Markedness and unmarkedness of language:
When double negation appears attributively
Takashi HAMADA (Keio University Graduate School)
This study aims to examine the markedness of language in the light of negative expression.
Special attention will be paid to what is called “double negation” involving affixation like notunkind or not unimportant. Doubly negated expressions have attracted much attention andinterest mainly from logicians, linguists and philosophers. At the same time, however, it isalso true that some scholars have been reluctant to attack on double negation seriously on the
ground that these expressions are “limited to the speech of the educated” or not more than“sophisticated detour” (Marchand 1969). Particularly, little has been elucidated about double
negation within a single nominal phrase. However, it is not at all insignificant to attempt to
explain linguistic markedness equipped with such expressions, because it provides a goodchance to examine the relationship between formal and semantic markedness which entails
much room for more consideration. A corpus-based research in this study shows thatseemingly marked expressions can be unmarked in a specific linguistic context, and viceversa.
Leech (2006) observes “where there is a contrast between two or more members of acategory such as number, case, or tense, one of them is called ‘marked’ if it contains someextra affix, as opposed to the ‘unmarked’ member which does not". Following his definitionof markedness, (apart from simplex adjectives loaded with negative evaluation) negative
expressions are ‘marked’ in general. Whether they are realized in a syntactic or morphologicalpattern, any expression involving negation is both semantically and formally marked,
compared with their affirmative counterparts (which can be called “unmarked”). Besides that,
there is another contrast between markedness and unmarkedness involving negation; even
within a variety of negative expressions, we can find difference in the extent to which each
one is marked or unmarked. In addition to the presence of a specific marker (formal
markedness), being marked entails a sort of deviation from the default meaning (semantic
markedness). For example, it is often said that syntactic negations like she is not happy is lessmarked than morphological negations like she is unhappy, which dose not simply negate but
asserts a certain quality. Lexically integrated into a single adjective, negative components (orthe resultant adjectives) take on a specialized meaning rather than a mere denial.
Can positive and negative expressions always and simply be applied to unmarkedness andmarkedness respectively? Double negation, studied by Langendoen and Bever (1973) andHorn (1989), provides several reminders that this is not necessarily the case. Such expressions

have an intensively affirmative meaning and in other cases partially deny the negative content
denoted by the adjectives. They are interesting because they come into existence by the
combination of morphological and syntactic, in other words, marked and unmarked negations,which would turn out to be marked taken as a whole in spite of positive interpretation. More
important is that a certain construction refuses positive adjectives, accepting only negatively
affixed ones. Horn classifies the patterns in which double negations occur into two: (a){a/the} not un-adj N and (b) NP is not {a/the} not un-adj N. Horn names the former doubly
negated attributive adjective (DNAA henceforth) in contrast with the latter predicative.
Broadly seen, the former is based on a rather irregular pattern. Horn states that “no simple
adjective, whether (e-)’evaluatively’ positive or negative, may appear in the frame [DET Not
ADJ N]” (1989: 298)
(1) a. He sent me a not {unfriendly/ *friendly} letter.
b. A not {unhappy/ *happy/ *sad} person entered the room.
(Horn 1989: 299)
In order to examine the affinity between DNAA and negative adjectives, a research basedon Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) was conducted as to what kind of
adjectives appears in the frame [DET Not ADJ N]. As a result, it turned out that most of theadjectives appearing in this frame consist of a negative prefix and the base (e.g. insignificant,inconsiderable, uncommon). This testifies that the construction exclusively prefers negative
adjectives. It is important that not every kind of negative adjectives can appear in this pattern;
adjectives associated with generality or significance are particularly compatible. In this poster
presentation, the infrequent case where a simplex adjective appears in this construction and its
cause will also be examined. The infrequency can be said to show that in DNAA non-negative
adjectives take on much more marked characteristics than usual, motivated contextually by
the preceding expressions, while negative adjectives seem more unmarked as a typicalparticipant in [DET Not ADJ N].
Selected Bibliography
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. CSLI.
Langendoen, D. T. and T. G. Bever.1973. Can a not unhappy person be called a not sad one?
In Anderson, S. and P. Kiparsky (eds.)A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt.
Leech, G. 2006. A Glossary of English Grammar. Columbia University Press.
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Type of Present-day Word-formation. O.
Harrassowitz.

One Syntactic Structure for Four Voices in Japanese
Takashi Kayashima
Graduate School of Kyushu University
In Japanese, some problems concerning Case exist which cannot be explained by the current
Case-valuation system.
(1) Taroo-ga
Hanako-*o/ni
kusuri-onom-(s)ase-ta.
Taroo-NOM Hanako-ACC/DAT medicine-ACC
take-CAUSE-PAST
Taroo made Hanako take medicine.
(2) a. Taroo-ga
eigo-ohanas-(r)eru (koto).
Taroo-NOM English-ACC
speak-CAN
Taroo can speak English.
b. Taroo-ni/ga
eigo-gahanas-(r)eru (koto).
Taroo-DAT/NOM
English-NOM speak-CAN
In (1), although the Causee Hanako is an object, we cannot mark it as accusative but it has to be marked as
dative. This phenomenon was first explained by Harada (1973), in which the “double-o constraint” isproposed, which bans marking more than two DPs as accusative in a single clause. (2) is an example ofsentences which indicates someone’s capability (henceforth “capability sentence”). Although (2a) is thepattern of Case-marking which is naturally expected in current Case-valuation system, the distribution ofcase such as (2b) is possible as well.
In this presentation, I propose structure (3) for four types of voices (active, passive, causative andcapable), whose Case-valuation system can cover facts (1) and (2). I assume that a functional projection
whose head has a feature [± vol(itional)] exists between TP and vP. This functional projection decides thevoice of the sentences, so we call this functional projection VoiceP. A head of this projection probes the goal
which has an appropriate volitional feature. According to whether voice has [+ vol] or [- vol] and which DP
has the volitional feature that matches the feature of voice, the voice of certain sentence is decided. As for
the Case-valuation system, I assume that TP Spec and VoiceP Spec are Nominative Case positions, vP Specis Dative Case position, and Complement of V is Accusative Case position.
(3) [TP Spec[[VoiceP Spec[[vP Spec[[VP Comp V]v]]Voice]]T]][Nom][Nom] [Dat][Acc][±vol]
Here, I show four patterns of derivation: active, passive, causative and capable voice.
(4) Hanako-ga Taroo-o tataita. (Active)[TP Hanako [T’ [VoiceP Hanako [Voice’ [vP Hanako [v’ [VP Taroo tatak]v]]Voice]]T]][+ vol][+ vol]agree
In active sentences like (4), Voice has [+ vol], the DP in vP Spec has [+ vol], and the complement of V has [vol]. Thus, Voice and the DP in vP Spec hold Agree-relation, and the DP in vP spec moves to VoiceP Spec,and it is assigned Nominative by T, moving to TP Spec.
(5) Taroo-ga Hanako-ni tatak-(r)are-ta. (Passive)[TP Taroo [T’ [VoiceP Taroo [Voice’ [vP Hanako [v’ [VP Taroo tatak]v]]Voice]]T]][- vol][- vol]agree
In Passive sentences such as (5), Voice has [- vol], the DP in vP Spec has [+ vol], and the complement of V

has [- vol]. Therefore, Agree-relation is held between Voice and the complement of V, after that thecomplement of V moves to VoiceP Spec and receives Nominative from T, moving to TP Spec.
(6) Taroo-ga Hanako-ni kusuri-o nom-(s)ase-ta. (Causative)[TP Taroo [T’ [VoiceP Taroo [Voice’ [vP Hanako [v’ [VP kusuri nom]v]]Voice]]T]][+ vol][+ vol]agree
In causative sentences like (6), Voice has [+ vol], the DP in vP Spec has [- vol], and the complement of V
has [- vol], which means that Voice cannot find an appropriate goal to check its [+ vol]. In this case, anotherargument which has [+ vol] in numeration is introduced into VoiceP Spec. Note that the distribution of casein (1) is expected in this structure. As Causee is base-generated in vP Spec, which is Dative Case position,
Causee is always marked as dative, not accusative.
(7) Taroo-ni eigo-ga hanas-(r)eru (koto). (Capable)[TP Taroo [T’ [VoiceP Taroo [Voice’ [vP Taroo [v’ [VP eigo hanas]v]]Voice]]T]][- vol][- vol]agree
In capable sentences such as (7), Voice has [-vol], the DP in vP Spec has [- vol], and the complement of V
has [- vol]. As the DP in vP Spec is nearer to Voice than the complement of V, Agree-relation is held between
Voice and the DP in vP, and the DP moves to VoiceP Spec. Now, let us consider the problem of casedescribed in (2b). As the subject Taroo is in TP Spec and the object eigo is a complement of V in (7), thedistribution of case as (2a) is naturally expected. In order to explain the pattern in (2b), I adopt Brueing(2001) and Narita’s (2007) framework here. In general, Case is supposed to be an uninterpretable feature,and once it is given certain value, it cannot go through another Case-valuation (cf. Chomsky 2001). However,Bruening (2001) suggests that even after Case-valuation, the Case feature can be given a new value by
multiple Agree / Case-valuation because uninterpretable features are not removed until Spell-Out. Following
this idea, Narita (2007) suggests that while it is assumed that the former value of Case is forgotten once theCase is re-valued as in Bruening (2001), it is also possible that the former value of Case is realized or thatboth values are realized. In fact, Cuzco Quechua is a language where both values of Case are realized as
Narita (2007) shows. Now, suppose that in capable sentences in Japanese multiple Agree takes place andboth the DP in vP Spec and the complement of V move to VoiceP Spec. Then, after certain capable sentences’
derivation finishes, the subject is in Nominative Case position having gone through Dative Case position,and the object is in Nominative Case position having gone through Accusative Case position, which meansthat all the variations of distribution of Case in capable sentences are expected.
References
Bruening, Benjamin (2001) Syntax at the Edge: Cross-Clausal Phenomena and the Syntax ofPassamaquoddy, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz,
1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Harada, Sin-iti (1973) “Counter Equi-NP Deletion,” Annual Bulletin Research Institute of
Logopaedics and Phoniatrics, Tokyo University, 11, 131-154.
Narita, Hiroki (2007) “Spelling-Out Case-Values: In View of Passive Constructions, with Special Reference
to Japanese Possessor Passive,” Proceedings the 21st Annual Meeting of The Sophia University
Linguistic Society, 1-24.

The Syntactic Licensing of THE HELL
Hiroko Kimura
Nagaoka National College of Technology
The purpose of this study is to present novel arguments for Huang and Ochi’s (2004) syntactic
licensing mechanism of the hell. One outstanding property of the hell is that it cannot modify
wh-phrases in situ, as shown in (1).
(1) a. What the hell did you eat?
b.* Who ate what the hell?
Another property is that wh-the-hell sentences are used when the speaker has specific attitude suchas surprise. To explain these properties, Huang and Ochi argue that the hell must be licensed in“Attitude Phrase (ATTP),” an articulated projection of TP. Thus, (1a) is derived as (2).
(2) a. [TP you [VP eat what the hell]]]b. [ATTP what the hell [TP you [VP eat t]]]c. [CP what the hell [... did… [ATTP t [TP you [VP eat t]]]]]
What the hell moves to Spec-CP via Spec-ATTP, where the hell is licensed. Moreover, theungrammaticality of (1b) can be straightforwardly explained; since what the hell stays in situ, thehell fails to be licensed in Spec-ATTP.
Ochi (2004) claims that this licensing mechanism can also explain the following data ofsluicing.
(3)

I know Pat wanted to buy something,a. … but I don’t know what [TP he wanted to buy t].
b.* … but I don’t know what the hell [TP he wanted to buy t].

(López (2000))

Of importance is that the hell cannot modify a remnant wh-phrase in Sluicing. Ochi (2004) reduces
this fact to the parallelism condition on ellipsis; in (3b), the elided clause and its antecedent clause
are not parallel in the sense that the former contains Attitude Phrase, which is required to license thehell, whereas the latter does not.
Although Ochi’s explanation is straightforward, it faces a serious problem in accounting for thefollowing example of swiping.
(4) They were arguing, but I don’t know what the hell about [TP they were arguing t].
(Sprouse (2005))
Although swiping is a sub-type of sluicing, the hell can modify the remnant wh-phrase. Ochi’s
explanation wrongly rules out this example as a violation of the parallelism condition; the elided

clause contains Attitude Phrase whereas its antecedent clause does not.
Facing this situation, we have two choices; one is to abandon Huang and Ochi’s licensing
mechanism of the hell and the other is to discard the standard analysis of sluicing. This study takes
the latter choice, claiming that a wh-phrase can stay in situ in regular sluicing. We adopt Agbayani’s(2000) movement theory, according to which wh-movement in (5) proceeds as (6).
(5)

I can’t imagine what she is reading.

(6) a. [TP she’s reading what]b. [CP wh [C’ Q [TP she’s reading what]]]: Feature Movementc. [CP whati [CP wh [C’ Q [TP she’s reading ti]]]]: Category Movement

The initial step is feature movement of the wh-feature. The second step, category movement, istriggered by the PF adjacency condition: a moved formal feature and its category must be
phonetically adjacent to each other. Utilizing this mechanism, this study analyzes (3b) as (7).
(7) a. [TP he wanted to buy what the hell]b. [CP wh [C’ Q [ATTP … [TP he wanted to buy what the hell]]]]: Feature Movementc. [CP wh [C’ Q [ATTP … [TP he wanted to buy what the hell]]]]: Deletion

Deletion eliminates all the interveners between the moved wh-feature and what, so that the PF
adjacency condition is satisfied without recourse to category movement. Since there is no stage ofthe derivation where the hell moves to Spec-ATTP, it fails to be licensed.
In contrast, swiping needs category movement. For instance, (4) is derived as (8).
(8) a. [TP they were arguing about what the hell]b. [CP wh [C’ Q [ATTP [TP they were arguing about what the hell]]]]: Feature Movementc. [CP what the hell [CP wh [C’ Q [ATTP t [TP they were arguing about t]]]]:Category Movement

d. [CP what the hell [CP wh [C’ Q [ATTP t [TP they were arguing about t]]]]: Deletion

The preposition about, an unrecoverable element, woks as an intervener, so that what the hell
undergoes category movement to Spec-CP via Spec-ATTP, where the hell is licensed.
This is how the distribution of the hell can be explained in accordance with Huang and Ochi’s
licensing mechanism. In addition to the examples discussed above, this study considers a variety ofdata in ellipsis contexts.
Selected References: Agbayani, B. (2000) “Wh-Subjects in English and the Vacuous Movement
Hypothesis,” LI, 31, 703-730. Huang and Ochi (2004) “Syntax of Hell: Two Types ofDependencies, NELS 34, 279-293. Ochi (2004) “Some Remarks on Wh-the-hell Questions,” ms.
Osaka University.

Emphasis Generation Scheme
Hideo Kobayashi (Osaka Prefecture University)
This study presents a flow chart for the emphasis generation scheme(henceforth, EGS) that underlies emphatic speech production in English (SeeFigure 1). The EGS represents a sequence of rule-based processes, each ofwhich the speaker attends to at the time of producing an emphatic utterance.
The outer bold line represents the EGS from which an utterance is
articulated in the speech organs. The arrows indicate the output of one
process becoming the input of the next process (See Figure 1).
INTENDINGEMPHANALYZINGCONTEXTSELECTINGEMPH-CUES

Sound cues

Rhetorical cues

Morpho-lexical cues

Syntactic cues

ENCODINGUTTERANCE*EFFORT
ARTICULATINGSPEECH-ORG
Emphatic utterance

Emphatic utterance
in whispers

Figure 1: A flow chart for the EGS in English

The initial process has one rule. INTENDINGEMPH requires the speaker tochoose which information unit to emphasize and map its meaning to the unit.
The speaker decides how much degree of emphasis about the target matter
needs to be raised so that the addressee will know how important that unitis.

Levelt (1989: 65) states that “The speaker respects, or takes into accountthe rights, capabilities, propensities, and feelings of the other parties.”
Therefore, the speaker factors a wide range of socio-linguistic factors incontext. This is called ANALYZINGCONTEXT . The way in which the speakerarticulates his/her words also depends on what kind of impression he/she
wishes to make and the formality of the situation (McMahon 2002). Then the
speaker will use the appropriate tactics for emphasis from a wide array ofsound, rhetorical, morpho-lexical, and syntactic cues. This is denoted as
SELECTINGEMPH-CUES. This rule requires the speaker to select linguistic cues for the
purpose of emphasis with an appropriate degree of markedness so that theaddressee will pay special attention to an information unit of importanceunder emphasis. For example, sound cues include shifting primary stress tothe syllable that otherwise would be treated as unstressed. As a case in point,
in American English, the word enthusiasm can have the primary stress shift
to the word edge -asm for emphasis (Bolinger 1978).
Satisfying SELECTINGEMPH-CUES with the chosen cues for emphasis causes the
speaker to encode the information units in the correct grammatical orderand then retrieve their phonological forms from the system of sounds (Levelt1989). This process is represented by ENCODINGUTTERANCE . Emphasis in
non-whisper causes violation of *EFFORT . *EFFORT entails that the
principle of linguistic economy should be respected at the time of articulation.
Whispering for emphasis (Coleman 1914) does not violate *EFFORT .
Therefore, the arrow from ENCODINGUTTERANCE goes directly to ARTICULATINGSPEECH-ORG(See Figure 1). The final process of the EGS is that the articulatory organs
produce the target utterance. This is represented as ARTICULATINGSPEECH-ORG .
References

Bolinger, D. (1978). Intonation across languages. In J, H. Greenberg (Ed.),
Universals of human language, Vol. 2, Phonology. (pp. 471-524).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Coleman, H. O. (1914). Intonation and emphasis. (T. Iwasaki, Trans.) Tokyo:
Kenkyu sha.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
McMahon, A. (2002). An introduction to English phonology. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.

Puzzles with the Desirative Predicate Hoshii ‘Want’ in Japanese
Hideki Maki and Satoru Yokoyama
Gifu University and Chiba Institute of Science
1. Introduction
This paper points out two puzzles with the desirative predicate hoshii ‘want’ in Japanese,and argues for (i) the hypothesis that the morpheme TE is a COMP for an infinitival clause,and (ii) the Optional Complex Predicate Formation Hypothesis.
2. The Puzzles
First, in (1), the dative phrase Ichiroo-ni ‘Ichiro-Dat’ sounds perfect, while thenominative counterpart is degraded to some native speakers of Japanese, as pointed out by
Maki (2005) based on a questionnaire-based survey.
(1)

Watashi-wa Ichiroo-ni/(*)-ga warat-te hoshii.
I-Top
Ichiro-Dat/-Nom smile-TE want
‘I want Ichiro to smile.’

On the other hand, when the subject of the complement clause is inanimate such as ame‘rain,’ the sentence becomes ungrammatical with the dative subject, but is better with thenominative subject, as shown in (2). This is extensively discussed in Takezawa (1987).
(2)

Watashi-wa ame*-ni/-ga
fut-te hoshii.
I-Toprain-Dat/-Nom fall-TE want
‘I want it to rain.’

Second, hoshii ‘want’ must change to the 3rd person form hoshigatteiru ‘want.3,’ when
the subject is a 3rd person, as shown in (3).
(3) a.

b.

Watashi-wa mizu-ga
hoshii/*hosigatteiru.
I-Top
water-Nom want/want.3‘I want water.’
Shinjoo-wa mizu-o*hoshii/hoshigatteiru.
Shinjo-Top water-Acc want/want.3‘Shinjo wants water.’Now, in (4), the dative subject is perfect, while the nominative subject is totallyungrammatical.
(4)

Shinjoo-wa Ichiroo-ni/*-ga warat-te hoshigatteiru.
Shinjo-Top Ichiro-Dat/-Nom smile-TE want.3‘Shinjo wants Ichiro to smile.’

Furthermore, when the subject of the embedded clause is inanimate, the sentence becomes
ungrammatical, as (5) shows.

1(5) * Shinjoo-wa ame-ni/-ga
fut-te hoshigatteiru.
Shinjo-Top rain-Dat/-Nom fall-TE want.3‘Shinjo wants it to rain.’
Since both the predicate forms hoshii ‘want’ and hoshigatteiru ‘want.3.’ take the clauseheaded by TE, the structure of the TE-clause should be identical in (2) and (5). Yet, only (5) iscompletely ungrammatical with the nominative subject in the clause.
3. Discussion
Let us consider what the above puzzles may suggest for the theory of (Japanese)grammar. First of all, let us consider what the ungrammaticality of (2) with the dative
inanimate subject suggests. It is well-known that Japanese shows subject-predicate agreementin terms of the animateness of the subject, as shown in (6).
(6)

Asoko-nineko-ga iru/*aru.
over there-at cat-Nom exist[+animate]/exist[-animate]‘There is a cat over there.’

It seems then that the animate restriction may be put on the dative subject in the hoshii ‘want’
construction in Japanese. Therefore, unless the dative subject is personated, the sentence
becomes ungrammatical in (2). With this in mind, let us consider the contrast between (2)with the nominative subject and (5) with the nominative subject, the second puzzle. The
ungrammaticality of (5) seems to be attributed to the fact that the nominative Case issomehow unavailable on the subject in the embedded clause in (5). We claim, essentiallyfollowing Maki’s (2005) suggestion, that the element TE is a COMP for an infinitival clause,
similar to for in English, so that there is a CP boundary between the matrix predicate and theembedded predicate. Since the embedded predicate is infinitival, it cannot license nominative
Case on the subject in the embedded clause, so that (5) is correctly ruled out.
If TE is a head of CP, then, this raises the question as to why the grammaticality
judgment for (1) with the nominative subject in the embedded clause varies from grammaticalto ungrammatical, the first puzzle. For Takezawa (1987), the matrix Tense lowers to theembedded predicate, licensing the nominative Case on the embedded subject. However, thisdoes not explain why (1) is judged ungrammatical by some native speakers of Japanese. We
propose that the variation in grammaticality for (1) suggests the Optional Complex Predicate
Formation Hypothesis. For those who allow (1), complex predicate formation takes place, andthe sequence warat-te hoshii ‘smile-TE want’ becomes a single stative predicate, which
licenses the nominative Case on the subject, just as in (3a). On the other hand, for those who
disallow (1), such complex predicate formation does not take place, and the nominative Caseon the subject is not licensed.
The proposed hypothesis, one may argue, would incorrectly predict (4) with thenominative subject to be grammatical, as Tense of the complex predicate may license thenominative Case on the subject. However, there is a crucial difference between (4) and (1).
The matrix predicate in (4) is a transitive verb, while it is an adjective in (1). Based on thiscontrast along with the proposed hypothesis, we claim that the ungrammaticality of (4)suggests the nature of complex predicate formation, namely, the matrix predicate keeps its
argument structure. Thus, in (4), the embedded subject becomes the internal argument of thetransitive verb hoshigatteiru ‘want.3,’ thus, cannot have nominative Case.

2

Graduality and Type Four Verb
Jongkyun Mok and Yusuke Yoda (Kinki University)

Proposal: In this paper, we will provide new look for the verbal classification provided by (Kidaichi:
1950). Verbs, such as “sobieru (tower)”, are classified into the instant CHANGE-OF-STATE verb (iCOS) andothers, such as “niru (resemble) and oiru (age)”, are a sub-class of the gradual CHANGE-OF-STATE verb
(gCOS), such as “fukuramu (balloon), agaru (rise)”. Moreover, we will point out the fact that they behave
differently with respect of graduality.
Facts: Verbs, such as “fukuram-u (expand), chikazuk-u (approach), agar-u (rise)” are said to express thegCoS. (cf. Moriyama: 1988), since these words can co-occur with “dan-dan”, which denotes the gradualincrease as in (1). Moreover, V-te iru form of these verbs entails the existence of the event (Dowty 1977)
as illustrated in (2). An interesting property of this type of verbs is that they can be used to express bothprog(ressive) and perf(ect) interpretation within V-te iru construction (cf. Moriyama 1984) as illustrated in(3). A similar type of verbs can be found within the TYPE 4 VERBS. It is known that TYPE 4 VERBS must
appear within V-te iru construction as in (4). TYPE 4 VERBS are classified into the CHANGE-OF-STATE (CoS)
verb, since they express adjectival reading in the relative clauses with past-tense morpheme –ta (cf,Kusumoto 2013). As illustrated in (5) the motion verb “hashiru (run)” cannot obtain adjectival reading
within the relative clause but CoS “siru” and TYPE 4 VERBS “niru” can.
Assumption: Here we assume, following Nakatani (2010), a CoS verb involves a transition with theentailment and the presupposition as in (6).
“Siru (Know)”: Given the assumption in (6), the event “siru” and the state “sit-te iru” are roughly depicted
as in (7). In (7), X is a transition point (e1). Any time interval before e1 is “¬know” state. Any time interval
after e1 is “know” state. The transition of the situation takes place instantaneously and this verb has aterminal point and thus it is a telic verb. Moreover, the result state does not involve any scale, and thus, it isincompatible with a degree modifier as in (8).
“Agaru (Rise)”: The semantics of “agaru (rise)” is roughly described as in (9) and also it denotes bothprog. and perf. interpretations. This type of verb has an arbitrary end-point as indicated in (11a,b). Thus,
This type of verb is a telic verb. Furthermore, (11a) entails (11b) and (11c) is grammatical.
“Niru (Resemble)” “Niru” is classified into TYPE 4 VERBS and also gradable as in (12) (cf.“agaru” in(11c)), but it must be used in the V-te iru environment. Unlike (11c), however, this type of verbs does nothave an arbitrary end-point. As shown in (13) if A and B are 0 or 100 percent similar, the sentence turn tobe ungrammatical.
Summary: In this paper, we claim that there are two different classes of verbs within TYPE 4 VERBS in
Kindaichi (1950)’s classification, iCoS and gCoS. Moreover, the gCoS verbs in TYPE 4 VERBS are, in fact,classified into the sub-set of the regular CoS verb as in chart 1.
DATA(1) a. Fuusen-ga dan-dan fukuramu. b. Kabuka-ga dan-dan agaru.
Balloon-NOM gradually balloons
stock.price-NOM gradually rise
“A balloon gradually balloons.”“The stock price gradually rises.”“dan-dan fukuramu”(2) a. Kabuka-ga

agat-te iru

entailsb. Kabuka-ga

agat-ta.

stock.price-NOM rise-TEIRU
stock.price-NOM rose.
“The stock price is rising.”“The stock price rose.”(3) a. Netsu-ga jyojyo-ni sagat-te iru.
b. Netsu-ga sagat-te iru.
fever-Nom gradually fall-teiru
fever-Nom fall-teiru.
“Temperature is gradually falling.”“Temperature has fallen”(4) a. Biru-ga yama-ni {*sobieru/sobie-te iru}. b. Taro-ga titi-ni{*niru/ni-te iru}.
Taro-NOM mountain-LOC tower/tower-TEIRU
Taro-NOM father-DAT resemble/resemble-TEIRU“Taro knows the answer.”“Taro resembles his father.”(5) a. *Hashit-ta michib. shit-ta kao
c. ni-ta hito.
run-TA street
know-TA faceresemble-TA person.
“(lit.) the run street” “an acquaintance”“ a look alike.”TTSS(6) a. ∃e1 [P(e1 ) at t] ENTAILS ∃e2 [P(e2 ) at t +1]
b. ∃e1T [P(e1T) at t] PRESUPPOSE ∃e2S[¬P(e2S) at t -1](Where eT is an event variable of the transition and eS is of the state type)(7)============== X(e1) ----------------------->…
¬ knowtransition know = “sit-te iru”
(8) *Taro-ga Jiro-o {hyakupa-sento/kinoo yori} sitte-iru
Taro-NOM Jiro-ACC 100 percent / yesterday THAN
know-TEIRU.
“Taro completely knows Jiro / Taro knows Jiro better than yesterday”(9) The degree of x in the state of en+1 at t is larger than the one in the en at t-1. (en<en+1)(10) a. Kabuki-ga sakki-yoriagat-teiru.
b. Kabuka-ga
mata agat-teiru.
stock.price-Nom right-now-than rise-teiru.
stock.price-Nom again rise-teiru.
(11) a. Kabuka-ga
kinoo yori agatte-iru. b. Kabuka-ga kinoo yori agatta.
stock.price-NOM yesterday-than rise-TEIRU stock.price-NOM yesterday-THAN rose
“The stock price is higher than one yesterday.”c. Mizu-no ondo
-ga 0-do-kara 50-do-ni agatta.
water-Gen temprature-Nom 0-CL-from 50-CL-to rose
“The temperature of water rose from 0°C to 50 °C.”(12) A-sya-no syoohin-wa
B-sya-no yori C-sya-no-ni{nite-iru/ *ni-ta} .
A-company-GEN product-TOP B-company-THAN C-compnay-thing-DAT resemble-TEIRU“A product by A is similar to a product of C more than a product of B.
(13) A-sya-no syoohin-wa
B-sya-no-ni {*0 /*100/50} paasento nite-iru.
A-company-GEN product-TOP B-company-thing-DAT {0/100/50} percent resemble-TEIRU“A product by A is {0/100/50} percent similar to B.”
CHART 1
CHANGE-OF-STATE VERBSINSTANCE CHANGE-OF-STATEGRADUAL CHANGE-OF-STATE
✓
Scale
N/A
PartlyInstancessiru/ sobieru
agaru/fukuramu
niru/ oiru

Recursive compounds in Phase Theory
Makiko Mukai
University of Kochi
I will argue that what Kageyama (2001, 2009) calls Word Plus-level compounds and what
Tokizaki (2011) calls recursive compounds are derived in the narrow syntax in the Phase Theory(Chomsky 2001, 2008). The examples in Japanese are represented below (1-2).
(1) [[nise danuki] shiru]
mock badger soup
'mock-badger soup'(2) [[booeki gaisha] shachoo]trading company president'president of a traditing company'(Tokizaki 2011)(Kageyama 2001, 2009)

Word Plus-level compounds are called thus, as they are phonologically two words. There isa slight pause between the second and third constituents. Here, Tokizaki argues that there are twoheads in this type of compounds, namely, danuki and shiru in (1) and gaisha and shachoo in (2). In
addition, unlike normal lexical compounds, part of Word Plus-level compounds can be coreferential
with a syntactic phrase.
However, the internal structure of this type of compounds cannot be syntactically deformed
by deleting or replacing part of them.
In this presentation first, I will argue the following examples are also Word Plus-levelcompounds or recursive compounds, in English (3-4), and Mainland Scandinavian (5-6), as theyshare the above characteristics of (1) and (2).
(3) [[waste disposal] plan](4) [[peanut butter] sandwich](5) [[jule-mand] kostume]
Christmas-man costume'Santa suit'(6) [[bo-stad]-s-kvarter]
live-place -Link-area'residential area'
These examples have the lexically or syntactical characteristic of compounds. However, they do notobey the anaphoric island and there is a slight pause between the second and third constituents.
Note that the existence of the linking morpheme in (6) or a number of recursive compounds in
Mainland Scandinavian enables the whole compouund to have the left-branching interpretation, orotherwise, the whole compound does not exist. The existence of linking morpheme marks shorter
juncture between its constituents than its corresponding right-branching compound (bo-standkvarter), which in this language does not exist.
Secondly, the paper criticizes Bauke's (2013) theory of compound word formation. She
proposes that syntactic compounds, such as those represented in (1) – (6) can be formed in the
narrow syntax by first merging a stem with a categorizing nominal head that carries inflectionalfeatures and subsequently inserting this piece of non-maximal structure into the abstract clitic
position of the compound head. However, the operation violates the Extention Condition (Chomsky
1993, 1995). The Extension Condition prohibits using the Clitic position to introduce anothermodifier to derive a compound word. For example, the derivation of a peanut butter sandwich by
first forming butter sandwich, then moving butter, and then introducing the new lexical item peanutin place of butter violates the Extension Condition. As a result, her analysis certainly does notadhere to the minimalist theory of phrase structure rules.
As a result, the author proposes a better analysis of this type of compounds in Phase Theory.

As word formation is also recursive like phrase formation, I will argue that word formation takes
place in the narrow syntax. Then, following Boeckx (2008) that every second instance of merge
constitues a phase and Marantz (2007) that syntactic computation could be unified above and below
the word level, I will argue that a category-less root is merged with a syntactic head, thus turning
the root in an n (Marantz 2007). Later, another root is merged to form a compound word. Here, the'compound' is transferred to the interpretational component and is spelled-out. Here, the twomember compound with its syntacitc head is interpreted semantically and phonologically. This
interpretation is different depending on the two roots. The two roots are not merged immediately, as
the interpretation of the whole compound allows for alternative, compositional interpretation.
merging a category-less root with a syntactic head
The resulting structure can be merged with another [root + n], which is constructed inparalell. The derivation, as a result, does obey the Extension Condition, as every new element ismerged with the top node of the tree in the new analysis.
Selected References:
Bauke, L. 2013. 'A Phase-theoretic analysis of root compounds (from a cross-linguistic
perspective),' in C. Rhys, P. Iosad & A. Henry (eds). Microvariation, Minority Languages,
Minimalism and Meaning: Proceedings of the Irish Network in Formal Linguistics.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 150-170.
Kageyama, T. 2001. 'Word Plus,' in J. van der Weijer and T. Nishihara (eds.) Issues in JapanesePhonology and Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 245-76.
Kageyama, T. 2009. 'Isolate: Japanese, ' in Lieber, R and P. Štekauer (eds.) The Oxford Handbookof Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 512-526.
Keyser, S.J. & Roeper, T. 1992. 'Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis,' in Linguistic Inquiry 23, 89125.
Roeper, T & Snyder, W. 2005. 'Language learnability and the forms of recursion, ' in Di Sciullo, A.
M. (ed.) UG and external systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155-69.
Tokizaki, H. 2011. 'The nature of linear information in the morphosyntax-PF interface,' in English
linguistics, 28(2), 227-257.

Ellipsis Licensing under E-Feature Movement
Rumi Takaki
Kyushu University
This research presents a mechanism of ellipsis licensing in terms of E-feature
movement, which can account for comprehensive ellipsis constructions; they include
not only sluicing, VP-ellipsis, pseudogapping but also gapping and stripping which havenot been treated as ellipsis (cf. Lobeck (1995)).
First, before mentioning E-feature movement, we overview Hoshi (2011).

He

proposes E-feature-driven Spell Out (ESO) and argues the following subset relation.
(1) ESO preempts CSO (cyclic Spell-Out) iff ESO domain ⊇CSO domain.
(Hoshi (2011: 113))(2) a. Sluicing: [CP… C[E] {〈〈[TP… T [vP …v 〈[VP V…]〉〉]]〉〉}]
b. vP-ellipsis (VP-ellipsis): [CP …C〈〈[TP…T[E]｛[vP …v 〈[VP V…]〉
〉]｝
｝]〉
〉]
In (2a), according to the condition in (1), since the head C has the E-feature, the Spell
Out of VP is canceled and the deletion operation is applied to TP in sluicing. In (2b),because the head T carries the E-feature, the Spell Out of VP is canceled and vP is
deleted at PF in vP-ellipsis (VP-ellipsis). However, at the point of the merge between
the head v and VP, whether VP is deleted or not cannot be decided until the upper headwith the E-feature is merged and this will cause a look-ahead problem. Therefore, we
assume that the E-feature originally does not generate in an upper head such as T or C,
but it moves up cyclically from a lowest phase head, the head v, to the upper visible
head and when the lowest phase head v carries this E-feature, the transfer of thecomplement of the v head, namely VP, is canceled.
Second, following Merchant (2001), we assume that an E-feature is an
uninterpretable feature and a deletion operation is applied to a complement of a head
carrying E-feature. In addition, we also assume the following condition proposed by
Richards (2007).
(3) Value and Transfer of uFs must happen together.
(Richards (2007: 566))
Taking the condition in (3) into account, we propose that an E-feature must be in atransferred domain.
As for the transfer domain, following Obata (2010) and Goto (2010), we assume
that in matrix clause CP, TP and the edge of vP are transferred simultaneously while inembedded clause a usual cyclic transfer, in which CP is not transferred, is applied.
Given those assumptions above, we can account for the reason why gapping andstripping are restricted in a matrix clause while sluicing, VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping
can appear in both matrix and embedded clauses.
(4) a. Some had eaten mussels, and others shrimp.
b. *Some had eaten mussels, and she claims that others shrimp.

(gapping)(5) a. The critics praised your book, and the poem too.
b. *The critics praised your book, and someone told me that the poem too.
(stripping)(6) a. A: Someone called.

B: Really? Who?

b. Joe says he is investigating someone, but he won’t tell me who.
(7) a. John kissed Mary and Bill did, too.

(Sluicing)b.John kissed Mary, and I’m pretty sure (that) Bill did, too. (VP-ellipsis)(8) a. Some had eaten mussels, and others had shrimp.
b. Some had eaten mussels, and she claims that others had shrimp.
(pseudogapping)In this analysis, we assume that in sluicing, gapping and stripping, which consist of CP
domains, an E-feature originates in the head v to a visible head in the CP domain and
TP deletion occurs at PF. Moreover, in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping, an E-feature
moves to the upper head, the T head and the Foc head respectively, and vP is deleted.
From those assumptions made above, we will show that our claim successfully
explains (un)grammaticality caused by the differences between matrix and embedded
clauses in ellipsis constructions and provide an unified account for ellipsis
constructions.
Selected References
Hoshi, Koji (2011) “Wh-Extraction (A)Symmetries Between Sluicing and VP-Ellipsis
Revisited,” English Linguistics 28 (1), 107-119.
Lobeck, Anne (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of
Ellipsis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Obata, Miki (2010) Root, Successive-Cyclic and Feature-Splitting Internal Merge:
Implications for Feature-Inheritance and Transfer, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan.
Repp, Sophie (2009) Negation in Gapping, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Richards, Marc (2007) “On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase
Impenetrability Condition,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563-572.

Comparison of English and Japanese conditional clauses
AkitakaYamada (University of Tokyo)
yamada@phiz.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp

1. Synopsis

The purpose of this presentation is two-fold: (1) to point out typological differences

between English and Japanese conditional clauses, concerning what is called Main Clause Phenomena,and (2) to argue that feature-based movement analysis, initiated by Haegeman (2009, 2010a, 2010b,
2013), can account for the differences.

2. Previous research

There exist two different analyses on the syntax of conditional clauses: truncation

approach and movement approach.

- Truncation Approach

Taking the split-CP analysis for granted, Haegeman (2003, 2006) proposed

truncation approach: she proposed that the lack of some functional projections in conditional clauses
leads to the unavailability of higher hosting places, which could otherwise accommodate such elements as
topic phrases and speaker-oriented modal phrases, as in matrix clauses.

- Movement Approach

The movement approach explains MCP in the following way. First, as Bhatt

and Puncheva (2002, 2006) have been suggesting, conditional clauses are made by operator movement --a movement of an operator with a [+Q] feature. Second, topic phrases and speaker-oriented subjective
phrases also have the same feature. Therefore, the operator cannot move over any topic/speaker-oriented
expressions, because of the intervention effect (the violation of Relativized Minimality, Rizzi 2004).
Hence, Main Clause Phenomena (Haegeman 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2013).

3. Problems

Although Haegeman herself shifted her paradigm from truncation approach to movement

approach, the movement approach as well as the truncation approach is not without problems. So, what
we have to do is to find another data which can clinch the argument of these two approaches.

4. Proposal

The comparison between Japanese and English conditionals gives us an insight into the

problem. I claim that (i) unlike English conditional markers (i.e. typically if, as in (1)b), one of theJapanese corresponding morphemes, -ba, can co-occur with the wh-elements (=(1)a), while (ii) the
wh-elements themselves cannot co-occur with an adverb mosi (= (1)c). We cannot attribute this to theidiosyncratic nature of this adverb. Since, as shown in (2), adverbs with similar meaning show the sameunacceptability, it is preferable to assume that it is due to the feature shared by these adverbial
expressions.

(1) Comparison between English and Japanese conditionals

(2)

a.

-ba：

Dare -ni kik -e -ba,kotae -gawakar -u-no?
who DAT ask SUB COMP answer NOM
see
PRS Q
“Please tell me the person xi, and xi is the person from whom I can get the answer
if I ask himi.”

b.
c.

if:
*If I ask whom, can I get the answer?
mosi： *Mosi dare -ni
kik -e
-ba,
kotae
-ga
wakar -u -no?
adv.
who DAT ask SUB COMP answer NOM see
PRS Q“Please tell me the person xi, and xi is the person from whom I can get the answer
if I ask himi.”*{Kari-ni/man-ga-iti/man-iti} dare -ni kik -e -ba, kotae -ga wakar -u -no?
“Please tell me the person xi, and xi is the person from whom I can get the answer if I ask(ed)himi.”

(3)
if

-ba

Property 1: Making a Subordinate Clause

✓

✓

mosi
*

Property 2: Feature Contradicting wh- elements

✓

*

✓

Postulating the [+Q] feature and movement in the conditional clause gives us an answer. Since discussing
the interpretability of [+Q] (that is, a feature expressing the speaker’s uncertainty) entails arguing the
speaker’s subjective attitude to the proposition he utters, this proposal not only makes a contribution to
the syntactic aspect of the conditional clauses, but to the semantic side of the conditional clauses.

Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumyana Puncheva (2002) Locality in Correlativization. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 21. 485-541.
Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumyana Puncheva (2006) Conditionals. In Everaert, M and an Riemsdiyk, H. (Eds.) The
Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol 1. 638-687. Boston and Oxford: Blackwell.
Haegeman, Liliane (2003) Conditional clauses: external and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18. 317 -339.
Haegeman, Liliane (2006) Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116. 1651-1669.
Haegeman, Liliane (2008) The Syntax of adverbial clauses and the licensing of Main Clause Phenomena. Truncation
or intervention? Paper Presented at the 31st GLOW Conference. University of New Castle. 26-28. March 2008.
Haegeman, Liliane (2009) Main clause phenomena and the derivation of adverail clauses. In Proceedings of the 18 thInternational symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISTHAL). Aristotle University ofThessaloniki.
Haegeman, Liliane (2010a) The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120. 628-648.
Haegeman, Liliane (2010b) The Movement Derivation of Conditional Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 595-621.
Haegeman, Liliane (2013) The Syntax of Adverbial Clauses. Paper Presented at Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium.
Palacký University Olomouc.
Rizzi, Luigi (2004) Locality and Left Periphery. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.) Structures and Beyond: The Cartographyof Syntactic Structures, vol III. 223-251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eliminating the EPP toward a principled explanation: Labeling in the ECM construction
Toshiyuki YAMADA (The University of Tokyo)†
1. Introduction
This study focuses on the Exceptional Case-Marking (ECM) construction in English and proposesthat we can eliminate the “mysterious property” Extended Projection Principle (EPP) (Chomsky2008) as a consequence of the labeling algorithm (Chomsky 2013). The EPP was formulated by
Chomsky (1982: 10) as purely grammatical requirement: “clauses have subjects.” Since then, theexistence of the EPP has been controversial (see, e.g., Grohmann et al. 2000; Lasnik 2001).
2. Background2.1. ECM construction
Chomsky (2008: 153) presents the following interesting observation:(1) a. *Of which car did the driver cause a scandal?
b. Of which car did they believe the driver to have caused a scandal?
The so-called subject island is in effect in (1a) but apparently not in the ECM construction in (1b).
Assuming derivation by phase (C and v*) (Chomsky 2001), Chomsky (2008) accounts for theasymmetry in (1a-b) as in (2a-b) (t stands for the lower copy of the driver of which car).
(2) a. *[C Of which car did the driver [v*P t cause a scandal]]?
b. [C Of which car did they [v*P1 believe the driver to [v*P2 t have caused a scandal]]]?
In (2a), it is possible to raise the driver of which car in Spec-v* to Spec-T by C-T feature
inheritance for φ-feature agreement, whereas it is impossible to raise of which car in Spec-v* toSpec-C by the edge feature of C for question making because the latter needs too deep search,
violating Minimal Computation (MC) as a third factor principle (Chomsky 2005).1 In (2b), after theraising of the driver of which car in Spec-v*2 to the embedded Spec-T, it is possible to raise thedriver to the matrix Spec-V by v*1-V feature inheritance and raise of which car to the outer
Spec-v*1 by the edge feature of v*1 simultaneously (notice that there is no C phase in theembedded clause). In the ECM construction as in (2b), the raising of the embedded subject inSpec-v*2 to the embedded Spec-T is considered a residual EPP effect (Chomsky 2008).
2.2. The labeling algorithm
Chomsky (2013) assumes that the labeling algorithm (LA) finds the closest head as label of thesyntactic object (SO) in question by MC, and discusses the LA by two cases. One case is the SO
like {H, XP} (H is a head and XP not a head). In this case, the LA reaches H as the closest head anddetermines it as label. The other case is the SO like {XP, YP}. In this case, the LA reaches equallyclose X and Y, resulting in {XP, YP} unlabeled. One way to solve this is to raise either of XP and
YP. Consider the following basic transitive configuration (EA is External Argument and IA Internal
Argument):(3) T [α EA [v*P v* [VP V IA]]]In (3), the LA cannot determine the label of {EA, v*P}; thus, α. Chomsky (2013: 44) argues that the
EPP is forced as a consequence of the LA. That is, if EA is raised to Spec-T, α is labeled v*Pbecause the lower copy of EA is invisible to the LA.
3. Proposal
The current study proposes that the raising strategy of the LA holds not only in (3) but also in theembedded subject in the ECM construction as in (2b), where a residual EPP effect is assumed. It
follows that we could eliminate the EPP as a consequence of the LA (cf. Moro 2009/2013).
Let us examine how the proposal works out. Consider the ECM construction in (4a) and its
syntactic derivation in (4b) (φ stands for the label of shared prominent φ-features (Chomsky 2013),
and means the lower copy of X).
(4) a. They expect him to take syntax.
†

toshiyamada@hotmail.co.jp
In this paper, specifier or Spec is used just as a descriptive term for convenience, and we distinguish the EPP from theedge feature (see fn. 2 below).
1

b.

CP
C

φ
DP
They

TP1
T1

γ  v*P1DP
φ-feature agreement(MC for labeling)

v*P1
φ

v*1
V1 v*1 DP
expect

him

VP1
V1

β  TP2DP
φ-feature agreement

TP2
T2
to

MC for labelingα  v*P2

DP

v*P2
φ

v*2
V2 v*2DPtakesyntax

VP2
V2

DP

We focus on α, β, and γ, which are encircled in (4b). If him remains at Spec-v*2, α is unlabeled.
Instead of appeal to the EPP or some kind of feature spread (Chomsky 2008: 157), the present
analysis solves this as a consequence of the LA. That is, him is raised to the closest specifier (i.e.,
Spec-T2) by MC; hence, α is labeled v*P2, which is not explicitly discussed by Chomsky (2013).
Notice that this also makes minimal computation in terms of distance the subsequent raising of him
to Spec-V1 by v*1-V1 feature inheritance for φ-feature agreement, resulting in β labeled TP2 (thisraising is discussed by Chomsky (2013: 47)). An alternative is to raise him in Spec-v*2 directly toSpec-V1. However, the present analysis assumes that this option is avoided by MC. As for γ, they israised to the closest specifier (i.e., Spec-T1) by C-T1 feature inheritance for φ-feature agreement,
and consequently γ is labeled v*P1, satisfying MC.
The present analysis applies to (2b). The driver of which car in Spec-v*2 is raised to the closest
specifier (i.e., the embedded Spec-T) to determine the label by MC. Then, it is possible to raise thedriver to the matrix Spec-V by v*1-V feature inheritance and raise of which car to the outer
Spec-v*1 by the edge feature of v*1 simultaneously. This yields the convergent derivation of (1b).
Note that in the present analysis of the ECM construction, the embedded subject is raised to theembedded Spec-T first, and then the subsequent operations are driven simultaneously. The
examination of ordering is deferred in future research.
4. Theoretical Implication
If the EPP is motivated only by purely grammatical requirement, and if the LA is motivated by MC
and by “the general principle that all SOs that reach the interfaces must be labeled” (Chomsky
2013: 45), the elimination of the mysterious EPP as a natural consequence of the LA leads us to aprincipled explanation. The question of what ramifications for the study of language are possible by
the grammar without the EPP should be explored empirically as well as theoretically.2
References
Chomsky, Noam (1982) Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) Derivation by phase. In: Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, pp. 1-52. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1-22.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) On phases. In: Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues inlinguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, pp. 133-166. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K., John Drury, and Juan Carlos Castillo (2000) No more EPP. In: Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle
Lillehaugen (eds.), WCCFL 19: Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 153-166. Somerville:
Cascadilla Press.
Lasnik, Howard (2001) A note on the EPP. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 356-362.
Moro, Andrea (2009/2013) Rethinking symmetry: A note on labeling and the EPP. In: Andrea Moro, The equilibrium of humansyntax: Symmetries in the brain, pp. 200-201. New York: Routledge.
2

One possibility might be that we could distinguish the EPP from the edge feature, reducing the former mysterious
property of T to a consequence of the LA and maintaining the latter as the proposition-making property of the phasehead (cf. Chomsky 2008). Then, however, we might have to explore why the edge feature exists in human language.

On the Availability of the Causative Alternation: Evidence for Externally Caused Eventuality
Masaki Yasuhara
University of Tsukuba
It has been observed that the causative alternation is possible with change of state verbs whose
eventuality can be brought about without the intervention of an agent (Levin and Rappaport Hovav(1995)).
(1) a.
John broke the window.
b.
The window broke.
(2) a.
John murdered Sandy.
b. * Sandy murdered.
(Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012))
The event of breaking the vase can occur without the intervention of an agent, whereas that ofmurdering Sandy requires the intervention of an agent.
Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) state that verbs that permit the causative alternation such as
break allow agents as well as instruments or natural forces as subject, as in (3). The verb murder, on
the other hand, does not allow instruments nor natural forces as subject, as in (4).
(3){ The vandals / The rocks / The storm } broke the windows.
(Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:103))(4){ John / #The knife / #The earthquake } murdered Sandy.
(Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2012))
Verbs such as destroy and demolish (hereafter, destruction verbs), however, do not obey thisgeneralization because they do not allow the causative alternation, even though they permit agents,
instruments or natural forces as subject:(5) a.
John destroyed the vase.
b. * The vase destroyed.
(6){ John / The bomb / The fire } destroyed the manuscript.
(Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou and Schäfer (2006))(7) a.
John demolished the statue.
b.
The shed demolished.
(Talmy (1985:84))(8) b.
The fire demolished our storage area.
(BNC)c.
A bomb demolished the dwelling of a municipal judge in Boston.
(Robert K. Murray, Red Scare)
Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou and Schäfer (2006) observe that destruction verbs denote eventualities
that must be externally caused, and the meaning of obligatory external causation forbids them fromparticipating in the causative alternation. The verb break, on the other hand, does not require theexistence of external cause, so it allows the anti-causative use. Their analysis suggests that thepresence or absence of obligatory external causation is systematically correlated with the availabilityof causative alternations.
The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between the presenceor absence of obligatory external causation and the availability of causative alternations. Specifically,I show that the eventualities denoted by destruction verbs require external immediate cause, whereas
the eventuality of the verb break does not. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:135) state that
immediate cause occurs in the external argument position. Following them, I argue that destruction
verbs require external immediate cause, which must be linked to the external argument (i.e. the NP in
the subject position of active sentences or the NP in the by phrase of passive sentences), while theverb break does not. This analysis is supported by the following two pieces of evidence.
Firstly, break allows its subject and object to be co-referential, whereas destruction verbs do not.
(9) a.
The vase broke itself.
b. * The car destroyed itself.
c. * The car demolished itself.
Since the eventuality of break does not necessarily require the existence of external immediate cause,
the referent of the vase in itself can be the cause of its change of state. The destruction verbs, on theother hand, require their eventuality to be externally caused, so the entity denoted by the car cannot
be the cause of its change of state.
Secondly, break is compatible with the PP onto the floor, but destruction verbs are not.
(10)
(In the meaning that John shattered the vase/statue by dropping it onto the floor/ground.)a.
John broke the vase onto the floor.
b. ?? John destroyed the statue onto the ground.
c. ?? John demolished the statue onto the ground.
The PP onto the floor evokes a situation in which an entity dropped onto the floor. In (10), thephysical contact between the vase/statue and the floor/ground (but not the agent John) is the external
immediate cause of the event in which they were shattered. Sentence (10a) is fine because break
does not require an external immediate cause in the subject position. Sentence (10b) and (10c), on
the other hand, is anomalous because the destruction verbs require the existence of an external
immediate cause in the subject position but the subject NP John is not appropriate as the external
immediate cause here.
To sum up, I have argued that the eventualities denoted by destruction verbs require an external
immediate cause, whereas the eventuality of break does not. An external immediate cause must be
linked to the external argument, either the subject NP position in active sentences or the NP position
in by phrases of passive sentences. Thus, this paper provides empirical evidence for the systematic
correlation between the availability of causative alternations and the presence or absence of themeaning of obligatory external causation.
References / Corpus: Alexiadou, A, E. Anagnostopoulou and F. Schäfer (2006) “The Properties of
Anticausatives Crosslinguistically,” M. Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation, Mouton, Berlin,
187-212. / Beavers, J. and A. Koontz-Garboden (2013) “In Defense of the Reflexivization Analysisof Anticausativization,” Lingua 131, 199-216. / Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav (1995)
Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. / Talmy, L.
(1985) “Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms,” T. Shopen (ed.) Language
Typology and Semantic Description Vol. 3, 36-149, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. /British National Corpus. [BNC] (http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc).