A NOTE ON ELLIPSIS-RESISTANT CONSTITUENTS *Satoshi Oku
Hokkaido University

1. Introduction
Otani and Whitman (1991) propose that the sloppy identity reading observed in Japanesenull object sentences is derived by V-stranding VP-ellipsis. For instance, having (1a) as theantecedent clause, [e] in (1b) can be interpreted as “Mary’s letters”:(1) a. John-wa[zibun-no tegami-o]sute-ta.
John-NOM self-of letter-ACC discard-PERF‘Johni threw out selfi’s letters.’
b. Mary-mo [e] sute-ta
Mary-also
discard-PERF‘Maryj also threw out selfj’s letters.’(Otani and Whitman 1991, 346-347)1

Otani and Whitman argue that to obtain the relevant sloppy identity reading, V moves out of
VP and the VP containing the object NP alone is copied onto [e]. As a result, (1b) behaves inthe same way as English VP ellipsis sentences such as John threw out his letters, and Marydid [VP e ], too, where [VP e ] can be interpreted as [VP throw out Mary’s letters], the sloppy
identity reading.
One of the empirical arguments against this analysis (Oku 1998, Takahashi 2008a, among
others) is that when the sentence contains a VP-related adjunct such as a manner adverb,
ellipsis does not behave in the same fashion as genuine VP-ellipsis observed in English. Let
us look at (2).
* Parts of the material in this work were presented at 31st General Meeting of English LinguisticSociety of Japan (Fukuoka University, November 9, 2013), 86th General Meeting of English
Literature Society of Japan (Hokkaido University, May 24, 2014), Comparative Syntax and Language
Acquisition #5 (Center for Linguistics, Nanzan University, June 27, 2015), and 60th General Meetingof English Literature Society of Japan, Hokkaido Branch (Hokkaido University, November 1, 2015). I
am grateful for comments and questions I received on these occasions. Discussion with Jun Abe andHideaki Yamashita has been extremely helpful. Any inadequacies are of course mine. The current
work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24520414.
1

The strict identity reading, i.e., [e] = ‘John’s letters,’ is also available in (1b). It is generally assumed
that for the strict identity reading, [e] is the phonologically empty pronoun pro.

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015 ~ 2016(2) manner adverb
John won this way, and Mary did [VP e ], too.

(Takahashi 2008a, 404)

[VP e ] in (2) is most naturally interpreted as “win this way;” the adjunct this way is includedin the interpretation of [VP e ]. On the other hand, in the Japanese counterpart of (2), theadjunct in the antecedent sentence in (3a) is not necessarily included in the interpretation of
the ellipsis site in (3b).
(3) a. Taroo-wa kono hoohoo de katta
Taroo-TOP this way
in won‘Taroo won (in) this way.’b. Hanako mo
Hanako also

[e]

katta
won

‘Hanako also won.’(Takahashi 2008a, 403)

The arguments against the V-stranding VP-ellipsis analysis as shown above, however,does not imply that there is no adjunct ellipsis in Japanese. Rather, an examination of theliterature on Japanese ellipsis/deletion reveals that there are cases which easily allow adjunctellipsis, as well as cases which disfavors adjunct ellipsis. In this paper, I will first make abrief review of some representative examples of ellipsis-resistant adjuncts and those of
ellipsis-tolerant adjuncts, and will extract crucial factors that distinguish these two. I will thenclaim that the notion of (contrastive) focus/de-focus plays a significant role in the adjunctellipsis paradigm (Section 2). In the second half of the paper (Section 3 and Section 4), I will
explore cases of ellipsis-resistant arguments and suggest that it is focus, not an operatorvariable relation, that blocks ellipsis of arguments as well.
2. Ellipsis-Resistant Adjuncts, Ellipsis-Tolerant Adjuncts
Kuno (1995) and Kamio and Takami (1998) report series of adjunct ellipsis examples asin (4). I have modified Kamio and Takami’s original sentence by changing the locative PP as
zibun-no heya-de ‘self-GEN room-in’ to make it clear that it is a real case of ellipsis.2(4) a. Ziroo-wa zibun-no heya-de
Jiro-TOP self-GEN room-in

Hamlet-oHamlet-ACC

yomi,
read-andb. Taroo-wa [ e ] Lear Oh-oyonda
King Lear-ACC readTaro-Top

2

Note that if we replace [e] in (4b) with an overt locative proform soko-de ‘there,’ we can only get
the strict identity reading, meaning that Taro read King Lear in Jiro’s room.

-58-

A Note on Ellipsis-Resistant Constituents (S. Oku)   ‘Jiroi read Hamlet in hisi room, and Taroj read King Lear [ e ].’(Cf. Kamio and Takami 1998, 134)
( [ e ] can be ‘in hisj room’)

Saito (2007) also observes that locative PPs are eligible for ellipsis.
(5) a. Taroo-wa [zibun-no oya-no
ie-ni]
sunde iru
-TOP self-GEN parent-Gen house-in live
‘Taroo lives in his parents’ house.’b. Demo, Hanako-wa [ e ] sunde inai-TOPlive-notbut‘But Hanako does not live in his/her parents’ house.’
Let us next look at (6), a representative case of ellipsis-resistant adjuncts.
(6) a. Ziroo-wa zibun-no burasi-de sono-kuruma-o arattaga
washed but
Jiro-TOP self-GEN brush-with the-car-ACC‘Jiroi washed the car with hisi brush, but’b. Taroo-wa ([ e ]) sono-kuruma-o araw-anak-atta
Taro-TOP
the-car-ACC
wash-not-PAST‘Taroj didn’t wash the car.’ (*[e] = with hisj brush)
The relevant adjunct ellipsis reading is very difficult to get in (6b), in which the adjunct in theantecedent clause is a manner/instrumental PP. Further, locative PPs are not always eligible
for ellipsis, either. Compare (5) with (7) below, which is another clear example of ellipsisresistant adjuncts.
(7) a. Hanako-wa zibun-no oya-no
ie-de
Hanako-TOP self-GEN parent-GEN house-in
okonatta
ga,
did
but

hiroo-en-o
wedding-reception-ACC‘Hanako gave her wedding reception at her parent’s house, but’
b. Yuko-wa ([ e ])Yuko-TOP

hiroo-en-o
wedding-reception-ACC

okonaw-anak-atta
do-not-PAST‘Yuko didn’t give her wedding reception.’ (*[e] = at her parents’ house)
One noticeable difference between (5) and (7) is that in (7) among two recoverable
constituents in the second clause, one (i.e., at self’s parents’ house) is elided while the other(i.e., her wedding reception) stays intact. In (5), on the other hand, a recoverable (hence,-59-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015 ~ 2016syntactically elidable) constituent is just one: at self’s parents’ house. Based upon similar
observations, Kuno (1982) proposes a discourse condition on deletion in (8).
(8) Ban Against Partial Discourse Deletion
If discourse deletion of recoverable constituents is to apply, apply it across the board to
nonfocus constituents. Nonfocus constituents which are left behind by partial discourse
deletion will be reinterpreted, if possible, as representing contrastive foci.
(Kuno 1982, 84-85)
Given (8), let us consider (7) carefully. The idea here is that the object NP in the second
clause in (7) is potentially deletable together with the adjunct (both of which are recoverable
in this discourse context), but actually stays intact in the structure. According to (8) then, thisleftover NP is reinterpreted as a contrastive focus. Since the predicate in (7b) is negated, theleftover object NP is most naturally interpreted as the focus of negation; (7b) means that
Yuko did not have her wedding reception at all. This interpretation contradicts theinterpretation which would be obtained most naturally if the locative PP is included in thepredicate: Yuko didn’t give her wedding reception at her parents’ house. This sentencestrongly implies that Yuko did give her wedding reception but not at her parents’ place. As aresult, it is very difficult to get the adjunct ellipsis reading in (7b).
The same applies to manner adverb cases as well. Consider (9) first which is the nonelliptic version of (6) above.
(9) a. Ziroo-wa zibun-no burasi-de sono-kuruma-o arattaga
Jiro-TOP self-GEN brush-with the-car-ACC
washed but‘Jiroi washed the car with hisi brush, but’b. Taroo-wa zibun-no burasi-de sono-kuruma-o arawanakatta
Taro-TOP self-GEN brush-with the-car-ACC
wash-not-PAST‘Taroj didn’t wash the car with hisj bruch.’
The manner adverb and the object in (9b) are identical to those in (9a) and hence they arerecoverable in this discourse. If we delete the adjunct alone and retain the object NP,
condition (8) applies. The result is as shown in (6) above; it is very difficult to get the
adjunct-ellipsis reading. Why is this so? According to condition (8), the leftover NP isreinterpreted as the focus, and thus it is most naturally interpreted as the focus of negation
since the verb is negated here too; Taro did not wash the car at all. This interpretation isincompatible with the interpretation we would obtain if the manner adverb is a part of thepredicate as shown in (9b); that Taro did wash the car but not with his brush.
If the discussion so far is on the right track, it is predicted that when only the adjunct is arecoverable constituent in a sentence, condition (8) is irrelevant and thus ellipsis of the-60-

A Note on Ellipsis-Resistant Constituents (S. Oku)

adjunct will be possible. This is exactly what we have observed in (4) and (5) above. The
same is true for manner adverbs as in (10).
(10) a. Ziroo-wa zibun-no burasi-de sono-kuruma-o aratta
Jiro-TOP self-GEN brush-with the-car-ACC
washedgabut‘Jiroi washed the car with hisi brush, but’b. Taroo-wa zibun-no burasi-de kono-kuruma-o aratta
Taro-TOP self-GEN brush-with this-car-ACC washed‘Taroj washed this car with hisj brush.’
The object NP sono-kuruma ‘the-car’ in (10a) and the object NP kono-kuruma ‘this-car’ in(10b) are different and contrasted; thus the latter is not recoverable in this context. The only
recoverable constituent (aside from the verb) is the manner adjunct ‘with self’s brush.’ The
relevant adjunct-ellipsis interpretation is fairly easy to obtain as in (11).
(11) a. Ziroo-wa zibun-no burasi-de sono-kuruma-o aratta
Jiro-TOP self-GEN brush-with the-car-ACC
washedgabut‘Jiroi washed the car with hisi brush, but’b. Taroo-wa [ e ] kono-kuruma-o aratta
Taro-TOP
this-car-ACC washed‘Taroj washed this car (with hisj brush).’A short note on optionality is in order here. As Saito (2007) argues, the locative PP in (5)is an argument of the verb sundeiru ‘live’ and thus the location information is semanticallyobligatory in (5). One such interpretation is the sloppy identity reading (a hallmark of ellipsis)in (5b).3 On the other hand, for the other ellipsis-tolerant adjunct cases we have examined
above, the ellipsis interpretations are optional. For instance, ‘with his brush’ is not necessarily
included in the interpretation of (11b). This optionality is natural since adjuncts by definition
are optional elements in a sentence to begin with.
Note in passing, in this regard, that it is clear that Oku’s (1998) conception of θ-featuredriven analysis of Japanese argument ellipsis is not tenable. Based on Bošković and
Takahashi’s (1998) idea of the θ-feature driven analysis of Japanese scrambling, Oku
proposes an LF copy theory of Japanese argument ellipsis. In this theory, the antecedentargument is copied in LF onto the empty argument slot as a last report to satisfy the θ-feature3

The other reading, i.e., the strict identity reading, also seems to be possible in (5b). I am not going todiscuss in this paper how to get this interpretation, but simply to mention that null pronoun pro is
employed in such a case, as Saito (2007) suggests. The point here is that in either way, the locative PP
must be semantically present in (5b).

-61-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015 ~ 2016

requirement of the predicate. This implies that there is no genuine adjunct-ellipsis because
adjuncts by definition have nothing to do with θ-feature checking. There is no motivation for
LF copy of the “antecedent” adjunct; hence, no adjunct ellipsis. Oku’s analysis, however, is
off the mark in two respects, one empirical and one theoretical. The empirical problem is, as
we have just seen in this section, that there seems to be a good reason to believe that adjunctellipsis is possible independently of θ-saturation.
As a theoretical problem, it is not desirable to resort to extra technicalities (such as θfeature checking) in the phrase structure building mechanism, other than binary merge (setmerge or pair-merge) (Chomsky 2013). In the syntactic computational system, merge
recursively applies freely. 4 The resulting structures may be semantically adequate orinadequate at the conceptual-intentional system. When the predicate has a θ-role to assign,
there must be some argument to receive the θ-role at LF; otherwise, the sentence issemantically inadequate.5 The relevant argument (θ-role receiver) can be a phonologically
empty pronoun pro (leading to the strict identity interpretation), as widely assumed in thegenerative literature since Kuroda (1965). Another possible way to have an unpronounced θrole receiver is that the null argument is provided by LF copy (giving the sloppy identity
reading; Oku 1998). Adjuncts do not have to satisfy this kind of argument structure related
requirement, and hence adjunct-ellipsis is optional: it is possible under specific information
structure conditions but not necessary.
3. More on Ellipsis-ResistanceIn this section, we will first consider two instances of ellipsis-resistant constituents: a PP
marked with ‘toritate-si’, a focus particle -dake ‘only’, and a wh-phrase nani ‘what.’ I willthen discuss two approaches to the issues of why they are ellipsis-resistant. “Ban against
ellipsis of inherently focused constituents” (Oku 2013) and “Ban against ellipsis of a phrasethat forms an operator-variable chain” (Saito 2014). Then, I will report that there is a case of
QR which creates an operator-variable chain but still allows ellipsis, and suggest that thenotion of focus/defocus must be playing a significant role.
Let us first consider (12).
4Under LF copy theory of ellipsis, we have to assume that merge may take an antecedent constituent
that is already a part of another structure as an ingredient of the operation. This is a radical departurefrom the standard assumption of merge operation, and its implications must be explored. At the
moment, I just conjecture that a work space for syntactic computation can be slightly larger than the
one standardly assumed, so that in addition to “internal” merge and “external” merge (Chomsky 2013),
merge taking a constituent in another structure in the computational work space is possible. Note alsothat (-)feature agreement plays an important role in the human language phrase structure building
mechanism, but it may not be relevant in Japanese phrase structure building, as Saito (2007) argues.
5This can be seen as a minimalist conception of the θ-criterion violation (Chomsky 1981).

-62-

A Note on Ellipsis-Resistant Constituents (S. Oku)

(12) John-wa Mary-to-dakeasob-e-ru
John-TOP Mary-with-only play-can-PRES‘John can play only with Mary.’(only > can, *can > only)

In (12), dake ‘only’ must take scope over -e ‘can’. Following Shoji (1986), Funakoshi (2012)
argues that the PP Mary-to-dake ‘only with Mary’ is forced to move to a focus position
outside VP as shown in (13).
(13) John-TOP [FocP [PP Mary-with-only] [VP tPP tplay ]] play-can
An interesting fact Funakoshi discusses is that PP-ellipsis is not possible with (13), as shownin (14).
(14) John-wa Mary-to-dake asob-e-ru.
*Bill-moJohn-TOP Mary-with-only play-can-PRES Bill-also[e]asob-e-ru.
play-can-PRES‘Lit. John can play only with Mary. Bill can play [ e ], too.’
Assuming that V also moves out of VP as in (13), Funakoshi argues that VP-ellipsis cannot
derive the second clause in (14) since the PP Mary to dake ‘only with Mary’ has moved outof the ellipsis target VP. Now, (14) is unacceptable with the relevant ellipsis interpretation,and then Funakoshi argues that his VP-ellipsis analysis gives an explanation of the fact while
PP-ellipsis analysis cannot.
As Oku (2013) points out, however, the fact that (14) does not have the relevant PPellipsis interpretation does not necessarily mean that PP-ellipsis is unavailable in Japanesesyntax. Notice that the PP Mary-to-dake ‘only with Mary’ appears in the Spec of FocP andthus it is structurally rendered as focus. However, ellipsis/deletion presupposes thedefocusing of the target constituent (Tancredi 1992, for instance). The focused PP in Spec of
FocP conflicts with the defocusing requirement for ellipsis. Hence, it turns out to be an
ellipsis-resistant constituent.
Wh-phrase arguments are also an instance of ellipsis-resistant constituent (Sugisaki 2012,
Ikawa 2013, Saito 2014). Oku (2013) discusses that wh-phrases are ellipsis-resistant because
they are inherently focused and thus does not satisfy the defocusing requirement, aprerequisite for ellipsis. Consider (15).
(15) a. John-wa
Joh-TOPnani-otabeta no?
what-ACC ate
Q‘What did John eat?’b. Bill-wa
Bill-TOP[e]tabeta no?
ate
Q

-63-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015 ~ 2016‘*What did Bill eat?’ Possible only with ‘Did Bill eat something?’
Oku argues that it is natural to assume that nani-o ‘what-ACC’, or wh-phrases in general, in
an interrogative question is interpreted as focus. For example, (15a) is uttered most naturally
when the speaker presupposes that John ate something, and asking for the identity of that‘something.’ In more formal terms, the wh-portion is a focus-operator and the rest of thesentence is the presupposition.
(16) [for which x, x a thing]
Focus[John ate x]
Presupposition

Given that wh-phrases in a wh-question are inherently the focus of the sentence in this sense,
it is not surprising that they are ellipsis-resistant.
Saito (2014), on the other hand, proposes a different approach to this type of ellipsisresistant cases. Look at the LF representation in (16) again. The wh-phrase constitutes anoperator-variable chain. Assuming that a chain is not eligible for LF copy, Saito argues that,having (15a) as the antecedent, what we can get by LF copy for (15b) is either (17a) (only theoperator portion is copied) or (17b) (only the variable portion is copied).
(17) a. [for which x, x a thing] Bill-wa tabeta no-TOP ateQ
b. Bill-wa x tabeta no-TOP ateQ(17a) is an illegitimate LF representation because it contains a vacuous quantification; theoperator has no variable to bind. (17b) is not interpretable properly either because it contains
an unbound variable. Under the LF copy analysis of argument ellipsis, therefore, it is notpossible to reconstruct the elliptic slot to be properly interpretable. The same applies to
Funakoshi’s case in (14) above as well, Saito argues. The focus phrase movement to Spec of
FocP creates an operator-variable chain in (13). Hence, the focus phrase cannot be theappropriate antecedent to fill in the elliptic slot in the second clause in (14). The PP ellipsis is
not possible there.
The ellipsis-resistant arguments we have examined in this section so far can be accounted
for in either of the two ways. They are ellipsis-resistant either because they must be
interpreted as focus in Spec of FocP or in Spec of CP, or because their antecedent forms an
operator-variable chain. Then, the real test case is a sentence in which the candidate
antecedent forms an operator-variable chain but does not function as focus. Saito (2014)
discusses such cases, while there seems to be cases in which QR applies but ellipsis is still
possible. Let us first look at Saito’s argument. As Goro (2007) shows, Japanese disjunctive
phrases with ka ‘or’ always take scope over negation as in (18a), and thus the LF
representation is (18b).

-64-

A Note on Ellipsis-Resistant Constituents (S. Oku)(18) a. Taroo-wa supeingo ka furansugo-o hanasanai.
Taroo-TOP Spanish or French-ACC speak.not.PRES‘Taroo doesn’t speak both Spanish and French.’(or > not)

 x: x = Spanish or x = French] Taroo does not speak x.
b. [(Saito 2014, 23)
Now, as Funakoshi (2013) reports, the second clause in (19) cannot have the expected “or >not” interpretation.
(19) Hanako-wa supeingo ka huransugo-o hanasu ga,
Taroo-wa [ e ] hanasanai.
Hanako-TOP Spanish or French-ACC speaks though Taroo-TOP speak.not.PRES‘Although Hanako speaks Spanish or French, Taro does not speak.’The second clause in (19) can only mean that Taro speaks neither; “not > or” interpretation.
For the “or > not” interpretation, the antecedent clause has an operator-variable form for theobject NP as in (18b). Given that an operator-variable is ellipsis-resistant, it follows, under
the LF copy theory of ellipsis, that (19) does not have the relevant “or > not” scopeinterpretation. Unless we have reasonable evidence to claim that the disjunctive object NP inquestion (‘Spanish or French’) is focus, the fact in (19) cannot be accounted for by Oku’s
theory, and favors Saito’s analysis. There is, however, one type of scope example in which
the object quantifier raising (QR) over the subject is necessary but ellipsis is still possible. Let
us next consider such a case below.
Reinhart (2006) argues that QR is necessary as an interface repair strategy to obtain the
inverse scope interpretation as in (20).
(20) A doctor will examine every patient.
(20) is ambiguous in scope, and QR of the universally quantified object over the existentiallyquantified subject is necessary to get the “ > ” interpretation as shown in (21).
(21) [every patient]i [a doctor will examine ti ]Reinhart, following Fox (2000), claims that QR is a costly operation and thus possible only
when its application gives rise to a new interpretation which would not be obtained
otherwise.6
How about Japanese in this regard? It has been claimed that Japanese is a “scope rigid”
language (Lasnik and Saito 1992, for instance) and that it is not easy to get inverse scopeinterpretations. Interestingly, however, as Oku (2008) discusses, there are cases in which

6“ … there are cases of genuine scope-shift, for which we still need QR.” (Reinhart 2006, 102).

-65-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015 ~ 2016

inverse scope interpretations are not only easily obtainable, but rather strongly favored evenin Japanese. Consider (22).
(22) a. TA-ga
TA-NOM

hitorione

dono CALL kyoositu-ni-mo taiki-simasu
every CALL room-at-also wait and watch‘A TA waits and watches in every CALL room.’b. Keikan-ga
hitoripolice officer-NOM one

dono
every

iriguti-ni-mogate-to-also

haritui-te-imasu
guard-PROG-PRES‘A police officer is guarding every gate.’
Oku argues, a la Reinhart, that QR of a universally quantified NP/PP over an existentiallyquantified subject NP is not just possible, but rather necessary in cases like (22), in which thesurface order scope interpretation is pragmatically odd and QR gives a pragmatically natural
inverse scope interpretation. Therefore, the LF representations for the intended inverse scope
reading for (22a) and (22b) are (23a) and (23b), respectively.
(23) a. [x: x a CALL room] [y: y a TA] [y waits and watches at x ]b. [x: x a gate] [y: y a police officer] [y is guarding x ]Now, let us examine if ellipsis of the universally quantified PP/NP is possible.
(24) a. Gozentuu-wa
morning-TOP

TA-ga hitori
TA-TOP one

dono CALL kyoositu-ni-mo taiki-simasu
every CALL room-at-also wait and watch‘In the morning, a TA waits and watches in every CALL room.’b. Gogo-wa
RA-ga
afternoon-TOP RA-TOP

hitorione[e]taiki-simasu
wait and watch‘Lit. In the afternoon, an RA waits and watches [ e ].’(25) a. A-too-de-wa
keikan-ga
A-building-at-TOP police officer-NOM
haritui-te-imasu
guard-PROG-PRES

hitori
one

dono
every

iriguti-ni-mogate-to-also‘At building A, a police officer is guarding every gate.’b. B-too-de-wa
keibiin-ga
B-building-at-TOP security guard-NOM

hitori [ e ] haritui-te-imasu
one
guard-PROG-PRES‘Lit. At building B, a security guard is guarding [ e ].’-66-

A Note on Ellipsis-Resistant Constituents (S. Oku)

As far as I can see, it is natural to have the inverse scope interpretation in (24b) and (25b). If
this is true, we have two serious questions to be explored. One is how the inverse scope
reading is derived in (24b) and (25b) under the LF copy theory of ellipsis. The other is whatmakes the difference between (24b)/(25b) (which allow ellipsis) and (19) (which does notallow ellipsis). I will discuss the first question first, and will give a very tentative speculationon the second.
4. Discussion
Let us recapitulate Saito’s (2014) argument for the claim that a constituent which forms
an operator-variable chain cannot serve as the antecedent of ellipsis. Assuming the LF copy
analysis of ellipsis, a chain itself cannot be copied. Then, if the variable portion of the chain iscopied, it turns out to be an unbound variable at the ellipsis site. If the operator portion of thechain is copied, it binds nothing in the ellipsis clause (vacuous quantification). Neither is alegitimate LF object to be interpreted. Ellipsis is not possible in such cases.
However, there is another possible derivational path worth examining; namely, theantecedent is copied before the operator-variable formation. Consider the following parallel
derivation of the antecedent and the ellipsis clauses as illustrated in (26).
(26)
a.
b.

antecedent clause[VP QP V][VP QP V]

ellipsis clauseV[VP QP V]
LF copyc.
d.

NPsubj [VP QP V]
QP [NPsubj [VP tQP V]
QR

NPsubj [VP QP V]
QP [NPsubj [VP tQP V]
QR

After QP and V are merged to make a VP (and crucially, before any further merger applies)in the antecedent clause, LF copy applies to copy the QP in the antecedent clause and merges
it with V in the ellipsis clause as in (26b). Then, a subject NP merges to both clauses and thenQR applies in a parallel fashion in both clauses as shown in (26d).7 Note that in the current
minimalist model of syntactic computation, there is no “LF component” in the sense ofChomsky (1981). Thus, there is no counter-cyclicity here. “LF copy” here means an operation
which copies the antecedent void of phonetic features and merges it to the verb in the ellipsis
clause.8 Every step in the derivation is in a bottom up fashion. If this is a possible derivationalcourse, as it seems to be, we can derive the legitimate LF representations for (24b) and (25b).

7

I have put aside functional categories irrelevant to the discussion here, just for expository purposes.

8This can be assumed to be the same as QR as a syntactic movement void of phonetic features.

-67-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015 ~ 2016

I claim that the same derivation applies to the wh-phrase cases and to Funakoshi’s focus
phrase case we discussed above. The scope taking constituent in question is copied, void ofphonetic features, onto the ellipsis clause, and then the further merger and movement(internal merge) apply in parallel. A Wh-phrase and an NP-to-dake ‘NP-with-only’ phrase
must be interpreted at the focus position (Spec of CP[+Q] and Spec of FocP) due to theirintrinsic property, and hence are resistant to ellipsis which requires defocusing as aprecondition. Universally quantified QPs as in (24) and (25), on the other hand, are not
intrinsically focus carrying elements. Although they undergo QR for scope, the landing site is
not a focus position in the relevant sense and thus they are not resistant to ellipsis.
Finally, the disjunctive phrase (NP ka NP ‘NP or NP’) we discussed in (19) appears to be
problematic in the current analysis. A possible direction is to investigate if the disjunctive
phrase in Japanese is a kind of focus carrying element in the same sense as a wh-phrase andan NP-to-dake phrase. One noticeable difference between the disjunctive phrase and theuniversally quantified phrase is that the movement in question is syntactically forced in theformer but not in the latter. Let us compare (18a) and (22a) again, repeated here as (27) and(28) respectively.
(27) Taroo-wa supeingo ka furansugo-o hanasanai.
Taroo-TOP Spanish or French-ACC speak.not.PRES‘Taroo doesn’t speak both Spanish and French.’(28) TA-ga
hitori
TA-NOM one(or > not)dono CALL kyoositu-ni-mo taiki-simasu
every CALL room-at-also wait and watch‘A TA waits and watches in every CALL room.’
The scope interpretation without the disjunctive phrase movement over Neg not (i.e., “not >or” reading) would give an interpretation which has nothing wrong pragmatically; our world
can be one in which Taro speaks neither of the two languages. Nevertheless, the disjunctive
phrase has to move, to make the “or > not” an only possible interpretation of (27). Hence, themovement is motivated for some syntactic reason, not for an interpretive reason. It is thennatural to assume that the disjunctive phrase must have some feature to be checked with arelevant functional head which appears above Neg not structurally. In classis terminology, themovement is a “substitution” to the Spec of the functional head. As for the universallyquantified phrase in (28), on the other hand, the motivation for QR is purely pragmatic.9 The
surface scope “> ” interpretation is just pragmatically odd, and thus the driving force
for this QR is not syntactic. There is nothing syntactically wrong with the LF representation
which corresponds to the surface scope interpretation without QR over the subject. The

9

See Reinhart (2006) for detailed discussion of QR as a pragmatically motivated repair strategy at
syntax-LF interface.

-68-

A Note on Ellipsis-Resistant Constituents (S. Oku)

interpretation is simply strange in the light of our current knowledge of the world.10 In otherwords, there is nothing intrinsic in a universally quantified phrase which makes QR over the
subject necessary, and in fact there are many cases in which a universally quantified phrase
stays under the scope of the subject as in (29); >  is the most natural interpretation here.
(29) TA-ga
hitori
TA-NOM one

dono CALL kyoositu-ni-mo
every CALL room-to-also

sezyoo-sita
lock-did‘A TA locked every CALL room.’
It is natural then to assume that there is no specific syntactic feature which induces QR overthe subject. Put it again in a classic term, the movement is an instance of “adjunction.” I takethis difference between the disjunctive phrase and the universally quantified phrase is crucial.
Although both create an operator-variable chain, the former is ellipsis-resistant whereas thelatter is not. My tentative suggestion is the following: just as wh-phrase movement is
obligatory because of the intrinsic feature of the phrase and the relevant functional head,
C[+Q], is necessary to attract the phrase, the disjunctive phrase must have the relevant
functional head to attract the phrase. The phrase appears in the Spec of the functional head,
which makes the phrase ellipsis-resistant.
5. Summary
In this paper, I first discussed that there are cases of ellipsis-resistant adjuncts andellipsis-tolerant adjuncts, and claimed that the former can be accounted for by Kuno’s (1982)
discourse condition (8) and that LF copy of adjuncts is a possible operation in principle inJapanese syntax. Typical examples in the literature against adjunct ellipsis do not make anargument for the claim that there is no adjunct ellipsis, but rather, they can be explained bydiscourse conditions, by carefully taking focus/defocus effect into consideration. In thesecond half of the paper, I discussed cases of ellipsis-resistant arguments. Specifically, I
showed that universally quantified NPs/PPs taking scope over the subject are eligible for
ellipsis and suggested that it may not be an operator-variable chain per se that makes theelement ellipsis-resistant, but rather that what seems to block argument ellipsis is the fact thatthe argument is forced to move to a specific type of Specifier position, arguably a “focus”
position in the structure.

References
Bošković, Ž and D. Takahashi (1998) “Scrambling and Last Resort,” Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347-366.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
10

The surface scope interpretation of (28) can be pragmatically natural in some other world, such as
in a science fiction scenario in which a person can divide himself/herself into several persons toperform different tasks at the same time.

-69-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015 ~ 2016

Chomsky, N. (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130, 33-49.
Fox, D. (2000) Economy and Semantic Interpretation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Goro, T. (2007) Language-Specific Constraints on Scope Interpretation in First Language Acquisition,
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.
Ikawa, H. (2012) “What the Ineligibility of Wh-phrases for Argument Ellipsis Tells Us: On theInertness of Phonetically Null Elements,” Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia 2012.
Kamio, A. and K. Takami (1998) Danwa to Zyoohoo Koozoo [Discourse and Information Structure].
Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Kuno, S. (1982) “Principles of Discourse Deletion – Case Studies from English, Russian andJapanese,” Journal of Semantics 1 (1), 61-93.
Kuno, S. (1995) “Null Elements in Parallel Structures in Japanese.” In R. Mazuka, and N. Nagai eds.,
Japanese Sentence Processing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 209-233.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1992) Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Oku, S. (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Oku, S. (2008) “Toogo, Zyoohoo Koozoo, Ippan Nintiryoku [Syntax, Information Structure, General
Cognition].” In N. Hasegawa ed. Toogoron-no Sintenkai to Nihongo Kenkyuu: Meidai-o Koete[A New Development of Syntax and Studies of the Japanese Language: Beyond Propositions],
Kaitakusha, Tokyo, 227-267.
Oku, S. (2013) “Japanese Ellipsis Revisited: Defocusing, Remnants, and Adjuncts,” presented at 31stGeneral Meeting of English Linguistics Society of Japan (November 9, 2013), Fukuoka
University.
Otani, K. and J. Whitman (1991) “V-Raising and VP-Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345-358.
Reinhart, T. (2006) Interface Strategies – Optimal and Costly Computations. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Saito, M. (2007) “Notes on East Asian Argument Ellipsis,” Language Research 43, 203-227.
Saito, M. (2014) “Ellipsis.” ms. Nanzan University. [To appear in Handbook of Japanese Syntax, eds.
M. Shibatani, S. Miyagawa and H. Noda, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin].
Shoji, A. (1986) Dake and Sika in Japanese: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Sugisaki, K. (2013) “Argument Ellipsis in Acquisiton,” Nanzan Linguistics 9, 147-171.
Takahashi, D. (2008a) “Noun Phrase Ellipsis.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito eds., The Oxford
Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 394-422.
Takahashi, D. (2008b) “Quantificational Null Objects and Argument Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 39,
307-326.
Tancredi, C. (1992) Deletion, Deaccenting, and Presupposition, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

-70-