Abstract
This paper shows that adverbial particles are divided into the “strong” and “weak” types depending on how they behave in the context of argument ellipsis. In the argument ellipsis construction, the strong type of adverbial particle (dake ‘only’) does not allow a null argument to include its adverbial meaning, while the weak type of adverbial particle (sae ‘even’) allows a null argument to include the adverbial meaning optionally. We argue that the adverbial particle dake ‘only’ (which belongs to the strong type) projects to its maximal projection taking its host DP as a complement after QR, while the particle sae ‘even’ (belonging to the weak type) is adjoined to its host DP by QR without projecting any further. The divergence in the behavior of adverbial particles can be accounted for only if null arguments are interpreted with reference to the LF structures of their antecedent arguments. The data regarding the two types of adverbial particles provide substantial evidence that allows us to choose the LF copying analysis over the other alternative syntactic analyses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Semantic analyses of argument ellipsis are advanced by researchers such as Tomioka (1998, 2003) and Kurafuji (2019), but we will limit ourselves to the discussion of syntactic analyses (cf. Hoji 1998; Miyagawa 2017; Kasai 2014). For another line of approach, see Huang (1984, 1991), which discusses null objects in Chinese. Huang (1984) contends that null objects are variables to be bound by a topic operator (see Hasegawa (1984/85) for Japanese). For arguments against this analysis, see Nakamura (1987); see also Takahashi (2016) for the relevant discussion.
Oku (1998) is the first to argue that the availability of the sloppy/strict identity for null subjects constitutes evidence against the VP-ellipsis analysis. See also Sakamoto (2017), which observes ambiguity between quantificational and E-type interpretations for null subjects (Takahashi 2008). As often discussed (see e.g. Miyagawa 1989), nominative subjects appear outside VP. Thus, the VP-deletion analysis confronts difficulty in deriving the structure where the subject is gapped.
Funakoshi (2012) posits FocP above VP, assuming that dake moves to Spec-FocP. The interpretation without dake is assigned to the gap after VP-ellipsis takes place.
One reviewer remarks that while (18b) is not acceptable, it seems that the acceptability increases in (i).
(i)
John-wa
Jane-dake-o
home-ta-ga,
Mary-wa
[ e ]
home-ta
wake-de-wa
John-top
Jane-only-acc
praise-pst-but
Mary-top
[e]
praise-pst
reason-cop-top
na-i.
neg-prs
‘John praised only Jane, but it is not the case that Mary praised (only Jane).’
The amelioration effect might be due to the lack of parallelism between the first and the second clause. While there might be speaker variation, we find that the gap does not include the meaning of ‘only’, as (ii) naturally follows (i).
(ii)
Mary-wa
{Jane-igai-no
hito-o/hoka-no
hito-mo}
home-ta
nda yo.
Mary-top
{Jane-except-gen
person-acc/other-gen
person-also}
praise-pst
cop prt
‘Mary praised {people except Jane/other people as well}.’
If the meaning of ‘only’ is included in the gap, (ii) should be odd, since, in that case, the second clause in (i) means that Mary praised other people including Jane.
In (20b), both types of particles are restored in the gap via the copying of the antecedent because the particles cannot be extracted by QR from tensed clauses that constitute scope islands (see e.g. May 1985). A similar case is found in (i), where dake occurs with the genitive phrase modifying the DP syuukai ‘meeting’.
(i)
a.
Mary-wa
[kodomo-dake-no
syuukai]-o
hirai-ta.
Mary-top
child-only-gen
meeting-acc
hold-pst
‘Mary held a meeting only for children.’
b.
Bob-mo
[DP e ] hirai-ta.
Bob-also
[e] hold-pst
‘Bob also held (a meeting only for children).’
([e] = kodomo-dake-no syuukai-o)
The missing argument in (ib) is taken to signify ‘a meeting only for children’, which is the same meaning expressed by the antecedent argument.
Adverbial particles may be associated with arguments with or without case-marking particles. When an argument has overt accusative case marking, dake ‘only and sae ‘even’ can appear in two distinct positions, as in (i).
(i)
a.
John-ga
Mary-{sae/dake}-o
home-ta.
John-nom
Mary-{even/only}-acc
praise-pst
‘John praised {even/only} Mary.’
b.
John-ga
Mary-o-{sae/dake}
home-ta.
John-nom
Mary-acc-{even/only}
praise-pst
‘John praised {even/only} Mary.’
This suggests that the adverbial particles may be adjoined to an N-head or a D-head. The difference in the position of the particle does not give rise to a difference in meaning, so it can be assumed that an adverbial particle is raised to DP at LF whether it occurs with N or a case marker.
Funakoshi (2014) argues that null CP-complement sentences are severely degraded when the verbs are not the same, as in (i).
(i)
*Taroo-wa
[zibun-ga
itiban-da
to]
omot-te
i-ru
kedo,
Taro-top
self-nom
the.best-cop
comp
think-ger
be-prs
but
Hanako-wa
[CP e ]
kangae-te
i-na-i.
Hanako-top
[e]
consider-ger
be-neg-prs
(Intended) ‘Taro thinks that he is the best, but Hanako does not consider (that she is the best).’
(*[e] = zibun-ga itiban-da to) (Funakoshi 2014: 334)
On the contrary, the deviance of (i) is not due to the fact that the verbs are not the same, but comes from the difficulty in establishing a parallelism between the two clauses semantically, since omou ‘think’ in the first clause describes a “spontaneous” (or “uncontrolled”) mental activity, but kangaeru ‘consider’ in the second clause, a “controlled” mental activity. The difference in meaning between the two verbs can be easily discerned by a contrast in acceptability observed when the verbs occur with an adverb like tyuuibukaku ‘carefully’, as in tyuuibukaku kangaeru ‘consider carefully’ versus *tyuuibukaku omou ‘think carefully’. The sentence in (i) is rendered acceptable once kangaeru ‘consider’ is replaced by sinziru ‘believe’, as in (ii).
(ii)
Taroo-wa
[zibun-ga
itiban-da
to]
omot-te
i-ru
kedo,
Taro-top
self-nom
the.best-cop
comp
think-ger
be-prs
but
Hanako-wa
[CP e ]
sinzi-te
i-na-i.
Hanako-top
[e]
believe-ger
be-neg-prs
‘Taro thinks that he is the best, but Hanako does not believe (that she is the best).’
([e] = zibun-ga itiban-da to)
The verb sinziru ‘believe’ describes a spontaneous mental activity, as seen by the unacceptability of *tyuubukaku sinziru ‘believe carefully’. In (ii), a parallelism can easily be imagined, so the sentence is acceptable, although different verbs are used in the two clauses.
Both kiku ‘ask’ and situmon-suru ‘inquire’ can C-select DP if they S-select a theme, not a question.
(i)
John-wa
zikan-no
koto-o
{kii-ta/situmon-si-ta}.
John-top
time-gen
matter-acc
{ask-pst/inquire-do-pst}
‘John {asked/inquired about} the time.’
In (i), what is asked could be anything about the time, and the object is not taken as asking specifically what time it was, which shows that the object is identified not as a concealed question, but as a theme argument. In this connection, one reviewer notes that the following exchange is fine.
(ii)
a.
John-wa
[nanzi-ni
nat-ta
ka]
situmon-si-ta.
John-top
what.time
become-pst
q
inquire-do-pst
‘John inquired what time it was.’
b.
Bill-wa
sore-o
situmon-si-nakat-ta.
Bill-top
it-acc
inquire-do-neg-pst
‘Bill did not inquire about it.’
Again, there might be speaker variation, but the use of sore in (iib) is not acceptable for us. (iib) is rendered acceptable if sono koto ‘that matter’ is used instead of sore, however. Note that when sono koto is used, (iib) is not understood as a concealed question, but as a theme argument, as seen in (i). On the other hand, the reviewer remarks that (iiib) is not acceptable.
(iii)
a.
John-wa
zikan-o
kii-ta.
John-top
time-acc
ask-pst
‘John asked the time.’
b.
*Bill-wa
sore-o
situmon-si-nakat-ta.
Bill-top
it-acc
inquire-do-neg-pst
‘Bill did not inquire about it.’
We agree that (iiib) is unacceptable, and its unacceptability does not change even if sore is replaced by sono koto here. In any event, the reviewer’s judgments, as well as our judgments, suggest that pronouns show different behaviors from gaps in the argument ellipsis construction.
One reviewer notes that if (29b), which follows (29a), is changed to (i), the acceptability increases.
(i)
Donna
huu-ni?
[ e ]
motto
osie-te-yo.
what
manner-dat
[e]
more
teach-ger-prt
‘How? Tell me more (about it).’
The increased acceptability of the gapped clause in (i) is due to the fact that osiete ‘teach’, unlike hanasu ‘talk’, allows the DP seikaku ‘personality’ to appear as its object, as seen in (ii).
(ii)
Kare-no
seikaku-o
{osie-te/*hanasi-te}.
he-gen
personality-acc
{teach-ger/talk-ger}
‘{Teach/Talk} his personality.’
The reviewer’s suggestion on P-stranding is based on the unacceptability of (ib), which occurs subsequent to (ia).
(i)
a.
John-wa
butai-kara
ori-ta.
John-top
stage-from
get.off-pst
‘John got off from the stage.’
b.
*Mary-mo
[DP e ]-kara
ori-ta.
Mary-also
[e]-from
get.off-pst
‘Mary got off from (the stage), too.’
([e] = butai)
(ib) is not acceptable because the particle appears in the middle of the sentence, but this constraint does not apply if a PP appears in sentence-initial position, as exemplified by (ii).
(ii)
[DP e ]-kara
Mary-mo
ori-ta
yo
[e]-from
Mary-also
get.off-pst
prt
‘Mary got off from (the stage), too.’
([e] = butai)
Presumably, for the example with a stranded particle to be accepted, a stress needs to be placed on the particle. In any event, (29) and (30) show that C-selection plays a role in determining the possibility of argument ellipsis at least in the case at issue.
The two kinds of structures for adverbial particles are derived by movement, but not base-generation (Chomsky 2004). We assume that the proposed operations are available since adverbial particles originate from a word-internal position which is immune to assessing phrase structure (cf. Chomsky 1995). As is the case with many other works on argument ellipsis, we assume the general framework positing a distinction between overt syntax and LF. We will not pursue the question of how the results of the present paper can be translated into more recent developments of research, such as Chomsky (2013, 2015).
While (33b) is a case where the gap is taken to include sae, the gap can also be interpreted as not including sae. In (33c), on the other hand, the gap is not interpreted as including sae.
When the object of taberu ‘eat’ accompanying dake appears with accusative case marker, as in (ia), it can be interpreted as taking either wider or narrower scope than the negative.
(i)
a.
John-wa
huransupan-dake-o
tabe-nakat-ta.
John-top
baguette-only-acc
eat-neg-pst
‘John did not eat only the baguette.’
(only > not, not > only)
b.
John-dake-ga
huransupan-o
tabe-nakat-ta.
John-only-nom
baguette-acc
eat-neg-pst
‘It is only John that did not eat the baguette.’
(only > not)
On the other hand, (ib), where the subject with dake appears in the nominative case, has the interpretation “only > not”, but not “not > only”. This fact suggests that when a case-marked DP with dake appears in vP, it can be moved to a higher or a lower position than the negator by QR. By contrast, even if an argument accompanying sae appears with overt case marking, it is necessarily interpreted to be under the scope of negation.
(ii)
a.
John-wa
wain-sae-o
noma-nakat-ta.
John-top
wine-even-acc
drink-neg-pst
‘John did not drink even the wine.’
(not > even)
b.
John-sae-ga
wain-o
noma-nakat-ta.
John-even-nom
wine-acc
drink-neg-pst
‘Even John did not drink wine.’
(not > even)
The facts of (ii) follow if a DP with sae is not subject to QR. The important fact here is that while the interpretive effects that dake induces differ according to whether overt case marking follows it, the interpretation where dake takes scope over negation, which suggests that they should undergo QR, is obtained regardless of whether a DP with dake occurs with or without overt case marking.
The pro analysis confronts difficulty in treating cases involving PP ellipsis. The problem comes from the fact that Japanese does not have proforms that can fit into PP frames, i.e. (overt) proforms can appear in PPs only when they accompany a postposition (e.g. soko-made ‘to there’, sore-kara ‘from there’). Nevertheless, PPs selected by verbs can readily be null. Needless to say, the problem on the failure of pronouns referring to adverbial particles noted in section 2 persists in the pro analysis, apart from the problem with the availability of PP ellipsis despite the absence of PP proforms.
If not is raised to a higher position, it can license an NPI in subject position, as in (i).
(i) Why didn’t anyone come?
As one reviewer observes, even if (74b), which is preceded by (74a), can be replaced by (i), the exchange is felicitous.
(i)
Hanako-wa
[ e ]
tabe-ta.
Hanako-top
[e]
eat-pst
‘Hanako ate (it).’
(i) conveys a meaning different from (74b), however. (i) means that Hanako, in contrast to Taro, ate not only the meat she roasted but also something other than the meat she roasted.
References
Akmajian, Adrian, Susan Steele, and Tomas Wasow. 1979. The category AUX in universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 1–64.
Aoun, Joseph, and Audrey Li. 2008. Ellipsis and missing objects. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 251–274. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. 1999. On association of quantifier-like particles in Japanese. In Linguistics: In search of human mind—A festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, ed. Masatake Muraki and Enoch Iwamoto, 24–56. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and logical form: On the scope of focusing particles and wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 3, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extension. In Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282.
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structures. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 353–275.
Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2012. On headless XP-movement/ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 519–562.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2014. Syntactic head movement and its consequences. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2016. Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 25: 113–142.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 279–326.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1984/85. On the so-called “zero pronouns” in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 4: 298–341.
Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 127–152.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1991. Remarks on the status of the null object. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 56–76. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP-ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell.
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and semantics, Volume 11: Presupposition, ed. Oh. Choon-Kyu and David A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.
Kasai, Hironobu. 2014. On the nature of null clausal complements in Japanese. Syntax 17: 168–188.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. The role of lexical meanings in argument encoding: Double object verbs in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 12: 35–65.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2007. Negative scope and head raising in Japanese. Lingua 117: 247–288.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2008. On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44: 379–435.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2013. Covert possessor raising in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31: 161–205.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2014. Dative/genitive subjects in Japanese: A comparative perspective. In Japanese syntax in comparative perspective, ed. Mamoru Saito, 228–274. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2018. Projection of negative scope in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 153: 5–39.
Kurafuji, Takeo. 2019. A choice function approach to null arguments. Linguistics and Philosophy 42: 3–44.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Syntax and semantics 22: Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Takae Tsujioka. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verb in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 1–38.
Nakamura, Masaru. 1987. Japanese as a pro language. The Linguistic Review 6: 281–296.
Ohso, Mieko. 1976. A study of zero pronominalization in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Oku, Satoshi. 2016. A note on ellipsis-resistant constituents. Nanzan Linguistics 11: 57–70.
Otani, Kazuyo, and John Whitman. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 345–358.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 2, ed. Luigi Rizzi, 3–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43: 203–227.
Saito, Mamoru. 2017. Ellipsis. In Handbook of Japanese syntax, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda, 701–750. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sakamoto, Yuta. 2017. Escape from silent syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Sakamoto, Yuta. 2019. Overtly empty but covertly complex. Linguistic Inquiry 50: 105–136.
Sato, Yosuke. 2012. Particle-stranding ellipsis in Japanese, phase theory and the privilege of the root. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 495–504.
Sato, Yosuke, and Masako Maeda. 2019. Particle stranding ellipsis involves PF-deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 357–388.
Shibata, Yoshiyuki. 2015. Negative structure and object movement in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 24: 217–269.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2008. Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 307–326.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2016. Koo syooryaku [Argument ellipsis]. In Nihongo bunpoo handobukku: Gengoriron to gengokakutoku no kanten kara [The handbook of Japanese grammar: From the perspectives of linguistic theory and language acquisition], ed. Keiko Murasugi, Mamoru Saito, Yoichi Miyamoto, and Kensuke Takita, 228–264. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Takita, Kensuke. 2011. An argument for argument ellipsis from -sika NPIs. In NELS 39, ed. Susi Lima, Kevin Mullin, and Brian Smith, 771–784. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 1998. The laziest pronouns. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 7, ed. Noriko Akatsuka, Hajime Hoji, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Susan Strauss, 515–532. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2003. The semantics of null arguments and its cross-linguistic implications. In Interfaces, deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 321–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2014. Remarks on missing arguments in Japanese. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 7, ed. Shigeto Kawahara and Mika Igarashi, 251–264. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101–139.
Acknowledgements
This is a radically revised version of the papers presented at the 13th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 13) held at International Christian University (May, 2017) and the 155th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan held at Ritsumeikan University (November, 2017). We are grateful to the audiences for their comments and suggestions. We are also thankful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We are solely responsible for any remaining errors and inadequacies. This research is supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grant Nos. JP20K00605, JP19J20008).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kishimoto, H., Moriyama, K. Adverbial particle modification and argument ellipsis in Japanese. J East Asian Linguist 31, 1–43 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-021-09233-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-021-09233-z