Turning Over a New Leaf in English Language Learning
Maria C A. Cervantes
Mie National University Graduate School of Engineering
Abstract
Prior to the present English courses at the graduate school of engineering which the engineeringresearch students take as compulsory subjects, they already have studied the English subject for
twelve years from the 5th grade onto their respective undergraduate courses. Notwithstanding
their exposure to English for the described length of period and in spite of the attendance ofEnglish native speakers team-teaching with JTEs (Japanese Teachers of English) until theirsenior high school year, there is a clear deficit displayed by the students in their knowledge ofunderstanding of even the most common of idiomatic expressions whenever these are used in theclass.The goal of every engineering graduate student is understood to be able to undertake
presentations of their researches, especially before international settings. However, the fact thatthey cannot understand , let alone, recognize idiomatic expressions is indicative of the possiblelack or absence of idioms as a learning content in their years of language learning resulting in a
generally memorized presentation, and the failure to interact with fellow participants.The
following research questions are submitted: 1.) Should the study of idiomatic expressions becomea teaching/learning content from junior high school to aid in developing an enduring language
learning fluency? 2.) Do junior high school JTEs perceive the need to include idioms as acontent in language learning? Idioms are groups of words with a meaning of its own that isdifferent from the meaning of each separate word put together.(New Webster Dictionary,1993).Idioms are a colorful and fascinating aspect of English; they are commonly used in all
types of languages, informal and formal, spoken and written. (Cambridge Idioms Dictionary.
2010) Understanding and using idioms altogether is known to increase the ability of a second
language learner’s speaking skills akin to those of the native speakers. Sounding natural by being
able to communicate and understand the way they do, ensures a successful communication.
Since idiomatic expressions are so frequently encountered in both spoken and written discourse,
they require special attention in language programs and should not be relegated to a position of
secondary importance in the curriculum (Cooper, 1998).
Methodology
A pre-idioms lesson survey was conducted to 44 engineering graduate students from four
different classes before the start of the introduction of the topic course on idiomatic
expressions.Forty common idioms were selected and the 11-13 students composing each classwere divided into groups of three, comprising a total of 4 groups.Every group was assigned a listof 10 corresponding idioms to report on. During the course of reporting , the instructor
consistently gave supplemental explanations to further illustrate different situations where theidioms can be applied. After four meetings on the idioms topic, the students were given a threeset evaluation test, each set bearing a different type of test. A post-idioms survey questionnaire
was then distributed after the third evaluation test. Furthermore, 12 JTEs from 12 different JHS
out of the total 20 in Tsu City with English teaching experience of 5 to over 30 years and each aslead English teacher participated in a two-part open and close-ended survey. The first part of 8questions was aimed at establishing the teaching background and experience, the second part of
10 questions was to gauge their perception of idioms and their willingness to include that as acontent in teaching.
50

40

Yes

38

No

30

25

20

13

10

0

Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10

Table 1. Pre - Idioms Lesson Survey0

Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10

Table 2. Post - Idioms Lesson Survey

Results
Table 1 showed Q5-63% of students said idioms was not taught in JHS, Q9-93.18% wants tolearn idioms, and Q10-93.18% believes their English comprehension will improve if they learn
about the topic. Meanwhile, Table 2 yielded Q1-95% understanding what an idiom is andQ2-82.92% being able to explain that in their own words, but students still cannot confirm
whether or not it was idioms they learned in JHS Q4-53.66%; Q9-97.5% believes that idioms
should be a learning content of every English program for students and Q10-100% believes
learning idioms will have a great impact on their comprehension of English. The JTEs
demonstrated mixed responses of enthusiasm and indifference to the subject matter of including
idioms in their English lessons.4 answered ‘yes,’ when asked whether it will help the students
acquire better English skills if idioms were a content while 4 replied, they ‘think so,’ and the rest
did not comment; 9-yes, 1-no, 1-yes/no, on whether they think learning idioms will help in
becoming a better English speaker. 9 teachers answered positively when asked if they are willingto teach idioms by themselves and the same teachers responded similarly on their willingness toteach with ALTs. Finally, 6 JTEs approximated the success rate of integrating idioms in the
English curriculum for JHS to be 2,5,6,7,8,8, in a scale of 1-10, and yielded ‘no,’ from the six
other JTEs.
Conclusion / Recommendation
Engineering graduate students have validated the importance of learning idioms and desiring for
it to be taught beginning from JHS thus aiding in developing a life-long or an enduring language
learning fluency. While JTEs perceive the need for idioms in English language learning, and areaware of the importance their role as language teachers play to realize its inclusion , they are
reluctant to implement that in their English teaching. It is incumbent upon the education board to
revolutionize its existing English curriculum and cognizant of MEXT’s English Education
Reform Plan, must undertake all means to give adequate training and support for this purpose inorder that JTEs will become motivated and proactive towards the goal of turning over a new leaf
in English language learning as essentially imperative in the modern globalization.
REFERENCES: Cacciari, Cristina, and Tabossi Patrizia. 1993.Idioms:Processing,Structure, and Interpretation. Lawrence Eribaum

Associates:Hillsdale,NJ.;Cooper, Thomas.(2008).Teaching Idioms.American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 31,2,(255-262).Wiley Online Library; Lightbown, Patsy M & Spada, Nina. 2013.How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press:UK;
Nation,I.S.P.2001.Learning Vocabulary in Another Language.Cambridge University Press:Cambridge; Print-out of MEXT Japan English
Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization.

Japanese right-dislocation constructions with adverbials
Kaori Furuya
University of North Texas
This paper examines Japanese right-dislocation constructions (RDCs) with adverbs
postverbally and provides new arguments for the mono-clausal analysis. What has not (tomy knowledge) been observed before in the literature on Japanese RDCs is that adverbs
can be postposed together with Case-marked DPs, as shown (1).
(1) Any news?
[e] kita-yo, tabun
John(-ga).
came-PRT tabun
John-NOM‘Probably, John came.’‘Someone came; probably John came.’(1) yields a mono- and a bi-clausal interpretation. The former is possible when no pause isinserted after the verb (Simon 1989) whereas the latter is clear if a noticeable pause exists
after the verb along with the sloppy reading of the null subject (Saito 2007). This poseschallenges to the prevailing bi-clausal analysis and a uniform treatment of the construction.
This paper argues for the mono-clausal analysis of Japanese RDCs with new arguments.
The bi-clausal analysis adopts the perspective that a RDC consists of two identicalclauses in (2) (e.g. Tanaka 2001, Takita 2011, Abe 1999, 2019).
(2) [S1 … proi / [e]Augment Ellipsis…] [S2 Adv DP-NOMi [ ti ] ](2) contains pro or Argument Ellipsis (AE) in S1, associated with the postverbal DP in S2.
(2) fails to explain the mono-clausal interpretation of (1) since pro cannot include themeaning of the adverb. Note that Takita’s (2014) mono-clausal analysis with basegeneration also cannot explain the RDC in question since it is unlikely that the adverb andDP postverbally function as topics together or separately even when the DP is Caseless.
Alternatively, provided that the verb is overtly raised to C (Sato & Hayashi 2018),
I suggest the mono-clausal analysis with TP movement in (3).
(3) [CP … ti Verb] [TP Adv(-sika) DP-NOMi tv ]i
When the verb is raised to C, TP undergoes rightward movement. The analysis correctly
explains the word order and the mono-clausal interpretation of (1). Significantly, thepreverbal null element is a trace of TP, and thus it evidently includes the adverbial meaning.
The proposed analysis makes an interesting prediction. Merchant (2001, 2013)
and Chung (2006) observe that sluicing in English (an instance of TP ellipsis) disallows
active–passive voice mismatches between the antecedent clause and the sluice in (4).
(4) *Someone shot Ben, but I don’t know by who(m)i [TP Ben was shot ti ].

(Merchant 2001:35)
Merchant (2001) attributes the ungrammaticality to a voice mismatch between Bens in theobject position and the subject position as a violation of the syntactic identity constraint. If
a trace is a copy of the movement element, as is standardly assumed, Japanese RDCs withmono-clausal interpretations that are likewise derived through TP-ellipsis are expected toprohibit voice mismatches with antecedent clauses. This predication is borne out in (5).
(5) Did your department hire John this year?
a. *[e] Yatowareta-yo, kotosi
John-ga.
was.hired-PRT this year John-NOM
Intended: ‘Yes, John was hired this year.’b. [e] Yatoimasita-yo, kotosi
watasi-no gakubu-ga
hired-PRT
this year my-GEN
department-NOM‘Yes, my department hired John.’

John-o.
John-ACC

The ungrammaticality in (5a) shows that the construction does not tolerate voicemismatches between Johns in the RDC and its antecedent clause in the given context, as
opposed to (5b) without a mismatch (cf. Sugisaki 2014), in favor of the proposed analysis.
The other argument comes from RDCs with postverbal adverbial clauses in (6).
(6) I heard that Taro quitted the company. Is this true?
a. [e] yameta-n-janai-yo, [munou-da-kara
Taro-wa sono kaisya-o].
quit-NMLZ-COP.NEG-PRT incompetent-COP-because Taro-TOP the company-ACC‘It is not because he was incompetent that Taro quit the company.’b. Taro-wa sono kaisya-oyameta-n-janai-yo,[munou-da-kara].
Taro-TOP the company-ACC quit-NMLZ-COP.NEG-PRT incompetent-COP-because‘It is not that Taro quit his job; because he was incompetent.’
Postverbally, (6a) has an adverbial clause and a DP whereas (6b) only involves theadverbial clause. (6a) is true under the situation where Taro quit the company. Thus, theadverbial is under the scope of the negation. In contrast, (6b) is true if Taro did not quit thecompany. The adverbial is not under the scope of the negation. In the proposed analysis,
the preverbal null element in (6a) is a trace of the moved TP in a mono-clausal analysis.
This paper examines Japanese RDCs with adverbs and DPs postverbally and offers
new arguments for the mono-clausal analysis, combined with movement of TP. Thisconclusion has significant implications. It suggests that right-dislocation is not a uniform
phenomenon. It may also be derived via movement in a single sentence. The proposedargument also lends support to V-T-C movement in overt syntax for Japanese (Sato andHayashi 2018).
Selected references: Abe, J. 2019. Two types of Japanese right dislocation under the biclausal analysis. Proceeding of WAFL. Sato, Y. and Hayashi, S.2018. String-Vacuous
Head Movement in Japanese: New Evidence from Verb-Echo Answers. Syntax 21.1, 7290.

Short-Distance Movement in That-Relative Clauses
Takashi Ikeda
Aichi Prefectural University

In this talk I will claim that a functional head F takes a head nominal as its
complement, then moves upward to Spec,CP in short-distance movement in athat-relative clause (RC).
To begin with, I introduce two types of derivations regarding RCs. The first is
the raising analysis (Schachter 1973), where the head nominal is base-generated inside
the RC, then moved out of the RC. The second is the head external analysis (Chomsky1977). In this case, the head nominal is assumed to be base-generated inside the matrix
clause. In the following derivation, a wh-operator moves overtly to Spec,CP. According
to Aound and Li (2003), that-RCs derive in the raising analysis while wh-RCs do in thehead external analysis. These two different derivations explain why the idiomatic andanaphoric reading are possible only in that-RCs as in (1) and (2).
(1) The headway that/??which Mel made was impressive.
(2) The picture of himselfi that/*which Johni painted in art class is impressive.
Aound and Li (2003:110,111)
In (1), headway has to occupy the argument position of the verb made to obtain theidiomatic reading. Although the head nominal of that-RCs moves from the argument
position inside the RC to its surface position, that of wh-RC never moves from its
base-generated position in the matrix clause. Consequently, the contrast emerges. (2) is
explained in the same manner, where the picture of himself is c-commanded by its
antecedent John only in the derivation of the that-RC.
Also, Aound and Li (2003) show data regarding RCs derived via long-distancemovement of the head nominal. Examine the sentences below:(3) We admired the picture of himselfi that/*which Mary thinks Johni painted in art
class is impressive.
(4) The picture of hisi mother that/*?which Mary thought that everyi student painted inart class is impressive.
Aound and Li (2003:112,113)
In (3) and (4), each head nominal of the picture of himself and the picture of his motheris required to be c-commanded by its antecedent. These examples indicate that
long-distance movement is available in that-RCs.
Nonetheless, that-RCs containing idiomatic expressions in long-distanceenvironments draw a contradictory argument. Consider the following sentence:(5) The beans that John thinks(thought) that Mary spilled caused a scandal.
Assuming the raising analysis, (5) is expected to have an idiomatic reading meaning ‘totell somebody something secret’ ;however, this does not hold. An analogous example inJapanese also shows the same phenomenon. First, examine the sentence below:

(6) Sono eiga-wa [Mary-ga watatta] abunai
hasi-omigotoni saigensita.
that movie-Top-Nom crossed dangerous bridge-Acc elegantly reconstructed“(Lit.) That movie elegantly reconstructed the dangerous bridge Mary crossed”
Morita (2013:649)(6) involves an idiom ‘abunai hashi-wo wataru’ meaning ‘to make a risky attempt’. The
availability of the idiomatic reading in (6) shows that Japanese RCs are also derived
through movement. Next, examine the RC in the long-distance environment.
(7) Sono eiga-wa John-ga [Mary-ga watatta] toomotta abunai hasi-othat movie-Top-Nom-Nom crossed COMP thought dangerous bridge-Acc
migotoni saigensita.
elegantly reconstructed“(Lit.) That movie elegantly reconstructed the dangerous bridge that John thought
Mary crossed”
The idiomatic reading disappears in (7). In both (5) and (7), the idiomatic reading is
obtained when Mary thinks(thought) and John-ga …to omotta are omitted.
With the examples (5) and (7) in mind, I stipulate that a functional head F withtwo edge features first takes the head nominal as its complement, then moves upward toSpec,CP, leaving a copy of the head nominal. The structure can be described as follows:(8) [FP F [NP NP(DP)]]
According to Chomsky (2000), a selector or a probe projects. Thus, when the headnominal moves to Spec,CP, the functional head F projects, which results inshort-distance movement of the head nominal. This explains why the idiomatic reading
disappears in long-distance RCs. Furthermore, this provides a simple derivation ofshort-distance that-RCs without motivating unattested movement such as sideward
movement (Henderson 2007).
Regarding other examples of long-distance that-RCs such as (5) and (6), they
imply that FP neither cooccurs with treflexive pronouns nor bound pronouns because FP
motivates short-distance movement. Therefore, I suppose that those pronouns arederived as head nominals without FP, and move upward, leaving a variable, not a copy.
The absence of a copy leads to a different interpretation of head nominals at LF, which
contrasts with that-RCs containing idiomatic expressions.
[Selected References] Aoun, J. and. Li, Y.-H. A. (2003). Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar. Mass: MIT Press;
Henderson, B. (2007). Matching and Raising Lingua 117(1), 202-220; Chomsky, N.(1977) On Wh-Movement. In P. Culicover, T.Wasow, andA.Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax 71-132. New York: Academic Press; Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step,
89-155. Mass: MIT Press; Morita, H. (2013). Optional Movements Derive Japanese Relative Clauses. US-China Foreign Language 2013, Vol.11,
645-658; Schachter, P. (1973). Focus and Relativization. Language 49, 19-46.

Two Types of Germanic Suffixes Forming Relational Adjectives in English
a, b
Takashi Ishida, aYuri Togano, and cRyohei NayaaDoctoral Programme in Literature and Linguistics, University of Tsukubab
JSPS Research Fellow, cUniversity of Tsukuba
1. Introduction
Spencer and Nikolaeva’s (S&N) recent series of studies on nominal modification reveal the fact that
Relational Adjectives (RAs), a type of denominal adjective, divide into two groups according to whether
they concern either derivation or inflexion (S&N (2017), N&S (2019)). The current study points out thatthe denominal adjectives containing -en behave differently from speaker to speaker and deals with thequestion of why such behaviour is observed. We answer the question by considering the properties of -en
as a Germanic suffix and its diachronic change that accompanies the transition of English from a synthetic
language to an analytic language. These factors crucially determine whether an RA is derivation-type or
inflexion-type in English morphology.
2. Two Types of RAs and Adjectives with -en
A strong test that S&N propose for the classification of RAs is whether a given word shows the Base Noun
Modifiability Property. In the case of a canonical derivative, its base word cannot be modified by anadjective; in trusted friendless, trusted cannot modify friend, so fails to mean ‘lack of trusted friends’.
However, in inflected words, the base (or stem) can be modified by an adjective; in trusted friends, trusted
successfully modifies the lexeme friend. Applying this test to RAs, S&N show that they can be classified
into derivative-type or inflected word-type adjectives. For example, high in (1a) cannot modify the basenoun tide of tidal and the expression does not mean ‘fluctuations in/at high tide’ but ‘high fluctuations in
the tide’. On the other hand, blue in (1b) can modify eye, yielding the meaning of ‘a boy who has blueeyes’. This shows that al-adjectives belong to derivative-type and ed-adjectives to inflected word-type.
(1)

a.
b.

high tidal fluctuations
blue-eyed boy* ‘fluctuations in/at high tide’‘a boy who has blue eyes’(N&S (2019: 291))(Spencer (2018: 266))

According to Spencer (2018), denominal adjectives with -en behave in the same way as those with
-al in terms of the Base Noun Modifiability Property; in (2), Brazilian cannot modify wood and only theinterpretation in (2a) is available.
(2)

a Brazilian wooden bowa.
‘a wood bow made in Brazil’b.
‘a bow made of Brazilian wood’(Spencer (2018: 267))

Interestingly, however, our survey shows that, depending on the speaker, the (2b)-interpretation is also
possible. This means that the morphological status of en-adjectives varies among speakers; for those who

1are interpreting (2) only as (2a), the adjectives are derivative-type while for those who allow the (2b)interpretation, they are inflected word-type.
3. Analysis
Then, why is -en different from other suffixes in that it functions as a derivational suffix like -al in somespeakers but -ed in others? We argue that the suffix -en attaching to nouns can originally play a role atthe inflectional level but due to the diachronic change in English its role is replaced (though not completely)
by derivational morphology.
3.1. The Origins of the Suffixes
First, let us consider why -en, as well as -ed, can be used at the inflectional level. What groups -en with-ed and distinguishes the two from -al is their origins; while -al is a Latinate suffix, -en and -ed originate
in Old English (OE). Importantly, S&N’s (2017) observation suggests that languages that typically haveRAs of inflected word-type are agglutinative, for example, and rich in inflectional devices. Given that
OE was also an inflexion-rich language and -en and -ed are inherited from OE, it is natural that they would
both maintain their inflectional roles for nouns in some speakers of Present-day English. On the other
hand, Latinate suffixes including -al are used only in derivation, thus fail to be inflectional endings. An
indication of the inflectional status of -en can be found in south-western dialects of British English, where-en is still productive to many nouns (e.g. glassen, papern, steelen, tinnen) (Oxford English Dictionary;
OED). Thus, the inflected word-like behaviour of the RA wooden in (2) can be attributed to -en, which
is a remnant of OE.
3.2. The Loss of Inflectional Suffixes and the Status of -en
The above consideration also explains why -en is no longer an inflexion-level element for some speakers.
The OED states that en-adjectives have been discarded for the attributive use of the noun (e.g. a golden
watch vs. a gold watch). This can be considered as a part of the diachronic change of English, where
many inflectional elements have been disposed of. Accordingly, the role of -en is changing and has begun
to acquire the status of a derivational suffix for nouns. Speakers who only accept the (2a)-interpretation
have this type of -en. The inconsistent behaviour of en-adjectives reflects the transition of -en from an
inflectional to a derivational element.
References
Nikolaeva, Irina and Andrew Spencer (2019) Mixed Categories: The Morphosyntax of Noun Modification,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
OED: Oxford English Dictionary on-line. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/
Spencer, Andrew (2018) “Review Article: Lexical Structures: Compounding and the Modules ofGrammar, by Heinz J. Giegerich, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2015,” Word Structure11(2), 254–276.
Spencer, Andrew and Irina Nikolaeva (2017) “Denominal Adjectives as Mixed Categories,” Word
Structure 10(1), 79–99.

2

【Cancelled】
A Discussion of Grammatical Indeterminacy from a Pedagogical Perspective
Lee, KyoungNam(Kangwon National University, Korea)
This research explores the problem of grammatical indeterminacy in explaining
grammar to English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. In EFL situations, grammar
tends to be recognized as a set of strict and rigid rules, which often causes
confusion and frustration to nonnative speakers who are faced with exceptions orcomplicated cases. If grammar is posited as a combination of form, meaning, anduse, as suggested in Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), rather than only as
an area of form, the concepts of gradience (the degree of distance from a prototype)and flexibility interconnected with lexis and grammar will be more readily accepted.
In this case, the problem of grammatical indeterminacy will not weaken their
theoretical framework of linguistics but contribute to reinforcing learners’ cognitive
power in contemplating various linguistic factors operating in grammar.
For this purpose, the criteria necessary to solve grammatical indeterminacy will
be probed. First, case studies of selected lexical verbs, adjectives and adverbs fromthe 1,000 academic words with the highest-ranking frequency from the Corpus ofContemporary American English (COCA) are examined. In the case of verbs, Hanks’Pattern Dictionary of English Verbs is also referred to. Then, the following questions
are investigated in terms of meaning, position, and optionality: 1) In what respects
do multiple meanings of a word influence grammar? 2) What semantic factors
should be considered in respect to word positions? and 3) What determines
optional or obligatory elements in a sentence?
With regard to position, for example, the underlined words of the following
sentences belong to the adverb category and their positions are flexible. In
structural terms, they are treated as adjuncts, but their meanings and grammaticalroles differ according to their positions.
A. a. Tom once dated Mary. (at some unspecified period of time in the past)b. Tom dated Mary once. (frequency)

B. a. Really, the public does not have much choice in the matter.
(disjunct of value judgment type)b. She is really an intelligent child. (subjunct of predication)c. She has a really beautiful face. (emphasizer of beautiful)d. I really will slug you. (intensifying will; intention)Thus, this study reveals some limitations when we deal with grammar only interms of form/structure. Also, it highlights the interconnection between form,
meaning, and use in order to widen EFL learners’ grammatical perspective andimprove their linguistic intuition, in that the grammar of a word in isolation isindeterminable.
References
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berk, L. M. (1999). English syntax: From word to discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Heinle &Heinle Publishers.
Corpus of Contemporary American English. Retrieved Oct. 17, 2019, from http://www.academicwords.info
Hanks, P. Pattern dictionary of English verbs. University of Wolverrhampton. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2019. From
http://pdev.org.uk
Hanks, P., & Pustejovsky, J. (2005). A pattern dictionary for natural language processing. Revue Francaise deLangue Appliquée, 10(2), 1-7.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: A corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics,

19(1), 45-72.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
Essex: Longman Group Ltd.

English Manner-of-Motion Verbs in Transitive Constructions
Kotaro MAEDA
The University of Tokyo
English manner-of-motion verbs, as well as change-of-state verbs like break, appear in both
intransitive and transitive constructions.
(1)

a.
b.

The ball rolled down the hill.
Bill rolled the ball down the hill. (Levin, 1993, p. 265)

(2)

a.
b.

The mouse ran through the maze.
We ran the mouse through the maze. (Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 1995, p. 111)

(3)

a.
b.

The cup broke.
Janet broke the cup. (Levin, 1993, p. 29)

We classify three types of verbs here: roll verbs for verbs which display the behavior in (1)(e.g., bounce, slide), run verbs for verbs which display the behavior in (2) (e.g., jump, march),and break verbs for verbs which display the behavior in (3).
Comparing these three types of verbs, this study (i) emphasizes the similarity between rollverbs and run verbs, (ii) proposes that transitive constructions with these three types of verbs
describe two types of events, ‘physically caused’ ones, which all of them can describe, and‘mentally caused’ ones, which only roll and run verbs can describe, and (iii) claims that the
crucial difference between roll verbs and run verbs is the “complexity” of manner of action.
Previous studies tended to analyze (1) and (3) as instances of the same inchoative/causative
alternation, while treating the alternation in (2) differently. Certainly, roll verbs are similar toverbs like break, but not to run verbs in selectional restriction on subject.
(4)

a.
b.
c.

The man/the stick/the wind rolled the ball.
The vandals/the rocks/the storm broke the windows. (L&RH, p. 103)
*The downpour/*the tear gas marched the soldiers to the tents. (ibid., p. 112)

Roll verbs, however, behave similarly to run verbs in the following ways. First, roll verbs andrun verbs entail neither change of state nor change of location, contrary to break verbs. This
characteristic allows an explanation of the difference in telicity between the two types.
(5)

(6)

a.
b.

Taro bounced the ball for two minutes, but it was in the same location.
Hanako ran the radio-controlled car for two minutes, but it was in the same
location.
*Taro broke the vase, but it was still completely intact.

Second, transitive constructions of roll verbs and run verbs can describe ‘physically caused’
events, defined in (7), and ‘mentally caused’ ones, defined in (8). Admittedly, run verbs havea slight difficulty with physically caused events because of the “complexity” of manner, as will
be described below. Generally, break verbs describe only physically caused events.
(7)

Physically caused events are one type of causal event, in which one entity’s“physical” action on the other entity causes a change of state/location of that entity.

1

(8)

Mentally caused evens are one type of causal event, in which one animate entity’s“mental” inducement toward the other animate entity causes a change ofstate/location of that entity.

(9)

a.
b.

(10) a.
b.

The father slid his daughter to the other side of the skating rink.
The general rolled the soldiers down the hill during a rigorous training session.
The mother jumped her sleeping baby on the chair.
The jailer ran a prisoner to the gate.

As for roll verbs, a physical causation interpretation is dominant. This is exemplified in (9a),where the father causes his daughter to skate, perhaps by pushing her body or pulling her hands.
In some contexts, however, a mental causation interpretation is possible, as in (9b), where thegeneral merely orders the soldiers to roll down the hill. As for run verbs, conversely, a mental
causation interpretation is dominant, as exemplified in (10b). In some contexts, however, aphysical causation interpretation is possible, as in (10a), where the mother causes her sleeping
baby to jump on the chair, for example, by lifting his body.
Although there are similarities between roll verbs and run verbs, there is a difference in thecomplexity of manner of action. The physical action of “running” is more complex than thatof “rolling,” due to which almost all physical and solid objects can “roll” while objects that can“run” are very restricted. Such a complex event is hard to bring about physically, so theinterpretation of mental causation is dominant. As an anonymous reviewer points out, not all
run verbs can appear in transitive constructions, as below.
(11) a.
b.

Laura *ambled/*bounded her friend to her door.
Laura marched/walked her friend to her door. (Tenny, 1995, p. 211)

This difficulty some run verbs show can also be attributed to the complexity of manner ofaction. Nevertheless, in some contexts, run verbs can describe physically caused events like(5b) and (10a). Because of this complexity, it is necessary for a causer to be able to bring aboutsuch an intricate manner of action in a causee. As a result, it is difficult for inanimate entities
to be a causer, exemplified in (4c).
Although the complexity of their manner of action is different, which I claim results in the
difference of their selectional restriction on subject and of dominant interpretation, we
conclude that as a whole, roll verbs and run verbs behave in the same way in transitive
constructions.
References
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B., and M Rappaport H. (1992). The lexical semantics of verb of motion: The
perspective from unaccusativity. In I Rocca (Ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar,(pp. 247-269). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levin, B., & M Rappaport H. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tenny, C. L. (1995). Modularity in thematic versus aspectual licensing: Path and moved
objects in motion verbs. Canadian journal of linguistics/Revue Canadienne de linguistique,40 (2), 201-234.

2

The Future Reference with Must:from the Viewpoints of Futurates and Veridicality
Naoki Makihara
Graduate Student, Osaka University
Introduction: Must has ambiguity, epistemic (1-a) or root (1-b). In the literature, it has beenreported that with epistemic must, the time of the situation described by the prejacent must bepresent or past, and when referring to a future situation, must has only the root interpretation(2). In other words, epistemic must cannot be used for future reference (cf. Lakoﬀ (1972),
Huddleston and Pullum (2002), and many others). Westney (1995) points out, however, thatin some cases, epistemic must is used to refer to a future situation (3). As to when must canbe used epistemically, this paper gives a unified analysis that can handle cases such as (3) interms of futurates and veridicality.
Futurates and Future Reference with Must: In English, the simple present tense form candescribe future situations; so-called futurates (cf. Huddleston (1977)). Huddleston and Pullum (2002) propose a pragmatic constraint on futurates, ‘the clause must involve somethingthat can be assumed to be known already in the present’(ibid:132). Likewise, Copley (2008)
argues that futurates need plans, that is, scheduled events, and that plans need a director,
the entity who is in the position to make a plan. According to her analysis, (4-a) is natural
because we can assume the existence of a director, but (4-b) is not because there is no planfor the result of the tomorrow’s game. With this in mind, let us look at (3), whose prejacent
expresses a scheduled event, the plane’s arrival. I claim that future reference with epistemic
must is possible if the described situation is scheduled (5). This claim is supported by (4)and (6). (4-a) expresses a plan, so futurates can be used and the use of epistemic must isalso licensed (6-a) while in (6-b) it is not licensed because the futurate interpretation is notlicensed in the prejacent (4-b).
Veridicality and Epistemic Interpretation: With epistemic must, the event time of theprejacent must generally be present or past. But why? Furthermore, how can we unify thisproperty with the futurate examples? To answer these questions, we focus on veridicality.
According to Giannakidou and Mari (2018), veridicality is the semantic property of propositional operators, and the continuation ‘but I am not entirely sure’ is a diagnostic for veridicality(7). When a sentence accepts such continuation, the sentence has a nonveridical operator,
while the operator is veridical when the continuation is not accepted. According to this test,
future (FUT) is nonveridical (8-a), while past (PAST) and present (PRES) are veridical (8-b).
I suppose that futurates have their unique temporal operators, FUTURATE (F-op, for short).
As in (9), futurates do not accept the continuation, so F-op is veridical. I claim that epistemic
must requires its prejacent to be veridical. Turning to examples so far, (1)’s prejacent has
PRES, which is veridical, so an epistemic interpretation can arise, while that of (2) cannot
because its prejacent has FUT, which is non-veridical. Furthermore, when the constraint on
futurates is satisfied, epistemic must can be used because futurates have a veridical operator.
The representations of (6-a) and (6-b) are (10-a) and (10-b) respectively. (6-a)’s prejacent
has F-op, which is veridical, so an epistemic interpretation of must is licensed, while that of1

(6-b) is not because its prejacent has non-veridical operator. In this way, we have the semantic
condition of epistemic must (11).
(1)

John must be in the library now.
a. It is necessary that John is in the library.
b. John is forced to be in the library.

[epistemic][root](2)

John must be in the library tomorrow.

[only root](3)

The plane must land in a few minutes.

(Westney (1995:143-144))(4)

a. The Carp play the Tigers tomorrow.
b. #The Carp win the Tigers tomorrow.

(5)

Future reference with epistemic must is possible with futurates.

(6)

a. The Carp must play the Tigers tomorrow.
b. #The Carp mustepi win the Tigers tomorrow.

(7)

Veridicality of temporal operators:
A temporal function F is veridical if ‘Fp, but I’m not entirely sure’ is unacceptable.

(8)

a.
b.

(9)

The Carp play the Tigers tomorrow, #but I am not entirely sure.

(10)

a.
b.

(11)

Epistemic must requires the tense of its prejacent to be veridical.

He will be home, but I am not entirely sure.
[FUT: nonveridical]
He is / was at home, #but I am not entirely sure.
[PAST, PRES: veridical](adapted from Giannakidou and Mari (2018:19))[F-op: veridical]

MUST(F-op(the carp play the Tigers tomorrow))
MUST(FUT(the carp win the Tigers tomorrow))

Selected References: Copley, Bridget. 2008. The Plan’s the Thing: Deconstructing Futurate Meanings. Linguistic Inquiry 39(2) / Giannakidou, Anastasia and Alda Mari. 2018.
Veridicality in Grammar and Thought: Modality, Propositional Attitudes and Negation /Huddleston, Rodney. 1977. The Futurate Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4) / Huddleston,Rodney and Geoﬀrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language/ Lakoﬀ, Robin. 1972. The Pragmatics of Modality. Chicago Linguistic Society 8 / Westney, Paul. 1995. Modals and Periphrastics in English: An Investigation into the Semantic
Correspondence between Certain English Modal Verbs and their Periphrastic Equivalents

2

Nominative Objects and Scope in JapaneseNozomi Moritake
Graduate School of Kyushu University
We discuss the derivation of the Nominative object in Japanese. In transitive sentences, theobject usually receives Accusative Case o, whereas it can receive Nominative Case ga if the predicate
is stative (cf. Kuno (1973)).
(1) a.

John-wa

migite-o/ga

age-rare-ru.

John-TOP right.hand-ACC/NOM raise-can-PRES‘John can raise his right hand.’Previous Analysis: Following Takezawa’s (1987) claim that Nominative Case is associated with T,
Koizumi (1994) proposes that the Nominative object is licensed by T via spec-head agreement. This
derivation is exemplified succinctly in (2). (Irrelevant points are omitted.)(2)[CP [TP Subji Objj-NOM [vP ti [VP tj V] v] T] C].

Problem with Koizumi (1994): His analysis forces all objects to move to Spec-TP to receive
Nominative Case. However, the data in (3) suggests that his theory is insufficient. In (3), kao-o-das‘visit someone’s house’ is an idiom. When the stative suffix (rar)e- ‘can’ is attached to this, either
Nominative or Accusative Case on kao ‘face’ can be realized, as shown in (3).
(3) a.

Zikan-ga

na-katta-ga,

John-wa

isoideoba-no-ie-ni

kao-o/ga-das-e-ta.

time-NOM not-PAST-but, John-TOP hurriedly aunt-GEN-house-to face-ACC/NOM-visitcan-PAST.
‘While he does not have much time, John can visit aunt’s house in a hurry.’
In (3), the adverb isoide ‘hurriedly’ modifies the verb so that it is adjoined to vP. Oba-no-ie-ni ‘to anaunt’s house’ is an argument related to location. Following Murasugi (1991) and Yatsushiro (1999),
such an argument is situated in VP. Given these points, we can safely argue that the Nominative object
in (3) is located in VP, contradicting Koizumi’s (1994) analysis.
Proposal: We propose that Nominative Case in Japanese is licensed at two positions: one is at SpecTP, and the other within vP. Note that phase heads C and v in Japanese transmit Case-feature to T and
V, respectively (cf. Miyagawa (2011)). Moreover, Case-marking takes place in spec-head relation (cf.
Bošković (2007)). Miyagawa (1989) argues that the stative suffix (rar)e- ‘can’ can absorb Accusative
Case from the verb. Considering these analyses, v becomes an inert head for Case licensing when thestative suffix is attached to it. However, the object must have Case to satisfy Case Filter (Chomsky(1981)). We thus adopt Aoyagi’s (2006) proposal here that DP is marked as Nominative by default inthat case. The structures in (1) with -o and -ga will be reflected in (4a) and (4b), respectively.
(4) a.
b.

[CP [TP Johni-wa [vP [VP [vP ti [VP migite-o age V] v] rare V] v] ru T] C]. (ACC-pattern)[CP [TP Johni-wa [vP ti [VP migite-ga age V] [v-rare v]] ru T] C]. (NOM-pattern)Furthermore, we will argue that as Koizumi (1994) posits, T is responsible for assigning nondefault Nominative Case. The Nominative object receives the focus interpretation in that case.
Koizumi (1994) notes that the focused Nominative object takes scope over negation and potential
suffix, but the focused Accusative object cannot take scope over both elements. The data in (5) imply
that the former is located at a higher position than the latter.
(5)

John-ga

migime-dake-o/gatumur-e-na-i.

(Koizumi 1994: 221/222)

John-NOM right.eye-only-ACC/NOM close-can-NEG-PRES‘John cannot close only his right eye.’ACC-pattern’s scope: NEG > can > only / NOM-pattern’s scope: only > NEG > can
Miyagawa (2010, 2013) proposes that the phase heads C and v in Japanese transmit topic/focusfeatures to T and V, respectively. Based on the discussion above, we claim that when Case-feature ofv is absorbed, focus must be activated at Spec-TP. The object receives Nominative Case at Spec-TP inthis case. By contrast, when DP has Accusative Case, it can be focused in vP. Due to this, a scope
discrepancy arises between the focused Nominative and focused Accusative object.
This proposal is supported by the data from Kumamoto Japanese (=KJ, which is spoken in thesouthwest part of Kyushu in Japan).
(6)John-wanihongo-ga/no

dekur-u. (KJ)

John-TOP Japanese-(ga)NOM/(no)NOM can-PRES‘John is capable of Japanese.’(7)John-wanihongo-dake-ga/*nodekur-u. (KJ)

John-TOP Japanese-only-(ga)NOM/*(no)NOM can-PRES‘John is capable of only Japanese.’
In KJ, Nominative Case is expressed not only by ga but also no. According to Kato (2007), DP withno-marked Nominative is within vP, while DP with ga-marked Nominative is outside vP. The examples
above imply that in standard Japanese, the default Nominative object corresponds to the no-marked
nominative object in KJ. Moreover, Nishioka (2019) argues that no-marked Nominative is an antifocus, as (7) shows. These data corroborate our argument that the object must move to Spec-TP toreceive Nominative Case when it is focused since, as the KJ data suggests, if the object receives thedefault Nominative Case, it is incompatible with focus.
Selected References: Kato, S. (2007) “Scrambling and the EPP in Japanese: From the Viewpoint of
the Kumamoto Dialect of Japanese,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55, 113-124. / Koizumi, M.
(1994) “Nominative Objects: The Role of TP in Japanese,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24,
211-230. / Miyagawa, S. (2013) “Strong Uniformity and Ga/No Conversion,” English Linguistics 30,
1-24. / Nishioka, N. (2019) “Discourse-configurationality and the Scope of Negation,” Nanzan
Linguistics 14, 25-55.

Extraposition as Late-merger or Agreement
Naoki Nakamura, Kazuyoshi Ishikawa & Shohei Nagata (University of Tsukuba)
1. Introduction
Fox and Nissenbaum’s (1999, F&N henceforth) attractive extension of two types of leftward movement
to rightward movement correctly captures some complement/adjunct asymmetries in Extraposition fromobject. The former derives via (i) A’-movement and the latter via (ii) covert syntactic movement (Quantifier
Raising: QR) + late-merger (cf. Lebeaux (1977)). Our talk aims at a further extension and elaboration of
F&N’s theory of the two types of permutational operation targeting right edges in terms of Extraposition fromsubject. In particular, we focus on the extraposition of adjunct PP. It has been traditionally observed that a PP
adjunct can be extraposed “costlessly” only from an indefinite and unaccusative subject (Johnson (1985),
Guéron (1980), Guéron and May (1984)).
(1) a.

[A book] came out [by Obama].

(Indefinite unaccusative subject)b. * [The book] came out [by Obama].

(Definite unaccusative subject)c. * [A student] ran in the schoolyard [with blue hair].

(Indefinite unergative subject)d. * [The student] ran in the schoolyard [with blue hair].

(Definite unergative subject)

However, it has been observed that the ungrammatical sentences in (1b–d) improve when the extraposedconstituents have a contrastive interpretation (Huck and Na (1990); Reeve and Hicks (2017), CAPITALs
indicate contrastive focus):(2)a.

[A book tPP] came out [PP by OBAMA] (, not TRUMP).

b.

[The book tPP] came out [PP by OBAMA] (, not TRUMP).

c.

[A student tPP] ran in the schoolyard [PP with BLUE hair] (, not with BROWN hair).

d. [The student tPP] ran in the schoolyard [PP with BLUE hair] (, not with BROWN hair).
The fact that contrastiveness rescues the degraded cases (1b–d) is theoretically problematic insofar as
we assume all the acceptable cases above derive from a unique operation. Instead, we argue that (1a) and (2bd) fall under F&N’s two types of operations. More precisely, as for the former, an extraposed PP is generated
via late-merger, and as for the latter, the subject as a whole A’-moves rightward to a certain specifier position(i.e., Spec-Head Agreement).
2. Proposal
Based on the fact that “costless” Extraposition attaches to a V-domain, as demonstrated by the licensingof NPI in (3) (Nakajima (1989:105)), we assume that the targeting site of QR and the following late-merger
is a VP rather than a TP or a vP (cf. Hunter (2014)):(3)[TP [Books]i [T′ weren’t [VP [VP published [NP ti tj]] [by anyone unknown]j]]]Note that this assumption straightforwardly captures the fact that only an indefinite unaccusative subject

such as (1a) can undergo Extraposition “costlessly,” because QR normally targets quantifiers and it is only anunaccusative subject that “raises” to a VP (cf. Burzio (1986)). Then, such a QRed NP late-merges with an
adjunct PP. The derivational steps are illustrated in (4a) (t stands for an unpronounced copy). As for the othercases (2b–d), which are apparently rescued by contrastive focus, the structure in (4b) is pertinent. The pointis that such subjects cannot QR to a VP due to the lack of the qualification for QR (i.e., definiteness orunergativity), and thus cannot undergo movement until they occupy Spec TP. Furthermore, we propose thistype of movement does not target a PP but a whole DP, with scattered deletion in virtue of the requirement of
PF-interface (Nunes (2004)). Consider the structure in (4b) (we tentatively assume the landing site in question
to be a Foc(us)P):(4) a. indefinite unaccusative subject

b. the others (e.g., indefinite unergative subject)

TP

FocP

T

DP i

v

A bookA'-movementvP

A-movement

DP i

VP
by Obama

DP ia student with blue hairvPT

A student with blue hair

VP

came out t iTPA-movement

Q R+Late -me rger

3. Supportive Evidence

v'

ti
v

VP
ran in the schoolyard

Our proposal entails that an extraposed PP via (4a) is base-generated due to late-merger, and thus thatsuch a PP does not itself undergo any movement operation. Meanwhile, the structure (4b) exhibits A’movement of a DP as a whole to the right periphery. This operational distinction predicts the opposite behavior
in licensing parasitic gap, which serves as a diagnostic for A’-movement. Note that by hypothesis, although
the verb in (5b) is unaccusative, it cannot stem from step (4a) because a definite NP does not undergo QR.
Hence, (5b) must derive only from step (4b), unlike its indefinite counterpart (5a), leading to the different
behavior in parasitic gap. This prediction is born out:(5) a.
b.

A booki came out yesterday without revising {??PG / okiti} by Obama.
The booki came out yesterday without revising {okPG / ??iti} by OBAMA.

Furthermore, our proposal, extended from F&N, will shed light on the possibility of ordering suchphenomena as pseudo gapping (Takahashi (2004); cf. Johnson (2008)), multiple sluicing (Lasnik (2014)), andHeavy-NP Shift, which are analyzed as rightward movement because of the absence of certain leftward
movement properties.
Selected References
Fox, D and J. Nissenbaum (1999) “Extraposition and Scope: A Case for Overt QR,” Proceedings of the 18th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 132-144. / Guéron, J. (1980) “On the syntax and Semantics
of PP Extraposition,” Linguistic Inquiry 11(4), 637-678. / Huck, G. and Y. Na (1999) “Extraposition and
Focus,” Language 66, 51-77. / Johnson, K. (1985) A Case for Movement, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. /Nakajima, H. (1993) “Seisei-riron to Kanrensei-riron (Generative Theory and Relevance Theory),” Gengo
22, 104-110, Taishukan, Tokyo. / Reeve, M. and G. Hicks (2017) “Adjunct Extraposition: Base Generation
or Movement?,” Syntax 20(3), 215-248.

Deducing Transfer Domain from Labeling
Takanori Nakashima (Tohoku University)
Since Chomsky (2000, 2001), the notion of phase has played crucial roles in minimalist syntax.
Phase is a cycle of derivation in which a syntactic object (SO) is transferred to the interfaces.

To seehow derivation proceeds, consider the following structure for the CP phase of (I think) [CP that John
admires Mary].
(1)[α C [β Subj [γ T [δ tsubj [ε v …]]]]]

In (1), (i) C merges externally, (ii) the uninterpretable phi-feature (uPhi) on C gets inherited by T, (iii)β, the phase-head-complement (PHC) of C, undergoes Labeling, and (iv) β gets transferred to theinterfaces.

However, the question remains unanswered why the PHC β, not the phase α, undergoes

Transfer.

This article attempts to solve this long-standing puzzle.

Chomsky (2013, 2015) proposes a label of an SO is determined by Minimal Search (MS) to detectprominent heads.

On the basis of this, Epstein et al. (2018) claims that probe-goal relations are

replaced with MS for Labeling, and feature-valuation is carried out at the morpho-phonologicalcomponent.

Given an XP-YP structure with shared features F, MS for Labeling locates X with valued

features vF and Y with unvalued ones uF simultaneously, and the value of vF is copied onto uF at themorphological component, as a reflex of the MS.
With these assumptions in place, this article proposes to deduce the Transfer domain from (2).
(2)

Transfer the minimal SO containing eliminable -CI features.

-CI features are a subset of uninterpretable features: features that play no roles at the CI interface (i.e.,
uPhi on T and uCase on N, but not uQ on wh-phrases).

(2) dictates that once these features are

introduced to the derivation, it must be removed by Transfer, as far as it successfully undergoes featurevaluation.

With this much, consider how the derivation in (1) proceeds.

when C externally merges.

The uPhi is introduced

The minimal SO containing uPhi is C itself, but Transfer of C does not

qualify (2) owing to lack of an element assigning a value.

The next largest SO is α, but Transfer of

it cannot cause valuation of uPhi on C: since it is not an XP-YP structure with shared features, Subj
cannot value the uPhi on C as a reflex of MS for Labeling.
inherited by T.

Thus, to value the uPhi on C, it must get

Owing to Inheritance, T becomes the minimal SO containing uPhi.

Transfer of T

and Transfer of the next largest SO γ cannot eliminate the uPhi, but Transfer of β results in eliminationof the uPhi: MS locates the vPhi on Subj and the uPhi on T simultaneously, and valuation takes place
between them.

Thus, β qualifies as a Transfer domain.

The proposed system brings about welcome consequences.

First, it accounts for transparency of

non-finite clauses like (3).
(3) a.
b.

?*To whomj did you wonder whati they gave ti tj?
To whomj did you wonder whati to give ti tj?

(Cinque (1990: 52))

(3) shows that the wh-island violation is relaxed when the embedded clause is non-finite.
β in (1) does not qualify as a Transfer domain when C lacks uPhi.
domain owing to presence of uPhi.

Given (2),In (3a), β is counted as a Transfer

Then, to whom must be extracted to the embedded Spec-C, but it

is occupied by what, thereby causing the wh-island violation.
a Transfer domain since the infinitival C lacks uPhi.

In (3b), in contrast, β is not counted as

Then, to whom does not have to be extracted toSpec-C, and hence wh-island violation is not seen.
Second, the proposed system accounts for the bound pronoun effects (BPE).

Grano and Lasnik(2019) (G&L) observe that some clause-bounded constructions lose clause-boundedness when aclausal subject is replaced with a bound pronoun.
(4) a.
b.

(4) illustrates the BPE in the gapping construction.

*Mary claims that Jill likes oranges and [Ann <claims [that Jill likes> oranges]].
? Maryi claims that shei likes oranges and [Annj <claims [that shej likes> oranges]].
(Grano and Lasnik (2019: 466-467))

G&L try to account for this, proposing that (i) uF on the head of PHC (i.e., uPhi on T) keeps the CP
phase open, (ii) the CP phase is responsible for clause-boundedness, and (iii) a bound pronoun enters
the derivation without vPhi and receives it from a binder.

Given these assumptions, the embedded

CP in (4b) is counted as a phase since the uF on T undergoes deletion thanks to the vF on Jill, andhence the phasal CP blocks long-distance gapping.

In contrast, the embedded CP in (4c) is not aphase since the uF on T cannot be deleted owing to lack of vF on the bound pronoun she, thereby
permitting long-distance gapping.
holds.

G&L, however, do not give a principled explanation of why (i)The proposed system accounts for this: given (2), β in (1) does not qualify as a Transfer

domain when the uPhi on T is not eliminable as a reflex of MS for labeling.

Thus, the proposedsystem eliminates the stipulation in (i) by G&L, providing a principled explanation to the BPE.
References
Chomsky, Noam. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework,” Step by Step, ed. by R. Martin, D.
Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 98-155, MIT Press. / Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken
Hale: A Life in Language, ed. by M. Kenstowicz, 1-52, MIT Press. / Chomsky, Noam (2013)“Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49. / Chomsky, Noam (2015) “Problems of Projection:
Extensions,” Structures, Strategies and Beyond ed. by E. D. Domenico, C. Hamann and S. Matteini,
1-16, John Benjamims,. / Cinque, Guglielmo (1990) Types of A'-Dependencies, MIT Press. / Epstein,
Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, and T. Daniel Seely (2018) “A Simpler Solution to Two Problems
Revealed about the Composite-Operation Agree,” paper presented at the Japanese Society for
Language Sciences 20th Annual International Conference. / Grano, Thomas and Howard Lasnik “Howto Neutralize a Finite Clause Boundary: Phase Theory and the Grammar of Bound Pronouns,”
Linguistic Inquiry 49, 465-499.

A Comparative Study Between Japanese and American
Mother-Child Interactions During Joint Picture Book Reading
Moeko Ozaki
Keio University Graduate School of Letters
Language socialization is said to begin from the moment a child has social contact (Ochs &Schieffelin, 1986). Throughout childhood, children learn the culturally appropriate form ofcommunication from their caretakers. Extensive research has revealed that Japanese mothers areaffection-oriented and value interpersonal relationships while American mothers are informationoriented and respect independence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Clancy (1986) maintains thatJapanese mothers to 2-year-olds conduct empathy training by using declaratives instead of imperatives
to discipline their children (i.e. “I feel bad for the toy” instead of “Play with the toy gently”). However,there have only been a handful of studies that explain the process in which children are socialized inthis manner.
This paper addresses how children acquire their respective styles of communication in thecontext of joint picture book reading. Specifically, (1) Do Japanese mothers use more empathetic
expressions, and do American mothers use more informative expressions as indicated by previous
studies? (2) If so, what linguistic framings and conversational functions are employed to convey theirrespective conversation styles? (3) Is this consistent across all children’s age groups?
32 Japanese and 15 American mother-child dyads were observed reading The Very Hungry
Caterpillar to their children. 25 Japanese dyads and 9 American dyads consisted of children 2-11
months old (age group A), 7 Japanese dyads and 6 American dyads were 48-59 months old (age groupB). The influence of the participants’ demographics such as mother’s age, education, child’s sex, andhistory of reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar were considered with a multivariate analysis. Upontranscribing all utterances, all extratextual utterances were coded using MAXQDA. As codes based on
linguistic framing cater better to Western conversations, a focus on both frame and function isnecessary to fairly code all utterances (Crane and Fernald, 2016). As such, the codes for this study
were divided into two main categories, linguistic framing and conversational function. Linguistic
framing includes (but not limited to); Question (i.e. “Where’s the bird?” Tori-wa-doko?), Declarative(i.e. “That’s a bird.” Sore-wa-tori-dayo.), Imperative (i.e. “Read it.” Yon-de.), and Onomatopoeia (i.e.
“Nom-nom.” Amu-amu.). Conversational function includes (but not limited to); Feedback (i.e. “That’s
right!” Seikai!), expressing an assertion (i.e. “That’s a bird, right?” Sore-wa-tori-dane.),describing/asking the physical situation (i.e. “That’s green.” Midori-dane.), describing/asking theemotional situation (i.e. “He looks so sad.”Kanashiso-dane., “Ouch!” Itai-yo!) .
Analysis of the mean number of coded utterances revealed that Japanese mothers express
assertion and use onomatopoeias significantly more than Americans, which supports the standpoint ofprevious studies that Japanese mothers use more empathetic expressions (Japanese: M=0.66, English
A: M=0.17). It is of particular interest how and when mother’s start using such expressions. Japanesemothers increase the amount assertions from age group A to B (A: M=2.08; B: M=3.00), while
American mothers use a significantly small amount of assertions in the first place and even decreasethat to zero instances from age group A to B (A: M=0.11; B: M=0.00). However, the general amountof maternal utterances, usage of onomatopoeia, and descriptions of the emotional situation all decrease
from group A to B in the Japanese samples, whereas in American samples, they all increase.
Furthermore, no descriptions of emotional situations were found in American group A samples. These
results suggest that Japanese mothers socially condition their children to use empathetic language as
early as 2 months of age, and may regard their children to have acquired empathetic speaking by theage of four and therefore decrease the amount of scaffolding. This is further supported by the fact thata small number of Japanese children in age group B express assertions (B: M=0.14) while American
children do not express assertions at all. The rich amount of extra-textual information that Japanesemothers provide to their children in group A may be to make it is easier for the children to empathizewith their mother’s utterances.
Results also revealed that American mothers significantly ask more questions regarding thephysical situation for age group B compared to the Japanese mothers, which also aligns with previous
studies in that American mothers are information-oriented. In return to the mother’s questions,
American children describe the physical situation to their mothers and also provide more feedback totheir mothers compared to Japanese children which suggests that that American mothers value theexchange of information, and their children also comply with this social norm. At the same time, it
should be noted that Japanese children ask twice as many questions than American children. However,
20% of Japanese children’s questions are used to mirror their mother’s utterance (M=0.29) and 15%of their questions are used to ask their mother’s opinions while American children’s questions are allused to convey open-ended uncertainty about the physical situation. (M=1.17). This offers support for
the idea that children may acquire their respective cultural conversation styles by the age of four, andthus require less scaffolding from their mothers.
References
Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. New York, NY: World Publishing Co.
Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. B. Schieffelin and E.
Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 213-250). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crane, L. & Fernald, A. (2016). Cultivating American and Japanese-style relatedness through motherchild conversation. Discourse Processes, 54(4), 317-337.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, andmotivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15,
163- 191.

What defines Phases?
Yuya Sakumoto (Kyushu University)
The aim of this presentation is to clarify the conception of phases. More specifically, we deal withwhat defines phases. Extending Chomsky’s (2015) suggestion that unvalued features mark phases, we
argue that unvalued “phi features” constitute phases and show that this proposal is in fact borne out.
It has been argued by a number of researchers that infinitival constructions in English do notconstitute a phase (Grano and Lasnik (2018), Kanno (2008), Miyagawa (2011), Sugimoto (2016),
Wurmbrand (2013)). In the literature, Wh-island and Quantifier Raising (QR) are used for checking thephasehood of CP complements. It is well known that Wh-island effects can be voided if the embedded
clause is a non-finite clause as shown in (1a, b). Kanno (2008) and Grano and Lasnik (2018) argue that an
extraction from the Control Wh-island is possible because the CP of the Control complements does notconstitute phases and is not subject to the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC).
(1) a. ?Whati do you wonder howj to repair ti tj.?
(Lee (1996: 58))
b. *Whati do you wonder howj Mary repaired ti tj ?
(Manzini (1992: 51))
With regard to QR, since May (1977), it has been well known that QR is ‘clause-bounded’.
(2) Someone thinks that John loves everyone. (some > every, *every > some)(Takahashi (2010))
Under the phase theory, Cecchetto (2004), Miyagawa (2011), Takahashi (2010) and Wurmbrand (2013)
give an account for QR. They claim that QR is a syntactic movement which also obeys the PIC. Infinitival
complements such as Control, ECM and Raising constructions appear not to constitute phases as we cansee from (3)(3) a. At least one professor claims/tends to read every journal. (∀>∃)(Grano and Lasnik (2018: 467))
b. Someone expects Sue to marry every boy. (∀>∃)(Wurmbrand (2013: 278))
c. Someone seems to attend every class. (∀>∃)(Cecchetto (2004: 369))
Kanno (2008) provides an intriguing proposal that the presence of an “Agree feature” and Tense featureon CP makes CP a phase, while the absence of one or both of the two features makes it a non-phase. Under
his proposal, finite complements have both features, thereby constituting phases, while Control, ECM,
and Raising complements lack one or both features, hence leading to no phases. Therefore, his proposal
can explain the (non-)phasehood of all infinitival constructions in (1-3). However, the grammaticality of(4a, b) in the Control constructions in European Portuguese casts doubt on his analysis.
(4) a. O que (.que) perguntaste
como/quando arranjar?
what
wondered-you how/when
to-fix‘What did you wonder/ask how/when to fix?’(Eduardo, Raposo (p.c.))b. *O que (.que) perguntaste
como/quando arranjares?
what
wondered-you how/when
to-fix.2sg‘What did you wonder/ask how/when to fix’
(Eduardo, Raposo (p.c.))

(4a) is a non-inflected control, while (4b) is an inflected control ("arranjares" is the 2sg of the inflected
infinitive). A Wh-phrase can be extracted from the Wh-island in (4a) in contrast with (4b). This factsuggests that the Control complement in (4a) does not constitute a phase but the one in (4b) constitutes aphase. What is crucial here is that the only difference between (4a, b) is “Agree features” (phi feature) in
the Control complement. Since Kanno (2008) assumes that the presence of both “Agree feature” and Tensefeature is necessary for the phasehood and that Control complements do not have tense features, this factcannot be explained. In addition, his approach cannot be applied to for-DP-infinitives as shown in (5).
(5) a. A different student wanted to read every book. (∀>∃)(Johnson (2000: 199))
b. A different student wanted for you to read every book. (*∀>∃)(ibid.)
We propose an alternative analysis. Extending Chomsky’s (2015) suggestion, we argue thatunvalued phi features constitute a phase and show that this can explain (4a, b) and (5a b) as well as (1)(3).Under our proposal, the C in the Control complement in (4a) does not have an unvalued phi feature,
leading to no phase, while the one in (4b) has an unvalued phi feature, constituting a phase. As for (5b),
we argue that the C of the infinitival complement in (5b) has an unvalued phi feature, which is madeevident through the existence of DP in Spec TP. Therefore, we can correctly predict that the phasehoodof (5b) (cf. Wurmbrand (2013)).
Finally, we show that our analysis can be extended to adjunct island effects. In the literature, an
extraction from adjunct clauses has been shown to be impossible, which is called adjunct island. However,in a non-finite clause, there are cases where an extraction from adjunct clauses is possible as we can seein (7a, b), unlike (6a, b). This presentation assumes that adjunct island effects can be explained under the
PIC. Following Haegeman (2012), we assume that the edge of adjuncts cannot be used as an escape hatch
because of the existence of the temporal operator. In (6a, b), The Cs in the adjunct clause have an unvalued
phi feature, constituting a phase, so that the Wh-phrase cannot be extracted due to the PIC. On the other
hand, in (7a, b), the Cs in the adjunct clause (control and gerund) do not have any phi features; thus, nophases are constituted, and Wh-extraction is therefore possible.
(6) a. *Who did John go home [before he talked to t]?
b. *Who did John go home [after he talked to t]?
(Truswell (2011: 176)(7) a. What did you come round [to work on t ]?
b. Who did John get upset [after talking to t]?
(ibid.: 129))
Selected References.
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. / Kanno, Satoru (2008) “On the Phasehood and Nonphasehood of CP,” English Linguistics 25: 21-55. / Truswell, Robert (2011) Events, phrases andquestions, Oxford University Press, Oxford. / Wurmbrand, Susi (2013) “QR and selection: Covert
evidence for phasehood,” NELS 42, ed. Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett, 277-290.

How to License NPIs and PPIs in the Than-Clause
Across More Than- and Less Than-Comparatives
Norio Suzuki Kobe Shinwa Women’s University (former professor)
It is well-known that the than-clause of more than-comparative constructions CCs can license
negative polarity items NPIs and much recent semantic work has pointed to positive polarity
items PPIs also being licensed in this position. While not much attention has been paid toless than-CCs, it has been pointed out that the than-clause of less than-CCs is upwardentailing, with NPIs also occurring in this position. The aim of this paper is to explore
licensing(-like) properties of the than-clause across more than- & less than-CCs. We
specifically focus on possible appearances of positive & negative polarity items (PPIs, NPIs)
with varying acceptability in CC than-clauses. The analysis here is couched in Heim’s(2006a) CCs as generalized quantifiers over degrees approach to clausal comparatives, with
the internal argument specifying a finite set & the external argument not specifying such a set(based on Hornstein & Pietroski 2009).
Typical Examples to Account For We will see the following four cases with their varying
possibilities: i) an NPI in the than-clause of a more than-CC ((1a, b)); ii) a PPI in thethan-clause of a more than-CC ((1c)); iii) an NPI in the than-clause of a less than-CC ((1d,e)); & iv) a PPI in the than-clause of a less than-CC ((1f)):(1) a. Sarah was taller than anybody had expected.
b. Belinda is much richer than I will ever be. (NPI-licensing; Rullmann 1995: 64)
c. John is taller than some professional basketball players are. → John is taller thansome professional athletes are. (some as a PPI/‘upward entailing’; Giannakidou &Yoon (2017: 3)
d. Sarah was less tall than anybody had expected.
e. Belinda is less rich than I will ever be.
(NPI-licensing; Rullmann 1995: 80)
f. Fewer students danced than teachers sang a ballad. → Fewer students danced thanteachers sang. (‘upward-entailing’; Rullmann 1995: 79, note 4)
Assumptions &Analysis The standard of comparison contributed by the than-clauseprovides a finite set/interval of degrees, informationally being a discourse-given topic ofsome sort ((2ai), ii)). I take “-er/less (= -er+little)” as the heads of the CCs taking two
arguments (2bi), ii)); based on Heim 2006a,b; also Morzycki 2016):(2) a. i) Mary is taller than John is. (with Mary being 180cm & John 170cm)ii) John is less tall than Mary is.
b. i) [[ -er [INTERNAL than John is]] [EXTERNAL Mary is tall-(er e) [e]]]Mary’s height: (0 ~ 180cm), John’s height: (0 ~ 170cm)ii) [[less=-er+little [INTERNAL than Mary is]] [EXTERNAL John is (less=er+little e) tall [e]]]Mary’s height: (180cm ~ ∞), John’s height: (170cm ~ ∞)The focus of the CC in (2ai)) is the existence of some degrees of Mary’s height surpassing the1

set of all such degrees of John’s height.

The focus of the CC in (2aii)) is the existence ofsome degrees of John’s height falling below the set of all such degrees of Mary’s height.
And see the following requirements for licensing of NPIs & PPIs:(3) a. NPI-licensing requires the presence of some finite set/interval of degrees.
b. PPI-licensing requires the presence of some set/interval of degrees.
I take the licensing requirements (3a, b) to be the baselines to account for the unmarked statusof NPI-licensing in the than-clause of more than-CCs ((1a, b)) and PPI-licensing in thethan-clause of less than-CCs ((1f)). Let us see the marked cases of PPI-licensing in thethan-clause of more than-CCs ((1c)) & NPI-licensing in the than-clause of less than-CCs ((1d,e)):(4) a. John is taller than some professional basketball players are. → John is taller thanb.

some professional athletes are. (= (1c))
John is taller than max (λd. Ǝx[tall (x, d) ˄ [things-less-tall-than-John ∩professional-basketball-players] (x)])

The requirement in (4b) is that there be a non-null intersection of a (finite) set ofheight-degrees less than John’s height and set of professional basketball players (in any
height). I assume that upward-entailing computation is implemented independently ofcomparative interpretation. Look at (5) before getting on to (1d):(5) Lucinda is driving less fast [than [is allowed on this highway]. (Heim 2006b, 35 (1))
Suppose that the posted speed limit is 65mph (65mph ~ ∞) and the posted minimum speed
40mph (40mph ~ ∞). Given the finite speed interval of 40 ~ 65 mph obtained from theabove two points of speed, we get the two readings: (i) “less-than-max” => < 65mph; & (ii)“less-than-min” => < 40mph (Heim 2006b).
(6) a. Sarah was less tall than anybody had expected. (= (1d); with Sarah being 150cm)
b. Sarah’s height: (150cm ~ ∞)c. Sarah was less tall than max/min ((anybody-had-expected) (M) ˄ λd. Ǝx[tall (x, d) ˄
Sarah (x)])
For the purposes of the requirement (3a), we need a finite set/interval of degrees of Sarah’s
height for the than-clause. Suppose then that Sarah’s heights a la anybody-had-expected
are: min: 160cm ~ ∞ & max: 170cm ~ ∞, leading to a finite set/interval of height degrees:
160cm ~ 170cm. Then in this case as well, we get two interpretations: i) Sarah’s actual
height < min: 160cm, & ii) Sarah’s actual height < max: 170cm.
References

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar./ Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Suwon

Yoon. 2017. Rethinking negative polarity and free choice in comparatives./ Heim, Irene. 2006a.
Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers./ Heim, Irene. 2006b. Little. SALT 16./
Hornstein, Norbert, and Paul Pietroski. 2009. Basic operations: Minimal syntax-semantics./ Morzycki,
Marcin. 2016. Modification./ Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of whconstructions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
2

A Unified Account of Mad Magazine Sentences and Non-canonical Types of How Come
Construction in English
Takahiro Tamada
Ryoichi Kondo
Kogakkan University
Hirosaki University
Mad Magazine Sentences (henceforth, MMs) like (1) are similar to the non-canonicaltype of How Come Construction (henceforth, HCC) in (2) in that their subjects are accusative.
(1)
What! Her call me up?! Never.
(Akmajian (1984: 3))(2)“How come him to mention me at all?”(COHA,1932,FIC,Store)
The sentence in (2) is different from the canonical type of HCC like (3), where there is an
inflected form of verb, preceded by the nominative subject.
(3)
How come John left?
(Collins (1991: 32))
Kondo and Tamada (2019) suggest that, unlike in the case of the canonical type of HCC in (3),where come is base generated in C in accordance with Late Merge Principle (Gelderen (2004,2011)), come is an inflected form of lexical verb moving to the CP domain in the following
variant of the canonical type of HCC.
(4)
how came he to have such daughters?
(COHA,1846,FIC,ElinorWyllysVolume1)
The similarity between (2) and (4) in word order would lead us to assume that come is alexical verb in (2), though these examples are different in that only in (4) is come inflected.
This paper tries to account for the similarity between (1) and (2) and the difference
between (2) and (4). Chomsky (2008) argues that T inherits φ-features and tense featurefrom C and attracts the subject to the specifier of TP to value and delete its case feature.
Under the analysis, the nominative case is assigned to the subject through the establishment ofan Agree relation in φ-features. Extending Chomsky’s (2008) analysis, this paper proposesthat C is merged without φ-features and tense feature, and so T cannot inherit any featuresfrom C in MMs, in which the subject is not assigned any kind of case, so that it is realized as
an accusative form, the default case form (cf. Schütze (1997) and Osawa (2011)). Along thisline, the MM in (1) is derived as in (5).
(5)[CP her C [TP T [vP ther [V+v call] [VP tV me up]]]]
In (5), since T cannot inherit φ-features and tense feature from C, the relevant affixes cannot
be created to attach to a lexical verb, and an Agree relation cannot be established between thesubject and T. Thus, the subject is assigned an accusative case as the default case.
Akmaijian (1984) observes that the subject of MMs must be stressed. This leads us toassume that her undergoes focalization, moving from its original position to the left peripheryof CP.
The present analysis is immediately extended to the non-canonical type of HCC in (2), as
shown in (6).
(6)[CP how C [TP T [vP [V+v come] [VP tV him [to mention me at all]] thow]]]
In (6), since come is an unaccusative verb, him is merged as an internal argument. The lackof φ-features in T forces the subject to be accusative and stay in its original position. Given
that wh-movement is an instance of focalization, it is how that undergo focalization to move

to Spec-CP in such sentences, but not the subject him. The present analysis can account forthe presence of the non-canonical type of HCC in (7).
(7)
How come that he knows so much about the yacht?
(COHA,1950,FIC,LoveHonor)
The sentence in (7) can be interpreted to be the it-less variant of the following sentence,
analyzed as having the same kind of structure as the sentence in (4).
(8)
How comes it that those ruins have not, in part, accumulated?
(COHA,1836,NF,StPierresStudies / Kondo and Tamada (2019))
Along the line of the present analysis, the sentence in (7) is derived as in (9).
(9)[CP how C [TP T [vP [V+v come] [VP tV [CP that …]]] thow]]
Given that the expletive it is inserted to satisfy the EPP, which is rephrased as the requirementof merger or movement for deleting the relevant features, the absence of it immediately
follows from the present analysis, under which C is merged without the relevant feature
which is inherited by T.
References
Akmajian, Adrian (1984) “Sentence Types and the Form-Function Fit,” Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 2, 1-23.
Collins, Chris (1991) “Why and How Come,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 31-45.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in
Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa
Zubizarreta, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gelderen, Elly van (2004) Grammaticalization as Economy, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Gelderen, Elly van (2011) The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kondo, Ryoichi and Takahiro Tamada (2019) “On the Origin and Development of How Come
Constructions in the History of English,” paper presented in the 37th Conference of the
English Linguistic Society of Japan.
Osawa, Satoko (2011) “The EPP and Mad Magazine Sentences,” IVY 44, 19-36.
Schütze, Carson T (1997) Infl in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case, Licensing,
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
CorpusThe Corpus of Historical American English 1810-2009 (COHA), Brigham Young University, U.S.A.
(Mark Davies).

On the Functional Differences in Optional Subject Auxiliary Inversions
Kazuhiro TOKUNAGA
Graduate Student, Osaka University
1. Aim. Optional subject-auxiliary inversions (SAI) can be observed in than- and asclauses. This research aims to show that when SAI applies to these clauses with personalpronoun subjects, as-clauses in manner use (e.g. …, as are we) have a different function
from scalar comparisons (e.g. …than was I / …as eccentric as was she).
2. Problem. Most researchers have argued that the weight and focus of an inverted
subject NP in these clauses are two major factors in this optional SAI. Very little research,however, has been done on why optional SAI tends to be applied to as-clauses in manner
use when personal pronouns appear as the subject, unlike scalar comparisons. There is ahighly uneven distribution of data of SAIs of as-clauses in manner use and scalarcomparisons with personal pronoun subjects, as Table 1 shows:
Table 1. Distribution of three SAI constructions with personal pronouns*
Clause Types[1] Non_SAI[2] SAI

Total

ratio of [1] and [2][A] as-clauses [manner]

164

55

219

75% / 25%

[B] as…as construction

4278

10

4288

99.8% / 0.2%

[C] than-clauses

5266

2

5268

99.9% / 0.03%*Source: The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)
In Table 1, the ratio of SAI in Types [B] and [C] are vanishingly low, almost non-existent;on the contrary, that of SAI in Type [A] accounts for 25 percent. This raises the questionof why the distribution differs dramatically between [A] and the other clauses.
The purpose here is to demonstrate that as-clauses in Type [A] are clauses that are
independent from the main clause, and being an adjunct may contribute to serving aunique discourse function; on the contrary, scalar comparisons as in Types [B] and [C]are used only to show the standard of comparison, and do not serve the same function as
as-clauses in Type [A].
3. Syntactic Difference and Disparity of Function. Huddleston and Pullum (2002:654) argue that the bracketed PPs in (1) are complements, but (2) only contains an adjunctclause:(1) a. Kim is as tall [as Pat].
b. Kim is taller [than Pat].
(Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 654)
(2) He was a devout Catholic, [as were ___ both his brothers].
(Ibid.: 1148)
In light of the syntactic difference, let us consider the following instances. VP deletion
applies optionally to Types [B] and [C] clauses, but not to a Type [A] clause:(3) I am as severely handicapped as {you are / you}. [B] (Quirk et al. 1985: 1137)(4) He’s bigger than {I am / I}.
[C](Ibid.: 661)

(5) Sandy loved linguistics, as {they / we / she / he / you / I} {did / *φ}. [A]This difference in deletion suggests that Types [B] and [C] do not require specification of
VPs in than- and as-clauses, because the deleted VPs can be understood from the mainclauses, and their function is simply to present the standard of comparison in comparative
clauses.
In contrast, the as-clause in (5) needs an auxiliary. This implies that Type [A]clauses serve as an adjunct clause to introduce a similar event to a main clause. In otherwords, a sentence with a Type [A] clause can be regarded as a sentence including two
events (or propositions). This would cause Type [A] clauses to have a unique function.
Of particular relevance here is “topic-promoting function,” and this discourse function
can be observed clearly, especially when personal pronouns, to which inversion does not
usually apply, are inverted. Tokunaga (to be published) statistically proves that SAI in
type [A] as-clauses with personal pronouns tend to introduce the inverted subject as anoun with a highly topical grammatical case (i.e. nominative or accusative) in thesubsequent context, and can contribute to topic persistence. For instance in (6), thepostposed personal pronoun I appears as a discourse topic from the immediately
following sentence (S1) to the third one (S3) (emphasis added):(6) [S1] Nominative (N) → [S2] N → [S3] (omitted but identical) N…, as have I. [S1] If I can order an airline ticket …, why can’t I do the same withtheater tickets? [S2] And, yes, I did go to the box office and [S3] buy the tickets
for $15 less!
(COCA: News)
Topic persistence in (6) can be attributed to the function of Type [A] as-clauses tointroduce a similar event to that of the main clause. In fact, as for Type [B] and [C] clauses
with personal pronouns, there is no data of SAI serving the same function as the as-clausein (6) in COCA. Both clauses are basically used to set the standard of comparison. They
do not have any specific function concerning a topic of the following discourse. (Theobservation holds even when proper nouns are used as the subjects of the inverted
constructions of [B] and [C].)In conclusion, optional SAIs in as-clauses can be categorized into two types: (i) one
that shows the standard of comparison, and (ii) the other that describes a similar event to
the main clause. Despite their same syntactic forms, Type [B] as-clauses behave in thesame way as than-clauses, unlike as-clauses in manner use, which can serve a “topicpromoting function.”
Selected References:
Biber, D. et al. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Pearson
Education Limited, Harlow. / Huddleston R. and G. K. Pullum (2002) The Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. / Quirk, R.
et al. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, London. /Tokunaga, K. (to be published) “Zuiiteki na Shugo Jyodoushi Touchi ga Tekiyousareta
as Setsu no Bunmyakuteki Kinou to Sono Tokucho – Touchi Gensho to Bunmyakuteki
Kinou no Interface –” Studies in Pragmatics 21.

On the Distribution of the Genitive Case Marker in the Manchu Language
Shao-Ge Wang and Hideki Maki
Gifu University
1. Introduction
This paper investigates the distribution of the genitive case marker in Manchu, a Tungusic
language spoken in Manchuria, and elucidates the mechanism behind it. We owe all examples
used in this paper to Shuo Wang, an instructor of Manchu at Hebei Normal University for
Nationalities. There are no existent monolingual speakers of the language, but some 100 people
are bilingual of Manchu and Chinese, and there are some 1,000 people who are not bilingual ofthese, but can read, write, speak and translate Manchu, one of whom is Shuo Wang. Ourfindings are as follows. First, the genitive subject is allowed in Manchu. Second, in sentenceswith no overt relative head, headed by tala ‘until,’ for example, the genitive subject isdisallowed. Third, the Transitivity Restriction does not hold. Fourth, the genitive subject isdisallowed in embedded clauses. Fifth and finally, N´-deletion is impossible. It will be argued
that these findings suggest (i) that Manchu and Japanese partially differ in the distribution of
the genitive case marker, (ii) that the distribution of the genitive case marker in Manchu is moreor less identical to that of the Yanbian variety of Korean, and (iii) that the conditions on genitive
subject licensing in Mongolian proposed by Maki et al (2016) apply not only to Mongolian, butalso to Japanese, the Yanbian variety of Korean and Manchu.
2. Background
This section provides basic syntactic properties of Manchu as background to subsequent
sections. First, Manchu is an SOV language.
(1)
Jangsan’-øLiisy’-be saixaha.
Zhangsan -Nom Lisi-Acc praised‘Zhangsan praised Lisi.’
Second, the genitive case marker is -i in Manchu.
(2)
Jangsan’-i
bitheZhangsan-Gen book
‘Zhangsan’s book’
Third, a relative clause precedes the head noun in Manchu.
(3)[SikseJangsan’-iudaha] bithe-oci ere bithe inu.
yesterday Zhangsan-Gen bought book-Top this book be‘The book Zhangsan bought yesterday is this book.’
3. Data
Let us now examine relevant data in Manchu. First, Manchu is a head-final language, anda relative clause precedes the head nominal, as shown in (3) and (4).
(4)[SikseJangsan-i
injebuhe] baita baita
inu.
yesterday Zhangsan-Gen laughedfact
problem be‘The fact that Zhangsan laughed yesterday is a problem.’Second, in sentences with no overt relative head, headed by tala ‘until,’ for example, thegenitive subject is not allowed.
(5) * Aga-i
naka-tala, Jangsan’-ø
albanbou-de bihei
bi.
rain-Gen stop-until Zhangsan-Nom office-at
all.the.way was‘Zhangsan was at his office all the way until it stopped raining.’

Third, the Transitivity Restriction does not hold.
[SikseJangsan’-itere bithe-bejuwen buhe ningge, Liisy’ inu.
yesterday Zhangsan-Gen that book-Acc lend give person Lisi be‘The person who Zhangsan lent the book to is Lisi.’
Fourth, the genitive subject is not allowed in embedded clauses.
(7) * [[Sikse
Jangsan-iudaha seme] Liisy’-ø gvnimbi] bithe -oci,
yesterday Zhangsan-Gen bought that Lisi-Nom thinkbook-Toptere bithe.
that book‘The book which Lisi thinks that Zhangsan bought yesterday is that book.’
Fifth and finally, N´-deletion is not possible.
(8)
We-i
tuwaraba-øsain akv?
who-Gen attitude-Nom good not‘Whose attitude is not good?’(9)
Jangsan’-i[N´ tuwaraba/*e].
Zhangsan-Gen
attitude‘Zhangsan’s (attitude).’(6)

4. Discussion
Let us now consider what the observed facts might suggest for the theory of (Manchu)
syntax. First, the findings suggest that Manchu and Japanese differ in N´-deletion, theTransitivity Restriction and the availability of genitive subject in the until-clause. The Japanesecounterparts of (5) and (9) are grammatical, while the Japanese counterpart of (6) isungrammatical. Second, the findings suggest that the distribution of the genitive case marker inManchu is more or less identical to the Yanbian variety of Korean, which allows genitive
subject, but disallows N´-deletion, as shown below.
(10)
Ecey
nu-ka/-kimantunlyoli-ka
ceyil masissess ni?
yesterday who-Nom/-Gen made.Adn dish-Nom most delicious Q‘[The food [which who cooked yesterday] is the most delicious?]’(11) a.
Nu-ki
thayto choci ansumni ka?
who-Gen attitude good not.be
Q‘Whose attitude is not good?’b.
John-i[N´ thayto/*e] imnita.
John-Gen
attitudebe‘John’s (attitude) is.’This in turn suggests that there is no correlation between the N´-deletability and the availabilityof genitive subject in languages with prenominal sentential modifiers.
Third, the findings suggest that the conditions on genitive subject licensing in Mongolian
proposed by Maki et al (2016) apply not only to Mongolian, but also to Japanese, the Yanbianvariety of Korean and Manchu.
(12)
Conditions on Genitive Subject Licensing in Mongoliana.
A genitive subject must be c-commanded by a nominal element in a local
domain.
b.
A genitive subject must be in a local relationship with the adnominal form of apredicate.
(12a, b), which were proposed based on the fact that the Mongolian counterpart of (7) isgrammatical, properly predict the distribution of genitive subject in the three languages,
indicating that they are more general than have been considered.

On Direct Object Restriction in English and Mandarin Resultatives
Chyan-an Arthur Wang
Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan
Since Simpson (1983), it has been known that a resultant predicate must be predicatedof the object: the so-called Simpson’s Law. The term Direct Object Restriction (hf. DOR) is
given by Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995), which states that “a resultative phrase may be
predicated of an immediately postverbal NP, but may not be predicated of a subject or of an
oblique compliment.” The DOR is observed in English resultatives, as shown in (1)-(4):(1) John hammered the metal flat.
(2) The riveri froze ti solid.
(3) The winter froze the river solid.
(4) John laughed himself silly.

(thematic object)(derived subject, i.e., underlying object)(causative alternate of (2))(fake reflexive)

The Mandarin counterparts of (1)-(3) behave quite similarly as English, hence no DOR
violation. In (4), a postverbal reflexive (which is called a fake reflexive as the verb laugh is
intransitive) is obligatory to sidestep the DOR violation. However, the Mandarin counterpart(5), known as unergative resultatives, is problematic as the object is missing, apparently
violating the DOR.
(5) Lisi yijing tiao lei leLisi already jump tired ASP‘Lisi already jumped (himself) tired.’This paper aims to offer a syntactic account of the apparent violation of DOR in
Mandarin resultatives and to argue that the difference between Mandarin and English can be
reduced to the occurrence of an intervening CP.
To account for the apparent DOR violation, I propose the structure and derivation in (6)for sentences like (5). The proposed structure involves two clauses and the resultant predicate
is merged in the embedded one headed by a null complementizer. The XP headed by the
resultant predicate then undergoes raising to the embedded SpecCP, producing a compoundlike sequence of a manner and a resultant predicate. Importantly, there is an embedded nullsubject controlled by the matrix subject. As a result, the subject-result reading emerges.
(6) a. [TP Subji ... [VP [V’ M.Pred [CP [ C0 [TP PROi [XP R.Pred]]]]]]]
b. [TP Subji ... [VP [V’ M.Pred [CP [XP R.Ped]j [ C0 [TP PROi tj ]]]]]]]]

Result XP fronting

The analysis immediately nullifies the apparent DOR violation since there is indeed a
postverbal argument (PRO) of which the result XP is predicated. The cross-linguistic
difference between (4) and (5) regarding the (non-)occurrence of a fake reflexive can be
captured as well. Assuming the small clause (SC) analysis of English resultatives (cf. Kayne
1985, Hoekstra 1988, 1991; Den Dikken & Hoekstra 1994; Kratzer 2005), the fact that the
subject of the embedded SC in (4) has to be a reflexive can be thought of as being casemarked (via ECM) by the matrix/manner verb laugh. In contrast, the reason why the ECM
analysis does not work in Mandarin (5) is because the matrix/manner verb takes a CP
complement, hence no ECM and a non-case-marked PRO. In other words, this amounts tosaying that the cross-linguistic difference can be boiled down to the simple contrast below.
(7) I don’t know [CP whether [TP{*John/PRO} to go to the party].
(8) I know [TP John to be the best candidate].

1(Haegeman 1994, 170)
(Haegeman 1994, 170)

In addition, a typical instance of embedded SC (cf. Tang 2005) requires the occurrenceof a reflexive, which further suggests that the embedded in Mandarin resultatives not be a SC.
(9) ta dang [*(ta-ziji) baichi]
he consider he-self idiot‘He considers himself idiot.’
The subject-result reading is also found in another type of resultative in Mandarin;
namely, the phrasal resultative construction:(10) Lisi yijing tiao de lei leLisi already jump DE tired ASP‘Lisi already jumped (himself) tired.’
Based on the proposed analysis, I suggest that the particle de in (10) is the overt
equivalent of the null complementizer found in the compound counterpart (5). The
overt/covert alternation of the C0 can be constrained by the Principle of Projection Activation(Koopman & Szabolcsi 2001)/Generalized Doubly-Filled Comp Filter (Koopman 1991, 1993;
Collins 2007) because the C0 can only be spelled-out overtly iff the SpecCP is not. As such,the result XP fronting in (6) blocks the spell-out of the C0 and, accordingly, the nonoccurrence of the particle de in the compound counterpart is expected.
Moreover, it is observed that only unergative resultant predicates (e.g. ku ‘cry’) andadjectival predicates (e.g. lei ‘tired’) which can be modified by hen ‘very’ are able toparticipate in forming unergative resultatives that exhibit the subject-result reading (cf. theill-formed (11)). The reason is simple: these two types of predicates naturally take an externalargument (i.e. true subject), which clearly strengthens the proposed null subject analysis.
(11) * Lisi yijing tiao si leLisi already jump dead ASP‘Lisi already jumped (himself) dead.’
The fact that not all kinds of resultant predicates can form unergative resultatives alsosuggests that the unaccusativity kind of derivation that involves raising of an object to thesubject position, as proposed in Williams (2005), Huang (2006), Cheng (2007), is untenable
since these analyses all roughly categorize resultatives as intransitive (with unaccusativity
raising) and transitive/causative, and thus fail to account for the contrast between (5) and (11).
The analysis also gains support from semantics. In particular, Rappaport Hovav &Levin (2001) propose a semantic diagnostic for the existence of a postverbal argument inresultatives, namely Argument-per-subevent Condition. What they call bare XP resultatives(e.g. He danced to the other room) differ from fake reflexive resultatives (e.g. (4)) in that thelatter, but not the former, has a postverbal argument, per the condition. I will show that
Mandarin unergative resultatives are semantically on a par with fake reflexives resultatives inEnglish. As such, this also argues for the existence of the proposed null subject argument.
Selected References: Huang, C.-T. J. 2006. Resultatives and Unaccusatives: a ParametricView, in Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan 253: 1-43. Levin, B. & M.
Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. MIT
Press. Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English
resultatives. Language 77: 766-797. Williams, A. 2005. Complex causatives and verbal
valence. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

2Passive Participles Movement in the History of English
Siyang XIA
Aichi Shukutoku University
In present-day English, passive participles must not occur in positions preceding afloating quantifier (FQ) or a vP/VP-adverb, as shown in (1).
(1) a. * The votes have been counted all.
(Bobaljik (1995: 206))
b. ??/* Ever since then, our invitations have no longer been accepted always by
your parents.
(Caponigro and Schütze (2003: 296))
Adopting the adverbial analysis of FQs (Bobaljik (1995)), this paper proposes that an
FQ must occur in positions adjoined to the left edge of certain maximal projections of apredicate. According to Cinque’s (1999) cartographic analysis on the position of adverbs,
the ungrammaticality of (1) due to the failure of FQ/adverb licensing in a clause final
position, as represented in (2).
(2) * [TP DPi [Tʹ have [PerfP been [VoiceP -en [vP ti [vʹ Participle [VP [FQ/ADV] [VP tV ti ]]]]]]]]
Nonetheless, passive participles have appeared in positions preceding an FQ/adverb inearlier stages of English. This paper attributes this phenomenon to passive participles
movement as in the case of Italian and other Romance languages (Kayne (1989)). It aims
to explain the historical changes concerning passive participles movement within theframework of the minimalist program.
The following two tables summarise the results of investigations conducted on the
distribution of passive participles with respect to FQs and vP/VP adverbs in the history
of English, which are based on YCOE, PPCME2, and PPCEME.
Table 1. Relative Orders of FQs and Passive Participles
EOE

LOE

EME

LME

E1

E2

E3

FQ-Part

4

51

18

35

17

38

25

Part-FQ (%)

0 (0.0)17 (25.0)

8 (30.8)

0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)

Table 2. Relative Orders of vP/VP Adverbs and Passive Participles
EOE

LOE

EME

LME

E1

E2

E3

Adv-Part

215

375

99

355

406

433

438

Part-Adv (%)

8 (3.6)128 (25.4)

19 (16.1)

0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)

The Part-FQ/Adv order was productive until Early Middle English, but it began to
decline in the 13th century and was eventually lost in the 14th century. It follows therichness of agreement morphology on participles (Mitchell (1985)) – that passive
participles can move out of VP in early English. Adopting the Multiple Agree approach(Hiraiwa (2001)), this paper assumes that T acts as a probe and enters into a Multiple

Agree relation with the subject DP bearing [iφ] and [uCase] as well as the passive
participle bearing [uφ] and [uCase]. The derivations of (3a–b) are represented in (4a–b).
(3) a. ac hys wundranæronawriteneealle
but his wonders-NOM;M;PL were-not
written-NOM;M;PLall‘but his wonders were not all written’(coaelhom, ÆHom_6:318.1025)b. and efne heo
is gehæled
halwendliceand even she-NOM;F;SGis healed-NOM;F;SG entirelyðurh
Crist.
through Christ‘and even she is entirely healed by Christ’(coaelive, ÆLS[Lucy]:28.2184)(4) [TP hys wundrai [Tʹ næron [VoiceP awritene [vP [QP ealle] [vP ti [vʹ tV [VP tV ti]]]]]]]In (4a), the passive participle in the v head successfully enters into a Multiple Agreerelation with the probe T and the subject DP in Spec-vP. As a result, the participle moves
to Voice head past the FQ, deriving the Part-FQ order. The same account holds for (3b).
According to Mustanoja (1960), passive participles lost their inflectional endings in the
13th century. The demise of the Part-FQ/Adv order is thus a consequence of the loss of
movement and agreement of passive participles.
References: Bobaljik, Jonathan David (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal
Inflection, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. / Caponigro, Ivano, and Carson T. Schütze (2003)“Parameterizing Passive Participle Movement,” Linguistic Inquiry 34:293–308. / Cinque,
Guglielmo (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective,
Oxford University Press, New York. / Hiraiwa, Ken (2001) “Multiple Agree and theDefective Intervention Constraint in Japanese,” The Proceedings of the HUMIT 2000, ed.
by Ora Matushansky and Elena Gurzoni, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 67–80,
MITWPL, Cambridge, MA. / Kayne, Richard (1989) Facets of Romance Past Participle
Agreement. In Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, ed. by Paola Beninca, 85–
103, Foris, Dordrecht. Reprinted in Richard Kayne, Parameters and Universals, 25–39,
Oxford University Press, Oxford. / Mitchell, Bruce (1985) Old English Syntax, 2 vols.,
Clarendon Press, Oxford. / Mustanoja, Tauno F. (1960) A Middle English Syntax, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Corpora: Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of
Middle English 2nd Edition. / Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren Delfs(2004) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. / Taylor, Ann,
Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk and Frank Beths (2003) The York-Toronto-Helsinki
Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose.