WH-ADVERBIALS IN-SITU, THEIR ISLAND-(IN)SENSITIVITY AND THE ROLE
OF DEMONSTRATIVES IN WH-IN-SITU LICENSING*
Tomohiro Fujii and Kensuke Takita
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

This paper examines a well-known parallel between Mandarin Chinese (“MC”) andJapanese regarding island effects for wh-in-situ, which is illustrated by Japanese examples
like the one in (1) (from Lasnik and Saito 1984: 245):(1)a.

[[Taro-ga nani -o te-ni ireta] koto]-o sonnani okotteiru-no?
-Nom what-Acc ontained fact -Acc much be angry -Q‘For which x you are so angry about the fact that Taro obtained x.’b. * [[Taro-ga naze sore-o te-ni ireta] koto]-o sonnani okotteiru-no?
-Nom why it -Acc obtained fact -Acc much be angry -Q‘For which reason x, you are so angry about the fact that Taro obtained it for x?’
Wh-in-situ in MC and in Japanese was often treated in the same way when it came to theirlack of island effects (Lasnik and Saito 1984, 1992, Chomsky 1986: 153). In this regard, thegeneralization has been well accepted in the literature on MC that while wh-nominals are notisland sensitive wh-adverbs are (see Huang 1982, Xu 1990, Lin 1992, Aoun and Li 1993a,
Tsai 1994a,b, 1999a).1 We call this generalization the ‘Nominal vs. Adverb’ Generalization(NAG).2 The NAG is argued to hold for Japanese as well as for MC in Nishigauchi (1990: 92;*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Connecticut-Siena-Nanzan Joint Workshop on
Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition held at Nanzan University in February 2007. We would
like to thank the participating audience, in particular, Mamoru Saito, Masaki Sano, Yuji Takano, W.-T.
Dylan Tsai, C.-Y. Barry Yang, for their helpful comments. All remaining errors are our own.
1

A terminological note. Following Ernst (2002), we use adverbial to refer to phrases modifying verbs
or sentences and use adverb to refer to elements of the syntactic category Adv. Under this terminology,
while weishenme is an adverb, wei-le shenme is not, although both are adverbials. Also, when we say
nominal adverbial, we mean the type of adverbial that (immediately) contain a nominal inside. So, in
an appropriate way is a nominal adverbial whereas neither appropriately nor if it is the appropriate
best way is.
2

It seems to be the case that the NAG is hard to differentiate from other possibilities proposed for thistype of contrast, for instance, from a referential vs. non-referential distinction of the sort made in
Cinque 1990 and Rizzi 1990 or an argument vs. adjunct distinction seen in Huang 1982 and Lasnik
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 1, 107-126© 2007 Tomohiro Fujii and Kensuke Takita

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

cf. ibid: 100ff). Namely, as far as islands other than wh-islands are concerned, adverbs likenaze ‘why’ are island sensitive whereas nominal adverbials like {donna/dooyuu} riyuu-de ‘forwhat reason’ are not.
Despite this crosslinguistic similarity observed in prior studies, it seems fair to say thatparametric differences between the two languages have received more attention in the last 15
years. Among others, the fact that Japanese exhibits the wh-island effect while MC lacks it
has been centered on when the parametric difference between the two languages is discussed(Aoun and Li 1993a,b, Watanabe 1992b, 2001; Nishigauchi 1990: 32; cf. Tsai 1994a, 1999a
for an attempt to accommodate both differences and similarities). The limited goal of thepresent paper is to revisit empirical issues surrounding the NAG and to show that Japaneseand MC look more alike than has been recently argued. Although we won’t be able to offer adefinitive answer to the question of how the NAG should be derived, we would like tosuggest that a slightly new way of looking at their difference with respect to the wh-islandeffect is worth considering, given the parallels between the two languages in the empirical
domain that we explore here.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents two new arguments for the NAG’sbeing a right generalization for Japanese as well as for MC. Section 3 then discusses one
apparent counterexample to the NAG, which has to do with how-questions. It will be shownthat the NAG helps us understand the nature of the phenomenon and that the problem is only
apparent. Section 4 briefly takes up issues concerning wh-islands and discusses what ourfindings suggest for these issues.
2.

NANDE

2.1. Adverbials’ Island-(in)sensitivity and Their Meaning
As has been familiar since Huang (1982), wh-nominals escape island constraints while
wh-adverbs respects them in MC. Some wh-adverbials, such as nail ‘where’, andshenmeshihou ‘when’, display no effects when embedded inside islands, just as argument
wh-phrases like shei ‘who’ and shenme ‘what’. By contrast, adverbial expressions such as
weishenme ‘why’ (and zenme(yang) ‘how’) obey a full range of island effects, as observed in
Huang (1982: chapter 7) and Tsai (1994b): Islands including wh-islands, complex NP islands,
sentential subject islands, and negative islands do not block wh-dependencies when
wh-nominals embedded and does block them when wh-adverbs embedded inside an island. Of
particular interest in this section is the dual nature of the wh-adverbial weishenme, which is
and Saito 1984 (see Murasugi and Saito 1992 for an attempt to tease apart the NAG and the latter
generalization.) One major reason we maintain the NAG is methodological: Whether wh-in-situ is anominal or not is relatively easy to determine independently of how it behaves with respect toextraction out of islands. As we will see, the NAG makes some predictions and they seem to be
empirically correct. But it does not necessarily mean that these results are not incompatible with thoseother possibly competing generalizations.

-108-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)

first discussed in Huang 1982 and further examined in Tsai 1994a. (2) is adapted from Tsai
(1994b, ex.11; PNM = prenominal modifier marker):(2)a.

Ni bijiao xihuan [[wei(-le) shenme gongzuo] de ren]?
you more likeforwhat work
PNM people‘For which purpose x you like better [the people who work for x]’

b. * Ni bijiao xihuan [[weishenme gongzuo] de ren]?
you more likewhywork
PNM people‘For which reason x you like better [the people who work for x]’
For expository purposes, we use WEISHENME when we need to abstract away from thedifference between weishenme in 2b) and wei(-le) shenme in 2a). According to Tsai
(1994a/1999: 90, 1994b: 128), when WEISHENME is island insensitive, wei receives
phonological stress, or the suffix le may intervene between wei and shenme. These facts
suggest that, along the lines of Huang (1982: 530), WEISHENME is ambiguous in the way
represented in (3):
(3)

a.

AdvP

b.

PP

Adv´
Adv°
weishenme

P´
P°
wei

NP
shenmeIn short, when the adverbial is island insensitive, wei and shenme are syntacticallyindependent elements. Furthermore, as Tsai observes, the island sensitive adverbial differsfrom the island insensitive one in meaning. While the former serves as a casual adverbial, thelatter serves as a purpose adverbial. As far as we can tell, the generalization is that when
WEISHENME is assigned the structure given in (3b), it cannot have a casual ‘why’ reading,and otherwise it may have a purpose ‘why’ reading.3(4)
Causal WEISHENME
Purpose WEISHENME

Category
Adv
Adv
PP

Island-sensitivity
Sensitive
Insensitive

We may thus say that purpose WEISHENME may not obey island constraints. In thereminder of this section, we will show that the Japanese wh-adverbial nande exhibits a similar3

It is not clear to us why the relationship between an adverbial’s categorical status and its meaning
should be the way it is. In other words, we do not know why WEISHENME does not have a causal
reading when it is a PP.

-109-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

kind of correlation among its structure, meaning and island-sensitivity.
NANDE apparently consists of nan(i) ‘what’ and -de ‘with’. (Just as in our discussion ofChinese WEISHENME, we use NANDE when it is necessary for expository reasons.) As will
be demonstrated below, the adverb comes in two guises. Our claim about NANDE is that it
can be assigned either structure (5a) or (5b) and that when it is analyzed as in (5a), it is island
sensitive whereas when it is analyzed as in (5b) it is island insensitive:
(5)

a.

AdvP

b.

PP

Adv´
Adv°
nande

P´
NP
nan

P°
de

The logic of the argument for NANDE being an illustrative case of the NAG is asfollows: First, we establish that the interpretation of NANDE, which is otherwise three ways
ambiguous, is restricted when it appears inside an island. In particular, it has to function as a‘method’ adverbial in such an environment. We then propose ways of diagnosing thecategorial status of NANDE. If the NAG is correct, only the method reading should beavailable in the environments in which the PP analysis of NANDE is mandatory. We showthat the prediction is correct.
Let us begin by the fact that NANDE allow for at least three different interpretations, as
shown in (6):4(6)

Mari-wa nande kaetta-no?
-Top NANDE left -Q
lit. ‘With what did Mari leave?’
a.
b.
c.

Causal interpretation Because she was sick.
Purpose interpretation In order to do her homework.
Method interpretation By bus.

The ‘method’ interpretation here somewhat loosely covers the type of use found in (6c) as
well as its instrumental adverbial use, which is illustrated in (7a):4

We give possible answers to questions in English when they seem to be useful. They are given initalics.

-110-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)(7)

Mari-wanande
konpyuutaa-okowasita-no?
-Top NANDE conmuputer-Acc broke -Q
a. ‘What did Mari break a computer with?’ (Instrumental) With a hammer.
b. ‘Why did Mari break a computer?’ (Causal/purpose) Because she lost her
temper.

Even if it turns out eventually that cases like (6c) and those like (7a) must be distinguished, it
won’t affect the argument that we will make in this paper.
Given these interpretive possibilities that NANDE has, it is interesting to note that when
the wh-adverbial appears in an island configuration, its causal/purpose interpretations
disappear.(8), (10) and (12) illustrate cases involving relative-clause, adjunct and negativeislands, respectively:(8)

NANDE in Relative Clause Island
Ken-wa [[Mari-ga nande kaita] ronbun]-o hihansita -no?
-Top
-Nom NANDE wrote paper -Acc criticized-Q‘Q Ken criticized [the paper that Mari wrote with-what].’(9)≠(9a); = (9b)

For what reason/by what means in Relative Clause Islanda.
Ken-wa [[Mari-ga donna riyuu -de kaita] ronbun]-o hihansita-no?
what reason-with‘For which reason/purpose x Ken criticized [the paper that Mari wrote for x]’
He criticized the paper [that she wrote because she didn’t have anything else todo]; He criticized the paper [that she wrote in order to get tenure].
b.

Ken-wa [[Mari-ga donna syudan-de kaita] ronbun]-o hihansita-no?
what means -with‘What is the means x did Ken criticize [the paper that Mari wrote by x?’
He criticized the paper [that she wrote with a typewriter].

(10) NANDE in Adjunct Island
Mari-wa [Ken-ga nande eigo -obenkyoosita-kara]-Top-Nom NANDE English-Acc studied-because
okotta -no?
got.angry-Q‘Q Ken got angry [because Mari studied English with-what].’≠(11a); =(11b)(11) For what reason/by what means within Adjunct Islanda.
Mari-wa [Ken-ga donna riyuu -de eigo-o benkyoosita-kara] okotta-no?
what reason-with‘For which reason/purpose x Mary got angry [because Ken studied English for x]’
Because he wanted to go to America; In order to go to America-111-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1b.

Mari-wa [Ken-ga donna syudan-dewhat means -witheigo-o benkyoosita-kara] okotta-no?

‘What is the means x did Mary get angry because Ken studied English by x?’
Using a textbook.
(12) NANDE within Negative Island
Ken-wa [Mari-ga nande kaetta-to] iitaku
nakatta -no?
-Top
-Nom NANDE left -C want.to.say not.Past -Q‘Q Ken didn’t want to say that Mari had left with what.’≠(13a), =(13b)(13) For what reason/ by what means in Negative Islanda.
Ken-wa Mari-ga donna riyuu -de kaetta-to iitaku nakatta-no?
what reason-with‘For which reason/purpose x Ken didn’t want to say [that Mari had left for x]?’He didn’t want to say [that she did so because she was sick];
He didn’t want to say [that she did so in order to do her homework].
b.

Ken-wa Mari-ga donna syudan-de kaetta-to iitaku nakatta-no?
what means -with‘For which means x Ken didn’t want to say [that Mari had left by x].’He didn’t want to say that she did so by bus.

(8) involves a relative clause. The sentence can mean what (9b), which contains donna
syudan-de ‘by what means’, means but not what (9a), which contains donna riyuu-de ‘forwhat reason’, means. The same pattern is found with adjunct islands as shown in (10-11). The
PP example in (11a) is a possible paraphrase to the nande sentence in (10), whereas the PP
example (11b) is not. Likewise, NANDE in (12) lacks the causal ‘why’ and purpose ‘why’
interpretations, which is shown by the fact that (13a) cannot serve as a paraphrase to (12).
These observations can be summarized as follows:5(14)Island-sensitivity
Causal/purpose NANDE
Method NANDE

Sensitive
Insensitive5

We will not attempt to explain this generalization. Recall, however, that in MC, when weishenme isinterpreted as a purpose adverb, it may be island-insensitive. This, taken together with 0), means thatwhether a wh-adverbial is susceptible to island constraints is not predictable exclusively from its
meaning. See also footnote 3.

-112-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)

2.2. The Decomposability of NANDE
Recall that WEISHENME may or may not be analyzed as the preposition wei beingcombined with the noun shenme (section 2). Virtually the same characteristic is observed with
NANDE. The wh-adverbial in question allows for the uncontracted form nani-de, which
consists of the noun nani ‘what’ and -de ‘with’. In fact, the vowel /i/ of nani drops in manyenvironments without changing its syntax. Nani-ni ‘what-Dat’ can become nan-ni, nani-ka‘something’ can become nan-ka, and so on. Let us assume naturally that the uncontracted
form nani is only allowed if it projects to an NP, though, importantly, it does not mean thatthe contracted form nan is not an NP. That is, the uncontracted form nani-de isunambiguously assigned the PP-structure given in (5b), whereas the contracted form nan-de
could be ambiguous. If this is the case, the following two predictions are expected to hold:First, the uncontracted nani-de should survive inside islands since it is a PP. Second, it shouldlack varieties of ‘reason’ interpretations, given the generalization in (14).
The first prediction, i.e. that nani-de is island insensitive, turns out to be correct. The
uncontracted form is allowed to occur inside a relative clause island, an adjunct island, and anegative island:(15) a.

Ken-wa [[ Mari-ga nani -de kaita] e]-ohihansita-no?
-Top-Nom what-with wrote picture-Acc criticized-Q‘For which means x Ken criticized [the paper that Hanako hit by x]?’b.

Mari-wa [ Ken-ga nani -de eigo -o benkyoosita-kara]-Top-Nom what-with English-Acc studied-because
okotta -no?
got.angry-Q‘For which means x Mari got angry because Ken studied English by x?’c.

Ken-wa [Mari-ga nani -de kaetta-to] iitakunakatta
-no?
-Top
-Nom what-with left -C didn’t.want.to.say-Q‘For which means x Ken didn’t want to say that Mari had left by x?’

The second prediction also holds true. As shown in (16), when the uncontracted form isused, the causal and purpose interpretations go away, and only the method interpretation
remains available:(16)

Ken-wa nani -de kaetta-no?
-Top what-by left -Q
lit. ‘With what did Ken leave _?’‘By what means did Ken leave?’* ‘For what reason did Ken leave?’-113-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

The unavailability of causal/purpose interpretations with uncontracted nani-de can be further
confirmed by using the incompatibility of stative predicates with method adverbials. As isseen in (17), stative predicates exclude method adverbials:{*dooyuu syudan-de/ dooyuu riyuu -de} Ken-ga kasikoi-no?
what means -with what reason-with -Nom intelligent.Prs-Q(17)‘{*By what means/ For what reason} is Ken the best?
If we are right that the uncontracted nani-de, unlike nande, only allows for a methodinterpretation, the wh-phrase should not be able to appear with such predicates. This is indeed
the case:(18) a.

nande Ken-ga kasikoi
-no?
NANDE
-Nom intelligent.Prs-Q‘Why is Ken intelligent?’b. * nani -de Ken-ga kasikoi-no?
NANI-DE-Nom intelligent.Prs-Q
lit. ‘With what is Ken intelligent?’
Under the assumption that the occurrence of /i/ before -de signals the presence of an NP node
being in the adverbial phrase, the data strongly argue for the correlation between theisland-insensitivity of a wh-adverbial and the existence of an NP inside it. Hence the data
cited in (15-18) constitute an argument in favor of the NAG.
2.3. Prenominal Modification
The second evidence for the NAG concerns modification of wh-elements by prenominal
modifiers such as relative clauses; see Kuno 1973, Ishii 1991, Murasugi 1991, and Kaplan
and Whitman 1995 for Japanese prenominal modifier clauses. As in (19), wh-nominals can be
modified by modifiers, whether restrictive or non-restrictive.
(19) a.

Mari-wa [[RC Ken-ga ei kat -ta] nanii]-o sutetesimatta
-no?
-Top
-Nom buy-Past what -Acc ended.up.discarding-Q‘What, which Ken bought, has Mari discarded?’b.

Mari-wa bureina darei-o tataita -no?
-Top impolite who -Acc hit.Past-Q‘Which person, who is impolite, did Mari hit?’

Note that the wh-adverb naze ‘why’ does not allow such modification.

-114-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)(20) a.

b.

Ken-wa (*odorokubeki) naze gakkoo-o yameta -no?
-Top astonishing why school -Acc quit.Past-Q
Ken-wa (odorokubeki) donna riyuu -de gakkoo-o yameta -no?
-Top astonishing what reason-with school -Acc quit.Past-Q‘For what reason, which was astonishing one, did Ken quit school?’(19a), which contains ‘why’, is totally unacceptable. The acceptability of the analog with ‘forwhat reason’ in (19b) then suggests that (wh-)adverbs do not allow prenominal modification.
Given that prenominal modifiers help to pick out nominal adverbials, the expectation isthat (i) the uncontracted form nani-de supports modifiers and that (ii) in the presence of aprenominal modifier, the contracted form nande unambiguously serves as a method adverbial.
As is expected, the uncontracted nani-de allows for modification by relative clauses.
(21)

Ken-wa [[RC Mari-ga proi mottekita] nanii]-de kuruma-o naosita-no
-Top
-Nom
brought what -with car-Acc fixed -Q‘What, which Mari brought, did Ken fix the car by?’

It also seems to be the case that when the contracted form NANDE occurs with a modifier, thecausal/purpose interpretations are barred while the method interpretation remains available.
Consider the pair in (22):(22) a.

zikken-tyuuni Ken-wa [daremo -ga odorokuyoona]
donna
experiment-during-Top everyone-Nom would.get.surprised what
riyuu/ mokuteki-de nyuuzi-no ki-o hiita -no?
reason/purpose -with infant -Gen attention-Acc drew-Q‘For what reason/purpose, which would surprise everyone, did Ken draw infants’attention during the experiment?’b.

zikken-tyuuni Ken-wa [daremo -ga odorokuyoona]
donna
experiment-during-Top everyone-Nom would.get.surprised whatsyudan-de nyuuzi-no ki-o hiita -no?
means -with infant -Gen attention-Acc drew-Q‘By what means, which would surprise everyone, did Ken draw infants’ attention
during the experiment?’(22a) can be answered by, for example, “In order to have them make grammaticality
judgments”. Possible answers for the question (22b) include “By wearing off his T-shirt”, “Bystarting to wash his teeth”, and so on. Once nande is substituted for donna N-de ‘what-N
with’ in these sentences, the sentence becomes unable to ask the reason for which he drew-115-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

infants’ attention. (23), which contains nande, can be paraphrased with (22b) but clearly notwith (22b):(23)

zikkenn -tyuuni Ken-wa [daremo -ga odorokuyoona]
nande
experiment-during-Top everyone-Nom would.get.surprised NANDE
nyuuzi-no ki-o hiita -no?
infant -Gen attention-Acc drew-Q
lit. ‘With what, which would surprise everyone, did Ken draw infants’ attention?

Thus, only method nande supports prenominal modifiers. On the assumption that only NPs
support such modifiers, the lack of the reason/purpose interpretation in (23) indicates thatmethod nande, unlike causal/purpose nande, contains an NP. This, taken together withgeneralization (14), shows that nande escapes islands if and only if it has a PP structure.
(24)
Island-sensitivity
Causal/purpose NANDE
Method NANDE
3.

Sensitive
Insensitive

Diagnostics for Nominality
Uncontracted
Prenominal
form
modification
Not possible
Not possible
Possible
Possible

Two Puzzles Posed by ‘How’-Questions

The Japanese wh-adverbial doo is similar to English how in that it may function as amanner adverbial when it occurs by itself. The adverbial in question may co-occur with otherelements. We focus on the form of doo-yatte and the form of doo-site, both of whichapparently consist of the wh-adverbial doo and the te-gerundive form of a verb meaning ‘do’.
(25) a.

Ken-wa doo -yatte hon -o yonda -no?
-Top how-doing book-Acc read.Past-Q‘How did Ken read a book?’ Face upb.

Ken-wa doo -site hon -oyonda -no?
-Top how-doing book-Acc read.Past-Q‘Why did Ken read a book?’ Because he didn’t have anything else to do.

There does not seem to be any overlap between (possible) answers for the doo-yatte questionin (25a) and those for the doo-site question in (25b). In other words, the generalization
appears to be that doo-site cannot receive a manner interpretation while doo-yatte cannot
receive a causal/purpose interpretation.

-116-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)

The doo-constructions pose two puzzles for the NAG. The first puzzle concerns theisland-insensitivity of the manner adverbial doo-yatte. Examining the behavior of doo(-yatte),
Nishigauchi (1990: 99ff.) and Ura (1993) observe that while this adverbial does not seem tocontain an NP inside, it survives inside islands. 6 Note that, as they correctly observe,doo(-yatte) does not precede any postposition:(26)* doo -yatte -de (cf. donna hoohoo/yarikata-de)
how-doing-with what manner/method -with

Nishigauchi’s and Ura’s observation that doo(-yatte) is not noun-like is strengthened by the‘prenominal modification’ diagnostic. Observe the total unacceptability of (27):(27)* Ken-wa [daremo -ga odoroku-yoona] doo -yatte hon -o-Top everyone-Nom get.surprised-Mod how-doing book-Acc
yonda -no?
read.Past-Q
cf.

Ken-wa [daremo-ga odoroku-yoona] donna yarikata-de hon-o yonda-no?
what manner -with‘In what manner, which would surprise everyone, did Ken read a book?’

The unacceptability of (26) and (27) thus may lead us to expect that the adverbial obeys island
constraints. However, as mentioned above, doo-yatte contrasts with naze ‘why’ in this regard:(28) a.

Ken-wa [Mari-ga { doo -yatte/ *naze} kaita ronbun]-o eranda-no?
-Top-Nom how-doing why wrote paper -Acc chose -Q‘For which manner x Ken chose (to read) the paper that Mari wrote in x’‘For which reason x Ken chose (to read) the paper that Mari wrote for x?’b.

Mari-wa [Ken-ga {doo -yatte/ *naze} eigo -obenkyoosita-kara]-Top-Nom how-doing why English-Acc studied-because
okotta -no?
got.angry-Q‘For which manner x Mari got angry because Ken studied English in x’‘For which reason x Mari got angry because Ken studied English for x’

Hence, the doo-yatte construction is a place whereisland-(in)sensitivity and prenominal modification breaks down.

thecorrelation

between

Another puzzle concerning doo has to do with the reason/purpose adverbial doo-site (seeexample (29b)). This adverbial, unlike doo-yatte, obeys islands, while no immediate syntactic
6

We cannot afford to discuss the island-sensitivity of how-questions in MC. The reader is referred to
Huang 1982, Lin 1992, and Tsai 1994b, 1999b.

-117-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

difference between these two is detectable. Doo-site fails to be embedded inside islands:(29) a. * Ken-wa [Mari-ga doo -site kaetta-to] iitaku
nakatta -no?
-Top
-Nom how-doing left -C want.to.say not.Past-Q‘For which reason/purpose x Ken didn’t want to say that Mari had left for x?’
b. * Ken-wa [[Mari-ga doo -site kaita] ronbun]-ohihansita-no?
-Top-Nom how-doing wrote paper -Acc criticized-Q
lit. ‘What did Ken criticized the paper [that Mari had wrote with x]?’‘For which reason/purpose x Ken criticized the paper that Mari wrote for x’
c. * Mari-wa [Ken-ga doo-site eigo -obenkyoosita-kara]-Top-Nom how-doing English-Acc studied-because
okotta -no?
got.angry-Q‘For which reason/purpose x Mari is angry because Ken studied English with x’
Note also that doo-site does not allow prenominal modifiers to precede it:(30)* Ken-wa [daremo -ga odoroku-yoona] doo-site-Top everyone-Nom get.surprised.Prs-Modal how-doinghon -oyonda -no?
book-Acc read.Past-Q‘For what reason/purpose, which would surprise everyone, did Ken read a book?’

After all, doo-site behaves in the same way as the run-of-the-mill wh-adverb naze ‘why’. The
question is, why is it that doo-site is susceptible to island despite its being similar to island
insensitive doo-yatte?
We propose a solution to the first puzzle and argue that the solution enables us to solve
the second puzzle as well. If the NAG is correct, we are forced to propose that island
insensitive doo-yatte ‘how’ contains a phonologically empty noun phrase, as schematicallyshown in (31):(31)[DP doo [NP e]]

This analysis is not that exotic, given that doo ‘alternates’ with demonstrative elements
such as koo, soo, and aa. As is familiar in the literature, the Japanese demonstrative system
has three kinds of anaphoric and/or deictic demonstratives; namely the ko-series, so-series,
and a-series (see Kuno 1973, Kuroda 1979, Noguchi 1997, Hoji, Kinsui, Takubo and Ueyama
1999, among others). What one might call ‘indeterminate demonstratives’ also constitute part-118-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)of the paradigm. The paradigm given in (32) illustrates the case of the demonstrative noun
denoting an inanimate entity:7(32) a.
b.
c.
d.

ko-re ‘this one’so-re ‘that one’a-re ‘that one there’
do-re ‘which one’It seems possible to analyze these expressions along the lines shown in (33).
(33)[DP {ko/ so/ a/ do} [NP re]]‘this one, that one, that one there, which one’Presumably, -re is morphosyntactically weak and obligatorily cliticizes onto thedemonstrative (see Hoji, Kinsui, Takubo and Ueyama 1999 for potentially relevant
discussion).
Now let us observe that the manner adverbial doo-yatte occurs in the ‘full’ ko-so-a-doparadigm:(34) a.
b.
c.
d.

koo-yatte ‘this way’soo-yatte ‘that way’
aa-yatte ‘that way there’
doo-yatte ‘what/which way’

Koo-yatte, aa-yatte and aa-yatte are surely manner adverbials, which can be evidenced by aquestion-answer pair like the following:(35) A:

Ken-wa doo -yatte hon -oyonda -no-Top how-doing book-Acc read.Past-Q‘How did Ken read a book?’B:{koo-yatte/ aa -yatte/ soo -yatte} yonda-nda -yo
this-doing/ that-doing/ that-doing read -Mood-SFP‘He read it {this way, that way}.’

If these demonstratives are associated with the category D (Noguchi 1997), it is perfectly
natural to take koo, soo, aa and doo to be determiner-like elements that occur with empty
nominal complements, along the lines of Postal (1966), where English pronouns are analyzed
as definite determiners taking phonologically null nouns. Given an analysis of ko-re, so-re,
a-re and do-re of the sort proposed in (33), the parallel of (33) and (34), i.e. that doo-X fits

7

We are not concerned with referential and anaphoric properties of these demonstratives here. The
reader is referred to the references cited in the text.

-119-Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

into one of the four slots of the paradigm, suggests that the adverbials found in (35), like thenouns shown in (33), have a D-NP structure, as in (36):(36)[teP [DP {koo/ soo/ aa/ doo} [NP e]] yat-te]‘in {this way, that way, that way there, which way}’

Given this, it follows from the NAG that the wh-phrase doo-yatte ‘how’ can be embedded
inside islands. Thus Nishigauchi and Ura’s observation of the island-insensitivity of themanner adverbial doo(-yatte) is accounted for.
This analysis immediately explains the apparent non-nominal-like behavior of doo-yatte‘how’. The failure of postposition attachment (26) and the failure of prenominal modification
with doo-yatte (27) cease to be problematic under the present analysis. Postpositions orparticles in general cannot attach to null noun phrases. The postposition -de cannot be“stranded”:(37)

un, *(sono {hoohoo/yarikata})-de yar-oo
yes that way-with do -Exhortative‘Right, let’s do it that way.’

Also, prenominal modifiers do not apply to empty nominals in general:(38)

Ken-wa [daremo -ga odoroku-yoona] *(yarikata-de)
Ken-Top everyone-Nom get.surprised.Prs-Modal manner -withhon -o yonda
book-Acc read.Past
Intended meaning: ‘Ken read a book in a manner that would surprise everyone.’

So the present analysis of doo-yatte resolves the first puzzle, i.e. why the wh-adverbial does
not pass out diagnostics for nominality though it does not respect island constraints.
Turn to the second puzzle: why doo-site ‘why’ behaves like naze ‘why’ despite its
containing doo? The NAG leads us to posit for doo-site either a structure like (39a) or astructure like (39b). It does not contain an NP.
(39) a.

AdvP

b.

VP

Adv´
Adv°
doosite

V´
AdvP
doo

V°
si(-te)-120-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)

Whichever the correct structure may be, neither of these structures contains an NP projection,
which ensures that doo-site respect island conditions.
Notice now that this proposed analysis of the island-insensitivity of doo-site ‘why’
enables us to make one clear prediction: despite its superficial similarity to the island
insensitive manner adverbial doo-yatte, the causal/purpose adverbial doo-site should notdisplay the full ko-so-a-do paradigm. In other words, neither of the structures proposed in (39)
has a D position, which we assume provides a placeholder for a demonstrative. At firstglance, the predication appears to be wrong, because the full paradigm seems to be possible asin (40):(40) a.
b.
c.
d.

koo-sitesoo-site
aa-sitedoo-site(40) looks no different than (34) in the relevant respect. With closer inspection, however, astriking picture emerges. The adverbials given in (40a-c), in contrast to the indeterminate one
given in (40d), never function as causal/purpose adverbials. Doosite-interrogatives can only
be awkwardly answered by their ko-, so- or a-counterparts:(41) A:

Ken-wa doo -site hon -o yonda -no?
-Top how-doing book-Acc read.Past-Q‘Why did Ken read a book?’

B: # {koo-site/ aa -site/ soo -site} yonda -nda -yo
this-doing/ that-doing/ that-doing read.Past-Mood-SFP‘He read it {this way, that way}.’
The sentences in (41B) each can be paired, as natural answers, with the doo-yatte question in(40A). This suggests that the alleged ‘determinate’ analogs of doo-site, i.e. those given in0a-c), are manner adverbials, rather than reason/purpose adverbials. This makes sense because
the structures proposed in (39) do not provide a placeholder that hosts demonstratives likeko-, so- and a-. It is arguable then that there is no D position in doo-site and therefore there is
no NP either. In a nutshell, Japanese doo-site is lexicalized, just as Chinese weishenme is so.
To summarize, we have shown that the island-sensitivity of doo-site ‘why’ and theisland-insensitivity of doo-yatte ‘how’ are correlated with whether the adverbial in question
can enter into the full ko-so-a-do demonstrative paradigm. If the latter property signals thepresence of D, the island-(in)sensitivity of these how-adverbials is predictable under the
NAG.

-121-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

4. Conclusion and Remaining Issues
This squib presented novel empirical arguments for the generalization that wh-nominals
are island insensitive while wh-adverbs are island sensitive. The generalization has been
proposed for MC since Huang (1982) and for Japanese since Nishigauchi (1990). The
arguments presented from Japanese here strengthen the generalization. We showed that (i) the
wh-adverbial NANDE exhibits the same kind of ambiguity as Chinese WEISHEME does (i.e.
that NANDE, being ambiguous between its ‘PP use’ and its ‘Adv use’, is island insensitive if
and only if it is analyzed as a PP, and that (ii) the puzzles posed by the behaviors ofdoo(-yatte) and of doosite are resolved by claiming that the former, island insensitive
adverbial contains a DP, which is in turn evidenced by its being able to host a demonstrative.
Before concluding the paper, two issues, which are related to each other, need to beaddressed. The most obvious issue is how the NAG can be derived. We are neutral as towhether the generalization should be explained in terms of the ECP (Huang 1982, Lasnik andSaito 1984, 1992), unselective binding (Pesetsky 1987, Tsai 1994a, 1999a, Cole and Harmon
1998, Bruening 2007), choice functions (Reinhart 1998, Hagstrom 1998) or something else.
Among the prior proposals pertaining to this issue is the hypothesis that the licensing ofJapanese wh-nominals involves unselective binding (Tsai 1994a,b, 1999a, Takano 2002,
Bayer 2005; cf. also Reinhart 1998). Namely, wh-NPs discharge choice function variables,
whereas wh-adverbs do not. The fact that the NAG covers a wide range of data in Japanese
wh-questions may lead one to claim that unselective binding is sufficient to license Japanese
wh-nominals including wh-adverbials like those we discussed. If this is the case, it ispredicted that Japanese wh-nominals should be able to escape all the islands that MC
wh-nominals can. As has been long noted in the literature, the prediction is apparently false:
Wh-islands do not allow for extraction of wh-nominals in Japanese unlike in MC (seeNishigauchi 1990, Lasnik and Saito 1992, Watanabe 1992a,b, Takahashi 1993, Tanaka 1999,
Ochi 1999, Hagstrom 1998, Yoshida 1998, 1999, and Shimoyama 2006, to list a few).
(42)?? kimi-wa dare-ga doko-de hataraiteiru-ka siritai-ndai8you -Top who-Nom where-at be.working-Q want.to.know.Prs-Mood.Q‘For which person x you want to know [for which place y, x is working at y].’In fact, the nominal wh-adverbials that we have discussed so far cannot take wide scope whenembedded within a wh-island as easily as when embedded inside other kinds of island. The
unacceptability of (43) and (44) should be contrasted with the acceptability of cases like (15a)and cases like (28a), respectively:98The sentence final particle ndai with raising intonation, which we believe is associated with themood marker noda, is used here to force a matrix wh-question interpretation. As Yoshida (1998)
observes, the particle in question only appears in roots and makes sentences wh-questions, rather than
yes-no questions.
9

We are grateful to Yuji Takano for bringing this issue to our attention.

-122-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)(43)?? Ken-wa [{nani-de/ donna doogu -de} dare-ga kono ronbun-o-Top what-with what apparatus-with who-Nom this picture -Acc
kaita-ka] sirabeteiru-ndaidrew-Q be.investigating-Mood.Q‘For which thing/apparatus x, Ken is trying to find out [for which y, y wrote thispaper with x]’(44)?? Ken-wa [{doo -yatte/ donna yarikata-de} dare -ga kono ronbun-o-Top what-with what method -with who-Nom this paper -Acc
kaita-ka] sirabeteiru-ndaidrew-Q be.investigating-Mood.Q‘For which method x, Ken is trying to find out [for which y, y wrote this paper in x]’

If one takes seriously the parallels between MC and Japanese in the empirical domain that we
explored so far, the null hypothesis would be that there is some difference between
interrogative complements in MC and those in Japanese, whereas the licensing mechanism for
wh-nominals and the nature of other islands in the two languages are the same (see Richards
1997 for a proposal along these lines).10 How can the relevant generalization be stated then?
One can conjecture the following: if a language L has an overt question complementizer, like
Japanese ka, in embedded questions, L displays the blocking effect for wh-in-situ nominals(see Nishigauchi 1990:32, fn.13 for a similar suggestion). In the present instance, there seems
to be no interrogative C overtly present in MC embedded questions, while Japanese ka isnecessary in the same environment (see Cheng 1991 among others). To see the extent towhich this conjecture can be maintained, a larger sample of wh-in-situ languages needs to belooked at.11

10

If the range of data is extended, other differences are found between MC and Japanese. It iscoherent and even tempting to attempt to relate their difference with respect to the wh-island effect tothese or one of these other differences, without referring to the nature of interrogative complements inthe two languages. Tsai (1994b) argues that Chinese employs unselective binding while Japaneseemploys movement as well. Reinterpreting some facts noted in Aoun and Li 1993b, Watanabe (2001)
suggests a view of the Tsai type, in which the difference in the wh-island effect should be tied to thepresence/absence of the ‘quantifier-induced barrier’ effect. (For the latter effect, see Hoji 1985, Kim
1991, Beck and Kim 1996, Tanaka 2003, Ko 2005, Soh 2005, Yang 2006 and references cited inthem). Note crucially that in this view, interrogative complements in MC and those in Japanese do nothave to be different. See footnote 11.
11

We say interrogative C. The generalization proposed in the text, if it is empirically viable at all,should be related, at some deeper level, to the Tsai-Watanabe type claim that the relevant parametricdifference be tied to the existence of particles like -ka or -mo in Japanese and their absence in MC. As
alluded to in footnote 10, the Tsai-Watanabe type claim does not necessarily refer to interrogative C
when the issue in question is considered.

-123-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

References
Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993a. “Wh-Elements in Situ: Syntax or LF?,” Linguistic
Inquiry 24, 199-238.
Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993b. “On Some Differences between Chinese and Japanese
Wh-Elements,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 365-372.
Bayer, Josef. 2005. “Wh-in-Situ.” In Martin Everaert and Henk Van Riemsdijk, eds., The Blackwell
Companion to Syntax, Volume V, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 141-158.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 1996. “On Wh- and Operator Scope in Korean,” Journal of East.
Asian Linguistics 6, 339-384.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2007. “Wh-in-Situ Does Not Correlate with Wh-Indefinites or Question
Particles,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 139-166.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger. Westport, CT.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A´-Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Harmon. 1998. “The typology of wh-movement: wh-questions in Malay,”
Syntax 1, 221-258.
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA and New
York.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Hoji, Hazime, Satoshi Kinsui, Yukinori Takubo, and Ayumi Ueyama. 1999. “Demonstratives, Bound
Variables, and Reconstruction Effects in Japanese.” In Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW:The Second Meeting in Asia, September 19-22, 1999, 141-158.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Ishii, Yasuo. 1991. Operators and Empty Categories in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut, Storrs.
Kaplan, Tamar I., and John Whitman. 1995. “The category of relative clauses in Japanese, withreference to Korean,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 29-58.
Kim, Soo Won. 1991. Chain Scope and Quantification Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis
University.
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. “Syntax of Why-in-Situ: Merge into [Spec,CP] in the Overt Syntax,” Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 23, 867-916.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1979. (Ko), So, A nituite. In Hayashi Eiichi Kyôju Kanreki Ronbunshû Kankô
Iinkai, ed., Eigo to Nihongo to (English and Japanese), Kuroshio Shuppan, Tokyo, 41-59.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1984. “On the Nature of Proper Government,” Linguistic Inquiry
15, 235-289.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.

-124-

Wh-Adverbials In-Situ (T. Fujii and K. Takita)

Lin, Jo Wang. 1992. “The syntax of zenmeyang ‘how’ and weishenme ‘why’ in Mandarin Chinese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 293-331.
Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, andAcquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Murasugi, Keiko, and Mamoru Saito. 1992 “Quasi-adjuncts as sentential arguments.” In Joel Ashmore
Nevis and Vida Samiian (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics,
Volume 5, WECOL 92, Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno,
California, 251-264.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Noguchi, Toru. 1997. “Two Types of Pronouns and Variable Binding,” Language 73, 770-797.
Ochi, Masao. 1999. “Some consequences of Attract F,” Lingua 109, 81-107.
Postal, Paul. 1966. “On So-Called ‘Pronouns’ in English.” In F. Dineen, ed., Report of the 17th
Annual Round Table Meeting on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University Press,
Washington, D.C., 177-206.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. “Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program,” Natural Language
Semantics 6, 29-56.
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What Moves Where When in Which Language?, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2006. “Indeterminate Phrase Quantification in Japanese,” Natural Language
Semantics 14, 139-173.
Soh, Hooi-Ling. 2005. “Wh-in-Situ in Mandarin Chinese,” Linguistic Inquiry 36, 143-155.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1993. “Movement of Wh-Phrases in Japanese,” Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 11, 655-678.
Takano, Yuji. 2002. “Surprising Constituents,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 243-301.
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 1999. “LF wh-island and the minimal scope principle,” Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 17, 371-402.
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2003. “Remarks on Beck’s Effects: linearity in syntax,” Linguistic. Inquiry 34,
314-323.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1994a. On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT. [Published by Garland, 1999]
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan 1994b. “On Nominal Islands and LF Extraction in Chinese,” Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 12, 121-175.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan 1999a. “On Lexical Courtesy,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 39-73.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1999b. “The Hows of Why and The Whys of How.” In Francesca Del Gobbo and
Hidehito Hoshi, eds., UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 155-184.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1993. “Extraction of Doo and Its Implications,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 15:
139-150.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992a. “Subjacency and S-structure Movement of Wh-in-Situ,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 1, 255-291.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992b. “Wh- in-situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation,” MIT Occupational Papers
in Linguistics 2. MITWPL, Cambridge, Mass.
Watanabe, Akira. 2001. “Wh-in-Situ Languages.” In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, eds., The
Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 203-225.

-125-

Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3, Vol. 1

Xu, Liejiong. 1990. “Remarks on LF Movement in Chinese Questions,” Linguistics 28, 355-382.
Yang, Barry C.-Y. 2006. “Intervention Effects and Left Periphery,” in Proceedings of the 8th Seoul
International Conference On Generative Grammar.
Yoshida, Tomoyuki. 1998. Wh-operator vs. Yes/No-operator. ICU Language Research Bulletin
13:159–172.
Yoshida, Tomoyuki. 1999. “LF Subjacency Effects Revisited.” In Vivian Lin, Cornelia Krause,
Benjamin Bruening, and Karlos Arregi, eds., MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34, Papers
on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle 2, 1-34.

-126-