, all five of them’
The crucial data is (34). As shown in (34a), when NP, numeral, and subete are together, it ispossible to insert -no between them, e.g., between the NC and subete. We could analyze such
examples as instances of a partitive construction, with the meaning ‘all of the five dumplings.’
In the context of stranding, however, insertion of -no is impossible, as shown in (34b). Thisshows that (29b) does not contain a base-generated, appositive-like NP.
(34) a.

taroo-ga
Taro-NOM

gyoozago-ko(-no)
subete-odumpling 5-CL -GEN ∀-ACC

tabe-ta(koto).
eat-PAST (fact‘(the fact that) Taro ate all five of the dumplings’b.

taroo-ga
Taro-NOM(koto)(fact

gyooza-osono toki
dumpling-ACC that time

go-ko(*-no)subete tabe-ta
5-CL -GEN ∀eat-PAST

This is a good indication that examples like (29b) are derived via stranding. Consider (35) inthis light. Our discussion indicates that stranding (i.e., NP movement out of the nominal
domain) is possible in (35a), but not in (35b). But why does the presence of -no make such a
difference? Several possibilities come to mind. For example, comparing the two structures in(35), we see that NP is more deeply embedded in (35b), due to the presence of an extra
projection, PP. This might have something to do with the contrast between the two.
Alternatively, extraction may be impossible because of Last Resort. Suppose that -no is a
postposition, assigning Case to its CLP complement. Now, CLP needs Case precisely because
it is an extended projection of NP. If NP-movement is motivated for Case reasons (as Huang
and Ochi (2011) speculate), then there should be no motivation for NP to move out of thenominal domain, and by economy reasoning, it cannot move out.

- 101 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(35) a.

b.

∀P
2
CLP
∀
2
#
CL′
2
NP
CL

∀P
3
PP
∀
3
CLP
P
2
g
#
CL′
no
2
NP
CL

X
4. Ellipsis
The general picture laid out so far has implications for nominal-internal ellipsis
paradigms. As discussed by Saito et al. (2008) and Tsai (2011), the NC construction in
Chinese allows nominal-internal ellipsis (by which I mean nominal ellipsis to the exclusion of
the NC part). In the following example, shu ‘book’ in the second clause is missing.
(36) Suiran Zhangsan mai-le[san-ben shu],though Zhangsan buy-PERF [3-CLbookdan Lisi mai-le[wu-ben shu]but Lisi buy-PERF [5-CLbook‘Lit. Zhangsan bought three books, but Lisi bought five.’
As for Japanese, the postnominal NC does allow nominal-internal ellipsis, as shown in (37)(see Takahashi 2008). The Chinese NC construction and the postnominal NC constructions inJapanese thus behave on a par in this respect.
(37) busshu-wa [jibun-ni kansuru hon] ni-satsu-oBush-TOP [self-DAT related book 2-CL-ACC
obama-wa e 3-satsu-oyonda.
Obama-TOP
3-CL-ACC readyonda.
read‘Bush read two books about himself. Obama read three e.’(√ sloppy)

The prenominal NC nominal in Japanese, on the other hand, does not allow ellipsis, as
discussed extensively by Saito et al. (2008).
(38) * taroo-wa[san-satsu-no hon] -oTaro-TOP [3-CL-GEN
book-ACC[go-satsu-no hon]-okatta.
[5-CL-GEN book-ACC bought

katta
ga,
bought thoughhanako-wa
Hanako-TOP‘Taro bought three books, but Hanako bought five.’
One could say that this fact follows from the postulated structure in (2), according to which- 102 -

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

the prenominal NC is an NP-adjunct. For concreteness, let us adopt an LF copying approach
to nominal ellipsis (see Saito 2007). On the assumption that a syntactic operation can affect amaximal projection or a head, but not a segment of a projection, (38) would not be derivablebecause a syntactic operation cannot copy the object noun in the first conjunct in such a way
to exclude san-satsu-no ‘3-CL-GEN’ from being copied along with the lower segment of theobject noun phrase.
But things are not so simple. Consider the following example from Watanabe (2010).
(39) taroo-wa
Taro-TOP
katta.
boughtsan-satsu-no
3-CL-GEN

hon-obook-ACC

katta
ga,bought thoughhanako-wa
Hanako-TOP

go-satsu
5-CL‘Taro bought three books, but Hanako bought five.’
The first clause contains the prenominal NC, and the nominal hon ‘book’ is missing from thesecond clause. One potential source of the latter clause is the stranded NC construction, withthe deletion of NP (i.e., argument drop).
(40) taroo-wa [NP san-satsu-no [NP hon]]-o katta ga, hanako-wa [NP hon]-o go-satsu katta
LF copy
Watanabe rejects this line of analysis on the basis of the familiar parallelism requirement
imposed on ellipsis. But whether or not parallelism is violated in this case needs to becarefully examined. Note that ellipsis is in general sensitive to the presence or absence of an
adjunct element associated with the elliptical site. Consider the following example.
(41) taroo-wa
jiroo-gakaita hon-o
katta
ga,
Taro-TOP Jiro-NOM wrote book-ACC bought thoughkawa-nak-atta.
buy-NEG-PAST

hanako-wa
Hanako-TOP‘Lit. Taro bought the book(s) that Jiro wrote, but Hanako didn’t buy.’
The most salient reading of the second clause is that Hanako did not buy the book(s) that Jiro
wrote. Crucially, it does not mean that Hanako did not buy a book/books, which indicates thata relative clause cannot be ignored upon copying the object of the first clause. The following
VP-ellipsis example, taken from Oku (1998), points to the same conclusion.
(42) John washed a car carefully, but Mary didn’t.
The second clause means that Mary washed a car but not in a careful manner, according to
Oku (1998). Again, it does not mean that Mary did not wash a car. Thus, a VP-level adverb
must be included in the interpretation of the elided VP. Seen in this light, (40) does not seem- 103 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

to be an adequate analysis of (39).
According to Watanabe, (39) is instead derived from the prenominal NC source, as
schematically shown below. The idea is that -no of san-satsu-no ‘3-CL-GEN’ is a linker,
inserted by a -no insertion rule of the kind discussed by Kitagawa and Ross (1982). Crucially,
Watanabe argues that this insertion rule is sensitive to the overt realization of the head noun:
it is inoperative when the head noun is elided.
(43) … hanako-wa[go-satsu hon]-o… Hanako-TOP [5-CLbook-ACC

katta
boughtThis is an interesting argument. Nevertheless, there is some indication that examples like (39)are in fact derived from the stranded NC construction, not from the prenominal NC
construction. According to Nakanishi (2007), the stranded NC typically has the forced
distributive reading, which is clear when a predicate like koros- ‘kill’ is employed.
(44) a.

san-nin-no
3-CL-GENotoko-gaman-NOM

taroo-okoroshita.
Taro-ACC killed(prenominal NC)‘Three men killed Taro.’
b.

otoko
man

san-nin-ga
3-CL-NOM

c. * otoko-ga
san-ninman-NOM 3-CL

taroo-okoroshita.
Taro-ACC killed(postnominal NC)

taroo-oTaro-ACC(stranded NC)

koroshita.
killedNow, let us consider the following example using koros- ‘kill’, which, like (39), contains aprenominal NC in the first clause and lacks an overt nominal associated with the NC in thesecond clause. The unacceptability of this example indicates that such examples necessarily
come from the stranded NC construction. If such an example could come from the prenominal
NC source, it would be unclear why it is unacceptable.
(45) kyonen san-nin-no otoko-ga
jiroo-okoroshita.
last year 3-CL-GEN man-NOM Jiro-ACC killed*kotoshi
go-nin taroo-okoroshita.
*this year 5-CL
Taro-ACC killed‘Last year three men killed Jiro. This year, five men killed Taro.’
The example is fine without ellipsis.

- 104 -

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)(46) kyonen
last year
kotoshithis year

san-nin-no
3-CL-GEN
go-nin-no
5-CL-GENotoko-gajiroo-oman-NOM Jiro-ACC
otoko-gataroo-oman-NOM Taro-ACC

koroshita.
killedkoroshita.
killed‘Last year three men killed Jiro. This year, five men killed Taro.’
Thus, I conclude that (39) involves the stranded NC, not the prenominal NC.
But, then, we need to explain the difference between (39) (as analyzed in the mannershown in (40)) on the one hand and (41) and (42) on the other. Recall that the (im)possible
interpretations of the latter examples indicate that an adjunct element modifying the target of
ellipsis cannot be ignored for the purpose of LF copying operations, be it NP-ellipsis or
VP-ellipsis. But this is exactly what we find in (40), as we are assuming with Saito et al.
(2008) and Miyamoto (2009) that the prenominal NC is an adjunct to NP.
In this context, I would like to introduce Oku’s (1998) subset copy principle, whichbasically states that a (proper) subset of the antecedent can be copied and supplied as thecontent of the elided material under LF-copying operations. Among other things, Oku’s
proposal is intended to deal with what Fiengo and May (1994) calls ‘vehicle change’
phenomenon, exemplified by (47) below.
(47) Mary will admire John, and he thinks Susie will, too.
This example allows co-reference of John and he. But, as noted by Fiengo and May, if theantecedent VP is copied into the second clause “as is”, as shown in (48a) below, it should leadto a Condition C violation. Following Fiengo and May, Oku argues that (47) has (48b) as wellas (48a) as a possible LF representation. Of course, there are no binding condition violationsin (48b).
(48) a.
b.

Mary will [VP admire John], and he thinks Susie will [VP admire John], too.
Mary will [VP admire John], and he thinks Susie will [VP admire him], too.

This is made possible by the subset copy principle, and by the idea that a pronoun is merely acollection of φ-features while an R-expression contains φ-features and some additionalfeatures (relevant for their intrinsic referential property) (see Burzio 1991): simply put, the setof features for the pronoun he is a subset of the feature set for R-expressions like John.
Now, Oku’s subset copy principle should allow the representation in (40). The LF
copying operation should be able to copy the segment of the object NP, hon ‘book’, ignoring
the upper segment, i.e., san-satsu-no ‘3-CL-GEN’. Of course, the same reasoning should
apply to (41) and (42). But I suspect that the parallelism constraint would interfere withignoring the adjunct in such cases. Note that (38) can still be ruled out under this line ofanalysis. There is no attachment site for the NP-adjunct go-satsu-no ‘5-CL-GEN’ before a
copying operation creates the object nominal in the second clause.

- 105 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 20125.

Conclusion

To summarize, adopting Huang and Ochi’s (2011) analysis, I have discussed three issues
in connection with classifiers inside and outside the nominal domain. First, the contrast
between Chinese and Japanese with respect to the (in)compatibility of -men/-tachi and theclassifier can receive a simple, syntactic account. Second, there is a good indication that thefloating universal numeric quantifier involves stranding. Finally, some asymmetries in thedomain of ellipsis follow rather naturally from the postulated structures for Japanese/Chinese
NC constructions.

References
Bale, A. and H. Khanjian (2008) “Armenian Classifiers and Number Marking,” SALT XVIII.
Borer, H. (2005) In Name Only, Oxford University Press.
Burzio, L. (1991) “The Morphological Basis of Anaphora,” Journal of Linguistics 27, 81–105.
Cheng, L. and R. Sybesma (1999) “Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and the Structure of NP,” Linguistic
Inquiry 30, 509–542.
Chierchia, G. (1998a) “Plurality of Mass Nouns and the Notion of Semantic Parameter.” In S.
Rothstein, ed., Events and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 53–103.
Chierchia, G. (1998b) “Reference to Kinds across Languages,” Natural Language Semantics 6,
339–405.
Cirillo, R. (2010) “Issues in the Study of Floating Universal Numeric Quantifiers,” Linguistics 48,
573–601.
Downing, P. (1994) Numeral Classifier Systems: The Case of Japanese, John Benjamins.
Fiengo, R. and R. May (1994) Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Huang, C.-T. J. and M. Ochi (2011) “Classifiers and Nominal Structure: A Parametric Approach and
Its Consequences,” Proceedings of GLOW-in-Asia VIII, 191–197.
Hudson, W. (1989) “Functional Categories and the Saturation of Noun Phrases,” Proceedings of NELS
19, 207–222.
Iljic, R. (1994) “Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two Markers of Plurality,” Linguistics 32,
91–116.
Jenks, P. (2011) “Thai Quantifier Float as Quantifier Raising,” Proceedings of GLOW-in-Asia VIII,
198–204.
Kawashima, R. (1998) “The Structure of Extended Nominal Phrases: The Scrambling of Numerals,
Approximate Numerals, and Quantifiers in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7,
1–26.
Kitagawa, C. and C. Ross (1982) “Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese,” Linguistic
Analysis 9, 19–53.
Kurafuji, T. (2004) “Plural Morphemes, Definiteness, and the Notion of Semantic Parameter,”
Language and Linguistics 5, 211–242.
Li, Y.-H. A. (1999) “Plurality in a Classifier Language,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 75–99.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Academic Press, New York.
Miyamoto, Y. (2009) “On the Nominal-Internal Distributive Interpretation in Japanese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 18, 233–251.
Muromatsu, K. (1998) On the Syntax of Classifiers, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.
Nakanishi, K. (2007) Formal Properties of Measurement Constructions, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

- 106 -

Numeral Classifiers, Plural/Collective Elements, and Nominal Ellipsis (M. Ochi)

Nakanishi, K. and S. Tomioka (2004) “Japanese Plurals are Exceptional,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 13, 113–140.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.
Saito, M., T.-H. J. Lin and K. Murasugi (2008) “N′-Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in
Chinese and Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247–271.
Sauerland, U. and K. Yatsushiro (2004) “A Silent Noun in Partitives,” Proceedings of NELS 34,
101–112.
Shlonsky, U. (2004) “The Form of Semitic Noun Phrases,” Lingua 114: 12, 1465–1526.
Takahashi, D. (2008) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 394–422.
Tang, C.-C. J. (1990) Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-Bar Theory, Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, Ithaca.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (2011) “Rethinking Formal Licensing,” Paper presented at Glow in Asia: Workshop for
Young Scholars, Mie University, September 8, 2011.
Ueda, Y. and T. Haraguchi (2008) “Plurality in Japanese and Chinese,” Nanzan Linguistics Special
Issue 3.2, 229–242.
Watanabe, A. (2006) “Functional Projections of Nominals in Japanese: Syntax of Classifiers,” Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 24, 241–306.
Watanabe, A. (2010) “Notes on Nominal Ellipsis and the Nature of no and Classifiers in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 61–74.

- 107 -