Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL 4 (2007) 197204.

A New Type of Nominal Ellipsis in Japanese*
Yosuke Sato & Jason Ginsburg
University of Arizona
This paper discusses and analyzes a unique type of Japanese nominal
ellipsis that has never been documented in any other language in theliterature. This ellipsis involves case-marked non-overt NPs. After
showing that this ellipsis paradigm cannot be accounted for under any
previous analyses that posit one or the other of the fixed generative
inventory of empty categories (pro, PRO, or traces of A or A’movement), we argue that the existence of this type of ellipsis is exactly
what can be accounted for by the LF Copy Analysis recently proposed by
Oku (1998), Kim (1999), and others.

1. Introduction
In this paper we discuss and analyze a new type of nominal ellipsis in Japanesefragments involving overtly case-marked null arguments that have notpreviously been documented in any other language in the literature. We firstshow that the elliptic arguments in this type of construction do not fit into theclassical generative inventory of empty categories in Chomsky (1981, 1986)(i.e., pro, PRO, or traces of A or A’-movement). Then, we claim that theexistence of this type of apparently atypical ellipsis is exactly what is predictedby recent LF Copy analyses of Japanese (Oku 1998, Kim 1999, Saito 2003,
Takahashi 2006). To the extent that this analysis is correct, we provide further
evidence for the LF copy analysis, which has been amply motivated on otherindependent grounds in the above-mentioned work.
2. Case-Stranding Null Arguments in JapaneseTo the best of our knowledge, the nominal ellipsis in question came into use
recently in colloquial dialogues such as (1).1*Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the Linguistic Colloquium of the University of
Arizona in April, 2006 and at the 8th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar inAugust, 2006. We thank the audiences at those presentations for their insightful comments. We also
thank the anonymous reviewers of our abstract, as well as Andy Barss, Mike Hammond, Heidi
Harley, Simin Karimi, Myung-Kwan Park, and Dave Medeiros for comments and suggestions.
Kumiko Nakamura, Kenji Oda and Naomi Ogasawara provided us with helpful discussions on theJapanese examples included herein. All errors are our own. The first author has been partially
supported by the Fulbright Fellowship (2005-2006).
The following abbreviations are used in this paper: Acc = Accusative, Dat = Dative, Excl =Exclamation, Top = Topic, Loc = Locative, Neg = Negation, Nom = Nominative, Perf = Perfective,
Pol = Polite, Q = Question.

(1) A: Asami-wa mootsuki-masi-ta ka?
Asami-Top already arrive-Pol-Past Q‘Has Asami already arrived?’
B: Hai, moo
tsuki-masi-ta.
yes, already arrive-Pol-Past‘Yes, she has already arrived.’
A: Naomi-mo moo
tsuki-masi-ta ka?
Naomi-also already arrive-Pol-Past Q‘Has Naomi also already arrived?’
B: e ga mada tsuki-mase-n.
Nom yetarrive-Pol-Neg‘She has not arrived yet.’
The second reply of B in this conversation involves an overtly nominative casemarked empty category (indicated here as e) that is intended to refer back to thesubject argument Naomi, which is salient from the preceding question posed by
A. This ellipsis is not restricted to subject positions but can also target direct andindirect objects, as shown in (2) and (3), respectively. Furthermore, examples
such as (4) show that this ellipsis is also possible for adjunct expressions such as
locative case-marked phrases.2(2) A: Tokyo-de Tom Cruise-o
mi-ta
no!
Tokyo-Loc Tom Cruise-Acc see-Past Excl
‘I saw Tom Cruise in Tokyo!’
B: e!?
Honto? Tom Cruise-o?
what!? really? Tom Cruise-Acc?
‘What!? Really? Tom Cruise?
A: eomi-ta-no!
Bikkuri-shi-cha-tta.
Acc see-Past-Excl surprise-do-Perf-Past‘I saw him! I was surprised.’

1 The first author did an informal survey of 25 Japanese speakers in Sendai, Japan from 18 to 24 inage, all non-linguists, and found that the majority of them (17 out of 25) admitted the ellipsis type in(1-4). All the consultants tend to prefer the ellipsis of indirect or locative elements as in (3) and (4)to that of subject or direct objects as in (1) and (2). As Kenji Oda (personal communication) points
out, one factor that facilitates this ellipsis might be the distinction between structural and inherent
cases in Japanese; elements that have inherent case may be easier to elide. We are very grateful to all
the consultants for their patient grammaticality judgments.
2 This pattern is also observed with other adjunct phrases marked with de (instrument), kara(source), made (goal) and so on. The productivity of this pattern with these markers indicates that thedistinction between structural and inherent case plays a role in licensing this ellipsis, as suggested infootnote 1.

(3) A: Akira-ni
ai-masi-taka?
Akira-Dat meet-Pol-Past Q‘Did you meet Akira?’
B: Hai, ai-masi-ta.
yes, see-Pol-Past‘Yes, I met him.’
A: Yusuke-ni-mo
ai-masi-ta ka?
Yusuke-Dat-also see-Pol-Past Q‘Did you also meet Yusuke?’
B: e ni-wa mada atte-mase-n.
Dat-Top yet
meet-Pol-Neg‘I have not met him yet.’(4) A: Hiroshima-de Tom Cruse-o
mi-ta no!
Hiroshima-Loc Tom Cruse-Acc see-Past Excl
‘I saw Tom Cruse in Hiroshima!’
B: e!? Honto? Hiroshima-de (mi-ta
no)?
what really Hiroshima-Loc (see-Past Q)‘What!? Really? (Did you see him) in Hiroshima?’
A: e de mi-ta
no! Bikkuri-shi-cha-tta.
Loc see-Past Excl surprise-do-Perf-Past‘(I saw him) in Hiroshima! I was surprised.’In the second reply of A in (2), we have the accusative case-marked empty
object intended to denote Tom Cruse. In the same way, in the second reply of Bin (3), we have the dative-marked empty indirect object intended to denote
Yusuke. Finally, in the second reply of A in (4), we find the locative-marked
elliptical object of the preposition de ‘in’ that refers back to the locative
expression Hiroshima from the preceding question.
There are a few semantic and phonological factors that help license thisnominal ellipsis pattern in Japanese. First, the null argument must be a focused
NP from the preceding discourse. Second, native speakers accept the ellipsis
option in (1-4) only when they place an extremely heavy pitch accent on thecase marker in sentence-initial position. This cue can be interpreted as indicating
focus/topic in the LF side of grammar (cf. Jackendoff 1972). Finally, they leavea certain stretch of silence before they utter sentences that contain the relevant
ellipsis pattern. This suggests that there is some empty category preceding them(see also Carter 1999 for a similar argument regarding language acquisition).3
This sort of case-stranding nominal ellipsis has never to our knowledge
been documented in any other language in the literature, showing that it calls for
a formal analysis from a quite new perspective. In the next section, we firstshow that this ellipsis pattern is not predicted under any analysis that refers to
3 Thanks to Mike Hammond (personal communication) for pointing this out.

the fixed classical inventory of empty categories in the Government-andBinding Theory of Chomsky 1981, 1986, i.e., pro, PRO or traces of A or A’movement.
3. What Type of Empty Category is the Elided NP?
A possible analysis for the ellipsis pattern described in the previous section is
one that posits a pro in the elliptic NP positions of the examples in (1-4), as isfound in Romance languages (Chomsky 1981, Rizzi 1982). However, thisanalysis does not work for the ellipsis pattern under investigation. It has been ageneral consensus in the generative literature on so-called pro-drop languages,
including Japanese, that pro is covertly case-marked. To take one example, it
has been widely known in Japanese syntax since the seminal work of Kuroda(1965) that a clause cannot tolerate more than one occurrence of the (surface)accusative case marker -o. This is widely known as the Double-o Constraint in(5).
(5) The Double-o Constraint
There cannot be more than one accusative Case in a clause.
This constraint accounts for the difference between (6a) and (6b). Example (6a)is ungrammatical because there are two arguments, Xander and ninzin ‘carrot’
that are marked with accusative case. Example (6b) is grammatical because
there is only one argument, ninzin ‘carrot’, that occurs with accusative case; theother causee argument Xander is marked with the dative case.
(6) a. *Andy-ga Xander-oninzin-o tabe-sase-ta.
Andy-Nom Xander-Acc carrot-Acc eat-Cause-Past‘Andy made Xander eat carrots.’b. Andy-ga Xander –ni ninzin-o tabe-sase-ta.
Andy-Nom Xander-Dat carrot-Acc eat-Cause-Past‘Andy made/let Xander eat carrots.’
Now, compare these sentences with those in (7a) and (7b). Their adjunct clauses
contain ninzin ‘carrots’, which refers to the empty direct object pro in the matrix
clauses (cf. Harada 1973, Shibatani 1973, and Saito 2004:116).
(7) a. *Janet-ga
ninzin-okatte-ki-ta
node, Andy-wa Xander-oJanet-Nom carrot-Acc buy-come-Past because Andy-Top Xander-Acc
pro tabe-sase-ta.
eat-Cause-Past‘Because Janet bought carrots, Andy made Xander eat them.’b. Janet-ga ninzin-okatte-ki-ta
node, Andy-wa Xander-ni
Janet-Nom carrot-Acc buy-come-Past because Andy-Top Xander-Dat
pro tabe-sase-ta.
eat-Cause-Past‘Because Janet bought carrots, Andy made/let Xander eat them.’

The ungrammaticality of (7a) naturally falls out if we assume that accusative
case is realized within pro. The grammaticality of (7b) provides further
corroboration for the view that pro counts as the accusative-case marked empty
category. In this example, pro corresponds to the accusative case marked ninzin‘carrot’, which is allowed to occur since Xander has dative case, and therefore,
there is only one accusative marked argument in the matrix clause. The contrast
between (7a) and (7b) thus indicates that pro in Japanese is covertly casemarked and provides evidence against a pro-based analysis of the ellipsis inquestion.
It is also unlikely that the argument in question is PRO. An analysis that
posits PRO for the ellipsis site in (1-4) does not work because
crosslinguistically, this formative is commonly found in control configurations(though see Stenson 1989, as discussed in Harley 2000, for the claim that PRO
is present in Irish finite clauses). Yet none of the relevant portions of theseexamples involve control structures. Finally, there is no c-commanding
antecedent for the elided NP. Thus, it is also unlikely that the empty NPs are
instances of traces created by A or A’-movement.
The discussion so far suggests that the empty arguments in the examples in(1-4) do not fit into the classical generative inventory of empty categories andthat the source of the ellipsis pattern in question needs to be sought elsewhere in
the Japanese grammar. A question also arises as to the identity of this argument.
In the next section, we show that this type of apparently atypical ellipsis pattern
can be accounted for by the recent theory of Japanese ellipsis known as the LF
Copy Analysis.
4. The LF Copy Analysis
The existence of the ellipsis pattern that is our focus can naturally be
accounted for under the LF Copy Analysis recently proposed by Oku (1998),
Kim (1999), Saito (2003, 2004) and Takahashi (2006).4 For example, Oku
argues that an argument is copied onto an empty slot in an incomplete clausefrom the full linguistic antecedent to save an otherwise semanticallyuninterpretable structure at LF. His analysis is illustrated in (9a, b) for theexample in (8b), a null object construction in Japanese.
(8) a. John-ga ninzin-otabe-ta.
John-Nom ninzin-Acc eat-Past‘John ate carrots.’b. Bill-moetabe-ta.
Bill-also
eat-Past‘(Lit.) Bill also ate.’

4 See these works for discussion of other elliptic cases in Japanese, such as null arguments and clefts(Oku 1998, Kim 1999, Saito 2003, 2004) and parasitic gap-like constructions in Japanese (Takahashi2006).

(9) a. [TP John-ga [vP ninzin-otabe-ta]]b. [TP Bill-mo [vP ninzintabe-ta]]In (9a, b), the direct object in (9a) is copied and merged onto the corresponding
direct object slot in (9b) at LF in order to satisfy the selectional properties of theverb taberu ‘eat’.
This analysis is directly applicable to the ellipsis pattern underinvestigation, as observed in examples (1-4). For instance, the LF Copy Analysis
assigns the rough LF representation in (11b) to the relevant elided portion of theexample in (1), repeated below as (10).
(10) A: Asami-wa mootsuki-masi-ta ka
Asami-Top already arrive-Pol-Past Q‘Has Asami already arrived?’
B: Hai, moo
tsuki-masi-ta.
yes, already arrive-Pol-Past‘Yes, she has already arrived.’
A: Naomi-mo moo
tsuki-masi-ta ka?
Naomi-also already arrive-Pol-Past Q‘Has Naomi also already arrived?’
B: e ga mada tsuki-mase-n.
Nom yetarrive-Pol-Neg‘She has not arrived yet.’(11) a. [CP [TP Naomi-mo moo
tsuki-masi-ta] ka]]
Naomi-also already arrive-Pol-Past Q
b. [TP [DP Naomi ]-ga mada tsuki-mase-n]]Naomi-Nom yetarrive-Pol-Neg
In (11), the subject argument Naomi is copied from the LF representation in(11a) onto that in (11b) to supply the theme argument for the unaccusative verb
tsuku ‘arrive.’ This copying operation thus correctly derives the semanticinterpretation ‘Naomi has not arrived yet’, as desired. Note that this analysis
does not face any of the problems noted above that arose in the previous
generative accounts of empty categories. First, the null NP is merged into thesubject position in (11b) without surface morphological case, thereby
circumventing the problem faced by the pro-based account with regards to the
Double-o Constraint. Second, the proposed analysis does not require us topostulate PRO or any kind of trace created by movement. 5
5 There are two residual problems with the proposed analysis. One is how to account for theungrammaticality of examples such as (7a), which has been taken to suggest that the empty category
is the covertly case-marked pro. One solution is that the elided NP requires case checking/licensing
both at LF and PF. The elided argument in (7a) then needs case licensing at PF and LF. The example

5. Conclusions
This paper has analyzed a new type of nominal ellipsis in Japanese involving
case-stranding null arguments that have never been documented in any otherlanguage. Accounts that posit an element from the fixed inventory of empty
categories are not feasible. This apparently mysterious ellipsis pattern ispredicted only by the recent LF Copy Analysis of Japanese ellipsis. This ellipsis
pattern therefore indicates the rather unique nature and origin of Japanese
ellipsis and hence provides further empirical support for the LF Copy Analysis.
Further research should address why this type of ellipsis only occurs inmain clauses, why multiple instances of ellipsis are not allowed, why theantecedent of the elided argument must be overt, and why the elision of theargument must involve semantic notions such as topic and focus.6 We leavethese and others related issues for careful examination in future work.
References
Carter, Allyson (1999). An Integrated Acoustic and Phonological Investigation of Weak
Syllable Omissions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona.
Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New
York: Praeger.
Harada, Shin’ichi (1973). Counter Equi NP Deletion. Annual Bulletin 7: 113-147.
Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics. University of Tokyo.
Harley, Heidi (2000). Irish, PRO and the EPP. Ms., University of Arizona.
Hiraiwa, Ken (2001). Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint. In Ora
Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier-Martin Gonzalez, Lance Nathan and Adam
Szcezegielniak (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40: The Proceedings of
HUMIT 2000. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, pp. 67-80.
Hiraiwa, Ken (2002). Facets of Case: On the Nature of the Double-o Constraint. In Yukio
Otsu (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo:
Hituzi Publishers, pp. 139-163.
Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to
Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic, and Discourse
Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kim, Soowon (1999). Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis. Journalin (7a) is ungrammatical due to the Double-O Constraint, stated in (5), given that this constraint is asurface filter that applies at PF (Kuroda 1988; Hiraiwa 2001, 2002). The other problem is how thepresent analysis is sufficiently constrained. For example, what prevents the subject Asami in (10A)from being copied onto the empty subject position of the second reply of B in (10) to yield thereading ‘Asami has not arrived yet.’ We maintain that only the topically salient or focused NP canserve as antecedent for the elliptic NP. This pragmatic effect on the licensing of the deleted NP
might be better accommodated within the Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp and Reyle 1990)
that employs box indexing sensitive to topicality and focus. See Sato (2006) for further discussion
on this possibility. We are grateful to Heidi Harley and Myung-Kwan Park (personalcommunication) for useful discussion on these issues.
6 We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing up these issues.

of East Asian Linguistics 8: 255-284.
Kuroda, Sigeyuki (1965). Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Kuroda, Sigeuyuki (1988). Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English
and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47.
Oku, Satoshi (1998). A theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist
Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Rizzi, Luigi. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Saito, Mamoru (2003). On the Role of Selection in the Application of Merge. In
Kadowaki Makoto and Shigeto Kawahara (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd
Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst: GLSA, pp. 323-345.
Saito, Mamoru (2004). Genitive Subjects in Japanese: Implications for the Theory of Null
Objects. In Peri Bhaskarao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-Nominative
Subjects: Volume 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 103-118.
Sato, Yosuke (2006). Case-stranding Radical Ellipsis in Japanese and LF Recycling. Ms.,
University of Arizona.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1973). Semantics of Japanese Causativization. Foundations ofLanguage 9: 327-373.
Stenson, Nancy (1989). Irish autonomous impersonals. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 7: 373-406.
Takahashi, Daiko (2006). Apparent Parasitic Gaps and Null Arguments in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 1-35.

Department of Linguistics,
Douglass 200E,
University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona 85721
USA
yosukes@email.arizona.edu
jginsbur@email.arizona.edu