ELLIPSIS AND REPAIR EFFECTS *Seichi Sugawa
Nanzan University and Nagoya Gakuin University

1.

Introduction

It has been observed since Ross (1969) that sluicing shows the effects of island repair.
More specifically, it allows wh-phrases to move out of islands when the relevant island
becomes phonetically null. The following contrast illustrates this repair effect.
(1)

a. They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember
which.
b.* They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember
which (Balkan) language they want to hire someone who speaks.

A common approach to obtain the structure of (1a) is to assume that the wh-phrase moves outof TP into the spec of the embedded CP and then the TP is deleted at PF. This is
schematically shown in (2).
(2)... but I don’t know [CP whichi [TP they want to hire someone [who speaks ti ]]]The basic idea behind this analysis is that the records of island violations are illicit at PF andthe illicitness can be repaired by the deletion of the relevant island. In both sentences in (1), a
wh-phrase ‘which’ or ‘which (Balkan) language’ moves out of a relative clause into the specof the embedded CP. In (1a) the deletion applies to the TP in the second conjunct, eliminating
all records of island violation. Thus the sentence (1a) is considered to be grammatical eventhough the wh-phrase moves across the island. On the other hand, no deletion applies to (1b),yielding no effect of island repair. The contrast between (1a) and (1b) shows that the deletionof TP can repair the island violation.
It has been observed that Japanese allows a construction similar to sluicing in English.
A run-of-the-mill example of so-called sluicing in Japanese, cited from Takahashi (1994), isshown in (3).

* The material of this paper was presented at Cambridge-Hyderabad-Nanzan Joint Workshop on
Interface Conditions held at Nanzan University, September 19-20, 2007. I would like to thankNaoyuki Akaso, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Masatake Arimoto, Tomoko Kawamura, Kensuke Takita for theirquestions and comments. I am especially thankful to Mamoru Saito for his helpful comments andsuggestions given during the preparation of this material. All remaining errors and inadequacies are
my own.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol.2, 165–183©2008 Seichi Sugawa

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(3)John-wa zibun-ga naze sikarareta ka-TOP self -NOM why scolded-was Q
wakatteiru
know

wakattenai ga, Mary-wa [naze ka]
know-not but-TOP why Q‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why.’In spite of their superficial similarity, sluicing phenomena in English and Japanese exhibit
different properties. Saito (2004) argues that sluicing-like construction in Japanese does notexhibit the effects of island repair. His analysis of the construction is based on two
assumptions; Japanese allows a novel type of ellipsis, which is dubbed argument ellipsis (Oku
(1998) and Kim (1999)), and apparent sluicing in Japanese has a structure of cleft (Nishiyama
et al. (1996), Kizu (1997), Kuwabara (1997)). Based on these assumptions, he argues thatapparent sluicing in Japanese is best analyzed as having the structure of cleft with its CP
subject elided. This analysis is schematically shown in (4).1(4)… Mary-wa [[CP Opi [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta]no]-ga nazei (da) ka]
wakatteiru

In (4) the bracketed part has a structure of cleft and its presuppositional CP subject is elided.
Nothing prevents the CP subject in (4) from being elided, since arguments ellipsis is possible
in Japanese. The analysis that ellipsis is involved in the derivation of (3) is supported by thefact that (3) allows a sloppy reading as well as a strict reading as shown in (5).
(5) ✓a. Mary knows why he (= John) was scolded.
✓b. Mary knows why she (= Mary) was scolded.

(strict reading)(sloppy reading)A question is naturally raised as to why it is that argument ellipsis does not repair island
violations. The argument put forward in the following sections utilizes the notion of identity
condition on ellipsis at LF to give an account for the lack of the repair effects. Morespecifically, I argue that the elided portion and its antecedent should be identical at LF. In the
run-of-the-mill example of English sluicing, as shown in (1), the correlate in the first conjunctis an indefinite DP. According to Heim’s (1982) theory, indefinite DPs can be bound in-situ
by existential closure. This derives a structure of the first conjunct which is identical to that of
the second conjunct.
(6)∃x [TP . . . x . . . ], but [CP whj … [TP… tj …]]

Even in the case where the first conjunct has an island within the clause, it is predicted that no
island violation is observed, since there is no movement in the first place.
In the case of sluicing-like construction in Japanese, I claim, following Saito (2004), that1

Hoji (1990) and Murasugi (1991) argue that there is an empty operator movement in the derivationof cleft constructions to establish a relation between the presuppositional CP and the focus phrase bycoindexation. The optional presence of the copula ‘da’ will be discussed in section 2.

-166-

Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)movement, more specifically, operator movement, takes place in the first conjunct. This
yields an LF representation in which the first conjunct and the second one are identical. I
argue that if the operator moves out of the island in the first conjunct, this movement is asource of illicitness of the sentence. Thus the LF movements in the first conjuncts that crossthe islands are responsible for the lack of repair effects.
Fox and Lasnik (2003) reports an interesting data of sluicing in which the correlate in
the first conjunct is a focused DP. When the focused DP is placed within an island, thesentence becomes illicit. This is illustrated in (7b), which makes a contrast with a typicalexample of sluicing in (7a).
(7)

a. The detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed someone, but I don’t know
who else [the detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed].
b.*The detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed ABBY, but I don’t know
who else [the detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed].

The focused DP cannot be bound in-situ, since it is not a variable. Fox and Lasnik (2003)
argue that focus movement is forced to satisfy the identity condition and this movement is
responsible for the illicitness of (7b). This is illustrated in (8).
(8)[CP ABBYi … [TP…[island … ti …] ], but [CP whj … [TP… tj …]]]

The situation is parallel to that of sluicing-like construction in Japanese in the sense that thecorrelate is required to move to create a variable, satisfying the identity condition at LF.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the arguments for the cleft analysis
of Japanese sluicing-like constructions, providing data that show Japanese cleft constructions
and sluicing-like constructions share some properties. And the arguments that Japaneseallows a novel type of ellipsis, which is dubbed argument ellipsis, is reviewed. Then the data
and arguments put forward by Saito (2004), whose argument is based on the cleft analysis
and the availability of argument ellipsis in Japanese, are provided to show that there are no
repair effects in the case of argument ellipsis. Section 3 gives an analysis of how argument
ellipsis lacks repair effects. I argue, capitalizing on the idea that the identity condition works
at LF, that this identity condition forces an operator in the first conjunct to move to bind its
trace. It is also pointed out that the case of argument ellipsis can be analyzed in much thesame way as in the case of sluicing in English where the focus movement is involved in thefirst conjunct. Section 4 concludes the paper.
2.

Argument Ellipsis and the Lack of Repair Effects

2.1. Sluicing in Japanese as Ellipsis
Takahashi (1994) observes that sluicing constructions in English and Japanese sharesome properties that are considered to be diagnostic of ellipsis. Sluicing in both languages,-167-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

for example, requires linguistic antecedents in the sense of Hankamer and Sag (1976).
(9)

Hankamer: Someone’s just been shot.
Sag: Yeah, I wonder who.

(10)[Context: Hankamer produces a gun, points it off stage and fires, whereupon ascream is heard.]
Sag:#Jesus, I wonder who.

The example in (10) sounds odd when it is compared with (9). The oddness of (10), in which
there is no overt linguistic antecedent for the ellipsis indicates that sluicing requires alinguistic antecedent. Japanese sluicing patterns with English one.
(11)

Smith: Celtics-no sukauto-ga dareka -osagasiteiru
mitaida-GEN scout -NOM someone-ACC is looking for seems‘It seems that the scout from the Celtics is looking for someone.’
Jim: Boku-wa dare-o ka wakaranai
I-TOP who-ACC Q know-not‘I don’t know who.’(12)[Context: The Huskies are practicing in the Gampel Pavilion. They see the scout
from the Celtics hanging around there.]
Jim:#Buku-wa dare-o ka wakaranai
I-TOP who-ACC Q know-not‘I don’t know who.’

Compared with (11), in which there is an overt antecedent for the ellipsis, Jim’s utterance in(12) sounds odd. This contrast supports Takahashi’s claim that sluicing in English andJapanese shares a property of surface anaphora. Hankamer and Sag (1976) argue that otherellipsis phenomena such as VP-ellipsis, Gapping, and so on also have the same property.2 So
it is reasonable to consider sluicing to form a natural class with other ellipsis phenomena.
Another property shared by the two languages is the availability of so-called sloppy
interpretation. First consider the English example.
(13)

Johni knows why hei was scolded, and Mary knows why, too.

2

It is controversial whether ellipsis is involved in the derivation of Gapping. Johnson (2003) argues
that Gapping is not an instance of ellipsis, but the gaps in the construction are traces of the across-theboard movement of the constituent shared by the two clauses conjoined with a coordinator.

-168-

Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)

The second conjunct allows two interpretations as shown in (14).
(14) ✓a. Mary knows why John was scolded.
✓b. Mary know why Mary was scolded.

(strict reading)(sloppy reading)

The same pattern holds for sluicing in Japanese. Consider the following example.
(15)

John-wa zibun-ga naze sikarareta ka wakattenai ga, Mary-wa [naze ka]-TOP self-NOM why scolded-was Q know-not but-TOP why Q
wakatteiru
know‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why.’

The second conjunct allows the two interpretations. One is the strict reading: ‘Mary knows
why John was scolded,’ and the other is the sloppy reading: ‘Mary knows why Mary was
scolded.’The fact that the sloppy interpretation is available indicates that ellipsis is involved in
the derivation of (15). Takahashi (1994) argues that so-called sluicing in Japanese is an
instance of ellipsis and proposes that its derivation is parallel to that of sluicing in English.
That is, sluicing in Japanese is derived by the combination of two operations: movement of
the remnant wh-phrase into the spec of the embedded CP and the deletion of the TP out of
which the wh-phrase moves.3 Under this analysis, the second conjunct of the sentence in (15)
has the following structure.
(16)… Mary-wa [CP nazei [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta] ka] wakatteiru

In (16) the wh-phrase ‘naze’ moves to the spec of CP and after that, TP is elided. In thefollowing subsections, we see that sluicing is an instance of ellipsis, but the source of thesecond conjunct is quite different from that of English sluicing.
2.2. The Cleft Analysis of Sluicing in JapaneseThis subsection introduces arguments that the source of the second conjunct of apparent
sluicing in Japanese is not derived from wh-movement and TP deletion, but it has the
structure of clefts (Nishiyama et al. (1996), Kuwabara (1996), and Kizu (1997)). One
argument against the analysis based on wh-movement comes from the sentence like thefollowing:3

Takahashi also argues that this movement satisfies the licensing condition on ellipsis proposed by
Lobeck (1990) and Saito and Murasugi (1990), which requires the spec-head agreement to beestablished by the movement of a wh-element into the spec of CP.

-169-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(17)John-wa dareka -ni atta ga, boku-wa Mary-ni kadooka wakaranai-TOP someone-DAT met but I-TOP-DAT whether know-not‘John met someone, but I don’t know whether it was Mary.’

It is argued in Ross (1969) and Lobeck (1990) that in sluicing the spec of CP should be filledwith a wh-phrase.4 If a wh-phrase does not occupy the spec of CP, sluicing is not allowed.
This is illustrated in (18).
(18) a. *John told me that he would do this for me, but I’m not sure [CP whether [IP e ]].
b.* John says that Red Sox will win the World Championship again in 2009, but I
don’t believe [CP that [IP e ]].
Sluicing-like construction in Japanese departs from English sluicing in this respect. The
sentence in (17) has no wh-phrase in the spec of CP, failing to meet the licensing condition on
sluicing. The fact that non-wh-phrase can appear in (17) is unexpected under Takahashi’s
analysis and suggests that these two constructions derive in a different way.
Another argument comes from the optional presence of copula ‘da’ in sluicing-likeconstruction in Japanese.
(19)

John-wa kinoo
dareka -ni atta ga, boku-wa [dare-ni (da) ka]-TOP yesterday someone-DAT met but I-TOP someone-DAT COP Q
wakaranai
know-not‘John met someone yesterday, but I don’t know who.’

Remember that Takahashi (1994) argues, as is reviewed in the preceding subsection, that thesecond conjunct is derived by wh-movement and TP deletion (See (16)). A potential problem
for Takahashi’s analysis is that it cannot give an account for the fact that the copula does notappear in embedded questions, as is pointed out in Nishiyama et al. (1996).
(20)

Boku-wa dare-ni [TP John-ga atta] (*da) ka
I-TOP someone-DAT-NOM met COP Q

wakaranai
know-not‘I don’t know who John met.’
If the second conjunct in (19) has a structure of (20) as its source and it is derived by TP
deletion in (20), the presence of the copula in (19) is unexpected. Cleft analysis, on the other
hand, can give a straightforward account for the presence of the copula. The copula appears in
the embedded cleft sentence, as shown in (21).

4

See also Saito and Murasugi (1990) for how the licensing condition works on N’-ellipsis inJapanese.

-170-

Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)(21)

Boku-wa [John -ga kinoo
atta no wa dare-ni ( da)] ka siranai-TOP-NOM yesterday met that -TOP someone -DAT COP Q know-not‘I don’t know it was who that John met yesterday.’

It has also been observed that non-wh-phrase can appear in sluicing-like construction in
Japanese. This property is shared with cleft, which allows non-wh-phrase in the focus
position. This is illustrated in (22).
(22) a. Sluicing-like Construction
John-wa dareka -ni
atta ga, boku-wa Mary-ni ka wakaranai-TOP someone-DAT met but I-TOP-DAT Q know-not‘John met someone, but I don’t know whether it was Mary (that John met).’b. Cleft[[John -ga ei atta] no]-wa Maryi -ni desu ka-NOM
met that-TOP-DAT isQ‘Is it Mary that John met?’
The analysis based on wh-movement cannot handle the situation in (22a), in which no whphrase is in the spec of CP in the elided portion of the second conjunct.
Furthermore, multiple foci are allowed in sluicing-like construction and clefts. This is
illustrated in (23).
(23) a. Sluicing-like Construction
John-ga dareka -ni nanika-o ageta ga, boku-wa dare-ni
-NOM someone-DAT something-ACC give but I-TOP someone-DATnani-o (da) ka siranai
something-ACC COP Q know-not‘John gave something to someone, but I don’t know what to whom.’b. Cleft[[John-ga ei ej ageta] no]-wa-NOMgave that -TOPdarei
-ni nanij-o desu ka
someone-DAT something-ACC is
Q‘What to whom is it that John gave?’
These data indicate that sluicing-like construction and clefts are closely related. Nishiyama etal. (1996) argue that the source for the sluice has the structure of a cleft as shown in (24).
(24)

sore / pro -wa XP-da

In this analysis, the presuppositional part of a cleft is pronominalized, and it is realized
overtly (‘sore’) or covertly (‘pro’). This analysis can explain why the sentence like (17) is-171-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

acceptable in Japanese. Under this analysis, the second conjunct of the sentence (17) is
derived from a cleft sentence like (25).
(25)

John-wa dareka -ni
atta ga, boku -wa [(sore-ga) Mary-ni ( da) kadooka]-TOP someone-DAT met but I-TOP it -NOM
-DAT COP whether
wakaranai
know-not‘John met someone, but I don’t know whether it was Mary.’

The bracketed part has the structure of a cleft sentence with overt/covert pronominal subject.
In this subsection, factual data are provided to support the cleft analysis of sluicing inJapanese. However, the cleft analysis, as it stands, faces a problem when we take into theconsideration the fact that sluicing is an instance of ellipsis, as shown in the preceding
subsection. Under the cleft analysis in (24), the sentence in (17) is analyzed as having a pro
subject. Given this analysis, it seems hard to give an explanation for the fact that the sloppy
reading is available in the sluicing constructions. As shown in (26), an overt pronoun does notallow sloppy interpretation.
(26)

John-wa zibun-ga naze sikarareta
ka wakattenai ga, Mary-wa [sore-ga-TOP self -NOM why scolded-was Q know-not but-TOP it -NOM
naze ka] waketteiru
why Q know

The available reading of the second conjunct in (26) is that ‘Mary knows why John was
scolded.’ A cleft analysis based on the assumption that the source for sluicing-likeconstruction in Japanese is something like in (24) need to give an account for the contrast
between (17) and (26).
To summarize, it has been shown that sluicing-like construction in Japanese allows
sloppy interpretation and this fact indicates that it should be an instance of ellipsis. The
deletion analysis put forward by Takahashi (1994) can handle the situation, but at the sametime this analysis cannot give a straightforward account for some properties which are
unexpected under the analysis that assumes wh-movement in the derivation. The cleft
analysis, on the other hand, can account for these properties. The drawback to this analysis isthat it cannot give an account for the availability of sloppy interpretation, since it does notassume any deletion operation in the derivation of the elided clause. The issue to be addressed
here is how to maintain cleft analysis and the availability of the sloppy interpretation at thesame time.5
5

Nishiyama et al. (1996) argue that pro can be a source of the sloppy interpretation. They point out
that the sloppy interpretation of pro can be derived by the operation of LF copying, which is similar tothe operation assumed for interpreting empty VPs in VP ellipsis. See Williams (1977) for the detailsof this operation.

-172-

Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)2.3. Japanese Sluicing as an Instance of Argument Ellipsis
As shown in the preceding subsection, it has been controversial how to derive thesecond conjunct in sluicing-like constructions in Japanese. A full analysis of the source forthe second conjunct should give an account for the seemingly conflicting data. That is, on the
one hand, the sloppy interpretation is available, which indicates that ellipsis is involved in thederivation and, on the other hand, apparent sluicing in Japanese shares some properties withclefs, in which no ellipsis is assumed. Saito (2004) offers a solution to this conflicting
situation. Based on the hypothesis, put forward by Oku (1998) and Kim (1999), that Japaneseallows arguments to be elliptical, Saito (2004) argues that sluicing in Japanese is best
analyzed as having the structure of cleft constructions with the presuppositional CP subjects
elided.
Oku (1998) and Kim (1999) argue that Japanese and Korean allow arguments to be
elliptical. Then DP and CP can be phonetically null in these languages. The following
example from Oku (1998) is a case in point, where an argument, the subject in this case, iselided.
(27) a. Mary-wa [CP [DP zibun-no ronbun]-ga saiyo-sareru-to] omotteiru-TOPself -GEN paper -NOM accepted-is -COMP think‘Mary thinks that her paper will be accepted.’b. John-mo [CP [DP e ] saiyo-sareru-to]-also
accepted-is -COMP

omotteiru
think

Lit. ‘John also thinks that [ e ] will be accepted.’(27b) allows the two interpretations shown in (28).
(28) ✓ a. John thinks that her (= Mary’s) paper will be accepted.

(strict reading)✓ b. John thinks that his (= John’s) paper will be accepted.

(sloppy reading)

The fact that (27b) allows the sloppy reading affords grounds for an ellipsis analysis. And VP
or TP ellipsis cannot derive the desired structure. VP ellipsis cannot be responsible for thedeletion of the subject, since the subject is out of the VP. TP deletion cannot target the subject
only. The operation that derives the desired structure is the one that just deletes the subject
DP. Under the hypothesis that arguments can be elided, the second conjunct in (27b) shouldhave the following structure.
(29)

John-mo [CP [TP [DP zibun-no ronbun]-ga saiyo-sareru] to] ommoteiru

Once it is confirmed that argument ellipsis is one of the possible operations in Japanese,
there is nothing that prevents this operation from being applied to the CP subject of the cleft
sentence. If the elided clause is analyzed as having the structure of a cleft construction, the-173-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

sentence (15), which is reproduced here in (30), can be analyzed as follows:(30) Saito’s (2004) analysis: cleft + the subject CP deletion6
a. John-wa zibun -ga naze sikarareta ka wakattenai ga, Mary-wa-TOP self -NOM why scolded-was Q know-not but-TOP[naze (da) ka] wakatteiru.
why COP Q know
‘John doesn’t know why he was scolded, but Mary knows why.’b. … Mary-wa [[CP Opi [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta] no] -ga nazei (da) ka]-TOPself -NOM scolded-was that -NOM why
COP Q
wakatteiruknow
In (30b) an empty operator moves out of TP and establishes a relation between the CP and thefocus in the cleft by coindexation, as proposed by Hoji (1990) and Murasugi (1991). Then thesubject CP is deleted. This analysis makes it possible to give an account of the presence of the
copula ‘da,’ which naturally follows under the cleft analysis, and the availability of the sloppy
interpretation, for which the deletion operation is responsible.
2.4. No Island Repair
The preceding subsection showed that arguments can be elided in Japanese and thisnovel type of ellipsis offers a solution to the long-standing issue of how to derive the second
conjunct in so-called sluicing in Japanese. Once it is confirmed that argument ellipsis is apossible operation in Japanese, then a question theoretically challenging arises as to whether
argument ellipsis shares properties with other well-studied ellipsis like sluicing or VP ellipsis.
As was shown in section 1, sluicing in English exhibits the effects of island repair. The
example relevant to the repair effects is repeated here as (31).
(31) a. They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember
which.
b. * They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember
which (Balkan) language they want to hire someone who speaks
The second conjunct has the following structure.
(32)

They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember[CP whichi [TP they want to hire someone who speaks ti ]].

In (32), the wh-phrase moves across the relative clause and the TP out of which the wh-phrase
6

Strictly speaking, the structures of the first conjunct and the second one are not identical enough forthe deletion operation to work in (30). I will discuss how the identity is established in section 3.2.

-174-

Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)moves is deleted. The contrast in (31) indicates that once the offending island is elided as is in(32), the illicitness of the sentence disappears.
In the case of the phenomena called sluicing in Japanese discussed in this paper, it is the
subject CP in the cleft construction that is elided. The relevant example (30) is repeated hereas (33).
(33)

John-wa zibun-ga naze sikarareta
ka wakattenai ga, Mary-wa-TOP self -NOM why scolded-was Q know-not
but-TOP[[CP Opi [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta] no]-ga
nazei (da) ka] wakatteiru
self -NOM scolded-was that-NOM why
COP Q know

The representations of English sluicing case and Japanese argument ellipsis are schematicallyshown below.
(34) a. Sluicing in English… [CP Whi [TP … ti … ]]b. Argument Ellipsis in Japanese… [CP Opi [TP … ti …]]-ga XP-da ka …
Notice that the target of ellipsis in (34b) is larger than that in (34a) and all of the traces andeven the moved element, Operator in this case, is deleted in the case of argument ellipsis. If
the deletion ameliorates island violations, then it is predicted that argument ellipsis also
exhibits island repair effects like English sluicing, since it targets a CP, which is large enoughto delete all the history of violations.
This prediction is not borne out, however. Consider the following examples.
(35)

A: Dareka -ga dareka -ni kaita tegami-ga mitukatta sooda
someone-NOM someone-to wrote letter -NOM found-was I-heard‘I heard that they found a letter that someone wrote someone.’
B:#Demo, boku-wa [(sore-ga)
but
I-TOP it -NOM
siranaiknow-notTanaka-san-ga Nakasone-san-ni kadooka]-wa-NOM-to whether -TOP

‘But I don’t know whether it was Mr. Tanaka to Mr. Nakasone.’(Saito 2004: 47)

As shown in section 2.2, Japanese cleft allows multiple foci and non wh-phrase to be in thesubject position of the cleft sentence. If the second conjunct is derived from the cleft
construction with the CP subject elliptical on a par with the case in (33), the elided clause has
the following representation.

-175-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(36)* Demo, boku-wa [CP[TP [CP Opi Opj [TP [NP [ ti tj kaita] tegami] ga mitukatta] no]
but
I
-TOP
wrote letter -NOM found-was that-ga Tanaka-san-gai Nakasone-san-nij] kadooka]-wa siranai
-NOM
-NOM
-to whether -TOP know-not

In (36), the empty operators move out of a complex NP to the spec of the CP subject of thecleft. After the movements take place, the relevant CP is elided, yielding (35B). This situation
is problematic for the analysis of ‘repair by deletion,’ since all the history of the movements
are elided by the CP deletion. Nonetheless, (35B) is still illicit.
So far it has been shown that no repair effects are found in the case of argument ellipsis.
However on might argue against this conclusion based on the observation of a case where thepronominal subject occurs in the place of the CP subject of the cleft.
(37) A: [DP Dokoka -no ginkoo-kara okane -onusunda doroboo]-ga
taihosareta
somewhere-GEN bank from money-ACC stole
thief-NOM arrested-wassooda
I-heard‘I heard that they arrested the thief that stole money from a bank somewhere.’
B: Demo, boku-wa [(sore-ga)
but
I-TOP it -NOM

Tokyoo Ginkoo-kara kadooka]-wa siranai
from whether -TOP know-not‘But I don’t know whether it is from the Bank of Tokyo.’(Saito 2004: 47)
The sentence in (37) appears to avoid an island violation. Saito (2004) argues that there are
two distinct sources available for sluicing-like construction. One is what he calls ‘bare NP
cleft,’ which has the structure presented in (24), repeated here as (38).
(38)

sore / pro -wa XP-da

The other is the cleft with the elided CP subject, whose structure was given in (34b),
reproduced here as (39).
(39)… [CP Opi [TP … ti …]]-ga XP-da ka …

In (39) there is an operator movement and this movement induces a Subjacency violation
when there is an island within TP. On the other hand, if the source in (38) is available, it
shows the lack of a Subjacency violation.
If (37B) is derived from a cleft with the elided subject, it has the following structure as
its source.

-176-

Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)(40)* [[CP Opi [DP ti okane -onusunda doroboo]-ga taihosareta no] -wa
money-ACC stole
thief-NOM arrested-was that-TOP
Tokyoo Ginkoo-karai kadooka]-wa siranai
from whether -TOP know-not

The sentence in (40) is ruled out because the operator movement violates Subjacency. In
contrast to this, if a pronominal subject or pro is put in the subject position like (37B), thesentence becomes quite natural. Furthermore, (37B) can be interpreted into what (40) intends
to mean. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the source for (37B) is ‘bare NP cleft.’ Itfollows that what (37B) exhibits is not the effects of island repair. This is because there is no
movement in (37B) in the first place. On the other hand, the pronominal subject is notavailable somehow in (35B). If the pronominal subject is not allowed, the only source
available is the one in (39). It follows that if operator moves out of an island, this movement
results in a Subjacency violation.
In this section, it was shown that argument ellipsis does not exhibit island repair effects,
which are observed in English sluicing. The story of ‘repair by deletion’ cannot handle thissituation, since all the offending islands in the subject CP in the second conjunct are deleted.
So nothing would prevent the sentence like (35) from being licit, contrary to the fact. In thenext section, I provide an answer to the question as to why the CP ellipsis cannot repair island
violations.
3.

LF Movement and Repair Effects

In this section, I first present interesting data reported by Fox and Lasnik (2003),
examining their analysis and its consequences. The data they provide are English sluicing
examples in which the correlate DP is not an indefinite but a focused DP. Then I examine thesluicing-like constructions in Japanese and show how the LF identity condition works inthese examples. More specifically, I propose that the identity condition requires operator
movement in the first conjunct and if the operator moves across an island, it results in an
island violation.
3.1.

LF Focus Movement and No Repair Effects

Chung et al. (1995) argue that what licenses sluicing is the presence of a free variable in
the first conjunct. A typical example of sluicing thus requires the presence of an indefinite DP
in the first conjunct. An example in (41) illustrates this.
(41)

John met someone, but I don’t know who.

It has been acknowledged that indefinite DPs seem to take wide scope over other quantifiers,
ignoring any syntactic constraints. Even put in the island, indefinites can take wide scopeover islands. If scopal relations are the reflects of syntactic movement, this situation is
problematic. One way to solve the problem is to assume that indefinite DPs can be bound in--177-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

situ by existential closure, so they don’t need to move (Heim (1982), Reinhart (1997)). Under
this analysis LF representation of the first conjunct in (41) is as follows:(42)∃x [TP John met x (x is a person)]

Existential closure in the first conjunct is crucial to create a variable in the first conjunct,which as a consequence, yields the structure identical to that of the second conjunct. Chung etal.’s analysis predicts that if something that cannot be a variable is placed in the first
conjunct, sluicing is not allowed. This prediction is borne out. Consider the following
example.
(43)

*John
Joan ate dinner with*them

and we’re all wondering (with) who.

*most first year students
Referential expressions such as names or demonstratives and quantificational DPs whichfunction as a generalized quantifier cannot be free variables. As a consequence, sluicing
containing these expressions fail to satisfy the identity condition, since there is no variable in
the first conjunct. Based on these observations, I define the identity condition as follows:(44)

The Identity Condition on Sluicing
The elided portion and its antecedent should be identical.

In the case of sluicing in English, what is elided is TP, so the Identity Condition on Sluicing
requires TPs in both conjuncts to be identical in the sense that both of the conjuncts containvariables in a parallel position. An illustration of this is given below.
(45) a. The First Conjunct∃x [TP . . . x . . . ]b. The Second Conjunct[CP whj … [TP . . . tj . . . ]Fox and Lasnik (2003) report as a remaining issue a slightly different case in which thecorrelate DP in the antecedent clause is not an indefinite DP but a focused DP. Consider thefollowing example.
(46) a. He likes ABBY, but I don’t know who else.
b. He said he likes ABBY, but I don’t know who else.
The focused DP is different from an indefinite DP in the sense that it cannot be a variable.
So it is impossible to appeal to the analysis in which the focused DP is licensed in-situ by theexistential closure in the same way as an indefinite DP. The only way to derive identicalstructures for the deletion operation to apply is to force the focused DP to move to the-178-Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)position parallel to the wh-phrase in the second conjunct at LF.7 Thus the LF structures of(46a) and (46b) should be the ones as depicted in (47a) and (47b) respectively.
(47) a. ABBYi he likes ti, but I don’t know who else j [he likes t j ].
b. ABBYi he said he likes ti, but I don’t know who else j [he said he likes t j ].
When the focused DP is placed in the island, interestingly enough, there are no island repair
effects observed even though the relevant island is deleted at PF.
(48) a. The detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed someone, but I don’t know
who else [the detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed].
b.* The detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed ABBY, but I don’t know
who else [the detective ruled out the possibility that Fred killed].
The crucial difference between (48a) and (48b) is the nature of DP placed in the island in thefirst conjunct. In the case of (48b), a focused DP is placed in the position instead of anindefinite DP. The focused DP cannot be bound in situ by existential closure, since it is not avariable. The only way, Fox and Lasnik (2003) argue, to derive a structure parallel to thesecond conjunct is to move the focused DP at LF. So the sentence (48b) should have thefollowing LF representation.
(49)*[ABBY]i the detective ruled out [NP the possibility [CP that Fred killed ti]], I don’tknow [who else]j [the detective ruled out [NP the possibility [CP that Fred killed tj].

The focused DP ABBY must move to the position which is parallel to that of the wh-phrase
who else. This movement causes a Subjacency violation, since the focused DP moves across acomplex NP. Fox and Lasnik assume that this LF focus movement is responsible for theillicitness of (48b). The contrast in (48) implies that covert LF movement is in fact sensitive
to island constraints in the same way as other syntactic movements.
The island in the second conjunct is deleted in both (48a) and (48b), so appealing to thisoperation is not a promising way of providing an account for the contrast between them. I
argue, following Fox and Lasnik (2003) in part, that what differentiates (48b) from (48a) is
whether the DP moves out of an island in the first conjunct or not. In the case with anindefinite correlate, no movement is required, since the identity of the two conjuncts isestablished by the structure in which the indefinite DP is bound by existential closure. In thecase with a focused DP, the movement of the DP is forced to create a variable in the first
conjunct. The focus movement violates island constraints and the violation is not repaired by
PF deletion. This is because the violation is committed in the first conjunct, which is not the7

Fox and Lasnik (2003) assume that the two conjuncts should be identical in terms of the positions oftraces and operators. As a result, each variable should be bound from parallel positions. What isdefined in (44) is looser in the sense that it refers only to the structure of the elided portion and its
antecedent.

-179-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

target of deletion. The important consequence following from this analysis, if correct, is thatisland repair does not show up when a Subjacency violation takes place in the first conjunct.
3.2. Argument Ellipsis Revisited
In this subsection, I argue that the lack of repair effects in the case of argument ellipsis
can be accounted for in a way similar to the case with the focus correlate in English, which
was examined in the preceding subsection. As was shown in section 2.4, argument ellipsis
does not exhibit the effects of island repair. Crucial data discussed there is repeated here as(50).
(50) A:

Dareka -ga dareka -ni kaita tegami-ga mitukatta sooda
someone-NOM someone-to wrote letter -NOM found-was I-heard‘I heard that they found a letter that someone wrote someone.’

B: #Demo, boku-wa [(sore-ga)
but
I-TOP it -NOM
siranaiknow-notTanaka-san-ga Nakasone-san-ni kadooka]-wa-NOM
to whether -TOP

‘But I don’t know whether it was Mr. Tanaka to Mr. Nakasone.’
What is proposed in the analysis of English sluicing with a focused correlate is that thefocused DP is forced to move at LF in order to obtain the identical structures for the first
conjunct and the second one. By this movement, the identity of the two clauses is established.
The focused DP in the first conjunct binds its trace in a way parallel to the wh-dependency
between the wh-phrase and its trace in the second conjunct. Furthermore, if the focus
movement takes place across an island, a Subjacency violation is expected. As aconsequence, the structure of the first conjunct at LF is crucial for whether the relevant
sentence exhibits the effects of island repair or not.
I claim that the example in (50) can be analyzed in almost the same way. Let me firstexamine what takes place in the second conjunct. As shown in section 2.3, sluicing-likeconstruction is best analyzed as having structure of a cleft construction. Then the second
conjunct of (50B) has the following structure.
(51)* Demo, boku-wa [CP[TP [CP Opi Opj [TP [NP [ ti tj kaita] tegami] ga mitukatta] no]
but
I
-TOP
wrote letter -NOM found-was that-ga Tanaka-san-gai Nakasone-san-ni j ] kadooka]-wa siranai
-NOM
-NOM
to whether -TOP know-not

In (51), the empty operator movements take place in order to establish a relation between thesubject CP and the focus DPs by coindexation.
Notice that in the case of argument ellipsis, it is the subject CP that is elided. The-180-

Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)

Identity Condition defined in (44) requires the two CPs to be identical in both conjuncts.
Argument ellipsis departs from sluicing in English in this point in the sense that TP is elided
in sluicing in English. The first conjunct, as it stands, is not identical to the CP subject of thecleft in the second conjunct. The relevant parts of the two conjuncts are schematically shownin (52).
(52) a. The First Conjunct[CP [TP Dareka -ga dareka -ni
someone-NOM someone -to

kaita tegami-ga mitukatta ]]wrote letter -NOM found-wasb. The Second Conjunct[CP Opi Opj [TP [NP [ ti tj kaita] tegami]-ga
mitukatta] no]wrote letter -NOM found-was that
Saito (2004) appeals to the operation of “vehicle change” and argues that the structures in(52) can be made identical to each other. The original proposal on vehicle change put forward
by Fiengo and May (1994) is to offer an analysis for a coreferential interpretation between Rexpressions and pronouns. Consider the following example.
(53)

Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks that Sally does [e], too.

It is not straightforward to get the coreferential interpretation, considering the fact that theantecedent of the elided VP is loves John. The sentence in (54) shows that if strict identity isrequired for deletion, the example should be in violation of the Binding Condition C.
(54)

Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks that Sally does [loves Johni], too.

Fiengo and May (1994) propose that R-expression can be turned into a pronoun as shown in(55) and the identity requirement is met after the operation of vehicle change.
(55)

Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks that Sally does [loves himi], too.

Vehicle change is the operation that turns a name into a pronoun, which is less specific.
It is then plausible to suppose that wh-phrases, quantifiers, and focused DPs can also be
turned into less specific elements. In the first conjunct, I claim, following Saito (2004), thatquantifier ‘dareka’ can be turned into an empty operator by the operation of vehicle change.
The structure to which vehicle change is applied is schematically shown in (56).
(56)[CP [TP [NP [TP Op

Op kaita ] tegami]-ga mitukatta]] sooda
wrote letter -NOM found-was I-heard

And then these operators move to the spec of CP, crossing the island.
(57)[CP Opi Opj [TP [NP [TP ti tj kaita ] tegami]-ga
mitukatta]] sooda
wrote letter -NOM found-was I-heard
The operation of vehicle change and the empty operator movement yield (57), which is-181-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

identical to the second conjunct in (52b). The relevant structures are repeated here as (58).
(58) a. The First Conjunct[CP Opi Opj [TP [NP [TP ti

tj kaita ] tegami]-ga mitukatta]]b. The Second Conjunct[CP Opi Opj [TP [NP [TP ti

tj kaita ] tegami]-ga mitukatta]]

The representation for (50) is as follows:(59) A: [CP Opi Opj [TP [NP [TP ti

tj kaita ] tegami]-ga
wrote letter -NOM

mitukatta]]
found-wassooda
I-heard

B:*Demo boku-wa [CP[TP [CP Opi Opj [TP [NP [ ti tj kaita] tegami]-ga mitukatta]
but
I
-TOP
wrote letter -NOM found -wasno] -ga Tanaka-san-ga Nakasone-san-ni ] kadooka]-wa siranaithat -NOM-NOM
to whether -TOP know-not
In (59), the identity condition forces empty operators to move across an island in the first
conjunct. This movement is the source of the illicitness of (59). If this line of analysis ofargument ellipsis is on the right track, then it provides evidence that the LF structure of thefirst conjunct is relevant to the licitness of sluicing-like construction in Japanese. It is
concluded that the same analysis hold for some sluicing cases in English and argument
ellipsis in Japanese in a parallel fashion. Especially, it should be emphasized that the Identity
Condition induces a movement in the first conjunct and this movement is the source of thelack of repair effects. What is deduced from this conclusion is that the lack of repair effects is
not a by-product of some special syntactic operations, but it is induced by the application ofsyntactic operations already assumed for the analysis of ellipsis.
4.

Conclusion

I argued in this paper that the lack of repair effects in argument ellipsis can be
accounted for under the analysis that the Identity Condition forces empty operator movementin the first conjunct at LF. If the operator moves across an island, it causes an illicitness of thesentence. When the correlate is an indefinite DP, the island repair is expected, since indefinite
DPs are bound by existential closure in their original positions. As a result, no movementtakes place in the first conjunct, yielding no Subjacency violation. In the case of sluicing in
English with the focused correlate, the island repair effects are not expected due to a
Subjacency violation in the first conjunct. The same is true for the argument ellipsis case. No
repair effects are obtained due to the Subjacency violation caused by the empty operator
movement in the first conjunct. It follows that the lack of repair effects is not a peculiar
syntactic phenomena, but it is induced by syntactic operations already assumed for the
analysis of ellipsis.

-182-

Ellipsis and Repair Effects (S. Sugawa)

References
Fiengo, R. and R. May (1994) Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Fox, D. and H. Lasnik (2003) “Successive Cyclic Movement and Island Repair: the Difference
between Sluicing and VP Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-54.
Hankamer, J. and I. Sag (1976) “Deep and Surface Anaphora,’ Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391-426.
Heim, I. R. (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hoji, H. (1990) “Theories of Anaphora and Aspects of Japanese Syntax,” unpublished ms., Universityof Southern California.
Johnson, K. (2003) “In Search of the Middle Field,’ unpublished ms., University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Kim, S-W. (1999) “Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 255-84.
Kizu, M. (1997) “Sluicing in Wh-in-situ Languages,” CLS 33: The Main Session, 231-244.
Kuwabara, K. (1997) “On the Properties of Truncated Clauses in Japanese,” in K. Inoue, ed.,Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Languages, Kanda University ofInternational Studies, 61-83.
Merchant, J. (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Merchant, J. (to appear) “Variable Island Repair Under Ellipsis,” in K. Johnson ed., Topics in Ellipsis,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Acquisition andLearnability, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nishiyama, K., J. Whitman, and E-Y. Yi (1996) “Syntactic Movement of Overt Wh-Phrases inJapanese and Korean,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, 337-51.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Program, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Reinhart, T. (1997) “Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Functions,”
Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335-397.
Ross, J. R. (1969) “Guess Who?” CLS 5, 252-86.
Saito, M. (2004) “Ellipsis and Pronominal Reference in Japanese Clefts,” Nanzan Linguistics 1, 21-50.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi (1990) "N'-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary Study," Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 1, 285-301.
Takahashi, D. (1994) “Sluicing in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 263-300.
Williams, E. S. (1977) “Discourse and Logical Form,” Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101-139.

-183-