Constraints on Contrast Sluicing
T ERUYUKI M IZUNO
Kyoto University
M ICHAEL YOSHITAKA E RLEWINE
National University of Singapore

While much previous work has investigated sluicing with indefinite antecedents, as in (1), relatively little attention has been paid to the syntax
and semantics of contrast sluicing, exemplified in (2).
(1)

I know John read some book, but I don’t know which (book).

(2)

I know which BOOK John read, but I don’t know which MAGAZINE.

In example (1), the wh-phrase which (book) corresponds to some book in
the antecedent clause, and seems to stand in for the full embedded question‘which (book) John read.’ We refer to which (book) as the remnant, somebook as the correlate, and John read some book as the antecedent clause. In
contrast sluicing, the antecedent is itself a question, with the correlate andremnant being wh-phrases with differing domains: book vs magazine in (2).
In this paper we investigate contrast sluicing in Japanese and English. The
evidence presented here sheds light on the LF syntax of multiple wh-questions
and the derivation of sluicing in Japanese, as well as the syntax/semantics ofcontrast. This paper is organized into two parts. Section 1 discusses the syntax
of sluicing in Japanese with novel data on contrast sluicing with multiple whquestions. Section 2 investigates a semantic constraint on contrast reflected inboth sluicing and unreduced contrasting questions.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 24.
Edited by Kenshi Funakoshi, Shigeto Kawahara, and Christopher D. Tancredi.
Copyright c 2017, CSLI Publications.

1

To appear in J/K 24; page numbers to be finalized

2 / M IZUNO , E RLEWINE

1The Syntax of Contrast Sluicing and Multiple Wh-Questions

In this section we discuss the syntactic derivation of sluicing in Japanese. New
data from contrast sluicing with multiple wh-question antecedents will provide evidence for (a particular version of) the movement-and-deletion analysis for Japanese contrast sluicing (e.g. Takahashi 1994). We begin with abrief background on the syntax of sluicing before introducing our new dataand proposal.
1.1 Japanese Sluicing through Movement and Deletion
Ross (1969) and Merchant (2001) propose that sluicing reflects an underlying,full question embedding. Regular wh-movement followed by PF deletion of
TP results in the correct interpretation and surface form in (1):(3)

Sluicing through movement-and-deletion:...but I don’t know [CP [which (book)] [TP John read t]]

Japanese also has a construction which appears on the surface to be sluicing. Example (4) is the Japanese equivalent of the basic English sluicing example in (1). The phrase dono-hon(-o) with the question complementizer ka
is together interpreted as the embedded question ‘which book John read.’(4)

Sluicing with an indefinite correlate in Japanese:
Watashi-wa [Jon-ga
hon-o
yon-dano]-waI-TOP
John-NOM book-ACC read-PAST C -TOP
shi-tteiru-ga,[dono-hon(-o)
ka]-wa shira-nai.
know-PROG-but which-book(-ACC) Q-TOP know-NET‘I know that John read a book but [I] don’t know which book.’ (=1)

Takahashi (1994) proposes that Japanese sluicing as in (4) is similarly derived through movement-and-deletion. (5) reflects the structure hypothesizedfor (4) under this approach.1(5)

A move-and-delete parse for (4):... [CP dono-hon(-o)[TP Jon-ga
t yon-da] ka]-wa shira-nai.
which-book(-ACC)
John-NOM read
Q-TOP know-NEG

An immediate complication is of course that Japanese is wh-in-situ. The
wh-movement in (5) could be thought of as the invocation of a generallyavailable strategy of optional wh-movement (Takahashi 1993), or as the reflection of ubiquitous wh-movement in the language which is normally covert(see e.g. Nishigauchi 1990).2
1 “Deletion” is thought of as PF deletion here. See also Fukaya and Hoji (1999) and Fukaya(2003) for an LF-copy version of the move-and-delete proposal.

C ONSTRAINTS ON C ONTRAST S LUICING / 3

1.2 Contrast Sluicing with Multiple Wh-Questions
In this section we introduce new data from contrast sluicing in Japanese using
multiple wh-questions. Recall that in contrast sluicing, the remnant is a whphrase which differs from its correlate wh-phrase in nominal domain. Now
imagine an antecedent clause which is an embedded multiple wh-question.
(Here we limit our attention to questions with two wh-phrases.) Contrast
sluicing could conceivably target the higher or lower wh-phrase in the antecedent question.
Note that multiple wh-questions with two wh-phrases could be interpreted
as a request for a single-pair answer or a pair-list answer. See e.g. Dayal(1996, 2002) on these two types of questions. Here we will concentrate on
the availability of pair-list readings in both the antecedent question and theinterpretation of the remnant. The function of the two wh-phrases in pair-list
questions will be discussed in section 1.3.
Here for convenience, wh1 will refer to the surface-higher wh-phrase andwh2 is the surface-lower wh-phrase. The notation wh0i refers to a wh-phrase
contrasting against whi with a differing nominal domain.
We begin with example (6). In (6), the remnant ‘which South Buildingclassroom’ contrasts with the correlate ‘which North Building classroom,’which is the lower wh-phrase in the antecedent clause. (Both the remnant
and correlate are italicized.) The intended contrast sluicing is grammatical,
with both the antecedent clause (A) and remnant (B) interpreted as pair-list
questions. The context here ensures that the presuppositions of the pair-list
questions are satisfied (see Dayal 2002).

2 An alternative approach known as pseudosluicing posits a cleft or copular clause akin to “it iswhich (book)” as the source of apparent sluicing in Japanese (see e.g. Shimoyama 1995; Kizu
2000; Merchant 1998; Hiraiwa and Ishihara 2002). The independent availability of pro drop andcopula drop in Japanese results in the the appearance of only the wh-phrase remaining:(i)A pseudosluicing parse for (4):... [CP (sore-ga) dono-hon (da) ka]-wa shira-nai.
(that-NOM) which-book (COP) Q-TOP know-NEG

Relevant evidence comes from island-(in)sensitivity. As in many other languages, noncontrastive sluicing in Japanese can violate island constraints — that is, the indefinite correlate
in the antecedent can be embedded inside a syntactic island. This island-insensitivity is naturally
accounted for under pseudosluicing approaches: the pseudosluice simply refers directly to thereferent introduced by the indefinite in the antecedent.
Importantly, however, Fukaya (2003, 2007) shows that contrast sluicing in Japanese is sensitive
to syntactic islands, unlike sluicing with indefinite correlates (see also Merchant 2008; Griffiths
and Lipták 2014). For reasons of space, we do not reproduce Fukaya’s evidence, but we take thisto be a strong indication that movement of the wh remnant and/or the correlate is involved inJapanese contrast sluicing.

4 / M IZUNO , E RLEWINE[A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh02 ]:(6)

Context: Each student was told to clean one particular room in the
North Building and one particular room in the South Building. The
teacher has the list indicating which student cleaned which room in
the North Building, but s/he lost the list indicating which student
cleaned which room in the South Building.
okSensei-wa [A dono-seito-ga
KITATOO-no
teacher-TOP which-student-NOM North Building-GEN
dono-kyooshitsu-osooji-shi-taka]-wa shi-tteiru-ga,
which-classroom-ACC clean-do-PAST Q-TOP know-PROG-but[B MINAMITOO-nodono-kyooshitsu-oka]-wa shir-anai.
South Building-GEN which-classroom-ACC Q-TOP know-NEG‘The teacher knows [A which student cleaned which North Buildingclassroom], but doesn’t know [B which student cleaned which South
Building classroom].’

Next, we consider contrast sluicing against the higher wh-phrase in the antecedent question. This is attempted in (7). In contrast to example (6) above,(7) is ungrammatical with the intended interpretation with pair-list interpretations for the antecedent and remnant.3(7)[A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh01 ]:Context: Every student in Class A and Class B was assigned oneclassroom each to clean. The teacher has the list indicating which student in Class A cleaned which room, but s/he lost the list indicating
which student in Class B cleaned which room.
* Sensei-wa [A A-GUMI-no dono-seito-ga
teacher-TOP Class-A-GEN which-student-NOM
dono-kyooshitsu-osooji-shi-taka]-wa shi-tteiru-ga,
which-classroom-ACC clean-do-PAST Q-TOP know-PROG-but[B B-GUMI-no dono-seito-gaka]-wa shir-anai.
Class-B-GEN which-student-NOM Q-TOP know-NEG
Intended: ‘The teacher knows [A which student in Class A cleaned
which classroom], but doesn’t know [B which student in Class B
cleaned which classroom].’

3 Example (7) is however grammatical under another reading: the antecedent clause ‘Which

student in Class A cleaned which classroom’ is interpreted as a single-pair question, with the

C ONSTRAINTS ON C ONTRAST S LUICING / 5

However, this intended interpretation in (7) — with a remnant wh-phrase‘which student in Class A’ contrasting with the antecedent’s lower wh-phrase‘which student in Class B’ — becomes available if a copy of the lower whphrase (‘which classroom’) is also included in the remnant, as in (8):[A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh01 wh2 ]:(8)okSensei-wa [A A-GUMI-no dono-seito-ga
dono-kyooshitsu-oteacher-TOP Class-A-GEN which-student-NOM which-classroom-ACC
sooji-shi-taka]-wa shi-tteiru-ga,[B B-GUMI-no dono-seito-ga
clean-do-PAST Q-TOP know-PROG-but Class-B-GEN which-student-NOM
dono-kyooshitsu-oka]-wa shir-anai.
which-classroom-ACC Q-TOP know-NEG‘The teacher knows [A which student in Class A cleaned which classroom],but doesn’t know [B which student in Class B cleaned which classroom].’

The patterns observed here are summarized in (9):(9)

Summary:a. ok [A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh02 ]b. * [A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh01 ]c. ok [A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh01 wh2 ]

(6)
(7)
(8)

Note that in the examples here, wh1 is the subject and wh2 is the object. If
we scramble the object wh-phrase above the higher one in the antecedentquestion (not shown here), the pattern in (9) continues to hold based on thesurface positions of the two wh-phrases, rather than base-generated positions.
What do these contrasts teach us? In the grammatical cases where the B
remnant is interpreted as a pair-list question as intended, the lower wh-phrase
must be pronounced in B. The effect of this constraint is clearest in the contrast between (9b) and (9c): both remnants include the material that contrasts
between the antecedent clause and the interpreted question in B, but only (9c)— which additionally pronounces the lower wh-phrase — is grammatical.
The case in (9a) is grammatical with the pronunciation of only one wh-phrase
because it is the lower wh-phrase and is also the locus of contrast.
What explains this behavior? We take a movement-and-deletion approach,motivated by the island-sensitivity data noted in footnote 2, and begin with thefollowing, widely-adopted assumptions: (a) ellipsis requires LF identity (Sag1976 among others), (b) pair-list readings are derived from scope relations
at LF which are reflected in surface word order (Pesetsky 2000; Kotek 2014;
sluicing remnant interpreted as the single wh-question ‘Which student in Class B cleaned thatclassroom (that a student in Class A also cleaned).’ Again, here we concentrate on the availabilityof pair-list interpretations.

6 / M IZUNO , E RLEWINE

among others; see also Kuno 1982 on Japanese), (c) contrasting material cannot be elided (Tancredi 1992; Merchant 2001; among others). Together, theseassumptions predict the availability of (7) and (8) — the former contrary tofact. (We return to the derivation of (6) below.) Note that (10a,b) are two possible derivations for (7), with or without movement of the lower wh-phrase.
(10)

Move-and-delete derivations for (7) and (8):a. [A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh01 [TP ... t ... wh2 ... ] ]b. [A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh01 [ wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 ... ] ] ]c. [A ... wh1 ... wh2 ... ] ... [B wh01 wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 ... ] ]

*(7)
*(7)
(8)

In the derivations of the B clauses in (10), assumption (b) ensures that wh01
is higher than wh2 . This is reinforced through the pair-list reading of the Aclause (b) together with LF identity (a). Assumption (c) ensures that the contrasting wh-phrase (wh01 ) is not deleted. Nothing in this theory requires the
non-contrastive, lower wh2 to be included in the remnant, falsely predicting(7) to be grammatical.
1.3

The Syntax/Semantics of Pair-list Questions: Hints from
Hungarian
The key to understanding the contrasts in multiple contrast sluicing, above, isthe different statuses of the two wh-phrases in question. In a pair-list question,
Kuno (1982) describes the higher wh-phrase as the sorting key. The pair-list
question in (11) is as if we are enumerating over all different students andasking, for each student, which book that student read (Dayal 1996, 2002).
(11)

Which student read which book?
⇡ ‘For each studenti , which book did theyi read?’
Presupposition: For each studenti , theyi read a unique book.

One way to think about this structure of pair-list questions is that the higher
wh-phrase functions as a universal quantifier: For each value of ‘student’ in(11), a unique ‘book’ answer must be given. This is also reflected in the presuppositions of the question (Dayal 1996, 2002). See also Chierchia (1993)
on the role of universal quantifiers in pair-list questions.
The different statuses of the wh-phrases are reflected overtly in the syntax
of Hungarian. First, we note that Hungarian clauses have exactly one preverbal position associated with exhaustive focus:(12)

Hungarian left periphery: (É Kiss 1987; Brody 1995; Szabolcsi 1997)(TOPIC+) [DistP (DIST+) [FocP (FOCUS) [VP V ...
DIST+ = one or more distributive quantifiers
FOCUS = a unique, immediately preverbal position for wh or focus..

C ONSTRAINTS ON C ONTRAST S LUICING / 7

In single wh-questions, the wh-phrase obligatorily moves to this FOCUS
position in the left periphery. The FOCUS position in (12) is unique because,
if there are multiple only-phrases or a wh-phrase and an only-phrase, only one
can move to the preverbal focus position. The position of the verbal marker(VM) can be used to diagnose whether something is in the focus position ornot. See É Kiss (2002) and references there for evidence and discussion.
(13)

Single wh-question: wh in FOCUS
János [FocP kit [VP mutatott be Marinak?
John
whointroduce VM Mary-DAT‘Who did John introduce to Mary?’(É Kiss 2002: 90)

Notably, in pair-list multiple wh-questions, all wh-phrases are moved topreverbal positions. É Kiss (2002) argues that the lower wh-phrase in immediately preverbal position then occupies the canonical FOCUS position, withthe higher wh-phrase occupying the position for distributive quantifiers. Thisaccords with the semantics of the higher wh-phrase in a pair-list question
functioning as a universal quantifier rather than as a canonical interrogative.
(14)

Pair-list multiple wh-questions: one wh in DIST, one in FOCUS
a. [DistP Ki [FocP melyik ajándékot [VP választotta?
whowhich present
chose‘Who chose which present?’⇡ ‘For each person, which present did they choose?’b. [DistP Melyik ajándékot [FocP ki [VP választotta?
which present
who
chose
‘Which present did which person chose?’⇡ ‘For each present, who chose it?’(É Kiss 2002: 101)

1.4 Japanese Sluicing as Deletion of Comp,FocP
We propose that the different functions of the two wh-phrases are also reflected syntactically at LF in Japanese multiple wh-questions, just as they are
in Hungarian. The Focus head in Japanese takes TP as its complement. A
wh-phrase in a single wh-question moves to Spec,FocP by LF. In a multiple wh-question, the surface-lower wh-phrase moves to Spec,FocP and thesurface-higher wh-phrase moves to a higher position by LF.4 We furthermore
propose that deletion in Japanese (contrast) sluicing specifically targets thecomplement of Focus. The idea that deletion in sluicing specifically targets
the complement of a Focus head has also been proposed for Hungarian; seee.g. van Craenenbroeck and Lipták (2006) and Griffiths and Lipták (2014).
4 We can think of this isomorphism between the wh-phrases’ surface positions and their relative
scope at LF as related to the (relative) scope rigidity of Japanese.

8 / M IZUNO , E RLEWINE

The resulting derivations for (contrast) sluicing from single and multiple
wh-questions are illustrated in (15).
(15)

Deriving (contrast) sluicing in Japanese:a. Single wh-question:
B = [FocP wh [TP ... t ... ] ]b. Multiple wh-question:
B = [ wh1 [FocP wh2 [TP ... t1 ... t2 ... ] ] ]Although this wh-movement to the clause edge is generally covert in Japanese,in the derivation of sluicing as in (15), any and all wh-phrases must move toSpec,FocP or higher in order to satisfy the identity of the deleted TP in the Bclause with the corresponding TP in the antecedent clause at LF.
Our derivations for contrast sluicing presented in (15) necessitate movement of the wh-phrases to the edge of the clause, outside of the ellipsis
site. As Fukaya (2003, 2007) has observed, contrast sluicing in Japanese isisland-sensitive, lending support for the movement-and-deletion account. We
note however that non-contrastive sluicing is generally not island-sensitive inJapanese; see footnote 2. The derivation in (15) may therefore reflect just one
possible derivational source for non-contrastive sluicing in Japanese, with additional pseudosluicing derivations also possible.
We will now demonstrate how this proposal accounts for the observed
contrasts in Japanese contrast sluicing. We begin with contrast sluicing where
the lower wh-phrases’ domains contrast:(16)

Contrast sluicing against the lower wh, as in (6):a. Antecedent clause at LF:
A = [dono seito-ga1 [FocP KITATOO-no dono kyooshitsu-o2[TP t1 t2 sooji-shi-ta]]]b. Remnant derivation:
B = [dono seito-ga1 [FocP MINAMITOO-no dono kyooshitsu-o2[TP t1 t2 sooji-shi-ta]]]c. Remnant derivation with argument ellipsis of the higher wh:
B = [dono seito-ga1 [FocP MINAMITOO-no dono kyooshitsu-o2[TP t1 t2 sooji-shi-ta]]]

Our proposal (15b) applied to the question ‘Which student cleaned which
SOUTH BUILDING classroom’ in (16b) yields a multiple wh remnant in(16) — this variant is indeed grammatical, as predicted. For the derivationof (6) with just one wh-phrase in the remnant, we apply argument ellipsis tothe higher wh-phrase as in (16c). Japanese independently has an operationof argument ellipsis which targets individual DP arguments, while preserving a quantificational interpretation (Oku 1998; Saito 2007; Takahashi 2008;

C ONSTRAINTS ON C ONTRAST S LUICING / 9among others). Recall that the higher wh-phrase in a multiple wh-question is
not a regular interrogative phrase but instead functions as a universal quantifier. Because Japanese argument ellipsis can apply to regular universal quantifiers, we apply this same operation in (16c) to yield the grammatical example(6).
Next, we turn to the case where the domains of the higher wh-phrases
contrast. Here the grammatical remnant derivation with deletion of the complement of Focus in (17b) yields the grammatical example (8).
(17)

Contrast sluicing against the higher wh in (7) and (8):a. Antecedent clause at LF:
A = [A-GUMI-no dono seito-ga1[FocP dono kyooshitsu-o2 [TP t1 t2 sooji-shi-ta]]]b. Remnant derivation for grammatical (8):B = [B-GUMI-no dono seito-ga1[FocP dono kyooshitsu-o2 [TP t1 t2 sooji-shi-ta]]]c. Derivation with illicit FocP deletion, for ungrammatical (7):B = [B-GUMI-no dono seito-ga1[FocP dono kyooshitsu-o2 [TP t1 t2 sooji-shi-ta]]]

Contrast sluicing with just the contrasting, higher wh-phrase in the remnant would require deletion of a different category, such as the entire FocP
(17c), which is not allowed under our proposal: sluicing is specifically deletion of the complement of Focus. This explains the ungrammaticality of (7).
A result of this proposal is that with contrasting higher wh-phrases, there
is no grammatical contrast sluicing with pair-list interpretation with just one
wh-phrase in the remnant. Note that it is independently impossible to apply argument ellipsis to the higher wh-phrase, as we did in (16c), because
contrastive phrases cannot be elided (Tancredi 1992; Merchant 2001; among
others) and also because the the deleted material would in this case be unrecoverable (see Fiengo and Lasnik 1972).
1.5 Conclusion
The novel data we presented in section 1.2 led to a puzzle: with contrast
sluicing between multiple wh-questions, the lower wh-phrase must always beretained in the contrast sluicing remnant, even if it does not contrast from thelower wh-phrase in the antecedent clause. Taking a hint from Hungarian, thisis explained by our account based on the differing semantic function and syntactic positions of wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions. Sluicing in Japaneseis deletion of the complement of the Focus head, as has been independently
proposed for Hungarian (van Craenenbroeck and Lipták 2006; Griffiths andLipták 2014).

10 / M IZUNO , E RLEWINE

2A Disjointness Requirement on Contrasting Questions

We now turn to the nature of contrast in contrast sluicing. In contrast sluicing,a remnant wh-phrase contrasts in its nominal domain with its correlate whphrase in the antecedent. In many cases, the contrasting nominal domains are
required to be disjoint:(18)

I don’t remember [A which SEMANTICISTS we invited], and I also
can’t recall...
a. ok [B which SYNTACTICIANS (we invited)].
b. * [B which LINGUISTS (we invited)].

Example (18b) is judged as ungrammatical or infelicitous unless semanticists
are understood to not be linguists, contrary to fact. Note that this requirement
holds of contrasting questions as well as of contrast sluicing in (18). (Theequivalent of (18b) in Japanese is also similarly degraded.)
2.1 Background: Contrastive Topics and Discourse Strategies
Positions of contrast between assertions are encoded using focus (F-marking).
Matching assertions such as A and B in (19) are then evaluated for congruenceof focus alternatives; see e.g. Rooth (1985, 1992) for details.
(19)

It’s false to say that [A Dave [BOUGHT]F a new bicycle]; [B he[STOLE]F a new bicycle]!

Similarly, sets of questions can contrast using contrastive topics (CT)(Büring 2003, Constant 2014), with these CTs also encoded in their corresponding answers. Consider the conversation in (20):(20)

Q1: [Which room]F did [JOHN]CT clean?
A1: [JOHN]CT cleaned [room number 3]F .
Q2: Okay. Then, [which room]F did [MARY]CT clean?
A2: [MARY]CT cleaned [room number 2]F .

We follow the notion of discourse strategies and sub-questions from RojasEsponda (2014). Questions with CTs are required to be sister sub-questions
in a discourse strategy (21) which together address a super-question (SQ).
(21)

The discourse strategy for (20):
SQ = Which rooms did the students clean?

Q1 = Which room did[JOHN]CT clean?

Q2 = Which room did[MARY]CT clean?

Relevantly for our purposes, this notion of sub-questions in a discourse strategy requires that contrastive topics are themselves disjoint.

C ONSTRAINTS ON C ONTRAST S LUICING / 11

2.2 Proposal
We propose that contrasting nominal domains in contrast sluicing are contrastive topics embedded within wh-phrases, which are themselves formally
F-marked. This is reflected in the questions in (22) (answers omitted):(22)

Q1: [Which [BOOKS]CT ]F did you read?
Q2: Then, [which [MAGAZINE]CT ]F did you read?

(23)

The discourse strategy for (22/24):
What did you read?

Q1 = As for [books]CT ,X [which X]F did you read?

Q2 = As for [magazines]CT ,X [which X]F did you read?

The disjointness requirement on contrast sluicing and contrasting questions
immediately follows from the disjointness of contrastive topics.
Note that CTs must scope higher than focused phrases by LF (Constant2014). We can explicitly observe this separation of the nominal domain CT
and the containing wh-phrase in Japanese: the extracted, contrasting nominal
domain takes CT-marking (contrastive wa) in Q2’, which is equivalent to Q2:
(24)

Q1:

[Dono [HON]CT -o]F yon-dano?
which book-ACC read-PAST Q

Q2:Jaa, [dono [ZASSHI]CT -o]F yon-dano?
then which magazines-ACC read-PAST Q

Q2’: Jaa, [ZASSHI-wa]CT [dore t -o]F yon-dano?
then magazines-CT which -ACC read-PAST Q
2.3 Counterexamples to the Disjointness Constraint
The disjointness constraint can be violated by changing the rhetorical relation
between the embedding clauses. For example, Chris Tancredi (p.c.) notes thatquestions in consequences with so/therefore do not require disjointness:(25)

I don’t remember [A which LINGUISTS came to the party], so/therefore
it follows that I don’t remember [B which SEMANTICISTS came].

We would explain such cases as involving differing discourse moves than thetraversal between sister sub-questions. Disjointness is only forced between
sister questions, but not between sub-questions and super-questions (B and A
in (25)) or between other questions that we a discourse might move between.
We will however leave a fuller discussion of possible rhetorical relations anddiscourse moves for future work.

12 / M IZUNO , E RLEWINE

Disjointness can also be violated when the questions are embedded undersufficiently different embeddings. For example, contrasting matrix subjects in
A’ and B’ license the apparent violation of disjointness between A and B in
examples such as (26), brought to our attention by Uli Sauerland (p.c.).
(26)[A’ ANN knows [A which SYNTACTICIANS came to the party]] and[B’ BEN knows [B which LINGUISTS (came to the party)]].

Our proposal accounts for this apparent counterexample as well, given
sufficient consideration of the informational status of the contrasting phrases
syntacticians and linguists. We propose that these contrasting domains are not
CTs here, but instead foci, with A’ and B’ each being answers to questions Q1
and Q2 of the form ‘For which groups X does Ann/Ben know which X cameto the party?’. The higher contrasting phrases Ann and Ben, then, are CTs.
(27)

The discourse strategy for (26):
For which groups X do people know
[which X came to the party]?

Q1 = For which groups X does [Ann]CTknow [which X came to the party]?

Q2 = For which groups X does [Ben]CTknow [which X came to the party]?

Answer: A’ = [Ann]CT knows, for[syntacticians]F , [which came to the party]

Answer: B’ = [Ben]CT knows, for[linguists]F , [which came to the party]

Contrast without disjointness in (26) is licensed because syntacticians is thefocus in the answer A’ to question Q1 and linguists is the focus in the answer
B’ to question Q2. Q1 and Q2 are sister questions, licensing the higher CT
on Ann and Ben. The disjointness requirement applies to CTs across sistersub-questions, not across their answer foci.
The same approach accounts for (28) below. Here, the contrasting phrases
linguists and male linguists should again be thought of as foci rather thanCTs, with the matrix clause B’ being the exhaustive answer to the implicit
question ‘For which groups X do you know which X came to the party’?
(28)[A’ I don’t know [A which LINGUISTS came to the party]];[B’ I only know [B which MALE LINGUISTS came to the party]].

Adam Catt (p.c.) reports, however, that the contrast sluicing variant of (28)with came to the party deleted is degraded compared to (28) itself. Note that,for all previous examples, the disjointness effect or lack thereof equally affects both contrast sluicing and corresponding contrastive questions. We will
leave open the further investigation of this reported difference regarding (28).

C ONSTRAINTS ON C ONTRAST S LUICING / 13

2.4

Conclusion

We have motivated a disjointness requirement on nominal domains in contrast sluicing and their unreduced contrasting question variants, active in both
Japanese and English. Our proposal derives this disjointness from the status ofcontrasting nominal domains of wh-phrases: they are (generally) contrastive
topics and therefore must be disjoint. Our account also accounts for a range
of apparent counterexamples, in section 2.3, where the contrasting nominal
domains instead function as foci rather than contrastive topics.

Acknowledgments
For valuable feedback and discussion at different stages of this project, we
thank Scott AnderBois, Matt Barros, Adam Catt, Makoto Kanazawa, Hadas
Kotek, Manfred Krifka, Uli Sauerland, Chris Tancredi, and Masahiro Yamada. We also thank the audiences at the 152nd meeting of the LinguisticSociety of Japan, Theoretical Linguistics at Keio 2016, and the 24th conference on Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Errors are ours.

References
Brody, M. (1995). Focus and checking theory. In Kenesei, I., editor, Approaches toHungarian V: Levels and structures, pages 29–44. Szeged: JATE.
Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, Beans, and B-accents. Linguistics & Philosophy,
26:511–545.
Chierchia, G. (1993). Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics,
1:181–234.
Constant, N. (2014). Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. PhD thesis, UMass
Amherst.
Dayal, V. (1996). Locality in WH quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in
Hindi. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Dayal, V. (2002). Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: wh-in-situ and scope.
Linguistic Inquiry, 33(3):512–520.
É Kiss, K. (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.
É Kiss, K. (2002). The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fiengo, R. and Lasnik, H. (1972). On nonrecoverable deletion in syntax. Linguistic
Inquiry, 3:528.
Fukaya, T. (2003). Island (in) sensitivity in Japanese sluicing and stripping and some
implications. In Proceedings of WCCFL 22, pages 179–192.
Fukaya, T. (2007). Sluicing and stripping in Japanese and some implications. PhD
thesis, University of Southern California.
Fukaya, T. and Hoji, H. (1999). Stripping and sluicing in Japanese and some implications. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, pages 145–158.

14 / M IZUNO , E RLEWINE
Griffiths, J. and Lipták, A. (2014). Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis.
Syntax, 17:189–234.
Hiraiwa, K. and Ishihara, S. (2002). Missing links: Cleft, sluicing, and the “no da”
construction in Japanese. In Proceedings of HUMIT 2001, pages 35–54. MITWPL.
Kizu, M. (2000). A note on sluicing in wh-in-situ languages. In Proceedings of the
9th Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL 9), pages 143–159. MITWPL.
Kotek, H. (2014). Composing questions. PhD thesis, MIT.
Kuno, S. (1982). The focus of the question and the focus of the answer. Proceedingsof CLS 18, pages 134–157.
Merchant, J. (1998). ‘Pseudosluicing’: Elliptical clefts in Japanese and English. In
Alexiadou, A., Fuhrhop, N., Law, P., and Kleinhenz, U., editors, ZAS Papers in
Linguistics 10, pages 88–112.
Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, J. (2008). Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in ellipsis, ed.
Kyle Johnson, pages 132–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nishigauchi, T. (1990). Quantification in the theory of grammar. Kluwer.
Oku, S. (1998). A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist program.
PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.
Pesetsky, D. M. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Rojas-Esponda, T. (2014). A discourse model for überhaupt. Semantics & Pragmatics, 7:1–45.
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. PhD thesis, UMass Amherst.
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics,
1:75–116.
Ross, J. R. (1969). Guess who. In Proceedings of CLS 5, pages 252–286.
Sag, I. A. (1976). Deletion and logical form. PhD thesis, MIT.
Saito, M. (2007). Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research, 43:203–
227.
Shimoyama, J. (1995). On ‘sluicing’ in Japanese. Manuscript, UMass Amherst.
Szabolcsi, A. (1997). Strategies for Scope Taking. In Ways of Scope Taking, ed. Anna
Szabolcsi, pages 109–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Takahashi, D. (1993). Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory, 11(4):655–678.
Takahashi, D. (1994). Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 3:265–
300.
Takahashi, D. (2008). Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis. Linguistic
Inquiry, 39:307–326.
Tancredi, C. D. (1992). Deletion, deaccenting, and presupposition. PhD thesis, MIT.
van Craenenbroeck, J. and Lipták, A. (2006). The crosslinguistic syntax of sluicing:
Evidence from Hungarian relatives. Syntax, 9:248–274.