SURPRISING CONSTITUENTS AS UNLABELED SYNTACTIC OBJECTS *Yuji Takano
Kinjo Gakuin University

1. Introduction: Japanese Clefts and the Nominative Constraint
This paper explores the nature of phrase structure through the examination of certain
properties of cleft constructions in Japanese. The Japanese cleft construction we will look at
is exemplified in (2a, b), which are formed on the basis of the noncleft sentence in (1).
(1)

Ken-gaMari-nihon -oageta.
Ken-NOM Mari-DAT book-ACC gaveµ.HQJDYHDERRNWR0DUL.¶(2) a. Ken-ga
hon-oageta no-wa Mari-nida.
Ken-NOM book-ACC gave C-TOP Mari-DAT COPµ,WLVWR0DULWKDW.HQJDYHDERRN¶b. Ken-ga
Mari-niageta no-wa hon-oda.
Ken-NOM Mari-DAT gave C-TOP book-ACC COPµ,WLVDERRNWKDW.HQJDYHWR0DUL¶
The cleft construction in question has the general form X no-wa Y da, where X is apresuppositional clause and Y is a focus phrase with a case marker or a postposition. (2a) has
Mari-ni µ0DUL-DA7¶LQWKHIRFXVSRVLWLRQDQG E hon-o µERRN-$&&¶7KURXJKRXWWKLVSDSHU
focus elements are bold faced. In (2) the focus position has one element, but it can also havemore than one element, as shown in (3).
(3) a. Ken-ga
ageta no-wa hon-oMari-nida.
Ken-NOM gave C-TOP book-ACC Mari-DAT COPµ,WLVDERRNWR0DULWKDW.HQJDYH¶*Parts of this paper have been presented at Mie University, Yokohama National University, Tsuda
College, and Seoul National University. I am grateful for helpful questions and discussion to theaudiences, particularly, to Jun Abe, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Tomohiro Fujii, Takuya Goro, Nobu Goto,
Masayuki Ikeuchi, Heejeong Ko, Roger Martin, Takashi Munakata, Seungho Nam, Hiroki Narita,
Miki Obata, Hajime Ono, Koji Sugisaki, Masahiko Takahashi, Kensuke Takita, and Hideaki
Yamashita.
Nanzan Linguistics 10, 55±73©2015 Yuji Takano

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015b. Ken-ga
ageta no-wa Mari-ni
hon-o
da.
Ken-NOM gave C-TOP Mari-DAT book-ACC COPµ,WLVWR0DULDERRNWKDW.HQJDYH¶c. Ageta no-wa Ken-ga
Mari-nihon-oda.
gave C-TOP Ken-NOM Mari-DAT book-ACC COPµ,WLV.HQDERRNWR0DULWKDWJDYH¶This freedom of having multiple elements in the focus position of the cleft is rather surprisingfrom the perspective of languages like English where cleft sentences usually can have only
one constituent. This is why I (Takano 2002) called multiple focus elements like those in (3)surprising constituents.
In spite of the fact that various elements can appear in the focus position of the Japaneseclefts, there is one mysterious restriction noted in the literature. Consider (4).
(4)*Mari-nihon-oageta no-wa Ken-gada.
Mari-DAT book-ACC gave C-TOP Ken-NOM COPµ,WLV.HQWKDWJDYHDERRNWR0DUL¶

The cleft sentence in (4) has a nominative phrase in the focus position. Cleft sentences like(4), in contrast to those like (2) and (3), are judged by many Japanese speakers to be degraded.
In this paper, I refer to this phenomenon as the nominative constraint. 1
In what follows, I will explore the nature of the nominative constraint from theperspective of surprising constituents. By doing this, I will eventually make a new claim
about surprising constituents in the context of a theory of phrase structure proposed by
Chomsky (2013). In section 2, I will show that surprising constituents constitute a puzzling
exception to the nominative constraint in that they have the effect of saving the cleft sentencefrom violating the nominative constraint. In section 3, I will propose an analysis that
attributes the nominative constraint to a problem with labeling in the sense of Chomsky(2013). In section 4, I will extend this analysis to surprising constituents and claim thatsurprising constituents save the cleft sentence from violating the nominative constraint
EHFDXVHWKH\KDYHQRODEHOV,ZLOODUJXHWKDWWKLVUHVXOWSURYLGHVDQDUJXPHQWIRU&KRPVN\¶V
(2013) theory of phrase structure over earlier theories. In section 5, I will touch on thequestion how surprising constituents analyzed this way are formed. Section 5 concludes the1

As usual, there is variation among speakers regarding the status of the nominative constraint. ManyJapanese speakers, including myself, find examples like (4) degraded, but the degree of degradedness
varies among speakers, from completely unacceptable to only mildly degraded. There are also a few
speakers who accept examples like (4); for them there is no nominative constraint. In this paper, I
restrict discussion to the judgments of the former type of speakers and mark a violation of the
QRPLQDWLYHFRQVWUDLQWXQLIRUPO\ZLWK³ ´LJQRULQJWKHYDULDWLRQDVWRWKHVWUHQJWKRIWKHHIIHFW- 56 -56-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano)discussion.
2. Exceptions to the Nominative Constraint
It is well known that there are exceptions to the nominative constraint. Let us consider (5).
(5) a. Hon-oageta no-wa Ken-ga
Mari-nida.
book-ACC gave C-TOP Ken-NOM Mari-DAT COPµ,WLV.HQWR0DULWKDWJDYHDERRN¶b. Mari-ni
ageta no-wa Ken-ga
hon-o
da.
Mari-DAT gave C-TOP Ken-NOM book-ACC COPµ,WLV.HQDERRNWKDWJDYHWR0DUL¶
The examples in (5) have a nominative phrase in the focus position, just like the example in(4), but they are perfectly acceptable. The difference is that in (5) there is another phrase, in
addition to the nominative phrase, in the focus position. It thus seems that what is wrong with(4) is that the focus position has only a nominative phrase.
In fact, a similar situation can be found in coordination. The examples in (6) involve
coordination.
(6) a. gakusei-to
student-and

sensei-ga(kita)
teacher-NOM (came)µVWXGHQWVDQGWHDFKHUV FDPH ¶b. *gakusei-ga-to
student-NOM-andsensei-ga(kita)
teacher-NOM cameµVWXGHQWVDQGWHDFKHUV FDPH ¶c. gakusei-ga
student-NOM

sannin-to sensei-ga
three-and teacher-NOM

hutari (kita)
two cameµWKUHHVWXGHQWVDQGWZRWHDFKHUV FDPH ¶ .RL]XPL(6a) has a bare noun phrase in front of the coordination -to µDQG¶ DQG WKH QRPLQDWLYH FDVH
maker appears only on the second conjunct. This is a possible pattern of coordination. On theother hand, (6b) has a nominative case maker both on the first and the second conjunct, andthis is ungrammatical. But if we change (6b) slightly so that there is a floating quantifier
between the nominative phrase and the coordination, as in (6c), the expression becomesgrammatical. Discussing these patterns, Koizumi (1995: 204) proposes that the- 57 -57-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

ungrammaticality of (6b) is due to the morpho-phonological constraint on coordination givenin (7).
(7)*X-to, unless X is a nominal-like category.

The assumption here is that noun phrases with nominative case-markers are not nominal,
whereas quantifiers are nominal. Given this, the grammaticality of (6a, c) and theungrammaticality of (6b) follows from (7).
Koizumi (1995: 204) further suggests that the copula da in the cleft construction is
subject to a similar morpho-phonological constraint. His suggestion is intended to capture thenominative constraint, whose effects are seen in cases like (4), repeated in (8).
(8)*Mari-nihon-oageta no-wa
Mari-DAT book-ACC gave C-TOP

Ken-gada.
Ken-NOM Copµ,WLV.HQWKDWJDYHDERRNWR0DUL¶
Following his suggestion, we might posit a constraint of the following kind:(9)*X-Nom Cop, where X-Nom = focus of the cleft construction.

This approach takes the nominative constraint to be a surface constraint banning theparticular linear sequence of a nominative phrase being immediately followed by the copulain the cleft. The same view is advocated by Cho, Whitman, and Yanagaida (2008), who
consider the nominative constraint to be a surface phenomenon.
However, there is evidence suggesting the syntactic nature of the nominative constraint.
Compare (8) with (10).
(10) a. Hon-oageta no-wa Mari-ni
Ken-gada.
book-ACC gave C-TOP Mari-DAT Ken-NOM COPµ,WLVWR0DUL.HQWKDWJDYHDERRN¶b. Mari-ni
ageta no-wa hon-oKen-gada.
Mari-DAT gave C-TOP book-ACC Ken-NOM COPµ,WLVDERRN.HQWKDWJDYHWR0DUL¶
The examples in (10) have two elements in the focus position, one of them being anominative phrase. In this respect, they are similar to the examples in (5). However, in (10)the nominative phrase comes right before the copula. Therefore, from the perspective of (9),the examples in (10) should be as bad as the example in (8). Contrary to the expectation,
there is a striking contrast between (8) and (10): (10a, b) improve on (8). This is an- 58 -58-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano)

unexpected fact if the degradedness of (8) is just a morpho-phonological surface phenomenon
due solely to (9). The fact strongly suggests that something syntactic is responsible for the
degradedness of (8) and the improvement of (10).2
Moreover, the same effects can be seen even when the multiple foci consist only of
nominative phrases. Let us consider the examples in (11).
(11) a. Ken-no
musume-ga
Ken-GEN daughter-NOM

iedesita.
ran.away.from.homeµ.HQ¶VGDXJKWHUUDQDZD\IURPKRPH¶b. Ken-ga

musume-ga

iedesita.

Ken-NOM daughter-NOM

ran.away.from.home/LW µ.HQKLVGDXJKWHUUDQDZD\IURPKRPH¶c. *Iedesita
ran.away.from.home

no-wa Ken-no

musume-gada.

C-TOP Ken-GEN daughter-NOM COPµ,WLV.HQ¶VGDXJKWHUWKDWUDQDZD\IURPKRPH¶d. Iedesita

no-wa

ran.away.from.home C-Top

Ken-gamusume-gada.

Ken-NOM daughter-NOM COP/LW µ,WLV.HQKLVGDXJKWHUWKDWUDQDZD\IURPKRPH¶(11a) is a single subject construction, whereas (11b) is a multiple subject construction. If thesingle nominative subject in (11a) appears in the focus position of the cleft, it induces aviolation of the nominative constraint, as expected, as shown in (11c). However, if the single
nominative subject is replaced by the multiple nominative subjects in (11b), the resulting cleft
improves, as shown in (11d). Here too, the contrast between (11c) and (11d) suggests that
there is something syntactic at work about the nominative constraint.
Nominative object constructions lead us to the same conclusion. Consider (12).

2

I have checked with eleven speakers and out of the nine speakers who find (8) to be degraded (seenote 1), eight share my judgments, detecting the improvement of (10) over (8) (one speaker finds (8)and (10) to be equally bad). I should also mention that there may be a slight contrast between (10)and (5): whereas (5) is perfect, (10) may not be as good (thanks to Masahiko Takahashi for pointing
this out to me). The text discussion focuses on the fact that (10) is better than (8). The fact that (10)may still be slightly degraded may be taken to suggest that a constraint like (9) has a weak effect.

- 59 -59-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015(12) a. Ken-ga
Ken-NOM

Mari-yori

tenisu-ga

tokuiMari-thantennis-NOM good

da.
COP

µ.HQLVEHWWHUDWWHQQLVWKDQ0DUL¶
b. *Mari-yori Tenisu-ga

tokuiMari-than tennsi-NOM goodna

no-wa Ken-gada.

COP C-TOP Ken-NOM COPµ,t is Ken that is better at tennis than Mari¶
c. *Ken-ga

Mari-yori

tokui

na

no-wa tenisu-gada.

Ken-Nom Mari-than

good

COP

C-TOP tennis-NOM Copµ,WLVWHQQLVWKDW.HQLVEHWWHUDWWKDQ0DUL¶d. Mari-yori

tokui

na

no-wa Ken-ga

tenisu-gada.

Mari-thangood

COP C-TOP Ken-NOM tennis-NOM COPµ,WLV.HQWHQQLVWKDWLVEHWWHUDWWKDQ0DUL¶In (12a) the adjectival noun tokui µJRRG¶WDNHVDQRPLQDWLYHREMHFWDVDUHVXOWRIZKLFKERWKthe subject and the object are marked with nominative. If one of these nominative phrases
appears in the focus position, the cleft sentence is degraded, as in (12b, c). By contrast, if
both of them appear there, the sentence becomes better, as in (12d).
The striking improvement in (10), (11d), and (12d) is caused by the presence of multiple
elements in the focus position. Thus, this is another surprising property of surprising
constituents. It leads us to the following generalization:(13)

Surprising constituents save the cleft sentence from violating the nominative
constraint (even when they consist only of nominative phrases).

This generalization shows that the nominative constraint is not simply a morpho-phonologicalsurface phenomenon. It must be the case that some syntactic factors play a crucial role ininducing the nominative constraint effects and the saving effects with surprising constituents.
3. The Nominative Constraint and Labeling
Before we address the question why surprising constituents show the saving effect in (13),let us consider why we have the nominative constraint in the first place. First, I will assume
an analysis of Japanese clefts proposed by Hasegawa (1997, 2011) and developed by Hiraiwa
and Ishihara (2002, 2012). This analysis derives the cleft sentence in (14) from the base form
given in (15) (which is also an acceptable sentence) in the way illustrated in (16).

- 60 -60-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano)(14)

Ken-gahon-o
Ken-NOM book-ACC

ageta no-wa Mari-ni
da.
gave C-TOP Mari-DAT COPµ,WLVWR0DULWKDW.HQJDYHDERRN¶(15)

Ken-gaMari-nihon-oageta no da.
Ken-NOM Mari-DAT book-ACC gave C COPµ,WLVWKDW.HQJDYHDERRNWR0DUL¶(16) a. Ken-NOM Mari-DAT book-ACC gave C COP
Æ focus movement of Mari-DAT
b. Mari-DAT [X Ken-NOM <Mari-DAT> book-ACC gave C] COPÆ topicalization of X
c. [X Ken-NOM <Mari-DAT> book-ACC gave C-TOP] Mari-DAT <X> COP
The derivation starts from (16a) (=(15)). The first step is movement of the focus phrase MariDAT to the focus position (the material surrounded by angled brackets is a copy of the moved
element). This yields (16b). The next step is topicalization of X (whose exact identity is not
relevant here). This results in (16c), which surfaces as (14).
Regarding the nature of the nominative constraint, I would like to pursue the idea that it
is not an isolated phenomenon but is the same in nature as the well-known categorial
restriction on the focus phrase in English clefts. Emonds (1976) observes that while DPs andPPs can occur in the focus position of English clefts, other categories generally cannot, asshown in (17) and (18).
(17) a. ,W¶V>DP the custard pie] that I disliked.
b. It was [PP to John] that she spoke.
(18) a. *It is [vP blow up some buildings] that you should.
b.

,W¶V>AP very unhappy] that Bill is.

c. *It was [AdvP too carefully] that she spoke.
d. *It was [CP to buy a new hat] that I wanted.
e.

,W¶V>CP that John has come too late] that Bill realizes.

We thus have the generalization in (19) for the English clefts.
(19) Only [-V] categories can appear in the focus position of the English clefts.

- 61 -61-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

I claim that the nominative constraint on the Japanese clefts can be unified with (19). To
achieve this goal, we need to address the following two questions:(20) a. What is wrong with non-[-V] categories appearing in the focus position of the
English clefts?
b. How can we assimilate the nominative constraint to this restriction?
To answer these questions, I propose that when non-[-V] categories and nominative phrases
appear in the focus position, a problem arises with labeling in the sense of Chomsky (2013).
Chomsky (2013) proposes a theory of phrase structure in which the notion of labelingplays an important role. The relevant parts of his theory are summarized in (21).
(21) a. Syntactic structure is formed by Merge.
b. Under the simplest conception of Merge, merger of X and Y yields the syntactic
object {X, Y} with no projection or order.
c. A label is required for SO to be interpreted at the interfaces.
d. The label of SO is a lexical item (head) contained in SO.
e. The label of SO is determined by a minimal search algorithm called a labelingalgorithm LA.
In this theory, Merge forms syntactic objects without any projection or order, and projections
are determined in the form of labels by an algorithm called LA that is defined in terms ofminimal search (order is assigned outside the core computation). There are two relevant cases
to consider:(22) a. SO = {H, XP}
b. SO = {XP, YP}
In the case of (22a), the syntactic object (SO) is formed by Merge by combining a lexical
item (head, H) and a phrase (XP). Given (21d), the label of this SO can be easily identified byminimal search: just by looking at the two immediate constituents of SO, H and XP, LA
selects H as its label (the other element is an XP, so it cannot be a label). By contrast, in thecase of (22b), the label of SO cannot be determined by LA, because the two immediate
constituents of SO are both XPs and there are no grounds to choose between the two.
Therefore, if nothing happens, the SO in (22b) has no label. Claiming that a label is required
for SO to be interpreted at the interfaces (21c), Chomsky considers this situation to be fatal:
the SO in (22b) cannot receive proper interpretation at the interfaces.
However, Chomsky further proposes that Universal Grammar has available three ways to- 62 -62-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano)avoid this situation. They are given in (23).
(23) a. SO = {<XP>, YP}
b. SO = {XP, YP}, where the label of XP and the label of YP share the mostprominent feature F due to agreement.
c. SO = {XP, YP}, where the head of XP cannot serve as a label.
(23a) shows that one of the constituents of SO, say XP, has moved out of SO. As a result, SO
consists of YP and a copy of XP. Chomsky claims that copies are invisible to LA. Therefore,
LA sees only YP and, by minimal search, identifies the label of YP as the label of SO.
(23b) is a case in which XP and YP are the same in a sense, due to agreement. Suppose
there is agreement between X and Y. As a result, in SO = {XP, YP}, the label (head) of XP
and the label of YP share the most prominent feature F. By minimal search LA sees thisfeature and considers XP and YP to be the same in this sense. As a result, LA identifies thefeature F as the label of SO. Chomsky illustrates this case with the example in (24).
(24) They wondered [Į[Ȗ in which Texas city] [ȕ C [JFK was assassinated]]]In (24 Į ^Ȗȕ} = {XP, YP}, an instance of (22b). But, due to agreement between the head
RIȖDQG&WKHPRVWSURPLQHQWIHDWXUHRIȖDQGȕLVVKDUHGQDPHO\, the interrogative feature
Q, a feature RI&DQGWKHKHDGRIȖ LA finds the same most prominent IHDWXUH4LQERWKȖ
DQGȕDQGtakes Q WREHWKHODEHORIĮ Chomsky contrasts (24) with (25).
(25) *They thought [Į[Ȗ in which Texas city] [ȕ C [JFK was assassinated]]]?
(cf. They thought JFK was assassinated in which Texas city?)
In (25 WRRĮ ^Ȗȕ` ^;3<3`+HUHKRZHYHUWKHUHLVQRDJUHHPHQWEHWZHHQWKH head
RIȖDQG&DQGWKHUHIRUH, LA cannot identify the label of Į$VDUHVXOWĮKDVQRODEHODQGLV
uninterpretable at the interpretive interface.
Finally, (23c) represents a case similar to (23a), where one of the constituents of SO
cannot provide a label due to movement. But in (23c) the reason that XP cannot provide alabel has to do with the nature of its head. According to Chomsky, some heads by their naturecannot serve as labels. If XP has such a head, LA sees only YP and determines the label of
YP to be the label of SO.
*LYHQ &KRPVN\¶V WKHRU\ , FODLP WKDW ERWK WKH FDWHJRULFDO UHVWULFWLRQ RQ (QJOLVK FOHIWV
and the nominative constraint on Japanese clefts reduce to problems with labeling andmoreover that surprising constituents show the saving effects because they are syntactic
objects without labels. To implement them, I first propose (26).

- 63 -63-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015(26) a. Only nominal heads can have a focus feature that enters into agreement with thefocus feature of C.
b. P can inherit this focus feature from its nominal complement (in a way parallel tothe inheritance of a Q feature from the complement wh-phrase, as in (24)).
c. Japanese nominative and accusative phrases have the form [KP DP K].
d. Accusative K behaves like P and inherits a focus feature from its nominal
complement, but nominative K does not.
To see how this proposal works, let us look at what happens with the grammatical cases ofEnglish clefts in (17). The relevant part of the structure is shown in (27).
(27) It is [ĮDFocP/PFocP [FP CFoc WKDW«
I assume that English clefts are derived by movement of a focus phrase to a specifier of the
focus head in the C domain (CFoc). I also assume that the phrase headed by CFoc is selected assuch by a higher head. In (27) a DP/PP has moved to the focus position. 'XHWRVHOHFWLRQĮ
needs to be interpreted as having Focus as its label. 1RWHWKDWĮUHVXOWVIURPPHUJHURIWKH
DP/PP with the FP, having the structure {DP/PP, FP}, which is {XP, YP} in (22b). Thus, if
nothing more haSSHQHG Į ZRXOG KDYH QR ODEHO ZKLFK ZRXOG FDXVH D SUREOHP IRULQWHUSUHWDWLRQJLYHQWKHDVVXPSWLRQWKDWĮLVVHOHFWHGE\DKLJKHUKHDG+RZHYHUD can havea focus feature that agrees with the focus feature of C (26a) and P can have this feature byinheritance (26b). As a result, CFoc and D/P agree and share the focus feature. By (23b) ĮLV
labeled Focus and satisfies selection.
Consider next the cases violating the categorical restriction in (18):(28) *It is [ĮvP/AP/CP [FP CFoc WKDW«+HUHĮKDV the structure {vP/AP/CP, FP}, which is also {XP, YP}. Unlike the case in (27),however, this case causes a problem. By (26a, b) CFoc and vP/AP/CP do not agree. ThisUHVXOWV LQ Į KDYLQJ QR ODEHO 7KHUHIRUH Į does not satisfy selection and the examples areungrammatical for this reason.
Let us turn to Japanese clefts. Grammatical cases like those in (2) receive the sameaccount as (27). Given the analysis of Japanese clefts shown in (16), those cases involve thestructure in (29), which results from merger of DP/PP/accusative KP (see (26c)) with FP.
(29) «>ĮDFocP/PFocP/KFocP] [FP CFoc «, where K is accusative.
Given (26a, b, d), D/P/K agrees with CFoc in terms of the focus feature. Due to the sharing of
the focus feature between D/P/K and CFoc, Į LV ODEHOHG )RFXs, just as in (27), and satisfies
selection.

- 64 -64-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano)In this analysis, the cases in (4) violating the nominative constraint are treated in the same
way as (28). Look at (30), which results from merger of a nominative KP with FP.
(30)«>ĮKP [FP CFOC «, where K is nominative.

Given (26d), nominative K, like v, A, and C, cannot have a focus feature entering into
agreement with CFoc. Thus, there is no agreement between K and CFoc in this case. As a result,for the same reason as (28 ĮKDVQRODEHO and is excluded as a violation of the selectional
requirement.
In this way, the present analysis answers the questions in (20a, b) in terms of problems
with labeling: cases violating the categorial restriction and the nominative constraint are all
excluded because the syntactic object formed by merging an FP and a non-[-V] category(English)/nominative phrase (Japanese) has no label and hence cannot be interpreted as aphrase headed by Focus. This causes a problem for selection by a higher head.
4. Surprising Constituents Are Unlabeled Syntactic Objects
Assuming the analysis proposed in the previous section, let us consider why surprising
constituents have the saving effect in (13), repeated here in (31)?
(31) Surprising constituents save the cleft sentence from violating the nominative
constraint (even when they consist only of nominative phrases).
The basic idea I would like to pursue is that surprising constituents form the constituent [Į X
DP-Nom] (where X can also be DP-Nom) and Į is different in nature from DP-Nom.
To implement this idea, let us first consider how we should analyze surprising
constituents. There are two major approaches proposed in the literature that argue thatsurprising constituents indeed form constituents. One approach, proposed by Koizumi (1995,
2000) and Kuwabara (1996), claims that surprising constituents are remnant VPs. The otherapproach, proposed by Takano (2002) as an alternative to the first, analyzes surprising
constituents as being formed by movement of one element to another.
According to the first approach, the multiple cleft sentence in (32) is derived as illustratedin (33).33Here, assuming the analysis of Japanese clefts in (16), I modify the original analysis by Koizumi
and Kuwabara, which employs movement of a null operator in the presuppositional clause and thebase generation of a focus phrase in the focus position. The same reservation holds for the expositionof the second approach in (34).

- 65 -65-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015(32) Ken-ga
ageta no-wa hon-oMari-nida.
Ken-NOM gave C-TOP book-ACC Mari-DAT COPµ,WLVDERRNWR0DULWKDW.HQJDYH¶(33) a. Ken-ga
hon-o
Mari-niageta no da.
Ken-NOM book-ACC Mari-DAT gave C COPµ,WLVWKDW.HQJDYHDERRNWR0DUL¶
b. Ken-NOM [VP book-ACC Mari-DAT gave] C COP
Æ verb raising out of VP
c. Ken-NOM [VP book-ACC Mari-DAT <gave>] gave C COP
Æ focus movement of VP
d. [VP book-ACC Mari-DAT <gave>] [X Ken-NOM <VP> gave C] COPÆ topicalization of X
e. [X Ken-NOM <VP> gave C]-TOP [VP book-ACC Mari-DAT <gave>] <X> COP
The derivation starts with (33a=b). The first important step is raising of the verb out of VP.
This creates VP made up of a copy of the raised verb and the arguments of the verb, as shownin (33c). Then this VP moves to the focus position, yielding (33d). Finally, X undergoes
topicalization, giving rise to (33e), which corresponds on the surface to (32).
By contrast, the second alternative derives (32) in the way shown in (34).
(34) a. Ken-NOM Mari-DAT book-ACC gave C COPÆ movement (adjunction) of book-ACC to Mari-DAT
b. Ken-NOM [X book-ACC Mari-DAT] <book-ACC> gave C COP
Æ focus movement of X
c. [X book-ACC Mari-DAT] [Y Ken-NOM <X> <book-ACC> gave C] COPÆ topicalization of Y
d. [Y Ken-NOM <X> <book-ACC> gave C]-TOP [X book-ACC Mari-DAT] <Y>
COP
The first step is movement of the accusative object to the dative object, adjoining the former
to the latter (see Saito 1994 and Sohn 1994 for original proposals for this kind of movement).
This creates a new constituent, as shown in (34b). Then this newly created constituent X
undergoes focus movement to the focus position, yielding (34c). Finally, Y undergoes
topicalization, as in (34d), which produces the surface form in (32).

- 66 -66-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano)

Note that the first approach could account for the saving effect in (31) because what
appears in the focus position of multiple clefts containing a nominative phrase is a different
category (i.e., VP) from a nominative noun phrase. But various problems have been pointed
out for this approach (see, for example, Takano 2002 and Cho, Whitman, and Yanagida 2008).
Here I provide new evidence against it. Let us consider (35).
(35) a. *John thinks Mary saw those pictures of himself.
b. Which pictures of himself did John think Mary saw?
c. Those pictures of himself, John thinks Mary saw.
(35a) shows a locality effect of the anaphor of the familiar kind. The example isungrammatical because the anaphor is not bound in its local domain. (35b, c) show thatmovement of an object containing the anaphor has the effect of extending the local domain inwhich the anaphor needs to be bound. Thus, the examples become grammatical. However, as
Huang (1993) extensively discusses, this effect of domain extension cannot be seen if thephrase undergoing movement is a VP, as shown in (36).
(36) a. *John thinks Mary would not criticize himself.
b. *Criticize himself, John thinks Mary would not.
Thus, there is a clear asymmetry between movement of objects and movement of VPs withrespect to the domain extension effects.
Keeping this in mind, let us consider Japanese. Japanese exhibits exactly the same patternof domain extension with movement of objects. Thus, while (37a) allows only the local
antecedent (the embedded-clause subject) for the anaphor zibunzisin., (38b, c) become
acceptable on the reading on which the anaphor is bound by the matrix subject. Note that we
can see the domain extension effect not only with scrambling (37b) but also with cleft
movement (37c).
Marij-gazibunzisin*i/j-ni(37) a. Keni-ga
Ken-NOM Mar-NOM self-DAT

purezento-o kattapresent-ACC bought

to omotteiru.
C thinkµ.HQWKLQNVWKDW0DULERXJKWDSUHVHQWIRUKHUVHOI¶b. zibunzisini/j-ni Keni-ga
Marij-ga
purezento-o katta
self-DAT
Ken-NOM Mar-NOM present-ACC boughtµ)RUKHUVHOIKLPVHOI.HQWKLQNVWKDW0DULERXJKWDSUHVHQW¶- 67 -67-

to omotteiru.
C think

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015c. Keni-ga
Marij-ga
purezento-o katta
Ken-NOM Mari-NOM present-ACC bought
zibunzisini/j-ni da.
self-DAT
COP

to omotteiru
C think

no-wa
C-TOP

µ,WLVIRUKHUVHOIKLPVHOIWKDW.HQWKLQNVWKDW0DULERXJKWDSUHVHQW¶Now what happens with multiple clefts, as in (38)?
Marij-ga
katta(38) a. Keni-ga
Ken-NOM Mari-NOM bought
zibunzisini/j-ni da.
self-DAT
COP

to omotteiru
C think

no-wa purezento-o
C-TOP present-ACCµ,WLVDSUHVHQWIRUKHUVHOIKLPVHOIWKDW.HQWKLQNVWKDW0DULERXJKW¶b. Keni-ga
Marij-gatokui dato omotteiru
Ken-NOM Mari-NOM good COP C think
zibunzisini-yori tenisu-gada.
self-thantenisu-NOM COP

no-wa
C-TOP

µ,WLVWHQQLVWKDQhimself that Ken thinks that Mari is better at¶In (38a) we see the same domain extension effect as we do in (37c). Thus, (38) patterns with(37c) and not with (36b). This indicates that the surprising constituent there is not a VP.
Moreover, (38b) shows that the domain extension effect arises in the context of the saving
effect in (31) as well (see (12); note also that the only noncontradictory reading in (38b) is
one on which the anaphor refers to the matrix subject). Given this, I conclude that the first
approach to surprising constituents cannot be correct, and adopt the second approach.
How can we derive the saving effect in (31) under the second approach, according towhich surprising constituents have the form [Į X DP-NOM]? One possibility is thatsurprising constituents are formed by adjunction, as in my (Takano 2002) original analysis
shown in (34)6XSSRVHĮLVIRUPHGE\DGMoining DP-Nom to X. On the usual assumptions
about adjunctionĮformed in this way is identical to X and is therefore saved from violating
the nominative constraint. However, this analysis fails to account for the fact that the saving
effect can be seen when X is also a nominative phrase.4
4

The same holds for the proposal of Hornstein and Nunes (2008) that syntactic objects formed by
adjunction have no labels. In their analysis, a syntactic object formed by adjunction of X to Y has nolabel and therefore is not an atomic object that can be input to further operations (such as movement).
They claim that the adjoined element X is not integrated into the atomic object Y but dangles off Y, so
to speak. What this means is that the resulting syntactic object has all the properties of Y and behaves
as Y, with X invisible to syntactic operations. So, in all relevant respects, their analysis faces the sameproblem as the analysis in the text, in that it fails to capture the fact that the saving effect can be seen
when both X and Y are nominative. Below I will propose an analysis that shares with Hornstein and- 68 -68-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano)Suppose instead that surprising constituents are formed by regular Merge. Thus, they
have the form {XP, YP}. Now the question is what the label of this syntactic object is. Recall
that LA cannot determine the label of {XP, YP} if nothing happens. I propose that this isexactly the situation with surprising constituents. Thus, I claim that surprising constituents
have the saving effect because they have no label.
This proposal works in the following way. In the focus position, surprising constituentsmade up of XP and YP have the form {XP, YP}. There is no agreement between X and Y.
Therefore, they have no label. Suppose one of the two constituents is a nominative phrase, asin (39).
(39) «>Į{XP, KP} [FP CFOC «Zhere K is nominative .
Recall that if the label of Į is not determined in this structure, Į does not satisfy selection.
This is what happens in (30), repeated below.
(30)«>ĮKP [FP CFOC «, where K is nominative.

However, in (39) {XP, KP} has no label. This makes the situation different from (30). Recall(23a, c), according to which {XP, YP} can be labeled if one of XP and YP cannot provide alabel. Note that for the labeling of Į in (39), {XP, KP} is invisible to LA since {XP, KP} has
no label. As a result, LA takes the label of FP, namely, F, to be the label of Į. 5 Since ĮLV
labeled Focus in this way, it satisfies selection. In general, surprising constituents must form
unlabeled syntactic objects to ensure the proper interpretation of the Focus Phrase (i.e., theSO headed by CFoc).
In this analysis, surprising constituents have no label and this makes them invisible to LA.
As a result, they overcome the labeling problem in (30). Thus, the presence of unlabeledsyntactic objects plays a crucial role. Note that the concept of unlabeled syntactic objects is in
SULQFLSOH DYDLODEOH LQ &KRPVN\¶V   WKHRU\ DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKLFK VLPSOH 0HUJH IRUPVsyntactic objects without order or projection. However, Chomsky (2013) claims that labels
are necessary for syntactic objects because they need to be interpreted. But what kind ofinterpretation do labels contribute to? The label of a given syntactic object provides
information on what kind of phrase it is, that is, it is a phrase of a nominal nature (nounphrase), a verbal nature (verb phrase), and so on. That kind of information is necessary for the
purposes of selection or ș-UROHDVVLJQPHQWIRULQVWDQFH%XW&KRPVN\¶VWKHRU\SUHGLFWVWKDWD
Nunes the idea that syntactic objects can be label-less, but implement it without invoking adjunction
and in a way that accounts for the saving effect under consideration. I thank Miki Obata for bringing+RUQVWHLQDQG1XQHV¶ZRUNWRP\DWWHQWLRQ
5

Saito (2013) proposes that similar situations arise quite widely in Japanese, claiming that Case inJapanese has the function of making a phrase invisible to LA. Given his proposal, SO = {XP, YP} is
DOZD\VODEHOHG<LI;KDVD&DVHIHDWXUH:KHWKHU6DLWR¶VSURSRVDOLVFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHSURSRVDO
here is a matter that remains to be investigated.

- 69 -69-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015syntactic object can be without a label if that kind of information is not necessary. I am
claiming here that surprising constituents in the cleft focus position represent this situation.
That is, constituents in the cleft focus position generally do not have to be interpreted assyntactic objects of particular kinds, such as noun phrases, verb phrases, etc. Therefore,
surprising constituents in the focus position, having no label, receive no interpretation as
constituents of a particular category, but this does not cause a problem. In fact, as we haveseen, this is necessary to avoid a violation of the nominative constraint.
So far, I have been arguing that surprising constituents be constituents without labels toaccount for the fact that they have the effect of saving the sentence from violating thenominative constraint. But I have not shown whether they are always such constituents. Let
us discuss this. Let us consider what will happen if the two elements in the focus position in(40) do not form constituents.
(40) Ken-ga
Ken-NOM

ageta
gave

no-wa
C-TOP

hon-o
Mari-nida.
book-ACC Mari-DAT COPµ,WLVDERRNWR0DULWKDW.HQJDYH¶If the accusative phrase and the dative phrase did not form a constituent, (40) would bederived as shown in (41).
(41) a. «>ĮMari-DAT [FP CFoc [TP «b. «>Įbook-ACC [FP Mari-DAT [FP CFoc [TP «
Since the two elements move to the focus position independently, the first step is merger ofMari-DAT with FP, yielding (41a). Here Mari-DAT and CFoc agree and share the Focus
feature. Thus, Į LV ODEHOHG )RFXV The next step is merger of book-ACC and (the newly
formed) FP. This gives rise to (41b). On the assumption that agreement is one to one, there is
no more agreement between book-ACC and CFoc. Then ĮKDVQRODEHO in (41b) though it must
be interpreted as having Focus as its label (due to selection). Therefore, (41b) is excluded at
the interpretive interface.
This result shows that surprising constituents are indeed always constituents. It thus
argues against Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002, 2012) and Cho, Whitman, and Yanagida (2008),
who propose to analyze surprising constituents in terms of non-constituents.
5. On the Formation of Surprising Constituents
The analysis of the saving effect in (31) proposed in the previous section rests heavily on
the proposal that surprising constituents are syntactic objects without labels. The question
arises how exactly those syntactic objects are formed. Note that the surprising constituent- 70 -70-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano){XP, YP} cannot be formed by adjunction RI ;3 WR <3 DV LQ 7DNDQR¶V 2002) original
analysis (see (34)). There are two problems with this analysis: (i) adjunction structure does
not account for the saving effect, and (ii) merger of XP with YP violates the Extension
Condition/No-Tampering Condition.
Here I suggest that surprising constituents are formed by a kind of ³sidewards
movement´LQWKHIROORZLQJZD\(42) a. [Į«;3«<3«@Æ external merger of XP and YP
b. [Į«;3!«<3!«@{XP, YP}
Æ construction of CP structure (=FP)
c. [FP CFOC «>Į«;3!«<3!«@@{XP, YP}Æ external merger of {XP, YP} with FP
d. [{XP, YP} [FP CFOC «>Į«;3!«<3!«@@@In (42a) there are two independent constituents, XP and YP, in Į. Suppose that instead oftaking two elements from a lexical array (Chomsky 2000), we take these two constituents in Į
and apply Merge to them. Given that neither of XP and YP is a part of the other, this is an
instance of external Merge. As a result, we have {XP, YP}, independent of Į, as shown in(42b). After constructing the FP above Į, as in (42c), we apply Merge to FP and {XP, YP},
producing (42d). This derivation has the effect of merging XP and YP and moving the newly
created syntactic object {XP, YP} to the focus position. As we discussed above, {XP, YP}
here has no label and has the properties exhibited by surprising constituents.
6. Concluding Remarks
We have discussed the nominative constraint on the focus position of Japanese clefts andanother surprising property of surprising constituents, namely, that they save the sentencefrom violating the nominative constraint. Through the discussion, we have reached thefollowing conclusions:(43) a. The nominative constraint is attributed to labeling.
b. Surprising constituents are unlabeled syntactic objects.
c. Surprising constituents as unlabeled syntactic objects serve to ensure a properinterpretation for Focus Phrase (the SO headed by CFoc).

- 71 -71-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

d. Surprising constituents indeed form constituents.
This proposal appeals crucially to the concept of unlabeled syntactic objects, which was
simply unavailable in earlier theories of phrase structure but has now become available in&KRPVN\¶V   WKHRU\ RI SKUDVH VWUXFWXUH DQG ODEHOLQJ ,Q WKLV VHQVH LW provides anargument in favor of the new theory.
While achieving these results, this proposal leaves many questions open, too. To namejust a few, how is linear order determined for surprising constituents, which are label-lesssyntactic objects?; why is there variation among languages as to the availability of surprising
constituents (they are restricted in English and surprisingly so in Korean, too, which shares
many syntactic properties with Japanese)?; and how is the clausemate condition on surprising
constituents (Koizumi 1995, 2000, Takano 2002) accounted for? I will address these andother important issues (including the one mentioned in note 5) elsewhere.

References
Cho, S., J. Whitman, and Y. Yanagida  ´ Clefts in Japanese and Korean.´ CLS 44-1, 61-77.
&KRPVN\ 1   ³0LQLPDOLVW ,QTXLULHV 7KH )UDPHZLUN´ ,Q 5 0DUWLQ ' 0LFKDHOV DQG -XDQUriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chomsky, N. (2013) ³3UREOHPVRI3URMHFWLRQ´ Lingua 130, 33-49.
Emonds, J. (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving, andLocal Transformations. Academic Press, New York.
Hasegawa, N. (1997) ³$ &RSXOD-Based Analysis of Japanese Clefts: Wa-cleft and ga-FOHIW´
Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language, Grant-in-aid for COE
Research, Report (1), Kanda University of International Studies, 15-38.
Hasegawa, N.  ³2QWKH&OHIW&onstruction: Is It Simplex or Complex?´ Scientific Approaches
to Language, Kanda University of International Studies, 13-32.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2002) ³0LVVLQJ /LQNV &OHIW 6OXLFLQJ DQG ³QR GD´ &onstruction in
JapaQHVH´ The Proceedings of Humit 2001, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 35-54.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2012) ³6\QWDFWLF0HWDPRUSKRVLV&OHIWV6OXLFLQJDQG,Q-situ Focus in-DSDQHVH´ Syntax 15, 142-180.
+RUQVWHLQ1DQG-1XQHV  ³$GMXQFWLRQ/DEHOLQJDQG%DUH3KUDVH6WUXFWXUH´Biolinguistics 2,
57-86.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1993) ³Reconstruction aQG WKH 6WUXFWXUH RI 93 6RPH 7KHRUHWLFDO &RQVHTXHQFHV´
Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103-138.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Koizumi, M. (2000) ³6WULQJ9DFXRXV2YHUW9HUE5DLVLQJ´ Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227285.
Kuwabara, K. (1996) ³0XOWLSOH :K-Phrases in Elliptical Clauses and Some Aspects of Clefts with
0XOWLSOH )RFL´ Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2, MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 29, 97-116.
Saito, M. (1994) ³Additional-Wh (IIHFWV DQG WKH $GMXQFWLRQ 6LWH 7KHRU\´ Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 3:195-240.

- 72 -72-

Surprising Constituents as Unlabeled Syntactic Objects (Y. Takano)

SaitR 0   ³&DVH DQG /DEHOLQJ LQ D /DQJXDJH ZLWKRXW ĳ-IHDWXUH $JUHHPHQW´ PV 1DQ]DQUniversity.
Sohn, K. (1994) ³$GMXQFWLRQWR$UJXPHQW)UHH5LGHDQGD0LQLPDOLVW3URJUDP´Formal Approaches
to Japanese Linguistics 1, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 315-334.
Takano, Y. (2002) ³6XUSULVLQJ&RQVWLWXHQWV´ Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 243-301.

- 73 -73-