ON CERTAIN COMMONALITIES BETWEEN SLUICING-LIKE
CONSTRUCTIONS IN MANDARIN CHINESE AND JAPANESE*
Liching Livy Chiua, Tomohiro Fujiib and Seichi Sugawab, cNational Tsinghua Universitya, Nanzan Universityb and Nagoya Gakuin Universityc

1. Introduction
Investigations into the so-called Sluicing construction have been considered to shed light on
the nature of ellipsis and the nature of movement since Ross’s 1969 seminal work. Given thatexamples such as (1)a are related to those such as (1)b via transformation as has been arguedby many authors, a number of theoretically significant issues have been addressed.
(1) a. Bill met a person, but I don’t know who.
b. Billi met a person, but I don’t know who hei met.
This short paper examines a construction similar to Sluicing found in Mandarin Chinese (MC)and Japanese. 1 (2)a and (2)b are representative examples from MC and Japanese,respectively:(2) a. Lisi yujian mouren, keshi wo bu zhidao shi shei
Lisi met someone but I not know Cop who‘Lisi met someone, but I don’t know who.’b. Takeshi-ga dareka-ni
atta-rasii-ga,
dare(-ni) da-ka wakaranai
Takeshi-Nom someone-Dat met-Hearsay-though who(-Dat) Cop-Q don’t.know‘Though I heard that Takeshi met someone, I don’t know who.’*

An earlier version of this paper grew out of the discussion that the authors had during the 4th
Tsinghua-Nanzan Workshop held at Nanzan University, July 21-22, 2007. We are grateful to those
who helped to organize the discussion at the workshop and those who we (independently) discussed
material related to the topic of the paper in other occasions, in particular, T.-H. Jonah Lin, Mamoru
Saito, W.-T. Dylan Tsai, and Barry C.-Y. Yang. The authors’ names appear in alphabetical order.
1

In this paper, we use “Sluicing” to mean nothing but TP-ellipsis, though “TP” should be understoodas a projection located between CP and VP.

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol.2, 35–50© 2008 Liching Livy Chiu, Tomohiro Fujii and Seichi Sugawa

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

We dub examples like these the “Sluicing-like Construction (SLC)” in order to avoid
presupposing a particular analysis of them.2
In what follows, we argue that the Japanese construction and the MC counterpart are
essentially the same species by showing that they share three syntactic properties. First, theyboth involve the copula verb or a copula-like element. Second, sloppy ellipsis behaves in thesame way in SLCs in the two languages. Third, the Japanese and MC constructions bothallow non-wh-remnants. We will then tackle the question of what kind of ellipsis is involvedin the SLC, in particular, whether the construction is an instance of Sluicing or not. Although
the question might sound like a matter of descriptive classification, there is reason to believethat it is theoretically worth asking, given recent theoretical developments in the study ofellipsis.
As has been well-established in the literature, Sluicing obeys some licensing conditions.
Let us consider some major conditions. First, Sluicing, like other ellipses, needs to satisfy an
identity/parallelism condition. Roughly put, elided constituents require identical antecedents.
The question of whether this condition is semantic or syntactic, or both, as well as thequestion of how the condition need be stated, is under debate (see, in particular, Merchant2001, Fox and Lasnik 2003, Potsdam 2007). Second, it has been proposed that elided
constituents in Sluicing need to meet conditions imposed on the COMP domain, as can beseen in Lobeck’s (1995) proposal. The relevant facts include the following: that not all whphrases can be Sluicing remnants (e.g., I wonder whether *<John left>), that an overt
complementizer cannot introduce an elided TP (see Merchant 2001: section 2.2.2), and so on.
We will use these conditions on the COMP domain to sharpen our understanding of the MC
and Japanese phenomenon.
The present paper is structured as follows: Section 2 examines three properties shared by
MC and Japanese SLCs. Section 3 explores potential implications that these three common
properties may have for the theory of Sluicing. Section 4 concludes the paper.
2. Three Commonalities
2.1 The Presence of the Copula
The first remarkable property of MC and Japanese SLCs is that they are essentiallycopula constructions. As can be seen in the examples given in (2), both the MC and Japanese
sentences contain the so-called copula, namely shi for MC and da for Japanese. As noted in
the literature, there are environments in which the copula is not required (see Nishiyama et al.
1996, Wang and Wu 2006 and references cited therein):2

The prominent recent literature includes Takahashi 1994, Nishiyama et al. 1996, Kuwabara 1996,
Kizu 2005, Nishigauchi 1998, Fukaya and Hoji 1999, Merchant 1998, Sakai 2001, Wang 2002,
Hiraiwa and Ishihara 2002, Saito 2004, Wei 2004, Shinohara 2006, Wang and Wu 2006, Chiu 2006,
2007, Sugawa (this volume), and many others.

-36-

Certain Commonalities between MC and Japanese SLCs (L. Chiu et al.)(3)

Zhangsan zuotian zaimougedifang maile dong fangzi, keshi
Zhangsan yesterday somewherebought ahouse but
wo bu zhidao (shi) zai-nali
I not know Cop at-where‘Zhangsan bought a house somewhere yesterday, but I don’t know where.”(4)

Yoko-ga dokoka-desaihu-ootosita-rasii-ga,
Yoko-Nom somewhere-at wallet-Acc dropped-Hearsay-though
Δ doko-de (da)-ka wakar-anai
where-at Cop-Q know-Neg.Prs‘Though I heard that Yoko dropped her wallet somewhere, I don’t know where.’

Although the environments for copula drop do not look the same in the two languages, what
is hard to overlook is that no SLCs that clearly prohibit the copula have been found in thelanguages (see section 3). We take this to indicate that MC and Japanese SLCs are different
from English Sluicing in that the latter does not show an obvious connection with a copula
construction, as has been noted by Kizu 2005.3
The presence of the copula in the MC and Japanese SLCs had led many linguists topropose that the sources of these constructions should involve a copula construction, inparticular a (pseudo)cleft construction of some sort (cf., though, Takahashi 1994, Nishigauchi
1998).4 In the literature on the Japanese construction, it has been long argued that the relevant
copula construction is a (pseudo)cleft construction, which contains a no-clause. The claim isthat the SLCs given in (2)b and (4) have (5) and (6), respectively, as “pre-ellipsis” sources:(5)

Takeshi-ga dareka-ni
atta-rasii-ga
Takeshi-Nom someone-Dat met-Hearsay-though[[kare-ga atta-no]-gadare(-ni) da-ka] wakaranai
he-Nom met-NO-Nom who(-Dat) Cop-Q don’t.know‘Though Takeshi met someone, I don’t know who Takashi met.’

3

As Merchant (1998, 2001) notes, English could have a sluicing-like construction involving ‘be’. The
possibility in question is that sluices might be derived from an it-cleft construction, as in I don’t know
who (it is). Merchant presents a number of restrictions on the pivot of such cleft sentences that are notfound with their sluiced counterparts. E.g. neither non-arguments nor non-standard arguments canoccur in the pivot of it-clefts, as in He fixed the car. I don’t know {how, why} (*it is). If MC andJapanese SLCs and their copula-less counterparts were totally different creatures, they would also
exhibit substantial differences. No such differences have been attested.
4

A terminological note is in order. Confusingly enough in our opinion, ‘Japanese clefts’ and ‘Japanesepseudoclefts’ are superficially similar to ‘Chinese pseudoclefts’ in that nominalized clauses (i.e. no- orde-clauses) seem to occupy the surface subject position.

-37-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(6)

Yoko-gadokoka-desaihu-ootosita-rasii-ga,
Yoko-Nom somewhere-at wallet-Acc dropped-Hearsay-though[[kanozyo-ga saihu-o
otosita-no]-ga
doko(-de) da-ka] wakar-anai
she-Nom wallet-Acc dropped-NO-but where-at Cop-Q know-Neg.Prs‘Though I heard that Yoko dropped her wallet somewhere, I don’t know where she
dropped her wallet.’Here the non-elliptical construction is a specificational copula construction in which thesurface subject is a clause headed by the complementizer -no and the pivot precedes the
copula (see, especially, Nishiyama et al. 1996, Hiraiwa and Ishihara 2002, Kizu 2005). As thecareful reader might have noticed, the particles on the pivots in these examples are optional as
indicated by pairs of brackets. The presence/absence of particles on pivots characterizes awell-discussed distinction between the so-called ‘cleft’ and ‘pseudocleft’ constructions inJapanese (Hoji 1990, Murasugi 1991). The distinction does not directly concern us here.5
Let us add yet another existing proposal, which is made by Sakai (2001), who claims that
SLCs are derived from the so-called noda construction. Again, the particle -no and the copula-da are involved:(7)[[Takeshi-ga dare-ni atta-no-da-ka] wakaranai
Takeshi-Nom who-Dat met-NO-Cop-Q don’t.know‘I don’t know who Takeshi met.’

Sakai analyzes this construction as the copula taking a clausal constituent headed by -no. In
this analysis, the wh-phrase, in its SLC counterpart, is displaced out of that clausal
constituent, and then deletion applies.6
Multiple analyses have been proposed for MC SLCs as well. Four pre-ellipsis sources
have been considered in the prominent literature: (i) the pseudocleft construction (Kizu 2005;
see Wang 2002, Chiu 2006, 2007; cf. Huang 1982), (ii) the cleft construction (see Wang
2002, Wei 2004, Chiu 2006, 2007; cf. Huang 1982), (iii) a null pro construction (Wei 2004),

5

The difference between Japanese “cleft” and “pseudocleft,” though, plays a role when we consider
the possibility that the missing constituent in SLCs is referential null pro, as noted by Hiraiwa andIshihara 2002 and Saito 2004. Nothing prevents one from analyzing the version of (5) without thedative as having a referential null subject, which refers to the person who dropped the wallet. In fact,sono hito-ga (that person-Nom) can be inserted in the surface subject position without degradation
unless the dative case marker is present; cf. *… sono hito-ga dare-ni da-ka kawaranai (that personNom who-Dat Cop-Q don’t.know).
6

See Hiraiwa and Ishihara 2002, who analyze the noda construction as transformationally related tothe cleft construction. See also Simpson 2003 and references cited therein for issues related toJapanese -no and MC -de.

-38-

Certain Commonalities between MC and Japanese SLCs (L. Chiu et al.)and (iv) what one may call the shi-XP fronting construction (Wang 2002, Wang and Wu
2006, Chiu 2006, 2007; cf. Hoh and Chiang 1990).
(8)

Lisi yujian yige ren, keshi wo bu zhidao …
Lisi meet aman but I not know
a. <Lisi yujian de> shi shei.
Lisi meet DE be who

Pseudocleftb. <*Lisi yujian> shi shei .
Lisi meet
FOC whoCleftc. pro shi shei
be whoNull prod. shi sheii <Lisi yujian>
FOC who Lisi meet

shi-XP fronting(Angled brackets indicate the elided site under the indicated analysis. We gloss shi with
“FOC” for cleft and shi-XP fronting constructions, following the literature.) A number ofobservations have been made in order to identify the general source of SLCs.7 It, though,suffices for the present purposes to recognize that we can find copula constructions in MCthat may serve as the pre-ellipsis source of SLCs. Rather than attempting to choose among
these possibilities, we will move onto the core data that underlie the claim that SLCs involve
ellipsis. In particular, we concentrate on the data concerning sloppy identity. (See Takahashi
1994 for other arguments.)
2.2 Sloppy Identity
Takahashi (1994) discovered that Japanese SLCs allow sloppy identity interpretation.8 Heprovided an SLC example of the following type involving ‘why’ (see also Nishiyama et al.
1996, Saito 2004):97

In MC pseudoclefts, PPs cannot reside in the pivot position of the construction, though they occur as
SLC remnants (see also footnotes 12, 18). Also, the fact that postverbal elements cannot be clefted
when they appear in-situ, as in (8)b (Huang 1982), is sometimes taken to argue that MC clefts do notserve as the general source of SLCs. See Chiu 2007 for merits and demerits of each of the possibilities
given in (8).
8Curiously enough, as Merchant (2001:8) notes, English Sluicing does not allow sloppy identity as
easily as was reported in Ross (1969) and in some of the references cited in the text. As far as we cansee from Merchant’s examples, why this restriction holds in English Sluicing is not clear (cf.
Takahashi and Fox 2005). One thing that needs to be done would be to determine whether sloppy
ellipsis being difficult is a general property of TP-ellipsis or it is a peculiarity of the English
construction. Unfortunately, no relevant data are available to us at this point.

-39-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(9)Taro-wa zibun-ga naze sikarareta-no-ka sitteiru-si,
Taro-Top self-Nom why was.scolded-NO-Q know.Prs-Conj
Yoko-mo naze da-ka sitteiru
Yoko-also why Cop-Q know.Prs‘Taroi knows why selfi was scolded. Yoko also knows why Δ.’
Δ can mean: Yoko was scolded.

The second sentence can mean what the following sentence means:(10)

Yoko-mo naze zibun-ga sikarareta-no-ka sitteiru
self-Nom‘Yoko knows why she was scolded.’

The same has been reported about MC SLCs (Wei 2004, Wang and Wu 2006, Chiu 2006):(11)

Zhangsan zhidao ziji weishenme bei-ma,
Lisi yie zhidao shi weishenme
Zhangsan know self why
was.scolded Lisi also know Cop why‘Zhangsani knows why selfi was scolded. Lisij also knows why Δ.’
Δ can mean: shej was scolded.

The availability of sloppy interpretation is not limited to examples with why. The Japaneseand MC examples below, which contain a locative wh-remnant, clearly have a sloppy
reading:(12)

Yokoi-wa zibuni-ga doko-de benkyoosuru-beki-ka
Yoko-Top self-Nom where-at study.Pres-should-Q
John-wa doko-de-da-ka wakattei-nai
John-Top where-at-Cop-Q know.Asp-Neg.Prs

wakatteiru-yooda-ga
know.Pres-seem-though‘Though Yokoi knows where selfi should study, John doesn’t know where Δ.’
Δ can mean: John should study(13)

Zhangsani zhidao zijii gai
zai-nali dushu,
Zhangsan know self should at-where study
dan Shaomei bu-zhidao shi zai-nali
but Shaomei not-know be at-where‘Zhangsani knows where selfi should study, but Shaomei doesn’t know where Δ.’
Δ can mean: Shaomei should study

9

The strict reading is also possible in this example, where a reflexive and its antecedent are not coarguments. This is orthogonal to our concern.

-40-

Certain Commonalities between MC and Japanese SLCs (L. Chiu et al.)

These data constitute an initial argument for the need of the ellipsis analysis of SLCs in the
two languages.
Nishiyama et al. (1996) and Wei (2004: 266) propose that the null constituent found in
SLCs may be a base-generated phonologically null pronominal even under the circumstance
where sloppy interpretation is attested. A proposal of this kind may sound as if it is at odds
with the claim that the availability of sloppy interpretation signals the involvement of ellipsis.
However, what the account of Nishiyama et al. and that of Wei put forth is that some kind of
copying operation gives rise to sloppy interpretation. More concretely, sloppy interpretationarises, they argue, when pro is replaced by a phrase marker containing a variable, which isbound by the binder residing outside the elided constituent. 10 In this analysis, (13) isinterpreted in the way schematized in (14):(14)[x gaiy dushu]should study
Shaomeix bu-zhidao[pro shi zai-naliy]
Shaomei doesn’t know
Cop at-whereThus this particular kind of base-generated pro analysis is a species of ellipsis analysis
precisely because the elided site has an articulated internal structure in which the variablebound by the remnant is represented at LF (in their analysis).
In passing, both Nishiyama et al. and Wei are concerned with an effect of the overt
demonstrative, sore ‘that’ in Japanese and na ‘that’ in MC. In the Japanese example given in(15), the surface subject of the copula construction is occupied by sore:(15)

Yoko-ga dokoka-desaihu-ootosita-rasii-ga,
Yoko-Nom somewhere-at wallet-Acc dropped-Hearsay-thoughsore-ga doko-de da-ka wakar-anai
that-Nom where-at Cop-Q know-Neg.Prs‘Though I heard that Yoko dropped her wallet somewhere, I don’t know where thatis.’

The relevance of these demonstratives to our discussion is that na or sore gives rise to an
environment in which an otherwise available sloppy identity reading becomes unavailable,
which is first observed by Takahashi (1994) (see also Kuwabara 1997 and Saito 2004). The
following example, which contains an overt, demonstrative surface subject, minimally differsfrom (12):10

We abstract away from the distinction that Wei has drawn among types of pronouns here. See Wei(2004: chapter 4).

-41-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(16)

Yokoi-wa zibuni-ga doko-de benkyoosuru-beki-ka wakatteiru-yooda-ga
Yoko-Top self-Nom where-at study.pres-should-Q know.Asp-seem-though
John-wa [sore-ga doko-de da-ka] wakattei-nai
John-Top [that-Nom where-at Cop-Q] know.Asp-Neg.Prs‘Though Yokoi seems to know where selfi should study, John doesn’t know wherethat is.’The second clause only means: John does not know where Yoko should study

The sloppy reading is not possible here. The MC equivalent of sore, na, also makes sloppy
interpretation go away:(17)

Zhangsani zhidao zijii gai
zai-nali dushu,
Zhangsan know self should at-where study
dan Shaomei bu-zhidao na shi zai-nali
but Shaomei not-know that be at-where‘Zhangsani knows where selfi should study, but Shaomei doesn’t know where thatis.’
The second clause can only mean: Shaomei does not know where Zhangsan should
study

Thus, the property of the demonstrative construction in question confirms the claim that MC
and Japanese SLCs are the same species.
The question to be addressed is why these overt demonstratives block sloppy identity
interpretation. We aren’t able to give a definite answer to this question, but it is worth notingthat the overt/null contrast under discussion seems to be more general than one might think.
Kuwabara 1997 and Kurafuji 1999, discussing so-called E-type pronouns in Japanese, madethe observation that an analogous contrast holds for object NPs. They specifically observedthat sore ‘that’ cannot be anteceded by an NP that contains a bound variable as easily as nullpronouns can be. (18) is cited from Kurafuji (1999:6) with his judgment:(18)

John-igai-no
dare-mo-ga[zibun-no kurezittokaado]i-o tuma-ni watasi-ta.
John-except-Gen everyone-Nom self-Gen credit.card-Acc
wife-to give-Past
John-wa ∅i/??sorei-o aijin-ni watashi-ta.
John-Top
that-Acc mistress give-Past‘Everyone but John gave a credit card of his to his wife. John gave one of his to his
mistress.’

It is interesting to note that an ellipsis approach to E-type pronouns has been proposed.
Attempting to eliminate the entity “E-type pronoun,” Elbourne 2000 proposes that pronounsof the relevant kind can be derived by ellipsis inside noun phrases. According to Elbourne, a
Cooper-type example like (19) is analyzed as in (20), where the pronoun it is claimed to be a-42-

Certain Commonalities between MC and Japanese SLCs (L. Chiu et al.)phonetic spellout of the definite article whose complement NP is elided. Note that the elided
NP contains a bound variable. (See Elbourne 2000 for justifications of the possessive his
actually being inside an NP.)
(19)

John gave his paycheck to his mistress. Everybody else put it in the bank.

(20)

John gave [DP the [NP paycheck of him]] to his mistress. Everybody elsei put [DP it<[NP paycheck of himi]>] in the bank.

If we apply Elbourne’s proposal to the Japanese data that Kuwabara and Kurafuji discussed,then the sloppy interpretation of the null pronoun found in (18) arguably results from ellipsis.
To the extent that the ellipsis approach to the sloppy reading in (18) is viable, the contrast
between SLCs and their ‘demonstrative’ counterparts provides an indirect argument that asubset of SLCs needs to be derived by ellipsis. As for the question of why the demonstrative
element makes sloppy identity unavailable, it may be that the element makes ellipsis
inapplicable or that, while ellipsis itself applies without a problem, the element somehow
blocks binding of a variable from the outside of elided constituents (cf. Takahashi and Fox
2005 and the references cited therein).11
2.3

Non-wh- Remnants

A final parallel between MC and Japanese SLCs concerns non-wh-remnants. As
observed by Nishiyama et al. 1996 and others, Japanese SLCs, unlike English Sluicing, allow
their remnants to be non-wh-phrases. Consider (21):(21)

Yamada-sensei-wa Yoko-ga
tosyokan-de benkyoositeiru-to omotteiru-ga
Prof. Yamada-Top Yoko-Nom library-at is.studying-C
think-though
Tanaka-sensei-wa Δ gakusyoku-de
da-to omotteiru
Prof. Tanaka-Top
student cafeteria-at Cop-C think‘Professor Yamada thinks that Yoko is reading a book at the library, but Professor
Tanaka thinks that Δ is at the student cafeteria.’

This sentence is acceptable, and the second clause can be paraphrased as in (22):11

A morphosyntactic fact found in the demonstrative counterparts of SLCs can be taken to argue forthe latter conclusion. As noted by Saito 2004, sore-sentences of this kind allow PPs or case-marked
elements as their pivot. Examples like (16) or (17) can be taken to exhibit the case connectivity effectbecause the pivots in these examples are not likely to be predicates but look like dependents of thelexical verb ‘drop’. This may suggest to us that even the demonstrative construction may be derived
by ellipsis; otherwise, it is not clear how these pivots obtain the particle that they do. See Nakao andYoshida 2007 for an analysis of the demonstrative construction along these lines.

-43-Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(22)

Tanaka-sensei-wa [Yoko-ga benkyoositeiru-no]-wa gakusyoku-de
da-toProf. Tanaka-Top Yoko-Nom is.studying-NO]-Top student cafeteria-at Cop-C
omotteiru
thinks‘Prof. Tanaka thinks that it is at the student cafeteria that Yoko is studying.’

An MC example parallel to (21) is given in (23)a, which can be paraphrased as in (23)b:12(23) a. Zhang laoshi renwei Lisi zai tushuguan du yuyanxue,
Zhang teacher thinks Lisi at librarystudy linguistics
dan Lin laoshi renwei shi zai kafeiting
but Lin teacher think be at coffee shop
‘Prof. Zhang thinks that Lisi is studying linguistics at the library, but Prof. Lin thinksthat Δ at the coffee shop.’b. Zhang laoshi renwei Lisi zai tushuguan du yuyanxue,
Zhang teacher thinks Lisi at librarystudy linguistics
dan Lin laoshi renwei Zhangsan shi zai kafeiting du yuyanxue debut Lin teacher think Zhangsan be at coffee shop study linguistics DE‘Prof. Zhang thinks that Lisi is studying linguistics at the library, but Prof. Lin thinksthat it is at the coffee shop that Zhangsan is studying linguistics.’
This situation is totally expected if a copula construction underlies MC and Japanese
SLCs (see section 3 for discussion of what kind of copula construction it can be). The pivot or
the focus material of the relevant copula construction(s) does not have to be a wh-phrase.
Thus, the SLC with a wh-remnant receives an analysis of the sort presented below (linear
order is irrelevant):13(24)[CQ … [PIVOT/FOCUS wh-remnant]i … <… variablei … > … ]The point we are making here is that the surface position of SLC remnants is not a position inwhich standard Sluicing remnants are located.

12

We say “paraphrase” because we are neutral with respect to whether the so-called shi…deconstruction given in (23)b can serve as a ‘pre-ellipsis’ source of (23)a. As is noted in footnote 7, there
are instances of SLC that do not seem to have their acceptable pseudocleft counterparts. (23)b is one
such case; the remnant of the SLC is a PP, but its pseudocleft counterpart is unacceptable (see Wang
2002, Wei 2004, Wang and Wu 2006, Chiu 2006, 2007). See footnote 18 for further discussion.
13

We are not concerned with the question of how the A-bar association between the pivot and thevariable is established or with the related question about its sensitivity to islands. See footnote 11.

-44-

Certain Commonalities between MC and Japanese SLCs (L. Chiu et al.)

3. Discussion
In section 1, we quickly laid out some of the theoretical issues that the phenomenon of
Sluicing raises. We hope to have shown that Japanese and MC SLCs involve some kind of
ellipsis and that they have copula constructions as their pre-ellipsis forms (if they are notexactly the same copula construction). In fact, as Nishiyama et al. (1996) observe, Korean
SLCs differ from standard Sluicing in the same way as the MC and Japanese counterparts do(see also Kim 1997, Sakai 2001). Standard Sluicing, by contrast, neither allows non-whremnants nor has an obvious transformational relationship with a copula construction (seefootnote 3). The current state of affairs leads us to ask the following question:14(25)

How is it possible for Japanese, Korean and MC to allow a construction like the SLC,
which does not exist in English?

One other related but separate question is whether these three languages allow an Englishtype Sluicing construction in which wh-remnants are located in SpecCP. This question
becomes an issue because the proposal can be found that copula-less SLCs may involve whmovement into the specifier of interrogative C (Takahashi 1994). If a subset of SLCs may
involve English-type wh-movement, we expect that “copula drop” is possible whenever whmovement is possible. A strong argument that this is not the case is presented by Nishiyama
et al. (1996: 341–42), who observe that Korean and MC resist “copula drop” at least in certain
environments.15 A relevant example from MC is given in (26):(26)

Zhangsan zuotian yujian mouren, keshi wo bu zhidao *(shi) shei
Zhangsan yesterday met someone but I not know be who‘Zhangsan met someone yesterday, but I don’t know who.’

Since there is little reason to believe that the object wh-phrase shei would not be able toundergo wh-movement under the ‘wh-movement’ analysis of (26), the version without the
copula should be possible, contrary to fact. Now the following question needs to beaddressed:(27)

Why do MC/Korean (and possibly Japanese) not allow English-style Sluicing?

The purpose of the remainder of this section is twofold. First, we provide an answer for
the question in (27) by appealing to the recent understanding of the syntactic conditions
imposed on the COMP domain in Sluicing. Second, we consider two possible analyses of
SLCs, each of which gives rise to a possible answer for the question addressed in (25). The
14

Kizu (2005: 165–70) suggests that there is a connection between a language being wh-in-situ one
and the presence of the copula in its SLCs. See Merchant (2001: 84–85) for a brief comment on thisgeneralization.
15

For further discussion on “copula omission” in SLCs, see Wang 2002, Wei 2004, Wang and Wu
2006, among others.

-45-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

first analysis continues to assume that SLCs involve TP-ellipsis. The second is one that rejects
that assumption. We attempt to explicate the characteristics of each analysis and explore
directions for future research.
The conclusion that no SLCs are fed by wh-movement (at least in MC and Korean)follows from a syntactic condition imposed on the COMP domain, put together with afamiliar assumption about the feature specification of C in those East Asian languages.
Merchant (2004: 670), modifying an analysis of the sort found in Lobeck (1995) and Saito
and Murasugi (1990), proposes that C qualifies as a syntactic TP-ellipsis licenser by bearing
the feature [E]. According to Merchant, [E] must cooccur with a strong uninterpretable Qfeature and a strong uninterpretable wh-feature (represented as [u+Q*] and [u+wh*],respectively, where * indicates the feature being strong) (cf. Merchant 2001: 81). If
interrogative C in these wh-in-situ languages lacks either [u+Q*] or [u+wh*], then its [E]feature should not have the ability to license TP-ellipsis.16, 17
Turn to the question addressed in (25), namely, what makes East Asian languages allow
the SLC that English does not allow. Note that the discussion made above does notnecessarily exclude the possibility of analyzing SLCs in terms of TP-ellipsis. This is because
a functional head other than C may license TP-ellipsis. As Merchant (2001:81-82) notes and
Craenenbroeck and Lipták (2006) extensively discuss, TP-ellipsis remnants may appear in thespecifier of Focus Phrase in languages like Hungarian. Craenenbroeck and Lipták proposethat Focº bears the [E]-feature and that the requirement for [E] in these languages is different:[E] is licensed by the presence of a strong uninterpretable operator-feature ([u+Op*]). Theyobserve that non-wh-remnants, in addition to wh-remnants, are allowed in such languages, as
illustrated by the following Hungarian example:(28)

János meghívott valakit
és azthiszem [hogy [FocP BÉLÁT Foc[uOp] ∅]]János invited
someone.Acc and that.Acc think
that
Béla.Acc“János invited someone and I think it was Béla that he invited.”

16

One might say that the reason for the non-existence of TP-ellipsis licensed by C in Korean (andpossibly in Japanese) should be tied to the fact that question particles cannot be null particularly inembedded contexts, given that the licensing head being null is one of the licensing conditions forstandard Sluicing. There are two reasons to think that this property cannot be a crucial factor. First,
MC interrogative C is allowed to be null. Second, if Merchant (2001:80) is right that this licensing
condition is essentially a morphophonological one and therefore sensitive to linear order, it is not
immediately clear that the condition be active in a head-final language like Japanese and Korean.
17

Apparently, our assumption is not compatible with Watanabe’s 1992 analysis of Japanese wh-in-situ,
according to which wh-in-situ in the language involves null operator movement into the C domain at
surface structure. If Watanabe’s proposal is correct, the proposed reason for interrogative C in
Japanese not being able to license TP-ellipsis may become unavailable. See Takahashi 1994 forrelevant discussion.

-46-

Certain Commonalities between MC and Japanese SLCs (L. Chiu et al.)Although the complementizer, hogy, is not null, that does not cause a problem for the ‘null
licensing head’ condition for Sluicing, precisely because null Focº is a licensing head.
Notice that nothing obvious prevents us from assuming that the East Asian languages,
like Hungarian, have Focº with [uOp*] and that it can license an elided constituent:(29)[CP C° [FocP XP-remnant Foc° [TP Ø]]](linear order irrelevant)This sort of structural analysis has been proposed for Japanese SLCs by Hiraiwa and Ishihara(2002), who propose that the copula da is generated under Focº (see Nishigauchi and Fujii
2006). This may be incompatible with the ‘null licensing head’ requirement on COMP. It is
not clear, however, that Focº being overt undermines the analysis as discussed in footnote 16.
As for the position of MC shi, the element in question is sometimes argued to function as afocus marker attached to a focused constituent (Huang 1982: 208; cf. Hoh and Chiang 1990).
If so, it is possible to maintain that Focº in MC, which looks like a head-initial language in therelevant respect, is phonologically null. The point here is that the ‘TP-ellipsis’ analysis of
SLCs can be made compatible with the standard TP-ellipsis licensing conditions.
These analytical details aside, the ‘focus movement’ approach to SLCs enables us toaddress a potentially interesting question as to a typology of Sluicing. Craenenbroeck and
Lipták (2006) distinguish English-type languages and Hungarian-type languages, based on thefact that wh-movement in the latter targets SpecFocP, rather than SpecCP. The possibility wesuggested above for East Asian is similar to their analysis of Hungarian-type languages
because it claims that SLCs also employ Focº for TP-ellipsis licensing. Craenenbroeck and
Lipták, nevertheless, formulate a typological picture in a way that would not allow us to treat
East Asian SLCs on a par with Hungarian Sluicing. They propose that ellipsis licensing by
Focº in a language is contingent on obligatory wh-movement targeting SpecFocP in that
language. Because the East Asian languages under discussion do not seem to have such overt
movement, we need to reconsider the possible range of options about the relationship between
movement of wh-phrases and movement of non-wh-phrases if SLCs involve TP-ellipsis. Thismight shed further light on the nature of the syntax of [E].
Let us turn to the approach that rejects a TP-ellipsis analysis of SLCs. That is an‘argument ellipsis’ approach, according to which what undergoes ellipsis in SLCs is not a TP
but the surface subject of the (pseudo)cleft construction:(30)[Subject Ø] copula [Pivot XP-remnant](linear order irrelevant)Authors such as Saito (2004), Shinohara (2006), and Sugawa (this volume) discuss thisapproach specifically from a viewpoint of a general theory of ellipsis. The empirical claim isthat the phenomenon in Japanese is not an instance of TP-ellipsis but an instance of ‘argument
ellipsis’. Null object constructions are taken to be a representative case of argument ellipsis(Oku 1998, Kim 1996; cf. Tomioka 2003. See also example (18)). According to the‘argument ellipsis’ approach to the SLC, the construction is derived from the (pseudo)cleft-47-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

construction by deleting the surface clausal subject (see section 2.1).18 In other words, the(pseudo)cleft strategy provides a way of making elided constituents stand in argument
position. There seem to be ways of testing this hypothesis. For instance, whether distinctive
properties of argument ellipsis constructions hold for SLCs should be examined. Also, allother things being equal, the ‘argument ellipsis’ analysis of MC SLCs implies that null object
constructions in MC have the same properties as those in Japanese and Korean. These tasks
are left untouched in this paper.
4. Conclusion
This short paper discussed how properties of sluicing-like constructions found in MC
and Japanese (and Korean) are related to general, theoretical and analytical issues surrounding
Sluicing, i.e. TP-ellipsis. As we observed, sluicing-like constructions in these languages arehighly likely to be the same creature: MC and Japanese constructions behave alike withrespect to sloppy ellipsis, the presence of the copula(-like) element and the availability of
non-wh-remnants. We considered two ways of understanding of this state of affairs, i.e. the‘TP-ellipsis’ approach and the ‘argument ellipsis’ approach, discussing what can be or need to
be done from each approach’s point of view in future investigations.

References
Chiu, Liching Livy (2006) “A Focus-Movement Account on Chinese Multiple Sluicing,” Nanzan
Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Volume 1, Nagoya: Nanzan University, pp. 23–31.
Chiu, Liching Livy (2007) “Focus Licensed Remnant and Repair of Movement Constraints by
Deletion,” paper presented at the International Symposium of the Cambridge-ConnecticutHyderabad-Nanzan-Siena-Tsing Hua Consortium for Linguistics, December 2007, National
Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw, and James McCloskey (1995) “Sluicing and Logical Form,”
Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–82.
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, and Anikó Lipták (2006) “The Cross-linguistic Syntax of Sluicing:
Evidence from Hungarian Relatives.” Syntax 9: 248–74.
Elbourne, Paul (2000) “E-type Pronouns as Definite Articles,” in R. Billerey and B. Lillehaugen (eds.),
Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press, pp. 83-96.
Fox, Danny, and Howard Lasnik (2003) “Successive Cyclic Movement and Island Repair: The
Difference between Sluicing and VP-ellipsis.” Linguistic Inquiry 34:143–54.
18

As briefly noted in footnote 12, SLCs allow PP remnants whereas pseudoclefts do not allow PP
pivots in MC. This fact has been used to argue that the pseudocleft construction cannot be the generalsource of SLCs (Wang 2002, Wang and Wu 2006, Chiu 2006, 2007). A possible response from the‘argument ellipsis’ approach would be that the factors responsible for the absence of PP-pivots are
essentially morphophonological ones, the effect of which disappears when the pre-copula clause is left
unpronounced.

-48-

Certain Commonalities between MC and Japanese SLCs (L. Chiu et al.)

Fukaya, Teruhiko and Hajime Hoji (1999) “Stripping and Sluicing in Japanese and Some
Implications,” in S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen, and P. Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of the
18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp.
145–58.
Hiraiwa, Ken, and Shinichiro Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing, and “No Da”
Construction in Japanese,” in Proceedings of HUMIT 2001, MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics, volume 43, Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL, pp. 35–54.
Hoh, Pau-San, and Chiang, Wen-yu (1990). “A Focus Account of Moved Wh-phrases at S-structure in
Chinese.” Lingua 81: 47–73.
Hoji, Hajime (1990) Theories of Anaphora and Aspects of Japanese Syntax. Ms., University of South
California, Los Angels.
Hoji, Hajime (1998) “Null objects and sloppy identity in Japanese.” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 127-152
Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.
Kim, Jeong-Seok (1997) Syntactic Focus Movement and Ellipsis: A Minimalist Approach. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Kim, Soowon (1996) “Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis.” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8: 255–84.
Kizu, Mika (2005) Cleft Construction in Japanese Syntax. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kuwabara, Kazuki (1997) “On the Properties of Truncated Clauses in Japanese,” in K. Inoue (ed.),Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Languages, Kanda University ofInternational Studies, pp. 61–83.
Lobeck, Anne (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Merchant, Jason (1998) “‘Pseudosluicing’: Elliptical Clefts in Japanese and English,” in A. Alexiadou,
N. Fuhrhop, P. Law, and U. Kleinhenz (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 10, Berlin: Zentrum
für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 88–112.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
Merchant, Jason (2004) “Fragments and Ellipsis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–73.
Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Acquisition andLearnability, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nakao, Chizuru, and Masaya Yoshida (2006) “Japanese Sluicing as a Specificational Pseudo-cleft,” inY. Otsu (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Tokyo: Hituzi
Syobo, pp. 243–67.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1998) “‘Multiple Sluicing’ in Japanese and the Functional Nature of Whphrases.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 121–52
Nishigauchi, Taisuke, and Tomohiro Fujii (2006) “Structures of Short Answers,” Ms., Kobe Shoin
Women’s University and University of Maryland.
Nishiyama, Kunio, John Whitman and Eun-Young Yi (1996) “Syntactic Movement of Overt WhPhrases in Japanese and Korean,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 337–51.
Oku, Satoshi (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut.

-49-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Potsdam, Eric (2007) “Malagasy Sluicing and Its Consequences for the Identity Requirement on
Ellipsis,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 577–13.
Ross J. Robert (1969). “Guess who?,” in R. Binnick et al. (eds), Papers from the Fifth Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 252–86.
Saito, Mamoru (2004) “Ellipsis and Pronominal Reference in Japanese Clefts,” Nanzan Linguistics 1,
Nagoya: Nanzan University, pp. 21–50.
Saito, Mamoru, and Keiko Murasugi (1990) “N´-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary Study.” inJapanese/Korean Linguistics 1, H. Hoji (ed.), Stanford: CSLI, pp. 285–302.
Sakai, Hiromu (2001) “Review of J-S. Kim, Syntactic Focus Movement and Ellipsis: A Minimalist
Approach. Glot International, Volume 5.
Shinohara, Michie (2006) “On Some Differences between the Major Deletion Phenomena andJapanese Argument Ellipsis.” Ms., Nanzan University.
Simpson, Andrew (2003) “On the Re-analysis of Nominalizers in Chinese, Japanese and Korean,” inA. Li and A. Simpson (eds.), Functional Structure(s), Form and Interpretation. London and
New York: Routledge-Curzon.
Sugawa, Seichi (this volume) “Ellipsis and Repair Effects,” Nanzan Linguistics, Special Issue 3,
Volume 2, Nagoya: Nanzan University, pp. 145–63.
Takahashi, Daiko (1994) “Sluicing in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 265–300.
Takahashi, Shoichi, and Danny Fox (2005) “MaxElide and the Re-binding Problem,” in E. Georgala
and J. Howell (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 15. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications, Cornell
University.
Tomioka, Satoshi (2003) “The Semantics of Null Arguments in Japanese and Its Cross-linguistic
Implications,” in Schwabe, K. and S. Winkler (eds.), Interfaces, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamin, 321–39.
Wang, Chyan-an Arthur (2002) On Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua
University, Taiwan.
Wang, Chyan-an Arthur, and Hsiao-hung Iris Wu (2006) “Sluicing and Focus Movement in Wh-in-situ
Languages.” Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 12.1. University of Pennsylvania,
Department of Linguistics.
Watanabe, Akira (1992) “Subjacency and S-structure Movement of Wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 3: 255–91.
Wei, Ting-Chi (2004) Predication and Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, Doctoral dissertation, National
Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.

-50-