V-RAISING, SU-INSERTION, THE STRANDED SUFFIX FILTER,
AND ECONOMY OF DERIVATION*
Tomohiro Fujii
Yokohama National University

1.

Introduction

Funakoshi (2014, to appear) proposes that verbs move out of their own projections inJapanese. He observes that ‘verb-stranding’ examples like (1a) have the kind of interpretationthat would be expected if the following happens: the verb moves out of VP and then the VP
undergoes ellipsis. Under the interpretation in question, the second clause in (1a) isunderstood to mean: Mari didn’t get back to Japan via LA but she went back there via someplace other than LA. This reading is called a ‘null adjunct reading’, because an adjunct has acontribution to the meaning of the sentence although it is not pronounced. Funakoshi also
observes that the null adjunct reading goes away when internal arguments of the verb are
pronounced, as in (1b). This is, as Funakoshi notes, because arguments alone can be targets of
Argument Ellipsis, but adjuncts alone cannot be (Oku 1998). Thus, (1a, b) are analyzed as in(2a, b), respectively.
(1) a.

Hiroshi-wa
LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaetta-kedo,
Mari-wa
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to went.back-although Mari-TOP
kaera-nakatta.
go.back-NEG.PAST‘Although Hiroshi went back to Japan via LA, Mari didn’t go back.’b.

Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaetta-kedo,
Mari-wa Nihon-ni
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to went.back-although Mari-TOP Japan-tokaera-nakatta.
go.back-NEG.PAST‘Although Hiroshi went back to Japan via LA, Mari didn’t go back to Japan.’(2) a.
b.

Subj [VP Adjunct Object tV] V-NEG.PAST
Subj [VP Object tV] V-NEG.PAST

Building on Funakoshi’s Generalization, Hayashi and Fujii (2015b) and Hayashi (2015)(H&F, hereafter) argue that while Native Japanese Verbs (NJVs) do move as Funakoshi
argues, Verbal Nouns (VNs) stay put. (3) illustrates the VN construction, and (4) indicateswhat H&F propose as its derivation. Here the predicate does not move out of its projection.
*

Thanks go to Kenshi Funakoshi and Shintaro Hayashi for the useful discussions that I had with them.
All errors are mine.

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015

(3)

Hiroshi-wa
LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kikoku si-ta.
Hiroshi- TOP LA-via-by Japan-to return do-PAST.
‘Hiroshi went back to Japan via LA.’
(4)

Hiroshi-wa [VNP Nihon-ni kikoku] si-ta.

As evidence for this analysis, H&F give the contrast between (5a) and (5b). In (5a), su is
pronounced and the VP-internal items are missing. In (5b), the VN and su are pronounced,
and only the dependents are missing. H&F argue that (5a)’s capability of supporting a nulladjunct reading, taken together with (5b)’s incapability thereof, indicates that the VN muststay inside the elided constituent in the VN construction. The analysis is shown in (6).
(5)

Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kikoku si-ta-kedo,
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to return do-PAST-although‘Although Hiroshi went back to Japan via LA,’a.

Mari-wa
si-nakatta.
Mari-TOP do-NEG.PAST‘Mary didn’t <go back to Japan via LA>.’b.

Mari-wa kikoku si-nakatta.
Mari-TOP return do-NEG.PAST‘Mary didn’t return <to Japan>.’… Mari-wa [VNP LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kikoku] si-nakatta(6)

In what follows, we examine two paradigms involving a kind of NJV construction thatbehaves similarly to the VN construction. The first paradigm is given in (7), where su ‘do’,
which is apparently pleonastic, is involved. (The second paradigm will be introduced in
Section 2.)(7) Context:
Hiroshi-mo Mari-mo suguni
LA-keiyu-deboth Hiroshi and Mari right.away LA-via-by

Nihon-ni kaeru-yooni iwareta.
Japan-to go.back -C was.told‘Both Hiroshi and Mari were told to go back to Japan via LA right away.’a.

Hiroshi-wa nantoka LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeri-wa
Hiroshi-TOP barely
LA-via-by
Japan-to go.back-TOP
Mari-wa ∅ si-nakatt-ta.
Mari-TOP
do-NEG.PAST

si-ta-kedo,
do- PAST-although‘Although Hiroshi managed to go back to Japan via LA, Mari didn’t <go back toJapan via LA>.’-2-

V-Raising, the Stranded Suffix Filter, Su-Insertion, and Economy of Derivation (Tomohiro Fujii)b.

Hiroshi-wa nantoka LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni
LA-via-by Japan-to
Hiroshi-TOP barely*Mari-wa ∅ si-nakatt-ta.
Mari-TOP
do-NEG.PAST

kaet-ta-kedo,
go.back-PAST-although‘Although Hiroshi managed to go back to Japan via LA, Mari didn’t {go back toJapan via LA, <go back to Japan via LA> }.’(7a) involves a slightly different NJV construction than the one we saw in (1), whereas (7b)involves the same type as (1). In the former, a focus particle (Part) attaches to the NJV kaer
‘go back’. Like the VN construction in (5a), the focus-marked NJV construction involves su‘do’. Note that the su-stranding sentence in (7a) seems to involve phrasal ellipsis of the same
sort as the one seen in (1). This is so because a null adjunct reading is possible, as indicated in
the translation of (7a). This interpretive property of (7a) leads us to hypothesize that here, a
VP-like constituent containing the NJV is elided. By contrast, su-stranding gives rise torobust unacceptability in (7b), where the standard NJV construction is an antecedent clause,
as noted by Hoshi (2009).1 Despite su looking similar to English do, su-insertion is not fed
by ellipsis of a VP-like constituent. In other words, it looks like su-stranding is allowed only
when su is present in the antecedent.
One way to describe the contrast is to assume that (i) the missing material in (7a) is thesame VP as the focus-marked VP in the antecedent, and (ii) a focus particle can be part of anelided material only when it is recoverable. Then, we can accommodate the contrast between(7a) and (7b). The analysis is collaborated by the fact that the same focus-marked constituent
can be fronted, as in (8).
(8)[LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeri]-wa
Hiroshi-wa t si-nakat-ta.
LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TOP Hiroshi-TOP do-NEG.PAST‘Go back to Japan via LA, Hiroshi didn’t.’

The goal of this paper is to offer a grammar of Japanese that accounts for interactions
among V-raising, su-insertion and ellipsis by using the above analysis of (7) as a probe into
V’s syntactic position. The other key paradigm is introduced in the next section. The
organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we consider the relationship between suinsertion and an seemingly morphological requirement that seems to regulate application ofsu-insertion. In Sections 3 and 4, we review Hayashi and Fujii’s (2015a) evidence that there
is at least one instance of head movement that clearly takes place for a reason independent of
the morphological requirement mentioned above. We make a working hypothesis that thesame holds for V-raising. The hypothesis leads to the conclusion that su-insertion as well as
1

The sentence is fine if no ellipsis applies. The first clause in (7b) can be followed by (i).
i.

… Mari-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeri-wa
si-nakatta.
Mari-TOP LA-via-by
Japan-to go.back-TOP do-NEG.PAST‘… Mari didn’t go back to Japan via LA.’

-3-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

raising of NJVs is EPP-driven. Section 5 points out one problem with the system that we areproposing. To solve the problem, we adopt the possibility of formulating V-raising and suinsertion as allowing ‘look ahead’ to see what will happen in the derivation. After briefly
discussing where ellipsis rules are built into the proposed grammar in Section 6, Section 7
takes up a data question that is left open in the paper. Section 8 concludes the paper,suggesting a way of doing away with the look-ahead property. An economy-based approachis proposed.
Before proceeding, one comment is in order on the assumption that we make about basic
clause structure in Japanese. Throughout this paper, I assume that the basic clause structure in
Japanese is “[TP Subj [VP Obj V] T]”, without assuming further (unpronounced) functional
heads such as v. The reason for doing so is as follows. This helps us to tease apart quite a few
possible analytical options on empirical grounds rigorously, without dealing with concerns
such as: Can ellipsis apply to both vP and VP? Is the phonologically null v visible to a
suffixation rule? Can v be a target of su-insertion?, and so on. For the moment, I have toleave all these subtle but important questions for future research.
2.

Su-Insertion and a Suffixation Requirement

We argues that NJVs stay in-situ when a focus particle attaches to them in (7). We use thisobservation to investigate the following paradigm, which illustrates interactions between
Focus Particle Attachment and su-insertion in (9).
(9) a.

Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaer-anakatta.
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-NEG.PAST(-su, -Part)‘Hiroshi didn’t go back to Japan via LA.’b. *Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeri
si-nakatta.
Hiroshi-WA LA-via-by Japan-to go.back do-NEG.PAST(+su, -Part)c. *Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeri-wa
nakatta.
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TOP NEG.PAST(-su, +Part)d.

(+su, +Part)

Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeri-wa
si-nakatta.
Hiroshi-WA LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TOP do-NEG.PASTThe data show that in the simplex NJV construction, attachment of a focus particle right tothe main verb and application of su-insertion is in the biconditional relation. That is, when
focusing on the two factors, su is inserted if and only if a focus particle attaches to the mainverb; For this last resort nature of su, see, among others, Kuroda 1965, Sakai 1998, Kishimoto
2007, Hatakeyama et al. 2008, Hoshi 2009.2 This is reminiscent of the distribution of non2

It has sometimes been argued that su ‘do’ also has a main verb (i.e. theta-role assigning) use (Hoshi
1995, Saito 2006, Takita 2011 and references therein). The characterization of su-insertion that will be
introduced in (10b) does not exclude the possibility of inserting su to a theta-role assigning head.

-4-

V-Raising, the Stranded Suffix Filter, Su-Insertion, and Economy of Derivation (Tomohiro Fujii)emphatic do with respect to items like negation; cf. Chomsky 1957, Lasnik 1981, 1995 on
English do.3 What the Japanese data above indicate can be stated as in (10) below.
(10) a.

Suffixation requirement:
Tense, Negation and affixal predicates such as causative sase (Suffs, hereafter) mustbe suffixed onto NJVs. Furthermore, suffixation of this sort fails if the Suff is not
adjacent to the NJV; see (9a, d) vs. (9c).

b.

Su-insertion as a costly last resort operation:
The apparently pleonastic native verb su ‘do’ cannot be inserted to a Suff unless it isrequired. Su-insertion cannot apply when a non-pleonastic NJV can meet the above
requirement; see (9b) vs. (9d).

One difficulty we are faced with in analyzing (9) in structural terms is that we cannot easilytell where the NJV is located in these structures. As already hinted at above, ellipsis andmovement serve as tests to determine where the NJV is located.
3.

The Suffixation Requirement Is Not the Trigger of Head Movement

H&F (2015a), building in part on McCawley and Momoi (1986) and others, argue that thecomplex head of so-called te-complements, which we call V-te for short, undergoes overt
head movement to the verb of the next higher clause. (11) is an example of benefactive kure‘give’ selecting a te-complement.
(11)

Hiroshi-wa [TP PRO LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni tV tT] kaet-te
kureta.
Hiroshi-TOP
LA-via-by Japan-to
go.back-TE gave
‘Hiroshi went back to Japan via LA (for me).’Postulation of this head movement is motivated by properties of this construction including
those illustrated in (12). The te-complement is not easy to move or elide, unlike othercomplement clauses. This is surprising given that clausal complements generally can moveand get elided; see how the te-complement differs from the to-complement shown in (13).
(12) a. *[LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaet-te]
Hiroshi-wa t kure-nakatta.
LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TE Hiroshi-TOP
give-NEG.PAST
Lit. ‘Go back to Japan via LA, Hiroshi didn’t give.’

3

As the following set of examples shows, the presence of do and that of not entail each other. (Weabstract away from the form of the lexical verb.)
i. John came.
ii. *John not came.
iii.*John did come.
iv. John did not come.

-5-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016b.

(13) a.

Hiroshi-wa [LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaet-te]kure-nakatta-kedo,
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TE give-NEG.PAST-although*Mari-wa ∅ kureta.
Mari-TOP gave
Lit. ‘Mari didn’t give.’[LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeru-to] Hiroshi-wa t iw-anakatta.
LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-C Hiroshi-TOP
say-NEG.PAST‘That he would go back to Japan via LA, Hiroshi said.’b.

Hiroshi-wa [LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeru-to] it-ta-kedo,
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-C say-PAST-althoughMari-wa ∅ iwa-nakatta.
say-NEG.PAST.
Mari-TOP‘Although Hiroshi said that he would go back to Japan via LA, Mari didn’t say <that
she would go back to Japan via LA>.’

Suppose V-te always raises to the higher V. Then the contrasts between the te-complement
and the standard to-complement are expected; V-te is not be part of the fronted constituent(12a), nor can it be part of the elided constituent (12b). To account for this, H&F propose thatkure ‘give’ has a lexical entry of the following sort.
(14)

kure: Verb, [+TP __], [uT](+EPP)As shown in (14), the item is a verb and selects a TP, and the feature “[uT](+EPP)” instructs toovertly attract the closest T element. When a T element raises overtly to the higher V, the V’suninterpretable T feature is successfully checked off. We thus encode the trigger of V-teraising into the grammar in terms of the attractor’s EPP feature.
Now we turn to the relevance of this te construction to the main point. Notice first that
V-te and NJVs’ behavior in ellipsis and fronting contexts is identical. They raise out of theelided or fronted constituents that originally contain them. Furthermore, it is worth observing
that Vs selecting te-complements, unlike Suffs selecting VP, do not get suffixed onto
anything. As H&F observe, Focus Particle Attachment to V-te does not affect the syntax ofthe construction.
(15) a.

Hiroshi-wa [TP LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaet-te]-wa(*si-)kure-nakatta.
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TE-TOP do-give-NEG‘Hiroshi didn’t go back to Japan via LA (for me).’b. *[LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaet-te-wa] Hiroshi-wa t
LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TE Hiroshi-TOPc.

kure-nakatta.
give-NEG.PAST

Hiroshi-wa [LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaet-te-wa] kure-nakatta-kedo,
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TE give-NEG.PAST-although-6-

V-Raising, the Stranded Suffix Filter, Su-Insertion, and Economy of Derivation (Tomohiro Fujii)*Mari-wa ∅ kureta.
Mari-TOP gave.
(15a) shows that Focus Particle Attachment to V-te does not trigger insertion of su. (15b, c)show that the process does not make the te-clause capable of being moved or elided either.
Although H&F (2015a) didn’t offer a structural analysis of the focus-marked variety ofte-complements, their account of V-te raising, reflected in the lexical entry of kure in (14),can be maintained. We assume here that Part, a focus particle, attaches to a head and thatwhen the head raises, the particle also raises. Given this, all the requirements coded in (14)are fulfilled in the derivation shown below. (The main conclusion that we present below does
not hinge on these assumptions about the syntax of focus particles, though. We could assume,for instance, that Part, projecting its own projection, gets pied-piped by T when T raises.
However, we choose the base-generated head-to-head adjunction structure to make ouranalysis—especially, our analysis of ellipsis—less complicated.)
(16)

VP
TP

V

LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni tV tT

T

V[uT](+EPP)
kure
T

V
kaet
T
te

Part
wa

The absence of effects of Focus Particle Attachment on V-te raising tells us that raising of Vte takes place for a reason independent of the suffixation requirement. Here we propose
generalizing this ‘EPP-driven head movement’ analysis to V-raising in the simplex NJV
construction: namely, V-raising is solely triggered by the EPP feature of the attractor, as
depicted in (17).
(17)[VP … tV]

V-Suff[uV(+EPP)]

Given what our diagnostic tests tell us, there is no reason to assume that V-te raising and Vraising are different phenomena. So the simplest assumption is that they are different
instances of the same operation.
4.

Su-Insertion Is EPP-Driven

The hypothesis that V-raising, or NJV-raising more precisely, is EPP-driven has aconsequence for analysis of su-insertion. Recall that according to the VP-ellipsis and VPfronting data given in (7) and (8), “V-Part” may stay inside the elided or fronted constituent
without raising to Neg, as in (18).

-7-Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016(18)[VP … V-Part]si-Suff

Given the analysis of the simplex NJV construction in (17), the grammaticality of therepresentation given in (18) forces one to assume that su-insertion does satisfy “[uV(+EPP)]” on
Suff. In other words, su-insertion, as well as V-raising, is EPP-driven. This conception of suinsertion, in turn, leads to a specific formulation of the nature of the requirement of Suffs. To
revising (10a), we propose the Stranded Suffix Filter (SSF), borrowing from Lasnik (1981).
(19)

Stranded Suffix Filter:
Suffs (i.e. Tense, Negation, and affixal predicates such as causative sase) have thefeature [NVˆ]. *Suff[NVˆ] if Suff is not suffixed onto a native verb that is linearly left
adjacent to it at surface structure.

By “filter” and “surface structure”, I mean that this requirement never triggers narrowsyntactic operations. Under this assumption, here is how the system works. Either V-raisingor su-insertion may apply if and only if there is Suff that has an unchecked EPP feature. If
there is no unchecked EPP feature, neither movement nor su-insertion applies.
Representations created by syntax are evaluated with regard to surface constraints including
the SSF at surface structure. For the sake of concreteness, we show the lexical entry forpresent tense ru and a sample derivation in which V-to-T movement applies.
(20)

ru: T[-past], [+VP _], uV(+EPP), [NVˆ]

(21)

TP
VP

T
t

V

T[uV(+EPP)],[NV^]It should be noted that since V is a native Japanese verb in (21), the output
representation obtained through V-to-T raising satisfies the SSF. Furthermore, it should also
be noted that the system does not allow a Suff to attract V and trigger su-insertion, because by
assumption a Suff has only one active EPP feature. Thus, the following never happens: when
V bears a focus particle, “V-Part” raises to a Suff to meet the EPP requirement and then suinsertion rescues the stranded Suff.
This said, we are finally in a position to outline an empirical problem posed by (9) in thenext section.
5.

V-Raising and Su-Insertion As Peeking Rules

Let us review how the paradigm in (9), repeated here as (22), are analyzed under the current
assumptions.

-8-

V-Raising, the Stranded Suffix Filter, Su-Insertion, and Economy of Derivation (Tomohiro Fujii)(22) a.

Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaer-anakatta.
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-by
Japan-to go.back-NEG.PAST‘Hiroshi didn’t go back to Japan via LA.’b. *Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de
Hiroshi-WA LA-via-by

Nihon-ni kaeri
si-nakatta.
Japan-to go.back do-NEG.PAST

c. *Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeri-wa
nakatta.
Japan-to go.back-TOP NEG.PAST
Hiroshi-TOP LA-via-byd.

Hiroshi-wa LA-keiyu-de
Hiroshi-WA LA-via-by

Nihon-ni kaeri-wa
si-nakatta.
Japan-to go.back-TOP do-NEG.PASTFirst, take the ungrammaticality of (22c). Though it is consistent with what the theory
predicts, the data is not very informative for evaluating the theory. This is so because,
regardless of whether “V-Part” moves or not, Neg fails to satisfy the SSF in any possible
derivation that would give rise to this string of morphemes.
Second, the grammaticality of (22a) is explained straightforwardly. The analysis is givenin (23a). (Predicted grammaticality judgments are indicated in parentheses.) V raises to Neg
to check the EPP feature and that creates a context in which Neg respects the SSF. Note that
we predict V cannot stay inside VP due to the EPP of Neg, as in (23b). (Suffixation may
succeed here if ‘adjacency’ is linear adjacency.) This prediction, however, is hard to test
because the ellipsis test and fronting test both yield a situation where Neg is stranded. The
derivations then violate the SSF anyway, similarly to what we saw for (22c).
(23) Possible derivations for grammatical (22a)a. ()[VP … t] [Neg V-Neg]b.

(*)[VP … V]

[Neg Neg](EPP is left unchecked)

Thirdly, turn to the ungrammaticality of (22b). Two potential derivations are given
below. (24a) is correctly predicted to be ungrammatical because V-raising and su-insertion
must not both apply in the current theory. It should be noted that (24b) poses a problem; if
nothing additional is said, (24b) incorrectly leads to a grammatical output representation. The
EPP and the SSF are both satisfied.
(24) Possible derivations for ungrammatical (22b) (To be revised)a. (*)[VP … t]
[Neg V si-Neg](Only one EPP feature is active)b.

()[VP … V]

[Neg si-Neg]

What is lacking in the theory? It is a device that allows us to encode the Last Resort characterof su-insertion. Su can be inserted into a Suff only when its suffixation potentially fails. In(24b), even though there is nothing that would potentially block suffixation, su gets inserted.
Given this, we stipulate:-9-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016(25) EPP-driven rules as peeking rules
The grammar first tries checking off the EPP feature of a Suff by applying V-raising.
If the application of V-raising gives rise to a structure that creates no stranded Suff,
it applies V-raising. If, by contrast, the application of V-raising results in there beinga stranded Suff (e.g. when V bears Part), then the grammar does not apply V-raisingand apply su-insertion instead.
Formulated this way, EPP-driven rules can be called ‘peeking rules’ in the sense of Harada(1973). In more modern terms, the grammar allows ‘look ahead’ to see what will happen after
Spell-out or in PF output when applying narrow-syntactic rules, as in (26).
(26)
Numeration
 EPP-driven operations

Spell-out/PF output
 SSF

Once we assume (25), the fact can be made to follow. In (27b), application of su-insertion
should be blocked since V-raising followed by suffixation produces a legitimate output
representation.
(27) Possible derivations for ungrammatical (22b) (Revised)a. (*)[VP … t] [Neg V si-Neg]b.

(*)[VP … V]

[Neg si-Neg](Su-insertion is preempted by V-raising)

Finally, let us turn to the grammaticality of (22d). Here too, we consider two derivations:(28a, b). The current assumptions lead us to predict that (28a) is grammatical. (25) dictatesthat the EPP feature of Neg triggers su-insertion rather than V-raising, because “[Neg V-Part
Neg]”, which V-raising would lead to, is an illegitimate surface structure. As for (28b), it isgrammatical because V-raising and su-insertion both apply. This does not happen since Neg
has only one EPP feature. (Note, though, we haven’t, though, tested if V-Part never raises out
of VP. We turn to the issue later in Section 7.)(28) Possible derivations for ungrammatical (22d)a. ()[VP … V-Part] [Neg si-Neg]b.

(*) [VP … t]

[Neg V-Part si-Neg]

Summarizing this section, we first formulated the obstacle that makes it difficult to offer
an initial account of (9), i.e. how (24b) can be blocked. We proposed a way out by proposingthat V-raising and su-insertion, now both characterized to be EPP-driven, are peeking rules.
In Section 8, we introduce the notion of economy of derivation to account for the data
without making recourse to look ahead. Before so doing, we briefly discuss the status of
Ellipsis in the grammar in Section 6 and deal with the question of how to test the prediction
made in (28b) in Section 7.

-10-

V-Raising, the Stranded Suffix Filter, Su-Insertion, and Economy of Derivation (Tomohiro Fujii)

6.

Where Does Ellipsis Apply?

As far as the facts considered so far are concerned, Ellipsis does not seem to bleed headraising [(1a)] or feed su-insertion [(7b)]. We can make this follow by assuming that head
movement and su-insertion apply by Sell-Out while VP-ellipsis is PF deletion in Japanese.
This assumption, though it is a stipulation, enables us to prevent ellipsis from affecting
application of V-raising and su-insertion.
(29)
Numeration
 EPP-driven operations

7.

Spell-out
 SSF

PF output
 VP Ellipsis

Optional Raising of “V-Part”?

As we noted in (28b) (=(30)), we predict that “V-Part” never raises. Unfortunately, theavailable data do not allow us to draw a firm conclusion. I briefly discuss how this is so
below.
(30) (*)[VP … t]

[Neg V-Part si-Neg]

To test our prediction, we consider the following discourse. The example in question
minimally differs from the su-stranding ellipsis example in (7), which we saw allow the nulladjunct reading.
(31) Context:
LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeru-yooni iwareta.
Hiroshi-mo Mari-mo suguni
both Hiroshi and Mari right.away LA-via-by
Japan-to go.back -C was.told‘Both Hiroshi and Mari were told to go back to Japan via LA right away.’
Hiroshi-wa nantoka LA-keiyu-de Nihon-ni kaeri-wa
si-ta-kedo,
Hiroshi-TOP barely LA-via-by Japan-to go.back-TOP do- PAST-althoughMari-wa kaeri-wa
si-nakatt-ta.
Mari-TOP go.back-TOP do-NEG.PAST‘Although Hiroshi managed to go back to Japan via LA, Mari didn’t go back toJapan.’
Speakers’ judgments vary. Some report that (31) does not easily allow a null adjunct reading,as expected by the theory, and some others that it does allow such a reading, contrary to theprediction. Admitting that more research is needed, I leave the issue for future investigations.
8.

Economy Considerations: In Place of Conclusion

Thus far I have developed a grammar of Japanese that can account for the data given in (7)and (9). Funakoshi’s Generalization and H&F’s (2015a) study of te-complement construction-11-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

led us to assume that V-raising and su-insertion are EPP-driven, but not driven by the SSF,
and that the grammar decides which to apply, movement or insertion, by allowing look ahead
to see whether an SSF violation will arise. Borrowing from Harada (1973), we call such rules
peeking rules.
Before concluding the paper, we attempt to achieve what the peeking rules do without
making recourse to them. We propose that economy of derivation does the job. The idea isthat we can do away with ‘look ahead’ by proposing that V-raising is more economical thansu-insertion. (See Hornstein 2001, who proposes to deal with the complementary distributionof reflexives and pronouns in terms of the kind of economy principle that we use here; cf.
Chomsky 1991) Recall that look ahead is needed to rule out (27b), repeated here.
(32) (*)[VP … V]

[Neg si-Neg]

In the version of the theory proposed above, the grammar first “tries” raising V, instead of
inserting su. Since this “first attempt” successfully creates an SSF-compatible representation,then it must actually apply V-raising. Only if the first attempt fails, su-insertion may apply.
Thus, su-insertion, when it is not required, is prohibited. Therefore, (32) is barred.
The essence of this explanation can be captured in terms of economy. Let us layout somecore assumptions, which allow the grammar to choose a derivation where V-raising applies(call it DVR) over the one where su-insertion applies (call it DSI).
(33) a.

When [uV(+EPP)] is encountered in the course of derivation, either V-raising or suinsertion may applyb.

In order for two derivations to count as DVR and DSI, they must only differ withregard to whether a [uV(+EPP)] feature is checked by V-raising or su-insertion. The
presence of a focus particle makes a difference. If either DVR or DSI involves a Part,
the other does, and if either of them does not, the other does not either.

c.

DVR and DSI must both be convergent, which means that DVR and DSI must bothsatisfy the SSF.

Armed with these assumptions, let us present some sample derivations to show how to ruleout “[VP …V] si-Neg” in (34) and how to rule in “[VP …V-Part] si-Neg” in (35).
(34) i.

[VP … V] Neg[uV(+EPP)], [NV^]ii. D1: [VP … t] V-Neg[uV(+EPP)], [NV^](V-raising)ii’. D2: [VP …V ] si-Neg[uV(+EPP)], [NV^](Su-insertion)iii. Both (ii) and (ii’) satisfy the SSF. D1 and D2 both converge.
iv. D1 is selected over D2 because V-raising is cheaper.

-12-

V-Raising, the Stranded Suffix Filter, Su-Insertion, and Economy of Derivation (Tomohiro Fujii)(35) i.

[VP … V-Part] Neg[uV(+EPP)], [NV^]ii. D1: [VP … t] V-Part Neg[uV(+EPP)], [NV^](V-raising)ii’. D2: [VP …V-Part] si-Neg[uV(+EPP)], [NV^] (Su-insertion)iii. (ii) fails to satisfy the SSF. Su-insertion cannot fix its ill-formedness because the
EPP is already checked off. D1 fails to converge. Only D2 does. No economy
consideration is invoked.
Thus, in this theory, even though “[VP …V] si-Neg” and “[VP …V-Part] Neg” are both
unacceptable, they are excluded for totally different reasons: the former is blocked byconvergence of “[VP …t] V-Neg”, while the latter is blocked by not being convergent.
Viewed this way, the Japanese data given in (7) and (9) can be taken as an indication of
usefulness of economy considerations.
References
Chomsky, Noam (1957) Syntactic Structures, The Hague, Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam (1991) “Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation,” In R. Freidin,ed., Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
417–454
Funakoshi, Kenshi (2014) Syntactic Head Movement and Its Consequences, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Maryland.
Funakoshi, Kenshi (to appear) “Verb-Stranding Verb Phrase Ellipsis in Japanese,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics.
Harada, Shin-Ichi (1973) “Counter Equi NP Deletion,” University of Tokyo Research Institute of
Logopedics and Phoniatrics Annual Bulletin 7, 113-147. [Reprinted in 2000. In N. Fukui,ed., Syntax and Meaning: S. I. Harada Collected Works in Linguistics, Taishukan, Tokyo,
181–216.
Hatakeyama, Yuji, Kensuke Honda and Kosuke Tanaka (2007) “Verb Movement in Japanese
Revisited,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 24, 89–103.
Hayashi, Shintaro (2015) On Head Movement in an Agglutinative SOV Language, Ph.D. dissertation,
Yokohama National University.
Hayashi, Shintaro, and Tomohiro Fujii (2015a) “String Vacuous Head Movement: The Case of V-te inJapanese,” Gengo Kenkyu 147, 31–56.
Hayashi, Shintaro, and Tomohiro Fujii (2015b) “Predicate Ellipsis, Null Adjuncts, and Predicate
Raising in Japanese,” Paper read at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Chicago LinguisticSociety, April 2015.
Hoshi, Koji (2009) “On the Lack of VP-ellipsis in Japanese and Its Ramification in Cross-linguistic
Perspective,” Language, Culture and Communication 41, 1–29.
Hornstein, Norbert (2001) Move! A Minimalist Theory to Construal, Blackwell, Maiden.
Hoshi, Hiroto (1995) Passive, Causative, and Light Verbs: A Study on Theta Role Assignment, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2007) “Negative Scope and Head Raising in Japanese,” Lingua 117, 247–288.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.

-13-

Nanzan Linguistics 11: Research Results and Activities 2015~2016

Lasnik, Howard (1981) “Restricting the Theory of Transformations: A Case Study,” In N. Hornsteinand D. Lightfoot, eds., Explanations in Linguistics, Longmans, London, 152–73.
Lasnik, Howard (1995) “Verbal Morphology: Syntactic Structures Meets the Minimalist Program,” In
H. Campos, P. Kempchinsky, eds., Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays In
Honor of Carlos Otero, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, 251–275.
McCawley, James D., and Katsuhiko Momoi (1986) The constituent of -te complements. Papers inJapanese Linguistics 11, 1-60.
Oku, Satoshi (1998) “LF Copy Analysis of Japanese Null Arguments,” In: M.C. Gruber, D. Higgins,
K. S. Olson and T. Wysocki, eds., CLS 34, 229–314.
Saito, Mamoru (2006) “Expletive Replacement Reconsidered: Evidence from Expletive Verbs inJapanese,” In P. Brandt and E. Fuss, eds., Form, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift
Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of His 60th Birthday, Akademie Verlag,
Berlin, 255–273.
Sakai, Hiromu (1998) “Feature Checking and Morphological Merger,” In D. J. Silva, ed.,Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 189-201.
Takita, Kensuke (2011) Cyclic Linearization and Constraints on Movement and Ellipsis, Ph.D.
dissertation, Nanzan University.

-14-