TWO NOTES ON MULTIPLE SLUICING IN CHINESE AND JAPANESE *Daiko Takahashi and Sichao Lin
Tohoku University

1.

Introduction

In this article we consider the cases of reduction of interrogative clauses in Mandarin
Chinese (henceforth, just Chinese) and Japanese where more than one remnant occurs. The
phenomenon in which interrogative clauses are shrunk has been called sluicing since Ross
(1969). The following is a typical example in English:(1)

John hid something in the drawer, but I don’t know what.

The verb in the second conjunct know selects an indirect question as its complement clause,
but seemingly the complement only consists of the wh-phrase in (1). According to Ross
(1969), the second conjunct is analyzed as follows:(2)

I don’t know [CP what [TP John hid t in the drawer ]]The complement clause in question is assumed to have a full-fledged interrogative clausal
structure underlyingly, with the TP part elided in PF under identity with the antecedent clause(ellipsis is indicated by the strikethrough). A similar phenomenon is observed in Chinese andJapanese (Inoue (1976), Takahashi (1994), and Wang (2002), among many others). The
following are typical examples of sluicing in the languages ((3–4) are from Japanese andChinese, respectively):1(3)

Ken-gadareka-ni
atta
Ken-NOM someone-DAT met
ka soozoodekinai.
Q cannot.imagine

sooda.
I.heardDakedo boku-wa dare-ni
but
I-TOP
who-DAT‘I heard Ken met someone. But I cannot imagine who.’* Some materials in the present article were presented in the first author’s graduate seminar at Tohoku

University in the 2011 fall semester. We would like to thank the participants, especially Zhixin Fang
and Kensuke Takita, for their helpful comments and suggestions. Needless to say, all the remaining
inadequacies are ours.
1

Just for expository convenience, we gloss the element shi used in the examples of Chinese sluicing
as FOC, which stands for a focus marker, though it is used as a copula in other environments. See
Wang (2002) for some discussions.
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 129–145©2012 Daiko Takahashi and Sichao Lin

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

(4)

Lisi
Lisi

da-le
mouren, dan
hit-ASP someone but

wo bu zhidao shi shei.
I
not know FOC who‘Lisi hit someone, but I don’t know who.’
In these cases, the second conjuncts contain incomplete embedded clauses, but they areinterpreted in the same way as the following complete sentences:(5)

Boku-wa Ken-ga
dare-ni
atta
I-TOP
Ken-NOM who-DAT metkaQsoozoodekinai.
cannot.imagine‘I cannot imagine who Ken met.’(6)

Wo bu zhidao Lisi da-leshei.
Inot know Lisi hit-ASP who‘I don’t know who Lisi hit.’

It has been controversial in the literature whether cases of sluicing in Chinese and Japaneselike (3–4) can be analyzed in the same way as their counterparts in English, and if not, how
they should be treated (see, for instance, Nishiyama, Whitman, and Yi (1996), Saito (2004),
Wang (2002), and Wei (2004)). In this article we impeachably call the phenomenon indicatedin (3) and (4) sluicing just for ease of reference.
While each of the examples in (3) and (4) has just one wh-phrase in its incomplete
embedded question, the focus here is put on cases of sluicing with more than one remnant,such as the following (Takahashi (1994) and Chiu (2007), among others):(7)

Dareka-ga
dareka-ni
atta sooda.
someone-NON someone-DAT met I.heard
dare-gadare-nika soozoodekinai.
who-NOM who-DAT Q cannot.imagine

Dakedo boku-wa
but
I-TOP

‘Lit. I heard someone met someone. But I cannot imagine who who.’(8)

Mourensomeoneda-leLisi, danhit-ASP Lisi but

wo bu zhidao shi shei zainali.
I
not know FOC who where‘Lit. Someone hit Lisi, but I don’t know who where.’
The example in (7) is from Japanese. Takahashi (1994) examines cases like that, calling thephenomenon multiple sluicing, which is intended to stand for sluicing with multiple remnants.
(8) is a case of multiple sluicing in Chinese, which is closely studied by Chiu (2007).
The purpose of this article is to point out hitherto untouched facts about multiple sluicing
in Chinese and Japanese, considering implications they have for comparative research on the
two languages. The following discussion is two-fold: the first part is about the number ofremnants in multiple sluicing, and the second part deals with cases of multiple sluicing with- 130 -

Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)

what we call heterogeneous remnants, which have a combination of a wh-phrase and a nonwh-phrase as remnants.
2.

The Number of Remnants

While the example of multiple sluicing in (7) has two remnants, Takahashi (1994)
observes that there can be more remnants in a case of multiple sluicing in Japanese. Consider
the following examples:(9)

Dareka-ga
kaikosareta sooda. Dakedo boku-wa dare-ga
someone-NOM was.fired
I.heard but
I-TOP
who-NOM
itu
donna riyuu-de
ka soozoodekinai.
when what reason-for Q cannot.imagine‘Lit. I heard someone was fired. But I cannot imagine who when for what reason.’(10)

Dareka-ga
nanika-okakusita rasii.
Boku-wa dare-ga
someone-NOM something-ACC hid
likely I-TOP
who-NOM
nani-odoko-ni donna huu-ni
ka soozoodekinai.
what-ACC where-at what manner-in Q cannot.imagine‘Lit. It seems someone hid something. I cannot imagine who what where in what way.’

The second sentences in (9) and (10) have three and four remnants, respectively. Both are
perfectly acceptable.
Takahashi (1994) uses this fact to contrast Japanese with English, which appears to
disallow multiple sluicing. Comparable examples in English such as the following are
degraded:(11)

a. Someone broke {something/someone’s iPod}.
b. * I don’t remember who {what/whose iPod}.

(12)a. Someone hit Mary.
b. * I cannot imagine who when for what reason.

(13)

a. John hid something somewhere in his room.
b. * Guess what where in what way for what purpose.

The examples in (11a), (12a), and (13a) serve to antecede the examples in (11b), (12b), and(13b), respectively, all of which contain sluiced embedded questions. (11b), (12b), and (13b)have two, three, and four wh-phrase remnants, respectively, and all of them are fairly
degraded.2
2

However, there are some good cases of multiple sluicing in English. Building on an observation
made by Bolinger (1978), Nishigauchi (1998) points out the following example:- 131 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

Assuming that sluicing in English and its Japanese counterpart both involve whmovement to the specifier position of CP (henceforth, Spec-CP) followed by TP-deletion(Ross (1969)), Takahashi (1994) attributes the difference between the two languages noted
just above to the absence or presence of a movement operation responsible for formation ofcomplex wh-phrases. To illustrate, let us consider the following schematic derivation of amultiply sluiced CP with three remnants in Japanese:(14)

a. [CP [TP … WH1 … WH2 … WH3 …] C]
b. [CP [TP … WH1 … [WH2 WH3 WH2] … t3 …] C]↑___________|
c. [CP [TP … [WH1 [WH2 WH3 WH2] WH1] … t2 … t3 …] C]↑______________|
d. [CP [WH1 [WH2 WH3 WH2 ] WH1] [C’ [TP … t1 … t2 … t3 …] C]]↑____________________|
e. [CP [WH1 [WH2 WH3 WH2 ] WH1] [C’ [TP … t1 … t2 … t3 …] C]]

Underlyingly the three wh-phrases occur inside TP as shown in (14a). In the next step
indicated in (14b), the lowest wh-phrase adjoins to the intermediate wh-phrase by what
Takano (2002) calls oblique movement. Then, as shown in (14c), the complex adjoins to thehighest wh-phrase again by oblique movement. This newly created complex then undergoes
wh-movement to the Spec-CP ((14d)), followed by TP-deletion ((14e)). The hypothesis thatJapanese permits a wh-phrase to adjoin to another phrase c-commanding it is proposed by
Saito (1994) and elaborated by Sohn (1994) (for supportive arguments, readers are referred tothose references). Takahashi (1994) claims that this movement, or oblique movement, iscrucially involved in derivation of multiply sluiced clauses. In so doing, Takahashi (1994)
hypothesizes that it is an instance of scrambling, an optional adjunction operation responsible
for the free word order phenomenon in languages like Japanese (Saito (1985, 1992)). Since
English lacks scrambling (that is, English is not a free word order language), it follows that
(i)

a.
b.

?

I know that in each instance one of the girls got something from one of the boys.
But they didn’t tell me which from which.

Anteceded by (ia), (ib) contains an incomplete embedded question, which consists of two wh-phrases.
Lasnik (2008) suggests that the sluiced clause in (ib) is derived in such a way that while the first whphrase undergoes normal wh-movement to the specifier position of CP, the second wh-phrase isdislocated out of TP by rightward movement (or extraposition), as shown below:(ii)

they didn’t tell me [CP which1 [C’ C [TP [TP t1 got something t2 ] [from which]2 ]]]Here the embedded TP is elided after the two wh-phrases evacuate TP as indicated. Lasnik (2008)
observes that cases like (ib) are allowed only when their second remnants are eligible for extraposition
independently. Being aware of the existence of cases like (ib), we assume, as stated in the text, that
English disallows multiple sluicing in general, on the ground that it does not tolerate sluicing withmore than two remnants.

- 132 -

Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)the language disallows multiple sluicing.
Several authors argue that Takahashi’s (1994) analysis of Japanese sluicing in terms of
wh-movement followed by TP-deletion is afflicted with some problems. Notably it has
difficulty accommodating the optional appearance of the copula verb in sluiced clauses. Thus,
the second sentence in (3) can be expressed alternatively as follows:(15)

Dakedo boku-wa dare-ni
da ka
But
I-TOP
who-DAT be Q

soozoodekinai.
cannot.imagine‘But I cannot imagine who.’
Here the remnant wh-phrase is followed by the copula da ‘be’ and it is unexpected under
Takahashi’s (1994) analysis because the alleged source of (15) resists the occurrence of the
copula. Compare the following examples with (5):(16)

a. * Boku-wa [Ken-ga
dare-ni
atta
I-TOP[Ken-NOM who-DAT met

da ka] soozoodekinai.
be Q cannot.imagine

b. * Boku-wa [Ken-ga
dare-nida atta
I-TOP[Ken-NOM who-DAT be metka] soozoodekinai.
Q cannot.imagine

In (16), the copula is placed either after or in front of the verb in the embedded clause: neither(16a) nor (16b) is possible. The fact that the copula optionally occurs in sluiced clauses inJapanese leads researchers like Kuwabara (1996), Nishiyama, Whitman, and Yi (1996), andSaito (2004) to propose an alternative analysis according to which sluiced sentences arederived from the corresponding cleft constructions in Japanese. The cleft analysis postulates
that the source of the sluiced sentences in (3) and (15) has the following form:(17)

Boku-wa [[Ken-ga
atta
I-TOP
[[Ken-NOM met
soozoodekinai.
cannot.imagineno]-gadare-nida ka]
that-NOM who-DAT be Q

‘I cannot imagine who it was that Ken met.’
The embedded clause here is a cleft construction (see Hoji (1989) for general discussions
about the cleft construction in Japanese): it has a clausal subject expressing thepresupposition, which is followed by the focused wh-phrase, which in turn is followed by the
copula. It is independently assumed that Japanese allows ellipsis of arguments such as
subjects and objects (Oku (1998), Saito (2007), Takahashi (2008), and so on). If theembedded clausal subject is elided in (17), Saito (2004) argues, it yields (15). Also, for someunclear reason, the copula can optionally be omitted in embedded clauses in Japanese. Thus,
besides (17), we may have the following form:- 133 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(18)

Boku-wa [[Ken-ga
atta
I-TOP
[[Ken-NOM metno]-gadare-ni__that-NOM who-DATka] soozoodekinai.
Q cannot.imagine

Elision of the embedded subject in (18) gives rise to the “sluiced” sentence in (3). Since thecleft analysis can accommodate the optional appearance of the copula in Japanese sluicing
and dispense with the assumption that Japanese, a wh-in-situ language, has overt whmovement as well as TP-deletion, it has gained popularity among experts on the topic.
Given that the cleft analysis has become standard, a question arises as to how it accounts
for multiple sluicing. In fact, Kuwabara (1996) argues that it can accommodate the occurrenceof multiple remnants fairly easily. He observes that the Japanese cleft construction allows
multiple foci, as shown below:(19)

a. Boku-wa
I-TOP(da) ka](be Q[[kaikosareta no]-wa
dare-gaitu
donna riyuu-de[[was.fired
that-TOP who-NOM when what reason-forsoozoodekinai.
cannot.imagine‘Lit. I cannot imagine who when for what reason it was that was fired.’b. Boku-wa [[kakusita no]-wa
dare-ganani-odoko-niI-TOP[[hid
that-TOP who-NOM what-ACC where-at
huu-ni(da) ka] soozoodekinai.
manner-in (be Q cannot.imagine

donna
what

‘Lit. I cannot imagine who what where in what way it was that hid.’
These examples should be compared with (9) and (10). If the embedded clausal subjects (theitalicized parts) are elided and the copula is optionally omitted, (19a–b) result in (9) and (10),respectively.
In fact, Takano (2002) argues that oblique movement is responsible for multiple foci. For
the purpose of illustration, let us assume Hiraiwa and Ishihara’s (2002) analysis of the cleft
construction in Japanese in terms of remnant movement.3 For example, the cleft sentence in(20) is derived as in (21).
(20)[Ken-gaatta[Ken-NOM metno]-waYumi-nida.
that-TOP Yumi-DAT be‘It was Yumi that Ken met.’

3

Actually, Takano (2002) adopts a slightly different analysis of the cleft construction, but the choice
between the analysis in the text and Takano’s does not affect our main concern here. Also, though
Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002) assume that the landing site of the presuppositional CP is the specifier
position of Topic Phrase, we assume mainly for expository purposes that it is the specifier position of
TP (see (21c)).

- 134 -

Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)

(21)

a. [CP [TP Ken-ga Yumi-ni atta] no] dab. [FocP Yumi-ni1 [CP t1′ [TP Ken-ga t1 atta] no] da]↑________| ↑___________|
c. [TP [CP t1′ [TP Ken-ga t1 atta] no]-wa [FOCP Yumi-ni1 tCP da]]↑__________________________|

Underlyingly, the focused phrase Yumi-ni ‘Yumi-DAT’ occurs in the object position of theassociated verb as in (21a), where the CP headed by no ‘that’ is the complement of the copulada, which is taken to be a focus head. In the next step depicted in (21b), the focused element
undergoes movement to the specifier position of Focus Phrase (or just the Spec-FocP) via theSpec-CP. At the final stage in (21c), the CP is moved to the Spec-TP. Examples with multiple
foci are then derived in the following fashion (X and Y are supposed to be focused elements):(22)a. [CP [TP … X … Y …] no] dab. [CP [TP … [X Y X] … tY …] no] da↑_______|
c. [FocP [X Y X] [CP tX′ [TP … tX … tY …] no] da]↑_______| ↑________|
d. [TP [CP tX′ [TP … tX … tY …] no]-wa [FocP [X Y X] tCP da]]↑_____________________________|In the underlying representation in (22a), two focused elements, X and Y, occur in the CP
headed by no. In the second step in (22b), the lower focused phrase Y adjoins to the higher
phrase X by oblique movement, forming a complex focused phrase. In the third step in (22c),
the complex undergoes movement to the Spec-FocP successive-cyclically. And finally in(22d), the remnant CP moves to the Spec-TP. Suppose that X and Y are wh-phrases and that
the CP is elided in (22d), and we have a multiply sluiced clause.
To recapitulate the point above, whether Japanese sluicing is to be analyzed in terms of
wh-movement plus TP-deletion or in terms of the cleft construction, the possibility ofmultiple sluicing depends on the availability of oblique movement, which is taken to be an
instance of scrambling by Takahashi (1994). Bearing this in mind, let us turn our attention to
Chinese. Chiu (2007) observes that it allows multiple sluicing, though unfortunately he only
considers examples with two remnants. Although we suppose that he intends to mean that
Chinese allows sluicing with two or more wh-phrases, we take on the task of examining
whether it actually allows more than two remnants. The following are relevant examples:(23)

a. Mouren da-leLisi,someone hit-ASP Lisi
‘Someone hit Lisi,’- 135 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012b. danbut

wo bu zhidao shi shei shenmeshihou zainali.
I
not know FOC who when
where

‘Lit. but I don’t know who when where.’c. dan wo bu zhidao shi shei shenmeshihou zainali yongbut I
not know FOC who when
where infangshi.
wayshenmewhat‘Lit. but I don’t know who when where in what way.’(24)

a. Zhangsan
Zhangsanmai-lemoge-dongxi,
buy-ASP something‘Zhangsan bought something,’b. danbut

wo bu zhidao shi shenme zainali yinwei shenme yuanyin.
I
not know FOC what
where forwhat
reason‘Lit. but I don’t know what where for what reason.’c. dan wo bu zhidao shi shenme shenmeshihou zainali yinwei
but I
not know FOC what
when
where forshenme yuanyin.
whatreason‘Lit. but I don’t know what when where for what reason.’
The sentence in (23a) serves as the antecedent for (23b–c). While (23b) has three wh-phrases
as remnants, (24c) has four. Both are quite acceptable. In a similar fashion, anteceded by(24a), (24b–c) contain sluiced embedded clauses with three and four remnants, respectively,
and both are acceptable. These indicate that multiple sluicing with more than two remnants is
indeed possible in Chinese, just as in Japanese. What implications does it have for the general
theory of multiple sluicing?
Considering data in Japanese, Takahashi (1994) argues that the availability ofscrambling should be responsible for the possibility of multiple sluicing. The observation
above about Chinese plainly indicates that Takahashi’s (1994) hypothesis does not hold forthe language, because it is not a free word order language and hence lacks scrambling. The
absence of scrambling in Chinese can be shown by a cursory look at the following data:(25)

a. Zhangsan song Lisi yi-ben shu.
Zhangsan send Lisi one-CL book
‘Zhangsan sent Lisi a book.’- 136 -

Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)b. * Zhangsan song yi-ben shu Lisi.
Zhangsan send one-CL book Lisic. * Zhangsan Lisi yi-ben shu song.
Zhangsan Lisi one-CL book sendd. * Lisi yi-ben shu
Lisi one-CL book

ZhangsanZhangsan

song.
send

The example in (25a) is a double object construction. We cannot permute the order of the two
objects ((25b)), nor can we place the two objects between the subject and the verb ((25c)) orin front of the subject ((25d)).
How can we proceed with the fact that multiple sluicing is available both in Japanese andin Chinese? One possibility is to stick to the idea that oblique movement is responsible for theformation of a cluster of wh-phrase remnants in both languages while giving up Takahashi’s(1994) assumption that it is an instance of scrambling. Attributing it to Kim (1998), Takano(2002) considers the hypothesis that oblique movement is focus-related: simply put, oblique
movement involves movement of one focused phrase to another (probably by adjunction).
Given that focus-related movement is available in both languages, it allows both of them tohave oblique movement. 4 A potential problem with this approach is that we may lose
explanation for the absence of oblique movement in English (if it were present, English would
allow multiple sluicing). Obviously there are phenomena involving focus in English (forinstance, the cleft construction). If oblique movement were focus-related, we would expect it
to be available in English as well, yielding multiple sluicing.
Another possibility to pursue is to treat multiple sluicing in Chinese and Japanese
4

As noted above in the text, Japanese has the cleft construction, which is clearly focus-related andexhibits properties of movement (Hoji (1989)). Chinese also possesses the cleft construction, as
exemplified below:(i)a.

Zhangsan da-leLisi.
Zhangsan hit-ASP Lisi
‘Zhangsan hit Lisi.’b.

Shi Zhangsan
FOC Zhangsan

da-le
Lisi.
hit-ASP Lisi

‘It was Zhangsan that hit Lisi.’c.

?

Shi Lisi
FOC Lisi

ZhangsanZhangsanda-le.
hit-ASP‘It was Lisi that Zhangsan hit.’
The cleft sentences in (ib–c) are constructed on the basis of the simple sentence in (ia): the subject andthe object are focused in (ib–c), respectively, as indicated by the attachment of the focus marker shi.

- 137 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

differently: for example, to maintain the analysis of Japanese multiple sluicing in terms of
oblique movement as an instance of scrambling while providing a different analysis for the
Chinese counterpart. Though this may be workable, it could not offer a unified explanation
for the two cases of multiple sluicing, which do exhibit some similarities, such as theclausemate effect noted by Chiu (2007) and Takahashi (1994).
Kuwabara (1996) provides an alternative analysis for multiple sluicing in Japanese that
does not involve oblique movement (see also Koizumi (2000)). Head movement and remnant
movement are crucial ingredients of his analysis. Let us illustrate the gist of his analysis withthe following schematic derivation of a multiply sluiced clause with a subject, an adjunct, andan object remnant:(26)

a. [CP [TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB V] T] no] dab. [CP [TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB tV] tT] [C [T V T] no]] da|___↑ |_______↑
c. [FocP [TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB tV] tT] [CP tTP [C [T V T] no]] da]↑______________________|
d. [TP [CP tTP [C [T V T] no]]-wa [FocP[TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB tV] tT] tCP da]]↑_____________________________________________|
e. [CP [TP [CP tTP [C [T V T] no]]-wa [FocP[TP WHSUB [VP WHADJ WHOB tV] tT] tCP da]]ka]

Kuwabara (1996) assumes that Japanese sluicing is derived from the cleft construction, andthus we illustrate his analysis with Hiraiwa and Ishihara’s (2002) theory (see (20) and (21)above). In the underlying representation in (26a), three wh-phrases appear in the CP headed
by no ‘that,’ which is selected by da ‘be.’ In the next step in (26b), the verb inside the CP
undergoes head movement to C via T. In (26c), focus movement applies to the remnant TP,
locating it in the SPEC-FocP. Note that the affected TP contains the three wh-phrases, each ofwhich does not undergo movement by itself: they are dislocated as a result of movement of
the TP containing them. The subsequent step in (26d) involves remnant movement of the CP
headed by no to the Spec-TP. In (26e), the TP is merged with the interrogativecomplementizer; if ellipsis applies to the presuppositional CP, as indicated by the
strikethrough, the representation of multiple sluicing is obtained.
Since this analysis does not assume oblique movement, it should in principle beapplicable to Chinese. A potential obstacle may be that in order to deal with a cluster ofremnants including a subject wh-phrase, which is arguably in the Spec-TP, TP must be
subject to remnant movement as shown in (26c), which necessitates verb movement to C as
indicated in (26b). This is unlikely, however, since verbs usually do not occur above subjects
in Chinese. Consider the following examples:- 138 -

Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)

(27)

a. Zhangsan
Zhangsan

da-le
Lisi.
hit-ASP Lisi

‘Zhangsan hit Lisi.’b. * Da-le
Zhangsanhit-ASP Zhangsan

Lisi.
Lisi

Verbs usually appear in the position following subjects, as in (27a). If V-to-C movement wereavailable, cases like (27b) would be obtained. Since the configuration depicted in (27b) is
generally impossible, it is unlikely that Chinese allows verb movement to C. Therefore, it isdifficult to apply Kuwabara’s (1996) idea to multiple sluicing in Chinese (see also Takano(2002) for arguments against Kuwabara’s (1996) analysis).
These considerations show that it is not an easy task to account for multiple sluicing in
Chinese and Japanese in a uniform fashion. Although we have to leave it to future research topropose our own analysis, we end this section by pointing out that the so-called pseudo-cleft
construction in Chinese exhibits patterns similar to, and hence can be considered as a viable
source of, multiple sluicing in the language (see also Chiu, Fujii, and Sugawa (2008) and thereferences therein for related discussions). First, the pseudo-cleft construction in Chinese isillustrated below, where RM stands for the relativization marker:(28)

a. Zhangsan
Zhangsan

da-le
Lisi.
hit-ASP Lisi

‘Zhangsan hit Lisi.’b. [[Zhangsan da-le]de] shi Lisi.
[[Zhangsan hit-ASP RM be Lisi
‘Lit. That Zhangsan hit was Lisi.’c. [[Da-leLisi] de] shi Zhangsan.
[[hit-ASP Lisi RM be Zhangsan‘Lit. That hit Lisi was Zhangsan.’
Building on the simple sentence in (28a), we may form pseudo-cleft sentences as in (28b–c),
where the subjects are free relative clauses followed by the copula and the pivots (or foci).
Note that if the relative clause subjects are elided in (28b–c), sluicing-like structures are
obtained. The pseudo-cleft construction is dismissed, however, as a general source of sluiced
clauses in Chinese in the literature because it is difficult to derive sluiced clauses with non-NP
remnants from theis pseudo-cleft counterparts. Categories other than NP may appear as
remnants in sluicing, but crucially they cannot be pivots in pseudo-clefts (see the references
above).

- 139 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

(29)

a. Zhangsan
Zhangsan

da-le
Lisi,
hit-ASP Lisi

dan
but

wo bu zhidao shiI
not know FOC

zainali.
where‘Zhangsan hit Lisi, but I don’t know where.’b. * Zhangsan
Zhangsanda-leLisi deshi {zai Xiantai. / zainali?}
hit-ASP Lisi RM be {in Sendai where‘Lit. That Zhangsan hit Lisi was in Sendai./where?’
What is noteworthy, however, is that non-NP pivots are in fact permissible if they arepreceded by NP pivots, as shown below:(30)

a. Da-leLisi deshi Zhangsan
hit-ASP Lisi RM be Zhangsan

zai Xiantai.
in Sendai‘Lit. That hit Lisi was Zhangsan in Sendai.’b. Da-leLisi deshi shei shenmeshihou zainali yinwei shenme
hit-ASP Lisi RM be who when
where forwhat
yuanyin?
reason‘Lit. That hit Lisi was who when where for what reason?’
In particular, (30b) contains four wh-phrases as pivots. Further, Chiu (2007) notes thatmultiple sluicing with two NP remnants is impossible in Chinese, as shown in (31a).
Likewise, pseudo-clefts with two NP pivots are degraded, as in (31b–c).
(31)

a. * Mouren mai-lemogedongxi,
someone buy-ASP something
shenme.
what

dan
but

wo bu zhidao shi sheiI
not know FOC who‘Lit. Someone bought something, but I don’t know who what.’b. * Mai-ledeshi shei shenme?
buy-ASP RM be who what
‘Lit. That bought was who what?’c. * Da-ledeshi Zhangsan
hit-ASP RM be Zhangsan

Lisi.
Lisi

‘Lit. That hit was Zhangsan Lisi.’As far as multiple sluicing in Chinese is concerned, therefore, the pseudo-cleft construction
seems to be a strong candidate for the source.

- 140 -

Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)

3.

Heterogeneous Remnants

The topic we will consider in this section pertains to multiple sluicing with different
kinds of remnants in Chinese and Japanese. We will make some novel observations, pointing
out implications they have on the analyses of sluicing in those languages.
Let us start with some preliminary observations. First of all, a number of authors
including Chiu, Fujii, and Sugawa (2008), Kuwabara (1996), and so on observe that non-whphrases can serve as remnants in Japanese sluicing. The following is a typical example:(32)

a. Ken-wa [CP Gaga-ga
Kyoto-ni kuru to] itta.
Ken-TOP
Gaga-NOM Kyoto-to come that said
‘Ken said that Gaga will come to Kyoto.’b. Takuya-wa [CP Sendai-ni to] itta.
Takuya-TOP
Sendai-to that said
‘Lit. Takuya said that to Sendai.’

Anteceded by (32a), (32b) contains a truncated embedded clause, which consists of the nonwh-remnant Sendai-ni ‘to Sendai’ and the complementizer to ‘that.’ Though we do not go into
details, the possibility of cases like this in Japanese vis-à-vis their absence in English leads
the authors mentioned above to argue that Japanese sluicing should be treated differently fromits English counterpart.
Chiu, Fujii, and Sugawa (2008) point out a similar phenomenon in Chinese. The
example below is cited from the article:(33)

a. Zhang laoshi renwei Lisi zai tushuguan duyuyanxue,
Zhang teacher thinks Lisi at librarystudy linguistics‘Prof. Zhang thinks that Lisi is studying linguistics at the library,’b. dan
but

Lin
Lin

laoshi renwei shi zai kafeiting
teacher think FOC at coffee.shop‘Lit. but Prof. Lin thinks that at the coffee shop.’
The sentence in (33a) serves as the antecedent for (33b), where the embedded clause only
contains the non-wh-phrase PP accompanied by the focus marker.
Further, Kuwabara (1996) observes that Japanese allows multiple sluicing with a
combination of a wh-phrase remnant and a non-wh-phrase remnant. Consider the following
example:- 141 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(34)

a. Ken-wa [dono otokonoko-ga kyoositu-de benkyoosita ka] sitteiru.
Ken-TOP [which boy-NOM
classroom-at studied
Q know‘Ken knows which boy studied at the classroom.’b. Yumi-wa [dono onnanoko-ga tosyokan-de ka] sitteiru.
Yumi-TOP [which girl-NOM
library-at
Q know‘Lit. Yumi knows which girl at the library.’

Taking (34) as its antecedent, (34b) means that Yumi knows which girl studied at the library.
Notice that the embedded clause in (34b) is shrunk, with the wh-phrase dono onnanoko-ga‘which girl-NOM’ and the non-wh PP tosyokan-de ‘at the library’ left as remnants. This fact
may not be so surprising given that Japanese permits multiple sluicing and allows not only
wh-phrases but also non-wh-phrases as remnants of single sluicing.
One may then expect that Chinese should allow multiple sluicing with heterogeneous
remnants too, because just like Japanese, it permits single sluicing with either wh-phrase or
non-wh-phrase remnants and allows multiple sluicing. This is not borne out, however, as thefollowing examples are unacceptable:(35)

a. Zhangsan xiang zhidao [nage nanhai zai Shanghai kanjian AKB48].
Zhangsan want know [which boy
in Shanghai see
AKB48‘Zhangsan wants to know which boy saw AKB48 in Shanghai.’b. * Lisi xiang zhidao [shinage nvhai zai Xiantai].
Lisi want know [FOC which girlin Sendai‘Lit. Lisi wants to know which girl in Sendai.’(36)

a. Zhangsan zhidao [nage nanhai song yiben shu gei Xiaoli].
Zhangsan know [which boy
send onebook to Xiaoli‘Zhangsan knows which boy sent a book to Xiaoli.’b. * Lisi zhidao [shinage nvhai gei Xiaohong].
Lisi know [FOC which girlto Xiaohong‘Lit. Lisi knows which girl to Xiaohong.’

Anteceded by (35a) and (36a), (35b) and (36b), respectively, have truncated embedded
clauses with a combination of a wh-phrase remnant and a non-wh remnant. (35b) is intended
to mean that Lisi wants to know which girl saw AKB48 in Sendai; (36b) should mean that
Lisi knows which girl sent a book to Xiaohong. As indicated, both of them are impossible.
This is one respect in which Chinese and Japanese behave differently.
We point out that here, too, the pseudo-cleft construction is a viable source for multiply- 142 -

Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)sluiced clauses in Chinese, because the pseudo-cleft counterparts of (35b) and (36b) exhibit
the same pattern.5(37)a. * [Kanjian AKB48 de] shi nage nvhai zai Xiantai?
[see
AKB48 RM be which girlin Sendai‘Lit. That saw AKB48 was which girl in Sendai?’b. * [Song yiben shu] shi nage nvhai gei Xiaohong?
[send onebook be which girlto Xiaohong‘Lit. That sent a book was which girl to Xiaohong?’

These pseudo-cleft sentences contain multiple pivots: in each case, the first pivot is a whphrase and the second is a non-wh-phrase. The examples are fairly degraded, in contrast with
(30a–b), which have homogeneous pivots. For those who assume that multiple sluicing isderived from the pseudo-cleft construction in Chinese, the fact in (35) and (36) is relatively
easy to deal with, because their alleged sources are impossible. Of course, though, providing
an ultimate answer to the question why cases like (37a–b) are disallowed awaits further
careful investigation.
Finally, we note that the alleged source of (34b) under the cleft analysis of Japanesesluicing does not sound very good.6 The cleft counterpart of (34b) is given below with ourjudgment:(38) ?*[Benkyoosita no]-wa
dono onnanoko-ga tosyokan-de desu ka?
[studies
that-TOP which girl-NOM
library-atbeQ‘Lit. Which girl at the library was it that studied?’
If this observation is correct, it poses a problem to the advocates of the cleft analysis: why is(34b), a case of multiple sluicing with heterogeneous remnants, possible although its
purported source, a cleft sentence with heterogeneous pivots, is impossible? Although this,
too, remains to be solved, it surely gives us a new perspective on the issue concerning theproper treatment of Japanese sluicing.
5

As noted in section 2, the pseudo-cleft construction tolerates multiple pivots if they are of the samekind. Thus, (37a) becomes acceptable if the second pivot is replaced with a wh-phrase as below:(i)[Kanjian AKB48 de] shi[see
AKB48 RM benage nvhai
which girlzainali?
where‘Lit. That saw AKB48 was which girl where?’
6

Attributing it to one of the reviewers of his article, Takano (2002) observes that cases similar to (38)are not very bad. We disagree with him (or that reviewer) about the status of the relevant examples,
which sound fairly degraded to us. The point here is that there are speakers that accept sluicing withheterogeneous remnants but do not allow cleft sentences with heterogeneous pivots.

- 143 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 20124.

Conclusion

To summarize, we have pointed out two major facts about multiple sluicing in Chinese,considering their implications on comparative research on sluicing in Chinese and Japanese.
One has to do with the observation that Chinese sluicing allows more than two remnants justlike its Japanese counterpart. While the fact itself demands explanation, it also helps narrow
down the competing analyses proposed for Japanese multiple sluicing: it at least suggests thatany analysis implicating scrambling to deal with multiple remnants should be subjected toreconsideration. The other major point pertains to the difference between the two languages interms of multiple sluicing with heterogeneous remnants: Whereas it is possible in Japanese, it
is not in Chinese. Considering that they are similar in a number of other respects related tosluicing, the existence of such a difference is intriguing in itself. At the same time, however, it
has important consequences on how sluicing in those languages should be analyzed: thatmultiple sluicing with heterogeneous remnants patterns with its pseudo-cleft counterpart in
Chinese strongly suggests the possibility that the latter acts as the source of the former. As forsluicing with heterogeneous remnants in Japanese, on the other hand, its alleged source
according to the cleft analysis turns out to be impermissible, indicating that it derives fromsome other source. Although we have had to leave a number of important questions
unresolved, we believe that our observations here will fuel further comparative research on
the two languages in terms of sluicing, a much studied but still mysterious phenomenon.

References
Bolinger, D. (1978) “Asking More Than One Thing at a Time.” In H. Hiz ed., Questions, Reidel,
Dordrecht, 107–150.
Chiu, L. L. (2007) “A Focus-Movement Account on Chinese Multiple Sluicing,” Nanzan Linguistics:
Special Issue 1.1, 23–31.
Chiu, L. L., T. Fujii and S. Sugawa (2008) “On Certain Commonalities between Sluicing-LikeConstructions in Mandarin Chinese and Japanese,” Nanzan Linguistics Special Issue 3.2, 35–
50.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing and ‘No Da’ Construction in
Japanese.” In T. Ionin et al., eds., Proceedings of the 2nd HUMIT Student Conference inLanguage Research (HUMIT 2001), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 35–54.
Hoji, H. (1989) “Theories of Anaphora and Aspects of Japanese Syntax,” ms., University of South
California.
Inoue, K. (1976) Henkei Bunpoo to Nihongo ‘Transformational Grammar and Japanese’, Taisyukan,
Tokyo.
Kim, J.-S. (1998) “A Minimalist Theory of S-Structure Saving Effects in Japanese and Korean,”Proceedings of the Fourteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics ’97, CLC
Publications, Cornell University, 82–93.
Koizumi, M. (2000) “String Vacuous Overt Verb Raising,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227–
285.
Kuwabara, K. (1996) “Multiple Wh-Phrases in Elliptical Clauses and Some Aspects of Clefts with
Multiple Foci.” In M. Koizumi et al., eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics(FAJL2), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29, 97–116.

- 144 -

Two Notes on Multiple Sluicing in Chinese and Japanese (D. Takahashi and S. Lin)

Lasnik, H. (2008) “Repair by Ellipsis Revisited,” Handout for lectures at Nanzan University.
Nishigauchi, T. (1998) “‘Multiple Sluicing’ in Japanese and the Functional Nature of Wh-phrases,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 121–152.
Nishiyama, K., J. Whitman and E.-Y. Yi (1996) “Syntactic Movement of Overt Wh-Phrases inJapanese and Korean,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, 337–351.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ross J. R. (1969) “Guess Who?” In R. Binnick et al., eds, Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (1992) “Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 69–
118.
Saito, M. (1994) “Additional-Wh Effects and the Adjunction Site Theory,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 3, 195–240.
Saito, M. (2004) “Ellipsis and Pronominal Reference in Japanese Clefts,” Nanzan Linguistics 1, 21–
50.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203–227.
Sohn, K.-W. (1994) “Adjunction to Argument, Free Ride and a Minimalist Program.” In M. Koizumi
and H. Ura, eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL 1, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 315–334.
Takahashi, D. (1994) “Sluicing in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 265–300.
Takahashi, D. (2008) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 394–422.
Takano, Y. (2002) “Surprising Constituents,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 243–301.
Wang, C. A. (2002) On Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua University,
Taiwan.
Wei, T.-C. (2004) Predication and Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, Ph.D. dissertation, National
Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.

- 145 -