Explaining the Typology of Narrow Focus Alignment: A Contiguity Theoretic Approach
Daiki MATSUMOTO (Kyoto University / JSPS)[Introduction] This talk seeks to explain the typology in (1) concerning the narrow focus(FOC) alignment in various languages including Japanese, English, Italian, and Hungarian.
(1) Context: Where did you go with Mary?
English: A: I went to ROMEFOC with Mary. B: ??I went with Mary to ROMEFOC.
Italian: A: Sono andato con Maria a ROMAFOC. B: Sono andato a ROMAFOC, con Maria.
am gone with M. to RomeJapanese: A: Boku-wa Meari-to ROMA-niFOC itta. B: Boku-wa ROMA-niFOC Meari-to itta.
I-top.
M.-with. Rome-to went
Hungarian: A: RÓMÁBAFOC mentem Máriával. B: *Máriáva mentem RÓMÁBAFOC.
Romewent M.
To align the FOC, English resorts to the Main Stress Shift (MSS) (Reinhart 2006) from thedefault nuclear stress position (DNSP) (i.e., the rightmost position in the clause) to the FOC,
while Italian resorts to either the placement of the FOC at the right DNSP or the dislocation of
non-FOC rightmost element(s) via comma break. Japanese can either locate the FOC at theright DNSP (save the verbal complex: V-T) by scrambling other phrases or execute MSS.
Hungarian’s DNSP is just before the V-T (Szendroi 2001), and it aligns the FOC to this DNSP.
[Question] This talk seeks to provide a genuine explanation for the Minimalist question about
this typology: Why do these languages differ this way? Calling this question [Q], I seek toanswer [Q] by adopting Richards’s (2016) Contiguity Theory to the FOC-licensing.
[Explanation] Contiguity Theory claims that the Contiguity in (3) is required at PF.
(2) If α Agrees with β, α and β must be dominated by a single prosodic node, within which β’s
prosodically active edge (PAE) is not linearly separated by any other φ.
Richards adopts Selkirk’s (2009) Match Theory which dictates that each syntactic XP
corresponds to a prosodic φ and each clause to an ι. PAEs are detected based on prosodic effects
exhibited at particular edges of φs. Japanese PAEs are generally on the left, evidenced by theeffect of pitch reset at φ’s left edges (Richards 2016: Ch. 3). Similarly, he assumes that English
has left PAEs while Italian has right ones. In the same manner, I assume that Hungarian has
left PAEs based on the prosodic H(igh)*-L(ow) contour its φs exhibit (Szendroi 2001).
How can (2) play a role in explaining the FOC alignment? A particularly interesting
proposal called the Stress-Focus Correspondence Principle (SFCP) is made by Reinhart(2006). The SFCP dictates that the FOC has to bear the MS of a given sentence. Thus, if the
FOC is placed at the DNSP, the SFCP is satisfied and hence the FOC is licensed. Furthermore,assuming with Rizzi (1997) a.o. that the FOC Agrees with the Foc-head in the left periphery,(2) requires that the FOC be Contiguity-prominent within a prosodic phrase corresponding toφFoc. Given these assumptions, I propose the following hypothesis:(3) The SFCP can be satisfied either by aligning the FOC at the DNSP or by making the FOC

Contiguity-prominent within the φFoc.
[Japanese] The examples in (1) can be explained in a unified manner under (3). Let us firstexamine Japanese. The Japanese A has the simplified structure (4A) while B has the one in(4B). These are converted to the prosodic structures (5A, B), respectively (S=Subject).
(4) A: [FocP [TP S [VP M.-to FOC V-T] Foc]
B: [FocP [TP S [VP FOC M.-to V-T] Foc]
(5) A: (φFoc (φTP S (φM.-to) (φFOC)) V-T) Foc) B: *(φFoc (φTP S (φFOC) (φM.-to) V-T) Foc)
According to (3), the FOC must be either positioned at the DNSP or adjacent to φFoc’s left PAE.
Since the former is satisfied, the FOC is licensed in (5A). In contrast, the FOC satisfies neitherin (5B): it is not adjacent to φFoc’s left PAE due to the presence of the S, and the DNSP is
occupied by M(eari)-to. Richards argues that in such a case, the operation called Grouping canbe applied to the FOC and the Foc-head, which groups two prosodic items within a single
phrase, converting (5B) to (6). In (6), the FOC is φFoc’s PAE, and hence the SFCP is satisfied.
(6) (S (φFoc (φTP (φFOC) (φM.-to) V-T) Foc))[Italian] The Italian behaviors in (1) follow from the fact that both the DNSP and PAE are on
the right in the language. In order to make the FOC to be at the DNSP, it has to be the rightmost
element within the φFoc, and at this position the FOC becomes adjacent to φFoc’s PAE:
(7) A: (Foc S V-T (c. M.) (FOCφ) φFoc)
B: ((Foc S V-T (FOCφ) φFoc) (c. M.))
(7B) derives via Grouping applied to the FOC and the φFoc, making con Maria extrametrical.
[Hungarian] The behaviors of Hungarian also naturally follow: the PAE and DNSP of thislanguage are both on the left, and hence the language aligns the FOC right in front of the verbal
complex, which I assume incorporates the Foc-head:(8) A: (φFoc (φFOC) V-T-Foc M.)
B: *(φFoc M. V-T-Foc (φFOC))[English] Lastly, English has left PAEs and the rightmost DNSP. Thus, in (1), the FOC mustbe Contiguity-prominent within the φFoc. However, Grouping cannot be applied to the FOC andthe Foc-head, as the S always intervenes between them, as in (9a). Thus, the only way to savethe prosodic structure is to dephrase the element(s) at the DNSP, forming a φ which includes
the FOC and other offending elements. This φ as a whole satisfies (3) by being placed at the
DNSP, as in (9b). This is in line with the argument by Büring (2009).
(9) A. (φFoc Foc (φTP S V-T (φFOC) (φ w. M.))B. (φFoc Foc (φTP S V-T (φFOC w. M.))[Conclusion] Our account explains [Q] in a genuine way. I will compare our account with
Féry’s (2013) OT-based accounts and conclude that ours is conceptually more desirable as it
does away with arbitrary rankings among constraints, while showing that its empirical coveragecan be extended further to French and some African languages. I will further argue that two
conditions in (3) can be unified under the heading of Generalized Contiguity.
[References] Büring, D. 2009. In Information Structure, 177-205. OUP. / Féry, C. 2013. In
NLLT 31, 683-734. / Reinhart, T. (2006) MIT Press. / Richards, N. 2016. MIT Press. / Rizzi, L.
1997. In Elements of Grammar, 281-337. Dordrecht, Kluwer. / Selkirk, E. 2009. In Gengo
Kenkyu, 35-73. / Szendroi, K. 2001. PhD. Diss., UCL.

The impact of lexical creativity in video games on EFL students’ receptive
vocabulary knowledge: The case of League of Legends
Jose Belda-Medina
José Ramón Calvo-Ferrer
University of Alicante (Spain)
Digital Language Learning (DL2)

Vocabulary learning may take place either intentionally, by means ofdeliberate attempts to commit factual information to memory (Hulstijn, 2001), or
incidentally, as a by-product of other cognitive exercises involving
comprehension (Chiu, 2013). Intentional vocabulary learning came undercriticism in the 1980s with the adoption of communicative learning
methodologies and the belief that vocabulary acquisition takes place upon
exposure to and use of new words in meaningful contexts. Recent research hasdelved into the effectiveness of incidental vocabulary learning but mostly
through reading L2 texts. However, video games have also been employed in
educational contexts to understand lexical development in foreign languages.
vocabulary.
Traditionally, research works distinguish between intentional andincidental vocabulary learning. The first one is an explicit process which
requires learners’ deliberate effort whereas the second is considered to beunintentional and, as such, can be better termed as acquisition (Waring &Nation 2004). Similarly, scholars make a distinction between the receptive andproductive levels in vocabulary learning and acquisition. While receptive refers
to the familiarity with the written and spoken forms and the different meanings,
the productive level implies a more active process whereby the learners mustable to construct and use correctly different words in context.
Research done on Game Vocabulary Learning (GVL) to date has mostly
focused on its supplementary role to formal vocabulary instruction (Zou et al.
2021) but language acquisition research has ignored by and large any possible
role that gaming may play in the incidental acquisition of vocabulary (Reynolds
2017).Therefore, this presentation has two main objectives: the first one is toanalyze the English lexical creativity of the multiplayer battle arena (MOB)
League of Legends which reached a total of 180 million monthly players
worldwide in 2021 according to different sources; the second is to examine theimpact this lexical creativity has on the EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge at
the receptive level.
A descriptive case-study was used for the first objective. Therefore,
different examples of lexical creativity in League of Legends were analyzed andclassified according to several lexical resources, such as compounding (high-elo, hard-stuck, outplayed, champion-pool, hyper-carry or countergank), zero
derivation (to flame, to tilt, to snowball, to jungle) or abbreviation (ez for easy, ff
for forfeit, gg for good game or KS for kill steal), among others. A mixed-method
research was used for the second objective aimed at examining the effects ofthis lexical creativity on EFL learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge. For thispurpose, 82 third-year college students participated in this research, they wereassigned to two different groups (gamers and non-gamers) based on aconvenience sampling model. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered
trough a questionnaire based on video game usage, a vocabulary test on
English lexical resources including different items from the Leagues of Legends
and class discussion. The data was analyzed through the IBM SPSS Statistics
20 software tool.
The results revealed that the gamers had not only a higher knowledge ofthis vocabulary but also a better understanding of the different lexical resources
involved in each case (compounding, zero derivation, clipping, blending, etc.).
The gamers outperformed the non-gamers in most of the items included in the
vocabulary test. Additionally, cross-correlational analysis elucidated somedetermining factors in the incidental vocabulary learning of such terms (high-elo,
KS, jungle, etc.) such as playtime and type of online interaction. The researchfindings demonstrate the lexical richness of this commercial video game andthey impact it may have for incidental vocabulary learning and receptive
knowledge among EFL learners.

References
Alemi, M., & Tayebi, A. (2011). The influence of incidental and intentional
vocabulary acquisition and vocabulary strategy use on learning L2 vocabularies.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 81.
Chiu, Y. H. (2013). Computer-Assisted Second Language Vocabulary
Instruction: A Meta-Analysis. Br. J. Educ. Technol., 2013, 44 (2), 533 52–56.
Hua, Y., & Guo, Q. (2021). 12 Effects of intentional versus incidental learning
tasks with different involvement loads on L2 vocabulary learning1. Teaching
and Researching Chinese EFL/ESL Learners in Higher Education, 232.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary
learning: a reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P.
Hung, H. T., Yang, J. C., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., & Wang, C. C. (2018). A
scoping review of research on digital game-based language learning.
Computers & Education, 126, 89-104.
Reynolds, B. L. (2017). Evidence for the task-induced involvement construct inincidental vocabulary acquisition through digital gaming. The Language
Learning Journal, 45(4), 466-484.

Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 258–286).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Waring, R., & Nation, I. S. (2004). Second language reading and incidental
vocabulary learning. Angles on the English speaking world, 4, 97-110.
Zou, D., Huang, Y., & Xie, H. (2021). Digital game-based vocabulary learning:where are we and where are we going?. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 34(5-6), 751-777.

Dissociating Merge from minimal search and associating search to Resource Restriction
Nobu Goto (Toyo University) and Toru Ishii (Meiji University)
Proposal: Chomsky (2021) proposes that search to determine the input for Internal Merge byaccessing workspace WS (IM-search) obeys minimal search (MS), while search to determine
the input of External Merge by accessing lexicon LEX (EM-search) does not. But if “MS is athird factor element, on the shelf and available for any operation” as he himself states, it is amystery why only EM is free from MS. What is it that a principled reason why EM does notobey MS? Without a genuine explanation of why this is so, that is, why only IM obeys MS, or
why only EM does not, it raises the suspicion that it may simply be an arbitrary use of the third
factor element. Insofar as EM and IM are unified as simply two instantiations of the single rule
Merge (Chomsky 2004), such asymmetrical aspect should be explicitly explained, if there
really exists, under the always available third factor. We thus propose an MS totally free Merge
theory [I], eliminating the EM/IM distinction of MS in toto:[I] Merge is totally free from MS (Minimal Search).
By [I], MS is dissociated not only from EM-search but also from IM-search and the arbitrary
use of MS for Merge does not arise to begin with, so that the EM/IM uniformity is maintained.
Note that by [I], MS is abandoned from Merge, but items to which Merge will apply need
to be determined by search – henceforth Σ for short – so that the questions whether Σ should
satisfy any conditions, and if it does, what kind of conditions Σ should obey are still left open.
Then, in terms of computational efficiency, we assume that Σ has to satisfy conditions that
follow from general property of brain computation called Resource Restriction (RR). Morespecifically, developing Chomsky’s (2021 WCCFL Talk) suggestion that Binarity, which
restricts n (the number of the targets of an operation) to two, and Phase Impenetrability
Condition (PIC), which blocks accessibility, follow from RR, we propose that Σ, the search
operation, should obey RR:[II] Σ (Search) obeys RR, where RR includes Binarity and PIC.
It is significant that [II] captures the insight behind the input-based determinacy proposed in
Goto & Ishii (2020), which states that a determinacy violation occurs when IM is to apply to
X that has two identical accessible copies in WS. They analyze, for example, the subject islandeffect (1a), under the derivation (1b), as follows: In (1b) “if we are to move who to the Spec ofC, there are two accessible copies of who, i.e. the one within the Spec of T and the other within
the Spec of v. This is an ambiguous rule application; (19) [= (1a)] violates Determinacy.”(1) a. *Who did [pictures of t] please you?
b. [CP who [C-did [TP [pictures of who] [T [vP [pictures of who] [v […
However, under [II], we can explain (1a) in terms of Binarity on Σ, without committing
ourselves to the notion of determinacy. Consider (2), WS of (1b) before IM (who, C) is applied:(2) WS = [{C {{… who2} {T {{…who1} {v {…}}}}}}]
Here PIC is irrelevant, because who2 and who1 are two copies formed by CP-phase-internal
movement (the subscript numerals are assigned for expository purposes). In passing, the effectof PIC is irrelevant to EM-search since PIC applies to syntactic objects, not lexical items. In
order for IM (who, C) to yield (1b), IM-search Σ has to first apply to WS in (2). But in (2) there
are three accessible elements to IM-search: C, who2, and who1. This violates Binarity; IMsearch cannot feed the appropriate input to IM, and IM cannot generate (1a). This analysis
easily explains why the effect is canceled when there occupies SPEC-T (Lasnik & Park 2003):(3) a. Who is there [a picture of t] on the wall?
b. WS = [{C {there {T {{…who} {v {…}}}}}}]In order for IM (who, C) to yield (3a), IM-search has to apply to WS in (3b). In (3b) there are
two accessible elements to IM-search: C and who. This satisfies Binarity. Therefore, IM-search
can feed the appropriate input to IM (who, C), and IM can generate (3a).
Consequences: The proposal here has several theoretical advantages. First, it has been an
unsettled issue whether determinacy should apply at the output of Merge (Chomsky, Gallego,& Ott 2019) or at the input of Merge (Goto & Ishii 2020), though both of these two conflicting
approaches to determinacy on Merge have desirable empirical and theoretical consequences.
But the theory here can provide us a possible way to break the deadlock between these two
approaches and derive the insights of the two from RR on the search operation Σ without thenotion of determinacy. Binarity-obedient Σ subsumes under RR not only Goto & Ishii’s inputbased determinacy but also the output-based determinacy, reformulated as a condition on
Merge called Minimal Yield in Chomsky (2021), which states that “Merge should construct
the fewest possible new items that are accessible to further operations, thereby limiting Σ.”
Note that our proposal also provides an answer to an open question how determinacy relates to
RR: it can be reduced to RR via Binarity: RRàBinarityàdeterminacy. Incidentally, Chomsky(2017 Arizona Talk) suggests a possibility that “extensions of Merge” such as parallel Merge,
sideward Merge, late Merge, etc. can be analyzed as causing not only a determinacy violation
but also a Binarity violation. But if we follow the idea here, such a redundant analysis becomes
unnecessary and the determinacy analysis can be uniformly replaced by the Binarity analysis.
Note that in addition to these theoretical advantages, all of the empirical consequences
obtained in Goto & Ishii (2020) can be carried over as they are in the theory developed here.
First, consider, for instance, why Japanese does not show the subject island effect:(4) a. Dare-ni [ John-ga [[ Mary-ga t atta] koto]-ga mondai-da to] omotteru] no?
who-dat J.-nom
M.-nommet fact-nom problem-is that think Q
Lit. ‘Who, John thinks that [the fact that Mary met t] is a problem.’b. WS = [{C {T {{…dare-ni} {v {…}}}}}]In WS (4b), as the subject phrase containing dare-ni stays in SPEC-v throughout the derivation(Fukui 1986; Kuroda 1988), when we are to apply IM (dare-ni ‘who-Dat’, C), accessible
elements to IM-search are C and dare-ni ‘who-Dat’. This satisfies Binarity, so (4a) is generable
by IM. Second, the subject-object asymmetry between (5a, b) with topicalization can also be
explained (here we assume that a topicalized phrase is merged with C for its interpretation):(5) a. *John, t came yesterday.
a’ WS = [{C {John2 {T {John1 {v {…}}}}}}]
b. Mary, John likes t.
b’ WS = [{C { T {v {Mary2 {R Mary1}}}}}]In WS (5a’), when we are to apply IM (John, C), accessible elements to IM-search are C, John2,
and John1. This violates Binarity, so (5a) is ungenerable by IM. On the other hand, in WS (5b’),when we are to apply IM (Mary, C), Mary1, which is within the transferred domain (Rcomplement), is inaccessible due to PIC, hence accessible elements to IM-search are C andMary2. Note that we assume with Chomsky (2013, 2015) that Root (R) inherits phasehood fromv, and R-complement undergoes Transfer. (5b’) satisfies Binarity, so (5b) is generable by IM.
Third, that-t effects can also receive a Binarity account:(6) a. *Who do you think that t saw Bill?
a’ WS = [{C(that) {who2 {T {who1 {v {…}}}}}}]
b. Who do you think t saw Bill?
b’ WS = [{R(THINK) {C(that)à Ø {who2 {T {who1 {v {…}}}}}}}]In WS (6a’), when we are to apply IM (who, C), accessible elements to IM-search are C, who2,
and who1. This violates Binarity, so (6a) is ungenerable by IM. On the other hand, in WS (6b’),
we assume with Chomsky (2015) that C is deleted and vP undergoes Transfer via inheritanceof phasehood from C to T. Then, when we are to apply IM (who, R), who1 within the transferreddomain (T-complement) is inaccessible due to PIC, hence accessible elements to IM-search
are R and who2. This satisfies Binarity; (6b) is generable by IM.
In this way, the proposed theory creates a new natural class, which cannot be obtained
otherwise, for various movement restrictions. In the presentation we will demonstrate that by[I][II] the system overall is not only simpler but actually results in an increase in empirical
coverage, providing a unified account of various movement phenomena in different languages,
such as: subject island effects, a restriction in verb particle constructions, specificity effects, novacuous topicalization, non-existence of COMP-less subject relatives, skipping strategy,
adverb effects, freezing effects with topics, further raising, Merge-over-Move, adjunct islandeffects, island violation repairs by ellipsis and pronouns, no superfluous steps in a derivation,
successive cyclicity in A-movement, anti-locality, etc.
References: Chomsky, Noam. (2021) WCCFL Talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6SbPKmVNVQ | Chomsky, Noam. (2021) “Minimalism: where are we now, and where canwe hope to go.” Gengo Kenkyu 160. | Goto, Nobu. & Toru, Ishii. (2020) “Some consequenceof MERGE and determinacy.” Lingbuzz (https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004108)

Qi（其）: New Evidence for the Existence of Genitive Subjects in Chinese
Xiaoshi Qiu and Jianyao Liu
Graduate School of Humanities, Osaka University
1. Introduction
This paper shows new evidence for the existence of genitive subjects in modern standard
Chinese: 1) that the genitive 3rd person pronoun qi（其） in relative clauses leads to highacceptability of the sentences with it, and 2) that a widely used structure “NP + DE + VP”
corresponds to a Japanese noun completement clause. The findings of this paper support Maki
et al.’ (2015) conclusion that modern standard Chinese shares similar genitive subject licensing
conditions with Japanese.
2. BackgroundIn modern standard Japanese, subjects bearing genitive Case can be found mainly in two
kinds of noun-modifying clauses, namely relative clauses and noun completement clauses:
(1)

a.
b.

boku no yon-dahonI
Gen read-Pst.Adn book
‘The book which I read’ (Adn = adnominal form)
John no ki-ta
kotoJohn Gen come-Pst.Adn fact ‘the fact that John came’(Harada (1971))

This is the Genitive-Nominative Conversion, which was originally discussed in Harada (1971).
See Miyagawa (1993, 2011, 2012, 2013), Watanabe (1996), Hiraiwa (2001) and Ochi (2001,2009), among many others. Based on the distribution of genitive subjects in Mongolian andJapanese, Maki et al. (2016) propose that a genitive subject must be a) c-commanded by anominal element in a local domain, and b) in a local relationship with an adnominal predicate.
3. DataFirst, let us examine relative clauses with a genitive subject in Chinese. (2a, c) cited from
Maki et al. (2015) is a relative clause with the possessive marker de attached to the subject. The
grammaticality judgments of (2a, c) vary from speaker to speaker. However, the acceptabilityof (2b, d) will rise remarkably when the subject is replaced by the 3rd person pronoun qi（其）.
(2)

a.
b.
c.
d.

Zuotian Zhangsan de xiuhao zixingche de fangfa shi zhe-ge.
yesterday Zhangsan DE fix
bicycle DE way is this-Cl‘The way Zhangsan fixed the bicycle is this.’
Zuotian qi xiuhao zixingche de fangfa shi zhe-ge.
yesterday his fix
bicycle DE way is this-Cl‘The way he fixed the bicycle is this.’
Xingqiliu Zhangsan de goumai de shu shi zhe-ben.
Saturday Zhangsan DE buy
DE book be this-Cl‘The book which Zhangsan bought on Saturday is this.’(slightly edited)
Xingqiliu qi goumai de shu shi zhe-ben
Saturday his buy
DE book be this-Cl‘The book which he bought on Saturday is this.’

Unlike other Chinese pronouns, which usually have no morphological changes and need deattached to them when they are possessors, qi has the possession meaning with it. This pronouncannot appear as a subject of a simple sentence, as shown in (3), and shows a complementary
distribution with pronouns to which de is attached, as shown in (4).

1

(3)
(4)

Dangshita/*qi sanfachu yigu
teshu de kuwei .
at that time it/*its spread a kind of special DE bitter taste‘It spread a special bitter taste at that time.’a.
ta
de qingxiaoshuo
c. * qi
de qingxiaoshuo
she/he DE light novel
her/his DE light novel‘her/his light novel’
b. * taqingxiaoshuod.
qiqingxiaoshuo
she/he light novel
her/his light novel

Second, let us turn to noun complement clauses with a genitive subject. The predicate inthis structure remains a verb, because it can be negated, modified by adverbs and take an object,
as shown in (5).
(5)

Wo zancheng xiazhou Zhangsan de bu zai bangongshi qiaoqiao jian jizhe.
I
approve next week Zhangsan DE NEG at officesecretly meet reporter‘I approve of Zhangsan’s not meeting the reporter secretly at the office next week.’

This sentence (slightly edited) comes from Shi 2008, and reconsidered as acceptable by our
native speaker judgement. Notice that the genitive subject can also be qi, as shown in (6).
(6)

Wo zancheng xiazhou qi
bu zai bangongshi qiaoqiao jian jizhe.
I
approve next week her/his NEG at officesecretly meet reporter‘I approve of her/his not meeting the reporter secretly at the office next week.’

One may wonder if the predicates in these examples are gerunds. However, they allow anominative subject, as shown in (7), which indicates that they are verbs.
(7)

Wo zancheng xiazhou Zhangsan bu zai bangongshi qiaoqiao jian jizheIapprove next week Zhangsan NEG at officesecretly meet reporter‘I approve that Zhangsan (will) not meet the reporter secretly at the office next week.’
4. Discussion
Let us consider what the above facts might suggest for the theory of (Chinese) syntax.
First, besides supporting Maki et al.’s (2015) conclusion on Chinese genitive subjects, theexample in (5) seems to support Bao et al.’s (in progress) claim that a genitive subject needs tobe m-commanded, not c-commanded, by a nominal element, which may be the adnominal formof a predicate itself, because in (5) the predicate shows properties of a noun and a verb at thesame time. Second, the grammaticality of (2a, b) seems to suggest that in Chinese, thedistribution of genitive subjects is restricted by a condition which is not found in Japanese or
Mongolian. That is, in Chinese, non-syntactic factors such as prosody might block the cooccurrence of the genitive maker de ‘DE’ and the relative clause introducer de ‘DE’ in the sameclause.
Selected References
Maki, Hideki, Lina Bao, Wurigumula Bao and Megumi Hasebe (2016) “Scrambling andGenitive Subjects in Mongolian,” English Linguistics 33, 1-35.
Shi, Dingxu (2008) Mingci he Mingcixing Chengfen [Nouns and Nominals], Beijing University
Press, Beijing.

2

Worry about vs. be worried about– The difference in the conceptualization of the triggering event –Hiromichi SAKABA (Graduate School, Osaka University)
This study examines the difference in the conceptualization between emotions expressed byverbs and those expressed by adjectives (past participle), focusing on the semantic difference
between the expression worry about and be worried about. It shows that they are used in different
contexts and the difference reflects different conceptualization of the event to trigger the feelings.
Normally, actions are depicted by verbs, and properties are expressed by adjectives (Hopper andThompson 1985). Intermediates such as emotions can be expressed by either verbs or adjectives(Wierzbicka 1995). Consider the following pair, in which the word worry is used in a verbal form
and an adjectival (past-participle) form.
(1) Mary is {worrying/ worried} (about something).

(Wierzbicka 1995: 225)

Wierzbicka (1995) claims that the grammatical distinctions reflect different modes forconceptualizing feelings. The verbal form describes the mental action in which Mary is doing
something in her head. The direct cause of feeling lay in her conscious thoughts. In contrast, theadjectival form presents the feeling as a state, which is triggered by some external cause.
Wierzbicka discusses the difference in meaning solely based on the formal differences, and it is
not clear whether these formal differences actually reflect a difference in meaning. This study
observes the examples of worry about and be worried about in the American television sitcom
Friends to see in which contexts each expression is used. It will be shown that worry about (24cases) is used for ‘a situation that may happen in the future’ whereas be worried about (25 cases)for ‘an ongoing situation’. This difference in context is consistent with Wierzbicka’s argument.
The experiencer of worry about is actively worrying about ‘a situation that may happen in the
future’ and their conscious thoughts are the direct cause. On the other hand, the experiencer of
be worried about is troubled by ‘an ongoing situation’, which is the direct cause.
Let us observe some examples. In (2) and (3), the experiencer of worry about is actively
concerned about ‘a situation that may happen in the future’.
(2) Chandler: I just don’t want to be one of those guys that’s in his office until twelve o’clockat night worrying about the WENUS.

(Friends, Season 1, Episode 15)(3) Chandler: Couldn’t sleep last night you know, then I started worrying about this big
divisional meeting that I have later today, the more I worried about it the more I couldn’t
sleep.

(Friends, Season 9, Episode 2)

In (2), Chandler expresses the feeling of not wanting to be in the position of always worrying thatsomething will go wrong with the machine with a funny name. In (3), he expresses the fear ofwhat might happen if the next day’s meeting goes wrong. In both cases, the feelings are causedby the experiencer’s conscious thinking about ‘a situation that may happen in the future’.
In contrast, the feeling expressed by be worried about in (4) and (5) are directly triggered by
the external cause, the ‘ongoing situation’.
(4) Rachel: I just checked our messages and Joshua didn’t call. I mean you’d think he’d beworried about me not showing up at his club.

(Friends, Season 4, Episode 14)

(5) Rachel: Chandler, aren’t you worried about what to get Monica for Christmas?
(Friends, Season 6, Episode 10)
In (4), Rachel, the speaker, imagines that the temporary situation of her not coming to the club
would worry Joshua. In (5), she is asking Chandler whether the temporary situation that he has toprepare a present worries him. Thus, the feelings are triggered by the external cause.
The above observations lead us to the hypothesis that only worry about, in which experiencer’s
conscious thoughts are the direct cause, can follow the verbs that require the experiencer tocontrol their emotions such as start or stop (e.g. I started worrying about in (3)). A search of the
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) for the number of uses reveals significant
differences. As shown below, many examples of worry about co-occurring with start or stop wereobserved whereas few examples of to be worried about were detected.
{to worry/ worrying} about
Start (ed){to be worried/ being worried} about{to worry / worrying} about
Stop (ped){to be worried/ being worried} about

332
0
626
3

The above discussion is also in line with Croft (2012), who argues that there are two types ofargument structure constructions for mental events including emotions. While the experiencer isrealized as the subject and the stimulus as the object (subsequent oblique) in (6a), the experiencer
is realized as the object (subsequent oblique) and the stimulus as the subject in (6b).
(6) a. I listened to the music. / I heard the music.
b. The music sounds loud to me. / The loud music frightened me.

(Croft 2012: 233)

Croft attributes the difference in the argument realization of mental events to two directions oftransmission of force. In (6a), the experiencer (= the subject) directs their mental attention to thestimulus. Conversely, in (6b), the stimulus (= the subject) causes a change of (mental) state in
the experiencer. Applying this to the difference between worry about and be worried about, inthe former, the experiencer directs attention and the direct cause lay in their conscious thoughts.
In the latter, the stimulus changes mental state, and therefore the feeling is caused by an externalcause. It is noteworthy that the two argument structures for mental events in Croft (2012) use
different verbs, whereas worry about is based on the same verb phrase.
Thus, worry about is used for ‘a situation that may happen in the future’ whereas be worried
about for ‘an ongoing situation’. This difference in context, which is also observed in terms ofthe corpus data, reflects the difference in conceptualization between verbs and adjectives in
Wierzbicka (1995), and the variation in the argument realization of mental events in Croft (2012).
References: Croft, W. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press./
Davies, M. 2008-. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA). Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/./ Hopper, J. P. and S A. Thompson. 1985. The iconicity of
the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. In J. Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in syntax. 151-183.
Benjamins./ Wierzbicka, A. 1995. Adjectives vs verbs: The iconicity of part-of-speechmembership In M. Landsberg (ed.) syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes. 223–245. De Gruyter.

Dative and Nominative Absolute Constructions in Old English
Katsuya SUGIURA, Aichi Gakuin University
1. Introduction: This paper discusses dative and nominative absolute constructions in Old English (OE)
using data from a historical corpus. For example, in (1), ‘Ven’ and ‘Vende’ represent the past and the present
participle, respectively:(1) a.
Þissumgecwedenum (Dative-Ven Order)
This-DAT cwendened-DAT ‘This told’(coeuphr,LS_7_[Euphr]:298.312, O3)b.
Drihtnesamod wyrcendum, (Dative-Vende Order)
Multitude-DAT samed working-DAT ‘multitude working together’(cocathom1,+ACHom_I,_21:353.234.4296, O3)
c.
þas
þincg
ealle
þus oncnawenne, (Nominative-Ven Order)
the-NOM thing-NOM all-NOM thus acknown-NOM ‘all the things known,’(comary,LS_23_[MaryofEgypt]:610.400, O3)d.
Ðus hemid tearum biddende, (Nominative-Vende Order)
Thus he-NOM with tears

bidding-NOM, ‘Thus he bidding with tears,’(comary,LS_23_[MaryofEgypt]:672.442, O3)
In the following, the absolute constructions in (1a) will be termed dative past participle absolute
constructions, those in (1b) dative present participle absolute constructions, those in (1c) nominative past
participle absolute constructions, and those in (1d) nominative present participle absolute constructions.
Based on the results of corpus investigation, two possibilities are considered: (i) in dative past/present
participle absolute constructions, the verb moves to a higher position over the dative subject, and (ii) in
nominative past/present participle absolute constructions, the nominative case is assigned to the subject nounphrase as the default case.
2. Previous Analyses: Previous studies have mainly debated whether absolute constructions in OE weremere translations of Latin or usages derived from Germanic languages. (Visser (1966), Sato (2009), van dePol (2012)). However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, no previous studies have investigated the
distribution of absolute constructions in OE by period and the word order of the subject and participle.
Nakagawa (2019) analyzed dative present participle absolute constructions within the framework of theminimalist program, but not other types of absolute constructions.
3. Data: Dative/nominative past/present participle absolute constructions were collected from the York–
Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose by checking the constructions tagged with “PTPDAT-ABS” or “PTP-NOM-ABS.” No absolute accusative constructions were detected.
Tables 1 and 2 present the search results.
Table 1: Dative Subject-Past/Present Participle Order and Texts Sources
Dative-Ven: 50

Ven-Dative: 211

Dative-Vende: 110

Vende-Dative: 92

Latin Translation

41

172

77

89

Not Latin
Translation

5

39

23

1

*In all, 4 Dative-Ven examples, 10 Dative-Vende examples, and 2 Vende-Dative examples are excluded
because it is unclear whether the source text was translated from Latin.
Examples of Dative-Ven and Ven-Dative orders are presented in (1a) and (2a), and those of Dative-Vende
and Vende-Dative orders are presented in (1b) and (2b), respectively.
(2) a.
belocenum durum, (Ven-Dative Order)
belouked-Dat door-Dat ‘Door locked’(coaelive,+ALS_[Martin]:1207.6768, O3)b.

Þus cweþendum Drihtne (Vende-Dative Order)
thus queathen-DAT dright-DAT “thus multitude speaking”(cocathom1,+ACHom_I,_27:406.181.5395, O3)

Table 2: The Distribution of Dative Past/Present Participle Absolute Constructions in OE
O2 (850–950)

O3 (950–1050)

O4 (1050–1150)

Dative-Ven

23 (4.5)

23 (2.7)

4 (4.6)

Ven-Dative

139 (27.5)

70 (8.3)

2 (2.3)

Dative-Vende

59 (11.7)

45 (5.3)

6 (6.8)Vende-Dative

83 (16.4)

9 (1.1)0 (0)*The bracketed number represents the normalized frequency per 100,000 words.
Tables 1 and 2 show that both Ven-Dative and Vende-Dative orders were productive in O2, suggestingthat verbs may have moved to a higher position over the dative subject, but they decreased or disappeared
toward O4, suggesting that verb movement largely declined by O4. The dative and nominative absolute
constructions were not detected in O1 (–850), which may be due to the small amount of text from O1.
The search results of nominative past/present participle absolute constructions are presented in Tables 3
and 4. Because the number of examples is very small, the normalized frequency per 100,000 words is omitted.
Table 3: Nominative Subject-Past/Present Participle Order and Texts Sources
Nominative-Ven: 15

Ven-Nominative: 1

Nominative- Vende: 16

Latin Translation

13

1

4

Not Latin Translation

1

0

12

*One Nominative-Ven example is excluded because it is unclear whether the source text was translated from
Latin.
Examples of Nominative-Ven and Ven-Nominative orders are presented in (1c) and (3), respectively, andan example of Nominative-Vende is given in (1d). There were no examples of Vende-Nominative found.
(3)gebærned
hundes heafod (Ven-Nominative)
burned-NOM hound’s head-NOM ‘hound’s head burned’(coquadru,Med_1.1_[de_Vriend]:14.6.482, O2)
Table 4: Distribution of Nominative Past/Present Participle Absolute Constructions in OE
O2

O3

O4

Nominative-Ven

12

2

1

Ven-Nominative

1

0

0

Nominative-Vende

0

16

0

Tables 3 and 4 show that the verb movement to a higher position over the nominative subject is rarely
observed in nominative past/present participle absolute constructions in OE, suggesting that there is noevidence for the existence of CP in such constructions. The minimalist framework after Chomsky (2004),
which assumes that the C-T configuration is necessary for nominative Case assignment, cannot correctly
explain the nominative Case assignment to subjects in these constructions. Considering the possibility thatthe nominative Case assigner does not exist, this paper assumes that nominative case was assigned to thesubject as a default case in OE (cf. Schütze (2001)).
References (Selected): Nakagawa (2019) “The Historical Development of Absolute Participial
Constructions in English.” / van de Pol (2012) “Between Copy and Cognate: The Origin of Absolutes in Old
and Middle English.” / Sato (2009) “The Absolute Construction in Old English: Ælfic’s Exploitation of theLatinate Syntax in his Vernacular Prose.” / Schütze (2001) “On the Nature of Default Case.”