Two Types of L1 Transfer in Japanese EFL Learners’ L2 English
Atsushi Fujimori (University of Shizuoka)
Mineharu Nakayama (The Ohio State University)
Noriko Yoshimura (University of Shizuoka)
This study examines two types of L1 transfer, syntactic and semantic, which emerge in theperformance by Japanese learners who are learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in
Japan. Particularly, we look at their acquisition of subject seem raising (SSR) and object
relative clause construction (ORC) in English, as in (1a) and (1b), respectively. Much researchhas been conducted on the investigation of L1 effects in the field of second language acquisition(SLA) (White 2003, Lardiere 2006, Schwartz and Sprouse 2013). However, L1 transfer is stilla major issue subject to much deeper investigation to identify which aspect of L1 affects whichpart of L2 in the acquisition process. Our discussion is both theoretical and experimental fromthe new perspective of intervention by analyzing our results from Japanese EFL learners basedon the Japanese-and-English comparison of SSR and ORC constructions. The outcome of thisstudy can make an important contribution to the advancement in the SLA research field.
We first discuss the results of two experiments on the comprehension of SSR
constructions, one with 30 high school students (TOEIC range 215-625, CEFR A2) and theother with 53 college students (Low: n=28, TOEIC 320-500, A2, High: n=25, TOEIC 635-830,
B1). Their comprehension results in Table 1 show that the SSR is acquired much latepresumably due to an intervention effect, unlike the subject control, even though bothconstructions have intervening Susan (2a) and Mary (2b) blocking an anaphoric relation
between the matrix subject and the embedded null subject (△) (Nakayama and Yoshimura2020). We then consider ORC production (writing) data taken from 28 Japanese college
students (TOEIC 545-615, CEFR B1). The participants were asked to complete a sentence inwriting following the instruction in Japanese, like “Describe a sailor in Picture A so that Marican select him” (Figure 1). Their production results show that overall, the relative clause is notdifficult to produce if the passive relative clause (PRC) is also counted as correct, as in Table
2. However, the grouping of the ORCs into 4 categories according to the [+/-animate] featureof the head and the subject induces one significant finding: The learners are significantly
affected by the animate RC head when the subject is inanimate, thereby producing the ORC
58.3% of the time compared to 75.9% on the average in the other three constructions. Given
these experimental results, we explore the following 2 questions from the viewpoint of L1
transfer in L2 acquisition: (I) Why do Japanese EFL learners perform poorly on thecomprehension of the SSR construction due to intervention? (II) Why do they tend to produce
the PRC (3b) over the ORC (3a) with the animate head and inanimate subject of the RC?
Question (I) pertains to L1 syntactic transfer whereas the second question concerns L1
semantic transfer. We postulate that what is responsible for the learners’ difficulty with the SSR
is the structural absence of the SSR in Japanese. According to Kishimoto (2005) and Takezawa(2015), yooda and rashii, semantically equivalent to seem, are not verbs, and more importantly,
the subject in (4a), a translation equivalent to (1a), is base-generated without Case-triggered Amovement as in (4b), unlike the SSR in English. This syntactic difference led the learners tomisinterpret the experiencer DP to be the subject of the infinitive clause as in (5). Regarding
Question (II), we first point out that the RC in active voice is easier for the learners to acquire
than that in passive voice. We hypothesize that their choice of the PRC in the animate-headand-inanimate-subject RC construction emerges as a result of the topicality of the relative headcoupled with the rarity of the overt inanimate subject in Japanese (Kuno 1976). This induces
the downgrading of an overt logical subject to an oblique adjunct inside the by-phrase in thepassive, with the null gap being left in the embedded subject position, as in (6a), due to thesemantic/pragmatic L1 transfer. Our conclusion will further be compared with a set of oral
production data from 10 native speakers of English.
(1) a. John seems to Mary to be happy. (SSR)
b. The girl that a dog is kissing.
(ORC)(2) a. Hanako promised Susan △ to join the school tennis team.
b. Kenji seemed to Mary △ to be an excellent singer for the school festival.
Table 1: Average correct response percentages by group (%)
Group
Subject Control (2a)Raising (2b)High school students (n=30)
7142
Describea policeit.
College [16]students-Low
group(n=28) car in Picture
74 B so that Mari can select38
College students-High group (n=25)
92
67

A
Figure 1. Production example:

B

A

B

Mari
Mari

A police car is following a sailor.

A police car is chasing a robot.

A sailor is following a police car.

Mari, select the picture of the police car

A sailor is chasing a police car.

.

Mari,
the
picturethe that
policecarcar＿＿＿＿(3) a. ORC:
Mari,selectselect the
pictureof theofsailor
a police
is following. ＿＿＿.
b. PRC: Mari, select the picture of the sailor that is followed by a police car.
Table 2 Mean correct response rates by production sentence type (%)

ORC
PRC
Errors[-A] [-A]
71.1
12.2
16.7

[-A] [+A]
66.7
21.7
11.7

[+A] [-A]
54.44
21.1
24.4

[+A] [+A]
75.6
11.1
13.3

(4) a. Mari-ni
Zyon-ga siawase-ni omoeru/mieru
b. [TP1Mary for [vP[TP2John-NOM happy] can-think/see]](5) Japanese EFL learners’ interlanguage grammar[TP1[DPi [seems [TP2 to DPj [ to VP]]]] (i≠j) (Base-generation)(6) Japanese EFL learners’ tendency in [+animate] and [-animate] sequence: (6a) over (6b)a. [DP [+animate] [RC △ (null) be V-ed by DP (overt) [-animate]]](PRC)
b. [DP[+animate] [RC DP (overt) [-animate] [VP V △ (null)]]](ORC)
Selected references
Kishimoto, H. 2005. Syntactic structures and grammatical relations (in Japanese). Kurosio.
Kuno. S. 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker’s empathy: A reexamination of relativization
phenomena, Li, N. C. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 417-444. Academic Press.
Nakayama, M. & Yoshimura, N. 2020. Japanese EFL learners' null subjects in the Control
and seem raising constructions, Second Language 19, 7-38.
Takezawa, K. 2015. The syntactic structure of mieru and the structure-meaning of te predicate(in Japanese). Exploring the new directions of lexical semantics (in Japanese), 243-273.
Kaitakusha.

Reconciling Serial Verbs with Labeling and Theta Theory
Jason Ginsburg (Osaka Kyoiku University), Sandiway Fong (University of Arizona),
Hiroshi Terada (Osaka Kyoiku University)
Masumi Matsumoto (Osaka Kyoiku University)
In Japanese, two argument-taking verbs may combine within a single clause to form a
serial verb construction (SVC), which operates productively over a variety of verb
(transitivity) types. In the most recent development in the Minimalist Program, θstructures are limited to what can be formed by External Merge alone. Internal Merge toa θ-position is not permitted. Chomsky (2021) calls this division of labor Duality of
Semantics. Two SVC verbs must share one or more arguments to be related; e.g. in (1)both osu ‘push’ (V1) and taosu ‘topple’ (V2) are inherently transitive verbs that each havean internal argument (IA) and external argument (EA), but the combination V1-V2 has
only two overt arguments.
(1) Mari-ga Taro-o osi-taosi-ta
M.-Nom T.-Acc push-topple-Pst‘Mari toppled Taro by pushing him.’ (Adapted from Nishiyama 1998:185)
We present an analysis that deals with the challenge SVCs pose for the Minimalist
Program.
We propose that the most plausible SVC θ-structure is obtained when no new verb
frames or θ-configurations need be invented; i.e. when both V1 and V2 retain theirunderlying θ-structure in the SVC construction. The combined structure must permit
argument sharing (by c-command of identical inscriptions, following Chomsky) and beproperly Labeled, both of which are needed to be correctly interpreted. (1) has θ-structure(2b), formed by embedding (2a)(i) into (2a)(ii). (The Subscript θ indicates a θ-position.
Also arguments of V1 are marked with 1, and arguments of V2 are marked with 2.)(2) a. (i) {EA1θ, {{IA1θ, V1}, v*}}, and (ii){EA2θ, {{IA2θ, V2}, v*}}b. {1 EA2θ, {{2 IA2θ, {{3 EA1θ, {{IA1θ, V1}, v*}}, V2}}, v*}}
c. {0 EA2, {{1 EA2θ, {{2 IA2θ, {{3 EA1θ, {{IA1θ, V1}, v*}}, V2}}, v*}}, INFL}}
Chomsky’s (2021) FormCopy, defined in (3), associates EA2 with EA1, and IA2 with
IA1, solving the argument-sharing problem.
(3) FormCopy (FC): establish a copy relation between two (c-commanding) identical
inscriptions via Minimal Search (adapted from Chomsky 2021).
In (2b), EA2θ and IA2θ locally c-command their V1 counterparts (assuming Univocality).
FC between θ-positions is independently needed for M-gaps (Chomsky 2021).
There are apparent XP-YP Labeling problems (Chomsky 2013, 2015) in (2b). The
Label of “{3” is determined by the lower v* as the IAs are shared, given FC relation (IA2θ,

1

IA1θ). Lower IA1θ is unpronounced in (2c). In “{1”, EA2 raises to INFL, as shown in (2c).
The Label of “{1” is determined by the higher v*. The raised EA2 (not in a θ-position) isLabeled as it shares ɸ-features with INFL through Agreement. Finally, the XP-YP
structure “{2” is problematic. IA2θ is in a criterial position (receives Accusative Casefrom higher v* and is spelled out here), and it does not share any features with the lower
VP. Given the Labeling framework, “{2” is thus Unlabel-able and should crash atinterpretation.
Chomsky (2021) provides an independently motivated solution for our SVC θconfiguration, demonstrated with the double object verb persuade (4a) with structure (4b).
(4) (a) John persuaded Bill to leave. (Chomsky 2021:24)(b) {1 Johnθ, {v* {2 1Billθ, {persuaded, { 2Bill to {v, {leave, 3Billθ}}}}}}}In (4b), persuade has two complements: 1Billθ and the clause “{ 2Bill to {v, {leave,
3Billθ}}}”. The lower subject 2Bill is formed by raising 3Bill. All three Bill’s are identical
inscriptions in local c-command relations and FC applies. Only the highest copy 1Billθ ispronounced, as in (4a). The position of 1Billθ is motivated by Binding facts, e.g. I
persuaded myself to leave. Chomsky (1955, 2021) indicates that there is a verbcomplement relation between 1Billθ and the verbal complex persuade-to-leave. Assuming
this, the verbal complex must be able to label “{2” in (4b). “{2” in (4b) is parallel to “{2”in the SVC (2b). 1Billθ is in the same position as IA2θ. Thus “{2” in (2b) is labeled by the(SVC) verbal complex V1-V2; i.e. osi-taosi Labels just like persuade-to-leave does.
This FormCopy analysis also applies for transitive-intransitive SVCs such as tuki-sasaru‘poke-get stuck’ and intransitive-transitive SVCs like yoi-tubusu (get.drunk-crush) ‘getwasted’.
Our analysis overcomes problems inherent in standard SVC analyses which rely on ad
hoc lexical or syntactic processes that alter the thematic structures of verbs. Kageyama(1993) proposes that SVCs such as osi-taosu ‘push-topple’ are formed in the lexicon,
which requires special, i.e. construction-particular, versions of V1 and V2 θconfigurations, complicating the theory. Both Nishiyama (1998) and Saito (2016)
propose syntactic analyses in which a transitive SVC has a single EA θ-position; theydiffer in that Nishiyama proposes a separate IA θ-position, as in (5) with PRO as the lower
IA, but Saito proposes a V1-V2 verb complex that jointly selects for an IA, as in (6).
(5){EA, {{IAi, {{PROi, V1}, V2}}, Tr(active)}}(6){IA, {V1, V2}}
In this talk, we further elaborate on how typical analyses of SVCs are problematic andhow our proposal that verbs that retain their original argument structure in SVCs accords
with the optimal conditions of the Minimalist Program, the Strong Minimalist Thesis(Chomsky 2000, 2001).

2

That as a Causal Conjunction in West Germanic Languages
Sune Gregersen
ISFAS, Kiel University
In English and other West Germanic languages, epistemically neutral complement clauses are typically introduced by the complementizer that or one of its cognates, e.g. Dutch and Frisian dat(Nordström & Boye 2016). Three examples are shown in (1)–(3):(1)

EnglishHe knows that she is home.

(2)

Dutch
Hij weet
dat
ze
thuis
is.
he knows COMP she at.home is‘He knows that she is home’ (Nordström & Boye 2016: 139)

(3)

Wangerooge Frisiandaa we’itert yaa
nich, dat
yuu deer wíziin hää.
then know.PL they not COMP she there been has‘Then they don’t know that she has been there’ (Ehrentraut & Versloot 1996: 449.196)

However, in many of these languages, including earlier stages of English, the complementizer hasa range of additional functions. In Middle English, for instance, that could also be used to introduce
purpose, result, and causal clauses, as shown in the following examples (cited from Phillipps 1966;
see also Fischer 1992: 343–346; MED, s.v. that conj.):(4)

Middle Englisha.
PURPOSE (‘in order that’)
Wherfor, that youre rewarde may be the larger, so he woll ther upon returne the panellfor the seyd ateynte (Paston Letters, no. 224, 1454)b.

RESULT (‘so that’)peasse, I pray the, be still / I laghe that I kynke (Towneley Plays, c. 1450)c.

CAUSAL (‘because’)

Remember that I spake to yw […] I trow ye forgettyt, that ye sent me non answer therof in ony wye. (Paston Letters, no. 681, 1471)
In this paper I investigate the type in (4c), i.e. the use of that in causal clauses, and propose ascenario for its development. The phenomenon has parallels in other languages of Europe, but is
not mentioned for any of the Germanic languages treated by Nordström & Boye (2016). The
development from complementizer to causal subordinator is also not discussed by Kuteva et al.
(2019).
The paper will focus on two of the West Germanic languages – Middle English and its lesserknown relative Wangerooge Frisian – but I will also point to parallels in Dutch and Low German
dialects (e.g. de Rooy 1965: 131–134; Scheel 1939: 74–75). The Middle English data are drawn
from the CMEPV, while the Wangerooge Frisian material comes from an electronic corpus basedon 19th-century documentation (Ehrentraut 1849, 1854; Ehrentraut & Versloot 1996). Examples
were excerpted with AntConc (Anthony 2022) and manually analysed.

The corpus material shows that both Middle English and Wangerooge Frisian had at least two
distinct causal uses of the complementizer, corresponding to Sweetser’s (1990) “content” and“speech act” domains, respectively. An example of each type from Wangerooge Frisian is shownin (5)–(6). In (5), the event in the dat-clause is the “real-world” cause of the event in the matrix
clause, whereas in (6) the dat-clause provides a motivation for the previous speech act:
(5)

iik sin saa suf,
dat
iik farléeden nacht nich slíipin häb
I am so tired COMP I lastnight not slept
have‘I’m so tired because I haven’t slept last night’ (Ehrentraut 1849: 103)(6)

hä’s=tuu schóftiid haivt, dát=tuu saa laang we’
wíziin bist?
have=you break
had
COMP=you solong away been
are.2SG‘Were you on a break, since you’ve been away for so long?’ (Ehrentraut 1849: 390)

Althouth one might expect the functions in (5)–(6) to be directly related (cf. Sweeter 1990: Ch. 4),
I suggest that they arose in different syntactic contexts. Specifically, the “content” causal use in(5) developed out of dat-clauses used as complements of low-transitivity emotion predicates, as in(7), whereas the “speech act” causal use in (6) developed from the use of dat in result clauses.
(7)

daa farschrécket yaa
yam, dathiisaahooch isthen startle.PL
they them COMP he
so
tall
is
‘Then they are startled {that/because} he is so tall.’ (Ehrentraut & Versloot 1996: 449.227)

Finally, I compare my findings to the generalizations made by Kehayov & Boye (2016) aboutcomplementizers in European languages and point to a number of parallels in other languages of
the world.
References
Anthony, Laurence. 2022. AntConc, v. 4.1.4. Tokyo: Waseda University.
CMEPV = Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/ (17 Nov 2023).
de Rooy, J. 1965. Als – of – dat. Nijmegen University dissertation.
Ehrentraut, H. G. 1849. Mittheilungen aus der Sprache der Wangeroger. Friesisches Archiv 1. 3–109, 338–416.
Ehrentraut, H. G. 1854. Mittheilungen aus der Sprache der Wangeroger. Friesisches Archiv 2. 1–84.
Ehrentraut, H. G. & A. Versloot. 1996. ”Mittheilungen aus der Sprache der Wangeroger”. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
Fischer, O. 1992. Syntax. In N. Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kehayov, P. & K. Boye. 2016. Complementizer semantics in European languages: Overview and generalizations. In
K. Boye & P. Kehayov (eds.), Complementizer semantics in European languages, 809–878. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kuteva, T., B. Heine, B. Hong, H. Long, H. Narrog & S. Rhee. 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd edn.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MED = Middle English Dictionary. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary (17 Nov 2023).
Nordström, J. & K. Boye. 2016. Complementizer semantics in the Germanic languages. In K. Boye & P. Kehayov(eds.), Complementizer semantics in European languages, 131–174. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Phillipps, K. C. 1966. Adverb clauses in the fifteenth century. English Studies 47. 355–365.
Scheel, K. 1939. Untersuchungen über den Satzbau der niederdeutschen Volkssprache und Kunstprosa. Neumünster:
Wachholtz.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Particles Mé/Ń'i Indicating Topic/Contrast in Biji
Hideki Maki (Gifu University) and Mjesd'alpa (Graduate School of Kyoto University)
1. Introduction: The properties of the particle wa in Japanese have been investigated in detailin the history of Japanese syntax (Kuroda (1965), Kuno (1973), Saito (1985) and Maki et al.
(1999), among many others). Wa has two main functions. When it appears at the beginning ofa sentence, it indicates a “topic,” as in (1), and when it appears in the middle of a sentence, it
indicates a “contrast,” as in (2). Also, even when it appears at the beginning of a sentence, asin (3), if it is stressed, it indicates a “contrast.”(1)
Shoohee-wa Ichiroo-o mita.
(2)
Ichiroo-ga Shoohee-wa mita.
Shohei-Top Ichiro-Acc saw
Ichiro-Nom Shohei-Top saw‘Shohei saw Ichiro.’‘Ichiro saw Shohei, as opposed to...’(3)
Shoohee-wa Ichiroo-o mita.
Shohei-Top Ichiro-Acc saw‘Shohei, as opposed to..., saw Ichiro.’
These examples clearly indicate that wa has two functions. However, since these two functions
appear to be clearly different, the question arises as to whether there really is one wa, or whether
there are two homophones was. Using this as a starting point, this paper addresses the researchquestions in (4).
(4)
Research questionsa.
Are there any languages that have particles expressing topics and contrasts indifferent forms, unlike Japanese?
b.
What are the characteristics of topic and contrast particles in such languages?
To address these questions, this paper focuses on Biji, which is considered to be one of the
Tibeto-Burman languages.
2. Background: For the purpose of discussion below, we present the basic properties of Biji.
Biji is spoken in Hunan Province, Hubei Province and Chongqing in China. It is an SOV
language, as shown in (5), and the genitive case marker is ge, as shown in (6).
(5)
Ň'os gi k'apwat p'oug.
(6)
Kyâši-ge c'ekpu
I.A Det flower buy.Pst.1Sg
Kyâši-Gen book
‘I bought the flowers.’ (A = Agent)‘Jushi’s book’
3. Data
The data discovered in this study are presented below. First, unlike Japanese, there are no
multiple nominative sentences in Biji, as shown in (7).
(7)
Jaň-jû*(-ge)
sňik'yé ŕêlbé
ras.
elephant-Pl-Gen trunk.Pl long.Pl Cop‘Elephants’ trunks are long./*Elephants trunks are long.’
Second, the topic marker is mé, as shown in (8).
(8)
Jaň-jû-mégi sňik'yi ŕêlba ras.
elephant-Pl-Top Det trunk long Cop‘As for elephants, their trunks are long.’
Third, multiple topic sentences are possible in Biji, as shown in (9).
(9)
Jaň-jû-mé,
sňik'yé-mé ŕêlbé
ras.
elephant-Pl-Top trunk.Pl-Top long.Pl Cop‘As for elephants, as for their trunks, they are long.’
Fourth, the contrast marker in Biji differs in form from the topic marker, and is ń'i, as shown in(10).
(10) Jaň-jû-ń'i
sňik'yé-mé ŕêlbé
ras.
elephant-Pl-Ctr trunk.Pl-Top long.Pl Cop

‘Elephants, as opposed to..., as for their trunks, their trunks are long.’
Fifth, contrast markers only appear in the sentence-initial position, as shown in (10)–(12).
(11) * Jaň-jû-mé
sňik'yé-ń'i ŕêlbé
ras.
elephant-Pl-Top trunk.Pl-Ctr long.Pl Cop‘As for elephants, their trunks, as opposed to..., are long.’(12) * Jaň-jû-ń'i
sňik'yé-ń'i ŕêlbé
ras.
elephant-Pl-Ctr trunk.Pl-Ctr long.Pl Cop‘Elephants, as opposed to..., their trunks, as opposed to..., they are long.’
Sixth, contrasts and topics have fixed word order, as shown in (10) and (11).
Seventh, topic/contrast markers may not appear in complement clauses, as shown in (13) and(14).
(13) * Asé-té[jaň-jû-mé/-ń'isňik'yé kê-ŕêl]-ś-bo
kô-so-bor.
who.Pl-Fcs [elephant-Pl-Top/-Ctr trunk.Pl Pfx-long]-Nml-Dat Pfx-think-Per.Prg‘Everyone thinks that [as for elephants/elephants, as opposed to..., their trunks arelong].’(14) * Asé-té[jaň-jû-mé/-ń'isňik'yé-mé/-ń'ikê-ŕêl]-ś-bo
who.Pl-Fcs [elephant-Pl-Top/-Ctr trunk.Pl-Top/-Ctr Pfx-long]-Nml-Dat
kô-so-bor.
Pfx-think-Per.Prg‘Everyone thinks that [as for elephants/elephants, as opposed to..., as for their
trunks/their trunks, as opposed to..., they are long].’
Eighth, topic/contrast markers may not appear in adjunct sentences, such as relative clauses, as
shown in (15) and (16).
(15) * [Jaň-jû-mé/-ń'isňik'yé kê-ŕêl]-ś-geňóinźin-bo ňa-te[elephant-Pl-Top/-Ctr trunk.Pl Pfx-long]-Nml-Gen reason-Dat 1-Fcs
xi-šisg-ra.
Pfx-know.1.Sg-Prg‘I know the reason why [as for elephants/elephants, as opposed to..., their trunks arelong].’(16) * [Jaň-jû-mé/-ń'isňik'yé-mé/-ń'i kê-ŕêl]-ś-geňóinźin-bo ňa-te[elephant-Pl-Top/-Ctr trunk.Pl-Top/-Ctr Pfx-long]-Nml-Gen reason-Dat 1-Fcs
xi-šisg-ra.
Pfx-know.1.Sg-Prg‘I know the reason why [as for elephants/elephants, as opposed to..., as for their
trunks/their trunks, as opposed to..., they are long].’
4. Discussion: Let us consider what the above facts might suggest for the theory of syntax. First,
we obtained an answer to research question (4a). There is a language that has particles
expressing topics and contrasts in different forms. It is Biji. Second, the answer to researchquestion (4b) is as follows. (i) Topics and contrasts occupy different structural positions, with
CtrP being superior to TopP. (ii) Unlike Japanese, contrasts cannot appear in places other than
the sentence-initial position, and even if they move to CtrP at LF, it is too late for them to belicensed. (iii) Unlike English and Japanese (Maki et al. (1999)), in Biji, topics are not allowed
to appear in complement clauses, and the conditions for topic licensing in embedded clausesvary depending on the language.
References
Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language,
Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their
Theoretical Implications, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Maki, Hideki, Lizanne Kaiser and Masao
Ochi (1999) “Embedded Topicalization,” Lingua 109, 1–14.

Anti-Labeling Mechanism for CASE in Complex Compounds in Swedish
Makiko Mukai, University of Kochi

1. Aim of this Presentation
Within the Labeling Algorithm (Chomsky 2013), Labeling for Syntactic Object is importantbecause labeling is needed at the interfaces. In this presentation, using the Labeling Algorithm, weare going to explore the role of Case observed after the two-member compounds in complex
compounds in Swedish, represented in (1). In order to do so, we are going to consider if the CASE
inside complex compounds can be considered as an anti-labeling head in the sense of Saito (2016)
by comparing it with the Case in Japanese. To do this, we will first compare the element with thephrasal Case in Swedish. As far as we know, there is no other established study of CASE in the
Labeling Algorithm. Our study will reveal the mechanism of both morpho-syntactic features ofCase system and also, the framework of Labeling Algorithm in more details.
2. Morpho-syntactic behaviors of complex compounds
First, let us show examples of complex compounds in Swedish, with a comparison to possessive
DPs. The examples in (1) are complex compounds, while those in (2) are DPs, taken fromHolmberg (1992). To make the distinctions, we are going to use CASE in capital letters for the -s
marking in complex compounds, while we do use Case for the possessive DPs.
(1) a. fot-ball-s-planfoot-ball-CASE-pitch‘football-pitch
b. skol-flick-s-väsk-aschool-girl-CASE-bag-A‘school girl’s bag’(2) a. skolflik-a-s dröm
school-girl-A-Case dream‘school girl’s dream’‘school girl’s dream’
b. min barndom-s stadmy childhood-Case town
‘my childhood’s town’

The element -a in the word väsk-a is a word marker, according to Holmberg (1992) and Josefsson(1997). As shown in (1a-b), in Swedish, complex compounds need to have the element, the CASE
to the two-member compound, such as fot-ball in (2a). For example, (1a) would not have the sameinterpretation without the CASE marking inside (e.g., *fot-ball-plan, perhaps interpreted as ballplan for foot’). This CASE is homophonous and historically related to the genitive Case used inpossessive NPs (Holmberg 1992: 30). However, as argued in Holmberg (1992), the CASE insidecomplex compounds is morpho-syntactically different from the case marker found in possessive
NPs/DPs, shown in (2a-b). Firstly, as can be shown from the morphological difference of the word
flick-a, in the possessive DP (2), -a element, a word marker needs to be there, whereas in complex
compounds like in (1b), flick does not have the word marker, resulting the element to be a root,
not a word. According to Holmberg (1992) and Josefsson (1997), constituents in two-member
compounds in Swedish are not morphologically word, but a root. However, having the word
marker -a or -e is not always the case. So -a is not attached to the word barndom in (2b). In thissense, then, complex compounds behave exactly as two-member compounds in this language, and
it is clear that complex compounds are different from possessive DP. In the presentation, we aregoing to show more examples to show this difference.
Secondly, according to Josefsson (1997), the CASE in complex compounds does not carry an
independent meaning, while the Case, inherently definite, and thus must raise to the D-position
and assigns structural Case to a possessor DP in Spec DP (Delssing 1993). Just like in English,

Swedish or other Mainland Scandinavian, the possessor phrase -s attaches to the end of a phrase(e.g. Lassa och Agentas hus (Lassa and Agneta’s house), so not a case-morpheme. In addition, in
Swedish or other Mainland Scandinavian, the possessor phrase always refers to an individual
element in the discourse (e.g. my childhood’s dream refers to my childhood, not anyone else’s).
However, the CASE in complex compounds can never be attached to the end of a phrase, but only
a two-member compound. In addition, the two-member compound, which the CASE attaches to,does not refer to an individual element in the discourse (e.g. we cannot substitute the compoundwith a pronoun, it, for example; *den-s-plan). In this sense, Josefsson (1997: 63) argues that the
CASE in complex compounds is similar to “cranberry morphemes” that lack independent meaning
but contribute to a meaning of the whole. For example, the typical contrast examples are barnbok-klubb vs. barn-bok-s-klubb, where the existence of the CASE makes the interpretation of thewhole compound different e.g., club for children’s book, as opposed to ‘book club for children’.
From the different behaviors of complex compounds as opposed to possessive DPs, the CASE
element found in complex compounds is not a structural case marking as such found in possessive
DPs. Then, what kind of element is it?
3. Is CASE an Anti-Labeling Head?
Following Boškovich (2007) that case valuation in Japanese or another language is independentof agreement feature, Saito (2016) argues that when there is no other way of labeling in the
structure (feature-sharing/movement), anti-labeling mechanism where the suffixal case marking
makes the constituent opaque for labeling. Case is a suffixal marking in Japanese severs as an antilabeling device. Similarly, at word level with VV compounds, he proposes that in lexicalcompounds, the preverbal –i, which is in adverbial form, is the anti-labeling head. Thus, it makes
a constituent opaque for search. Among these, of interest here in the presentation is Case as asuffixal marking in Japanese as an anti-labeling device. Saito argues that in a language like
Japanese where phi-agreement does not take place between T and the subject DP, the suffixal
marking of Case on the subject DP makes the constituent invisible for labeling. Otherwise, the set,{DP, TP} cannot be labeled in Japanese. This is along the same line as what Chomsky (2013)
proposes about heads such as conjunction and roots being invisible to Labeling Algorithm. As
discussed in Section 2, the CASE in complex compounds in Swedish does not have any semantic
features, but needs to be there for the interpretation of the whole compound. It has also been argued
that it behaves morpho-syntactically different from the phrasal Case in DPs. In fact, Holmberg(1992), under the Government Binding theory, proposes that the effect of CASE in complex
compounds in Swedish, is to close the nominal projection, preventing projection of the features of
the Case-marked noun onto the dominating node, thus allowing the other noun to project its
features. We are taking this suggestion, only using the different framework, Labeling Algorithm.
Although Holmberg (1992) proposes that the complex non-head should be a root, directly mergedwith CASE, we propose that the CASE is merged with a nominal categorizer, because CASE isonly merged with a nominal categorizer, not any other category (cf. Harðason 2020). In addition,roots are weak syntactic elements (Chomsky 2008, 2015), so should be merged with a categorizer
to work in the narrow syntax. Thus, the resultant structure would not be labeled with the complex
modifier with a categorizer. We propose that the CASE is an anti-labeling head like the Case inJapanese, because like the Case on the subject DP in Japanese, there is no phi-agreement between
the constituents of complex compounds, since the constituent, the two-member compound (e.g.
fot-ball) does not have any reference in the discourse, resulting the constituent to be not a full DP(perhaps nP). Thus, no features are agreed between the two-member compound and the CASE. In
addition, just like the Case in Japanese, without the CASE, the whole structure would not belabeled. Our analysis will be useful for other languages with CASE or a linking element insidecompounds, like German, Dutch and many other languages.
References: Bošković, Željko (2007) “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An
Even MoreMinimalist Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644. Chomsky, N. (2013) “Problemsof Projection,” Lingua 130: 33-49; Holmberg, A. (1992) “Properties of Non-heads in Compounds:
A Case Study,” A Working Paper in Scandinavian Syntax 49, 27-58 Delsing, L. (1993) The
Internal Structure of the Noun Phrase in the Scandinavian Languages: A Comparative Study[Doctoral Thesis (monograph), Lund University]. Josefsson, G. (1997) On the principles of word
formation in Swedish. Lund University Press. Saito, M. (2016) “(A) Case for Labeling: Labelingin Languages without Phi-feature Agreement,” LR 33, 129-175.

Exploring the Pragmatic Dimensions of 'Any': Insights from Domain Widening
17th ELSJ International Spring Forum
Kanta Tateno (Osaka University) u103982k@ecs.osaka-u.ac.jp
1. Introduction:
I argue that any has a pragmatic effect on the "unlikelihood dimension" when the domain widening effectoccurs, and it is necessary to take previous research into account.
2. Background:2.1. Widening effect of ‘any’
It has been well acknowledged that English any works either as Polarity Sensitive (PS) or Free Choice (FC)items, as shown in (1).
(1)
a. I don’t have any potatoes.
(PS any)b. *I have any potatoes.
b. Any lawyer could tell you that.
(FC any) (Kadmon & Landman 1993:353-354)
Kadmon &Landman (1993, K&L, hereafter) argue that both PS and FC any give rise to a domain widening
effect, and suggest the licensing condition for any, strengthening (see also Chierchia 2006). In other words, theidea is that widening has a purpose, and this is to make a stronger statement.
(2) WIDENING: In an NP of the form any CN(i.e. common noun), any widens the interpretation of thecommon noun phrase (CN) along a contextual dimension.
(K&L 1993: 361)
(3) Strengthening
Any is licensed only if the widening that it induces creates a stronger statement,i.e., only if the statement on the wide interpretation ⟹ narrow interpretation(K&L 1993: 369)
< Case 1: PS any >(4)
YOU: Will there be French fries tonight?
ME: (a) No, I don’t have potatoes.
YOU: Maybe you have just a couple of potatoes that I could take and fry in my room?
ME: (b) Sorry, I don’t have ANY potatoes.
It is clear that any creates its effect by extending the interpretation of the common noun phrase. K&L say that
this widening is done along contextually given dimension – the ‘cooking vs. non-cooking’ dimension, the ‘large
vs. small quantities’ dimension etc. in (4).
< Case 2: FC any >(5)A:An owl hunts mice.
B:
A healthy one, that is?
A:
No, ANY owl.
(K&L 1993: 364)
In (5), B introduces the possibility that the rule is intended to apply to healthy owls only, but A’s last utterance
directly indicates a shift in what counts as ‘owl’ and sick owls are to count as well. This shift is widening effectcaused by any.
2.2.K&L’s account for ‘any’
In this section, I explain the K&L’s account for any.
Let Q ↾ XA (A) be an expression denoting a generalized quantifier with a vague restriction (where A corresponds
to a common noun phrase).
(6) Q ↾ XA (A) is DOMAIN PRECISE iff for every context c, ⟦X A ⟧c is domain precise on ⟦A⟧c .
Otherwise, Q ↾ XA (A) is DOMAIN VAGUE.
(K&L 1993: 411)
According to (6), Q ↾ XA (A) is domain precise iff in every context, the set denoted by XA is domain precise on
the denotation of A (i.e. the denotation of the CN).
(7) Any owl hunts mice.
(8) ∀↾ Xowl(Owl)(Hunts mice)(K&L 1993: 413)
In (7), widening, for example, might be along the dimension ‘healthy vs. sick’. If someone has mentioned that ahealthy owl hunts mice, you can respond with ANY owl hunts mice, meaning that heathy and sick owl alikehunts mice. So the narrow interpretation (before widening) represents in (9) and after widening interpretation
represents in (10).
(9) ∀↾ Xowl(Healthy owl)(Hunts mice)(10) ∀↾ Xowl, healthy or sick (Owl, healthy or sick)(Hunts mice)
Where Xowl, healthy or sick is the result of minimally changing Xowl so as to make both HEALTHY and SICK
compatible with its precise part and with its precisifications.
(K&L 1993:414)
3. Issue:However, this K&L’s observation and explanation fails to account for the directional aspects of widening effects
in entailments. For instance, Fauconnier (1975) demonstrates that whether "any" can be substituted by X or Y
depends on the sentence. This is surprising under K&L's account, since we would expect the relevant domain to
include both the faintest and the loudest noise after widening.

any

(11)

a. My uncle is so deaf that he wouldn’t hear )*the faintest8 noise.
the loudest

anyb. He can’t stand ) the faintest 8 noise.
*the loudest(Fauconnier 1975 :355)

In addition to (11), this widening direction appears in FC any as well.

Any

(12)

a. 9*The smartest> lawyer could tell you that.
the dumbest

anyb. The suspect is so good that he could trick ) the smartest 8 lawyer.
*the dumbest
In my work, I intend to incorporate the (un)likelihood effect, as suggested by Kattunen and Peters (1979) and
Lahiri (1992), as a pragmatic factor within K&L’s framework of the PS any.
4. Proposal:
Now, I will explain the interpretation as follows:

any

(13)

1)

John doesn’t answer 9#any, even the most difBicult> question.
any, even the easiest

Any makes alternatives of x which has a property of question in the common ground the worlds in which
all member of question is a question John answers. (= q1 , q2 , … qn ) (=de) . It is compatible withtheoretical framework by selecting the largest possible quantificational domain from among the plausible
candidates.([1]:555)
2) From every question that John answer (= q1 , q2 , … qn ), we can compare ‘John doesn’t answer q1’, ‘John
doesn’t answer q2’… ‘John doesn’t answer qn’(= B(q1), B(q2), …, B(qm), B(qn)). Consequently, an
inference can be drawn, suggesting that the proposition ‘John doesn’t answer qm’ is the least likely among
the set. I assume that considering the assessment of the probability of the proposition 'John doesn’t answer
q.' as a pragmatic scale is necessary for accepting Fauconnier’s approach.
3) Any widens the least-likely proposition that ‘John doesn’t answer qm.’
4) Therefore, this proposal gives explanation why the most difficult question in (8) is odd, because the pointof evaluating the likely of ‘John doesn’t answer some question.’ is ‘how difficult the problem’ is.
5. Reference:[1] Cherchia, G. (2006). Broden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the “Logicality” oflanguage. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 535-590, [2] Fauconnier, G. (1975). “Pragmatics Scales and Logical
Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry vol.6 (3): 353-375. [3] Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional
lmplicature. In Presupposition (pp.1-56). Brill. [4] Kadomon, N. and Landman, F. (1993), ‘Any’, Linguistics
and Philosophy vol.16(4): 354-422 [5] Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural
Language Semantics vol.1: 75–116.

A Syntactic Analysis of Excessive Serial Verb Construction in Mandarin Chinese
Chyan-an Arthur Wang
Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan
Mandarin Chinese (henceforth Mandarin) has the serial verb construction (SVC) like theresultative construction shown in (1). There is another kind of construction that very muchresembles (1) and yet still exhibits distinct properties as provided in (2):(1) Tamenwashen lekenger.
they
dig
deep ASP
hole‘They dug the hole to be deep.’(2) Kenger
wa { shen / qian }
le.
hole
dig
deep shallow
ASP‘The hole has been dug (too) { deep / shallow }.’(resultative)(excessive SVC)

Both sentences are formed with two predicates: the first (V1) denotes an activity while thesecond (V2) expresses a resultant state. Compared to (1), however, the resultant state in (2) conveys
some additional unexpected meaning. This construction is called the excessive SVC (Fan 2017) andhas drawn some attention in the literature (Lu 1990; Ma & Lu 1997a, b, c; Shen & Peng 2010; Liu
2016; Fan 2017; Fan & Li 2019; among others). The interpretative difference can best be seen from(3): while V2 qian ‘shallow’ can occur in the excessive SVC as in (2), it cannot participate in the
resultative formation, as in (3). The reason is clear: the two predicates in resultatives exhibit aninherent causal relation, so it is rather odd to say that the digging causes the hole to become shallow.
(3) *Tamen wa
qian
lekenger.
they
dig
shallow
ASP
hole
Intended: ‘They dug the hole to be shallow.’(resultative, Fan 2017, 204)

As also indicated by the translation in (2), the excessive meaning is like what one would expect
in cases with the adverb tai ‘too’. Interestingly, it is possible to have the adverb in the excessive
SVC (4), but not in the resultative counterpart (5). In addition, (5) also shows that the understoodobject (e.g., kenger ‘hole’) is unlikely to originate in the postverbal position so the unaccusativity
analysis of resultatives (e.g., Sybesma 1999) does not work for the excessive SVC, either.
(4) Kengerwa
taishen le.
hole
dig
too
deep ASP‘The hole has been dug too deep.’(5) *Tamen wa
taishen lekenger.
they
dig
too
deep ASP
hole
Intended: ‘They dug the hole to be too deep.’(6) We dug the hole (too) deep.

(excessive SVC)

(internet search)

This is different from English resultatives in (6) where the excessive interpretation can easily beobtained with the addition of the adverb too. Together with the distinct properties noted above, itcalls for a different structural analysis for the excessive SVC in Mandarin as I propose in (7):
(7)

TP
ru
Subject
T'
ru
T
VP
ru
V1
CP
ru
XP
6
PRO
APV2

The null subject in the embedded structure immediately accounts for why the understood object
has to be displaced, as already seen in (4). The occurrence of the null subject is licensed by theintervening CP, as indicated by a classic pattern observed in English, provided in the following,(8) I don’t know [CP whether [TP { *John / PRO } to go to the party].
(9) I know [TP { John / *PRO } to be the best candidate].

(Haegeman 1994, 170)

In addition to (4), it is possible to have the Agent subject and an agent-oriented adverb showing
up in the excessive SVC. On one hand, this indicates that the proposed structure is on the right track
and rejects most previous analyses that assume an unaccusative (which is of course non-agentive)
sort of analysis (Shen & Peng 2010; Liu 2016; Fan 2017; Fan & Li 2019).
(10) Lisi
maoyi
guiyi
zhi
da
Lisi
sweaterintentionally weave big‘Lisi has intentionally woven the sweater (too) big.’le.

(excessive SVC)ASP

The proposed analysis with an embedded null subject can also explain different interpretative
patterns observed in the excessive SVC. In particular, the understood object (e.g., maoyi ‘sweater’)can be regarded as a Topic since it can occur clause-internally as in (10) or clause-externally as in(11). The Topics in both sentences are coindexed with the null subject in the embedded structure.
On the other hand, for cases like (12) that do not semantically license an understood object, the nullsubject will then be co-indexed with the matrix subject (i.e., Lisi).
(11) Maoyii Lisi guyi
zhi [CP [XP PROi
sweater Lisi intentionally weave‘Lisi has intentionally woven the sweater (too) big.’(12) Lisii
fanerzhang [CP [XP PROi ai
Lisi
insteadgrow
short‘Lisi grows (too) short instead.’dabigle ]].

le ]].

(excessive SVC)

ASP

(excessive SVC)ASP

The dual referential property is reminiscent of a pattern in Huang (1984): an embedded empty
subject in Mandarin can refer to the matrix subject or to a salient entity in the context (i.e., Topic).
In addition, it has also been observed that the excessive SVC can have the de-counterpart whichallows a much more flexible embedded structure. That is, the understood object (e.g., kenger ‘hole’)
that cannot occur post-verbally as in (4) can now appear as the embedded subject as in (13):(13) Tamen wa
dekenger tai
qian
DE
hole
too shallow
they
dig‘They have dug (so that) the hole is too shallow.’le.

(de-excessive SVC)ASP

The de-excessive construction also supports the proposed analysis. In particular, de can beanalyzed as the overt realization of the complementizer, which then warrants the existence of a CP
layer as proposed. Moreover, the fact that the embedded subject can overtly show up as in (13) isparallel to a well-known contrast of the want-infinitivals (or for-infinitivals) in English, as providedin (14). To be more precise, (14a) is parallel to the excessive SVC with a null subject whereas (14b)is on a par with the de-excessive SVC where the occurrence of an embedded subject is licensed.
(14) a. John wants [PRO to win].
b. John wants [for [his team to win]].

(Martin 2001, 155)

All in all, I propose a syntactic analysis of the excessive SVC in Mandarin and provide
arguments from intra-linguistic and cross-linguistic perspectives.