STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF CASE IN ELLIPSIS*
Kensuke Takita
Mie University

1. Introduction
Although it is uncontroversial that an elided constituent is required to be identical to its
antecedent, much controversy arises when it comes to the nature of the identity in question.
Some of the earlier approaches to ellipsis, no matter whether ellipsis is implemented in termsof deletion or copying, have assumed that it is syntactic. (see, e.g., Ross 1969, Sag 1976,
Williams 1977, Fiengo and May 1994, Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey 1995, Fox 2000).
Merchant (2001) on the other hand develops a theory that allows ellipsis even when an elided
constituent and its antecedent have different syntactic structures, as long as they aresemantically identical to each other. Specifically, it is proposed that ellipsis can be legitimate
if an elided constituent and its antecedent entail each other. Since such a mutual entailment
relation is a purely semantic notion, it can hold between two constituents that havecompletely different syntactic structures.
While various researchers have offered supportive arguments for both positions after
0HUFKDQW¶V ZRUN VHH HJ /DVQLN  )R[ DQG /DVQLN  0HUFKDQW   IRUsyntactic identity; see, e.g., Potsdam 2007, van Craenenbroeck 2010, Yoshida 2010 for
semantic identity), Chung (2013) proposes an idea called limited syntactic identity, claimingthat on top of Merchant-type semantic identity, syntactic identity is also necessary in a crucial
but limited way. That is, semantic identity and syntactic identity are both necessary, althoughcertain limited varieties of syntactic properties can play a role for ellipsis to be legitimate. In
particular, it is argued that the condition concerning Case and the one concerning argument
structure are the only syntactic identity requirements in ellipsis (details are reviewed in thesubsequent section).
3RLQWLQJ RXW VHYHUDO SUREOHPV RI &KXQJ¶V   VSHFLILF LPSOHPHQWDWLRQV RI OLPLWHG
syntactic identity, this paper proposes a more unified implementation of limited syntactic*

I thank the participants of The 18th Workshop of the International Research Project on
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, held at Nanzan University, Nagoya, in March 2013,
DQG³,GHQWLW\LQ(OOLSVLV´&RQIHUHQFHKHOGDW/HLGHQ8QLYHUVLW\1HWKHUODnds, September 2013, where
earlier versions of this paper were presented, and Seiki Ayano, Justin Boffemmyer, Tomo Fujii,
Kenshi Funakoshi, Nobu Goto, David Medeiros, Shigeru Miyagawa, Taichi Nakamura, Koichi Otaki,
Mamoru Saito, Osamu Sawada, Koji Sugisaki, Daiko Takahashi, Hisako Takahashi, Masahiko
Takahashi, Lyn Tieu, and Masaya Yoshida for their valuable comments and discussions on various
occasions. All errors are of course mine.
Nanzan Linguistics 10, 75±106©2015 Kensuke Takita

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

identity. Although Chung (2013) argues that both Case and argument structure play a role inellipsis, I propose to reduce these two to one, strengthening the role of Case. Then, it isshown that the revised formulation, which I call Case-oriented syntactic identity, not only
simplifies the notion of syntactic identity in ellipsis by reducing the number of the conditions
but also offers a unified treatment of a wide range of data.
This paper is organized as followV6HFWLRQUHYLHZV&KXQJ¶V  DQDO\VLVSRLQWLQJ
out that it has the following two problems: First, there is a redundancy between the condition
concerning Case and the one concerning argument structure; second, the condition regardingargument structure should be reconsidered if we look at ellipsis constructions other thansluicing, which is the main focus of Chung (2013). In Section 3, I argue that the idea that
Case is the key syntactic factor in ellipsis solves these problems, when combined withMeUFKDQW¶V    LQVLJKW WKDW WKH VL]H RI WKH HOLGHG FRQVWLWXHQW KDV D VLJQLILFDQW
consequence for the possibility of ellipsis. Section 4 demonstrates that Case-oriented
syntactic identity can capture a wide range of facts in a unified manner, providing a numberof consequences. Section 5 concludes this paper.
2.

Background and the Problems

Chung (2013) states the basic idea of limited syntactic identity as in (1), and to
implement it, she proposes the conditions in (2).
(1)

Limited syntactic identity in sluicing (the basic idea) (Chung 2013:29)
The interrogative phrase of the sluice must be integrated into a substructure of thesyntax in the ellipsis site that is identical to the corresponding substructure of theantecedent clause.

(2)

Limited syntactic identity (specifics) (Chung 2013:30)
a. Argument structure condition: If the interrogative phrase is the argument of apredicate in the ellipsis site, that predicate must have an argument structure
identical to that of the corresponding predicate in the antecedent.
b. Case condition: If the interrogative phrase is a DP, it must be Case-licensed in theellipsis site by a head identical to the corresponding head in the antecedent clause.

Let us see what these conditions are designed to capture. Assuming that an active
predicate and its passive counterpart have different argument structures, Chung (2013) takes
the impossibility of voice mismatches under sluicing, exemplified by (3) (adopted from
Merchant 2013:81; see also 2001, 2008, 2013, Chung 2006, 2013 and references citedtherein), as a typical violation of the argument structure condition (following the notation in
Merchant 2013, the intended elided materials are put in angled brackets).
(3)a. * 6RPHRQHPXUGHUHG-RHEXWWKH\GRQ¶WNQRZZKRE\KHZDVPXUGHUHG!

- 76 -76-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015b. * -RHZDVPXUGHUHGEXWWKH\GRQ¶WNQRZZKRPXUGHUHGKLP!
For instance, sluicing is blocked in (3b) because the argument structure of the active murder,
which takes who as its argument, is not identical to that of its passive counterpart in theantecedent.
Note that the ungrammaticality of voice-mismatched sluicing is unexpected under
0HUFKDQW¶V   IRUPXODWLRQ RI VHPDQWLF LGHQWLW\ EDVHG RQ D PXWXDO HQWDLOPHQWrelationship. For Merchant, ellipsis is allowed if the condition in (4) is satisfied, and thenotion of e-GIVENness is defined as in (5), where F-clo stands for Focus-closure.1(4)

Focus condition on ellipsis (Merchant (2001: 38))
$FRQVWLWXHQWĮFDQEHGHOHWHGRQO\LIĮLVH-GIVEN.

(5)

E-GIVENness (Merchant (2001: 31))
An expression E counts as e-GIVEN iff E has a salient antecedent A and, modulo type shifting,(i) A entails F-clo(E), and(ii) E entails F-clo(A).

The elided TP (notated as TPE) and its antecedent TP (notated as TPA) in (3a) have thefollowing semantic representations. Provided that he in (6b) refers to Joe, TPA entails Fclo(TPE) and TPE entails F-clo(TPA). Hence, TPE counts as e-GIVEN by (5).
(6)

a.

TPA = F-clo(TPA) = x. x murdered Joe

b. TPE = F-clo(TPE) = x. he was murdered by xConsequently, ellipsis of TP should be possible, contrary to fact, if the notion of identity inellipsis is purely semantic. Chung (2013) takes this point as evidence for the necessity ofsyntactic identity, and argues that argument structure is the crucial syntactic factor in the caseof voice-mismatched sluicing.
Let us turn to the Case condition. One of the cases that the Case condition is designed tocover has to do with the examples in (7), adopted from Chung (2013:27) (see also Merchant2001:22).
(7)a.

Decorating for the holidays is easy if you know how. <to decorate for the holidays>

1

Some additional definitions are: ³[t]he F-closure of Į [«] is the result of replacing F-marked parts
RIĮZLWK-bound variables of the appropriate type (modulo -W\SHVKLIWLQJ  0HUFKDQW  ´
DQG³-type shifting is a type shifting operation that raises expressions to type <t> and existentiallybinds unfilled arguments (Merchant (2001: 14, fn. 3) ´.

- 77 -77-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)b. * Having to compromise is inevitable, but they have no idea who. <has tocompromise>c.

,UHPHPEHUPHHWLQJKLPEXW,GRQ¶WUHPHPEHUZKHQ,PHWKLP!

As in (7a), a to-infinitive can be elided taking a gerund as its antecedent, despite theirmorphological mismatches. Note that what is elided in (7a) cannot be the gerundive clause,
which is identical to the antecedent, because a wh-phrase cannot take scope within agerundive clause (i.e., *how decorating for the holidays). On the other hand, sluicing isblocked in (7b), which involves ellipsis of a finite TP with a gerundive antecedent, though therelevant mismatch is highly similar to the one in (7a). Since a gerundive clause can be anantecedent for a finite TP as in (7c), the fact that the elided TP in (7b) is finite cannot be thesource of the ungrammaticality.
According to Chung (2013), sluicing is blocked in (7b) by the Case condition, which
essentially requires the presence of an identical Case-licensor in the antecedent that
corresponds to the Case-licensor of the DP sluicing remnant. To be more specific, the Case
condition is violated in (7b) since the finite T0 in the ellipsis site, which Case-licenses the
subject interrogative phrase (i.e., who), does not have a corresponding finite T0 in thegerundive antecedent having to compromise.2 As for (7a) and (7c), the interrogative phrases
how and when are not a DP but an adjunct, so that Case-licensing is not necessary. Hence theCase condition is (vacuously) satisfied. Furthermore, assuming that the elided to-infinitive
and the gerundive antecedent can stand in a mutual entailment relation in (7a) and (7c), thesemantic identity requirement is also satisfied (recall that Chung (2013) argues for bothsyntactic and semantic identity). Hence, nothing prevents ellipsis from being legitimate.3

2

Readers may wonder whether (7b) is ungrammatical because there is no Case-licensor in theantecedent (the account in terms of the Case condition) or simply because PRO cannot serve as acorrelate. Note however that these two are not mutually exclusive. Rather, Chung¶s (2013) analysis
offers an account of the inability of PRO to serve as a correlate: The Case condition demands that theCase-licensor of the DP remnant have a corresponding head in the antecedent, which means that thecorrelate must also be Case-licensed by the head in the antecedent. This excludes the possibility for
PRO to be a correlate, because PRO cannot receive Case that the overt remnant does.
3

The examples in (7) do not necessarily support the Case condition if there are certain alternative
ways of capturing the examples in question. For instance, Tanaka (2011b) analyzes (7a) as involving
VP-ellipsis instead of ellipsis of to-infinitives, followed by concomitant dropping of the infinitivemarker to as in (i).
(i)

Decorating for the holidays is easy if you know how (to) [VP decorate for the holidays].

Although Tanaka¶s (2011b) analysis might be correct for this particular example, the analysis does notseem to be able to be extended to all the other cases that Chung (2013) captures in terms of the Case
condition.

- 78 -78-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

Note at the same time that the argument structure condition cannot deal with theungrammaticality of (7b). This is because the interrogative phrase in (7b), namely the sluicing
remnant who, is an argument of compromise, and the gerundive antecedent involves the same
predicate having an identical argument structure.
Similarly, the Case condition has nothing to say about voice-mismatched sluicing. For
instance, (3b), which presumably has a structure like (8), observes the Case condition because
the Case-licensor of who is T0 in the elided TP and the antecedent TP does include T0.4
(8)*[TPA Joei [T0 was] murdered ti@EXWWKH\GRQ¶WNQRZZKRj [TPE tj T0 murdered him]

Since the two conditions in (2) concern disjoint sets of data, both of them are claimed tobe necessary. A close scrutiny however reveals that there is a redundancy between these two
conditions. Namely, there are cases that can be excluded by both of them. One such case has
to do with the examples that Chung (2013) analyzes as violating the argument structure
condition.
The relevant examples come from an alternation between intransitive and derived
transitive verbs found in Chamorro. In Chamorro, intransitive verbs like HNJX¶ µMHDORXV¶DQG
DQGL¶ µIOLUW¶FDQEHWXUQHGLQWRWUDQVLWLYHYHUEVE\WDNLQJWKHVXIIL[ -i. For instance, the first
conjunct in (9a) contains the intransitive verb HNJX¶ µMHDORXV¶ DQG WKH VHFRQG conjunct
Another objection can be raised for (7c). So-called PRO-ing gerunds involved in (7c) and (iia)below can be an antecedent for a finite TP, while so-called Ing-of gerunds cannot, as theungrammaticality of (iib) indicates. (The examples in (ii) are cited from Tanaka 2011b.)
(ii)

a.

I remember shooting the scene, but I don¶t remember when.

b. * I remember the shooting of the scene, but I don¶t remember when.
Chung¶s (2013) analysis (and my analysis to be proposed) should attribute the contrast found in (ii) toa semantic difference between PRO-ing gerunds and Ing-of gerunds, because the remnant is an
adjunct when so that neither the argument structure condition nor the Case condition can exclude (iib).
In fact, several researchers (Abney 1987, Grimshaw 1990, Kratzer 1996, Harley and Noyer 1997,
Alexiadou 2001, and Moulton 2004, among many others) argue that PRO-ing gerunds contain aclausal structure where the external argument of the gerundive verb is present while Ing-of gerunds
lack the external argument. This difference between these two kinds of gerunds with respect to theexistence of the external argument has a significant effect for the calculation of semantic identity interms of mutual entailment: A PRO-ing gerund but not an Ing-of gerund can enter a mutual entailment
relationship with a finite clause because only the former has an external argument. As a result, ellipsis
can be legitimate only in (iia). In this way, the contrast found in (ii) can be captured in terms of
semantic identity.
4

Throughout this paper I represent ellipsis as if it involved deletion, but it is not the central claim of
this paper. Although the analysis to be proposed straightforwardly fits in the deletion approach, Chung(2013:31-32) discusses a potential way of implementing her analysis, on which the proposed analysis
is built, under the copying approach. Hence, I do not discuss how to implement ellipsis any further.

- 79 -79-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

contains its derived transitive version (adopted from Chung 2013:16).5 These examples tellus the following two facts. First, an internal argument of the transitive version is realized as adirect object while it is marked by oblique or local case if it appears as a complement of theintransitive counterpart (e.g. hao vs. nu hågu in (9a) and si Maria vs. gias Maria in (9b)).
Second, a clause containing the intransitive version and one containing its transitive
counterpart are synonymous, so that negating one of them results in a contradiction (notatedas #).
(9)a. # (NJX¶\X¶ nu hågu, lao ti hu HNJX¶L
hao.
AGR.jealous I
OBL youbut not AGR jealous.of youµ,¶PMHDORXVRI\RXEXW,¶PQRWMHDORXVRI\RX¶
b. # Ha DQGLGL¶L
si
Juan siMaria, lao ti um-D¶DQGL¶
AGR flirt.with.PROG UNM Juan UNM Maria but not AGR-flirt.PROG
si

Juan gias Maria.
UNM Juan LOC Mariaµ-XDQLVIOLUWLQJZLWK0DULDEXW-XDQLVQ¶WIOLUWLQJZLWK0DULD¶
According to Chung (2013), the complements of the intransitive versions become implicit
arguments when they are not overtly realized. A piece of evidence for her claim comes fromthe examples in (10a-b) (based on Chung 2013:16), where denying the existence of thereferent of the implicit argument induces a contradiction.
(10) a. # (NJX¶
JXL¶ lao Wn\D¶ha
HNJX¶L
AGR.jealous he
but AGR.not.exist WH[OBJ] jealous.ofµ+H¶VMHDORXVEXWWKHUH¶VQRRQHWKDWKH¶VMHDORXVRI¶b. # Um-D¶DQGL¶
JXL¶ lao Wn\D¶ha
DQGLGL¶L
AGR-flirt.PROG he
but AGR.not.exist WH[OBJ] flirt.with.PROGµ+H¶VIOLUWLQJEXWWKHUH¶VQRRQHWKDWKH¶VIOLUWLQJZLWK¶Bearing the facts above, let us consider the examples in (11), where the antecedentcontains an intransitive version with an implicit complement while the ellipsis site contains
its transitive counterpart (adopted from Chung 2013:18). The ungrammaticality of theexamples in (11) indicates that sluicing fails.

5

Glosses for Chamorro examples are: AGR = agreement, COMP = complementizer, LOC = local case,

OBJ = objective, OBL = oblique, PROG = progressive, UNM = unmarked case, WH = wh-agreement- 80 -80-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015(11) a. * (NJX¶
si
Joe, lao ti hu WXQJX¶ håyi. < ha
HNJX¶L!
AGR.jealous UNM Joe but not AGR know who? WH[OBJ].AGR jealous.ofµ-RHLVMHDORXVEXW,GRQ¶WNQRZZKR¶
um-D¶DQGL¶
i asaguå-ña, lao ti ha
WXQJX¶ håyi.
b. ?* Ilek-ña na
say-AGR COMP AGR-flirt.PROG the spouse-AGR but not AGR know who?
< ha

DQGLGL¶L!
WH[OBJ].AGR flirt.with.PROGµ6KHVDLGWKDWKHUKXVEDQGZDVIOLUWLQJEXWVKHGLGQ¶WNQRZZKR¶According to Chung (2013), (11a-b) are ungrammatical because the intransitive version
and its transitive counterpart have different argument structures. To be more specific, Chung(2013:17) represents the argument structures of the pair DQGL¶ and DQGL¶L µIOLUW ZLWK ¶ DV LQ
(12). The representations in (12) illustrate that the internal argument is linked to a DP whenthe verb is transitive while it is linked to a PP when the verb is intransitive and that therealization of the PP is optional. This difference regarding argument structure is claimed to be
crucial to the ungrammaticality of (11b).6(12)

DQGL¶ flirter <flirtee>

DQGL¶L flirter <flirtee>

(PP)

DP

At the same time, however, the examples in (11) can be considered as a violation of theCase condition, though Chung (2013) does not discuss this possibility. This is because thesluicing remnant håyi µZKR¶LQ (11), which is a direct object of a transitive verb, should be
Case-licensed by the transitive v0, while there must be no transitive v0 in the antecedentclause because it is a intransitive clause.
The account in terms of the Case condition does not work if the Case-licensor for the
optional oblique complements can be considered to be identical to the transitive v0. An
assumption that Chung (2013) makes for oblique and local case marking in Chamorro allows
us to exclude this option. Following Kuroda (1965), Emonds (1985), Chung (1998) andLandau (2010), shHDVVXPHVWKDWDOO&KDPRUUR'3VLQWKHREOLTXHRUORFDOFDVH³DUHWKHREMHFW
of null prepositions that serve as their Case licensors and dictate their morphological case
&KXQJ ´7KHQXOOSUHSRVLWLRQWKDW&DVH-licenses an optional oblique complement ispresumably different from the transitive v0. Then, it follows that the failure of sluicing in (11)can be due to a violation of the Case condition. In this way, there arises a redundancy
between the argument structure condition and the Case condition.

6

The ungrammaticality of (11a) should be treated in the same way, provided that ekgu¶ and ekgu¶iµjealous (of)¶ have argument structures similar to the ones in (12), though Chung (2013) does notprovide the exact argument structures of ekgu¶ and ekgu¶i µjealous (of)¶.

- 81 -81-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

Furthermore, there arises another motivation for reconsideration if we look at ellipsis
constructions other than sluicing. As illustrated by the German examples in (13) (based on
Merchant 2013:82), fragment answers (see, e.g., Merchant 2004 and Arregi 2010) are
sensitive to voice mismatches, just like sluicing.
(13) a.

Q: Werhat den Jungen untersucht?
who.NOM has the boy
examinedµ:KRH[DPLQHGWKHER\"¶
A: * Von einer Psychologin.
by apsychologist.DATµ LQWHQGHG  +HZDVH[DPLQHG E\DSV\FKRORJLVW¶b. Q: Von wem
wurde der Junge untersucht?
by who.DAT was the boy examinedµ:KRZDVWKHER\H[DPLQHGE\"¶
A: * Eine Psychologin.
a
psychologist.NOMµ LQWHQGHG $SV\FKRORJLVW H[DPLQHGKLP ¶
Since fragment answers are sensitive to voice mismatches, it is tempting to amend theargument structure to cover them. Recall that the argument structure condition is operative forthe cases where interrogative phrases are involved. In order to make the argument structure
condition applicable to fragment answers, it is necessary to change its formulation so as tocover not only the cases involving interrogative phrases but also the cases with noninterrogative ones. With this modification, we can block ellipsis in (13) under the argument
structure condition, because the active version of untersuchen µH[DPLQH¶ DQG LWV SDVVLYH
counterpart have different argument structures.
This modification leads to a problem, however. As shown in (14), VP-ellipsis allows
voice mismatches (adopted from Merchant 2013:78-79).7(14) a.

The janitor must remove the trash whenever it is apparent that it should be.
<removed>

7

Some instances of voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis have been reported to be unacceptable (see, e.g.,
Tanaka 2011a and references cited therein). Following Merchant (2013), I assume that theirunacceptability is due to certain extra-syntactic factors, although certain researchers claim thatapparent acceptability of voice mismatches results from extra-syntactic factors (see, for instance,
Frazier and Clifton 2005, Hartman 2009).

- 82 -82-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015b. The system can be used by anyone who wants to. <use it>
Why is ellipsis possible even though the subject it in (14a), for instance, is an argument of theelided passive verb removed and its argument structure does not match that of the transitive
verb remove in the antecedent? If the argument structure condition concerns onlyinterrogative phrases as in the original formulation in (2a), one can assume that VP-ellipsis isoutside the scope of it. Then, the fact that voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis is possible despite
the apparent violation of the argument structure condition may not be problematic. Recall
however that the argument structure condition should be extended to the cases involving noninterrogative phrases in order to cover the cases of voice-mismatched fragment answers.
Hence, the argument structure condition raises an obstacle in order to accommodate the facts
concerning voice mismatches under sluicing, fragment answers, and VP-ellipsis in a uniform
manner.8
7R VXP XS &KXQJ¶V   VSHFLILF LPSOHPHQWDWLRQV RI WKH LGHD RI OLPLWHG V\QWDFWLF
identity have the following two problems: (i) there is a redundancy between the Case
condition and the argument structure condition; (ii) once we look at ellipsis constructions
other than sluicing, there are cases where the argument structure condition must bereconsidered to accommodate them. These problems seem to raise the following question: Is
there any possibility of postulating a unified notion of syntactic identity, not specific tosluicing but covering other elliptic constructions such as VP-ellipsis and fragment answers?9
In Section 3, I propose an alternative implementation of the basic idea of limited syntactic
identity in (1), which can provide a unified account of the facts discussed above.
3.

Proposal

I first propose to abandon the argument structure condition as an independent condition.
This proposal immediately solves the first problem concerning the redundancy between theargument structure condition and the Case condition, simplifying the notion of syntactic
identity in ellipsis. I further propose to revise the Case condition so as to cover the facts
originally accommodated by the argument structure condition and the ones concerning theelliptic constructions other than sluicing. In this way, I attempt to clarify the nature of limited
syntactic identity, strengthening the role of Case in ellipsis.

8

Merchant¶s (2008, 2013) analysis of the difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis regarding
voice mismatches is reviewed in Section 3.

9

It should be noted that I am not claiming that Chung (2013) does not care about elliptic
constructions other than sluicing. Rather, I believe that Chung (2013) eventually attempts to answer
questions like the one raised in the text. In this study, I propose a possible answer to this question,
extending the idea of limited syntactic identity.

- 83 -83-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

As a first approximation, I propose to revise the Case condition as follows:10(15) Case-oriented syntactic identity (preliminary)
If a DP is extracted from the ellipsis site, the DP must be Case-licensed in the ellipsis
site by a head identical to the corresponding head that Case-licenses the correlating DP
in the antecedent.
Compared to the original Case condition, the revised formulation, dubbed as Case-oriented
syntactic identity, differs in the following two points. First, while only interrogative DPs are
relevant for the original one, any types of extracted DPs are subject to this formulation. This
revision is intended to accommodate the cases of VP-ellipsis and fragment answers. Second,Case-oriented syntactic identity requires not only an identical Case-licensor to be present in
the antecedent (as in the original one) but also the DP Case-licensed by the Case-licensor in
the antecedent to be a correlate of the extracted DP.
To see the second point more clearly, let us consider how the original Case condition andthe reformulated version work differently in a stepwise fashion on the basis of (16).
(16)[Antecedent «'32 +¶Case «@«>«'31 «>Ellipsis site «tDP1 HCase«@@(order irrelevant)In the structure (16), where DP1 is extracted from the ellipsis site, the original Case condition
works as follows: First it finds the Case-licensing head of DP1 (if DP1 is an interrogative DP),notated as HCaseDQGWKHQLWFKHFNVZKHWKHUWKHDQWHFHGHQWFRQWDLQVDQLGHQWLFDOKHDG+¶Case.
:KHQ +¶Case is present in the antecedent, the Case condition is satisfied. Case-oriented
syntactic identity in (15) involves the exactly same steps up to this point. The crucial
difference is that Case-oriented syntactic identity further checks whether the DP CaseOLFHQVHG E\ +¶Case, (i.e., DP2) is a correlate of DP1. Thus, Case-oriented syntactic identity
imposes a more severe restriction than the original Case condition.
Readers may wonder whether &KXQJ¶V  RULJLQDOIRUPXODWLRQRIWKH&DVHFRQGLWLRQ
may (at least implicitly) imply the existence of the correlate that Case-oriented syntactic
identity explicitly demands. ChuQJ¶V   DQDO\VLV RI WKH &KDPRUUR DQWLSDVVLYH WR EH
reviewed in Section 4.1), however, tells us that the original Case condition can be satisfied
without such a correlate (see the discussion around (27) below). While the original Case
condition only concerns the presence of the Case-licensing heads, the proposed condition
cares about both the Case-licensing heads and their licensees (namely, remnants and theircorrelates).
Recall that Case-oriented syntactic identity has a wider domain of application than the10

It is worth noting here that I am not claiming that the information of whether the DP in theantecedent is a correlate or not is available in syntax. Rather, it can be the case that Case-oriented
syntactic identity in effect instructs the interfaces to interpret the DP as a correlate of the extracted DP.

- 84 -84-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

original Case condition, since extracted DPs of any type, including interrogative ones, aresubject to it. Furthermore, it excludes all the cases that the original one does. Case-oriented
syntactic identity thus covers all the cases that the original Case condition has covered
including cases like (7). For instance, the contrast between (7a-b), repeated here as (17), is
explained essentially in the same way as the original Case condition explains it. That is, theCase-licensor for the remnant who in (17b) is finite T0, which is absent from the gerundive
antecedent clause, while Case-oriented syntactic identity is trivially satisfied in (17a) because
the adjunct remnant how need not be Case-licensed.11

11

Martín-González (2013) and Thoms (2013) independently observe that there are cases where
examples similar to (17b) become grammatical. One such example, taken from Martín-González(2013), is given in (i).

(i)

With all the groups fighting each other, everybody says that having to compromise is inevitable,
but since nobody specifies which groups <have to compromise>, ours will refuse to do so forthe time being.

As for the difference between examples like (17b) and ones like (i), Martín-González (2013:5-6)
argues that the problem is non-syntactic, suggesting that it is ³related to the computation of possiblereferents for PRO,´ and ³based on the possibility of interpreting the sluiced wh-remnant as a proper
value for/a subset of the implicit correlate.´ That is, ³[(17b) is] judged unacceptable because suchinferences are not readily available. (ibid.)´ Thoms (2013) also suggests a non-syntactic treatment of
the relevant examples in terms of scope.
There is a potential way out of the apparent conflict between the proposed analysis and the nonsyntactic treatments, however. Merchant¶s (2004) analysis of so-called discourse-initial fragments,
exemplified by (ii), gives us a clue. According to Merchant (2004), the discourse-initial fragment in(ii) has a structure like (iii), where ellipsis of the TP consisting of the pronoun he and the copula islicensed by the appropriate discourse context (see also van Craenenbroeck 2013a,b and references
cited therein for this kind of ³accommodation´ and certain restrictions on it).
(ii)

[Abby and Ben are at a party. Abby sees an unfamiliar man with Beth, a mutual friend of theirs,
and turns to Ben with a puzzled look on her face. Ben says:]Some guy she met at the park.

(iii) [FP some guy she met at the parki [TP he¶s ti]]Suppose then that (17b) and (i) can have the structures in (iii). Notice that in these structures, theremnants are nominal predicates, which do not have to be Case-licensed. Hence, the issue regarding
Case can be avoided. Then, if the referent of they in (iiib) can be computed more easily than that of hein (iiia), the contrast in question follows.
(iii) a.
b.

Having to compromise is inevitable, but they have no idea [whoi [TP he¶s ti]]With all the groups fighting each other, everybody says that having to compromise isinevitable, but since nobody specifies [which groupsi [TP they are ti]], ours will refuse to
do so for the time being.

- 85 -85-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)(17) a.

Decorating for the holidays is easy if you know how. <to decorate for the holidays>b. * Having to compromise is inevitable, but they have no idea who. <has tocompromise>
Let us consider how Case-oriented syntactic identity captures the effects of the argument
structure condition. Recall that Chung (2013) analyzes the Chamorro examples in (11),repeated as (18), as a violation of the argument structure condition, based on the assumptionthat the derived transitive verbs and their intransitive counterparts have different argument
structures (cf. (12)).
(18) a. * (NJX¶
si
Joe, lao ti hu WXQJX¶ håyi. < ha
HNJX¶L!
AGR.jealous UNM Joe but not AGR know who? WH[OBJ].AGR jealous.ofµ-RHLVMHDORXVEXW,GRQ¶WNQRZZKR¶b. ?* Ilek-ña naum-D¶DQGL¶
i asaguå-ña, lao ti ha
WXQJX¶ håyi.
say-AGR COMP AGR-flirt.PROG the spouse-AGR but not AGR know who?
< ha
WH[OBJ].AGR

DQGLGL¶L!
flirt.with.PROGµ6KHVDLGWKDWKHUKXVEDQGZDVIOLUWLQJEXWVKHGLGQ¶WNQRZZKR¶The problem is that the ungrammaticality of these examples can be accounted for not
only by the argument structure condition but by the Case condition, so that there is a
UHGXQGDQF\EHWZHHQWKHVHWZRFRQGLWLRQV7DNLQJDGYDQWDJHRI&KXQJ¶V  DVVXPSWLRQ
that in Chamorro a DP in the oblique or local case-marking is a complement of a null
preposition, I have suggested that sluicing is blocked in (18) because the wh-phrase håyiµZKR¶LV&DVH-licensed by transitive v0, and neither the intransitive v0 nor the null preposition
can serve as its corresponding Case-licensing head. This account still holds under Caseoriented syntactic identity. At the same time, there arises no redundancy, because theargument structure condition has been abandoned as an independent condition.
Let us now turn to the voice-mismatched sluicing cases. Recall that in (8), repeated as(19), T0 in the ellipsis site Case-licenses the extracted DP who, and the antecedent does
contain an identical T0, satisfying the original Case condition.
This analysis thus relates the Martín-González/Thoms-type non-syntactic factors to the computationof the possible referents for the pronominal subjects of the elided copula clauses, not for PRO in the
alleged finite clause antecedents (namely the materials within the angled brackets in (17b) and (i)).
Notice at the same time that this analysis does not undermine the necessity of Case-oriented syntactic
identity. The alleged underlying finite clauses for (17b) and (i) are equally excluded by Case-oriented
syntactic identity, leaving us the copula clauses as only available underlying sources. Then, theMartín-González/Thoms-type non-syntactic factors come into play, yielding the contrast between(17b) and (i).

- 86 -86-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

* [TPA Joei [T0 was] murdered ti@EXWWKH\GRQ¶WNQRZZKRj [TPE tj T0 murdered him]

(19)

However, what is Case-licensed by the finite T0 in the antecedent is important for Caseoriented syntactic identity. In (19), T0 in the antecedent Case-licenses Joe, but it is not thecorrelate of who. Hence, Case-oriented syntactic identity is violated, so that ellipsis is blockedin (19).
The ungrammaticality of voice-mismatched fragment answers receives essentially thesame analysis, given the structures in (20) for (13b) (English words and structures are used
for illustration).
(20) Q: whoi [T0 was] [TPA the boy tT0 examined by ti]
A: *a psychologistj [TPE tj T0 examined him]
In the elided TP, T0 licenses the nominative Case on the fragment, a psychologist, but thecorresponding T0 in the antecedent does not Case-license its corresponding item, namely who,
but the subject the boy. Since Case-oriented syntactic identity is not observed, ellipsis isblocked in voice-mismatched fragment answers. In this way, the revised formulation canaccommodate the effect of the argument structure condition, not only on sluicing but also on
fragment answers.12
What remains to be explained is the case of voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis. The roughstructures of the examples in (14) are given in (21). In (21a), the underlying object it isextracted from the ellipsis site (no matter whether the elided domain is vP or VP).
(21) a.

the janitor [T0 must] [vPA remove the trash] whenever it is apparent that iti[T0 should] be [vPE removed ti]b.

the systemi can be [vPA used ti] by anyone who wants PROj to [vPE tj use it]Hence, Case-oriented syntactic identity demands (i) that the surface subject it be Caselicensed within the ellipsis site, (ii) that the antecedent vP contain a head identical to the onethat Case-licenses it, and (iii) that the relevant head in the antecedent Case-license thecorrelate of it. None of these requirements is satisfied in (21a). First, it is Case-licensed by T0
located outside the ellipsis site; second, the antecedent vP lacks T0; third, T0 in the antecedent
Case-licenses the janitor, which is not a correlate of it.13 Hence, (21a) is predicted to be

12

One may wonder how Case-oriented syntactic identity accommodates examples like (3a) and (13a),where the remnant is a by-phrase. I return to these examples in section 4.2.2.

13Note incidentally that the original Case condition in (2b) (if appropriately modified so as toaccommodate VP-ellipsis) also demands (i) and (ii) in the text, and neither of them is satisfied.

- 87 -87-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

ungrammatical. The same problem arises for (21b).14
0HUFKDQW¶V    LQVLJKW DERXW WKH GLIIHUHQW EHKDYLRUV RI YDULRXV HOOLSWLF
constructions with respect to voice mismatches provides a key to the solution. Arguing for thenecessity of syntactic identity, Merchant (2013) proposes that a functional head Voice, which
encodes the voice properties of a clause with syntactic features such as [active] and [passive](see, among many others, Kratzer 1996 and Collins 2005), plays a crucial role. To be more
specific, he assigns the following structures to an active clause and its passive counterpart,
where VoiceP is located between TP and vP (Arg in (22b) stands for an implicit argument).
(22) a.

[TP someonei [VoiceP Voice[active]0 [vP ti murdered Joe]]]b. [TP Joei was [VoiceP Voice[passive]0 [vP Arg murdered ti]]]Then he attributes the possibility of voice mismatches under ellipsis to the difference ofthe structural size of the ellipsis site. Suppose that VP-ellipsis targets a constituent below
VoiceP, for instance vP. Since the two vPs in (22) do not contain the information of voice,they are regarded as syntactically identical to each other. On the other hand, suppose thatsluicing and fragment answers target a constituent higher than VoiceP, for instance TP. The
TPs in (22) cannot count as identical to each other, however. This is because they havedifferent syntactic specifications on Voice0. In this way he captures the difference between
sluicing and fragment answers, which involve ellipsis of constituents larger than (at least)
VoiceP, on the one hand and VP-ellipsis, which targets constituents below VoiceP, on theother.
$V PHQWLRQHG DERYH WKH FUXFLDO SRLQW RI 0HUFKDQW¶V    DQDO\VLV is that thestructural size of the ellipsis site affects the possibility of voice mismatches under ellipsis.
Bearing this in mind, let us return to the main discussion. While the VoiceP is crucial for
Merchant (2008, 2013), the Case-licensor is crucial for the approach pursued in this paper.15
Focusing on the structural position of the Case-licensor of the DP extracted from the ellipsis
site clearly reveals the difference between (23a) and (23b): The Case-licensor is always
contained in the ellipsis site in the case of sluicing and fragment answers as shown in (23a);
14

If VP but not vP is elided in (21b), PRO is not extracted from the ellipsis site. Then, Case-oriented
syntactic identity becomes irrelevant, so the problem pointed out in the text does not arise. Meanwhile,
one may say that Case-oriented syntactic identity is irrelevant for PRO, since it requires no Case
(Chomsky 1981). If PRO requires null Case (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993, Marin 2001), however, it
should be subject to Case-oriented syntactic identity. Furthermore, the examples in (i), taken from
Merchant (2013:79-80), for instance, have overt subjects, which do require Case-licensors.
(i)a.

This obviously has never been faced or solved properly before and somehow we have to.
<solve it properly>

15

In section 4.3, I argue that Case-oriented syntactic identity readily accommodates a case that isproblematic for the [active/passive] feature-based analysis.

- 88 -88-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

on the other hand, in VP-ellipsis, the relevant Case-licensor, namely T0, is always excluded
from the ellipsis site as in (23b).
(23) a.

Sluicing/fragment answers: >«'3[TPE «+Case «t «@]b. VP-ellipsis:>«'370 (= HCase) [vPE «t «@]Capitalizing on this difference, I propose (24) as the final version of Case-oriented
syntactic identity.
(24) Case-oriented syntactic identity (final version)
If a DP is extracted from the ellipsis site, and if the head that Case-licenses the DP iscontained in the ellipsis site, the Case-licensing head in the ellipsis site must have an
identical head in the antecedent that Case-licenses the correlating DP.
Specifically, for the condition in (24) to apply, a DP must originate from an ellipsis site while
its Case-licensor must be elided. Among the structures in (23), (23a) satisfies this premise but(23b) does not. Hence, only the structure in (23b) is exempt from the application of (24). In
this way, the case of voice-mismatched VP-ellipsis ceases to be problematic. Put it
differently, this formulation relates the applicability of the condition to the structural positionof a Case-licensor with respect to an ellipsis siWH ,Q WKLV VHQVH LW LQFRUSRUDWHV 0HUFKDQW¶V
(2008, 2013) insight.
The formulation in (24 LVHYHQFRQVLVWHQWZLWK&KXQJ¶V  RULJLQDOLQVLJKWLQ(1). Let
me rephrase the insight as follows: Syntactic identity is required in order to ensure that theelement extracted from the ellipsis site is not separated from the syntactic structures of theclause to which ellipsis applies. For Chung (2013), Case and argument structure conspire toachieve this result. Case-oriented syntactic identity, on the other hand, reduces the number ofthe relevant factors, taking advantage of the fact that an alternation of argument structure
generally leads to an alternation of Case-licensing relation. Meanwhile, syntactic identity islimited: If there is no need of ensuring the connection between an extracted element and therest of the clause, no syntactic identity is required. In cases where the Case-licensor of theextracted element is located outside the ellipsis site, including VP-ellipsis, the element inquestion can be integrated into the structure by the Case-licensing head. Hence, no syntactic
identity is required between the ellipsis site and its antecedent. The formulation in (24)achieves this result by making it inoperative in such cases.
In this section, I have clarified the precise formulation of Case-oriented syntactic identity
and the rationale behind it, resolving the two problems pointed out in Section 2. In the next
section, I demonstrate that Case-oriented syntactic identity has a number of consequences. In
the course of discussion, it becomes clear that the present analysis indeed completes some
DVSHFWVRI&KXQJ¶V  DQDO\VLV- 89 -89-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

4. Consequences
This section demonstrates that Case-oriented syntactic identity can capture a wide range
of facts in a unified manner. Specifically, I take up the following issues: Sluicing withsprouted DP remnants (Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey 1995; see Nakao 2009 and Chung,
Ladusaw, and McCloskey 2011 for more recent treatments) (Section 4.1.); the nature of
prepositions in sluicing with PP remnants and with passive by-phrases (Section 4.2.) andellipsis with multiple predicates discussed by Nakamura (2013) (Section 4.3).
4.1.

Sluicing with Sprouted DP Remnants

The first consequence concerns what Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey (1995) callsprouting-type sluicing. This type of sluicing lacks an overt correlate, as exemplified by (25).
(25)-RKQDWHEXW,GRQ¶WNQRw what. <he ate>

Recall that Case-oriented syntactic identity requires that a correlate be present in theantecedent when the remnant is a DP. Thus, sprouting-type sluicing appears to be a problem
to Case-oriented syntactic identity. I argue that it ceases to be a problem once the structure of
the antecedent clause in (25 LVUHYHDOHG,QSDUWLFXODU,H[SORLW%DNHU¶V  LQVLJKWDERXW
the implicit object constructions, which Chung (2013) also makes use of in her analysis of the
Chamorro antipassive.
The problem that Chung (2013) aims at solving has to do with examples like (26a) (basedon Chung 2013:35-36).16 In (26a), sluicing targets a clause containing the transitive form of
guaiya µORYH¶ZKLOHWKHYHUELQWKHDQWHFHGHQWKDVWKHIRUPRIDQWLSDVVLYHZKLFKLVGHULYHG
from the transitive form by attaching the prefix man-.17(26) a.

Mang-guaiya si
Julia, lao ti hu WXQJX¶ håyi. < haguaiya>AGR.AP-love UNM Julia but not AGR know who? WH[OBJ].AGR loveµ-XOLDORYHV VRPHRQH EXW,GRQ¶WNQRZZKRVKHORYHV!¶

16

Additional glosses are: AP = antipassive. See also footnote 5.

17

Following Chung (2013:36-39), I do not discuss an alternative possibility that the ellipsis clausecontains the antipassive version of the verb in question. The discussion below in the text reveals that
Chung¶s (2013) analysis and mine do not differ in that both of them exclude the possibility in question.
This is because both analyses assume that the remnant håyi µwho¶ in (26a) would be Case-licensed bya preposition if the ellipsis clause contained an antipassive verb (see (27b)/(28b)). Since there is nocorresponding preposition in the antecedent that involves an antipassive vP without an overt obliquecomplement (see (27a)/(28a)), ellipsis should be prohibited, contrary to fact.

- 90 -90-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015b. Mang-guaiya hao as Pedro.
AGR.AP-love you OBL Pedroµ<RXORYH3HGUR¶Antipassive verbs optionally take an oblique complement corresponding to the object of thesource verb as in (26b). Given this, Case-licensing configurations are different in the ellipsis
site and its antecedent in (26a). Hence, the grammaticality of (26D  FKDOOHQJHV &KXQJ¶V
(2013) analysis (and Case-oriented syntactic identity as well).
To resolve this problem, Chung (2013) proposes, partly based on Baker (1988), that manis the realization of v0 in an antipassive clause and the verb guaiya µORYH¶ WDNHV QR
complement in an antipassive vP as in (27a). Furthermore, when an oblique phrase like as
Pedro appears, it is analyzed as a PP adjoined to VP as in (27b). She then assumes that v0 in(27) has a potential of Case-licensing, following Rothstein (1992), even when there is no DP
that enters a Case-licensing relation with it, and that the argument structure of an antipassive
verb is identical to that of its transitive counterpart. For Chung (2013), these assumptions
suffice to satisfy the conditions in (2).
(27) a.

vP

b.

vP

v0

VP

v0

man-

guaiyaman- VP

VP
PP

guaiyaas Pedro

One problem still remains for Case-oriented syntactic identity, because there is nocorrelate in (27a). 7KHVROXWLRQSXUVXHGKHUHDFWXDOO\UHYLYHV%DNHU¶V  LQVLJKWWKDWmanis a noun, which serves as a complement of the verb and then undergoes incorporation to theverb. Rephrasing this insight in more recent terms, I propose that man- is generated as theobject of guaiya µORYH¶DQG&DVH-licensed by v0, which is identical to the one appearing in atransitive clause, as in (28a).
(28) a.

vP
v0

b.

vP
v0

VP
V0

NP

guaiya

man-

VP
VP

PP

V0

NP

guaiyaman-- 91 -91-

as PedroStrengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

When an oblique phrase appears, I follow Chung (2013) in that the oblique phrase is an
adjunct, but unlike her I assume man- serves as a complement as in (28b), as originallysuggested by Baker (1988). Finally man- cliticizes onto v0 (or V0), yielding the surface formin both cases. The problem regarding (26a) is now resolved. Since the transitive v0 Caselicensing håyi µZKR¶GRHVKDYHDQLGHQWLFDO FRXQWHUSDUWLQ WKHDQWHFHGHQWDQGWKHY0 in theantecedent Case-licenses man-, which indeed counts as a correlate of håyi µZKR¶Applied to the case of sprouting-type sluicing, the grammaticality of (25) readily follows.
As shown by the vP in the antecedent in (29), the main difference between English andChamorro is that the element in question is not overtly realized in the former, as indicated byØ (I leave it open whether Ø undergoes cliticization).
[TPA John T0 [vP v0 [VP DWH@@@EXW,GRQ¶WNQRZZKDWj [TPE he [vP v0 [VP ate tj]]](29)

Case-oriented syntactic identity is satisfied because both the ellipsis site and its antecedentcontain v0, and there is in fact a correlate of who, namely Ø. Hence, the sprouting-type
VOXLFLQJ LV QRW D SUREOHP DQ\PRUH 7KLV DQDO\VLV WKXV VXSSRUWV %DNHU¶V   LGHD LQ a
particular way.
4.2.

Case, Prepositions, and Passive By-Phrases

4.2.1. Case and Prepositions
The second consequence to be discussed has to do with the nature of certain prepositions.
Let us start the discussion by looking at the examples in (30), adopted from Chung (2013:2829) (see also Chung 2006). According to Chung (2013), the Case condition rules out (30a)but not (30c), because the Case-licensor of who, namely the preposition of, is absent from theantecedent in (30a) while it is present in (30c). As for (30b), the Case condition is irrelevant
because the interrogative phrase in question is a PP of who. Case-oriented syntactic identity
captures this paradigm in the same way.
(30) a. * 7KH\¶UHMHDORXVEXWLW¶VXQFOHDUZKRWKH\¶UHMHDORXVRI!
b. 7KH\¶UHMHDORXVEXWLW¶VXQFOHDURIZKRWKH\¶UHMHDORXV!
c.

7KH\¶UHMHDORXVRIVRPHRQHEXWLW¶VXQFOHDUZKRWKH\¶UHMHDORXVRI!

The paradigm given in (31) discussed by Merchant (2013) appears to be problematic for
Case-oriented syntactic identity. The examples in (31) are built on the alternation illustratedin (32).
(31) a. * 7KH\ HPEURLGHUHG VRPHWKLQJ ZLWK SHDFH VLJQV EXW , GRQ¶W NQRZ ZKDW RQ WKH\embroidered peace signs>- 92 -92-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015b. * 7KH\ HPEURLGHUHG VRPHWKLQJ RQ WKHLU MDFNHWV EXW , GRQ¶W NQRZ ZLWK ZKDW Wheyembroidered their jackets>(based on Merchant 2013:100)(32) a.

They embroidered something with peace signs.

b. They embroidered peace signs on something.

(Merchant 2013:99)

The point is that ellipsis is blocked in (31), although the sluicing remnants are PPs. Note thatthe argument structure condition, which we have abandoned, can capture the paradigm in(31), provided that the argument structures of embroider are different from each other in(32a) and (32b).
0HUFKDQW¶V   DQDO\VLV RI (31) in fact provides a key to the solution, however. He
assumes that verbs like embroider involve a series of specialized v0s. Specifically, heanalyzes the vP in the antecedent and the one in the ellipsis site in (31a) as having thestructures in (33a) and (33b), respectively, where vtrans0 introduces an external argument(following Kratzer 1996), vobj0 introduces an object (following Jelinek 1998), and vwith/on0
introduces an oblique argument marked with a preposition (following Anagnostopoulou 2003
and Pylkkänen 2008).
(33) a.

vP
DP
they

Y¶
vtrans0vPDP

something

Y¶
vobj0

vP

PP

Y¶

with peace signs

vwith0VP
embroider- 93 -93-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

b.

vP
DP
they

Y¶
vtrans0vPDPY¶

peace signs vobj0

vPPP

on what

Y¶
von0

VP
embroider

3DUWLFXODUO\RILPSRUWDQFHIRUWKHSUHVHQWVWXG\LVWKHFODLPWKDW³>KHDGVOLNHY with/on0] will
be coded as selecting the appropriate preposition; for example, [vwith0] selects a PP headed bywithDQGVRRQ´ 0HUFKDQW  7KHXQJUDPPDWLFDOLW\RI (31) readily follows underCase-oriented syntactic identity if this selectional relation between v0 in question and a PP
can be tDNHQ DV D ³&DVH-OLFHQVLQJ´ UHODWLRQ VSHFLILFDOO\ DQ LQKHUHQW &DVH-licensing relation(cf. the treatment of of in Chomsky 1981).18 That is, for example in (31a), the extracted
phrase on what, even though it is a PP, is necessarily Case-licensed by von0 in the ellipsis site,which in turn requires the antecedent vP to contain an identical v0. Hence, the clause having(33a) as its part cannot serve as an appropriate antecedent, blocking ellipsis.
Recall that (30b), repeated as (34a), is claimed to be exempt from Case-oriented syntactic
identity because the remnant of who requires no Case-licensor.
(34) a.

7KH\¶UHMHDORXVEXWLW¶VXQFOHDURIZKRWKH\¶UHMHDORXV!

b. WKH\¶UHMHDORXVof ØDPEXWLW¶VXQFOHDURIZKRi [TP WKH\¶UHMHDORXVti]
If the preposition of were also selected by a designated v0 (vof0, for instance), (34a) would be
ungrammatical because the antecedent does not have a corresponding overt element. It is notpossible to postulate a null counterpart of the preposition in the antecedent as in (34b), either(the null counterpart of of is notated as Øof and ØDP stands for the implicit correlate that Øof
selects). This is because such a null preposition incorrectly allows (30a), repeated as (35a), to
observe Case-oriented syntactic identity, rendering it grammatical. That is, postulating such anull element yields the structure (35b).

18

The Case-licensing relation can also be state as follows: The DP complement of the relevant PP
receives inherent Case from v0 via the preposition.

- 94 -94-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015(35) a. * 7KH\¶UHMHDORXVEXWLW¶VXQFOHDUZKRWKH\¶UHMHDORXVRI!
b. WKH\¶UHMHDORXVof ØDPEXWLW¶VXQFOHDUZKRi [TP WKH\¶UHMHDORXVRIti]
In (35b), the Case-licensor of the remnant who, namely of, can have a corresponding null
preposition in the antecedent that Case-licenses the implicit correlate. Hence, there must be an
independent way of distinguishing cases like (31) from ones like (30).
/HYLQ¶V  DQDO\VLVRIREMHFWDOWHUQDWLRQLQWHUPVRIevent simplicity provides a key tothis issue. As shown in (32), triadic predicates like embroider have alternative realizations of
their VP-internal arguments. Levin (2006) argues that such an alternation is possible because
predicates like embroider have a simple event structure of the form [x ACT<MANNER>]. On theother hand, predicates that do not exhibit such alternations are claimed to have more complex
event structures which consist of at least two subevents. As shown in (36) and (37) (based on
Levin 2006:5-6), predicates like fill and obtain do not allow object alternation, and they are
analyzed as having complex event structures.
(36) a.

Shannon filled the bag with the groceries.

b. * Shannon filled the groceries into the bag.
(37) a.

Alex obtained the rare metal from Transylvania.

b. * Alex obtained Transylvania of the rare metal.
Merchant (2013) exploits this idea, and proposes the structures in (33), where a series ofv0s but not the verb embroider itself select internal arguments. 19 Unlike embroider,predicates like fill and obtain, which do not allow object alternations due to their complex
event structures, behave differently with respect to sluicing, as shown in (38). The examples
in (38) involve sprouted PP remnants, and they allow sluicing, just like (30).
(38) a.

6KDQQRQILOOHGWKHEDJEXW,GRQ¶WNQRZZLWKZKDW6KDQQRQILOOHGWKHEDJ!

b. $OH[REWDLQHGWKHUDUHPHWDOEXW,GRQ¶WNQRZIURPZKHUH$OH[REWDLQHGWKH rare
metal>The embroider-type predicates thus can be distinguished from the jealous-type predicatesin terms of the availability of alternative realizations of its internal arguments, which isultimately related to the type of its event structure. If it allows alternative realizations, its PP
arguments are licensed by designated v0s, and hence, sensitivity to Case-oriented syntactic
identity emerges. In this sense, jealous is not suitable to compare with embroider, because it
has only one internal argument (hence no alternation to begin with). Among the predicates
19

Merchant (2013) actually refers to Levin (2003), which I could not have an access to, but I believe
it is an earlier version of Levin (2006).

- 95 -95-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)that Chung (2013) groups together with jealous, transform is more reliable for our purpose.
The examples in (39), taken from Chung (2013:28-29), indicate that transform patterns withjealous in the relevant respect. As is expected, transform does not allow object alternation, asin (40).
(39) a. * UN is transforming itself, but what <it is transforming itself into> is unclear.
b.

UN is transforming itself, but into what <it is transforming itself> is unclear.

c.

UN is transforming itself into something, but what <it is transforming itself into> isunclear.

(40) a.

John transformed the car into the robot.

b. * John transformed the robot {from/out of} the car.
We can gain a IXUWKHU PHULW RI HPSOR\LQJ /HYLQ¶V   HYHQW VLPSOLFLW\ IURP WKHparadigm in(41).
(41) a. * -RHVHQWDOHWWHUEXWZHGRQ¶W know who. <he sent the letter to>b. -RHVHQWDOHWWHUEXWZHGRQ¶WNQRZWRZKRKHVHQWWKHOHWWHU!
c.

-RHVHQWDOHWWHUWRVRPHERG\EXWZHGRQ¶WNQRZZKRKHVHQWWKHOHWWHUWR!

That is, dative alternation verbs like send pattern with ones like jealous and transform,
despite the fact it has two realizations of its internal arguments. Following Marantz (1993)
and Baker (1997), however, Levin (2006) explicitly distinguishes object alternation verbs likeembroider from the dative alternation verbs. Then, if the dative alternation verbs havecomplex event structure, the paradigm in(41) ceases to be problematic.
,QWKLVZD\/HYLQ¶V  DQDO\VLVRIREMHFWDOWHUQDWLRQLQWHUPVRIHYHQWVLPSOLFLW\DOVR
provides a right cut for the behavior of PP remnants in sluicing.20
20

Readers may wonder whether there is a more direct way of distinguishing PPs in the embroidertype predicates from those in the jealous-type predicates. Heggie¶s (1988:363) observation given in (i)(taken from den Dikken 2006:330) provides a potential diagnostics. The examples in (i) indicates thatcertain PPs can (marginally) license an NP parasitic gap, although PPs generally cannot licenseparasitic gaps (Postal 1993; see also Hornstein and Nunes 2002, Nunes 2004).
(i)a. ? A person to whom I sent a report without notifying pg.
b. ? A person to whom I spoke without kneeling in front of pg.
c. ? To whom did John speak without being able to see pg?

- 96 -96-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

4.2.2.

Passive By-Phrases

The discussion in Section 4.2.1 treats certain prepositions as inherent Case-markers. Thisidea in fact completes the analysis of the impossibility of voice mismatches under sluicing
and fragment answers. The relevant examples in (3a) and (13a) are repeated as (42) and (43),respectively. In these examples, by-phrases are extracted from the ellipsis sites.
(42) *6RPHRQHPXUGHUHG-RHEXWWKH\GRQ¶WNQRZZKRE\KHZDVPXUGHUHG!
(43) Q: Wer
hat den Jungen untersucht?
who.NOM has the boy
examinedµ:KRH[DPLQHGWKHER\"¶
A: *Von einer Psychologin.
by apsychologist.DATµ LQWHQGHG  +HZDVH[DPLQHG E\DSV\FKRORJLVW¶,I µE\¶ LQ D SDVVLYH FODXVH LV D SUHSRVLWLRQ WKDW &DVH-licenses its complement DP, Caseoriented syntactic identity cannot predict their ungrammaticality. This is because by is locatedoutside the ellipsis site, so that Case-oriented syntactic identity becomes inoperative.
On the other hand, their ungrammaticality straightforwardly follows if we assume that theSDVVLYHµE\¶LVVLPLODUWRWKHSUHSRsitions in (33) in that it must be licensed within vP (see, forinstance Collins 2005). For the sake of clarity, I suggest that a by-phrase is introduced andlicensed by vpass0, whose projection in turn serves as the complement of Voice0 specified as[passive]. Thus, the underlying structure of the relevant part of the passive clause in (42)looks like (44a), and the corresponding active clause can be represented as (44b), abstracting
away from irrelevant details.21

If the preposition to in (i) can be considered as an instance of Case-marker, the NP-like behavior of
the PPs can be captured. It is then predicted that the PP arguments of the embroider-type predicates
can also license parasitic gaps. However, I could not have found speakers who accept the examples in(i). In fact, den Dikken (2006) seems to have added the ³?´ mark to the relevant examples, which areabsent from the original source. I believe this reflects certain speaker-variations on the examples inquestion. Hence, I leave a detailed examination of the prediction for future research.
Given Merchant¶s (2013) execution of Levin¶s idea, the VP below the vtrans/pass0 should be further
decomposed into something like (i), where vobj0 rather than the verb itself selects the object when thepassivized verb has a simple event structure. Nothing in the discussion in the text hinges on this partof VP structure, though.
21(i)[vP him vobj0 [VP V0]]

- 97 -97-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)(44) a.

VoiceP
Voice[passive]0vP

PP
by whoY¶
vpass0VP
murdered heb.

VoiceP
Voice[active]0vPDP
someone vtrans0Y¶
VP
murdered him

Given the structures in (44), the mismatch between vpass0 and vtrans0 is responsible for theungrammaticality of (42).
Exactly how by-phrases are licensed by vpass0 seems to require more elaboration,
however, once the contrast found in (45) are taken into consideration. In these examples, theantecedent is a so-called short-passive clause, which lacks an overt by-phrase.
(45) a.

-RHZDVNLOOHGEXWZHGRQ¶WNQRZE\ZKRKHZDVNLOOHG!

b. * -RHZDVNLOOHGEXWZHGRQ¶WNQRZZKRKHZDVNLOOHGE\!
Since (45a) is grammatical, Case-oriented syntactic identity is observed, which in turns
means that vpass0 in the elided clause that licenses the remnant by who has a corresponding
vpass0 in the antecedent that also licenses its null counterpart as the correlate. Hence, theantecedent clause in (45) has a structure like (46a) and the relevant part of the elided clausehas a structure like (46b) (the position of killed is irrelevant).
(46) a.

[TP Joe was [VoiceP Voice[passive]0 [vP Øby ØDP vpass0 [VP killed tJoe]]])b. «>CP by whoi [TP he was [VoiceP Voice[passive]0 [vP ti vpass0 [VP killed the]]]]]c.

«>CP whoi [TP he was [VoiceP Voice[passive]0 [vP by ti vpass0 [VP killed the]]]]]

If vpass0, but not by or Øby, were the sole head that assigns inherent Case to DPs in by-phrases,
the ungrammaticality of (45b), whose elided clause should be analyzed as having a structure
like (46c), would be puzzling. This is because the remnant who is Case-licensed solely by- 98 -98-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

vpass0, and the corresponding head in (46a) does license the correlate.
Collins (2005) in fact argues that the overt preposition by assigns accusative to its
complement DP while in the short-passive the null counterpart of by (notated as Øby in (46a))
assigns null Case to its complement DP, namely ØDP, yielding an implicit by-phrase as awhole. Building on his idea, I suggest that DP-complements of passive by-phrases are Caselicensed by a combination of vpass0 and the preposition by. To be more precise, vpass0 licenses
either by or Øby, but the actual Case value depends on the choice. That is, accusative isassigned if by is chosen while null Case is assigned if Øby is chosen. Hence, the pair of (46a)and (46c) satisfies Case-oriented syntactic identity in terms of vpass0, but the mismatch
between Øby and by induces the ungrammaticality of (45b).
Recall that in Section 4.2.1 I denied that implicit PP-complements of jealous-type
predicates are licensed by null prepositions. One may think that it is not consistent with theidea that invisible by-phrases in the short-passive involve the null counterpart of by. There arecertain differences between PP-complements in question and passive by-phrases, however.
PP-complements are directly selected by the predicates, and the predicates themselves
determine which preposition is realized (jealous selects of, flirt selects with, and so on). On
the other hand, vpass0 itself does not have any information concerning prepositions: Its primaryrole is to introduce an external argument in a passive clause. Hence, vpass0 needs a help from a
preposition, which can be overt or covert, to determine the actual Case value surfacing on theexternal argument. It is then expected that passive by-phrases might be overtly realized bydifferent prepositions. Japanese passive constructions, where by-phrases have two realizations(DP-ni and DP-niyotte) as in (47) (see, Hoshi 1999, among many others, for an overview),
seem to fulfil this expectation.
(47)

Taroo-ga
Hanako-ni/niyotte homerareta
was.praised
Taroo-NOM Hanako-byµTaroo was praised by Hanako¶

Before closing this subsection, recall that under Chung¶s (2013) analysis, the argument
structure condition excludes voice-mismatched sluicing. For the condition to apply to cases
like (3a), however, it must be the case that a passive by-phrase is an argument but not an
adjunct. Otherwise the argument structure condition is irrelevant. This is then almost
equivalent to what I have just suggested. That is, I suggested in (44a) that the by-phrase isbase-generated in the position corresponding to the one where an external argument is basegenerated in the transitive counterpart. Therefore, the above discussion in fact completes
Chung¶s (2013) analysis, arguing for the alternative formulation.
4.3.

Ellipsis with Multiple PredicatesIn this subsection, I demonstrate that Case-oriented syntactic identity allows us toembody one important remark made by Chung (2013). She points out that given the basic- 99 -99-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

idea of limited syntactic identity in (1), ³when the ellipsis contains a complex syntactic
structure with multiple predicates, it is not obvious that every predicate is so [= syntactically,
author] constrained´ (Chung 2013:30). Specifically, she points out that in (48a), who is theargument of date and the antecedent has the active form of date, so that the argument
structure condition demands that the ellipsis site involve the active one. The voice of annoy,
however, can differ in the ellipsis site and in the antecedent, so there are two potential
underlying sources given in (48b-c).
(48) a.

He said that he was annoyed by the fact that she was dating someone, but herefused to reveal who.

b. « to reveal who <[the fact that she was dating t] annoyed him>c.

« to reveal who <he was annoyed [by the fact that she was dating t]>

What is crucial is that the syntactic properties of (48b) are not totally identical to those of theantecedent in (48a). Specifically the verb annoy is in the active voice in the elided clause
while it is in the passive voice in the antecedent. If an underlying source like (48b) is indeed
available, limited syntactic identity is strongly supported, but she does not provide explicit
evidence for this point.
Nakamura¶s (2013) observation, which he uses to argue against Merchant¶s (2008, 2013)
analysis, offers an occasion to verify Chung¶s (2013) remark. Since Nakamura¶s observation
involves so-called sloppy VP-ellipsis (Hardt 1999, Schwartz 2000; see Tomioka 2008 andreferences cited therein), let me introduce some background on this construction. A typicalexample of sloppy VP-ellipsis is given in (49), where the elided VP in (49B) can receive a³sloppy´ interpretation. That is, the elided VP can be interpreted as want to clean although
there is no such VP in (49).
(49) A: When John had to cook, he didn¶t want to. <cook>
B: When he had to clean, he didn¶t, either. <want to clean>
Tomioka (2008) argues that the availability of the sloppy interpretation ceases to be a
problem once we can assume (i) that ellipsis resolution can be done in a step-by-step fashionand (ii) that ellipsis of a bigger constituent can ignore the result of ellipsis applied to a smaller
constituent. To be more specific, VP-ellipsis is proposed to apply in the manner depicted in(50) so as to yield (49).
(50) a.

Step 1: Ellipsis of [VPE cook], anteceded by [VPA cook]when John had to [VPA cook], he didn¶t want to [VPE cook]b. Step 2: Ellipsis of [VPE clean], anteceded by [VPA clean]
when he had to [VPA clean], he didn¶t want to [VPE clean], either- 100 -100-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015c.

Step 3: Ellipsis of [VPE want to '], anteceded by [VPA want to ']when John had to cook, he didn¶t [VPA want to ']when he had to clean, he didn¶t [VPE want to '], either

The first and the second steps in (50) are rather straightforward, where the elided VPs
take an identical antecedent VPs. The third step in (50c) is crucial. At this step, what is elided
is the VP of the form [VP want to '], where ' indicates that the material has been elided.
There is an appropriate antecedent for this VP, which has been produced at the step in (50a).
Although the actual contents of the ' part in the elided VP and the ' part in the antecedent
are different (the former is [VP clean] while the latter is [VP cook]), they count as identical at
the step in (50c), given Tomioka¶s (2008) second assumption. Hence ellipsis can belegitimate. In this way, the sloppy interpretation for the elided VP is made available despite
the lack of the identical VP in the surface, since the underlying VP want to clean is elided via
a step-by-step application of VP-ellipsis.
In the case of (49), there is no issue regarding voice mismatches. Nakamura (2013)
observes that sloppy VP-ellipsis is possible in cases like (51). Then, analyzing the relevant
parts in (51A) and (51B) as having structures like (52A) and (52B), respectively, Nakamura(2013) points out that the grammaticality of (51B) poses a problem to Merchant¶s (2008,2013) analysis.22(51) A: When John had to praise a student, he didn¶t want to. <praise a student>
B: ? When John had to be scolded by a dean, he didn¶t, either. <want to be scolded by adean>(52) A: «, he didn¶t VoiceP
Voice[active]0

vP1
the want PRO to VoiceP
Voice[active]0

vP2
praise a student

22

According to Nakamura (2013:521), the ³?´ status of (51B) reflects the fact that seven out of ten
informants judged it acceptable. Case-oriented syntactic identity cannot account for such a variation,
especially the existence of the speakers who do not accept the example in question.

- 101 -101-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

B: «, he didn¶t VoiceP
Voice[active]0

vP3

the want PRO to be VoiceP
Voice[passive]0

vP4
scolded tPROTo derive the surface strings of (51), VP-ellipsis should apply in the manner depicted in(53).23 At the steps in (53a) and (53b), VP-ellipsis targets vP2 and vP4, both of which canfind an appropriate antecedent within the when-clauses, respectively. As a result of thesesteps, vP1 and vP3 come to contain the ' parts, as in (53c).
(53) a.

Step 1: Ellipsis of [vP2E praise a student], anteceded by [vPA praise a student]
when John had to [VoiP Voi[act.]0 [vPA praise a student]],
he didn¶t [VoiP Voi[act.]0 [vP1 want to [VoiP Voi[act.]0 [vP2E praise a student]]]]b. Step 2: Ellipsis of [vP4E scolded by a dean], anteceded by [vPA scolded by a dean]
when John had to be [VoiP Voi[pass.]0 [vPA scolded by a dean]],he didn¶t [VoiP Voi[act.]0 [vP3 want to be [VoiP Voi[pass.]0 [vP4E scolded by a dean]]]]c.

Step 3: Ellipsis of [vP3E want to be [VoiP Voi[pass.]0 ']], anteceded by [vP1A want to[VoiP Voi[act.]0 ']]«, he didn¶t [VoiP Voi[act.]0 [vP1A want to [VoiP Voi[act.]0 ']]]«, he didn¶t [VoiP Voi[act.]0 [vP3E want to be [VoiP Voi[pass.]0 ']]]The grammaticality of (51B) indicates that ellipsis at the step (53c) is legitimate, where VPellipsis targets vP3, taking the vP1 as its antecedent. The difference regarding the actual
contents of ' should not cause any problem, just like the final step of the derivation in (50).
There is a problem in (53c) which is absent from the step in (50c), however.
To see the problem more clearly, recall first how Merchant (2008, 2013) captures thecontrast between sluicing/fragment answers and VP-ellipsis regarding voice mismatches.
Under his analysis, the two vPs in (54), repeated from (22), are identical to each other, while
the two TPs are not. This is because TP but not vP contains Voice0. Hence ellipsis of TP but
not vP is sensitive to the distinction between [active] and [passive], giving rise to the contrast
in question.
23

The partial structures within when-clauses are added for the ease of exposition.

- 102 -102-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015(54) a.

[TP someonei [VoiceP Voice[active]0 [vP ti murdered Joe]]]b. [TP Joei was [VoiceP Voice[passive]0 [vP Arg murdered ti]]]This analysis, however, does not have anything to do with the actual labels of theconstituents to be elided, as emphasized by Merchant (2008, 2013). What matters is whether
the constituent contains Voice0 or not. As shown in (55), adapted from Merchant (2013:89),
ellipsis is sensitive to voice mismatches only if a constituent to be elided contains Voice0.
(55)
XP

ÆØ: voice mismatch disallowed
VoicePVoice

YP

ÆØ: voice mismatch allowed

Returning now to the step in (53c), repeated as (56), ellipsis should be blocked under
Merchant¶s (2008, 2013) analysis, as vP1 contains Voice0 that is specified as [active], while
vP3 contains Voice0 with [passive].24 That is, vP3 in (56) corresponds to the XP in (55).
(56) Step 3: Ellipsis of [vP3E want to be [VoiP Voi[pass.]0 ']], anteceded by [vP1A want to[VoiP Voi[act.]0 ']]«, he didn¶t [VoiP Voi[act.]0 [vP1A want to [VoiP Voi[act.]0 ']]]«, he didn¶t [VoiP Voi[act.]0 [vP3E want to be [VoiP Voi[pass.]0 ']]]The grammaticality of (51B) is hence problematic for Merchant¶s (2008, 2013) analysis, as
pointed out by Nakamura (2013).
The problem disappears under Case-oriented syntactic identity, however. Case-oriented
syntactic identity is trivially satisfied since the Case-licensor for he, extracted from vP3, is T
and hence it is not contained in the ellipsis site. Then, what must be satisfied is semantic
identity, and it can be satisfied in the same way as it is in the usual sloppy VP-ellipsis. In
particular, each application of VP-ellipsis in (53) arguably satisfies semantic identity (as well
as Case-oriented syntactic identity). Notice at the same time the configuration in (56)instantiates what Chung (2013) suggests with the examples in (48) at a certain level ofabstraction. That is, the voice specifications of the lower constituent, embedded under wantto, do not have to be identical in the ellipsis site and its antecedent. Thus, Case-oriented
syntactic identity solves a problem of Merchant¶s (2008, 2013) analysis, embodying Chung¶s

24

One might argue that the example in (51) can be analyzed in a way compatible with Merchant¶s(2008, 2013) analysis, hence the problem Nakamura (2013) raises can be avoided. See Nakamura(2013) for his attempt to exclude such alternative possibilities.

- 103 -103-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)(2013) remark on the effect of limited syntactic identity in ellipsis with multiple predicates.25
To summarize, this section has shown that Case-oriented syntactic identity offers aunified analysis of a wide range of facts, gaining a number of consequences with new light onvarious issues.
5. Conclusion
Building on Chung¶s (2013) idea of limited syntactic identity, this paper has argued that
Case plays a crucial role in ellipsis. In particular, I have illustrated that simplifying Chung¶s(2013) formulation by abandoning the syntactic identity condition concerning argument
structure as an independent condition and strengthening the condition concerning Case in fact
allows us to treat various phenomena in a unified way. Although further investigations areclearly required, Case-oriented syntactic identity contributes to the study of ellipsis byclarifying what aspect of syntactic properties is relevant for ellipsis.

References
Abney, S. (1987) The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Alexiadou, A. (2001) Functional Structure in Nominals, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Arregi, K. (2010) ³Ellipsis in Split Questions´ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28, 539-592.
Baker, M. (1987) ³Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure.´ In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements ofGrammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 73-137.
Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N., and H. Lasnik (1993) ³The Theory of Principles and Parameters.´ In J. Jacobs, A. vonStechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann, eds., Syntax: An International Handbook ofContemporary Research, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 506-569.
Chung, S. (1998) The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Chung, S. (2006) ³Sluicing and the Lexicon: The Point of No Return.´ In R. T. Cover and Y. Kim,
eds., Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, 73-91.
Chung, S. (2013) ³Syntactic Identity in Sluicing: How Much and Why´ Linguistic Inquiry 44, 1-44.
Chung, S., W. Ladusaw, and J. McCloskey (1995) ³Sluicing and Logical Form´ Natural Language
Semantics 3, 239-282.
25

The case involving sloppy VP-ellipsis can verify Chung¶s (2013) remark only under Merchant¶s(2008, 2013) analysis of voice mismatches. Cases involving sluicing or fragment answers, rather than
VP-ellipsis, with multiple predicates should also be examined in order to fully test the remark. I leavethis important issue for future research.

- 104 -104-

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013 ~ 2015

Chung, S., W. Ladusaw, and J. McCloskey (2011) ³Sluicing(:) between Structure and Inference.´ In
R. Gútierrez-Bravo, L. Mikkelsen, and E. Potsdam, eds., Representing Language: Essays in
Honor of Judith Aissen, California Digital Library eScholarship Repository, University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz, Linguistic Research Center, 31-50.
Collins, C. (2005) ³A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English.´ Syntax 8, 81-120.
Craenenbroeck, J. van (2010) The Syntax of Ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch Dialects, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Craenenbroeck, J. van (2013a) ³Ellipsis, Identity, and Accommodation´ ms., CRISSP/HogeschoolUniversiteit Brussel/KULeuven.
Craenenbroeck, J. van (2013b) ³Ellipsis, Identity, and Accommodation: The Case of Case´ paper
presented at ³Identity in Ellipsis´ Conference, Leiden University, Netherland.
Dikken, M. den (2006) ³Specificational Copular Sentences and Pseudoclefts.´ In M. Everaert and H.
van Riemsdijk, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford, 292-409.
Emonds, J. E. (1985) A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.
Fiengo, R., and R. May (1994) Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Frazier, L., and C. Clifton Jr. (2005) ³The Syntax-Discourse Divide: Processing Ellipsis.´ Syntax 8,
121-174.
Fox, D. (2000) Economy and Semantic Interpretation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Fox, D., and H. Lasnik (2003) ³Successive-Cyclic Movement and Island Repair: The Difference
between Sluicing and VP-ellipsis´ Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-154.
Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hardt, D. (1999) ³Dynamic Interpretation of Verb Phrase Ellipsis´ Linguistics and Philosophy 22,
185-219.
Harley, H., and R. Noyer (1997) ³Mixed Nominalizations, Short Verb Movement and Object Shift in
English.´ In P. N. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto, eds., Proceedings of NELS 28, GLSA,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., 143-157.
Hartman, J. (2009) ³When E-Givenness Over-Predicts Identity´ paper presented at Fourth Brussels
Conference on Generative Linguistics (BCGL 4) Ellipsis Workshop, HogeschoolUniversiteit Brussel.
Heggie, L. A. (1988) The Syntax of Copular Structures, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angels.
Hornstein, N., and J. Nunes (2002) ³On Asymmetries between Parasitic Gap and Across-the-Board
Constructions´ Syntax 5, 26-54.
Hoshi, H. (1999) ³Passives.´ In Natsuko Tsujimura, ed., The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics,
Blackwell, Oxford, 191-235.
Jelinek, E. (1998) ³Voice and Transitivity as Functional Projections in Yaqui.´ In M. Butt and W.
Geuder, The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, CSLI
Publications, Stanford, Calif., 195-224.
Kratzer, A. (1996) ³Severing the External Argument from Its Verb.´ In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring,eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 109-137.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) Generative Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Landau, I. (2010) The Locative Syntax of Experiencers , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lasnik, H. (2001) ³When Can You Save a Structure by Destroying It?´ In M.-J. Kim and U. Strauss,eds., Proceedings of NELS 31, University of Massachusetts, GLSA, Amherst, 301-320.
Levin, B. (2003) ³Objecthood and Object Alternations´ Handout from a talk presented at the- 105 -105-

Strengthening the Role of Case in Ellipsis (K. Takita)

Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.
Levin, B. (2006) ³English Object Alternation: A Unified Account´ ms., Stanford University.
Marantz, A. (1993) ³Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions.´ In S. A.
Mchombo, ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, Calif.,
113-150.
Martin, R. (2001) ³Null Case and the Distribution of PRO´ Linguistic Inquiry 32, 141-166.
Martín-González, J. (2013). ³Case in Sluicing´ paper presented at ³Identity in Ellipsis´ Conference,
Leiden University, Netherland.
Merchant, J. (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis, Oxford
University Press,Oxford.
Merchant, J. (2004) ³Fragments and Ellipsis´ Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738.
Merchant, J. (2008) ³An Asymmetry in Voice Mismatches in VP-Ellipsis and Pseudogapping´
Linguistic Inquiry 39, 169-179.
Merchant, J. (2013) ³Voice and Ellipsis´ Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77-108.
Moulton, K. (2004) ³External Argument and Gerunds´ Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 22,
121-136.
Nakamura, T. (2013) ³Voice Mismatches in Sloppy VP-Ellipsis´ Linguistic Inquiry 44, 519-528.
Nakao, C. (2009) Island Repair and Non-Repair by PF Strategies, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Maryland.
Nunes, J. (2004) Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Postal, P. (1993) ³Parasitic Gaps and the Across-the-Board Phenomenon´ Linguistic Inquiry 24, 734754.
Potsdam, E. (2007) ³Malagasy Sluicing and Its Consequences for the Identity Requirement on
Ellipsis´ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 577-613.
Pylkkänen, L. (2008) Introducing Arguments, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Ross, J. R. (1969) ³Guess who?´ In R. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M Green, and J. L. Morgan, eds.,
Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of
Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, 252-286.
Rothstein, S. D. (1992) ³Case and NP Licensing´ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 119139.
Sag, I. (1976) Deletion and Logical Form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Schwarz, B. (2000) Topics in Ellipsis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tanaka, H. (2011a) ³Voice Mismatch and Syntactic Identity´ Linguistic Inquiry 42, 470-490.
Tanaka, H. (2011b) ³Syntactic Identity and Ellipsis´ The Linguistic Review 28, 79-110.
Thoms, G. (2013) ³What Kind of Syntactic Identity Condition?´ paper presented at ³Identity in
Ellipsis´ Conference, Leiden University, Netherlands.
Tomioka, S. (2008) ³A Step-By-Step Guide to Ellipsis Resolution´ In K. Johnson, ed., Topics in
Ellipsis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 210-228.
Williams, E. (1977) ³Discourse and Logical Form´ Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101-139.
Yoshida, M. (2010) ³³Antecedent-Contained´ Sluicing´ Linguistic Inquiry 41, 348-356.

- 106 -106-