The Reconstruction Effects in the Restrictive Relative Clauses in NP/DP Languages
Takato Yamamoto (Kyushu University)
Introduction: This study argues that the Form Copy proposed in Chomsky (2021) can straightforwardly explain
the (non-)availability of the reconstruction effects of the Relative Head (=RH) in Restrictive Relative Clauses(=RRCs). Building on the work of Carlson (1977), Aoun and Li (2003) argue that there are two types ofdeterminers listed in (1) and observe that RH with a Class Ⅱ determiner cannot show the reconstruction effects
while RH with a Class Ⅰ determiner can, as the contrast in (2) shows.
(1) a.
Class Ⅰ determiner : the, that, this, my (possessive), every, any, what, all, most, etc.
b.
Class Ⅱ determiner: a, several, many, eleven (numeral), few, lots of, some, etc.
(Carlson (1977) and Aoun and Li (2003))(2) a. * I know a story about himselfi that no studenti would tell to the class.
(Aoun and Li (2003: 116))b.
I know the story about himselfi that no studenti would tell to the class. (Aoun and Li (2003: 117))
In (2a) and (2b), the reflexive pronoun himself is intended to refer to the subject no student in the relative clause.
The coreference between them is not allowed when RH contains a Class Ⅱ determiner a in (2a). However, in (2b),where RH is merged with a Class Ⅰ determiner the, the corresponding reflexive and subject can be coreferential.
Thus, the type of determiners determines whether the reconstruction effects of RH are available or not.
Previous Analysis: Following Bianchi (1999), Aoun and Li (2003) asserts that the raised RH inside of the relative
clause (Internal Relative Head (=IRH)) has an empty relative determiner in the raising derivation, which can cause
the reconstruction effects. This determiner must be licensed through the incorporation into the Class Ⅰ determiner
introduced outside of the relative clause as illustrated in (3), where the empty relative determiner is written in bold.
(3)[DP [the [ForceP [DP D boy]i [Force that [TopP [DP ti] [Top [IP I like ti]]]]]]]
Aoun and Li (2003) assumes that the relative determiner cannot be licensed by the Class Ⅱ determiner in order tomake the raising derivation in (3) unavailable to (2a).
However, this analysis has two problems. First, the reason why the relative determiner is not incompatible with
the Class Ⅱ determiner is not explicit. Even if this reason is revealed, a theoretical problem remains: Although theincorporation must occur in Syntax due to excluding the raising derivation in (3) from (2a), this operation isincompatible with the recent Minimalist framework, where the head movement is excluded from Syntax. Second,
it is assumed that the relative clause is a complement of RH. However, it cannot account for the adjunct property:(4)[What headway that Johni made] did hei later regret t?
(Henderson (2007: 214))
If the relative clause is derived as a complement of RH headway, it must be introduced before undergoing the whmovement. However, the derivation would cause the Condition C violation, contrary to fact, because the Rexpression John in the lower copy of the wh-phrase would be c-commanded by the coreferential pronoun he.
Proposal: The proposal is that Form Copy in Chomsky (2021) can naturally account for the contrast in (2) aswell as the derivation of RRCs without the problems discussed above. Chomsky (2021) assumes that Form Copy
can create two types of copy relations: The one comprising identical inscriptions independently introduced byExternal Merge (=EM-Copy) and the one formed by Internal Merge (=IM-Copy). Moreover, these copy relations
can be differentiated by the Duality of Semantics in (5) (Chomsky (2021)).
(5)
Duality of Semantics
For A-positions, EM and EM alone fills a θ-position.
(Chomsky (2021: 30))
(6)John tried [John to win]
EM-Copy(Chomsky (2021: 18)), slightly modified)
The subject John receives θ-roles from verbs try and win. Following (5), the two θ-assignees are assigned EMCopy. In this framework, Hayashi (2022) proposes the following property of the interpretive system:(7)
The interpretive systems can only trace the uniform operation.
(Hayashi (2022: 109))

According to (7), the reconstruction effects require the copy relations to be uniform. Moreover, this study assumes
that the classification of determiners in (1) is correct and the Class Ⅰ determiner is merged outside of the relative
clause, along the line of Aoun and Li (2003). With these theoretical assumptions, I argue that the contrast in (2)can be captured by the difference in the copy relations.
(8) a.
{I, {know, <{a story about himself}, {{a story about himself}, {that, {no student would tell
EM-Copy
IM-Copy{a story about himself} to the class}}}>}}b.
{I, {know, {the, <{∅ story about himself}, {{∅ story about himself}, {that, {no student would
IM-Copy
IM-Copytell {∅ story about himself} to the class}}}>}}}(8a) illustrates the derivation of (2a), where IRH {a story about himself} is internally merged to the top of therelative clause. Accordingly, IRHs underlined in (8a) are related by IM-Copy. Turning to RH outside of the relative
clause (External Relative Head (=ERH)), it is in the θ-position. Due to the condition in (5), the copy relation
between ERH and the higher copy of IRH must be EM-Copy. Since the two copy relations are not uniform, thisderivation cannot cause the reconstruction effects. On the other hand, in (8b), which schematizes the derivationof (2b), the Class Ⅰ determiner the is base-generated in the matrix clause. In this case, RH {∅ story about himself}
is not in the θ-position in the matrix clause, which is occupied by the syntactic object {the, <{∅ story about
himself}, {that …}>}. Therefore, ERH and IRH given in bold can form IM-Copy. The uniform copy relations in(8b) enable the derivation to induce the reconstruction effects. Note that the determiner ∅ does not have to belicensed in Syntax anymore because it does not affect the availability of the reconstruction effects.
Extension: The present analysis can be extended to accommodate the absence of the reconstruction effects of
RH in some languages like Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (=BCS). In (9) below, RH svakog svog psa ‘every self’s
dog’ includes the reflexive pronoun svog, which cannot refer to the subject Iva in the relative clause.
(9)
Jani voli svakog svogi/*jpsa
što (ga)je
Ivaj dovela _ na izložbu.
Jani loves every.ACC self’s.ACCi/*j dog.ACC that (him.ACC) Aux.3SG Ivaj brought _ on exhibition“Jani loves every one of hisi/*j dogs that Ivaj brought to the exhibition”(BCS) (Gračanin-Yuksek (2013: 40))
Traditionally, (9) has been explained by the matching analysis (see Gračanin-Yuksek (2013)). However, thereason why the raising derivation is unavailable in BCS remains to be explained. The current analysis can readily
resolve this problem. According to Bošković (2008), the D-item in DP languages like English, corresponding to
the Class Ⅰ determiner, does not behave in the same way as the counterpart in NP languages like BCS. For example,
the extraction from the nominal expression with the D-item is prohibited in English but possible in BCS:
(10)
[O kojem piscu]i je pročitao [svaku knjigu/sve knjige/(tu) tvoju knjigu ti]
about which writer is readevery book /all books /that your book‘*About which writer did he read every book/all books/this book of yours?’(BCS) (Bošković (2008: 107))
If NP languages do not differentiate the Class Ⅰ determiner from the Class Ⅱ determiner, it is expected that EMCopy between ERH and the higher copy of IRH is obligatory because ERH always occupies the θ-position in thematrix clause. Since the copy relation between IRHs is IM-Copy, RHs of RRCs in languages like BCS cannot be
assigned the uniform copy relation. Therefore, such languages lack the reconstruction effects of RH in RRCs.
Selected References: Bošković, Z (2008) “What Will You Have, DP or NP?” NELS 37, 101-114./ Chomsky, N.
(2021) “Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to Go,” Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1-41./ Hayashi,
N. (2022) “Accessibility on Reconstruction: Japanese Head-External Relative Clauses by Form Copy,”
Proceedings of GLOW in Asia 13.

Choose Events or Situations: An Ambiguity of Japanese tara
Yusuke Yagi (University of Connecticut)[Synopsis] This study is concerned with a Japanese clausal particle tara, which is often assumed to
be a conditional marker. I point out that tara also has a non-conditional reading. I argue that a taraclause is a referential, definite description, and that the ambiguity is attributed to a difference in thedenotation of the definite expression: it denotes a definite situations in the conditional use, and it
denotes a definite events in the non-conditional use. A success in the analysis makes an ontologicalclaim that we need both events and situations in the analysis of natural languages.
[Data] The two readings of tara are observed in (1). (1a) is the conditional use, so it does not entailthat the speaker will hear John’s song. On the other hand, (1b) is the non-conditional use. It does
entail that the speaker heard John’s song and that s/he got a headache.
(1) a. John-no uta-okii-tara
atama-ga itaku-na-ru.
John-GEN song-ACC hear-TARA head-NOM hurt-become-NONPAST‘If I hear John’s song I will have a headache.’b. John-no uta-okii-tara
atama-ga itaku-na-tta.
John-GEN song-ACC hear-TARA head-NOM hurt-become-PAST‘When/After I heard John’s song I got a headache.’
The two readings above are reminiscent of the ambiguity observed in the English when clause(Furkas and Sugioka 1983 a.o). (2a) is an instance of the conditional reading. Replacing whenwith if does not make any significant difference in the interpretation. The non-conditional reading
is further divided into two subclasses by Hall and Caponigro (2010). (2b) is a time temporal use,which means that the tulips bloomed at a specific time interval we expected. On the other hand,(2b) is an eventive use, where the sentence means the speaker lost the keys at some point of theevent of going swimming in the bay.
(2) a. Lizards are pleased when the sun shines.
b. This year, the tulips bloomed when we all expected.
c. I lost my keys in the water when I went swimming in the bay.
It turns out that the Japanese tara in the non-conditional use is only compatible with the eventive
reading. (2b) cannot be translated into Japanese with tara (see (3a)), while (2c) can (see (3b)).
(3) a. Watashi-tachi-ga kitai-{#si-tara/ si-ta-toki-ni}
tyuurippu-ga saita.
I-PL-NOM
expect-{do-TARA / do-PAST-time-DAT} tulips
bloomed.
Intended: ‘The tulips bloomed when we expected.’b. Umi-ni oyogi-ni it-tara kagi-o mizu-ni otoshi-ta.
sea-DAT swim-DAT go-TARA key-ACC water-DAT lost-PAST‘I lost my key in the water when I went swimming in the sea.’[Proposal:] The above data suggests that Japanese tara is ambiguous between the conditional use
and the non-conditional, eventive use. I propose that there is a common semantic core in these
two readings, from which the ambiguity is derived. I argue that tara is underlyingly a definite
description. I argue that the conditional tara is a plural definite description of situations (following the analysis of English conditional in Schein (2001) and Schlenker (2004)); and that the nonconditional, eventive one is a plural definite description of events (extending Hall and Caponigro’s(2010) analysis of the non-conditional when-clause).
1

Implementing this idea requires to pluralize the ingredients of semantics. I adopt Link’s (1983)
system of plurals, where the domain of individuals contains a mereological sum of individuals,
which is also of type 𝑒. I extend this summation operation to situations and events (cf. Champollion(2016) for summation of events): domain 𝐷 𝑣 contains atomic events and their mereological sum(of type 𝑣); domian 𝐷 𝑠 contains atomic situation and their mereological sum (of type 𝑠). I takesituations as parts of a world (i.e., a world is a maximal situation). I follow Hacquard (2010) andassume that an event is a constant across possible worlds/situations.
Since the system contains both situations and events, a simple sentence is translated as in (4),where sing(𝑒, 𝑠) is true iff 𝑒 is a singing event in 𝑠. By applying the operator PROP to (4) we get afamiliar denotation for propositions of type 𝑠𝑡.
(4) a. John sings a song ⇝ 𝜆𝑒 𝑣 𝜆𝑠 𝑠 [sing(𝑒, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒, j)]b. PROP ⇝ 𝜆𝑝 𝑣𝑠,𝑡 .𝜆𝑠 𝑠 . ∃𝑒 𝑣 [ 𝑝(𝑒) (𝑠)]c. John sings a song ⇝ 𝜆𝑠 𝑠 ∃𝑒 𝑣 [sing(𝑒, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒, j)]
Now tara can be defined as in (5), where the 𝜄 operator always picks up the unique, maximal sum
that satisfies the restriction. Applying them to (4a) results in (6).
(5) a. tara₁ ⇝ 𝜆𝑝 𝑣𝑠,𝑡 .𝜆𝑠 𝑠 . 𝜄𝑒 𝑣 [ 𝑝(𝑒)(𝑠)]b. tara₂ ⇝ 𝜆𝑝 𝑣𝑠,𝑡 .𝜄𝑠 𝑠 .∃𝑒 𝑣 [ 𝑝(𝑒)(𝑠)]a. John sing a song-tara₁ ⇝ 𝜆𝑠. 𝜄𝑒 [sing(𝑒, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒, j)]b. John sing a song-tara₂ ⇝ 𝜄𝑠. ∃𝑒 [sing(𝑒, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒, j)]I adopt Hall and Caponigro’s assumption and argue that (6a) combines with the main clause via asilent preposition. I define the silent preposition as (7), where the predicate O is true of a pair of
events if the events are overlapping. The non-conditional use is now derived as in (8).
(7) AT ⇝ 𝜆𝑝 𝑣𝑠,𝑡 .𝜆𝑉𝑠𝑣 .𝜆𝑠 𝑠 .𝜆𝑒 𝑣 . 𝑝(𝑒)(𝑣) ∧ O(𝑒, 𝑉 (𝑠))(6)

AT(I had a headache)(John sings a song-tara₁)
𝜆𝑠 𝑠 .𝜆𝑒 𝑣 . had_a_headache(𝑒, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒, the_speaker)∧O(𝑒, 𝜄𝑒′ [sing(𝑒′, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒′, j)])b. PROP(a) ⇝ 𝜆𝑠 𝑠 .∃𝑒 𝑣 . had_a_headache(the_speaker)∧O(𝑒, 𝜄𝑒′ [sing(𝑒′, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒′, j)])The conditional use is also derived straightforwardly, with a help of PROP. It checks if the pluralsituation denoted by the tara₂-clause is collectively a situation where the speaker will get a headache,
replicating the semantic analysis of English conditional.
(9) PROP(I will get a headache)(John-sings a song-tara₂)⇝ [𝜆𝑠 𝑠 .𝜆𝑒 𝑣 . will_get_a_headache(𝑒, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒, the_speaker)](𝜄𝑠. ∃𝑒 [sing(𝑒, 𝑠) ∧ subject(𝑒, j)])[Discussion and Consequence] I believe the analysis can be extended to English when clause,
whose ambiguity has been noticed but has not been discussed a lot. The proposal also makes aninteresting claim about ontology of situations and events in semantic analysis. It submits a support
for a view, as discussed by Kratzer (2008) a.o., that we have both of situations and events in natural
languages although they are closely related.
(8) a.

[Selected References:] Hall & Caponigro. 2010. On the Semantics of Temporal when-claues. Proceedings of
SALT 20. 544-563. Schlenker. 2004. Conditional as Definite Descriptions. Research on Language and Computation.
417–462,2

Look at You! instead of Look at yourself!:
Inviting Split-Addressee to Speaker’s Standpoint for Surprise Sharing
Takeshi Koguma and Katsunobu Izutsu
Kanazawa University and Hokkaido University of Education
This study examines a particular idiosyncratic reference of two English second-person
pronouns (you and yourself) observed in well-conventionalized utterances, arguing thatthe reference could be best characterized as a manifestation of split-addressee andemotion sharing. Syntactically, the addressee in an imperative sentence is expected to bereferred to by the reflexive pronoun yourself rather than second-person pronoun you, as
illustrated in (1). However, (2b) as well as (2a) is a fully natural utterance.
(1)a. Help yourself!
b.* Help you!

(2) a. (Hey,) Look at yourself!
b. (Wow,) Look at you!
(Koguma & Izutsu 2022: 248)

In both (2a) and (2b), the referent of the prepositional object coincides with the addresseeof the utterances. The difference between you and yourself resides in how the speaker
conceives of the event of looking at the addressee. Although both utterances in (2) haveimperative syntax, (2b) differs significantly from (2a) in the communicative function and“speech acts” they serve. As can be seen from the parenthesized interjections, (2a) talks
the addressee into or out of the action referred to in the verb (i.e., hortative), whereas (2b)typically expresses the speaker’s surprise at the current state of the addressee and his or
her intention to share that emotion with the addressee.
This second communicative function is also exemplified in (3), excerpted from ascene of the movie titled Jurassic World: Dominion. Dr. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician
was separating himself from the crowd around him to greet two old friends of his. He
walked out of the crowd uttering (3a) and then talked to the friends as in (3b).
(3)

a. Very good. There there you go! Hey, I don’t want to be rude to my friends. Thankyou. Catch me on my way out. Thanks everybody.
b. Look at you! Look at me! Oh, look at you! Wow, this is so trippy.
(Adopted from the movie, Jurassic World: Dominion)

In (3b), the two addressees are realized with the pronouns you instead of yourself; in thiscontext, replacing you with yourself ends up in infelicitous utterances. Unlike Look atyourself!, Look at you! substantially verbalizes the speaker’s surprise at a discrepancy
between what s/he expects and what s/he sees.
In all these examples, the addressees have two distinctive semantic roles: anagent/actor role who is engaged in the activity of “looking at” and a patient/object role ofthe same predicate. In (2a), the referent of the prepositional object (i.e., viewed addressee)
is conceived of as identical with the referent of the implicit subject (i.e., viewing
addressee). Thus, the former is realized as the reflexive pronoun yourself. In (2b) and (3b),in contrast, the referent of the prepositional object is assumed to be split into the viewed
and the viewing addressees. The viewed addressee remains, as it were, in the speaker’s
field of view, meanwhile the viewing addressee is mentally detached from that viewed
addressee and relocated to the speaker’s vantagepoint. In other words, the viewing
addressee is mentally disguised as an addressee independent of the viewed addressee.
This communicative function is parallel to that of the utterance in (4), whereby the
speaker directs the addressee’s attention toward the third party (i.e., the referent of him)so that the addressee could enjoy the speaker’s perspective and emotion (e.g., surprise).
The only difference from (2b) and (3b) lies in the fact that the referent of the prepositional
object is not the addressee.
(4) (Wow,) look at him!
This paper argues that the mental manipulation that splits and relocates the conception of
the addressee accounts for the suspension of the intrinsic coreference between viewing
and viewed addressees. Such an account can also deal with ambiguous or hybrid uses of
the two different communicative functions described above, as illustrated in (5).
(5) Look at you! You've got chocolate all over your face like a child, but you're an adult!
Adorable!
(Adopted from COCA)
References
Davies, Mark. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520
million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
Koguma, Takeshi, and Katsunobu Izutsu (2022) “Kimi no Na wa Watashi no Na wa [YourName, My Name],” In Kazumi Sugai, Kazumi and Hirotoshi Yagihashi (eds.)
Ninchi gengogaku no mirai ni mukete [Towards the future of cognitive linguistics],
240-251. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

An Author’s Derivational Morphological DNA. A Corpus-Based Analysis
Piotr TWARDZISZ & Monika OLSZEWSKA, University of Warsaw, Poland
Abstract
Derivational morphology (word formation) is a vibrant theoretical discipline. It has beendeveloped and expanded since Aronoff’s (1976) seminal work. Understandably, English word
formation has received a significant amount of attention from numerous scholars (Plag 2003;
Bauer et al. 2013). With the advent of corpus linguistics, derivational morphology became anincreasingly palpable object of study. Such vague and commonly disputed concepts asmorphological productivity (Aronoff 1976; Bauer 2006) suddenly became tangible and evenmeasureable (Baayen & Lieber 1991; Plag 1999; Plag et al. 1999). Still, these are all generalreviews of morphological phenomena in the field of English for general purposes.
In the area of English for specific purposes, the presence of derivational morphology has beenrather scant. And while English for specific purposes has been explored for its various
peculiarities (Biber 1995), derivational morphology has not been seen on the researchers’
agenda of register variation. Indeed, scattered publications or dissertations can be gathered
which have paid some attention to word formation across academic disciplines (Moskowitch
2010). So, for example, one such corpus-based account looks into word formation in scientificregisters (computer science and medicine), focusing on the productivity of 14 suffixes(Montero-Fleta 2011). However, almost no attention has been paid to the possible relationshipbetween derivational morphology and an individual author’s lexicon and his/her own writing
style. Writers’ styles have been studied and examined in terms of various parameters (Leech& Short 1981). Nevertheless, morphological parameters as determinants of individual
linguistic writing habits remain unexplored.
In this presentation, the focus will be on morphologically complex words as used by only one
author. As our investigation is a linguistic one, it is quite irrelevant which particular
individual’s morphological style is in focus. For the purpose of this inquiry, we have selected
E. M. Forster (1879–1970), a British writer, with his three randomly selected novels: Where
Angels Fear to Tread (1905), Howards End (1910) and Passage to India (1924). This analysis
follows the methodology of corpus-based research as applied to literary texts (Stubbs 2005;
Siepmann 2015; Ruano San Segundo 2016; Vincent & Clarke 2017). The three novels in theirdigital format constitute our three corpora used for comparative purposes. The three texts
were obtained from the Project Guttenberg open-access digital repository and retained in the
notepad application in plain text format. Further analyses were carried out with the use of
AntConc software (Anthony 2022). Out of approx. 100 affixes, two lists of 41 prefixes and 41
suffixes were compiled. AntConc performed automatic search for and retrieval of tokens
compatible with search substrings (82 affixes). The manual cleaning of the data obtained wasnecessary due to high numbers of derivationally irrelevant items. For each corpus, the numberof all word types and word tokens was calculated. In a nutshell, the core of the analysis
focuses on (1) the most frequent affixes (separately prefixes and suffixes) in each corpus, (2)the least frequent affixes in each corpus, and (3) no-showing affixes in each corpus. For
practical reasons, only samples of these will be discussed in the presentation. Even such afragmentary picture (one author) shows certain promising traits determining an individual’s
writing style. Of course, to obtain a better picture of an individual’s morphological style, atleast one more individual’s morphological style should be considered. Also, a historicalinquiry into the frequency of specific affixes should be conducted to see general tendencies inand across periods of time. This preliminary inquiry shows that it may be valuable to analyseother texts of other authors. This research indicates that the three texts may have been writtenby the same author, whose writing style somewhat evolved, but nevertheless retained its
distinctive morphological traits.
References
Anthony, L. 2022: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT
Press.
Baayen, H.R. & Lieber, R. 1991. Productivity and English word-formation: A corpus-based
study. Linguistics 29: 801–843.
Bauer, L. 2006. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. & Plag I. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. N. & Short M. H. 1981. Style in Fiction. A linguistic introduction to English
fictional prose. London and New York: Longman.
Montero-Fleta, B. 2011. Suffixes in word-formation processes in scientific English. LSP,
Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition 2 (2): 4–14.
Moskowitch, I. 2010. Morphologically complex nouns in English scientific texts after
Empiricism. Linguistik Online 43(3).
Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plag, I., Dalton-Puffer, C. & Baayen. H. 1999. Morphological productivity across speech andwriting. English Language and Linguistics 33: 209–228.
Project Guttenberg: www.https://www.gutenberg.org/
Ruano San Segundo, P. 2016. A corpus-stylistic approach to Dickens’ use of speech verbs:
Beyond mere reporting. Language and Literature 25 (2) 113–129.
Siepmann, D. 2015. A corpus-based investigation into key words and key patterns in post-war
fiction. Functions of Language 22 (3): 362–399.
Stubbs, M. 2005. Conrad in the computer: Examples of quantitative stylistic methods.
Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 14 (1): 5–24.
Vincent, B. & Clarke, J. 2017. The language of A Clockwork Orange: A corpus stylistic
approach to Nadsat. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 26 (3): 247–
264.

Polarity Item Licensing in Vector Model: Negative, Positive and Bipolar Items
Sumiyo Nishiguchi, Otaru University of Commerce
Negative polarity items (NPIs) are licensed in downward entailing (DE) environments In John
did not travel either, the NPI either is licensed by strong negative not, and the omission of not
makes it ungrammatical. In contrast, the positive polarity item (PPI) already is anti-licensed bynegation in *Mary has not already got vaccinated three times (Baker 1970).
NPI and PPI licensing is not a binary feature of lexical items, but scalar. The logical properties of the NPI licensing context vary among monotone decreasingness (MD), anti-adidtivity(AA) and anti-multiplicativity (Zwarts 1996). Alle “all” and geen “no” in Dutch are AA andthey license NPIs of medium strength or the weak ones. Inderdaad “indeed/actually” is a strong
PPI ungrammatical in the scope of negation (Szabolcsi 2004). Even a weak negative licenser
Hoogstens vier “at most four” makes it ungrammatical.
(1) Alle kinderen die drinken of roken worden gestraft. ↔ Alle kinderendie drinkenworden
gestraft en alle kinderendie rokenworden gestraft.
“All children that drink or smoke will be punished.” (van der Wouden 1997)
Weak negative MD context licenses weak NPIs such as any and ever, while medium negative,
AA or anti-multiplicative context only allows NPIs with medium or weak strength. The strong
negative context, that are anti-morphic (AM), the combination of AA and anti-multiplicativity,
licenses all kinds of NPIs. The strength of PPIs is measured by ungrammaticality in negative
contexts. The strong PPI dislikes any negative context, the medium PPIs are ungrammatical in
AA/anti-multiplicative or AM, and the weak PPI is anti-licensed only in AM.
For the scalar compatibility between PIs and licensing context, I propose the vector models
to represent lexical information. The different strength of PIs and licensing context corresponds
to assigned values on two vectors—one for the licenser and the other for the PIs.
(2) a. Lexicon: lexical item l ∈ L
b. Lexical information: L = (Rm , Rp )c. Monotonicity: Rm : a vector of monotonicity
Rm = {-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3}-3: AM-2: AA/anti-multiplicative-1: MD
1: monotone increasing
2: additive/multiplicative
3: morphic
d. Monotonicity assignment function F: F(l) → x ∈ Rm = {-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3}
e. NPI/BPI/PPI vector : Rp = {-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3}
strong NP:I -3
medium NPI: -2
weak NPI: -1
weak PPI: 1
medium PPI: 2strong PPI: 3
Licensers in Dutch:

(3) niet “not”; R = (-3, 0) (AM)geen “none”; R = (-2, 0) (AA)weinig “few”; R = (-1, 0) (MD)There is inclusion relationship between PI licensers. 3 on Rm includes 1 and -3 includes -1
since strong negation licenses weaker PIs. If strong PPI is acceptable, so are weaker PPIs in thescope of the same licenser. Below is the matching or compatibility:(4) (-3, y) and (x, y ∈ -1≤y≤-3)(-2, y) and (x, y ∈ -1≤y≤-2)(-1, y) and (x, -1)(x, 1) and (x 6= -3, y)(x, 2) and (x ∈/ -2≤x≤-3, y)(x, 3) and (x ∈-1≤y≤-3,/y)Moreover, according to van der Wouden (1997), Dutch ooit could be the bipolar item (BPI)
with combined feature of NPI and PPI. Ooit is licensed in AA and MD but ungrammatical in AM.
Furthermore, Serbo-Croatian i -series “also/even” and the Hungarian counterpart are licensed in
medium and weak negation while anti-licensed by strong clausemate negation (Progovac 1994,
Szabolcsi 2002). The wide scope mo “also/even” in Japanese, to “also/even” in Korean and ye“also” in Mandarin show the behavior of the BPI (Nishiguchi 2009, 2016). The combined featureof the BPI needs double lexical entries. The BPI is either (0, 1), the weak PPI or (0, -2), themedium NPI.
(5) Dutch: ooit 1 “ever”; R =(0, 1)
ooit 2 “ever”; R= (0, -2)
Serbian-Croatian: i 1 “also/even”; R =(0, 1)
i 2 “also/even”; R= (0, -2)
Hungarian: is 1 “also/even; R=(0, 1)
is 2 “also/even; R=(0, -2)
Japanese: mo 1 “even; R=(0, 1)
mo 2 “even; R=(0, -2)
Korean: to 1 “also/even; R=(0, 1)
to 2 “also/even; R=(0, -2)
Chinese: ye 1 “also”; R=(0, 1)
ye 2 “even; R=(0, -2)
Since negative emotives like regret license BPIs, ooit 3 does not require either monotone increasing or decreasing context.
(6) ooit 3 ; R=(0, 0)

References
Baker, C. L.: 1970, Double negatives, Linguistic Inquiry 1, 169–186.
Nishiguchi, S.: 2009, Bipolar items and attitude predicates, BLS 35, pp. 424–435.
Nishiguchi, S.: 2016, Bipolar items, Topics in Linguistics 17(2), 1–11.
Progovac, L.: 1994, Negative and Positive Polarity: A Binding Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Szabolcsi, A.: 2002, Hungarian disjunctions and positive polarity, Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 8, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Szabolcsi, A.: 2004, Positive polarity-negative polarity, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 409–452.
van der Wouden, T.: 1997, Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation, Routledge, London.
Zwarts, F.: 1996, A hierarchy of negative expressions, Negation: A Notion in Focus, walter de Gruyer, Berlin, pp. 169–194.

Dynamic Interpretation of Te-Connection:
Representation of Conjunction/Conditional Ambiguity in SDRT
Hajime Mori (The University of Tokyo)
morihajime@g.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Data: Japanese has various types of sentential connections, including te-connection. In formal
semantics, previous studies have analyzed te as a conjunction operator (Matsui, 2009; Kaufmann
and Whitman, 2022). It is true that te functions as a conjunctive operator in most cases. Indeed,
te-connection is conjunctive in (1) in that the sentence entails both John’s cooking and Mary’s
eating. However, te-connection also involves conditional sentences as in (2). The antecedent ofte-connection, arui(-te) (to walk), is not entailed by (2).
(1) Jon-ga
ryoorishi-te Mearii-ga
Jonh-nom cook-te
Mary-nomtabe-taeat-past‘John cooked and Mary ate.’(2) Arui-te 5-hun kakaru
walk-te 5-min. take
‘It takes 5 minutes on foot.’

Another Japanese connection, which is closely related to te-connection, is zero conjunction(Watanabe, 1994). The form of zero conjunction and te-connection only diﬀer in the existenceof te. Also, the meaning is almost equivalent if conjunctive te-connection is considered. The
zero conjunction form of conditional te-connection is, however, infelicitous as in (4). The infelicity shows that zero conjunction cannot have conditional interpretation: (4) is odd because it
unnaturally conjoins two predicates that should be in conditional relation.
(3) Jon-ga
ryoorishi, Mearii-ga tabe-ta (4)John-nom cook
Mary-nom eat-past‘John cooked and Mary ate.’# Aruki, 5-hun kakaru
walk-te 5-min. takeAccording to Nakatani(2013), te morpheme is a TP head and the antecedent TP adjuncts tothe main TP. The conﬁguration of (1) is as in (5). On the other hand, the construction of zeroconjunction sentence (3) is (6). The TP head of the antecedent is right node raised and other parts
are equivalent to te-connection. That is, the only syntactic diﬀerence between zero conjunction
and te-connection is the existence of te.
(5) [TP Jon-ga [VP ryoorishi] te] [CP [TP Mearii-ga [VP tabe] ta]](6) [TP Jon-ga [VP ryoorishi] T] [CP [TP Mearii-ga [VP tabe] ta]]
By the above observations, one can conclude that the existence of te contributes to the conditional
meaning of te-connection. This study tries to account for the fact that the insertion of te induces
the conditional meaning within SDRT.
Previous studies: A conditional sentence that appears to be conjunctive is called a conditional
conjunction (CC). In (7), two sentences are connected by a conjunctive coordinator and, but (7)is interpreted as conditional, not conjunction.
(7) You drink another can of beer and I’m leaving.
(≈If you drink another can of beer, I’m leaving.)

1(Culicover and Jackendoﬀ, 1997)

If you observe only te-connection, you might say it is similar to CC. te-connection is usually conjunctive but in some cases such as (2), it becomes conditional. However, it cannot be
conditional if te is missing, i.e. if the sentence is a zero conjunction. On the other hand, CC
does not lose its conditional meaning by the ellipsis of and. If te-connection were a kind of CC,
zero-conjunction should have conditional meaning.
(8) You call the cops, I break her legs.

(Klinedinst and Rothchild, 2015)

Furthermore, Kaufmann and Whitman(2022) argue that topicalization of the ﬁrst conjunct induces CC. Accepting this argument, te-connection, which involves no topicalization, cannot beCC.
Proposal: SDRT (Segmented DRT: Asher and Lascarides, 1993; 2003) is the theoretical framework that combines DRT (Kamp, 1981) with AI-based linguistic studies that deal with rhetorical
relationships among sentences. SDRSs (Segmented DRSs) describe a discourse by showing the(underspeciﬁed) logical representation of each sentence and the rhetorical relationships among
sentences as well as the hierarchical structure of the discourse. Rhetorical relationships describedin SDRT include Narration, Elaboration, Explanation, Alternation, etc. What is notable for myanalysis is that there is no explicit conditional operator in SDRT: the rhetorical relation Consequence is used to express conditionals instead. That is, conjunction and conditional are ascompatible as two variables in the predicate logic.
The complete entire construction of a discourse is not simply determined by a sequence ofsentences itself, which is underspeciﬁed. To express the construction, SDRT uses underspeciﬁed
logic, where some pieces of information including the scope relations are not determined. The
complete form is obtained through inferences based on several axioms corresponding to eachrhetorical relation, and a principle called Maximal Discourse Coherence or MDC.
Within SDRT, I formalize te, using the analysis by Nakatani(2013) that te is an allomorph ofta, which indicates the past tense. This property of te is veriﬁed by morphosyntactic observationof te-connection. He accepts the analysis by Ogiwara(1996) that the Japanese past tense involves
relativity of temporal relation: te shows that the event expressed by the te-clause temporally
precedes the event expressed by the main clause.
We can safely assume that te itself does not determine the rhetorical relation of sentences,i.e. the logical relation between two sentences connected by te is underspeciﬁed. The temporal
relation of two events connected by te, strengthened by MDC, determines the rhetorical relation
between two events. Given the temporal sequence, I show that only possible relations between two
sentences are Narration, Result, Background, and Consequence. The te-connection is conjunctive
if Narration, Result, and Background are most appropriate interpretation, and it is conditional if
Consequence is the most appropriate.
This study suggests that the interpretation of the propositional logical connections between
sentences, which is basic for semantics, also involves pragmatic inference and that its formalizationis necessary for formal semantics. The result supports the SDRT, which formalizes rhetorical
relations and pragmatic inference.
References: Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Studies in natural
language processing. Cambridge University Press. Culicover, Peter W. (1997). Semantic
subordination despite syntactic coordination. in Linguistic Inquiry 28 : 195-218. Kaufmann,M., & Whitman, J. (2022). Conditional conjunctions informed by Japanese and Korean.
Linguistics Vanguard, 0 (0). Nakarani, K. (2013). A study of the V-te-V predicate in Japanese.
Kuroshio Publishers. Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, attitudes, and scope. Watanabe, Y. (1994).
Clause-Chaining, Switch-Reference, and Action/Event Continuity in Japanese Discourse: The
Case of Te, To and Zero-Conjunction. in Studies in Language 18, 127-203.
2

Get-Passive in Terms of Diachrony and Dialectology: A Case of New Zealand English
Junichi Toyota (Osaka Metropolitan University)
The get-passive has received much attention in previous research, both synchronicallyand diachronically. However, its dialectal variations have been overlooked, except forsome passing remarks. For instance, Sussex (1982) states that the use of get-passive ismore common in American English than British or Australian English, but internal
structural and functional differences have not been compared. This paper is an initialattempt to shed light on the relationship between diachrony and dialectology of the getpassive, focusing on the New Zealand (NZ) English. This dialect has not played a majorpart in the study of grammatical voice, but it can offer some promising insights, which
are two-fold as shown below.
Diachrony: New Zealand is the youngest country in the former British colonies(Richards 2022), and its official language was established only in the 19th century.
This timing is more or less the same as the onset of the get-passive (Toyota 2008).
Due to its unique geographic location, its English was initially in a state of semiisolation. Thus, this dialect may still preserve an archaic usage of the get-passiveat its initial stage of the development. This will allow us to see what an initialonset of the construction could have been like.
Dialectology: The NZ English has influence from different dialects, including Scottish
or Scots. The get-passive can be a product of the language contacts with Old Norse(cf. Toyota 2020), and this contact was frequent in the northern part of the GreatBritain, including Scotland (Warner 2017). Thus, characteristics influenced by thecontact with Old Norse could be inherited to the NZ English from the Scottish
dialects.
The corpus search (Wellington corpus of written New Zealand English) on the NZ
English written data yields an interesting result, especially in comparison with the datafrom Late Modern (ARCHER corpus) and Present-Day English (LOB corpus) ofStandard British English presented in Toyota (2008).
Facilitative reading and subject’s responsibility, typical characteristics of the middle
voice, can be found in the get-passive, as illustrated in (1) from the corpus. This feature
is present in the half of the data of the NZ English (52.4%), which is closer to the resultof Late Modern English (66.1%), as opposed to that of Present-Day English (30.6%). Thiscan be considered a sign that the NZ English has an archaic version of the get-passive.
However, there is no instance of get rid of in the corpus data. This phrase was very
common in Late Modern English, and as presented in Toyota (2021), this collocation canbe arguably a cause for the grammaticalisation of the get-passive. In addition, the resultcontains slightly higher percentage of the instances with the overtly-expressed agent(6.9%), exemplified in (2), as opposed to the lower frequency in Standard English (1.0%).
Notice that in (2), get is used as an alternative for be.
(1)

It’s a business of hype, creativity and enemies as thick as flies in summer.
Because so many people get fired (or as we say in the business, “let go”) andbecause of the high rate of client-poaching between the agencies, an enormous
amount of animosity builds up. (F11 090-4)(2)

My friend, the sergeant at Central, tells me that in New Zealand, unlike the restof the world, only 10% of murder victims are killed by strangers. The rest of us
get killed by yesterday’s friends. (F11 027-30)

Thus, the get-passive in the NZ English seems to have the characteristics offacilitative reading and subject’s responsibility, commonly found in Late Modern English,
mixed with a hint of characteristics associated with the canonical be-passive. What isclear is that the dialectal usage in the New Zealand English, as far as the get-passive isconcerned, can be a sign of archaism of grammar. The origin of the get-passive has beena mystery in spite of its recent emergence, but this piece of analysis can prove that
dialectal variations can be a key to understand the development of the construction better.
References
Richards, I. M. 2002. ‘Janet Frame’s ‘Miss Gibson and the Lumber Room’ as a Literaryand Educational Manifesto.’ In Toyota, J., I. Richards and B. Kovačević (eds.)
Second Language Learning and Cultural Acquisition: New perspectives. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 158-174.
Sussex, R. 1982. ‘A note on the get-passive construction.’ Australian Journal of
Linguistics 2, 83-95.
Toyota, J. 2008. Diachronic Changes in the English Passive. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Toyota, J. 2020. ‘The origin of the get-passive revisited.’ JELS: Papers from the 37th
Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 37, 134-138.
Toyota, J. 2021. ‘On rid and the origin of the get-passive.’ Anali Filoloskog Fakulteta 33,
215-230.
Warner, A. 2017. ‘English–Norse contact, simplification, and sociolinguistic typology.’
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 118, 317–403.

The Overt Focus Movement to vP Periphery in English
Satoru Kanno (Tokyo University of Science), Tomonori Otsuka (Kyushu University),
Ryoichi Kondo (Hirosaki University) and Yuta Tanaka (Chubu University)
The purpose of this paper is to offer a syntactic analysis to constructions like (1) under the
Minimalist framework (Chomsky (2000 and subsequent work)).
(1) One swallow does not a summer make.
One of the prominent syntactic properties is that the object a summer precedes the verb make. We
henceforth call constructions as in (1) swallow constructions. We refer to Takizawa (2003 andsubsequent work), who shows (i) that the word order pattern in swallow constructions producesemphatic effects in interpretation and (ii) that swallow constructions are productive constructions
where it is possible to change their subjects, objects, and/or verbs to create extended forms of the“basic” form of (1).
Another syntactic property is that an object in the construction must be indefinite in its
semantic interpretation. Consider (2).
(2) a. * Stone walls did not necessarily this good castle make.
b. * Bravery does not necessarily him make.
c. Stone walls do not the best castle make.
(Kanno et al. (2022: 2))
The definite noun phrase this good castle and the pronoun him cannot appear in (2a, b). However,
it is possible for superlative noun phrases to be used, as in (2c). The (un)grammaticality of thesentences in (2) indicates that swallow constructions are similar to there constructions in that theyboth cannot contain definite expressions but can allow superlative noun phrases.
Next, even in the word order pattern where the object precedes the verb, the object-verb set
can be coordinated with the verb-object set, as in (3).
(3) One victory does not a revolution make nor break a tradition. (Kanno et al. (2022: 4))
Assuming that coordination applies to the same categories, then in (3), two verbal domains are
combined by the coordinator and.
We will present an account based on the vP left periphery to address the syntactic propertiesof swallow constructions. First, while the CP left periphery is related to discourse-related features
such as Focus (Rizzi (1997)), this assumption is extended to the vP left periphery in Belletti (2005)
and Maeda (2010, 2014) among others. We argue that the vP-edge can also possess discourserelated features such as Focus.
However, the vP left periphery is not always available as a final landing site in English.
Chomsky (2015) argues that in transitive sentences, R-to-v head movement, which is a case of
Pair-Merge, renders the v head invisible. It follows that the invisibility of v makes its periphery
defective; therefore, the object-verb order usually is not found in English. Nevertheless, given that
Pair-Merge makes invisible either of the two items involved, there should be another possibility.
Otsuka (2017) claims that R undergoes Pair-Merge to v, and R becomes invisible with v remaining
visible. Hence, under (4a), vP left periphery is defective, while it remains active under (4b)(shading indicates invisibility).
(4) a. v is Pair-Merged with R. (<R, v>)(cf. Chomsky (2015: 12))

b. R is Pair-Merged with v. (<v, R>)(cf. Otsuka (2017: 140))
We claim that (4b) leads to swallow constructions. The visibility of v in (5) allows Obj toraise to the vP left periphery and stay in that position.
(5) …[not [Obj [<v, R> [R tObj]]]]It is worthwhile to compare the structure in (5) with there constructions. Maeda (2010)
argues that the associate nouns move to FocusP in there constructions. Maeda (2010) clearly
associates the [Focus] features with indefinite interpretations of noun phrases. Adopting Maeda’s(2010) basic idea, we argue that Obj’s movement to the vP-edge in (5) is an instance of Focus
movement, explaining the definiteness effect in (2).
Based on (5) we can accommodate various empirical facts. First, given that the raised object
is in the vP-edge, we can account for the grammaticality of (3): two vPs are coordinated. Second,
when swallow constructions are used in declarative forms, the emphatic do appears, as in (6).
(6)
STONE walls do a prison make. … (BoE)(Takizawa (2003: 46))
We assume that the presence of the object on the vP-edge prevents the Affix-Hopping from taking
place from T to v. Therefore, the do-insertion helps the affix not to be stranded.
Furthermore, we reject an analysis appealing to the rightward movement of verbs. Such ananalysis cannot account for the following contrast, which is reported by one of our informants.
(7) One agreement between the two countries does not a conflict {cool down/*down cool}.
(Kanno et al. (2022: 6))
If the rightward movement of the verb were correct, (7) would be grammatical, contrary to fact.
References
Belletti, Adriana (2005) “Extended Doubling and the VP Periphery,” Probus 17, 1-35.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels andJuan Uriagereka, 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies and Beyond:Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann andSimona Matteini, 3-16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Kanno, Satoru, Ryoichi Kondo, Yuta Tanaka and Tomonori Otsuka (2022) “Some Features of
Object + Verb Constructions,” paper presented at the 31st conference of the Japan
Association of English Linguistics and Literature, online.
Maeda, Masako (2010) “The Criterial Freezing Effect and Split A′-Movement,” English
Linguistics 27, 270-296.
Maeda, Masako (2014) Derivational Feature-based Relativized Minimality, Kyushu University
Press, Fukuoka.
Otsuka, Tomonori (2017) “On Two Ways of External Pair-Merge,” Proceedings of GLOW in Asia
XI, volume 2, 135-146.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of Left Periphery,” Elements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane
Haegeman, 281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Takizawa, Naohiro (2003) “SOV Word Order in Present day English: Its Basic Form and Extended
Forms,” The Rising Generation 149, 44-46.

Labeling and Selection: A Case Study of Wh-Associated Exactly
Maya Suzuki (Tohoku University)
This paper aims to account for the distribution of the wh-associated exactly,
integrating Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) Labeling Algorithm (LA) and the selection-basedlabeling strategy (Mizuguchi (2019)).
Chomsky proposes that LA operates as follows: when a set of {H, XP} is created, H
is selected as its label. In the case where a set of {XP, YP} is created, LA cannot determine
its label uniquely because Minimal Search (MS) locates two heads. To label {XP, YP},
two ways are proposed: one is that XP, for example, raises and becomes invisible to LA
through copy/chain formation. Then, the set can be labeled as the head of YP. The otheris that the prominent feature shared between XP[F] and YP[F] serves as the label of the set.
However, an XP-YP configuration exists where neither movement nor featuresharing helps its label to be determined uniquely. In (1a, b), the complements areinterpreted as an interrogative clause and a free relative, respectively, though they are
analyzed as a set of {whP, CP}. Thus, it should give rise to the case of labeling ambiguity
to be resolved somehow (see also Donati and Cecchetto (2011)).
(1) a. I’ll ask what he’s selling.
b. I’ll buy what he’s selling.
(McCawley (1998: 455))
To solve this problem, I incorporate Mizuguchi’s (2019) selection-based labeling strategy
into Chomsky’s LA. According to Mizuguchi, in {XP, YP}, either X or Y can be its label
because MS can detect the two heads and whether the labeled set is ruled in or out isdetermined at the Conceptual-Intentional interface (CI). The set of {whP, CP} in (1a) is
ruled in at CI only if it is labeled as C(P), or <Q, Q> in Chomsky’s notation because ask
selects an interrogative clause. Mizuguchi assumes selection to be the property of CI, so
if whP becomes the label, the verb’s selectional requirement is violated in (1a). On theother hand, the set in (1b) is ruled in at CI when the head of whP is selected as its label
because buy selects a nominal complement.
I propose that this strategy is also applied to the cases of the adverb phrase exactly
modifying a wh-phrase. Consider (2).
(2) a. What/which pretzel exactly did he sell for a million dollars? (Zyman (2022: 86))b. Muriel put what exactly on the table with great care?!
(Zyman (2022: 90))(2a) is schematically analyzed as in (3), where exactly is analyzed as AdvP and forms{whP, AdvP}.
(3) [<Q,Q> [α whP AdvP] C … [vP Subj [vP v [VP V [α whP AdvP]]]]]In (3), {whP, AdvP} can be labeled as either whP or AdvP. Then, if α is labeled as whP,
the verb’s selectional and C’s criterial requirements are satisfied at VP and CP,respectively. Moreover, the echo question in (2b) is derived if α stay in situ unlike in (3)and is labeled as whP to form a selectional relation with the verb.
Under the assumption that a copy created by movement is invisible to LA, thisanalysis predicts that exactly cannot be stranded by wh-movement at the complement
position. If it is stranded, the set of {whP, AdvP} is labeled as AdvP at VP, which thenresults in the violation of the verb’s selectional requirement at CI. The prediction is borneout by the example in (4a), where exactly occupies the complement position in between
the verb put and its locative complement. Interestingly, however, as shown in (4b), exactly
can appear to the left of the verb put. The derivation is given in (5), where the whole setof {whP, AdvP} is evacuated from VP to the edge of vP at which exactly is stranded by
wh-movement. Since no selectional requirement is imposed on the set at the vP edge
position, the set can be labeled as AdvP.
(4) a.*What did Muriel put exactly on the table with great care? (Zyman (2022: 90))b. What did Muriel exactly put on the table with great care? (Zyman (2022: 96))(5) [<Q,Q> whP C … [vP [AdvP whP AdvP] [vP Subj [vP v [VP V [whP whP AdvP]]]]]] (=(4b))
To account for the data at hand, Zyman (2022) proposes an analysis that makes useof the obligatory late adjunction of exactly. Then, he argues that (4a) is ungrammaticalbecause it is only after the wh-phrase moves out of VP that the adjunct exactly can beadjoined to the wh-phrase. Thus, it cannot be stranded within VP. However, his analysis
faces a problem. Consider the examples in (6), which involve anaphor binding.
(6) a.? I bought himi paintings near himselfi.
b.?Which paintings near himselfi did you buy himi?
The example in (6a) shows that the indirect object him binds himself within VP. Then,
Zyman’s analysis predicts that when the direct object moves, the adjunct cannot bereconstructed within VP because the adjunct near himself is obligatorily late-merged.
However, this is not borne out, as shown in (6b). Himself must be interpreted within VP
so as to be bound by him.
This paper shows that the distribution of the wh-associated exactly can be explainedin terms of labeling through selection. Furthermore, there is no need to assume Late
Merge, which is essential to Zyman’s analysis but is against the Strong Minimalist Thesis.
Selected References: Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33–
49. / Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection: Extensions,” Structures, Strategies
and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia
Hamann and Simona Matteini, 3–16, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. / Mizuguchi, Manabu(2019) “Ambiguous Labeling and Full Interpretation,” Studia Linguistica 73, 563-603. /Zyman, Erik (2022) “Phase-Constrained Obligatory Late Adjunction,” Syntax 25, 84-121.

The Right Sides of Japanese Sentences with Resultatives
Kaori Furuya
University of North Texas
This paper examines the nature of Japanese right-dislocation constructions (RDCs). While a biclausal analysis has been proposed (e.g. Kuno 1987, Tanaka 2001, Takita 2011), this analysis posesa question to (1A, B), which include accusative-marked DPs and resultative predicatespostverbally.
(1)

A: Taro-wa[e] nut-ta-no kabe-onani iro-ni.
Taro-TOP
painted-Q wall-ACC what color-in‘Did Taro paint [e]? What color did he paint the wall?’‘What color did Taro paint the wall?’
B: Taro-wa [e]nut-ta-yo
kabe-oakaku.
Taro-TOP
painted-PRT wall-ACC red‘Taro painted [e]. He painted the wall red.’‘Taro painted the fall red.’(1A, B) are missing the objects preverbally with DPs and resultatives postverbally. Both RDCs
can yield two interpretations with and without a pause between the verbs and the postverbal DPs(besides different tones). With a noticeable pause, the postverbal elements are taken as
afterthoughts added later, and the preverbal element is pro, consistent with the bi-clausal analysis.
Interestingly, the RDCs without a pause can yield mono-clausal interpretations (Simon 1989). In
this case, the postverbal elements are interpreted as parts of the single clauses, not as secondary
pieces of information added later. This mono-clausal interpretation of the RDC without a pause ispossible even when the adjectival resultative alone occurs postverbally in (2).
(2)

Taro-wa kabe-onut-ta-yo
Taro-TOP wall-ACC painted-PRT‘Taro painted the fall red.’akaku.
red

The mono-clausal interpretations of RDCs challenge to the bi-clausal analysis of Japanese RDCs.
Moreover, the preverbal null elements in (1A, B) cannot be accounted for. Particularly, in (1A),
the preverbal null element cannot be pro since it cannot corefer with the postverbal wh-word.
Following Hasegawa (2001), I assume (3) for Japanese resultative constructions.
(3) …[VP[VP DP Resultative] V]

Under the assumption that the verb is overtly raised to T (Sato & Hayashi 2018), I propose(4) for RDCs with mono-clausal interpretations, where VP undergoes rightward movement whilethe verb is overtly raised to T. This analysis explains the mono-clausal interpretations of (1) and(2), the identification of the preverbal null categories as tracse of the moved elements and thecorrect word orders.
(4)[S … ti Verb ] [VP (DP-Acci) Resultative tv ]i
To support the present mono-clausal analysis, I present three arguments. The first argument
comes from the interpretation of the preverbal null element in (5), where the preverbal overt
pronoun cannot co-refer with the combination of the DP and resultative, unlike the null element.

(5) Taro-wa [e]i/*sorei
nut-ta-yo
Taro-TOPitpainted-PRT‘(Intended) Taro painted the fall red.’[kabe-oakaku]i.
wall-ACC red

The impossible coreference by the overt pronoun indicates that the preverbal null element is not acovert pronominal element. Under the present analysis, the preverbal element is a trace of the
postverbal element VP, and thus it is successfully accounted for.
The second argument for the current analysis involves a Condition C effect in the RDC
that involves the resultative constructions postverbally (6a) (Kageyama and Shin 2022), for which
I propose the schema (6b).
(6)

a. *Mary-ga karei-ni [e] nobasaseta-yo, [Johni-no
karada]-o massuguni.
Mary-Nom him-for
stretch-made-Prt John-Gen body-Acc
straight'Mary made himi stretched [e], Johni’s body straight.'(Adapted from Abe 1999)
b. [Pronouni [ tk Verb]] [VP Namei-NP Resultative tV]k(6a) shows a violation of Condition C once the preverbal pronoun corefers with the name within
the postverbal DP. Note that the ungrammaticality of (6a) cannot be accounted for in the bi-clausal
analysis since the construction yield a mono-clausal interpretation. What is also significant here isthat the violation should not be observed in the bi-clausal analysis since the postverbal element
should be located at a higher position than the pronoun in the bi-clausal construction.
Moreover, the resultative predicate of the spurious resultative construction (Washio 1997),
which is analyzed as an adjunct (e.g. Takamine 2007, Kageyama and Shin 2022), can appear
postverbally in (7).
(7)

Taro-gakutuhimo-omusunda, [VP kataku].
Taro-Nom shoe.lace-Acc tie.past
tight‘Taro tied his shoelaces tight’

Under the general assumption that an adjunct does not move (Reeve & Hick 2017), I suggest thatthe postverbal adverb occurs in VP and results from rightward movement of VP, in favor of thecurrent analysis.
The present paper analyzes Japanese RDCs with resultative constructions postverbally andshows the existence of two interpretations (see (1) and (2). It demonstrates that some constructions
involve rightward movement of VP and thus that the uniform treatment of RDCs in the bi-analysis
is on the right track. It also offers a further support of the string-vacuous verbal movement inJapanese.
Selected references:
Sato, Y. & Hayashi, S. 2018. String-Vacuous Head Movement in Japanese: New Evidence fromVerb-Echo Answers. Syntax 21.1, 72-90.
Hasegawa, N. 2001. Resultatives and language variations: Result phrases and VV compounds. In
Mineharu Nakayama and Charles J. Quinn, Jr. (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 9, 269–
282. Stanford: CSLI Publications. (799)The Unique Scope Property of Japanese Negative Imperatives
Kiato Ozawa
Aichi Prefectural University
Introduction This study deals with the structure of Japanese negative imperatives. It isobserved by Shibata (2015) a.o. that the Japanese focus particle dake ‘only’ obligatorily takes
wide scope w.r.t. negation nai in declaratives as in (1). However, in negative imperatives, scope
ambiguity of dake w.r.t. the negative imperative morpheme na arises as in (2):(1) Taroo-dake ko-nakat-ta.
Taro-only come-NEG-PAST‘Everyone other than Taro came.’(dake > nai)
‘There was someone other than Taro who came, and Taro came.’(*nai > dake)(2) Taroo-dake ku-ru-na!
Taro-only come-PRES-NEG‘Taro is prohibited from coming, but everyone except Taro is not.’(dake > na)‘It is prohibited that Taro comes alone.’(na > dake)
The Main Claim The present study claims that the structure of Japanese negative imperative
differs from that of negative declaratives in that na is base-generated higher than T. The claim
immediately explains the wide scope reading of negation in (2), which is unavailable innegative declaratives as in (1). It also assumes that the other reading in (2) arises from optional
movement of a focused element across na, but we will not go into details in this presentation.
The Derivations of Negative Declaratives and Imperatives Shibata (2015) proposes that nai
is located between TP and vP, and all elements in vP must(3)
TPmove above nai for reasons of the morphological merger-dake
T’
as in (3). He claims that the scopal behavior of dake in
NegP
vP
NP

T
Neg

v’
VP

v

declaratives can be captured by the copy theory and Fox’s(2003) Trace Conversion. This operation targets a lower
copy of movement and converts it into the equivalent oftrace by inserting a variable into a lower copy andreplacing a determiner with the. Following Rooth (1985),
Shibata (2015) assumes that dake is adjoined outside of adeterminer. Given this, if dake is adjoined at a lower copy,

it cannot be the target of determiner replacement. This
results in dake being interpreted twice at the higher and lower copies and leads to improperinterpretation. To avoid this, Shibata (2015) argues acyclic insertion of dake to the higher copy
and the unavailability of the reconstruction of dake below nai. This results in obligatory wide
scope of dake w.r.t. nai in negative declaratives. Let us turn to negative imperatives. When thereading is na > dake, na must be able to c-command dake. One aspect remains to be explained:
there are two possible ways to locate na above dake in order to capture scope ambiguity innegative imperatives. That is, (i) na is base-generated at the same position as nai, and then it
1

optionally moves above T via head movement. (ii) na is base-generated above T, and the scope
ambiguity arises from optional movement of elements across na, followed by the late insertionof dake to the moved elements. This study rejects the former analysis and claims that the latteris the way to be pursued.
Argument against the HM Analysis The argument against the HM analysis comes from themorpheme order within a negative imperative verb. As (2) shows, the order of morphemes isverb-tense-na. On the relation between morphology and syntax, Baker (1985) proposes the
Mirror Principle, which states that ‘the morphological ordering known via the morpheme ordermust match the syntax.’ Concretely speaking, if affix A precedes affix B within a word, asyntactic process which adds affix A to a root must precede that of affix B. If na moves above
T via head movement, because it is roll-up movement, na forms a complex head with T on theway to the final landing site, and then the order between na and T is fixed in accordance with
the Mirror Principle. Given that na is generated at the same position as nai, the Mirror Principle
wrongly requires that the morphemes within a negative imperative verb should be ordered asverb-na-tense, because the merge of nai with a verb precedes that of T. Therefore, if na is
generated at the same position as nai, HM cannot derive the correct morpheme order as in (4a).
Moreover, even if na skips T and goes directly above T, such movement is excluded since it
violates the Head Movement Constraint (Travis 1984) as in (4b). Because na cannot move
above T via HM, the na > dake reading is unavailable in the HM analysis.
(4) a.
TPCPb.
C (wrong order)
na-T

T’
NegP
vP

CP
TP

C
na

T’

T

NegP

Neg

vP

T
Neg

(HMC violation)

Argument for the Base-generation analysis If na is base-generated above T, the order ofmorphemes within a verb can be derived correctly. In addition, because na is base-generated
above T in this structure, it can take scope over dake when an element to which dake is adjoined
optionally remains within TP. Consequently, the na > dake reading becomes available. In
contrast, the dake > na reading derives when an element optionally moves above na followedby acyclic insertion of dake to the moved element. Considering these arguments, the basegeneration analysis outweighs the HM analysis. Therefore, this study claims that na is locatedhigher than T, and that it is base-generated there.
Conclusion This study argues that the structure of Japanese negative imperatives is different
from negative declaratives in that na is base-generated above T, and that the configuration
captures ambiguities between na and dake. Furthermore, the structure fits the order ofmorphemes within negative imperative verbs in which na precedes tense.
Selected References Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation.
Linguistic Inquiry. Fox, D. 2003. On logical form. In Minimalist Syntax. Shibata, Y. 2015.
Negative structure and object movement in Japanese. JEAL.
2