What do Mongolian Case-Marked Clauses Suggest?
Lina Bao (Qiannan Normal University for Nationalities), Hideki Maki (Gifu University) and
Saeko Urushibara (The University of Kitakyushu)
1. Introduction
This paper investigates properties of Case-marked clauses in the Khorchin dialect ofMongolian (henceforth M), an Altaic language, spoken in Inner Mongolia, and examines what
the data newly elicited suggest for the theory syntax. It will be argued (i) that Maki et al.’s(2016) conditions on genitive subject licensing need to be revised, (ii) that accusative Casemarked clauses are both nominal and verbal in M, (iii) there is no C projection for indirectquestions in M, and the relevant Q feature seems to reside on T in indirect questions in M, and(iv) that in Japanese (henceforth J), accusative Case-marked interrogative clauses are a
projection of C, and accusative Case-marked declarative clauses are a projection of T followedby the nominal element no.
2. Background
First, Maki et al. (2016) propose (1) to capture the distribution of genitive subjects in M
and J.
(1) Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensinga.
A genitive subject must be c-commanded by a nominal element in a local domain.
b.
A genitive subject must be in a local relationship with the adnominal form of apredicate.
(1a) corresponds to Miyagawa’s (1993, 2011) D-licensing approach, and (1b) to Watanabe’s(1996)/Hiraiwa’s (2001) C-licensing approach. Maki et al. (2016) claim that genitive subjects
in Altaic languages must satisfy both to be licensed, which is evidenced by (2) and (3).
(2)Öčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/*-u
ene nom-i
qudaldun-abu-ɣsan-siu.
yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen this book-Acc buy-take-Past.Adn-Prt‘Ulagan bought this book yesterday.’(Adn = adnominal form, Prt = particle)(3)
Ene nom-iöčügedür Ulaɣan-ø/-ut qudaldun-abu-ɣsan-siu.
this book-Acc yesterday Ulagan-Nom/-Gen
buy-take-Past.Adn-Prt‘This book, Ulagan bought t yesterday.’(3) shows that the object is moved to the sentence-initial position by scrambling, and thesentence is grammatical with a genitive subject. Note that in (3), the genitive subject is ccommanded by the scrambled object and is in a local relationship with the adnominal form of
the predicate. In addition, the J counterpart of (3) disallows the genitive subject. It is precisely
because the contrast between sentence-final and adnominal forms of verb is neutralized inmodern J, further supporting the necessity for the dual licensing approach in (1). Note further
that scrambled PPs cannot license genitive subjects, as shown in (5), in contrast to scrambled
NPs, as shown in (3).
(4)Öčügedür Baɣatur-ø/*-unUlaɣan-du nom-ø
ügkü-gsen-siu.
yesterday Bagatur-Nom/-Gen Ulagan-to book-Acc give-Past.Adn-Prt‘Bagatur gave a book to Ulagan yesterday.’(5)
Ulaɣan-du öčügedür Baɣatur-ø/*-unt nom-øügkü-gsen-siu.
Ulagan-to yesterday Bagatur-Nom/-Gen book-Acc give-Past.Adn-Prt‘To Ulagan, Bagatur gave a book t yesterday.’
Second, Maki et al. (2015) argue that while genitive subjects are disallowed, accusative
subjects are allowed in clauses headed by C, as shown in (6), where bel ‘if’ is presumably in C.
(6)
Qoyar čaɣ-undaraɣa Ulaɣan-ø/-i/*-u
ende ire-bel, bügüdeger-ø
twohour-Gen after Ulagan-Nom/-Acc/-Gen here come-if everyone-Nomɣačiɣda-na.
‘If Ulagan comes here in two hours, everybody will be in trouble.’trouble-Fut.Con(Fut = future, Con = conclusive form)(Maki et al. (2015: 147))

3. Data
Let us now examine accusative Case-marked clauses in M.
(7)Bi-ø [Tokyo-du Baɣatur-ø/-un/*-i
ire-gsen]-i(-ni)
I-Nom [Tokyo-to Bagatur-Nom/-Gen/-Acc come-Past.Adn]-Acc(-PoP3)čegejile-jübaina.
‘I remember that Bagatur came to Tokyo.’remember-CVS be (CVS = converbal suffix, PoP = possessor pronoun, 3 = 3rd person)(8)Bi-ø [aliqota-du Baɣatur-ø/-un/*-i
ire-gsen]-i(-ni)
I-Nom [which city-to Bagatur-Nom/-Gen/-Acc come-Past.Adn]-Acc(-PoP3)čegejile-jübaina.
‘I remember which city Bagatur came to.’remember-CVS be
Both (7) and (8) show that in accusative Case-marked clauses, genitive subjects are allowed,
but accusative subjects are disallowed. Note that in (7) and (8), the predicates in the embedded
clauses are in the adnominal form, and are directly followed by the accusative Case marker.
The genitive Case marker -u is similar to the J genitive Case marker -no in that it occasionallyfunctions as a nominalizer. However, unlike its J counterpart in (9), -u cannot be placed between
the predicate and the accusative Case marker in (7).
(9)
Watasi-wa [Tookyoo-ni Taroo-ga/-nokita]*(-no)-o
oboeteiru.
I-Top[Tokyo-to
Taro-Nom/-Gen came]-NML-Acc remember‘I remember that Taro came to Tokyo.’(NML = nominalizer)
4. Discussion
Let us consider what the above facts might suggest for the theory of syntax. First, if (1) iscorrect, there must be a nominal element in each of (7) and (8) that can satisfy (1a). As there isno obvious noun, the relevant element should be the adnominal form of the predicate itself. If
the complex of the predicate and T (V-T complex) is the licensor, it cannot c-command thegenitive subject due to the T’ node. Rather, it m-commands it. Therefore, ‘c-command’ in (1a)should be revised to ‘m-command.’ Second, as the adnominal form of the predicate in each of(7) and (8) must satisfy (1b) as well as (1a), the predicate should be both nominal and verbal.
This kind of mixed category is not special to M, and is also seen in Quechua (Lefebvre andMuysken (1988)), as shown in (10), and old J, as shown in (11).
(10) [Xwancha-q-hamu-sqa-n-ta] yacha-ni[Juan-Gen-come-NML-3-Acc] know-1(NML = nominalizer)‘I know that Juan came.’(Lefebvre and Muysken (1988: 2), slightly edited)(11) […namida-no oturu]-oosinuguikakusite…
[…tear-Gen drop.Adn]-Acc hide… (Nowaki, Genji Monogatari‘…(he) hid the tears dropping down …’ (Chapter ‘Nowaki,’ The Tale of Genji))
It is important to note here that a predicate can be both nominal and verbal only when it is Casemarked; a predicate is only verbal otherwise. This prevents the predicate in (2) from being
nominal, as it is not Case-marked. Hence, it cannot license the genitive subject in (2). Third,(6) and the fact that (8) is ungrammatical with an accusative subject suggest that there is no C
projection for indirect questions in M, which in turn suggests that the relevant Q feature seems
to reside on T in indirect questions in M. Fourth, in J, accusative Case-marked interrogative
clauses are a projection of C, as shown by (12), and accusative Case-marked declarative clauses
are a projection of T followed by the nominal element no, as shown by (9).
(12) Watasi-wa [dono mati-ni Taroo-ga/*-no kita]*(-ka)(-o) oboeteiru.
I-Top[which city-to Taro-Nom/-Gen came]-Q-Acc remember‘I remember which city Taro came to.’Selected References
Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muysken (1988) Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua,
Kluwer, Dordrecht. Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Wurigumula Bao and Megumi Hasebe (2016)“Scrambling and Genitive Subjects in M,” English Linguistics 33, 1–35.

Augmentation and Upgradation of the Existing Bengali WordNet with New Features
and Contents
Nirnoy Dutta1, Srija Deb2, Meghna Majumder3, Bratati Dhar4, Niladri Sekhar Dash5
Linguistic Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
nirnoy.dutta@gmail.com1, srijadeb@gmail.com2, meghnamajumder09@gmail.com3,
bratatiasdhar@gmail.com4, niladri@isical.ac.in5

Abstract
The Bengali WordNet, which is developed in 2012 and made available online as a part of the
IndoWordNet (https://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/indowordnet/) is a combination of a dictionary anda thesaurus with addition of some application features useful in understanding meanings ofBengali words and rendering the same in language teaching and technology. Although thisWordNet serves some purposes of language teaching, language processing, and generalreference (Dash et al. 2017), it has many limitations relating to its vocabulary, meaning
presentation, sense denotation, and usage variations due to which it fails to serve properly inboth primary and advanced functions like Bengali language processing, machine learning,machine translation, online language teaching, and e-governance (Bhattacharyya 2010). The
small vocabulary of the existing Bengali WordNet (36346 synsets) is a skewed representationof the large Bengali lexicon that contains more than three hundred thousand forms. Besides,
there are many irrelevant expressions (e.g., proper names, surplus numerals, foreign words,
obsolete terms, surnames, forcefully formed words) which, in a real sense, do not represent
the advanced Bengali vocabulary. Moreover, it has errors in spelling, sense representation,
parts-of-speech information, ontological relations, usage, and technical issues due to which
the application of the existing Bengali WordNet is greatly restricted.
To overcome these shortcomings, we have started revising the existing Bengali WordNet
with new ideas and information. It is now augmented with new words and senses, supportedwith accurate POS information, made free from spelling errors, defined with new ontologicalstructures, diversified with more lexical items, enriched with more linguistic information, andupgraded with more technical sophistication. Moreover, since it is visualized as a workable
digital resource for Bengali and English language teaching, it is featured to be supported withEnglish meanings of Bengali words and their usages keeping in mind the use of the resourceby native and foreign learners. Another unique feature of this WordNet is the inclusion of
Bengali postpositions in the database with lexicographic information, which is not found in
English and other WordNets (Vossen 1998). This particular feature is added due to the factthat Bengali has a large number of postpositions that are frequently used in the language witha wide range of sense variations. The inclusion of postposition is a kind of approval of its
crucial functional role in language usage and cognition. Some more specific functionalfeatures of this WordNet are reference to spatiotemporal lexical set, reference to frequently
used collocations, and possible lexical suggestions that may enable end-users to find desired
synsets from the inbuilt lexical databases (Kanojia et al. 2018).
We have also addressed some of the basic issues of the Bengali WordNet which have notbeen addressed in the earlier version. For instance, there is no consistency in the inclusion
and treatment of compound nouns, compound verbs, and idiomatic expressions which arequite arbitrarily included in the earlier database. These forms, however, need careful selection
supported with relevant information to be optimally useful for target learners. These issues
are not only relevant for understanding the modern Bengali language but also important forlearners who want to learn this language with its full lexical details. Proper presentation oflexicological information of compound expressions in the WordNet is an important part foraddressing the requirements of machine learning and translation. To justify the functionalrelevance of this resource further, we are in the process of receiving feedback from language
teachers with regard to the application of the WordNet in actual classroom situations. Thismay justify the need for a comprehensive Bengali WordNet for both Bengali and English
learners. In short, the revised Bengali WordNet is being developed as a comprehensive,
ontologically interlinked, lexically well-defined, and technically user-friendly digital resourcethat may be utilized to access modern Bengali vocabulary, spelling variations, pronunciation,
parts-of-speech, meaning variations, usage variations and ontological semantic relations (e.g.,synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy, homonymy, holonymy, meronymy, troponymy,
entailment, polysemy) of the synsets that are carefully selected, classified, analyzed, andpopulated with more appropriate information in the database. The revised version contains
more than 60 thousand synsets, which are obtained from Bengali text corpora and assignedwith unique IDs, conceptual definitions, parts-of-speech, synonyms, usages, and collocations.
Moreover, based on their form and usage, synsets are divided into five major parts-of-speech(i.e., noun, adjective, verb, adverb, and postposition)—the last one is an addition to existing
WordNet due to language-specific features and requirements (Bond et al. 2014).
The revised Bengali WordNet is designed to be robust with a user-friendly interface sothat it serves diverse requirements with a provision of accessibility of data and information byusers navigating within a web portal. It is digitally assorted for Bengali language speakers,
Bengali language learners, and professionals working with the modern Bengali language. It isbeing framed to be used as an aid for online Bengali language teaching by educational
institutions at the secondary and senior secondary levels (Redkar et al. 2017) as well as forautomatic text analysis and applications like word sense disambiguation, machine translation,
machine learning, text summarization, and sentiment analysis (Piasecki et al. 2013). In thewider scheme of global multilingualism and digitalization, this Bengali WordNet may hold asignificant position in bilingual and multilingual language teaching as it is designed toperform a crucial role in enhancing the linguistic skills of the target learners. It is therefore
constructed as a benchmarked resource in upgrading the status of Bengali in the realms oflanguage teaching, language technology and digital humanities.
Keywords: Synset, WordNet, NLP, semantic, thesaurus
Reference
Bhattacharyya, P. 2010. IndoWordnet. Proc. of the Lexical Resources Engineering
Conference (LREC 2010), Valletta, Malta, May, 2010.
Bond, F., Lim, L.T., Tang, E.K. and Riza, H. 2014. The combined WordNet Bahasa, NUSA:
Linguistic studies of languages in and around Indonesia, 57: 83-100.
Dash, N.S., Bhattacharyya, P. and Pawar, J. 2017. eds. The WordNet in Indian Languages.
Singapore: Springer Nature.
Kanojia, D., Patel, K., and Bhattacharyya, P. 2018. Indian Language WordNets and their
Linkages with Princeton WordNet. Proc. of the Eleventh International Conference on
Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Miyazaki, Japan, 7-12 May 2018.
Piasecki, M., Szpakowicz S., Fellbaum, C. and Pederson, B.S., 2013. Introduction to thespecial issue: on wordnets and relations. Language Resources & Evaluation. 47:757-767.
Redkar, H., Singh, S., Somasundaram, M., Gorasia, D., Kulkarni, M., and Bhattacharyya, P.
2017. Hindi Shabdamitra: A WordNet based e-learning tool for language learning andteaching. Proc. of the 4th Workshop on NLP Techniques for Educational Applications(NLPTEA 2017), pp. 23-28, Taipei, Taiwan, December 2017.
Vossen, P. ed. 1998. EuroWordNet: A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic
Networks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

The Right Sides of Japanese Sentences
Kaori Furuya
University of North Texas
This paper examines the nature of Japanese right-dislocation constructions (RDCs). A bi-clausal
analysis has widely been proposed (e.g. Kuno 1987, Tanaka 2001, Takita 2011) in the Japanese
linguistic literature. However, this analysis poses a question to a uniform analysis of the RDC (1),which includes an adverb and an accusative-marked DP on the right periphery.
(1)

A reply to the question “what did you do with this box?”
Tanaka-san-ga[e] tukurimashita-yo tegiwayoku soreo hako-o.
Tanaka-Mr-Nom
made-Prt
efficiently
the box-Acc‘Mr. Tanaka made iti; he made the boxi efficiently.’(Adapted from Kamada 2009)‘Mr. Suzuki made the box efficiently.’(1) is missing the object preverbally and the combination of an adverb and a DP postverbally. As
the English glosses show, (1) can yield two interpretations. With a pause after the verb, it has a biclausal interpretation, and the null object is the anaphoric use of pro. In this case, it is possible toinsert an additional interpretation such as sousou “oh, yes” after the verb. The combination of theadverb and the accusative-marked nouns is taken as a secondary piece of information. Interestingly,
without a pause (1) can yield a mono-clausal interpretation. Under this interpretation, the rightdislocated elements are not taken as a secondary piece of information. Rather, the postverbal
elements are interpreted as parts of the single clause. What is significant here is that the preverbal
null category is not pro because the pro-form cannot include the adverbial reading besides that of
DP. Thus, the mono-clausal interpretation challenges to a bi-clausal analysis or the uniform
treatment of Japanese RDCs.
Under the assumption that the verb is overtly raised to T (Hayashi & Fujii 2015, Sato &Hayashi 2018), I suggest the mono-clausal analysis with VP movement in the schematic structure(2), where VP undergoes movement while the verb is overtly raised to T. This analysis explains
the mono-clausal interpretation of the construction, the reference of the null category and thecorrect word order of (1).
(2)

[S … ti Verb ] [VP Adv DP-Acci tv ]i

To support the mono-clausal analysis, I exhibit Condition C effects in (3a), which includes
a DP and optionally an adverb postverbally. I propose the schematic structure (3b).
(3)

To the question “what happened?”a. *Mary-ga
karei-ni[e] miseta, (sotto) [Johni-no
tegami ]-o.
Mary-Nom he-Dat
showed quietly John-Gen letter-Acc'Mary showed himi [e], Johni’s letter (quietly).'(Adapted from Abe 1999)
b. [ Pronouni tk Verb] [VP (Adv) Namei-NP tV]k(3a) shows a violation of Condition C once the pronoun corefers with the name within the
postverbal DP. Crucially, when the adverb occurs postverbally, the preverbal null element cannot

be the pro-form for the same reason as in (1). It is the trace of the postverbal elements in (3b),where the reconstruction effect is observed. If the right-dislocated phrase is generated by basegeneration, the extraposition did not bleed Condition C (e.g., Culicover & Rochemont 1990). One
might object that the same effect is achieved in a bi-clausal construction. However, a bi-clausal
structure fails to account for the existence of a mono-clausal interpretation besides a bi-clausal
counterpart. Let us look at the existence of two interpretations of an RDC (4).
(4) To a reply to the question “What was Mari doing at that time?”
hitoride ehoni-o.
Mari-wa [e]/*sorei yondeita-yo
Mari-Top
was.reading-Prt alone
picture.book-Acc‘(lit.) Mari was reading [e], alone a picture book.’i. ‘Mari was reading a picture book alone.’ii. ‘Mari was reading something/one; she was reading a picture book alone.’The RDC without a pause after the verb yields (4i) whereas it has (4ii) when a pause is inserted.
What is important here is that the preverbal null element refers to the combination of the rightdislocated object and an adverb for the mono-clausal interpretation (4i) while it is interpreted as
an indefinite pronoun for the bi-clausal interpretation (4ii). Apparently, the preverbal null element
cannot be the anaphoric use of pro as in the case of the overt pronoun sore ‘it’ (cf. Takita 2011).
(4i) is consistent with the proposal analysis (2), and it cannot be accounted for in a bi-clausal
analysis.
Furthermore, the RDC with an adverb postposed in (5) shows the Proper Binding Condition(PBC), the requirement that traces via movement must be bound (Fiengo 1977).
(5)*Mari-mosono tango-ok [t]i si-na-katta[neto-de[e]k sirabe-saei
Mari-also the word-Acc
do-Neg-Past
internet-on
look.up-Neg-Past
Intended: ‘Mari did not look up the word on the internet as well.’In (5), the objects occur preverbally whereas the adverbs and the focus-marked verbs occur
postverbally. If the postverbal elements are base-generated postverbally, there is no trace to bebound, and thus no PBC effect should be observed, contrary to fact. Likewise, the raising of theobject from inside the base-generated phrase postverbally would not induce the PBC effects either.
The existence of the PBC effects in (5) supports the present mono-clausal analysis of theconstruction.
The present paper analyzes Japanese RDCs with adverbs postverbally and shows theexistence of two interpretations of the constructions (see (1), (4), (5)) along with those of thepreverbal null elements (see (4)). It demonstrates that constructions involve rightward movementof VP and thus that a uniform bi-analysis of the constructions is not on the right track. It also offers
a further support of the string-vacuous verbal movement in Japanese.
References:Abe, J. 1999. On Directionality of Movement: A Case of Japanese Right Dislocation. Ms. Nagoya
University.

Culicover, P.W. & Rochemont, M.S. 1990. Extraposition and the Complement Principle.
Linguistic Inquiry 21, 23–47.
Kamada, K. 2009. Rightward movement in human languages. Doctoral Dissertation, theUniversity of Edinburgh.
Reeve, M & Hick, G 2017. Adjunct Extraposition: base generation or movement. Syntax 20.3,
215-248.
Sato, Y. & Hayashi, S. 2018. String-Vacuous Head Movement in Japanese: New Evidence fromVerb-Echo Answers. Syntax 21.1, 72-90.
Tanaka, H. 2001. Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551-579.
Takita, K. 2011. Argument ellipsis in Japanese right dislocation. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics,
Vol. 18, 380–391. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Pseudogapping in English: Move-and-delete or direct licensing?
Jong-Bok Kim (Kyung Hee University, Seoul)
Pseudogapping, unlike gapping and VP ellipsis, involves ellipsis of part of a nonfinite VP, asseen from an example like It says
more about them than it does [me].1 There are two main tasks::::::::::::::::in accounting for pseudogapping: one is how to capture its similarities to and differences fromits relatives like gapping and VPE, and the other is how to license the construction. In addressing
the first task, there have been two directions: one is to take pseudogapping as a type of gapping(Agbayani & Zoerner 2004; Johnson 2009), and the other is to assume it as a type of VPE(Jayaseelan 1990; Lasnik 1999; Kubota & Levine 2017). As for the second task, there have also
been two strands: movement-cum-deletion and base-generation. Movement approaches suggestthat the remnant(s) is moved out of a VP constituent though there are differences in the kinds of
movements proposed (A-movement vs. A’-movement) and the direction of movement (leftward
vs. rightward) (see Jayaseelan 1990; Lasnik 1999; Agbayani & Zoerner 2004; Thoms 2016).
Meanwhile, base-generation approaches suggest that its syntax is licensed by simple syntactic
rules with no derivational operations while its semantics is resolved by an anaphoric mechanism
by inference (Miller 1990; 2014; Kubota & Levine 2017).
This paper performs a corpus investigation of the construction using the corpus COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English). The investigation tells us that pseudogapping is much
more flexible than the previous literature have noted. For instance, the object of a verb or a
preposition has been known to function as a remnant, but the attested data allow even a gerundive expression to be a remnant:(1)

Bagozzi will spend
less running his Cavalier than he will [buying a new car]. (COCA:::::
1990 MAG)

The remnant can be an element in the deeply embedded expression, implying that it is quite
different from gapping.
(2)

Sometimes I think you likehanging around more with animals than you do [people].
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(COCA 2001 MOV)

The data also give us examples where the remnant is in an island, challenging move-and-delete
operations. The correlates in the antecedent clause in the following are within a complex NP:(3)

Looking for that special someone who is caring, honest. Someone who would carefor:::::::
me the same way as I would [them]. (COCA 2003 FIC)

Observing such attested data that challenge the derivation of pseudogapping from syntactic
movement operations, the paper offers a direct licensing construction-based analysis of pseudogapping. In particular, the paper suggests that psuedogapping is a sub-construction of VPE
1

The :::::::::
underlined :::::
wave is an understood elided part and the [brackets] means the remnant in the pseudogapping
clause.

1

with its own constructional constraints that allow tight interplays among syntactic, semantic, anddiscourse information. This direction offers a streamlined analysis for the empirical facts thatpseudogapping, forming a network with its kin constructions including, is more restricted than
VPE, but differs in many respects.

References
Agbayani, Brian & Ed Zoerner. 2004. Gapping, pseudogappingand sideward movement. Studia
Linguistica 58(3). 185–211.
Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20. 64–81.
Johnson, Kyle. 2009. Gapping is not (vp)-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 289–328.
Kubota, Yusuke & Robert Levine. 2017. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry
48(2). 213–257.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Pseudogapping puzzles. In ShalomLappin & Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.),
Fragments: studies in ellipsis and gapping, 141–174. Oxford University Press.
Miller, Philip. 1990. Pseudogapping and do so substitution. In Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela
Noske & Karen Deaton (eds.), Papers from the 26th regional meeting ofthe Chicago Linguistic Society, 293–305. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Miller, Philip. 2014. A corpus study of pseudogapping and its theoretical consequences. In
Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical issuesin syntax and semantics 10, 73–90. Paris: CSSP.
Thoms, Gary. 2016. Pseudogapping, parallelism, and the scope of focus. Syntax 19(3). 286–307.

2

Ga/No-Nominative Conversion and A- and A′-movement
Masako Maeda (Seinan Gakuin University)
For the transparent mapping to the syntax-semantics interface, it is important to specify whichplace an element occupies in the syntactic structure and what kind of property that position
exhibits. Especially, it is important to identify whether it is an argument position (A-position)or not (A′-position). Under the configurational definition of A/A′-positions, it is assumed that
an A-position is a potential theta position (Chomsky 1981) or a Case position (Bošković 2001),
while an A′-position is a position where an element receives a discourse-configurational value,such as topic or focus (Rizzi 1997). However, the configurational definition fails to specify the
A/A′-properties of intermediate positions of movements. Therefore, Martin and Uriagereka(2019) argue that A/A′-movement distinctions should be made contextually under the phasetheory, based on copy formation/chain; the two copies are regarded as A-copies when they arecontained in the same transfer domain, while the copies are regarded as A′-chains when only
part of the chain is contained in the domain of phase. I propose that the configurational andcopy-based A/A′-definitions are both necessary, and these definitions, in conjunction with the
Case-theory advocated by Kasai (2018) and the phase theory by Saito (2017a), lead to the
expectation that some movements in Japanese exhibit A- and A′-properties. I show that thisexpectation is borne out based on ga/no-nominative alternation on the nominative objects in
the Hichiku dialect of Japanese (HJ).
In Japanese, when a main verb or a causative suffix (s)ase is followed by the potential suffix–(r)are/(r)e, which makes a complex predicate stative, the object may be marked as either
accusative or nominative (Kuno 1973).
(1) a. Mai-ga
melon-o/ga
tabe-rare-ru.
(potential construction: PC)
Mai-NOM melon-ACC/NOM eat-POT-PRES‘Mai can eat melon.’b. Mai-wa Ken-ni melon-o/ga
tabe-sase-rare-ru. (causative-potential
Mai-TOP Ken-DAT melon-ACC/NOM eat-CAUS-POT-PRES
construction: CPC)
‘Mai can make Ken eat melon.’
Following Tada (1992), Yatsushiro (1999), and Kasai (2018), among others, I argue that whileaccusative objects are licensed by V, nominative objects overtly move to vP that hosts thepotential affix (r)are/(r)e as its head (vP(r)are) in the cartographic structure schematized in (2).
Furthermore, following Bošković (2014), I assume that the highest head in the phase-edge
domain is the phase head: vP(r)are in PC, and the matrix vP(r)are and the embedded vPvoice in CPC.
(2) a. [vP(r)are Obj [vPvoice [VP Obj V]](r)are/(r)e] (PC)b. [vP(r)are Obj [vPvoice [vP(s)ase[vPvoice [VP Obj V]] (s)ase]] (r)are/(r)e] (CPC)
The assumption is supported, for instance, by the fact while an accusative pronominal object
in CPC may be coreferential with the matrix subject, the nominative object cannot.
(3) Tarooi-ga
Hanako-ni
karei-o/*ga
hihans-ase-rare-ta.
Tarooi-NOM Hanako-DAT hei-ACC/*NOM criticize-CAUS-POT-PAST‘Tarooi could make Hanako criticize himi.’(Miyagawa 1984)
The ungrammaticality of the nominative object in (3) might result from binding condition B;
after the movement of a nominative object to vP(r)are, the matrix subject and the nominative
object are in the same binding domain (which is defined in terms of coargument domain(Büring 2005)), leading to the ban on coreference between them.
Regarding the optionality of nominative/accusative Case, I follow Kasai (2018) in assumingthat a nominal phrase does not have to fix its Case in its base-generated position and it can get
its Case licensed after movement, if the unvalued Case feature is fixed at the time of transfer.
Although Kasai (2018) assumes that the transfer domain is VP (Chomsky 2001), I follow Saito(2017b) in assuming that in Japanese, where φ-agreement is lacking, the transfer domain is vP,
not VP, and that vP is transferred when the higher phase is completed. Hence, the object canreceive the nominative Case after moving to Spec, vP(r)are in PC, as the movement is within atransfer domain, as shown in (2a). Note also that this movement is A-movement under theconfigurational/copy-based A/A′-distinction, as the movement is for Case and within the sametransfer domain. Furthermore, the object in CPC can move to Spec, vP(r)are, as shown in (2b),because the transfer of the lower vPvoice is operated at the completion of the higher phase. Whenthe object gets its Case licensed by v(r)are, the lower copy also satisfies its Case requirement
under the identity via copy formation (Chomsky 2020)). Thus, the lower copy does not cause
any problem when transferred. This movement to obtain Case is regarded as an A-movement
under the configurational definition of movement. At the same time, the object moves out of

the lower phase, which is regarded as an A′-movement under the copy-based A/A′-definition.
Therefore, the movement of the nominative object in (2b) has both A-and A′-properties.
The assumption that the movement in PC is A-movement, while that in CPC is A- and A′movement, accounts for the optional/obligatory focus interpretation of the nominative object
in these constructions. Kato (2007) and Nishioka (2013) observe that the Kumamoto dialect ofJapanese (KJ), a kind of HJ, allows ga/no-nominative alternation, but no-nominative Case has
the anti-topic/focus property. Nishioka (2018) further observes that the objects of PC in HJ
allows not only accusative/nominative alternation, but also ga/no-nominative alternation, as
shown in (4a). However, the ga/no-nominative alternation on the object does not occur in CPC,
as in (4b).
(4) a. Taroo-ga
eigo-ba/?ga/no
dekuru (to).
(KJ)
Taroo-NOM English-?NOM/NOM can
PART‘Taroo is capable of English.’(Nishioka 2018: 167, slightly modified)b. Maki-ga
Haruki-ni tako-ba/ga/*notabe-sase-rare-ru (to yo). (HJ)
Maki-NOM Haruki-DAT octopus-ACC/NOM/*NOM eat-CAUS-POT-PRES PART PART
‘Maki can make Haruki eat octopus.’
This is because the movement in (4b) has both A-and A′-properties. This leads to the obligatory
focus interpretation of the nominative object, which in turn prohibits the no-nominative object
from occurring in Spec, vP(r)are because they have the anti-focus/topic property.
Other cases of nominative objects in complex predicates also disallow ga/no-nominative
alternation. For instance, restructuring verbs followed by the potential affix such as kari-ni ike-ru ‘can go to borrow’ allow the nominative/accusative alternation on the object (Takahashi2012). In such a case, however, ga/no-nominative alternation is disallowed in HJ.
(5) Boku-ga tosyokan-ni hon-o/ga/*nokari-ni
ik-e-ru.
(HJ)
I-NOM library-to
book-ACC/NOM/*NOM borrow-ni
go-POT-PRES‘I can go to the library to borrow a book.’
I assume that in such restructuring constructions, the nominative object undergoes Amovement for Case into vP(r)are in the matrix vP out of the embedded vP phase, which adds A′properties to the movement; the movement must yield focus interpretation. As no-nominative
objects resist such focus interpretation, they cannot occur in the restructuring construction.
The analysis is further extended to the movement of the subject from Spec, vPvoice to Spec,
TP; this movement is A-movement as the subject is assigned the nominative Case in Spec, TP(or Spec, vP). The movement also has A′-properties as it crosses the transfer domains. The Aand A′-properties of the movement leads to the obligatory focus/topic interpretation of thesubject in Spec, TP. This accounts for the fact that no-nominative subject may appear in Spec,vPvoice in a scrambled sentence, but it may not appear in Spec, TP with the SOV word order.
(6) a. Hon-ba
Maki-ga/no
yon-da.
b. Maki-ga/*nohon-bayon-da. (HJ)
book-ACC Maki-NOM/NOM read-PAST
Maki-NOM/*NOM book-ACC read-PAST‘Maki read the book.’In sum, I argue that (i) nominative objects undergo A-movement to Spec, vP(r)are, (ii) nonominative elements exhibit the anti-topic/focus property, that is, they resist being in A′positions, and (iii) some cases of A-movement of the nominative object crosses the transfer
domain, and thus exhibit both A- and A′-properties, prohibiting the no-nominative Case.
Notably, the focus property of the moved element in the above cases are defined in aconfigurational /contextual way; none of the above nominal elements is intrinsically focused.
The configurational/contextual A/A′-distinction is further supported by the fact that a whphrase may be marked with the no-nominative Case, if it is in the base-generated A-position.
(7) a. Dai-ga/noki-ta
to? b. Hon-ba dai-ga/no
yon-da to? (HJ)
who-NOM/NOM come-PAST PARTbook-ACC who-NOM/NOM read-PAST PART‘Who came?’‘Who read the book?’
Saito (2017b) argues that wh-indeterminate phrases are operators that need to specify theirquantificational force by (covertly) moving to the specifier position of the question particle ka or the focus particle -mo. Under the assumption, wh-indeterminate phrases do not possess awh-feature in the A-position, in which the no-nominative Case may appear. It is after the
movement of a wh-phrase to an A′-position that the wh-phrase receives an interrogative feature.
Selected References
Takahashi, M. 2012. On restructuring infinitives in Japanese: Adjunction, clausal architecture,and phases. Lingua 122. 1569-1595.; Nishioka, N. 2018. On the positions of nominative subject
in Japanese: Evidence from Kumamoto dialect. Proceedings of WAFL 10, 165-177.

The contribution of either in either…or constructions
Yoko Mizuta (International Christian University)
Introduction
Disjunction is expressed by or, with an optional element of either to create either … orconstructions (EOR, henceforth). Does the presence or absence of either (ETH, henceforth) in
EOR make any difference semantically or pragmatically? Previous work has given syntactic
analyses of EOR (Hofmeister 2010, Schwartz 1999), and semantic/pragmatic analyses of
disjunction in general (Geurts 2005, Nouwen 2018, Simons 2001). I aim to clarify thecontribution of ETH in EOR, based on a corpus-based analysis and generalization. Issues of
conventionalization and comparison with Japanese data will also be discussed.
Preliminaries
EOR express a disjunction of propositions. We assume that disjunction semantically has theinclusive-or meaning as its basis (i.e. a disjunction is true just in case at least one of the disjunctpropositions is true) and that the exclusive-or reading is attributed to pragmatics.
MethodUsing COCA, occurrences of ETH were searched and the first 1000 examples were saved.
Excluding those where ETH is used as a negative polarity counterpart of too, 759 examples
were considered to be relevant and analyzed.
Results and analysis
In some cases, ETH seems to be just a placeholder. However, in a majority of cases, certain
contributions of ETH were acknowledged, as mentioned below (Underlines are mine).
First, ETH has a metalinguistic function of clarifying the disjunctive structure. It iseffective when disjuncts are long or embedded, or the list of disjuncts is long, as in (1) ~ (3).
(1) At some point you either have to plug up the bleeding heart crap in the face of reality... orstep up to the plate and put your time, home and heart(2) team will be Russ Smith, Luke Hancock, Angel Nunez, Chane Behanan and either Stephan
Van Treese or Zach Price.
(3) always have their faces covered with either masks, scarves, shawls, or what have you.
Second, ETH contributes to triggering the free choice reading (FC-R, henceforth). In (4)~ (6), the two options given by the disjuncts (e.g. accept/reject) are trivial, and thus by itself ordoes not do any significant work. With ETH, possibilities for both options are indicated.
(4) into a bankruptcy get to make demands on the interested parties that the latter can either
accept or reject, suffering the consequences either way.
(5) while beauty is either natural or artificial, justice is always artificial(6) to confront him on a statement he makes. You will get several options to either keep
confronting or let it go.
Third, ETH may trigger a stronger FC-R, creating the nuance of ‘it does not matter which’.
In (7) ~ (9), the FC-R is triggered without ETH, too. With ETH, however, it is indicated thatwhich option applies does not make a difference in the current context.
(7) probably due to the strong feeling that your worth is not currently being appreciated, either
platonically or romantically. You probably feel that others simply do not understand you(8) commercial value due to what the young ladies had chosen to do with their lives either
privately or publicly.
(9) decisions, not to show how organized you are. If the project plan is either too long or not
up-to-date, it will be useless for making decisions.
Fourth, as in (10) ~ (11), ETH has the effect of emphasizing the fact that there is no option
other than the presented two, that is, that the options are complementary (Comp-R, henceforth),in contrast with the hearer’s expectation of other, intermediate options.
1(10) the ultimate choice that’s being presented to mankind is either evolve or perish.
(11) a standard way that can be applied across the board. Definitions that exist are either too
broad (to cover every nuance) or too narrow (hence very unique).
Discussion
First, I discuss the following created data.
(12) A: Eat soup or salad.
B: May I eat both?
(13) A: Eat soup or salad.
B: Which do you want me to eat?
(14) [as a reply to B’s utterance in (12)/(13)] Eat {either /∅} soup or salad.
(14) with ETH is interpreted differently, depending on the context. As a reply to (12), it has the
exclusive reading (Exc-R, i.e. ‘only one option applies’), in contrast with the expectation of‘both options apply’. As a reply to (13), it has the FC-R (i.e. ‘whichever you want’), in contrast
with the assumption of ‘one option applies’. In both cases, ETH plays a crucial role. (14)without ETH is a mere repetition of A’s utterance in (12)/(13) and does not work. A unified
account of the two readings of (14) with ETH is possible: ETH focuses on a specific aspect of
disjunction which contrasts with the expectation or assumption provided by the context.
The same line of account applies to the corpus data mentioned above. In (4) ~ (6), ETH
triggers the FC-R in contrast with the possibility of only one option being applicable. Also, in(7) ~ (9), ETH adds the nuance of ‘it does not matter which’ to the FC-R, when different
consequences are expected from the two options, contextually or generally. In (10) ~ (11), when‘not A, and not B’ (resulting in the falsity of disjunction) is expected, ETH has the effect ofdenying such a possibility. Besides, in (1) ~ (3), ETH has a metalinguistic function of signaling
and clarifying the disjunctive structure, although the position of ETH in the sentence is flexible
to some extent. The corpus data also showed that NPs of the form either … (e.g. either way,either side), which underlyingly involve disjunction (e.g. either this side or that side), isconventionalized to have only the FC-R (supported by 138 examples).
The specific meanings triggered by ETH partly correspond to ‘just one of them’ (Exc-R)
and ‘any of them’ (FC-R), as opposed to more general ‘some of them’ (for or), where ‘them’
indicate the given options. Japanese data also indicate the contribution of ETH. The Japanesecounterpart for ‘A or B’ is ‘A-ka B’, while the ones for ‘either A or B’ are ‘A-ka B-no dochiraka’ (for Exc-R and Comp-R) and ‘A-demo B-demo’ or ‘A-to B-no dochira-demo’ (for FC-R).
Conclusion
Based on a corpus-based analysis and a generalization using additional data, it was argued thatthe presence of ETH in EOR has certain contributions at semantic/pragmatic levels. ETH
focuses on some specific aspect of disjunction which contrasts with the contextually given
expectation or assumption. ETH also has a metalinguistic function of clarifying the disjunctive
structure. The contribution of ETH is supported by lexicalized expressions and Japanese data.
References
Geurts, B. (2005). Entertaining alternatives: disjunctions as modals. Natural Language
Semantics 13, 383-410.
Hofmeister, P. (2010). A linearization account of either … or constructions. Nat. Lang. andLing. Theory 28, 275-314.
Nouwen, N. (2018). Free choice and distribution over disjunction: the case of free choice ability.
Semantics and Pragmatics 11(4). (Early access version. https:doi.org.10.3765/sp.11.4.)
Schwartz, B. (1999). On the syntax of EITHER…OR. Nat. Lang. and Ling. Theory 17, 339-379.
Simons, M. (2001). Disjunction and alternativeness. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 597-619.
CorpusThe Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) https://www.englishcorpora.org/coca/ (last accessed on 11/30/2021)
2

Default Case and Chain Interpretation
Nozomi Moritake (Kyushu University)
This paper discusses what Default Case is and the condition posed by interfaces when a chain isinterpreted. This condition succinctly accounts for why Quantifier Raising (QR) of the associate in thethere-construction (ATC) is banned as in (1) (see also Williams (1984) and Bobaljik (2002)).
(1)
There aren’t many linguistics students here.
(i) not > many, (ii) *many > not(Chomsky (1991: 78))
Furthermore, we propose a new analysis for the relation between scrambling and Case in Japanese.
Default Case: In (2), ATC with Accusative Case is licensed, but ATC with Nominative Case is not.
(2)
There is only me/*I in the garden.
(Sobin (2014: 386))
In light of this observation, Sobin (2014) and Moritake (2021) argue that ATC receives Accusative
Case by default. According to McFadden (2007), Default Case is an actual lack of Case. This paper
modifies McFadden’s account in a way that is more in line with the minimalist program as follows:
Default Case is used to pronounce DPs with an unvalued Case-feature ([uCase]) when a sentence isfinally uttered. Namely, [uCase] is a command to pronounce a Case-less DP by the default strategy.
This further means that DPs with [uCase] remain unvalued at the SM-interface.
Chain: Sportiche (2016) illustrates that Mary0 has [uCase] and Mary1 obtains Nominative Case as areflex of phi-feature agreement via matrix T, after which it moves to matrix Spec-T in (3).
(3)[CP [TP Mary2 [NOM] [T T [seems Mary1 [NOM] to be Mary0 [uCase] happy]]]]According to Sportiche (2016), an illegible feature (i.e. [uCase] in (3)) can be ignored at the interface
if one of its copies receives a value. This condition is what he calls Neglect.
With this in mind, let us see (4). Although there is only one occurrence of ATC with [uCase] at theSM-interface, the sentence in (4) is completely acceptable. Sportiche’s argument would incorrectly
rule out (4) since ATC lacks a valued feature.
(4)
There is only me [uCase] in the garden.
Instead of Neglect, we then propose the following interface condition:(5)
If there are multiple occurrences of a single DP in a derivation, they must have a valued featurein order for them to form a nontrivial chain and be representationally identified as a series ofcopies at the SM-interface; they are regarded as a repetition otherwise. This condition, however,is irrelevant to just one occurrence of a single DP, since it consists of a trivial chain by itself
and is regarded as a copy regardless of whether it involves an unvalued or valued feature.
This interface condition entails Neglect, at least in spirit, but we consider that it is, in fact, the necessary
condition of the (non)trivial chain and applies to the SM-interface: occurrences that meet the necessary
condition in (5) are properly regarded as a copy.
Analysis: First, consider (4), where there is only one occurrence of ATC. Based on (5), it consists of atrivial chain and is identified as a copy. Let us return to (1). Assuming that QR occurs in syntax (e.g.
Takahashi (2010)), the following representation causes a problem, in which QR applies to ATC:
(6)
… QP associate [uCase] … QP associate [uCase] …
(6) is composed of two occurrences of QPs with [uCase]. This representation violates the condition in(5), and the relevant QPs cannot be identified as two occurrences of the same copy. It incorrectlypredicts that these two QPs are taken to be a repetition, which results in gibberish at the SM-interface.
One may wonder why (7) is grammatical: ATC undergoes wh-movement, but the sentence is
acceptable, in contrast with (6).

(7)Whati is there ti in the refrigerator?
(Aissen (1975: 7))
Here, an unvalued Q-feature ([uQ]) on what is valued (i.e. [vQ]) at Spec-C as in (8), which satisfies
the condition in (5): two occurrences of what in (8) are successfully identified as the same copy.
(8)
what [vQ] [uCase] … what [uQ] [uCase] …
Extension: This analysis can be extended to scrambling in Japanese. It has been assumed thatscrambled objects must bear overt Case as in (9) (see Saito (1985)). In what follows, ø stands for a DP
without an overt Case-marker.
(9)
Ringo-o/*øi John-gatitabe-ta.
apple-Acc/ø John-NOM
eat-Past‘John ate an apple.’
According to Schütze (2001), left-dislocated DPs reveal what Default Case is in the relevant languages.
It follows from Schütze’s (2001) analysis that a bare DP indeed has Default Case in Japanese as in (10),in which only a bare DP is appropriate for the left-dislocated DP (see also Moritake (2021)).
(10)
John-ø/*ga/*o,kare-wa tensai-da.
John-ø/Nom/Acc, he-Top
genius-Cop‘John, he is a genius.’
Based on this argument, let us see the rough representation of the scrambled object in (9) below:(11)
Ringo [uCase] … Ringo [uCase] …
As is clear from (11), there are two occurrences of DPs with [uCase], which violates the condition in(5). It is then wrongly expected that they are both pronounced since they are identified not as a copy
but as a repetition. Therefore, the scrambled DP needs overt Case when (9) is uttered out of the blue.
However, as (12) shows, there is a case where the scrambled object can have no overt Case.
(12)
Ringo-dake-øi Taro-ga
ti tabe-ta.
apple-only-ø
Taro-Nom
eat-Past.
‘It is only an apple that Taro ate.’
The scrambled object is bare, but this sentence is completely fine. We claim that the scrambled object
gets a focus interpretation since a focus-particle dake ‘only’ is attached to it. With the assumption thatDPs meet focus in a course of the derivation, the representation of (12) will be roughly shown in (13).
(13)
Ringo-dake [uCase] [vFocus] … Ringo-dake [uCase] [uFocus] …
What is important here is that [uCase] remains unvalued, but [uFocus] obtains a value through aderivation, which is a striking difference from (11). The representation in (13) conforms to thecondition in (5) due to [vFocus]. (12) can thus be correctly interpreted at the SM-interface.
Apparent Counterexamples: One might think that the examples in (14) undermine our proposal.
(14) a. *Who does it seem to like Mary?
(Chomsky (1981: 175))b.*It was believed Mary.
(Lasnik (2008: 19))
Under our proposal in (5), Who in (14a) should be licensed since [uQ] on Who obtains a value ([vQ])at Spec-C. Mary in (14b) should also be licensed since there is only one occurrence of Mary as in (4).
We argue, however, that these examples are ruled out by virtue of an independent assumption suggested
by Bošković (1997) and McFadden (2004): the licensing condition of expletive it.
Selected References: Schütze, C. (2001) “On the Nature of Default Case,” Syntax 4, 205-238. /McFadden, T. (2007) “Default Case and the Status of Compound Categories in Distributed
Morphology,” Proceedings of the 30th Annual Penn Linguistic Colloquium, 225-238. / Sportiche, D.
(2016) “Neglect,” ms., UCLA. [lingbuzz/002775]

Generative Typological Investigation of Indefinite Pronouns
Hiromune Oda (The University of Tokyo)
Introduction: This work addresses the typology of indefinite pronouns from the generative
perspective, which was originally investigated in the non-generative typological literature. In his
seminal work, Haspelmath (1997) observes that there are two major types of indefinite pronouns
cross-linguistically: generic-noun-based indefinite pronouns such as English somebody, which iscomposed of the quantificational element some and the generic noun body, and interrogative-based
indefinite pronouns such as Japanese dare-ka ‘somebody’, which is composed of the interrogative
pronoun dare ‘who’ and the quantificational particle ka.
Haspelmath raises the question whether there is a typological correlation between the type ofindefinite pronouns and other properties of relevant languages, but he leaves it open. The present
work addresses this issue, establishing a novel cross-linguistic generalization regarding theavailability of a particular type of interrogative-based indefinite pronouns, from a perspective ofTalić’s (2015, 2017) three-way distinction of NP/DP-languages (cf. Bošković 2008, 2012), in
which languages with affixal definite articles such as Bulgarian pattern with languages without
definite articles such as Japanese rather than languages with non-affixal articles such as English ina number of respects.
Novel cross-linguistic generalization: To the best of my knowledge, the first (and only) workthat addresses the issue of potential correlation between typology of indefinite pronouns and otherlinguistic properties is Watanabe (2004). Watanabe notes that productivity of interrogative-based
pronouns of the Japanese type, which Kuroda (1965) calls indeterminate pronouns, seems tocorrelate with absence of definite articles. For instance, Japanese and Russian, which lack definite
articles, have productive indeterminate pronouns. He also points out that Latin, which lacked
definite articles, had productive indeterminate pronouns, whereas most Modern Romance
languages, which have acquired definite articles, do not have them.
While the correlation between definite articles and indeterminate pronouns appears to be robust,
Watanabe acknowledges that Bulgarian, Romanian, and Hungarian have indeterminate pronouns
although these languages have definite articles. Watanabe in fact does not provide a clear
descriptive generalization regarding indeterminate pronouns that accommodate these languages.
Note here that Bulgarian and Romanian, two exceptional languages which have indeterminate
pronouns but also have definite articles, are languages with affixal definite articles. The definite
article in Hungarian has also been treated as a prefix in the traditional Hungarian grammar(MacWhinney 1976). Interestingly, Talić (2015, 2017) shows that languages with affixal definite
articles such as Bulgarian pattern with languages without definite articles such as Japanese in a
number of respects (see also Despić 2011, Oda 2021). It may then be the case that affixal-article
languages pattern with article-less languages in the domain of indeterminate pronouns, too. Inorder to confirm this, I have conducted a large-scale cross-linguistic survey of indefinite pronouns,
in which 80 languages are identified as having productive indeterminate pronouns. Among those
80 languages, 68 do not have definite articles, and 12 have affixal definite articles. Thus, I establish
the following descriptive generalization (note that this is a one-way correlation):(1) Languages that have productive indeterminate pronouns either lack definite articles or haveaffixal definite articles.
The question to be addressed here is why non-affixal article languages such as English can never
have productive indeterminate pronouns whereas article-less languages such as Japanese andaffixal-article languages such as Bulgarian can in principle have productive indeterminate
pronouns.
Deduction of (1): Building on Kuroda’s (1965) decomposition of Japanese indeterminate
pronouns, I propose that indeterminate pronouns in general are NPs (cf. Huang 1982) which
consist of Root that specifies the domain (e.g., person, thing), and N (or n; I use the label N only
for presentational purposes). In addition, I suggest, based on Saito (2017), that this N bears anunvalued uninterpretable operator feature uOp[ ], which is valued as [Q] by interrogative C or as[], [], etc. by quantificational affixes/particles. The structure of indeterminate NP is schematizedin (2). I assume that the structure in (2) is universally the base form of interrogative/indeterminate
pronouns.
(2) a. [NP [NuOP[ ]] [RootPERSON, THING…]]
Turning to the distinction between non-affixal article languages on the one hand and affixalarticle languages and article-less languages on the other hand, I follow Talić (2015, 2017) inproposing that DP must project above NP in non-affixal article languages, whereas it can be absent
in affixal-article languages and article-less languages when the definite article is absent. Thus, in
non-affixal article languages DP must project above the relevant NP in (2a), whereas it can beabsent in affixal-article languages and article-less languages. In addition, I propose that this DP(i.e., D) bears a valued interpretable operator feature iOp[Q], which gives the value to the operator
feature of N and marks the relevant NP as an interrogative pronoun (cf. Cable 2007, 2010). Thus,
the value of the operator feature of the relevant NPs in non-affixal article languages is practicallyalways [Q] because of the obligatory presence of the relevant D. The structure of ‘who’ in nonaffixal article languages is schematized in (3).
(3) [DP [DiOp[Q]] [NP [NuOp[Q]] [RootPERSON]]]
This means that the operator feature of indeterminate NPs in those languages cannot have othervalues such as [], [], which would be given by quantificational particles/affixes. It thus follows
that non-affixal article languages do not allow productive indeterminate pronouns. In contrast, inarticle-less languages and affixal article languages, this D may be absent, so that the operator
feature of indeterminate NPs can be valued by quantificational particles/affixes.
Thus, the present work sheds new light on the investigation of the typology of indefinite
pronouns under the generative framework in the spirit of Talić’s (2015, 2017) three-way
distinction of NP/DP-languages.
Selected References:
Bošković, Željko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Discourse and grammar. Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. OUP.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D dissertation,
MIT.
Saito, Mamoru. 2017. Japanese wh-phrases as operators with unspecified quantificational force.
Language and Linguistics 18.
Talić, Aida. 2017. From A to N and back: Functional and bare projections in the domain of N and
A. Ph.D dissertation, UConn.
Watanabe, Akira. 2004. Indeterminates and determiners. In Proceedings of WAFL 1.

On the spatial meanings of by: A semantic network analysis based on schema and predominance
Shione Takahamaa, Haruka Shimurab, and Takuto Kimurac
a,b,c

University of Tsukuba, Japan

Previous studies have agreed that the preposition by has very many uses (cf. Random House Japanese
Dictionary, Limdstromberg (1998)). Although semantic network approaches to English prepositions are
mainstream, Hirasawa (2019) claims that the uses of by are not related with each other because they cooccur withdifferent types of predicates and that they are stored in our mind independently. Although he criticizes Hanazaki
a semantic network analysis, we cannot deny that at least some uses of by are semantically related and thus
motivated by a semantic network. Given a fine-grained network, we can defend semantic network approaches.
To prove this, we will restrict ourselves to the spatial meanings of by and construct a more detailed semantic
network of them than Hanazaki and Kato.
Hanazaki and Kato (2004) and Hanazaki (2005) develop the image schema approach proposed by Tyler
and Evans (2003), who suggest two steps for extracting distinct meanings of a preposition from the context, andemphasize a diachronic analysis of the usage of by. In addition, Hanazaki and Kato determine a center of thesemantic network of by through the predominance of its central meaning—a meaning used most frequently.
Based on the above processes, they construct the semantic network of ten meanings of by.
However, there are some problems with their analysis. They establish only one schema describing the
spatial meaning of by, i.e., the <Near/Out of the domain> meaning, as in Figure 1 below, where the trajector (TR)is located near the landmark (LM). This schema cannot explain Shimada’s (2010) observation that althoughboth the prepositions by and near describe proximity, they behave differently in some respects.
(1) a. There are a few benches near/ by the river.…
(Shimada (2013:28-29), with some modifications)b. A robot submarine is deployed near /* by the sea floor. (Shimada (2013:28), with some modifications)(2) I live very near the sea /* very by the sea, so I had plenty of time to get used to boats. (Shimada (2010:41))
Firstly, by cannot represent vertical proximity. In (1a), both by and near can describe “vicinity in a horizontal
plane. In (1b), however, by cannot denote the proximity to the sea floor, that is, the vertical proximity.
Moreover, by cannot cooccur with adverbs of degree. In (2), while near expresses the situation involved withthe adverb of degree very, by is not allowed to employ such an adverb. Furthermore, the schema in question
cannot deal with some spatial meanings involved with the concept of transfer.
(3) A train bellowing by just over my head, a train that would probably be dropping some nice hot sparks into
my hair and down the back of my neck…
(The Body, p. 79, underline is mine)(4) My name is Joey Gladstone. I’ll be by to pick the tickets up this afternoon.
(Full House, Season 5, Episode 6, cf. Hirasawa (2019: 128-129), underline is mine)(3) describes the situation of going across and over someone’s head and (4) indicates that a certain person dropped
in a certain place. These spatial meanings of by are involved with the notion of transfer because we cannot infer
it from the meanings of the verbs, so it is difficult to analyze these meanings with <Near/Out of the domain>.
In addition to the spatial meaning at sake, Hanazaki and Kato admit another distinct meaning, as in (5a).
(5) a. I live for the moment day by day.
(Hanazaki (2005:432), underline is mine)b. Then, as we were sitting in the dull light, side by side on the edge of his bed, he said to me.
(Never Let Me Go, p. 245, underline is mine)
Hanazaki and Kato maintain that the gradual meaning indicated by day by day results from our experience inwhich the LM and TR are located near each other and another TR is placed close to the LM, which functions as
the former TR. These observations lead them to construct the schema labeled <Bit by bit>, as illustrated in
Figure 2, and they claim that this schema is derived from the schema of <Near/Out of the domain>. However,it seems difficult to semantically relate Figure 1 to Figure 2 directly because there are some differences in the two
image schemas. Moreover, they seem to overlook a case like side by side, whose image schema has two focal
entities that reciprocally function as TR and LM at one time.

Figure 1: <Near/ Out-of-the domain> (Hanazaki (2005:433))

Figure 2: <Bit by bit> (Hanazaki (2005:433))

To solve these problems, we will concentrate on the spatial meanings of by and establish a more finegrained semantic network with some semantic notions adopted in Lakoff (1987). We collected 886 examples
of by from four novels and found 66 instances of the spatial meanings of by. By incorporating notions such as“bounded area” and “horizontal proximity” into Hanazaki’s analysis, we construct image schemata of theproximity of by and near whereby we can grasp the differences between by and near in detail. Also, we propose
the schemata for the <Going by> and <Dropping in> illustrated by (3) and (4), based on the collected data, andgive a semantic network in which they extend from and are semantically related to the central meaning, <Vicinity
in a horizontal plane>. In addition, we construct the schema for <Side by side> to make the network precisely.
The network is given in Figure 3. <Vicinity in a horizontal plane> is identified as the center of the semantic
network for the spatial meanings of by through the predominance and extends to <Going across> and <Droppingin> through the inheritance of some notions. The <Side by side> schema is derived from the center and the <Bitby bit> schema derives from the former because there are more examples of <Side by side> in the four novels
than <Bit by bit>.

Figure 3:The semantic network for the spatial meanings of by

References
Hanazaki, Miki and Kozo Kato (2004) “The Semantic Network of By (2),” Studies in Humanities: Culture andCommunication 38, 23-38. / Hanazaki, Miki (2005) “Toward a Model of Principled Polysemy,” English
Linguistics 22, 412-442. / Hirasawa, Shinya (2019) Zentisi by no Imi wo Sitteirutoha Nani wo Sittteiru to Iukoto
Nanoka—Tagiron kara Tasiyouron he—, Kurosio, Tokyo. / Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous
Things, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. / Limdstromberg, Seth (1998) English Prepositions Explained,
John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. / Shimada, Hiroshi (2010) “Zentisi by no Imi –near no Imi
to Taihisite–, “Gunma Zyosi Daigaku Kiyou, 31, 37-44. / Shimada, Hiroshi (2013) “Zentisi by no Imi –Hitotsu
no Imi wo Motomete–, “Gunma Zyosi Daigaku Kiyou, 34, 27-38. / Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans (2003) The
Semantics of English Prepositions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Reduplication and different interpretations of “different”
Yuta Tatsumi, Meikai University
Synopsis: The semantics of “different” has received a great deal of attention in different languages (Carlson 1987, Moltmann 1992, Beck 2000, Barker 2007, Matushansky 2010, Charnavel 2015). By investigating (im)possible interpretations of “different” and the reduplicated“different” in Japanese and Tamil, this paper argues that “different” in these languages behavesdifferently, depending on whether or not “different” can have a nominal argument.
Data: As shown in (1), betsu ‘different’ in Japanese can have a discourse anaphoric reading.
(1) a. Taro-wa ie-o
mita.
[Japanese]
Taro-TOP house-ACC saw‘Taro saw a house.’b. Hanako-wa [betsu-no
ie]-o
mita.
Hanako-TOP different-GEN house-ACC saw‘Hanako saw a house different from what Taro saw.’ (after (1a))[anaphoric]
When betsu is reduplicated, the resulting item betsu-betsu receives only a distributive reading,as in (2). In Japanese, common nouns are number neutral. The common noun ie ‘house’ in (2)functions as a domain plural of the distributive “different” (Farkas 1997, Balusu 2006).
(2) Hanako-wa [betsu-betsu-no
ie]-o
mita.
[Japanese]
Hanako-TOP different-different-GEN house-ACC saw‘Hanako saw different houses.’[distributive]* ‘Hanako saw a house different from what Taro saw.’ (after (1a))[anaphoric]
A similar pattern of “different” is observed in Tamil [Dravidian]. In (3b), væ:ra ‘different’
allows only the discourse anaphoric reading.
(3) a. Sinduja oRW vi:ãW pa:t”a.
[Tamil]Sinduja one house saw‘Sinduja saw a house.’b. Ankita væ:ravi:ãW-g@l pa:t”a.
Ankita different house-PL saw‘Ankita saw houses different from what Sinduja saw.’ (After (3a))[anaphoric]
The reduplicated form of væ:ra disallows the anaphoric reading, as shown in (4).
(4) Ankita væ:ra-væ:ravi:ãW-g@l pa:t”a.
[Tamil]Ankita different-different house-PL saw‘Ankita saw different houses.’[distributive]* ‘Ankita saw houses different from what Sinduja saw.’ (After (3a))[anaphoric]
What Japanese and Tamil have in common is that the reduplicated form of “different” cannot
yield the discourse anaphoric interpretation.
Proposal: I propose that the non-reduplicated “different” can take the covert pronoun pro as its
argument, as represented in (5a). (Note that Tamil also allows null arguments.)(5) a. Hanako-wa [[pro betsu]-no
ie]-o
mita.
Hanak-TOPdifferent-GEN house-ACC saw‘Hanako saw a house different from a contextually determined individual.’b. Hanako-wa [[sore-to betsu]-no
ie]-o
mita.
Hanak-TOP it-P
different-GEN house-ACC saw‘Hanako saw a house different from it.’
When the covert pronoun in (5a) refers to a contextually determined individual, (5a) receives
the discourse anaphoric reading. Evidence for the current analysis comes from the fact thatthe non-reduplicated “different” can co-occur with an overt nominal argument followed by the
postposition to, as shown in (5b). I assume that the non-reduplicated “different” generally
combines with a nominal argument. On the other hand, the reduplicated “different” cannot
appear with an overt argument, as in (6).
1

(6) *Hanako-wa [[sore-to betsu-betsu ]-noie ]-omita.
Hanak-TOP it-P
different-different-GEN house-ACC saw
Based on the unacceptability of (6), I assume that the reduplicated “different” cannot take anominal argument including the covert pronoun pro. Under the proposed analysis, the discourse
anaphoric interpretation relies on the presence of pro, as in (5a). The discourse anaphoric
interepretation is unavailable with the reduplicated “different” because it cannot take pro.
More on the distributive reading: As shown in (7), the non-reduplicated “different” can yield
the distributive interpretation, in addition to the discourse anaphoric one.
(7) [dono gakusei]-mo [[pro betsu]-noronbun hitotsu]-oyonda.
INDET student-alsodifferent-GEN paper one.CLS-ACC read‘Every student read one different paper.’[OK anaphoric, OK distributive]
I assume that the covert pronoun in (7) can be interpreted as a bound variable. (See Hoji
2006 for a similar analysis of the Japanese reciprocal otagai.) When the covert pronoun functions as a bound variable, (7) receives the distributive interpretation. (7) can also have thediscourse anaphoric interpretation when the covert pronoun refers to a contextually determined
individual. It should be noted that the reduplicated “different” can also yield the distributive
interpretation, as shown in (8).
(8) [dono gakusei]-mo [betsu-betsu-no
ronbun hitotsu]-oyonda.
INDET student-also different-different- GEN paper one. CLS - ACC read‘Every student read one different paper.’[*anaphoric, OK distributive]
I have proposed that the reduplicated “different” cannot combine with a nominal argument.
Given this, the bound variable analysis of the distributive interpretation cannot be extended
to the reduplicated “different”. It has been observed that reduplication are often associatedwith distributivity cross-linguistically. (See for instance Gil 1982, Balusu 2005, Cable 2014
for analyses of distributive numerals.) Regarding the distributive interpretation of (8), I assume
that distributivity comes from reduplication (Balusu & Jayaseelan 2013). This means that betsu
and betsu-betsu have a different source of the distributive interpretation. Evidence comes fromthe following examples.
(9) a. [[pro betsu]-nosensei hitori]-ga[Taro-to Hanako]-o hometa.
different-GEN teacher one.CLS - NOM T.-and H.-ACC
praisedLit. ‘One different teacher praised Taro and Hanako.’ [OK anaphoric, *distributive]
b. [Taro-to Hanako]1 -o [[pro betsu]-nosensei hitori]-ga∆1 hometa.
T.-and H.-ACC
different-GEN teacher one.CLS - NOM
praisedOK
OK
Lit. ‘Taro and Hanako, one different teacher praised.’ [ anaphoric, distributive](10) [betsu-betsu-nosensei hitori]-ga[Taro-to Hanako]-o hometa.
different-different-GEN teacher one.CLS - NOM T.-and H.-ACC
praised*Lit. ‘One different teacher praised Taro and Hanako.’[ anaphoric, OK distributive]
In (9a), the distributive interpretation is unavailable. The distributive interpretation becomes
available when the coordinated object moves to a c-commanding position as in (9b). The contrast in (9) can be explained under the present analysis. I assume that the covert pronoun pro
functions as a bound variable only when there is a c-commanding antecedent. (9a) does nothave the distributive interpretation because the covert pronoun is not c-commanded by the plural antecedent, unlike (9b). The same restriction does not hold for the distributive interpretationof the reduplicated “different” in (10). In this case, betsu-betsu allows the distributive interpretation, regardless of whether or not a plural antecedent c-commands it. The proposal developed
here can thus explain the contrast between (9a) and (10).
Selected References: Balusu & Jayaseelan. 2013. Distributive quantification by reduplication in Dravidian. In Strategies of quantification, 60–86. Hoji, H. 2006. Otagai. In Theoreticaland empirical studies of reference and anaphora.
2