Notes on Adjectival Predicate Ellipsis and its Theoretical Implication for Argument Ellipsis
Gen Kasai
Osaka University
Synopsis: The aim of this paper is two-fold: to demonstrate that adjectival predicate ellipsis (APE)/anaphora
should be derived from LF-Copy, and to explore its consequences. Given the impediment to overt movementfrom the English APE site, I assert that APE should be derived from LF-Copy rather than PF-Deletion. A
PF-Deletion approach, derivational ellipsis, is also shown to be inconsistent with APE data, which confirms
LF-Copy to APE. Furthermore, LF-Copy is applicable to Japanese "soo" predicate anaphora (SPA). LFCopy to APE in English and SPA in Japanese provides additional support for Bošković’s (2018) explanationof why only D-less languages have Argument Ellipsis and R-heard raising analysis in that-relatives.
Data: In English, AP can be elided. AP2 undergoes deletion under identity with AP1 in (1).
(1)
Mary should [Pred P be [AP1 friendly]], and John should [Pred P be [AP2 Δ]], too.
This is confirmed by the fact that adjectival predicate ellipsis (APE) permits sloppy reading in (2) (as easily
as VP ellipsis, according to my informant), similar to VP ellipsis.
(2)
Mary should be [AP1 more friendly with her sister], and John should be [AP2 Δ], too.
(2) shows AP2 can be interpreted as “more friendly with Mary’s own sister” (sloppy reading). However,APE behaves differently from VPE in terms of extraction possibilities. VPE allows WH movement out ofthe deletion site (Fiengo and May 1994, a.o.) whereas (3) shows that APE does not, my informant reports.
(3) a. * I know who John should be more friendly with, but I don’t know who Mary should be [AP Δ].
b. *John is not friendly to the person who(m) he should be [AP Δ].
(3) questions the claim that APE is derived by PF-Deletion, which is generally assumed to be the source for
VP ellipsis. That is because it is unclear why overt extraction is unavailable in (3a) if overt element exists
in Narrow Syntax (NS). We need another approach to PE.
Proposal and Analysis: I would like to propose that APE is derived by LF-Copy. Consider (4).
(4) a. NS: John should be [AP Δ].
b. LF: John should be [AP more f. to who]
(4) is a derivation for (3a) (f.=friendly in (4b)). AP is empty in NS in (4a). In LF, the preceding AP is copied
onto AP, as shown in (4b). In this case, the object "who" is phonologically null, so overt movement leads tothe ungrammaticality of (3a). Therefore, the LF-Copy correctly predicts the unavailability of (3).
Against PF-Deletion: Proponents of PF-Deletion may suspect that derivational ellipsis (DE, Aelbreht 2010)
also explains (3), which is untenable. Her proposal is that extraction from deletion site becomes unavailable
as soon as licensing head for ellipsis (T for VP ellipsis, etc) merges. I would like to argue that T is licensing
head for APE because lack of T makes APE unavailable, as in (5). Gerundives lacking T block APE of AP2.
(5)*John being [AP1 healthy] and Mary not being [AP2 Δ], according to the result of medical checkup,
was surprising to everyone.
DE predicts that WH movement out of deletion site is available. WH phrases can move to phase edge (Spec,
Pred P) before T head merges, which is incompatible with (3). This confirms LF-Copy approach to APE.
Support: "Soo" predicate anaphora (SPA) should be driven by LF-Copy of AP, parallel to APE in English,
for the following three reasons. (6) shows Japanese pro-form "soo" can be used for AP predicates.
(6) a. Taroo-wa [AP1 kodomo-ni sinsetsu]-da.
b. Hanako-mo soo da.
Taro-TOPchild-DAT kind-COP
Hanako-also so COP‘Taro is kind to children.’‘Hanako is so (=kind to children), too.’First, SPA prohibits overt extraction by clause-internal scrambling from within itself, as in (7). The
ungrammaticality of (7b) indicates that the object ("gakusei-ni") cannot be extracted from "soo" by clause-internal scrambling.
(7) a. gakusei1-ni Taroo-wa [AP t1 sinsetsu]-da.
b.* gakusei1-ni Hanako-mo soo da.
student-DAT Taroo-TOP
kind-COP
student-DAT Hanako-also so COP‘to John, Taroo is kind.’‘To John, Hanako is so, too.’
Second, Overt extraction in (8b) is also unavailable in long-distance scrambling (of "gakusei-ni" from "soo").
(8) a. Gakusei1-ni, Taroo-wa John-ga [AP t1 sinsetsu]-da to itta.
Student-DAT Taroo-TOP John-NOM kind-COP C said
‘To [students]1, Taro said John was kind t1’
b. *Gakusei2-ni, Hanako-wa Mike-mo soo da to itta.
Student-DAT Hanako-TOP Mike-also so COP C said
‘To [students]2, Hanako said Mike was so (= [AP kind t2]), too’
Third, (9), conversely, shows null operator movement can take place out of SPA (Cleft, Hoji 1990).
(9)[CP Op1 Taro-ga [AP t1 hizyouni amak]atta no]-wa[hakusikatei-no
insei]1-ni
Taro-NOM very
lenient PST NML-TOP doctor course-GEN graduate student-DAT
da ga, [CP Op2 Hanako-ga
soo datta no]-wa
gakubusei2-nida.
COP but
Hanako-NOM so COP NML-TOP undergraduate-DAT COP‘It was to doctor course graduate students that Taro was very lenient but it was to undergraduatesthat Hanako was so.’In (9), "soo" denotes AP ([AP t1 hizyouni-amai]) in the preceding sentence. The grammaticality of (9)indicates that “soo” allows null operators to move out of it, showing that "soo" possesses its internal
syntactic structure. This is unexpected by the proposal that “so” is pro-form because pro-form lacks its
internal structure. The asymmetry in the availability of extraction between overt elements and null operators
in SPA is resolved by the LF-Copy analysis with the assumption that null operator movement takes place at
LF (Sakamoto 2017, etc). Specifically, "soo" exists in NS and preceding predicates are LF-Copied onto"soo" in LF. Since LF-Copied elements cannot have phonological features, overt movement from thepredicate "soo" is prohibited. Conversely, null operators can be extracted because they can move at LF.
Theoretical Implication: LF-Copy approach to APE/SPA lends support to the claim of Bošković’s (2018)claim regarding the availability of Argument Ellipsis only in D-less languages. He proposes that only
elements of type <e, t> can be copied in LF in addition to the following two points: (i) NPs in D-lesslanguages (Serbo-Croatian, etc.) are type <e, t> in syntax; (ii) NPs in DP languages (Bulgarian, etc.) aretype e in syntax. These proposals seemingly establish the generalization that Argument Ellipsis, which isassumed to be derived by LF-Copy, is available only in D-less languages. That is because arguments in DP
languages are not LF-Copied due to type restrictions on LF-Copy. However, it is crucial for his argument tobe justified that only LF-Copy, not PF-Deletion, should derive the deletion of elements of type <e, t>. Since
AP is type <e, t>, the independent justification from APE and SPA aligns with Bošković’s (2018) argument.
Consequence: Unavailability of APE in that-relatives suggests that-relatives involve R-head movement,
not null operator movement. (10) shows Adjectival PE is ungrammatical in that-relativization.
(10) *John is not friendly to [DP the [CP person (that) he should be [AP1 Δ]]].
This suggests that that-relatives are derived by R-head movement rather than null operator movement, itscompeting alternative. That is because null operator movement does not degrade sentences undergoing
APE, as illustrated in Japanese cleft (9).
Selected References: Bošković, Ž. (2018). On pronouns, clitic doubling, and argument ellipsis: argument
ellipsis as predicate ellipsis. EL 35(1). Sakamoto, Y. (2017). Escape from silent syntax. PhD diss., UCON.

A Phase-based Analysis of Subject-Object Asymmetry in Nonfinite Clauses
Yuka Usui (Kyushu University)
Issues: In nonfinite clauses, embedded subject anaphors as in (1a) can get an item in the upperclause as their antecedents, while embedded object anaphors as in (1b) cannot. On the other
hand, the asymmetry of this kind does not obtain in finite clauses, as shown in (2).
(1) a. Theyi want very much for each otheri to succeed.
b. * Theyi want very much for John to nominate each otheri.
(Saito (2017: 64, fn. 3))(2) a. * Maryi insisted that herselfi saw it.
(Saito (2017: 61))b. * Johni thinks that Mary recommended himselfi.
(Saito (2017: 62))
Quicoli (2008) argues that for an anaphor to get an interpretation, its antecedent must be
introduced to the derivation by the time the anaphor is transferred. However, Quicoli’s theory
cannot expect the contrast shown in (1) and (2), where only subject anaphors embedded in
nonfinite clauses are successfully bound (cf. Saito (2017)).
A similar subject-object asymmetry is observed with Quantifier Raising (QR), in which a
structurally lower quantifier moves over another quantifier, inducing an inverse scope reading.
While embedded subject quantifiers as in (3a) can undergo QR, embedded object quantifiers
as in (3b) cannot. Again, finite clauses do not show this kind of contrast, as illustrated in (4).
(3) a. Some juror wants (for) every defendant to be acquitted. (∃>∀, ∀>∃)
(cf. den Dikken (2015: 91))
b. Someone wanted for you to meet every woman. (∃>∀, *∀>∃)(Cecchetto (2004: 370))(4) a. # Someone said that every man is married to Sue. (#∃>∀, *∀>∃)
b. # Someone said that Sue is married to every man. (#∃>∀, *∀>∃) (Fox (2000: 62))
The account to capture the above facts must accommodate the contrast between finite andnonfinite clauses as well as the subject-object asymmetry in nonfinite clauses. It has been
widely accepted that finite complements constitute phases, which leads the elements embeddedin them to be inaccessible. We might be led to conclude that nonfinite C is not a phase head.
This does not seem to help, however, because as suggested in (1b) and (3b), there are cases inwhich embedded objects must be inaccessible. Therefore, we need a theory that allows only
embedded subjects, but not objects, to undergo movement or binding in nonfinite clauses.
Theoretical Background: I assume with Chomsky (2013, 2015) that the derivations of the v*Pphase and the CP phase proceed as in (5) and (6), respectively. In the v*P phase in (5), aninternal argument (IA) raises to Spec-R, followed by pair-Merge of R to v*, which makes thelatter invisible. The phasehood is thus activated on R, resulting in the transfer of its
complement. As for the CP phase in (6), an external argument (EA) moves to Spec-T, after
which the complement of the phase head C, δ, is transferred.
(5) [δ EA [γ R-v* [β IA [α R IA]]]](6) [ε C [δ EA [γ T [β EA [α R-v*…]]]]]
Following Matsubara (2000), I also assume that a prepositional phrase constitutes a phase.
He argues that it includes a functional head p*, which takes PP headed by a substantive P, as
illustrated in (7). P affixes onto p* in a similar fashion to the derivation of v*P. Under
Chomsky’s (2015) framework, this structure should be reinterpreted as in (8). DP moves toSpec-P for agreement. After P affixing onto p*, rendering the latter invisible, the phasehood is
activated on P. The transfer domain thus shifts to the complement of it.
(7) [p*P p* [PP P DP]](8) [γ P-p* [β DP [α P DP]]
Proposal: I propose that the nonfinite CP phase comprises the substantive C and the functional
c*. In (9a), EA is merged to Spec-C, after which the phase head c* is introduced. C undergoes
pair-Merge to c*, which cancels the phasehood of the latter. The transfer domain is shifted tothe complement of the lower copy of C, γ, as illustrated in (9b). The derivation in (9) is parallelwith that of v*P in (5) and p*P in (8). Nonfinite C, externalized as for, is called a “prepositional”
complementizer because it has the prepositional counterpart. It should thus be natural toconsider that oblique case is assigned to the subject by c*, in a parallel way as in p*P.
(9) a. [ζ c* [ε EA [δ C [γ T [β EA [α R-v*…]]]]]]b. [ζ C-c* [ε EA [δ C [γ T [β EA [α R-v*…]]]]]]
Analysis: Under the proposal developed here, in nonfinite clauses in (1), only subject anaphors
can get an interpretation. As shown in (10), the anaphor is merged to Spec-C and the transfer
domain is γ, the complement of the lower copy of C, which undergoes pair-Merge to c*. This
makes it possible for the anaphor to get an element in the upper clause as its antecedent.
(10) [ζ C-c* [ε each other [δ C [γ T [β each other [α R-v*… IA]]]]]]
In finite clauses in (2), in contrast, the anaphors cannot be bound because the shaded part in(11), including the subject and object anaphor, is necessarily transferred.
(11) [ε C [δ EA [γ T [β EA [α R-v*… IA]]]]]
Turning to QR, I assume with Otsuka (2023) that it is phase bound and that what makes
inverse scope interpretation possible is pair-Merge of a quantifier to the higher structure thananother one. The availability of inverse scope in (3a) is then attributable to pair-Merge of theuniversal quantifier in the embedded subject position to the position higher than the matrix
subject, as illustrated in (12a). Object quantifiers embedded in nonfinite clauses as in (3b)cannot undergo pair-Merge across clauses, since as shown in (12b), they are trapped in thetransfer domain at the embedded c*P phase level.
(12) a. [ι <QP> [θ EA [η R-v* [ζ C-c* [ε QP [δ C [γ T [β QP [α R-v*… IA]]]]]]]]]]b. [θ EA [η R-v* [ζ C-c* [ε EA [δ C [γ T [β EA [α R-v*… QP]]]]]]]]QR across finite clauses as in (4) is always impossible, in the same way as anaphor binding.
As illustrated in (11), both embedded subjects and objects are transferred at the embedded CP
level, which results in no quantifiers undergoing pair-Merge to the higher structure.
Extension: The current proposal opens up a possibility that the lack of Subject Condition
sensitivity in nonfinite clauses is accounted for. In nonfinite clauses, extraction from subject
DP is possible as in (13), which contrasts with finite clauses as in (14).
(13)
Of which cari would you have liked (for) [the driver ti] (not) to cause a scandal?
(Matsubara (2008: 469))(14)* Of which cari did [the driver ti] cause a scandal?
(Chomsky (2008: 147))
This contrast can be captured once we adopt the view that subjects embedded in nonfinite CP
can escape from the transfer domain and follow the Determinacy-based approach advocated byGoto and Ishii (2020). They argue that Determinacy, which requires Merge to apply in a
deterministic way, applies at the input of Merge. Under this approach, extraction from subjects
in finite clauses gives rise to the violation of Determinacy. In (15), to move the wh to Spec-C,
there are two accessible copies of wh in Spec-T and Spec-R-v*, which violates Determinacy.
(15) [ζ wh1 [ε C [δ <… wh2> [γ T [β <… wh3> [α R-v*…]]]]]]
In nonfinite clauses, the problem with Determinacy can be circumvented. As shown in (16a),the subject merged to Spec-C is not transferred at the embedded CP level, where the phase headc* is rendered invisible by pair-Merge. This enables the wh to move to its landing site fromSpec-C after the copy of the subject, left in Spec-R-v*, is transferred and rendered inaccessible,
as in (16b). There is no way of two copies of wh being accessible, and thus no Determinacy
violation is yielded.
(16) a. [ζ C-c* [ε <… wh1> [δ C [γ T [β <… wh2> [α R-v*…]]]]]]b. [η wh1 …[ζ C-c* [ε <… wh2> [δ C [γ T [β <… wh3> [α R-v*…]]]]]]]
Selected References: Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,”
Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di
Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini, 1-16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. / Goto,
Nobu and Toru Ishii (2020) “Determinacy Theory of Movement,” NELS 50, 29-38. / Matsubara,
Fuminori (2000) “p*P Phases,” Linguistic Analysis 30, 127-161.

Nominalising Suffixed Adjectives via Lexicalisation and Clipping
Takashi Ishida
Ryohei Naya
Hiroshima Shudo University
University of Tsukuba
1.

No Morphological Restriction for Adjective-to-Noun Conversion?
Suffixed words systematically resist undergoing V(erb)-forming conversion regardlessof their base category. For example, the suffixed noun curiousness cannot undergo V-forming
conversion as in *Jane curiousnesses every day (Plag (2018: 114); cf. Marchand (1969), Bauer(1983), Farrell (2001), Nagano (2008)). Based on Lieber’s (1992) relisting approach (i.e.,
listing a pre-existing item in the lexicon as a new member), Nagano (2008) explains that thisrestriction arises because suffixed words are not listed in the lexicon unless they are lexicalised;
thus, they cannot be targets of relisting. Interestingly, however, this morphological restriction
is not found in the N(oun)-forming conversion from suffixed Adj(ective)s, as shown in (1).
(1) a.
The dailies were delivered to the door.
b.
This sweet digestive sat on her plate.
c.
A famous intellectual of international standing addressed the meeting.
(Bauer (2021: 176), underlines and italics ours)
The italicised words are true N(oun)s (see Section 2). Then, what morphological processes turnsuffixed Adjs into Ns? This study contends that the Ns in question originate from Suffixed
Adj+N expressions (e.g., factive verbs) to which two morphological processes are applied:
lexicalisation of the whole expression and clipping of the head N (e.g., factive verbs > factivesN).
2.

The Poor-Type vs. The Factive-Type
Borer and Roy (2010) provide the same syntactic analysis for simple and suffixed Adjs.
Their main idea is that the relevant Adjs are true attributive Adjs, and they modify a pronominal
null N (i.e., (Det) Adj [N pro]). This syntactic analysis aptly captures the case of simple Adjs
(the poor-type) but not the case of suffixed Adjs (the factive-type) because they clearly differ
from simple Adjs when used as Ns. The the poor-type still shows adjectival (non-nominal)
properties, whereas the the factive-type can “occur in any noun phrase […] with any determiner,
and the forms can have a plural form” (Bauer (2021: 175–176)), as compared in (2) (cf. Borer
and Roy (2010), Bauer (2021)).
(2) a.
Definite plural:the poor(*s) vs. the intellectualsb.
Indefinite plural: * three sads vs. two fictivesc.
Indefinite article: * a pretty, *a rich vs. a psychic, an attributived.
Demonstrative: * these wise(es), *those lucky vs. these nominals, those factives
The stark contrast between these Adjs necessitates us to adopt a different analysis for the very
process of the the factive-type.
3.

Analysis
We argue that there are two steps in the nominalisation process of the the factive-type:lexicalisation and clipping. As shown in (3), the Suffixed Adj+N expressions as a whole are
first lexicalised, and then the expressions are clipped (cf. keitai-denwa (mobile-phone) > keitai
in Japanese).
(3) [[factive]A verb]NP>[factive verb]N/NP >[factive]N
lexicalisationclipping
Here, we regard lexicalisation as the process of listing in the lexicon (cf. Nishiyama andNagano (2020: 95)). For instance, factive of the factive cannot be reconstructed unless its
modifiee (i.e., head N) is determined semantically (or pragmatically). However, once the entire
construction (i.e., factive verb) is listed in the lexicon, the head N can be elided because of its
recoverability. Consequently, the remnant suffixed Adj is effectively transposed into N.
The proposed process is not sporadic because certain nominalised phrasal verbs can also
be analysed in the same manner. Thus, a pay-off means ‘a person responsible for sharing out
the proceeds of a fraud, robbery, or other criminal operation’ (OED) and can be assumed tooriginate in pay-off man, from which pay-off has come to be used as an N without the head N
man (Nishiyama and Nagano (2020: 96)).
An alternative analysis might be to regard the suffixes in (1) (e.g., -ly, -ive, -al) as
nominalisers. However, our analysis, but not this kind of analysis, can be straightforwardly
applied to nominalisations from suppletive (or collateral) Adjs such as those in (4), which are
known as attributive-only modifiers. For instance, canine is the suppletive adjectival form of
dog that appears only in an environment of attributive modifications. Interestingly, they exhibit
the same behaviour as the the factive-type in (2).
(4) canine (< dog) ‘canine teeth’
lacustrine (< lake) ‘lacustrine sediments’cardiac (< heart) ‘cardiac indices’ pluvial (< rain) ‘pluvial periods/seasons’
These suppletive Adjs are nonconcatenative and “hard to reduce to any transparent
morphological processes synchronically” (Koshiishi (2002: 51)), thus avoiding the nominaliser
approach. The nominal use of these suppletives is naturally captured by our analysis, namely
the lexicalisation of the Suppletive Adj+N expressions and subsequent clipping of the modified
Ns.
References
Bauer, Laurie (1983) English Word-Formation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bauer, Laurie (2021) An Introduction to English Lexicology, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Borer, Hagit and Isabella Roy (2010) “The Name of the Adjective,” Adjectives, ed. by 85–114, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Farrell, Patrick (2001) “Functional Shift as Category Underspecification,” English Language andLinguistics 5, 109–130.
Koshiishi, Tetsuya (2002) “Collateral Adjectives, Latinate Vocabulary, and English Morphology?,”
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 37, 49–88.
Lieber, Rochelle (1992) Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory, Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago.
Marchand, Hans (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A
Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Münhen.
Nagano, Akiko (2008) Conversion and Back-Formation in English, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Nishiyama, Kunio and Akiko Nagano (2020) Keetairon to Rekishikon (Morphology and Lexicon),
Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED), retrieved from https://www.oed.com
Plag, Ingo (2018) Word-Formation in English, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

The Reciprocal Uses of Relational Nouns in Japanese and English:
Conceptual Symmetry and its Linguistic Manifestations
Keigo Ujiie(National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics)
Background
While reciprocity is mainly discussed in relation to verb semantics or grammatical voice, it also
plays an important role in the nominal realm. This study focuses on the reciprocal uses of relational
nouns (RNs) in Japanese and English.
In English, the relational noun sister in its plural form can refer to a group of individuals eachmember of which bears a “sister-of” relation to the others, as illustrated in (1).
(1) The sisters entered the room.

(Eschenbach 1993: 4)

Cases like this, often called “reciprocal plurals,” have been discussed in the formal semantics
literature (Eschenbach 1993, Barker 1999, Hackl 2002, Staroverov 2007). Eschenbach offers ananalysis in terms of a semantic operation associated with the plural form that derives from a basic
relation (e.g. sister-of) a group of individuals related to each other by that relation.
The plural forms of RNs like father or referee evidently do not have such a reading, which leads
to the question: what constraints are there on the semantics of RNs that allow for reciprocal use?
There are two candidates proposed in the literature: a weak one and a strong one.
(i) Weak constraint: relations that do not exclude symmetrical cases (Eschenbach 1993)(ii) Strong constraint: relations that are symmetrical (where symmetry is defined weakly so as toaccommodate cases like sisters; the sister-of relation is strictly speaking not symmetrical. This isbecause the sentence “A is B’s sister” does not entail “B is A’s sister,” since B could be male.)(Staroverov 2007; see also Hackl 2002)
Observations on Japanese RNs
First, the Japanese sentence corresponding to the English example in (1), with the RN in thesubject position, cannot be interpreted reciprocally. In general, Japanese RNs can have a reciprocal
reading only in the predicate position, an observation which is supported by the data available.
Second, there is a seemingly unpredictable lexical restriction on the reciprocal use of RNs. For
example, while raibaru ‘rival’ can be used reciprocally, teki ‘enemy’ cannot.
(2) Taroo to Yooko wa {raibaru ‘rival’/itoko ‘cousin’/tomodati ‘friend’} da.
[Reciprocal reading possible](3) Taroo to Yooko wa {??teki ‘enemy’/??aite ‘opponent’/??konyakusya ‘fiancé’} da.
[Reciprocal reading difficult or impossible]
This is puzzling given the fact that their English counterparts, such as “John and Sue are{enemies/opponents/fiancés},” are quite natural in their reciprocal reading. What makes thedifference between raibaru ‘rival’ and teki ‘enemy’?
Conceptual symmetry inherent in the meanings of RNs
I propose that Japanese raibaru ‘rival’ is essentially symmetrical in the way in which teki ‘enemy’is not. As dictionary definitions suggest, raibaru, like its English counterpart rival, is closely
associated with the idea of competition, a relation where the participants have equal status. The
word raibaru evokes the symmetrical relation of competition as its conceptual background or“frame,” even in nonreciprocal contexts. On the other hand, the background frame of teki ‘enemy’is not necessarily symmetrical; in fact, we can easily imagine a situation where A is an enemy ofB, but B is not an enemy of A. This may be the reason why Japanese teki cannot be used reciprocally.
In contrast, its English counterpart enemy can be interpreted reciprocally, suggesting that thesymmetry requirement for RNs in English is somewhat weaker than that of Japanese. These
considerations lead us to conclude that Japanese requires inherent symmetry for RNs to be used
reciprocally, while English does not. In other words, Japanese imposes on the reciprocal use of
RNs the strong constraint in (ii) above, while English opts for the weak one in (i).
Towards a cognitive semantics of reciprocity
There seem to be two types of reciprocity in language: one inherent in the meaning of the lexical
item (e.g. “John and Sue met.”) and one derived from a basic unidirectional relation (e.g. “Johnand Sue criticized each other.”). Although the situations expressed are symmetrical in both cases,
they have different conceptual structures. Considering the fact that nouns like rival are reciprocal
in nature as discussed above, it is dubious that the reciprocal meanings of expressions like rivals
are “derived” from the basic unilateral relations, as assumed in the previous studies. Sadanobu(1990) maintains that, while symmetry is usually defined in truth-conditional terms, the notion ofsymmetry at the conceptual level is also needed to adequately capture the reciprocity reflected in
the Japanese grammar. I hope that this study will shed light on some aspects of the concept ofsymmetry, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of reciprocity in language.
References
Barker, Chris (1999) Temporary accommodation: I am the oldest of my siblings, Studies in the
Linguistic Sciences 29:1: 3–13.
Eschenbach, Carola (1993) Semantics of number, Journal of Semantics 10: 1–31.
Hackl, Martin (2002) The ingredients of essentially plural predicates, in Masako Hirotani (ed.)
Proceedings of the 32nd North East Linguistic Society conference: 171–182, GLSA,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sadanobu, Toshiyuki (1990) Bun no ‘taisyoosee’ to meeshiku no soogokookan (‘Symmetry’ ofsentence and noun phrase interchange), Lingustic Research 9: 1–57.
Staroverov, Peter (2007) Relational nouns and reciprocal plurality, Semantics and Linguistic
Theory 17: 300–316.

P as a Locus of Definiteness in the Extended Projections of the Nominal Domain
Hiromune Oda (The University of Tokyo)
Introduction: It has been standardly assumed in the literature that definite articles are obligatorily
present in a nominal phrase with definite interpretation in languages with definite articles, such as
English. This follows from Chierchia’s (1998) blocking principle, by which presence of alexicalized semantic operator in a language blocks covert application of the operator at LF.
In this work, however, I introduce Mardale’s (2006) observation that definite articles are
obligatorily omitted in the presence of a preposition despite the definite interpretation in Romanianand Albanian, which is unexpected from the standard view of the definite article noted above.
Pointing out that Mardale’s D-to-P incorporation analysis cannot capture the relevant pattern, I
propose that P can function as the highest functional element of the extended functional projectionsin the nominal domain, à la Grimshaw (2000), Baker (2003), and Zanon (2020). In addition,building on Talić (2017), I propose that DP is in fact absent in the case of article drop in PPs in thelanguages in question. P in the cases in question is responsible for the definite interpretation as thehighest functional element in the nominal domain, just as D in the usual cases. In a bigger picture,
this work puts forward the possibility to investigate non-prototypical properties of certain
categories in a more fine-grained manner under the formal linguistic framework.
Data: Mardale (2006) shows that certain PPs, which are typically locative, resist definite articles
in Romanian and Albanian, as seen in (1a) and (1b), respectively.
(1) a. Mă îndrept către
parc(*-l).
b. Unë po shkoj në kishë(*-n).
me head towards park-theI
PROG goto church-the‘I’m heading towards the park.’‘I’m going to the orthodox church.’
One might think that this is similar to bare singulars in locatives found in languages like English(e.g., I went to school), which are restricted to a narrow lexical class of nouns (so-called weak
definite; see, e.g., Scholten 2010 and Aguilar-Guevara 2014). However, Mardale (2006) reportsthat article drop in PPs with definite interpretation is more productive and is possible with othertypes of prepositions in Romanian, such as direct object marking. In addition, Mardale points outthat the nouns in the locatives in (1) necessarily receive a definite interpretation; in other words,
an indefinite reading is not allowed. This is contrasted with the weak definite, which lacks a clear
definite interpretation (Scholten 2010, Aguilar-Guevara 2014). In fact, an indefinite article must
be present for an indefinite interpretation in the relevant PP in Romanian, as shown in (2).
(2) Mă îndrept către *(un) parc.
me head towards a park
‘I’m heading towards a park.’ (Romanian, Mardale 2006:2)
Mardale (2006) proposes that D incorporates into P in the case of article drop, whereby D is
unpronounced. However, this account cannot explain the contrast between (1) and (3).
(3) a. Mă îndrept către
parc*(-l) înverzit.
me head towards park-the green‘I’m heading towards the park.’ (Romanian, Mardale 2006:2)
b. Unë po shkoj në kishë*(-n) ortodokse.
PROG goto church-the orthodox
I‘I’m going to the orthodox church.’ (Albanian, Mardale 2006: 6)
It is unclear how the adjective, which is located lower than DP, would block this incorporation (i.e.,
article drop) in (3), since nothing would intervene between D and P (in fact, Mardale does not offer
an analysis of (3)). Thus, a more comprehensive account of article drop is warranted.
Proposal: In the spirit of Grimshaw (2000), Baker (2003), Zanon (2020), among others, I proposethat the prepositions in the cases introduced above can be part of the extended projection of anominal domain. This can be motivated by the traditional classification of lexical categories

proposed by Chomsky (1970), in which N is [+N, -V], A is [+N, +V], V is [-N, +V], and P is [-N,
-V]; N and P thus constitute a natural class as [-V] elements. P can then serve as a functional
element in the nominal domain as a [-V] element.
A question that arises here is why omission of D is forced in the presence of P in the relevantcases. I suggest that a feature responsible for definite interpretation, which I dub as Def-feature forease of exposition, can be realized (together with other relevant features such as f-features) as adefinite article, i.e., D, only if it is part of the feature bundle of the highest element in the nominal
domain in the relevant languages (cf. Mardale 2006). In the presence of P as the highest elementof the extended projections of the nominal domain, DP would not be the highest projection in theextended projections of the nominal domain in this case. Note also that the languages that allow
article drop in PP are affixal article languages, in which Talić (2017) argues DP can be absent in
the absence of the definite article. Thus, it is not implausible that D is actually absent in such cases,
and the presence of PP as the highest functional projection in the nominal domain blocks projectionof DP, which needs to be the highest functional projection in the nominal domain.
This proposal can straightforwardly explain the impossibility of article drop in the presence ofan adjective in (3). AP projects above NP (cf. Abney 1987) and “intervenes” between PP and NP
in terms of the categorial feature; P, which is [-V], is merged above AP, which is [+V], so that PP
does not count as the highest projection of the extended projections in the nominal domain, forwhich the complement of P needs to be [-V]. Since P cannot be the highest functional projectionin the nominal domain in this case, D needs to project above AP as the functional projection thatcarries the definite interpretation (note that D, A, and N are all [+N]). Thus, the definite article,
which corresponds to D, must be present in the presence of an adjective.
A remaining question under this proposal is why the bare noun in the cases under discussion
receives definite interpretation. I propose that P actually contains the Def-feature. Under Bare
Phrase Structure (BPS), lexical items that have traditionally been given specific categorial labels
are merely bundles of features. Chomsky (1995), building on Borer (1984) and Fukui (1986, 1988),
proposes that parameters are reduced to different specifications of formal features in the lexicon(the so-called Borer-Chomsky Conjecture). It is then logically possible that Ps in question can inprinciple have the Def-feature in some languages as a parametric option. I suggest that this option
is possible only if P serves as the highest functional element in the extended projections of thenominal domain. Otherwise, the definite article is used as the highest functional element in thenominal domain as the locus of the Def-feature. Under this proposal, the P in question and D
receive a unified treatment from the perspective of the Def-feature; in both cases, the Def-featureneeds to be contained in the highest element of the extended projections in the nominal domain.
(Note that all this only concerns the Def-feature, hence is irrelevant to the indefinite article in (2).
Note also that the Def-feature may not be limited to [+N] items; see Bošković and Gajewski 2011
for an argument that neg-raising predicates contain Def in languages with definite articles.)In a bigger picture, the current proposal offers a more fine-grained view of properties of
traditional categories in the formal linguistic framework, accommodating the apparent formmeaning mismatch under BPS and the Borer-Chomsky Conjecture. This opens the door toinvestigation of non-prototypical properties of Ps such as direct object marking in a morecomprehensive manner from the formal linguistic perspective (note that DOM realized as P suchas Spanish a ‘to’ and Romanian pe ‘on’ is typically associated with definiteness/specificity).
Selected References
Grimshaw, J. (1991) Locality and extended projections. In Lexical specification and insertion.
Mardale, A. (2006) On the use of the definite article with prepositions in Romanian.
Talić, A. (2017) From A to N and back: Functional and bare projections in the domain of N and A.

The Movement Analysis for Temporal Interpretations in Relative Clauses
Airi Chikamori (Tohoku University)
Kauf and Zeijlstra (2018) propose an innovative system for embedded tenseinterpretation. They also address such relative clauses that yield de re and de dicto
readings. Consider the examples below.
(1) In 2000, Mary met a woman who was president in 2004.
(Kauf and Zeijlstra (2018: 10))(2) *In 2000, Mary was looking for a woman who was president in 2004.
(ibid.)
In (1), a woman is construed as de re under a non-intensional predicate met and thesentence allows the event time (ET) of the relative clause to be futurate to that of matrix
clause, whereas in (2), a woman is construed as de dicto under an intensional predicate
was looking for, and the ET of the relative clause cannot be futurate to that of matrix
clause. They assume that the relative clause under de re environment in (1) is a nonrestrictive clause (NRRC), and the relative clause under de dicto environment in (2) is a
restrictive relative clause (RRC). Given this assumption, they argue that the difference
seen in (1) and (2) is derived from the attribute of respective relative clauses. Independentof the matrix clause, the past tense in NRRC refers not to the event time of matrix clause(ETmat), but to the speech time (ST). The past tense in RRC, on the other hand, refers toETmat because it is c-commanded by its matrix clause. In doing so, the past tense inrelative clause (Trel) in NRRC orders the event time of relative clause (ETrel) anterior toST, leaving ETmat and ETrel unordered. This is why the futurate reading of relative clausein (1) is possible. In contrast, the past Trel in RRC orders ETrel anterior to ETmat because
Trel in RRC refers ETmat due to its dependency on the matrix clause. Since the relation
between ETmat and ETrel is fixed (ETrel anterior to ETmat), the sentence in (2), which isagainst the relation, is ungrammatical.
A prediction of their analysis on the NRRCs is borne out in a different environment.
(3) Tomorrow evening, I will talk with John, who is in grade 9 now.
ETrel in the NRRCs can be relative to ST, and then the present Trel places ETrel at the sametime with ST as the deictic adverb now indicates. However, their analysis incorrectlypredicts that the example below is ungrammatical.
(4) Tomorrow evening, I will talk with all students who are in grade 9 now.
Since the embedded clause is RRC, their analysis expects that the present Trel refers to
the futurate ETmat, locating the ETrel at the same time as well. However, (4) is construed
as the ETrel being located at ST, as the adverb now indicates. This interpretation poses a
problem to their analysis, and we provide an alternative analysis for the issue.
We propose in the case of RRC, the entire NP containing a relative clause optionallymoves to TP, allowing Trel to refer to ST (cf. Kaneko (2020)), while NRRC is independentof its matrix clause and always gets relative to ST as Kauf and Zeijlstra assume. Given
this, the right interpretation in (4) is derived from the covert movement of all students
who are in grade 9 out of the matrix scope of will, which enables the Trel to relate to ST.
What about the sentences in (1) and (2)? Here, unlike Kauf and Zeijlstra, we assume
both sentences are the case of RRC, and the NP may move. In the case of de re readingin (1), since the NP a woman who was president in 2004 is interpreted in the actual world,
it moves out of the matrix predicate scope and gets relative to ST or the actual world. The
ungrammaticality in (2), then, results from the nature of de dicto reading in which theinterpretation of NP varies depending on possible worlds. More specifically, (2) isungrammatical because it fails to have a de dicto reading. In order for (2) to have de dicto
reading, the NP a woman who was president in 2004 needs to be in the scope of the matrix
intensional predicate was looking for. Yet, with the futurate adverb 2004, the NP needs tomove out of the matrix past predicate, Trel relating to ST. Eventually, the de dicto reading
fails to occur, which makes the sentence ungrammatical.
Our analysis also expects that the Trel refers to the ETmat when NP modified with RRC
does not move. This is borne out in (5).
(5) At the end of next term, I will give automatic As to all students who turn in theirterm papers on time.
In (5), ETrel is interpreted as futurate, aligning with ETmat; giving automatic As to allstudents at the end of next term as the adverb on time implies. This means the NP stays at
the original position, within the scope of matrix will, and the present Trel refers to ETmat,
locating ETrel at the same time of ETmat, contra the case in (4).
Finally, let us see what prediction our analysis makes when it comes to NRRC. We
assume that NRRC is independent of matrix clause, and thus its tense always refers to ST
since the clause is not in the scope of matrix clause. Then, when NRRC is aligned with anon-deictic adverb referring to ETmat, the sentence is expected to be ungrammatical. Thisis justified, as in (6).
(6) *At the end of next term, I will give automatic A to John, who turns in his term
paper on time.
In (6), although Trel in NRRC refers to ST due to its independency, the non-deictic adverb
on time refers to futurate ETmat. This incompatibility contributes to the ungrammaticality.
Selected References: Kauf, Carina and Hedde Zeijlstra (2018) “Towards a New
Explanation of Sequence of Tense,” Semantics and linguistics theory 28, 59-77. Kaneko,
Yoshiaki (2020) “Notes on Some Consequences of the CP Movement Analysis of Double
Access Phenomena in English,” Bunka 83, 1-15.

Analyzing English Only as Not Any More/Other Than
Linmin Zhang, NYU Shanghai (zhanglinmin@gmail.com)

Overview. I adopt a decompositional view on only, proposing that it contains an additive
component and negation (see (1); cf. [3, 1]). This proposal is similar to but improves on [5,7, 2] in including scalarity: the alternatives to the prejacent of only are considered along a(partially) ordered scale. By analyzing only as not any more/other than, I explain(i) its uniform interpretation across domains, (ii) positive and negative inferences, (iii) NPI(non-)licensing phenomena, and (iv) how only is different from Exhaustivity (see (2)).
def

(1)

[[only]](p) = λw : ∃p0 [p0 ∈ alt(p) ∧ p0 ⊂ p].∀p00 [p00 ∈ alt(p) ∧ p00 ⊂ p → ¬p00 (w)]
Presupp. of additivity: there are alternatives stronger than the prejacent p.
Negative assertion: all stronger alternatives are false.

(2)[[exh]](p) = λw : p(w).∀p00 [p00 ∈ alt(p) ∧ p00 (w) → p ⊆ p00 ]Presupposition of the truth of the prejacent: the prejacent p is true.
Assertion of strength: p is the most informative true one among alternatives.

def

1. The use of only across domains. In the current proposal, the focused associate of only
invokes a (partially) ordered alternative set (i.e., a scale). Thus the associate of only (e.g., Al
and Bill in (3a), 5 0 in (3b)) is not considered exceptions (cf. [5, 7]), but rather the base forincrease, and the assertion is a negative claim about the additive part (e.g., people otherthan Al and Bill in (3a), an increase above 50 in (3b)). With this notion of scalarity/additivity,
the semantic contribution of only is uniform across the domains of entities and degrees.
(3)

a.

b.

Only [Al and Bill]F read Dune.
Alt(p) = {Al, Bill, and Cal read Dune, . . .}Negative inference: Not anyone other than Al and Bill read Dune. Assertion
Positive inference: Al and Bill read Dune.
Scalar implicature (see (4a))
Phil is only [5]F feet tall.
Alt(p) = {Phil is 6 feet tall, . . .}Negative inference: Phil is not any taller than 5 feet.
Assertion
Positive inference: Phil is 5 feet tall.
Scalar implicature (see (4b))

2. Positive inference of only. In this proposal, an only-sentence is semantically negative(see (1)) and has a straightforward negative inference (see (3)). Then due to the notion ofscalarity, positive inference can be naturally derived as scalar implicature (see (4a), (4b)).
(4)

a.

b.

Not any one other than Al and Bill read Dune(literal meaning of (3a))∧¬[Not any one other than Al read Dune](negating a stronger claim)∧¬[Not any one other than Bill read Dune](negating a stronger claim); Al and Bill read Dune
Scalar implicature
Phil is not taller than 5 feet(literal meaning of (3b))∧¬[Phil is not taller than n feet] (here n < 5)(negating a stronger claim); height(P) ≤ 50 ∧ ¬[height(P) ≤ n0 ] (here n < 5); height(P) = 50

Usually, scalar implicature disappears when a sentence is negated (e.g., He saw Al or Billvs. He didn’t see Al or Bill ). But negating an only-sentence turns their positive inference(see (3)) from scalar implicature to entailed meaning (see (5)). This explains the seeming
projection of the positive inference. Under the current analysis, this projection is an illusion.

(5)Negating (3a) and (3b): Some stronger alternative to the prejacent of only is true.
a. Not only [A & B]F read D. = A, B, & someone else read D. |= A & B read D
b. Phil is not only [5]F feet tall. = Phil is taller than 5 feet. |= Phil is 5 feet tall

In a negative only-sentence, positive inference is an entailment and thus not cancellable(see (5)). In a positive only-sentence, positive inference is implicature and can be weakened
or disappear. (6) does not entail ‘At least an idiot will trust you’. For ‘only if p, q’, if it
entails ‘if p, q’, then ‘if p, q’ is true in a world where ¬p ∧ q, which would predict (7) to betrue in a world where the sun does not rise in the west but I’ll marry him, contradicting ourintuition for (7). (8) also does not entail ‘you have to go to the NE’. The current analysis
naturally accounts for our intuition for these sentences: positive inference is not guaranteed.
(6)

Only [an idiot]F will trust you. In fact, not even idiots will trust you.
Current analysis: Not anyone other than an idiot will trust you.

(7)

Only [if the sun rises in the west]F , I’ll marry him. (Only if p, q 6|= if p, q (i.e., p → q))
Current: ¬p → ¬q (I won’t marry him in any non-‘sun-rising-in-the-west’ worlds.)(8)

To get good cheese, you only have to go to the [North End]F .
(see [7, 1])
Current analysis: You don’t have to go to anywhere other / farther away than the NE.

3. NPI (non-)licensing. Given that only means not any more/other than, its NPI licensing
behavior is naturally explained (see (9)), without assuming Strawson downward-entailingness(cf. [6]). On the other hand, the focused associate of only serves as the base for an increase,thus not licensing NPIs (see (10). In some sense, only is similar to also in involving additivity
and NPI non-licensing: the associate of only is the base; the associate of also is an increase.
(9)

Only Mary read any books. = Not anyone other than Mary read any books.

(10)

a.
b.

Only [some / *any boys]F came. (*Any boysbase came. Othersincrease also came.)
Mary only gave [some / *any books]F to John.
(see e.g., [8] for discussion)

4. only vs. exhaustivity. Works that analyze only as an exhaustivity operator (see(2)) need to explain why positive inference can be weakened or disappear (e.g., (8)). E.g., [1]proposes the optional insertion of a silent at least within the prejacent of only. It is puzzling
why this optional insertion does not lead to ambiguity for (8) and why an overt insertion of atleast is unacceptable (see (11)). The current proposal can explain the unacceptability of (11).
Modified numerals exhibit maximality, as evidenced by the infelicitous continuation in(13b) (see e.g., [4]), and thus they cannot serve as the base for an increase (see also (12)).
(11)*Only [at least 3 boys]F came.

(13)

a.
b.

(12)

At least 3 boys came. *Others also came.

Mary fed two dogs. They are cute. Perhaps she fed more.
Mary fed at least two dogs. They are cute. #Perhaps she fed more.

Another advantage of the current proposal over an exh-based one is that both only andnot any other/more than convey or impose the impression that the focused associate is at
the lower end of a scale (see also [7]). I think this suggests that only does contain a hidden
any, which brings a domain-widening effect and leads to the ‘diminishing’ impression.
References: [1] Alonso-Ovalle & Hirsch, 2022. [2] Crnič, 2022. [3] Horn, 1969. [4] Szabolcsi, 1997. [5] Van Rooij & Schulz. 2007. [6] von Fintel, 1999. [7] von Fintel & Iatridou, 2007. [8] Xiang, 2017.

Update Semantics with Accessibility Relation
Zicheng Xu (Kobe University)
1 Introduction. This study has two aims. (i) I construct four dynamic systems based on the accessibility relation and show that System 4 is equivalent to test semantics (Veltman 1996). A related
idea can also be found in Goldstein (2019b), but the implementation of this proposal is based on
Incurvati & Sbardolini (2023). (ii) I use the above systems to examine two empirical issues. The
first issue concerns epistemic contradiction (Yalcin 2007; Willer 2013, 2015). I show that System 2
is sufficient to account for this phenomenon. The second argument focuses on the paradox of freechoice (Aloni 2007, 2022; Goldstein 2019a; Simons 2005; Zimmermann 2000). I offer a novel
dynamic perspective to address this puzzle without relying on the notion of alternatives.
2 Background. Instead of adopting the accessibility relation, the update semantics treats the epistemic modality as a test of the availability of the update process, known as the test semantics shownin (1). The test semantics can easily explain the epistemic contradictions shown in (2). After updating φ, the local context C[φ] will be all φ-worlds. Thus C[♢¬φ] = ∅. In contrast, classical modal
logic will never predict (2), unless supposing the accessibility relation is ∀w ∈ W , R[w] = {w}(under this relation, φ ⇔ □φ ⇔ ♢φ).
b.
C[□φ] = {w ∈ C | C[φ] = C}
(1) a.
C[♢φ] = {w ∈ C | C[φ] ̸= ∅}(2) a.
#It is raining and it might not be raining.
φ ∧ ♢¬φb.
#It is not raining and it might be raining.
¬φ ∧ ♢φHowever, neither accessibility relation-based semantics nor test semantics predict the free choiceinference shown in (3), which is a paradoxical phenomenon arising from disjunctions embeddedin the scope of an existential modal operator. In both semantics, ♢(φ ∨ ψ) ⇔ ♢φ ∨ ♢ψ. Moreover,
if we add the free choice principle ♢(φ ∨ ψ) ⊨ ♢φ ∧ ♢ψ, namely that the logical form of (3a)entails (3b), to classical modal logic, any ♢ψ can be inferred from any ♢φ. Due to the principle of
explosion, the system containing free choice is inconsistent.
(3) a.
Mary might have a dog or a cat.
♢(φ ∨ ψ)b.
⇝ Mary might have a dog ∧ Mary might have a cat.
♢φ ∧ ♢ψ
3 Proposal. I restore the accessibility relation to update semantics and develop the system provided by Incurvati & Sbardolini (2023) to adapt this idea.
[System 1] According to Incurvati & Sbardolini (2023), this study assumes that (i) a context is apair c = (C, ≤) of a non-empty set of worlds C ⊆ W , and a total order ≤ on w in C (w ≤ v meansthat w is at least as likely to be the actual world as v), and (ii) the updating process is divided into
two stages, proposal prop and execution exec. The former is an operation to rearrange the order ofworlds in the initial context. The latter then eliminates the less likely worlds. The systems allow theprop to rearrange the order not only based on w, but also based on w′ ∈ R[w] = {w′ ∈ W | wRw′ }.
The semantics of atomic proposition and modal operators are exhibited as follows. System 1 is surface dynamic (see Rothschild & Yalcin 2016), and I use it as a baseline to derive the remaining
systems by imposing constraints on the relation between R[w] and C.
(4) a.
C[φ] = C ∩ {w | w ∈ JφK}b.
C[♢φ] = C ∩ {w | w′ ∈ R[w] = {wi , . . . , wi+n } s.t. w′ ∈ JφK}c.
C[□φ] = ((C∩{w | wi ∈ R[w] s.t. wi ∈ JφK})∩. . . )∩{w | wi+n ∈ R[w] s.t. wi+n ∈ JφK}
(5) a.
c[φ] = exec(propφw (c))
b.
c[♢φ] = exec(propφwi+n ∈R[w] (. . . (propφwi ∈R[w] (c))))c.
c[□φ] = exec(propφwi+n ∈R[w] (. . . (exex(propφwi ∈R[w] (c)))))

(6)Proposal:a.
propφw (c) := (C, ≤φ,w )′b.
propφw′ ∈R[w] (c) := (C, ≤φ,w ∈R[w] )(7)

Execution:a.
exec(c) := (C ∩min(c), ≤ |C∩min(c) )b.
min(c) = {w ∈ C | ∀v ∈ C, w ≤ v}

∀w, v ∈ C, w ≤φ,w v iff w ∈ JφK and v ∈/ JφK, or w ∈ JφK and v ∈ JφK.
′′′∀w, v ∈ C, w ∈ R[w] and v ∈ R[v], w ≤φ,w ∈R[w] v iff
w′ ∈ JφK and v ′ ∈/ JφK, or w′ ∈ JφK and v ′ ∈ JφK.
[System 2] System 2 assumes that for any w ∈ C, R[w] ⊆ C. When updating φ, C will be all
φ-worlds. Since R[w] ⊆ C, all worlds in R[w] must be φ-worlds. This guarantees that updating φwill yield the result of φ ⊨ □φ. Thus epistemic contradictions (φ ∧ ♢¬φ ⊨⊥) are predicted. The
entailment relation in System 2 is φ ⊨ □φ ⊨ ♢φ.
[System 3] System 3 assumes that for any w ∈ C, C ⊆ R[w], then the entailment relation is □φ ⊨φ ⊨ ♢φ. This theory allows disjunction to update multiple propositions simultaneously, basedon Incurvati & Sbardolini (2023), and I show the semantics of disjunction and its compositional
interaction with modal operators as follows. I claim that for any φ, ψ and c, propφ (c) and propψ (c)can be simultaneously proposed in w or w′ ∈ R[w], only if C ∩ JφK ̸= ∅ and C ∩ JψK ̸= ∅. Thus,
we get R[w] ∩ JφK ̸= ∅ and R[w] ∩ JψK ̸= ∅, namely the free choice inferences.
  
propφwi ∈R[w](9) C[φ ∨ ψ] = C ∩ {w | w ∈ JpK s.t. p ∈ {φ, ψ}}(c)  propψwi ∈R[w]


φ∨ψ
φ∨ψ
.

.
(10) c[♢(φ ∨ ψ)] = exec(propwi+n ∈R[w] (. . . (propwi ∈R[w] (c)))) = exec .
 propφ
wi+n ∈R[w](c)ψ
propwi+n ∈R[w][System 4] System 4 assumes that for any w ∈ C, R[w] = C, then the entailment relation in thissystem is φ ⇔ □φ ⊨ ♢φ. Under this constraint, System 4 is equivalent to the test semantics. Since
System 4 is stronger than System 2, this study concludes that the test semantics is sufficient but
not necessary for explaining epistemic contradictions. However, unlike System 2, when combinedwith the proposability requirement of disjunction, System 4 also predicts free choice inferences.
4 Conclusion. The present study attempts to integrate static and dynamic semantics with respect
to epistemic modality. The comparison of four systems is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparison of four systems.
Relationship between
Epistemic
Free choice principle (with theR[w] and C
contradictions requirement of proposability)
System 1 Unrestricted✗✗
System 2 ∀w.w ∈ C, R[w] ⊆ C✓✗
System 3 ∀w.w ∈ C, C ⊆ R[w]✗✓
System 4 ∀w.w ∈ C, R[w] = C✓✓(8) a.
b.

Selected References. Aloni. 2007. Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Aloni. 2022. Logic
and conversation: The case of free choice. Goldstein. 2019a. Free choice and homogeneity.
Goldstein. 2019b. Generalized update semantics. Incurvati & Sbardolini. 2023. Update rules andsemantic universals. Kaufmann & Kaufmann. 2015. Conditionals and modality. Rothschild &Yalcin. 2016. Three notions of dynamicness in language. Simons. 2005. Dividing things up: The
semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Veltman. 1996. Defaults in update semantics. Willer.
2013. Dynamics of epistemic modality. Willer. 2015. An update on epistemic modals. Yalcin.
2007. Epistemic modals. Zimmermann. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility.

Phi-Agreement and the Raising-to-Object Constructions in English and Japanese
Ryoichiro Kobayashi (Tokyo University of Agriculture)
We argue that movement of accusative nominals in Raising-to-Object constructions (RtO) is optional in Japanese, while it is obligatory in English. We further propose that the optionality inJapanese is due to the lack of φ-agreement. RtOs in English and Japanese are illustrated in (1)/(2).
(1)
John believes him to be innocent.
(2)John-wa kare-o mujitsu-da to sinji-tei-ru
John-TOP he-ACC innocent-COP that believe-ASP - PRS‘John believes him to be innocent.’
In English RtO (1), the embedded subject him becomes the matrix object. Two pieces of evidence
are in order. In (3b), the raised argument is passivized, which indicates that the DP Argentina is amatrix object in (3a). In (4), the matrix adverb can intervene between the raised argument and theembedded clause, which indicates that the DP (i.e., his earnings) is the matrix object.
(3)a. We expect Argentina to win the World Cup.
b. Argentina was expected (by everyone) to win the World Cup. (Polinsky 2013: 580)
(4)
The chairman expected his earnings foolishly to show increases.
(ibid)
Whether movement in Japanese RtO is optional or obligatory has been controversial (Hiraiwa
2001, Kobayashi 2013, Takahashi 2021, among others). We argue that movement in Japanese RtO
is indeed optional. Let us start with evidence that Japanese RtO may involve movement. In (5a), an
NPI, rokuna-gakusei ‘good-student’, is not licensed by the matrix NEG. NPIs require clausemate
NEG in Japanese, and the NPI in (5a) has no such NEG. On the other hand, (5b) is grammaticalwith the NPI licensed by NEG, which indicates that the argument NPI is raised to the matrix clause.
(5)
a. *Taro-wa [rokuna-gakusei-ga i-ruto] omow-anakat-ta.
Taro-TOP good-student-NOM be-PRS that think-NEG - PST‘Taro didn’t think that there were good students there.’b. Taro-wa rokuna-gakuseii -o [ti i-ruto] omow-anakat-ta.
Taro-TOP good-student-ACC
be-PRS that think-NEG - PST(Kobayashi 2013)
Conversely, Hiraiwa (2001) shows that the accusative argument in Japanese RtO can stay in-situ
in certain cases. In (6), the adverb mada ‘still’ modifies the embedded predicate (John thinks that
Mary is only a child but NOT John still thinks that Mary is a child) and intervenes between theaccusative argument and matrix subject. This indicates that Mary-o stays in the embedded clause.
(6)John-ga [mada Mary-okodomo-da to] omot-tei-ru.
John-NOM still Mary-ACC child-COP that think-ASP - PRS‘John thinks that Mary is only a child.’(Hiraiwa 2001: 72)
Against this backdrop, Takahashi (2021) has recently claimed that RtO in Japanese is obligatory just like in English. He argues that movement allows adjuncts to take a free ride (Saito 1994),
which makes the data in (6) consistent with the obligatory raising analysis. However, I argue that
his argument does not necessarily hold, and the accusative argument in (6) indeed stays in-situ inthe embedded clause. Let us consider (7), in which two embedded clauses are coordinated. If Takahashi’s (2021) analysis was right, then we are forced to claim that the accusative argument withan adjunct, namely rippani Bill-o and mada Mary-o, undergoes A-movement out of each conjunctin (7), which violates the Coordinate Structure Constraints (Ross 1967). The Across-the-Board
extraction is not an option here due to the non-identity of the elements.
(7)John-to Mary-wa sorezore [&P [CP rippani Bill-ootona-da to] (sosite) [CPJohn-and Mary-TOP eachadmirably Bill-ACC adult-COP that (and)kodomo-da to]] omottei-ru.
mada Tom-ostill Tom-ACC child-COP that think-PRS‘John and Mary each think that Bill is a full grown adult and Tom is only a child.’
An astute reader may wonder whether (7) involves VP-coordination with the matrix predicate
omottei- ‘think’ included in the conjuncts. However, this is not the case because sorezore‘each/respectively’ is not properly interpreted if omottei- is pronounced in the first conjunct.
Furthermore, (8) is degraded when the argument together with the embedded adjunct undergoes
A-movement out of the embedded clause over another adjunct tuyoku ‘strongly’, which modifies
the matrix predicate. Based on the observations, we conclude that RtO is optional in Japanese.
(8)
a. *John-wa [rippani Bill-o]i tuyoku [ti otona-da to] omottei-ru.
John-TOP admirably Bill-ACC strongly adult-COP that think-PRS
Intended: ‘John strongly thinks that Bill is a full grown adult.’
b. John-wa tuyoku [rippani Bill-o otona-da to] omottei-ru.
Why is RtO obligatory in English, while it is optional in Japanese? We propose that the existence of φ-agreement makes raising in RtO obligatory in English. The movement in English RtO(1) is obligatory because the embedded subject DP (DP2 in (9)) must raise to the matrix clause sothat it values the unvalued φ-features on the matrix verb via Agree. Along with Chomsky (2013,2015), we dispense with the probe-goal Agree and instead we assume the top-down Agree: Minimal Search applies in a top-down fashion to an Syntactic Object, and Agree occurs when Minimal
Search finds [uF] and [vF], one unvalued and the other with an inherent value, of equal depth in
the structure. In (9), V cannot Agree with DP2 in the base position since V and the D2 head are
not of the same depth in the structure. In order to enter φ-agreement with V, DP2 must internallymerge to the matrix clause, as illustrated in (10). Adhering to the Extension Condition (Chomsky
1993, 1995), we assume with Epstein et al.’s (2012) two-peaked structure. The phasal complementin (10) is immediately transferred upon Agree of V and the D2 head; hence, the derivation does not
violate any constraints on interpretation of the structure at the interfaces.
(9)[ Matrix DP1 T [ vP DP1 v [ VP V[uφ] [ Embedded DP2 Tdef ective [ vP . . . ]]]]](10)[ Matrix DP1 T [ vP DP1 v [ VP V[uφ] DP2 [ Embedded DP2 Tdef ective [ vP . . . ]]]]]
We proposed an analysis that the difference between RtOs in Japanese and English stems fromthe presence/absence of φ-agreement via top-down Search (cf. Chomsky 2013). A-movement inJapanese RtO is optional because Japanese lacks φ-agreement to begin with. As long as (Internal)
Merge is free (Chomsky 2004), the embedded subject may either move or stay in-situ in Japanese.
On the other hand, A-movement in English RtO is obligatory because the derivation would crashwith φ-features on V being unvalued, unless the embedded subject raises to the matrix clause.
Selected Refs: Chomsky, N 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua. Takahashi, M 2021 Reconsidering the optionality of raising in Japanese exceptional-case-marking constructions. Syntax.

The Reflexive-Possessive Rule in Mongolian as Binding Principle A
and Its Implications on English
Chunmei Borjigin, Chigchi Bai
Inner Mongolia Unifersity of Finance and Economics
Three uncontroversial facts about Binding Principle A -- One copy of an anaphor in a chain
must be bound within the smallest CP or DP containing it and a potential antecedent (Carnie
2006: 427) -- observed with English among many:a) Rebinding is disallowed (see (1)).
b) The reflexive SELF is out in a nominative position (Carnie 2006: 428) (see (2)).
c) A DP dominating an anaphor can’t serve as that anaphor’s antecedent (see (3)).
(1) [CP Heidii believes [DP Marthaj’s description of herself*i/j]].
(2) *Chrisi said [CP that himselfi was appealing].1(3) *There is [NP a picture of itselfi]i on the mantelpiece.
Similar facts can be observed with the Mongolian reflexive-possessive suffix (RX), -aa (and its
allomorphs), which occurs at least in three different contexts (Anisman 2010, Guntsetseg 2011,
Janhunen 2012, Kullmann and Tserenpil 2015).
・It is attached to a non-nominative possessive DP, whether the possessor is explicit or not:(4)
Baatar[(öörin) nom(-ig)2]-oo
marta-b.
Baatar-NOM (own) book-ACC-RX forget-PST‘Baatar forgot his (own) book.’・It is attached to a non-nominative DP containing a relative clause:(5)
Baatar[bagš-aas-aa
sur-sanhičeel-(ϕ)]-ee
marta-b.
Baatar-NOM teacher-ABL-RX learn-CV lesson-ACC-RX forget-PST‘Baatar forgot the lesson that he learned from his teacher.’・It is attached to a non-finite verb signaling the boundary of an object clause:(6)
Baatar[ger-t-ee
hari-h]-aa
marta-b.
Baatar-NOM home-DAT-RX return-CV-RX forget-PST‘Baatar forgot to return home.’a) The element E to which RX is attached is obligatorily interpreted as referring tosomething possessed by or associated with a nominative subject (see (3-6)). This is known
as “Ерөнхийлөн Хамаатуулах Нөхцөл”, which translates as “Reflexive-Possessive Rule”(RPR) in Mongolian grammar. Notable with RPR is that switch reference is disallowed forthe subjects of the matrix and subordinate clauses. In (7), for example, bagš ‘teacher’, thesubject of the relative clause, is not co-referential with Baatar, the matrix subject, whichleads to the failure of RPR. This is because hičeel ‘lesson’, the logical object of zaa ‘teach’,is first associated with the subject of the my clause, bagš ‘teacher’,3 before the merger ofthe matrix verb, which is subject to RPR, and then it (hičeel ‘lesson’) enters an association
relationship again, but this time with the matrix subject. That is, RPR applies to the same
item twice, leading to the ungrammaticality. This resembles the fact in (1).
b) RX is never attached to a nominative phrase; that is, E never occurs in a nominative
position (see (8)). This resembles the fact in (2).
1(2) is out because, according to Carnie, the anaphor occurs in a position, Spec-TP, where nominative case isassigned. Note that sentences like the following do not serve as counterexamples of the conclusion that SELF is
excluded in a nominative position. In (i), himself arguably functions as an adjunct rather than an argument.
(i) I expected Billi to win even when hei himself didn’t. (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005: 297)
2
The accusative marker -ig may or may not be present in colloquial Mongolian.
3
In the surface, this subject is genitive but not nominative because it is not a matrix subject. Hičeel ‘lesson’ itself
remains bare, without being attached by RX. Note that RX is attached to the whole DP.

c) RX is never attached to an element inside a nominative phrase (see (9)). This resembles
the fact in (3).
(7)*Baatar[bagš-in-(h)aazaa-sanhičeel]-ee
marta-b.
Baatar-NOM teacher-GEN-RX teach-CV lesson-ACC-RX forget-PST‘Baatar forgot the lesson that his teacher taught.’(8) a. *[Baatar-inbagš]-aa
hičeelzaa-b.
Baatar-GEN teacher-NOM-RX lesson-ACC teach-PST‘Baatar’s teacher taught a lesson.’bagš-aahičeelzaa-h-ighara-b.
b. *Baatar
Baatar-NOM teacher-NOM-RX lesson-ACC teach-CV-ACC see-PST‘Baatar saw that his teacher taught a lesson.’(9)*Baatar-in
bagš-in-aa
nom-n
huučira-b.
Baater-GEN teacher-GEN-RX book-NOM-PS become-old-PST‘Baatar’s teacher’s book is aged.’
All this indicates that RPR in Mongolian is a special type of binding, with RX behaving thesame way as SELF, as described below.
Binding Principle A can be viewed as a type of simplex association in the sense that inJohn hit himself, for example, him (in himself) are coreferential, where SELF is employed as amarker of the coreferentiality. RPR, by contrast, is a complex association in the sense that in(3-6), for example, the referent of Baatar and the possessive pronoun öörin ‘own’, which is
optionally present, are coreferential, where RX is employed as a marker of the coreferentiality.
For Binding Principle A, a simplex association, the binder and the bindee are present
simply as an antecedent (e.g. John) and a pronoun (e.g. him) in an anaphor (e.g. him-SELF). By
contrast, RPR, a complex one, the binder is present as a nominative subject, whether explicit ornot, and the bindee is optionally realized as the possessive pronoun öörin. As is already clear,for the former the bindee is an accusative pronoun (in the case of third person), while for latter
it is a genitive/possessive one if realized. Of most importance is that SELF and RX, bothreflexive morphemes, are attached only on non-nominative elements.
A consequence of this is that the so-called “lexical” ambiguity of his in (10-11), forexample, between a reflexive and a pronoun (Truswell 2014: 224) is in fact a structural
ambiguity; that is, [CP Billi loathes [DP [D hisj [N shoes]]]] versus [CP Billi loathes [DP hisi [D owni
[N shoes]]]] (D is optionally spelled out as own). Consequently, English, in fact, has a possessivereflexive pronominal, contra the previous claim, for example, Truswell (2014: 226). That
pronominal is own. In this sense, the bindee is the complex his-own. Therefore, (11) is subject
to Principle A, not to Principle B. This explains why sentences like (11) give rise to the prima
facie violation of Principle B. If this analysis is on the right track, it can eliminate a dilemma
concerning the size of binding domain that varies between pronominals and anaphors in English
given the same syntactic structure, as discussed by Carnie (2006: 430) among others.
(10) Billi loathes hisj shoes.
(11) Billi loathes hisi shoes.
It is hoped that further exploration will reveal more facts about Binding Principle A both in
Altaic languages centering on Mongolian and in English-type languages.
References: Anisman (2010) Switch Reference in Khalkha Mongolian; Carnie (2006) Syntax:
A Generative Introduction; Chomsky (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding; Culicoverand Jackendoff (2005) Simpler Syntax; Guntsetseg (2011) “So-called Reflexive Possessive
Suffix in Mongolian (handout)”; Janhunen (2012) Mongolian; Kullmann and Tserenpil (2015)
Mongolian Grammar; Truswell (2014) Binding Theory.

Two Types of Additional Wh-Effects and Wh-Construals
Mai Kubota
Yamaguchi University / Kyushu University
Goal: This presentation aims to account for how the in-situ wh-questions in Japanese are interpreted
within the recent Minimalist Program, focusing on multiple wh-questions in Japanese. More concretely,
we concentrate on two types of additional wh-effects, and demonstrate that wh-interrogatives inJapanese require at least one wh-phrase in the specifier position of C.
Issues: It has been observed in the literature that the island effects are subject to additional (or higher)
wh-effects (Watanabe (1992), Saito (1994), Richards (1997), among others). For example, the sentencein (1a) is ungrammatical since the adjunct wh-phrase naze ‘why’ is contained within a complex NP
island. However, the additional wh-argument dare-ga ‘who-Nom’ within the island improves thegrammaticality of the example, as in (1b).
(1) a. * John -ga [NP[IP Mary -ga
naze hagesiku hihansita] hon] -osagasiteru no-Nom-Nom why severely criticized book -Acc looking-for Q‘Q John is looking for [the book [that Mary criticized severely why]]’ (Saito (1994:236))
b. ?? John -ga [NP[IP dare-ga
naze hagesiku hihansita] hon] -osagasiteru no-Nom
who-Nom why severely criticized book-Acc looking-for Q‘ Q John is looking for [the book [that who criticized severely why]]’(ibid.)
Saito (1994) argues that (1a) is ruled out since the LF movement of the wh-adjunct leaves anunbounded trace, which yields an ECP violation. On the other hand, in (1b), the potentially problematic
wh-adjunct naze ‘why’ adjoins to the additional wh-phrase at LF and thereby avoids an ECP violation,as schematized in (2).
(2)
TP
NPi tkdare-ga

VP

VP

_

_

AdvPk
naze

…

NPi

ti

V

In (2), naze ‘why’ licenses the trace ti from the adjoined position. After that, the NP containing the two
wh-phrases moves to the specifier position of matrix CP. Since NPs are taken to be an argument, theirtraces are not required to be bound. Therefore, all the traces in (2) are licensed at LF, satisfying theantecedent government requirement. To put it simply, the problematic wh-adjunct adjoined to thehigher wh-argument can be moved out of the island as a free rider.
Although several properties of additional wh-effects are well-captured under Saito’s (1994)
analysis, some theoretical problems arise with this approach within the current Minimalist Program.
For one thing, the notion of the trace is no longer applicable in the minimalist framework. Under the
copy theory of movement (Chomsky (1995)), movement does not leave a trace but instead a copy in
its lower position. Since ECP is a constraint on empty elements such as traces, it also seems to beuntenable within the recent minimalist framework. Without the ECP, the cornerstone of Saito’s (1994)
account of the additional wh-effects was lost. In addition, in light of recent developments in the
Minimalist Program, the LF movement is also no longer tenable (see Hsu (2009) and Murphy (2017)).
Tsai (1999, 2008) claims that unselective binding takes care of the scopal properties of the in-situ
wh-phrases. According to Tsai (1999, 2008), wh-nominals are assumed to be variables and bound by awh-operator, which directly merges in its scope-taking position at Spec CP; no actual movement isinvolved with the in-situ wh-nominals. On the other hand, wh-adverbials, including causal adjuncts
such as naze ‘why,’ are taken to be operators, which must be raised to Spec CP in order to take wide
scope. Although the non-movement approach nicely captures the asymmetry between wh-arguments
and wh-adjuncts in Japanese, one question arises here: If in-situ wh-argument in Japanese is always
interpreted via unselective binding, it remains unclear why the status of the island violation in (1b)

improves by adding the higher wh-argument within the island. In other words, if the additional higher
wh-argument does not move at all, the problematic wh-adverbials cannot become free riders and escapefrom the island.
It is also well-known that Japanese wh-arguments exhibit intervention effects (IEs), where scopebearing elements block the covert wh-movement (=(3a)), but the effects are alleviated when whphrases that c-command the problematic interveners are added (=(3b)).
(3) a. ??? John-ga[MIT-ka Harvard]-ni nani-o a geta no?
(Pesetsky (2000: 86))
John-Nom [MIT-or Harvard]-Dat what-Acc gave Q‘What did John give MIT or Harvard?’b.
Dare-ga [MIT-ka Harvard]-ni nani-oageta no?
(ibid.)
who-Nom [MIT-or Harvard]-Dat what-Acc gave Q‘What did who give MIT or Harvard?’
Richards (1997) argues that a well-formed movement first pays a “tax” that allows later instances of
movement to escape the blocking effects. In (3b), the additional wh-phrase dare ‘who’ covertly moves
to the Spec CP, eliminating the uninterpretable wh-feature on the complementizer. However, the island
violation in (1a) cannot be obviated even though a wh-phrase is added outside the island, as in (4).
(4)* Dare -ga [NP [IP Mary -ga
naze hagesiku hihanshita] hon] -osagasiteru no-Nom-Nom why severely criticized book -Acc looking-for Q‘Q who is looking for [the book [that Mary criticized severely why]]’ (Saito (1994:236))
Under the “tax”-based approach, we wrongly predict the sentence in (4) to be grammatical since thewh-movement can take place from the additional wh-phrase, deleting uninterpretable wh-feature on C.
Proposal: This presentation proposes that in wh-questions in Japanese, at least one wh-phrase must be
moved to Spec CP for the purpose of the clausal typing, regardless of whether it is wh-nominals or whadverbials. Once the sentence is typed as a wh-interrogative, the movements of other wh-phrases turnout to be optional. Evidence for this proposed analysis is supplied by the multiple questions in (5).
(5) a. ?* [John-ka Bill]-ga
dare-ni nani-oageta no?
John-or Bill -Nom who-Dat what-Acc gave Q‘What did John or Bill give to who?’(Pesetsky (2000:87))
b. ? Dare-ni [John-ka Bill]-ga _____ nani-o ageta no? [single-pair only](ibid.)
c. ?? Nani-o [John-ka Bill]-ga dare-ni ____ ageta no? [single-pair only](ibid.)d.
Dare-ni nani-o [John-ka Bill]-ga ____ ____ ageta no? [pair-list OK](ibid.)In (5a), the wh-phrases are c-commanded by the intervener, which yields a sentence unacceptable. If
we assume with Tsai (1999, 2008) that the wh-nominals are variables and interpreted via unselective
binding, it is unclear why the wh-phrases in (5a) are ungrammatical since there is no movement at all.
On the other hand, under the current approach, the sentence in (5a) is correctly ruled out since thesentence fails in clausal typing. On the other hand, the wh-phrases in (5b) and (5c) are moved above
the interveners via overt wh-scrambling, which is not subject to the IEs. Therefore, in (5b) and (5c),the requirement of clausal typing is satisfied by the scrambled wh-phrases. Notice here that thesesentences are grammatical but limited to the single-pair reading. This is because in (5b) and (5c), theunselective binding is the only option for the wh-phrase c-commanded by the intervener. According to
Dayal (2002), pair-list answers are available so long as the wh-operator moves to the position higher
than the IP, while a single-pair-reading is derived via a binding. Consequently, the sentences in (5b)and (5c) receive single-pair readings. In (5d), both wh-phrases are scrambled over the offending
intervener, which enables them to be raised to Spec CP. Therefore, a pair-list reading is available.
Selected References: Dayal, V. (2002). “Single-Pair and Multiple-Pair Answers: Wh-in-situ andScope,” Linguistic Inquiry 33, 3: 512-520. / Saito, M. (1994). “Additional-Wh Effects and the
Adjunction Site Theory,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 195-240. / Tsai, W. T. D. (1999). “Thehows of Why and the whys of How,” UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 155-184.

Contextually Determined Last Resorts: A View from English Do-Support and French
C’est-Cleft. Yuki TANAKA (University of Tokyo)
Introduction: This study explores the nature of the “last resort” in natural languages from thecross-linguistic perspective. The term “last resort,” originally coined by Chomsky (1986),
states that all transformations must be formally forced (e.g. movement driven by the need forcase checking). The emergence of (Early) Minimalist Program (MP; cf. Chomsky 1995) further
reinforced the “last resort” view of syntactic operations. On the other hand, the notion of Free
Merge, which appeared later (Chomsky 2004, 2013, 2015), in principle allows “free”
applications of the UG-based operation, i.e. Merge; there may be operations without which
derivations would crash, but Merge itself is considered to be not motivated by any grammatical“requirement.” In this rather permissive framework, the notion of “last resort” is not easily
maintainable, since “last resort” strictly treated in the current system would necessarily statethat derivations themselves are forced by certain formal inadequacy (cf. Bošković 2011), but
the spirit of MP disfavors the alleged existence of a superfluous condition in the derivational
level. Given the dilemma stated above, this study revises the notion of last resort in the way inwhich it is evaluated contextually and functions representationally, each morpho-syntactic
operation being able to consider the result of its application. This essentially states that a given
operation can be a last resort in some cases and not in other cases. The representational
treatment of the last resort goes well with the current MP, where the “obligatoriness” of acertain operation is nothing more than a “hindsight” (see above). The contextual approach to
the last resort established here is argued to be able to finely capture constructions in various
languages which, though identical in form, change meanings depending on environments
where they appear. As instances, this study concerns two phenomena, namely English dosupport and French c’est-cleft, and argues that they both exhibit sensitivity to the motivationof using them; they convey strong focal meanings in cases where their use is optional, but these
meanings go away when they are used as a last resort. The environment-sensitive semantics
instantiated by these phenomena would be hard to capture if “last resort” were defineddichotomously, as has traditionally been the case.
English do-support: English do-support is generally considered as an instance of a last resort.
Do-insertion in (1a) is widely analyzed as a “repair” strategy forced by the unavailability ofaffix hopping (cf. Chomsky 1957). Importantly, (1b), the do-less version of (1a), is
ungrammatical in present-day standard English, which means that do-support is by no means
optional in this particular case.
(1) a. You do not look pale today.
b. *You not look pale today.
On the other hand, the use of do is optional in environments like (2a-b).
(2) a. You do look pale today, but you should finish the work anyway.
(2) b. You do look pale today. You should go home immediately.
Given (1) and (2), saying that do-insertion is obligatory or optional without consideringcontexts is senseless. It is suggested that the traditionally assumed dichotomy between lastresort and non-last-resort is not appropriate. Do-insertion is a last resort in some cases andoptional in other cases. In other words, the (non-)last-resort-hood of do-insertion is not the
intrinsic property of do but is contextually determined in the environments where it is used.
Crucially, the last resort do and optional do have different semantic status. While in (2a-b) do
adds some focal meaning (e.g. concessive focus in (2a)), such inference is absent in (1a): do isnothing more than a “remedy” there. The observations in (1)-(2) indicate that the last resort dodoes not convey the focal meaning that would otherwise be present. This essentially means that
do-support is not a last resort in its own right. It is a last resort in (1a), but is clearly not in (2ab). It can then be claimed that do-support “loses” its emphatic meanings when it is used as alast resort.
French c’est-cleft: Interestingly, this idea, essentially stating that emphatic meanings
conveyed by focus strategies are weakened when they are used as a last resort, has acrosslinguistic support. Specifically, French c’est-cleft is argued to essentially be do-support,
in that its focal meaning disappears when its use is obligatory. In French, as shown in (3), ananswer to a subject wh-question must be formed as a cleft sentence, if one is to reply to thequestion in a full sentence. Importantly, this cleft, unlike in other environments, does not
express any focal meanings like exhaustivity. In contrast, an object wh-question is generally
answered by a canonical non-cleft sentence; the use of cleft in this situation leads to theconveyance of exhaustivity.
(3) Q: Qui
est arrivé ?
whoisarrived“Who arrived?”
A1: #Pierre est arrivé.
A2: C’est Pierre qui
est arrivé.
Pierreisarrived
it-is
Pierre who isarrived“Pierre arrived.”“It’s Pierre who arrived.”
In order to address the subject/object asymmetry just described, this study concerns syntactic
and semantic properties of subjects in French, examining various phenomena including scope
relations and left-dislocation constructions. To take an instance, French canonical SVO
sentences (4a) do not permit inverse scope, unlike in English (4b). Besides the semantic
peculiarity of subjects, there is evidence that French matrix verbs move beyond the verbal
domain, so that they are obligatorily followed by sentential adverbs like probablement“probably”, as in (5).
(4) a. Quelqu’un aime
tout lemonde.
someoneloves allthe world“Someone loves everyone.”(SOME>EVERY, *EVERY>SOME)
b. Someone loves everyone.
(SOME>EVERY, *EVERY>SOME)(5) Antoine{ confond probablement / *probablement confond } le
Antoine{ confuses probably*probably
confusesthe
poème avec un autre.
poem
with aother“Antoine is probably confusing the poem with another.”(Schifano 2018: 63)
These data, together with the asymmetry in the interpretation of dislocated elements between
subjects and objects—the concrete data of which are omitted due to limitations of space—canbe taken as indicating that French matrix verbs raise to the C domain, with subjects serving as
topics, which can be analyzed as occupying Spec,TopP in Rizzi’s (1997) finely articulated
structure of the left periphery. It is then argued that French c’est-cleft is used as a “last resort”
operation in the case of the answer to subject wh-questions; French subjects, which serve as
topics in their canonical position, cannot convey new information, and an alternative “repair”
strategy to break this constraint—such as putting phonological stress on the subject—is notavailable in French either, hence the necessity of resorting to syntax, i.e. the “last resort” useof the c’est-cleft to satisfy Question-Answer Congruency. Since this is nothing more than aremedy, there is no focal meaning like exhaustivity. Notice that the situation is similar to
English do, which does not play any role in semantics when inserted as a last resort.
Conclusion: The generalization drawn from the analyses of English do-support and French
c’est-cleft is that constructions which occur in the last resort strategy are semantically weak.
The contextual approach to the last resort advocated in this study has the potential to draw afiner picture of various constructions in different languages which, though identical in form,change meanings depending on environments where they appear.
References: Bošković, Ž. 2011. Last Resort with Move and Agree in derivations andrepresentations. In C. Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. OUP. /Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton. / —. 1986. Knowledge of Language. Praeger.
/ —. 1995. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press. / —. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.
In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. OUP. / —. 2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua
130. / —. 2015. Problems of Projection: Extensions. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann and S.
Matteini (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond. John Benjamins. / Rizzi, L. 1997. The finestructure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Springer. /Schifano, N. 2018. Verb Movement in Romance. OUP.

A Search-Based Treatment of Adjuncts
Hiroyuki Iwasaki (Utsunomiya University)
1. Introduction: Chomsky’s (2021: 17) Duality of Semantics dictates that “EM is associatedwith θ-Roles and IM with Discourse/Information-Related functions.” We are naturally led tothe question of how an adjunct, which has generally been assumed not to be assigned any θRole, can be introduced into syntactic computation in the first place. This paper proposes thatan adjunct in the workspace (WS) can serve as a probe and search for its modifee in the WS
for establishing a modification relation. With the assumption that adjuncts in general have anuninterpretable feature which is related to categorial selection, it is also claimed that an adjunctcan sometimes serve as a goal and form a relation with v*. This relation is a syntactic causeof the Single Event Grouping Condition in the sense of Truswell (2011).
2. Adjuncts as a probe: Let us take relative clauses as an instance of adjuncts. Perlmutter(1970) observes that the definite article attached to a head noun crucially depends on thepresence of its relative clause:(1) a.
the Paris that I love
(Perlmutter (1970: 241))b. In England there was never the problem that there was in America. (Ibid: 243))
In the absence of the relative clauses, the in (1) can never occur. The definite article cannot
be a lexical item selected from the lexicon for syntactic derivation, but it emerges in the courseof the derivation of the relative clauses. It is reasonable to interpret the in (1) to be realized
due to the search relation between a relative clause and its head noun. More specifically, theis the manifestation of a feature valued by the relative clause, with the structure of the relative
clause plus its modifying noun phrase labeled as the (or its underlying feature of [+definite]).
With the above Search-Based analysis of adjuncts in mind, let us now shift our focus to the
Argument-Adjunct asymmetry regarding condition C effects.
(2) a. * Which claim that Johni likes Mary did hei deny ?
b. Which claim that Johni made did hei later deny ?
Lebeaux (1988) and following literature account for the asymmetry with recourse to Late
Merge, which enables a relative clause to be merged with the moved Wh-Element. Thisaccount, however, is faced with theoretical and empirical difficulties. Under Chomsky’s(2021) framework, Late Merge is unavailable. Moreover, the Late-Merge analysis of theasymmetry is undermined by the following data ((3a): the availability of an idiom interpretation,(3b): the binding of a reflexive pronoun, (3c): scope ambiguity [two>every, every>two]):(3) a.
The headway that Mel made was impressive.
(Aoun and Li (2003: 110))b. The portrait of himselfi that Johni painted is extremely flattering.
(Ibid: 109))c.
I phoned the two patients that every doctor will examine tomorrow. (Ibid: 113))
Based on the above data, Aoun and Li (2003) conclude that That-Relatives, unlike WhRelatives, are generated via head raising. It follows that the derivation of (2b), which contains
a That-Relative, involves head raising. It is interesting to notice that for the antecedent NP toundergo head raising, its relative clause has to be introduced at an earlier stage of the derivation.
There is no difference between relative clauses as in (2b) and appositive clauses as in (2a) withrespect to their Base-Generated position. In the face of this situation, we are now in a position
to consider the contrast in (2) as an Argument-Adjunct asymmetry regarding condition C
reconstruction. The most obvious difference between an argument and an adjunct is whether
or not they must receive a θ-Role. Contra Chomsky (2021), we claim that θ-Marking isachieved by agreement between a θ-Assignor and a syntactic object. The fact thatreconstructability is controlled by the presence of agreement is supported by the following data:(4) a.
Sono hon oi
John ga [Sʹ Mary ga ti katta
to]omotte iruthat book ACC John NOM
Mary NOM bought COMP think(koto)
fact‘John thinks that Mary bought that book.’(Saito (1985: 156))b. * Riyuu mo nakui
Mary ga[Sʹ John ga
ti sonosetu oreason even without Mary NOM
John NOM
thattheory ACC
sinzite iru to]omotte iru (koto)
believe
COMP thinkfact‘Mary thinks that John believes in that theory without any reason.’ (Ibid: 175)(5) ? Naze Mary ga [CP John gasono setu osinziteiru ka] sitteiru.
why Mary NOM
John NOM that theory ACC believe Q knows‘Mary knows why John believes in that theory.’ (Bošković and Takahashi (1998: 356))
Given the radical reconstruction property of Long-Distance scrambling (Saito (1989), et. seq.),
the scrambled element is required to be interpreted in the embedded clause.
The(un)acceptability of (4) shows that while the argument sono hon o can undergo reconstruction,
the adjunct riyuu mo naku cannot. In the movement analysis of Long-Distance scrambling,sono hon o in (4a) originally occupies the complement position of the verb in the embedded
clause and is agreed with/θ-Marked by the v* of the clause. In (4b), riyuu mo naku, whose
scope is over propositions, is located in a higher position than the v* and the two establish no
agreement relation. The difference in reconstructability observed in (4a, b) is tied to thepresence/absence of an agreement relation. In contrast to riyuu mo naku in (4b), the adjunctnaze in (5) can be reconstructed. Being a Wh-Element, naze is endowed with an additional
Wh-Feature and enters into an agreement relation with the interrogative C (ka). It is thisagreement relation that makes the reconstruction possible.
3. Adjuncts as a goal: It has been observed that not all adjuncts are islands.
(6) Which book did John design his garden [after reading __ ] ?
(Truswell (2011: 31))
Narita (2014: 124) argues that such adjuncts are “low” ones, located within the domain CCommanded by v*. Given the agreement approach to θ-Marking, a low adjunct, which has
an uninterpretable feature related to categorial selection, can be “θ-Marked” by v*. This typeof adjuncts is transparent for extraction and hence the acceptability of (6) (cf. Miyamoto(2012)). Truswell (2011: 31) observes that the question in (6) should be answered as indicatedin (7) and formulates the Single Event Grouping Condition in (8).
(7) An introduction to landscape gardening. / # Finnegans Wake.
(8) An instance of Wh-Movement is legitimate only if the minimal constituent containing
the head and the foot of the chain can be construed as describing a single event
grouping.
(Ibid: 157, emphasis in original)
Under our proposal, when a low adjunct is agreed with/θ-Marked by v*, the denotation of the
adjunct is interpreted to be a participant of the event described by a verb. In (6), the adjunctin the square brackets is one of the key ingredients for the designing event and the contrast in(7) follows. Condition (8) is derived in syntactic terms. Note in passing that an adjunctwhich functions as a probe is a “high” one and thus is structurally higher than its modifee.
Selected References: Chomsky, Noam (2021) “Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where
Can We Hope to Go,” Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1-41. / Perlmutter, David M. (1970) “On the Article
in English,” Progress in Linguistics, ed. by Manfred Bierwisch and Karl E. Heidolph, 233-248,
Mouton, The Hague. / Truswell, Robert (2011) Events, Phrases, and Questions, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

The Syntax of Clausal Arguments from a Comparative Perspective
Hsiao-hung Iris Wu
National Taiwan Normal University
For the past years, a fair amount of literature working on finite clausal arguments has shown
that, despite surface resemblance, clausal arguments differ from arguments of other syntactic
categories in several fundamental ways. The status of clausal arguments (or complementizer
phrases, CPs for short) as natural arguments is still an undecided issue. In light of this, the current
study investigates the distribution and structural properties of CPs from a comparative viewpoint,
focusing on English and Mandarin, with an aim to understand their syntactic nature.
Despite the apparent challenge to the general view that only nominal categories can stay in
SpecTP, many languages are argued to allow clausal subjects. Some, like Greek, even show overt
evidence (e.g., determiners) for the nominal status of CP subjects. Two main approaches have beenoffered in the literature to address the noted DP-like properties of CP subjects. One approach,including works of Rosenbaum (1967), Davies & Dubinsky (1998), Han (2005) and Takahashi(2010), is to argue that clausal subjects are not truly CPs. Instead, they are CPs embedded in a (null)
DP shell, as illustrated in (1):(1) DP shell analysis:[TP [DP D [CP that John shows up]] [T' will [vP shock everyone here.]]The other approach, dating to Koster (1978) and recently defended by Alrenga (2005) and Moulton(2009), proposes that clausal subjects are not truly subjects. Rather, they are topic phrases linked
to a DP null subject. In particular, Alrenga's analysis is illustrated in (2), according to which the
topic phrase is base-generated in SpecCP and what occupies SpecTP is a phonologically empty DP
serving as a proxy.
(2) Topic analysis:[CP [CP that John shows up]i [CP [DP e]i [TP [DP t]i [T' will [vP shock everyone here.]]]]To date, there is still an ongoing debate in English, though English data do not seem to provide
clear supporting arguments for either side of the views.
Mandarin CPs have received some attention in the literature. One known fact is that Mandarin
has clausal subjects which pattern with DP subjects (Tsai 1995, Zhang 2008). Based on this, someworks (Tsai 1995) argue that Mandarin CPs are just like DPs in their ability to take Case.
Nevertheless, in this talk I argue that CPs and DPs distribute differently in Mandarin and thus they
have distinct syntactic representations.
First, predicates like xiwang ‘hope’ and yiwai ‘surprised’ cannot select DP objects but arecompatible with CP complements as in (3). If Mandarin CPs were the same as DPs in requiring
their Case to be checked, as argued in previous works, we should expect (3a) to be unacceptablejust like (3b), contrary to the fact. Accordingly, the distinct distribution of CPs and DPs militatesagainst treating CPs as DPs unconditionally.

(3) a.

Wo hen xiwang/yiwai [Akiu hui lai].
I very hope/surprised Akiu will come‘I {hope/am surprised} that Akiu will come.’b. *Wo hen xiwang/yiwai [zhe-jian shi].
I very hope/surprised this-CL matter
Lit. ‘I {hope/am surprised} this matter.’
Second, prior scholarship suggested that, unlike in English, CP arguments in Mandarin canappear as the object of prepositions, just like regular DPs. However, there is a group of prepositions
that must occur with their complements in the pre-subject position, modifying the whole clause;
crucially, I argue these ‘peripheral’ prepositions cannot take clauses as their objects but have to befollowed by DPs, as shown in (4).
(4) a. guanyu [zhe-jianshi],laoshibi er bu tan.
about
this-CL
matter teacher avoid and not talk‘About this matter, the teacher avoided talking about it.’b. *guanyu [Lisi bei qifu-le],laoshibi er bu tan.
about
Lisi PASS bully-ASP teacher avoid and not talk
Lit. ‘‘About Lisi was bullied, the teacher avoided talking about it.’I suggest this range of Mandarin facts lend support for the DP shell analysis. To begin with,the topic account would have obvious difficulty capturing the Mandarin data. For the topic account,the very reason to assume the connection between a null operator and a silent subject DP is toascribe the DP effect created by the CP movement to the DP delegate that actually moves. However,in Mandarin it is not only in the subject position that a CP argument behaves like a nominal;
therefore, the assumed existence of a covert DP delegate high in the structure would not help. On
the other hand, a more promising direction to go is to re-examine the DP-shell approach. I proposethat CPs in Mandarin can always occur within complex nominal structure with an embedding
covert noun phrase, though given the nominal dominating the CP is a null element which is in away ‘defective’, its occurrence in the structure needs to meet certain licensing conditions following
standard assumptions in syntactic theories. Specifically, when a CP argument occurs in the subject
position, its dominating covert nominal structure is allowed since the EPP property of T requires
its specifier be filled with a DP. When a clausal argument occurs in the object position, it is only
licensed to appear in a null DP shell if the verb/preposition lexically selects DP complements. In
this sense, the proposed analysis is a resurrection of the Empty Category Principle that the null DP
structure of the clausal complement must be properly governed, or directly theta-marked by alexical category.
Overall, there seems to be a macro-parameter of linguistic variation in the syntactic
representation of CP arguments, possibly with more than one possible locus of variation: languages
may either differ in whether they permit the null DP shell structure to dominate CP arguments ordiffer in the specific licensing conditions of null nominals, just as suggested in other crosslinguistic studies on silent elements.

A Syntactic Investigation of Conditional Conjunctions
Riichi Yoshimura (Kyushu University)
1. Introduction
This paper aims to elucidate why argument extraction is possible from certain types of coordinate structuresthat employ and in English. Generally, displacement of the argument from its base position is prohibited in thecoordinate structure, as shown in (1).
(Weisser (2015a: 46))(1) a. * This is the pizzai Sam ordered ti and Mary asked for an orange juice.
b. * This is the beveragei Sam ordered a pizza and Mary asked for ti.
(Weisser (2015a: 46))
The argument the pizza in (1a) and the beverage in (1b) are extracted from the first and second conjunctrespectively. The relevant movement results in ungrammaticality in (1a, b) and this is typically called the
Coordinate Structure Constraint in (2).
(2) Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC)
In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be
moved out of that conjunct.
(Ross (1967: 89))
Although CSC is regarded as a stringent condition encompassing all coordinate structures, instances of
exceptional data have been uncovered and discussed in the literature (see Schmerling (1975), Goldsmith (1985),
Lakoff (1986), Na and Huck (1992), Weisser (2015a, b), Altshuler and Truswell (2022) for details). Lakoff(1986) argues that exceptional data are sorted into three types, as given in (3)-(5).
(3) Type A (narration)(Lakoff (1986: 152))
Whati did Hary go to the store and buy ti?
(4) Type B (violated expectation)
How muchi can you drink ti and still stay sober?
(Lakoff (1986: 152))(5) Type C (result)That’s the stuffi that the guys in the Caucasus drink ti and live to be a hundred. (Lakoff (1986: 156))
Type A, known as ‘narration’, represents events in chronological order through coordinated constituents. In typeB, referred to as ‘violated expectation’, the first conjunct derives a concessive condition and the second conjunctconveys results that contradict the hearer's expectations. Finally, in type C, identified as ‘result’, the first conjunctexpresses the condition and the second conjunct represents its (natural) result. For the sake of simplicity, we referto these examples as the Conditional Conjunctions (CCs). According to Lakoff (1986) as well as Altshuler andTruswell (2022), argument extraction from the first conjuncts is possible but not from the second conjuncts in
CCs (the type B and C), while the extraction patterns are not uniform in type A. Based on the rigidness of
extraction patterns, this paper focuses on the derivation of the CCs, and gives a principled account for these
constructions from a syntactic perspective.
2. Previous Research
Weisser (2015a, b) gives a syntactic approach to the CCs in (4) and (5). He assumes that TP coordination isnecessary to derive the CCs from the results of coordination tests in (6).
(6) a.
You know, of course, [CP that [TP you drink one more beer] and [TP you get kicked out ]]. (CC)
(Culicover and Jackendoff (1997: 198))b. # You know, of course, [CP that you drink one more beer] and [CP that you get kicked out ]. (ibid.)c. # You [vP drink one more beer ] and [vP leave ].
(Weisser (2015a: 43))

The examples in (6b, c) indicate that, in the cases of CP or vP coordination, the conditional construal cannot hold.
Based on this test result, he suggests the following structure. In (7), the(7)first conjunct TP1 adjoins to the vP of the second conjunct TP2. At thispoint, the topicalized argument DPTOP, extracted from TP1, enters the
specifier of vP. Weisser argues that since the conjuncts TP1 and TP2
have not yet been conjoined by '&', the extraction of DPTOP ispermissible. Once TP1 moves to the specifier of '&P', TP1 and TP2 forma coordinate structure, prohibiting any extraction from either conjunct.
Therefore, to perform argument extraction without violating the CSC, it
must occur before TP1 moves to the specifier of '&'. The topicalization movement of DPTOP takes place after
TP1 has merged with '&'. Weisser’s analysis sounds plausible but there are two separate problems.
Firstly, while he assumes that DPTOP merges into the specifier of vP in TP2, this position should also
accommodate the DP serving as the subject of TP2. When merging an element into the specifier of TP2, both
DPs are competitive for that position. The second issue pertains to the intervention effect. When DPTOP is
topicalized, TP1 serves as the conditional clause is in the specifier of '&P'. However, Weisser does not address
the mechanism by which TP1 is interpreted as the conditional clause.
3. Proposal
First, we assume that the conditional clauses possess discourse functions as topics and demonstrate agreement
by merging into the specifier of TopP, employing a series of studies on the correlation between topics andconditionals by Marchese (1977), Haiman (1978), Ramsay (1987) among others. Second, CCs are derived by
CP coordination but not TP coordination as opposed to Weisser (2015a, b). This is supported by the fact that CP
adverbs, which adjoin to a structurally high position, can be added to the first conjunct in CCs, as in (8).
(8) a.
You know, of course, that {fortunately/cleverly/stupidly} the guys in the Caucasus drink the stuff
and live to be a hundred.
b.
If {fortunately/cleverly/stupidly} the guys in the Caucasus drink the stuff, they live to be hundred.
In (9), the first conjunct initially resides within the vP domain of (9)the second conjunct, which serves as the main clause. At thisjuncture, the DP serving as the subject of the second conjunct also
merges into the specifier position of vP. What differs from Weisser's
approach is the absence of any extraction from the first conjunct at
this stage. As a result, when TP2 is projected, there is nocompetition for the movement of the DP to its specifier, resolving
the aforementioned issue. Subsequently, the first conjunct moves tothe specifier of '&P'. In the case of CCs, however, the first conjunctexpresses conditionality, so it moves to the specifier of TopP. We assume that Topic Agreement between the
SubP of the first conjunct and the TopP of the main clause activates the Force of SubP. As Force is presumed topossess an edge feature (Haegeman 2006, 2012), the DP within the first conjunct can move to the edge of SubP,
ultimately rising to specifier of ForceP/TopP in the main clause. This analysis can be extended to the argument
extraction from the conditional if-clauses (Hornstein (2001), Taylor (2007)).
Selected References: Altshuler, D. and R. Truswell (2022) Coordination and the Syntax: Discourse Interface,
Oxford University Press, Oxford./ Lakoff, G. (1986) “Frame Semantic Control of the Coordinate Structure
Constraint,” in Papers from the Parasesssion on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 152-67. Chicago
Linguistic Society./ Weisser, P. (2015a) “The Syntactic Side of Conditional Conjunction,” Lingua 153, 42–65.

Idiolectal Google Search Patterns as Forensic Linguistic Evidence
Annina Heini*, Krzysztof Kredens*, Lucia Busso**Aston University, UK
Forensic linguists are increasingly asked to assist in cases involving internet search data where
investigators want to find out which of a set of suspects with access to a seized device had
researched topics associated with an offence. On the surface, such cases present a classic
authorship attribution problem, where the incriminating searches are the questioned documents(e.g. search queries on accidents where babies suffocated), and the known documents consistof internet search histories of the suspects prior to the offence. While researchers have studied
linguistic diversity on the internet across languages (e.g. Gerrand, 2007), there is no existing
research on individual search engine behaviour, meaning that such authorship attribution tasks
are difficult, and conclusions only have limited value for the investigation.
This paper is a contribution to the authorship analysis literature, where we address theabovementioned research gap by conducting empirical research on language data collectedfrom 112 individuals. All data were collected remotely via Microsoft Teams during 2021. Ourparticipants completed a vignette-based task in which they acted as a CEO’s personal assistant
who had to complete the following brief:
Dear PA. The CEO is travelling to Helsinki for a 2-day conference from 2.-4. September
2021. Please could you find the following itinerary items for her trip:
1. A central hotel, budget around £200 per night. Note that she likes to stay close to thewater.
2. A café to have breakfast at.
3. A museum to learn about the city’s history.
4. A restaurant that serves a typical national dish. Note that she is allergic to seafood.
5. A shop to buy a typical Helsinki souvenir for her children.
6. Something to do in the evening. Note that she loves live music but does not like7. opera.
Participants were given a rough time window of 20 minutes to complete the task. Their internet
search behaviour was screen-captured, and search strings transcribed manually into plain text.
Our findings demonstrate cross-author variation, e.g. when researching item 1 (a central hotelin Helsinki, around £200 per night, ideally close to water) participants use both singular andplural forms ('hotel' vs. 'hotels'), include and omit determiners ('by water' vs. 'by the water'),and list specific bodies of water ('river', 'beach', etc.). Word order also varies, e.g. ‘Helsinki’occurs at the start of the search string or in the middle/at the end, sometimes with a preposition(‘in Helsinki’).

The data overall show low levels of within-author consistency; the majority of participants(76%) are not consistent syntagmatically in their search behaviour. Participant 113, forexample, places the term ‘Helsinki’ in various positions in his search strings:••••

Clarion Hotel Helsinki
helsinki souvenir shop
live music helsinki
cafes helsinki central

Only a few participants (14%) show clear signs of consistency, e.g. by always placing the word
‘Helsinki’ at the start of their search string, as exemplified by Participant 39:••••

helsinki live music bar
helsinki central breakfast cafe/restaurant
helsinki finnish food restaurant
helsinki things to do

Our findings suggest that internet users’ patterns of Google search behaviour are more complex
than anticipated. Using a factor analysis approach, we further map individual behaviours on abidimensional space to cluster data based on linguistic variables (e.g. singular vs. plural, word
order, word choice, prepositions), and we measure Jaccard distances to provide us withconcrete values.
This research has clear implications for forensic linguistic casework and can serve as a valuablebasis for authorship queries in the search engine domain.
References
Gerrand, P. (2007) Estimating Linguistic Diversity on the Internet: A Taxonomy to Avoid
Pitfalls and Paradoxes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(4). pp. 1298—
1321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00374.x

Accommodation in English Computer-Mediated Communication:
Do Age and First Language Affect Alignment with Textisms and Emoji?
Lieke Verheijen (Radboud University, the Netherlands)
People’s linguistic behaviour in interactions depends on their interlocutor: according toCommunication Accommodation Theory, we often adapt our language in interpersonal andintergroup contexts to match that of our conversation partners (Giles et al., 1991). In
sociolinguistics, this has been called ‘(linguistic (style)) accommodation’, ‘(linguistic)alignment’, or ‘convergence’. Accommodation reduces social differences and can makecommunication more effective, allowing interlocutors to understand each other better or tolike each other more (Giles, 2016; Pickering & Garrod, 2006). In oral communication,
speakers can align on different levels, both verbally (e.g., through pronunciation, word choice,syntax) and non-verbally (e.g., with gestures). Because of the increasing popularity of social
media, researchers are beginning to explore the applicability of CAT in the context ofcomputer-mediated communication (CMC) (Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al., 2011, on
Twitter; Muir et al., 2017, on instant messaging). However, research on accommodation withlinguistic style elements that are typical of digital language (‘digi-talk’ or ‘textese’) remains
scarce. Some evidence of accommodation with textisms and emoji in written CMC has beenfound (Adams et al. 2018, 2023; Kroll et al., 2018; Marko, 2022; Siebenhaar, 2018), but muchremains unknown about which factors besides power/hierarchy or gender affect this. The
present research aims to find additional evidence of CAT in CMC and aims to explore theeffects of age and first language (L1) on such accommodation.
This presentation reports on a large-scale empirical study to investigate whether
accommodation takes place in English written CMC. Native English speakers and Japanese
speakers of English as a foreign language (EFL) of different ages participate in the study.
Since written CMC has become highly multimodal, consisting of both textual and visualelements, this study focuses on accommodation with two salient elements that arecharacteristic of digital language, involving orthography and visuals respectively. The firstelement that is studied are textisms, including non-standard abbreviations or ‘phraseshorteners’ such as ‘omg’ (oh my god) and ‘lol’ (laughing out loud) and phonetic respellings
such as ‘cuz’ (because) and ‘tho’ (though) (Thurlow & Poff, 2013; Adams et al. 2023). The
second element are emoji. These small ideograms represent smileys, people, animals &nature, food & drinks, activities, travel & places, objects, symbols, and many flags. Emoji cancompensate for a lack of non-verbal cues in writing (), can add expressivity or
emotion to text (), can visualize or disambiguate messages (), and canincrease the informality or playfulness of writing () (Evans, 2017).
A between-subjects experiment was designed with three conditions (textisms, emoji, ornone). Two experimental groups are presented with a number of texting scenarios that
deliberately contain multiple instances of digital language elements (textisms or emoji), whilea control group sees the same messages but without any textisms or emoji. The topics andstyle of the messages are kept casual, so that any textisms or emoji would not be out of place.
Participants are asked to type responses to the messages. Their responses are analysed for the
relative frequency of textisms and emoji. The research design includes the presence of
textisms/emoji in the texting stimuli as independent variables, the use of textisms/emoji inparticipants’ responses as dependent variables, and age and L1 as moderating variables.
In line with prior research, the presence of digital language elements (textisms andemoji) is hypothesized to be significantly higher in the experimental groups’ responses ascompared to the control group. In addition, four interaction effects are expected. First, basedon several pilot studies, it is hypothesized that more accommodation with the use of both

textisms and emoji will occur in the English written CMC of younger participants than in thatof older participants, because the younger participants are ‘digital natives’ who have grown
up with digital communication tools and are thus more familiar with and sensitive todifferences in textese, while the older participants are ‘digital immigrants’ who have learnt tocommunicate through social media at a later age (Prensky, 2001). Furthermore, more
accommodation with the use of emoji is hypothesized to occur in the English written CMC ofJapanese EFL participants than in that of the native English-speaking participants, because
prior research has found an impact of culture or first language in communication styleaccommodation in CMC, with East-Asian EFL participants accommodating more than native
speakers of English (Wang et al., 2009). Finally, less accommodation with the use of textisms
is hypothesized to occur in the English written CMC of Japanese EFL participants than in thatof the native English-speaking participants, because as opposed to emoji which are to acertain extent ‘universal’ and even originated in Japan, Japanese EFL participants may be lessfamiliar with non-standard English orthography. Data are collected using the online survey
and recruitment platforms Qualtrics and Prolific. The results of the empirical study will bepresented and implications for CAT will be discussed.
References
Adams, A., & Miles, J. (2023). Examining textism convergence in mediated interactions.
Language Sciences, 99, 101568.
Adams, A., Miles, J., Dunbar, N., & Giles, H. (2018). Communication accommodation in text
messages: Exploring liking, power, and sex as predictors of textisms. Journal of Social
Psychology, 158(4), 474-490.
Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Gamon, M., & Dumais, S. (2011). Mark my words! Linguisticstyle accommodation in social media. Proceedings of the 20th International Conferenceon World Wide Web (pp. 745-754).
Evans, V. (2017). The emoji code: How smiley faces, love hearts and thumbs up are changing
the way we communicate. Michael O’Mara.
Giles, H. (Ed.) (2016). Communiation Accomodation Theory: Negotiating personal
relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge UP.
Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (Eds.) (1991). Contexts of accommodation:
Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge UP.
Kroll, T., Braun, L.M., & Stieglitz, S. (2018). Accommodated emoji usage: Influence of
hierarchy on the adaption of pictogram usage in instant messaging. Proceedings ofAustralasian Conference on Information Systems.
Marko, K. (2022). “Depends on who I’m writing to”: The influence of addressees andpersonality traits on the use of emoji and emoticons, and related implications forforensic authorship analysis. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 840646.
Muir, K., Joinson, A., Cotterill, R., & Dewdney, N. (2017). Linguistic style accommodation
shapes impression formation and rapport in computer-mediated communication.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(5), 525-548.
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication.
Research on Language and Computation, 4, 203-228.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Siebenhaar, B. (2018). Accommodation in WhatsApp communication. Proceedings of the 6th
Conference on Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media Corpora (p. 3).
Thurlow, C., & Poff, M. (2013). Text messaging. In S.C. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen(Eds.), Handbook of the Pragmatics of CMC (pp. 163-190). Mouton de Gruyter.
Wang, H.C., Fussell, S.R., & Setlock, L.D. (2009). Cultural difference and adaptation ofcommunication styles in computer-mediated group brainstorming. Proceedings of the27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 669-678).

Passivization by Voice: A Merge-Based Approach
Chigchi Bai
Inner Mongolia Unifersity of Finance and Economics
At least two syntactic views on how passive semantics is assigned are available in the generative
literature. On the mainstream (Chomskyan) view, passive semantics is configurationallyassigned by promoting the internal argument (IA) and suppressing the external one (EA). By
contrast, it was recently proposed that passive semantics is assigned by a dedicated Voice headthat does not project EA (Embick 2004b, Schäfer 2008b, Bruening 2012, Harley 2013,
Alexiadou et al. 2015, Legate et al. 2020). I label such a head and its equivalents “Inert Voice”.
Inert Voice was postulated in parallel with Kratzer’s (1996) Voice, which introduces EA. Inert
Voice has nothing to do with passivization as a syntactic operation, yet it was assumed tocontribute to producing a passive meaning. On the mainstream (Chomskyan) view, however,passivization as a syntactic operation goes hand in hand with producing a passive meaning.
This controversy, as we will see in this paper, is due to the failure to correctly identify
passivization as successive-cyclic movement and correctly characterize Voice as a syntactic
head introducing (potential) subjects. Ever since Chomsky (1981), it has been assumed that
passivization is one-step movement of IA to the surface subject position. Call it “the one-step
approach” (OSA). However, passivization may be successive-cyclic, as indicated by Legate’s(2003) observation about the reconstruction effect in English passives. But because OSA has
become a tradition in generative syntax, researchers have paid little attention to the successivecyclicity of passivization. In this paper, I present “the successive-cyclicity approach” (SCA),
arguing that the subject of passives stops over in an intermediate position before reaching the
NOM position.
As a diagnostics of the successive-cyclic property of passives, the following construction
is available. In (1), IA (Hanako) can appear with a dative case (DAT), indicating that it has
moved away from its base-generated position, where it would otherwise be assigned anaccusative case (ACC), to a position lower than Spec of T, a NOM position (See Saito 1982:
92, Hoshi 1999: 204, Aoyagi 2021: 99, etc. for relevant discussion on this construction). As
indicated by the passive morpheme (-are) in (1) and (2), what Hanako underwent ispassivization, followed by causativization in (1). In both (1) and (2), Hanako cannot be basegenerated in its surface position because its surface position is not thematic; the passivizing
head, spelled out as -are, is not a theta-role assigner. I label this type of movement “A-to-D
raising” (raising from ACC to DAT).
(1) Ziroo-ga
Hanako-o/ni
Taroo-nisikar-are-sase-ta.
Ziroo-NOM Hanako-ACC/DAT Taroo-DAT scold-PASS-CAUS-PST‘Ziroo made Hanako be scolded by Taroo.’(Tsujimura 1996: 259)
(2) Hanako-ga
Taroo-nisikar-are-ta.
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT scold-PASS-PST‘Hanako was scolded by Taroo.’(Tsujimura 1996: 258)
Importantly, as indicated by Mirror Principle, Hanako is introduced by the passivizing head (are), not by the causativizing head (-sase), which introduces the causer Ziroo. Given that A-toD raising of IA (Hanako) and the suppression of the external argument EA (Taroo) make up thecore property of the passive, the voice proper, it is not deniable that a passivizing head canintroduce an argument. Importantly, this yields no difference between passives and transitives
with respect to their ability to introduce arguments. Given that the passive is the voice properand that passivization is diagnosed to be successive-cyclic, it is reasonable that passives arederived by internal-merging IA through a Voice head. Following Kratzer (1996), EA is
introduced by Voice in transitives. Combining these, it can be concluded that EA and IA areboth introduced by a particular Voice head, one via external merge, the other via internal merge.
It then follows that Kratzerian Voice (EA-introducing) and IA-introducing Voice are of thesame substance. But they are not the very same one; they are distinct instances of Voice instead.
That is, VoiceP is split into two projections and the head of each (re)introduces EA and IA
respectively. Thus, the voice domain is in fact a Voice-over-Voice configuration as in (3) and itis this configuration that assigns passive semantics and causative semantics as well (Nie 2020,
Bai 2023).
(3) … [VoiceP2 DP2(IA) [VoiceP1 DP1(EA) [VP V …
The consequences of this are the following.
(4) a. SBJ (surface subject), whether it is that of passives or that of transitives, is a Voiceinternal subject in that it is introduced beforehand by a Voice head to get assigned
subjecthood.
b. Clauses are formed by introducing Sbj (potential subject) through Voice and promoting
a last-merged Sbj to the NOM position, with others being suppressed or demoted.
c. Voice is not merely an EA-introducing head; it is a Sbj-introducing one.
d. Passives and transitives including causatives as voice alternants are manipulated by thesingle engine, Voice.
The rationale behind the Split-VoiceP analysis is that introducing arguments comes down to thesimplest operation Free Merge (Chomsky 2013, 2015): (Re)merger of an argument, external orinternal, is unconstrained; UG requires just this much for voice phenomena; no dedicated heads
such as Passive, Voice[non-act], Cause/v, Voice[act] and their equivalents are necessary, nor are
dedicated voice-specifying features. The dispute that arises between the mainstream view andthe Inert-Voice view is thus resolved.
Keywords: Passivization, Voice, Merge, Argument-Introducing
Selected References: [1] Alexiadou et al. (2015) External Arguments in Transitivity
Alternations: A Layering Approach; [2] Aoyagi (2021) On the causative and passive
morphology in Japanese and Korean; [3] Bai (2023) Building voice hierarchy; [4] Bruening(2012) By-phrases in passives and nominal; [5] Chomsky (1981) Lectures on Government andBinding; [6] Chomsky (2013) Problems of Projection; [7] Chomsky (2015) Problems ofprojection: Extensions; [8] Embick (2004b) On the structure of resultative participles in English;[9] Harley (2013) External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voiceand v; [10] Hoshi (1999) Passives; [11] Kratzer (1996) Severing the external argument from its
verb; [12] Legate (2003) Some interface properties of the phase; [13] Nie (2020) Morphologicalcausatives are voice over voice; [14] Saito (1982) Case Marking in Japanese; [15] Schäfer(2008b) The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-state Contexts; [16]Tsurujima (1999) An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics.

Understanding English let alone construction: A corpus-based approach
Young-Kook Kwon (Dongduk Women’s University)
Jong-Bok Kim (Kyung Hee University)[Guest Speakers from the English Linguistic Society of Korea]
key words: let alone, corpus, negative polarity item, discourse-oriented
The expression let alone, starting to be used as an NPI (negative polarity item) in the 1760s,
displays peculiar syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties that are quite unpredictable from generalgrammar rules (Fillmore et al. 1988). The expression let alone is typically used after a negative
statement to emphasize that the statement also applies even more to the referent of its (bracketed)complement (Harris 2016, Toosarvandani 2008, Toosarvandani 2009):(1) a.
b.

Brian would never even read~~~~~~~~~~a newspaper, let alone [a book].
I hardly have time to ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
think these days, let alone [relax].

In these examples, let alone has a remnant complement (a book and relax) which is associated with its
correlate (underline waved). With these two in a contrastive focus relation, the first clause including
the correlate expresses the improbability of a negative statement, and the expression let alone plus theremnant at the sametime describes a more general, related situation that has not happened, either. Reflecting
syntactic and semantic properties of the construction, Harris (2016), Carlson & Harris (2017), and otherssuggest that the construction is a type of coordination and further derived from move-cum-delete
operations. For instance, (1a) would be derived from the following:
Kim never got to high school, let alone [FOCP collegei] <Kim got to

(2)

i>.

The remnant college moves to the focus position, and the remaining clause (e.g., TP) undergoes ellipsis.
This derivation, borrowed from other move-and-delete accounts of ellipsis, then resorts to the clausal
source for thesemantic resolution.
Our corpus investigation yields a variety of examples, including those in (3), that argue against
taking theconstruction as a simple coordination (COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English):(3) a.
b.

Well, didn’t think of [NP that today], let alone [S when I was younger].
(COCA 2014 SPOK)
I haven’t had the chance [PP for a break], let alone [VP-INF to make a phone call].
(COCA 2011 SPOK)In addition, the process of positing clausal sources becomes complicated when the construction appears in thesentence medial position, as seen from the following attested data:(4) a.
b.

A shortage of [fuel] and [lubricating oil], let alone gasoline, would be disastrous to industry.
That he was likely to [break his own mark], let alone approach Nurmi’s, was a possibility
whichappeared so remote to sportswriters last week.

The postulation of clausal sources for such cases requires a cataphoric interpretation, but in real-timeprocess- ing, there is no need to wait until the end of sentences to assign a proper meaning to theconstruction. Attesteddata like (5) also tell us that we could not assign a negative meaning to let alone,either:(5) a.

How did you get here, let alone find me?

b.

The gaming community needs more people like you, let alone the atheist movement.

c.

Todd would be able to go to work, let alone to an amusement park.

Based on a comprehensive corpus investigation, unlike Fillmore et al. (1988) and others, we suggest thatthe construction is a family of subordination that modifies a nonveridical (non-assertive) situation(Giannakidou 2009). The antecedent clauses in (5) do not have a strong NPI licenser, but all depict a
nonverdical situation. The coordination-like properties are inherited from the contextually-controlled
Parallelism Condition between an ellipsis and its antecedent on all elliptical constructions (Hartman
2011).
(6)

Let-Alone Construction (↑elliptical-cxt)
The let-alone construction, describing a situation s1, modifies a nonveridical situation s0
whose contextual scale is smaller than s1.

As implied by this, the let-alone XP is interpreted as denoting a situation referring to a discourse.
This discourse-oriented approach places further contextual constraints on the construction with respect
to the con-textual scale and prominence between the antecedent situation and the situation evoked fromthe construction, as supported from the unnaturalness of examples like the following:(7) a.
b.

# He was incapable of leading a country, let alone a team.
# The doctors doubted that he would ever play golf, let alone walk.

These are unacceptable since the first situation s0 is more general in the given contextual scale than thesecondsituation s1 evoked from the LA CONSTRUCTION. Further, the former is less-prominent thanthe latter. This discourse-based direction, which is also hinted by seems to be much more feasible toaccount for its flexible distributions in real-life situations including dialogues.
References
Carlson, Katy & Jesse Harris. 2017. Zero-adjective contrast in much-less ellipsis: the advantage forparallel syntax. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 3. 77–97.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity ingrammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538.
Giannakidou, Anatasia. 2009. Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: variation, licensing, andcom- positionality. In K. von Heusinger C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: an international
handbookof natural language meaning. Mouton de Gruyter.
Harris, Jesse. 2016. Processing let alone coordination in silent reading. Lingua 169. 70–94.
Hartman, Jeremy. 2011. The semantic uniformity of traces: evidence from ellipsis parallelism.
Linguistic Inquiry 42. 367–388.
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2008. Scalar reasoning and the semantics of let alone. Proc. Annu. Meeting
ChicagoLinguistics Society 44(2). 51–64.
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2009. The relevance of focus: the case of let alone reopened. Papers in
Pragmatics. GLSA. 105–112.

Question-Response Pairs with Subjective Predicates
Akira Watanabe
University of Tokyo
The part of an answer that corresponds to the wh-phrase of a constituent question is
generally assumed to function as focus (Krifka & Musan 2012, Rooth 1992). In thefollowing exchange, John is the focused phrase:(1) Q: Who stole the cookie?
A: John stole the cookie.
Against this background, Kuroda (2005) argues that the particle wa in Japanese is not a
topic marker but can be attached to a focused phrase.
In this presentation, I will show that the phenomenon discussed by Kuroda is sensitive
to selection of the predicates involved and that the key to understanding this restriction is
the notion of faultless disagreement, which has been explored extensively since Kölbel
(2002) and Lasersohn (2005) in relation to predicates of personal taste and subjective
predicates more generally.
Kuroda’s arguments: Kuroda observes that (2b) is a possible response to (2a), andclaims that the wa-marked subject here counts as a focused phrase.
(2) a. Dare-ga Nihon-ichi-no sakka-desu-ka?
‘Who is the greatest writer of Japan?’b. Natsume Soseki-wa, dare-ga nan-to itte-mo, Nihon-ichi-no sakka-desu.
‘Natsume Soseki is the greatest writer of Japan, no matter who says what.’
Kuroda adds that the version without dare-ga nan-to itte-mo might be judged odd.
The Japanese version of (1) behaves differently, however. (3) cannot be construed asa proper answer to the Japanese version of the wh-question in (1).
(3) #John-wa (dare-ga nan-to itte-mo) kukkii-o nusunda.
‘John stole the cookie(, no matter who says what).’What is responsible for the contrast?
Faultless disagreement and answerhood: I would like to suggest that (2b) is not ananswer to (2a) in the technical sense and that a response like (2b) is made possible by thetype of predicates used. In fact, Kuroda describes (2b) as a response, not as an answer.
Since Kölbel (2002) introduced the notion of faultless disagreement, various aspectsof the predicates that allow it have been discussed. The typical case of faultlessdisagreement is found with predicates of personal taste, illustrated below.
(4) John: The chili is tasty.
Mary: No, the chili is not tasty.
In this exchange, both John and Mary are expressing a relative truth without being at fault.
The situation is rather different in (5), where one of the interlocutors is wrong.
(5) John: Bill stole the cookie.
Mary: No, he didn’t.

The difference comes from the fact that an objective predicate is used in (5), whereas thatis not the case in (4), where perspectives of the interlocutors matter.
Returning to (2b), notice that dare-ga nan-to itte-mo ‘no matter who says what’ is a
declaration that forestalls a possible disagreement. Adding it to an assertion involving an
objective predicate as in (3), on the other hand, results in oddness in a rational discourse.
I would also like to claim that Beltrama’s (2018) suggestion that assertions with asubjective predicate have a different illocutionary status from assertions with an objective
predicate applies to Q&A pairs as well. Subjective predicates easily allow a response toa wh-question that does not match the information structure configuration required by
Q&A pairs. (2b) is simply a response, and the wa-marked subject there is a topic, afterall.
Properties of subjective predicates: The predicate used in (2) displays other hallmarksof subjective predicates. For example, they invite what Ninan (2014) calls an
acquaintance inference. The continuation in (6) sounds strange.
(6) The Eiffel Tower is beautiful, ??but I’ve never seen it.
To make it sound natural, hedges like apparently are needed for the first sentence. Nihonichi-no sakka behaves in the same way. The continuation in (7) sounds unnatural.
(7) Natsume Soseki-wa Nihon-ichi-no sakka-da. ??Watashi-wa yonda-koto nai-kedo.
‘Natsume Soseki is the greatest writer of Japan. I haven’t read his works, though.’
And again, adding hedges like souda ‘it’s said’ at the end of the first sentence removes
the unnaturalness.
Willer and Kennedy (2022) propose that acquaintance inference arises because
assertions with a subjective predicate must be grounded in first-hand knowledge.
Faultless disagreement is attributed to the leeway this experiential grounding leaves.
Ref.
Beltrama, A. 2018. Subjective assertions are weak. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung
22, 161–174.
Kölbel, M. 2002. Truth without objectivity. London: Routledge.
Krifka, M. & R. Musan. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In
M. Krifka and R. Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 1–43. Berlin:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 2005. Focusing on the matter of topic. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
14: 1–58.
Lasersohn, P. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste.
Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686.
Ninan, D. 2014. Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. Proceedings of SALT
24, 290–309.
Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.
Willer, M. & C. Kennedy. 2022. Assertion, expression, experience. Inquiry 65: 821–857.

Semantics of reduplicants
Akitaka Yamada (Osaka University)
Introduction. Japanese reduplicated words have been traditionally classified wrt their meanings(phonomimes, phenomimes, and psychomimes, Akita and Tsujimura 2016 etc.). This current
study, however, shows that reduplicated words can also be classified into two morphosyntacicclasses (Classes 1 and 2) wrt the criteria in (1). Zooming in on what we call Class 1 reduplication,
we examine two distinct semantic effects involved in reduplication, and in so doing, we argue forthe need to incorporate the event semantics to express the pluratity in presupposition.
(3) guru-guru(1) a. whether it is repeated more than twice.
phonomime for rotationb. whether the Rendaku of the reduplicant is suppressed.
(2) a. kuru-{kuru/*guru}
b. sora-{*sora/zora}-sii ‘manner of rotation with force’
phonomime for rotation
sky-sky-ADJ‘manner of rotation with little force’ ‘pretentious’
Data. (Obs 1) Subclasses. Class 1 consists of those that repeat exactly the same phonologicalmaterial, whereas Class 2 allows additional phonological modifications (typically used with theadjectival ending), as in (2). Besides, Rendaku only applies to Class 2, as in (2)b, but not to Class
1 words, as in (2)a. This study only concerns the three robust properties of Class 1 expressions(the genuine reduplication) only, leaving the treatment of Class 2 expressions to future study.
(Obs 2) Voicing in Onset. When the onset consonant of the base has a distinction in VOICING,Class 1 distinguishes a certain aspect/manner of the depicted event. The relevant scale differs frombase to base; kuru-kuru (2) and guru-guru (3), the voicing insinuates the speaker’s recognitionof power in rotation. As for suru and zuru, the voicing suggests that high friction is acknowledged. For descriptive purposes, in what follows, we abstractly say that the voiced instance is
HEAVINESS / MIGHTINESS on the relevant scale specified by the base.
(Obs 3) Repetition. To express the excessive amount of repetition, more than two reduplicant canbe pronounced: when kuru-kuru is repeated (= (4)a), it is suggested that the events of rotation arerecognized more than twice. One can repeat the reduplicant as many times as one wishes (= (4)b):(4) a. kuru-kuru kuru-kuru
b. kuru-kuru kuru-kuru kuru-kuru kuru-kuru
phonomime for rotation
phonomime for rotation‘manner of rotation with very little force’‘manner of rotation with so little force’Two remarks are in order. First, the Obs 2 & 3 can be put together (i.e., guru-guru), which emphasizes the excessiveness of the rotation with force. Second, the number of repetition does not
sharply correspond to the number of rotating events, but it refers to the lower limit of the repetition.
As in the table below, (2) can refer to any events as long as rotation is repeated. However, when
the number of reduplicants is bigger than the number of referred events, the expression is illicit:
neither (4)a nor (4)b is permitted in a situation where rotation takes place only twice.
sentence zevent
(2)
(4)a
(4)b

once twice five times ¨ ¨ ¨
‘
‘
*
‘
*
*
*
*
*

ten times‘‘‘

Analysis (Struture). We assume the structure in (5) for (2)a and (3), respectively. HEAVINESS
determines whether the onset of the preceding Root is voiced or not (e.g., k/guru + [HEAVINESS :–]ą kuru, and k/guru + [HEAVINESS :+] ą guru), and decides whether it is positively or negatively
heavy on the relevant scale. RED(uplicant) is supposed to be realized as a phonological sequence ofthe preceding sisternode (kuru + RED = kuru-kuru, and kuru-kuru + RED = kuru-kuru kuru-kuru),
and introduces the presupposition as to how many times the referred events must take place.
(6) a. kuru-kuru {*utat/odot}-ta.
b.
(5) a.
Root2
Root3
kuru-kuru sing/dance-PST‘(I) {*sang/danced} in a kuruRoot
Root2
Root1
Root
kuru manner.’||
Root
Root RED
Root RED
Root1
|
|
|
Root
Root REDk/guru HEAVINESS||
k/guru HEAVINESS
Analysis (Semantics). First, the semantics of the base specifies the category of the event to be
combined. For example, in the case of kuru-kuru, the described event must be something thatinvolves rotation, so it can be used with the verb dance, but not with sing. This condition differsfrom base to base. So it is reasonable to have it as a lexical specification, as in (7)a.
(7) a. (i) Jk/guruK “ λe P Ds . λy P De . λd P R.ROTATEpy, d, eq.
(ii) ROTATEpy, d, eq “ e is an event of y’s rotating with the intensity of d.
b. (i) JHEAVINESS :+Ks “ λg P Dăs,ăe,Rtąą .λe P Ds .λy P De .λ dP td : d P R ^ d ą su. gpyqpdq.
(ii) JHEAVINESS :+Ks “ λg P Dăs,ăe,Rtąą .λe P Ds .λy P De .λ dP td : d P R ^ d ă su. gpyqpdq.
c. JRoot1 Ks “ λe P Ds zDsSG . λy P De . λd P td : d P R ^ d ż su.ROTATEpy, d, eq.
d. JRoot2 Ks “ λe P Ds zDsSG zDs2 . λy P De . λd P td : d P R ^ d ż su.ROTATEpy, d, eq.
e. JRoot3 Ks “ λe P Ds zDsSG zDs2 zDs3 . λy P De . λd P td : d P R ^ d ż su.ROTATEpy, d, eq.
Second, HEAVINESS limits the relevant degree that is above or below the contextual standard s.
For example, when it is positive, then the domain condition makes it to be the case that the only
degrees that exceeds the threshold value are taken into consideration. Third, RED also restricts thedomain condition, but this time for the event term. Based on the following notational rules in (8),the change in presupposition is expressed as in (7)c through e. The ‘set-minus’ operation as in (9)is truncation of a lattice structure, as shown by the figure above (Yamada, 2019).
(8) a. Ds “ te1 , e2 , ¨ ¨ ¨ , en , e1 ‘ e2 , e2 ‘ e3 , ¨ ¨ ¨ , e1 ‘ e2 ‘ e3 , ¨ ¨ ¨u.
b. DsSG “ te1 , e2 , ¨ ¨ ¨ , en u.
c. Ds2 “ te1 ‘ e2 , e2 ‘ e3 , ¨ ¨ ¨ , en ‘ e1 u.
d. Ds3 “ te1 ‘ e2 ‘ e3 , e2 ‘ e3 ‘ e4 , ¨ ¨ ¨ ,en ‘ e1 ‘ e2 u.
(9) Ds zDs “ te1 ‘ e2 , e2 ‘ e3 , ¨ ¨ ¨ , e1 ‘ e2 ‘ e3 , ¨ ¨ ¨u.
Akita, Kimi, and Natsuko Tsujimura. 2016. “Mimetics.” In Handbook of Japanese lexicon andword formation.‚ Yamada, Akitaka. 2019. “Syntax and semantics of aspectual constructions inJapanese: Defective T and habituality.”