On ATB-Movement and Parasitic Gaps in
Japanese*
Jun Abe and Chizuru Nakao
Tohoku Gakuin University and University of Maryland, College Park
1. Introduction
In a pro-drop language such as Japanese, pronouns are replaced with
null pronouns (pro) relatively freely, as exemplified in (1).
(1) a.
Kare-ga/pro kita.
He-Nom
came
‘(He) came.’
b.
Watasi-wa sore-o/pro tabeta.
I-Top
it-Acc
ate
‘I ate (it).’
Availability of pro often makes it hard to identify other empty categories in
a variety of configurations. For example, existence of a movement trace in
Japanese NP-topicalization is controversial; alternatively, NP-topicalization
is often analyzed as coindexation between a base-generated topic and pro, as
shown in (2) (Saito 1985).
(2) Kono hon1-wa
John-ga t1/pro1 kaita.
This book-Top John-Nom
wrote
‘(As for) this book, John wrote (it).’
Despite such a complication, below we will argue for existence of
ATB-movement and parasitic gaps (PGs) in Japanese; we will show that
ATB-movement and PG constructions are possible even in environments
where pro is unavailable. Proving the existence of such constructions in a
pro-drop language is theoretically important: they are available in the
grammar of adult speakers, although the evidence to tell these constructions
from a pro construction is very restricted. This illustrates the long-standing
problem of ‘poverty of stimulus’ (Chomsky 1980), and thus further
corroborates the hypothesis that these constructions involve universal
*
We are indebted to Norbert Hornstein, Howard Lasnik and the audience at the
Syntax Lab Meeting at the University of Maryland, College Park for their
valuable comments and discussions.
102
On ATB-Movement and Parasitic Gaps in Japanese
mechanisms.
2. ATB-movement in Japanese: the case of Left Node Raising
2.1. Left Node Raising and Null Object Construction
This section demonstrates that ATB-movement is possible in Japanese,
through the discussion on what we call the Left Node Raising (LNR)
construction, which is exemplified in (3a). In LNR, two (or more) clauses
are conjoined, and a shared element (e.g. ‘cake’) at the left-edge of the
sentence is interpreted in both clauses. In this respect, LNR is similar to
English Right Node Raising (RNR: e.g. (3b)), where the shared element is
postposed to the right-edge position of the sentence.
(3) a.
b.
Keeki-o
John-ga
tukuri, (soshite) Mary-ga
tabeta.
Cake-Acc John-Nom make, (and)
Mary-Nom ate
‘The cake, John made and Mary ate.’
John made, and Mary ate the cake.
In principle, the LNR sentence in (3a) could be derived as illustrated in
(4a), where the fronted object ‘cake’ undergoes scrambling within the first
conjunct, and the gap in the second conjunct is a pro that refers to it. Under
this view, what we call LNR is basically a variant of Null Object
Construction (NOC) such as (4b), where the second sentence object is a pro
that refers to the argument of the first sentence. If LNR is a mere
combination of NOC and clause-internal scrambling, then we do not need to
posit a special construction named LNR.
(4) a.
b.
Keeki-o1 John-ga t1 tukuri, Mary-ga pro1 tabeta.
Cake-Acc John-Nom
make, Mary-Nom
ate
pro1 tabeta.
John-ga
keeki1-o tukutta. Mary-ga
John-Nom cake-Acc made
Mary-Nom
ate
‘John made a cake. Mary ate (it).’
We will argue, however, that at least not all instances of LNR should
be attributed to NOC. Specifically, we will show in 2.2. and 2.3. that LNR is
possible even when pro is impossible. Such instances of LNR should not be
treated as NOC. Instead, we will argue in 2.4. that LNR involves ATBmovement as shown in (5) (See also Nakao 2009 for the analysis). By
eliminating the possibility of pro in LNR, we demonstrate the existence of a
genuine instance of ATB-movement in Japanese.
Jun Abe and Chizuru Nakao
103
(5) Keeki-o1 John-ga t1 tukuri, Mary-ga t1 tabeta.
Cake-Acc John-Nom
make, Mary-Nom ate
2.2. Distributive scoping
Abels (2004) notes that, in English RNR, the shared element in the
rightmost position can get a so-called “distributive scoping” reading. For
instance, (6a) allows the reading where “the song John sang and the song
Mary recorded were two quite different songs.” In this reading, the shared
element two quite different songs is interpreted distributively in both
conjuncts. On the other hand, (6b), where two quite different songs is inside
of both conjuncts, does not have that reading.
(6) a.
b.
John sang, and Mary recorded, two quite different songs.
John sang two quite different songs, and Mary recorded two quite
different songs.
(Abels 2004, p.51)
Similarly to RNR, Japanese LNR allows the distributive scoping
reading. For example, ‘two separate songs’ in (7) can distribute over two
conjuncts in the same way as (6a) and have the reading “Taro sang one song
and Hanako recorded one song, and the two songs were two separate
songs.”
(7) Hutatu-no betubetu-no kyoku-o John-ga
utai,
Two-Gen separate-Gen song-Acc John-Nom sing,
Mary-ga rokuonsita.
Mary-Nom recorded
‘Two separate songs, John sang, and Mary recorded.’
On the other hand, the NOC example (8) does not allow distributive scoping.
The only available interpretation is “Taro sang two separate songs and
Hanako recorded those two songs.”
(8) Hutatu-no betubetu-no kyoku-o1 John-ga
utatta.
Two-Gen separate-Gen song-Acc John-Nom sang
Hanako-ga pro1 rokuonsita.
Hanako-Nom
recorded
‘John sang two separate songs. Mary recorded (them).’
Given the unavailability of distributive scoping in NOC, we can conclude
that the distributive scoping interpretation of (7) cannot be an instance of
104
On ATB-Movement and Parasitic Gaps in Japanese
NOC.
2.3. Interrogative complements
Tanaka (2008) observes that a complement clause that includes a whphrase inside it (Tanaka calls it an “interrogative complement”) cannot be an
antecedent of pro in NOC. The bolded clause in the first sentence of (9)
cannot be referred to by the pro in the second sentence. The intended
reading of the second clause in (9) is the one where nani ‘what’ inside the
interrogative complement gets a matrix question interpretation, but such a
sentence is excluded.
(9) Mary-ga [ John-ga
nani-o
tabeta to]1 omotteiru no?
Mary-Nom John-Nom what-Acc ate
C thinks
Q
*Susan-mo pro1 omotteiru no?
Susan-also
thinks
Q
‘What does Mary think that John ate? What does Susan think (that John
ate)?’
Tanaka (2008) attributes the impossibility of NOC to the fact that an
interrogative complement cannot be a topic as shown in (10), concluding
that a null object in NOC undergoes topicalization.
(10) [John-ga nani-o tabeta to](*-wa) Mary-ga
omotteiru
John-Nom what-Acc ate
C–Top Mary-Nom thinks
‘What does Mary think that John ate?’
no?
Q
On the other hand, an interrogative complement can be the shared
element of an LNR sentence, as shown in (11). If the second conjunct of
(11) had a pro, it should not be able to refer to the interrogative complement
in the same way as (9). Therefore, examples such as (11) should be derived
differently from NOC such as (9).
(11) [John-ga nani-o
tabeta to] Mary-ga
ii
John-Nom what-Acc ate
C Mary-Nom say
Susan-ga sinziteiru no?
Susan-Nom believes Q
‘Lit. [That John ate what] does Mary say and Susan believes?’
‘meaning. What does Mary say that John ate and Susan believes that
John ate?’
Jun Abe and Chizuru Nakao
105
2.4. Case matching effect and ATB-movement analysis of LNR
In the above subsections, we have seen two types of environments
where LNR is possible where pro is impossible, which suggests that LNR
and NOC are different constructions. Given this, the analysis of LNR in
(12a) (repeated from (4a)), where the second conjunct of LNR involves pro,
is untenable at least for those instances of LNR. Instead, we will pursue the
ATB-movement analysis in (12b): the shared element (e.g. ‘cake’)
undergoes ATB-movement from both conjuncts.
(12) a.
b.
Keeki-o1 John-ga t1 tukuri, Mary-ga pro1
Cake-Acc John-Nom
make, Mary-Nom
Keeki-o1 John-ga t1 tukuri, Mary-ga t1
Cake-Acc John-Nom
make, Mary-Nom
‘The cake, John made and Mary ate.’
tabeta.
ate
tabeta.
ate
There is supporting evidence for ATB-movement analysis that is
incompatible with the analysis in (12a): LNR shows Case-matching effects.
In LNR, the fronted object must match in Case with both the first conjunct
predicate and the second conjunct predicate. For example, in (13a), the first
conjunct predicate hana-o okuru ‘send a flower’ gives a Dative Case to
Mary, and the second conjunct predicate nagusameru ‘comfort’ takes an
Accusative object. In such an environment, LNR with a Dative object Mary
fronted is degraded. The same holds when the Dative-assigning predicate
and the Accusative-assigning predicate are reversed as in (13b). The first
predicate dansu-ni sasou ‘invite to dance’ gives an Accusative Case, and the
second predicate rabu retaa-o kaku ‘write a love letter’ gives a Dative Case.
Because of Case mismatch, LNR in these examples is degraded.
(13) a.
b.
??Mary-ni John-ga
hana-o
okuri,
Mary-Dat John-Nom flower-Acc give
Tom-ga
nagusameta.
Tom-Nom comforted
‘(To) Mary, John gave a flower and Tom comforted.’
??Mary-o John-ga
dansu-ni sasoi,
Mary-Acc John-Nom dance-to invite
Tom-ga
rabu retaa-o kaita.
Tom-Nom love letter-Accwrote
‘(To) Mary, John invited to a dance, and Tom wrote a love letter.’
On the other hand, pro in NOC does not have to have the same Case as
106
On ATB-Movement and Parasitic Gaps in Japanese
the antecedent. In (14a), the indirect object Mary in the first sentence has
Dative Case, and the pro in the second sentence gets Accusative Case from
the predicate nagusameru ‘comfort’. In this example, the Accusative pro can
refer to the Dative antecedent. Similarly, pro that is in the Dative position
can refer to an Accusative antecedent as shown in (14b). This is another
indication that LNR and NOC are different constructions.
(14) a.
b.
Mary-ni John-ga
hana-o
okutta.
Mary-Dat John-Nom flower-Acc sent
Tom-wa pro nagusame-ta.
Tom-Top
comforted
‘John gave a flower to Mary. Tom comforted (her).’
Mary-o
John-ga
dansu-ni sasotta.
Mary-Acc John-Nom dance-to invited
Tom-wa pro rabu retaa-o kaita.
Tom-Top
love letter-Accwrote
‘John invited Mary to a dance. Tom wrote a love letter (to her).’
Note that ATB wh-movement also shows Case matching requirement,
as the Polish examples in (15) show (Citko 2003; See also Dyła 1984 and
Franks 1993, 1995). The ATB-movement of the wh-phrase co ‘what’ is only
allowed when the trace positions in the first conjunct and the second
conjunct match in Case.
(15) a.
b.
Co(Acc) Jan lubi t(Acc) i
Maria uwielbia t(Acc)?
What
Jan likes
and Maria adores
‘What does Jan like and Maria adore?’
*Co(Acc) Jan lubi t(Acc) i
Maria nien widzi t(Dat)?
What Jan likes
and Maria hates
‘What does Jan like and Maria hate?’
(Citko 2003)
This similarity between LNR and the standard ATB wh-movement supports
the ATB-movement analysis of LNR in (12b).
Another curious fact is that the Case matching effect is absent when
the second conjunct of LNR has an island, as shown in (16). In this example,
the empty object in the second conjunct is included in a complex NP. Unlike
the simple example of LNR in (13), this example does not show the Case
matching effect. In (16), the verb in the first conjunct nagusameru ‘comfort’
assigns Accusative Case to the shared element sono zyoyuu ‘the actress’.
Even though the verb in the second conjunct island kisusuru ‘kiss’ is a
Dative-assigning verb, the Accusative NP ‘the actress’ is still interpreted
Jun Abe and Chizuru Nakao
107
simultaneously as the object of both verbs.1
(16) Sono zyoyuu1-o John-ga _ nagusame,
The actress-Acc John-Nom
comfort
Tom-ga [ _ kisusita stookaa]-o oikaketa.
Tom-Nom
kissed stalker-Acc chased
‘The actress, John comforted _ and Tom chased [the stalker who kissed
_].’
The lack of Case matching effect suggests that such an instance of
LNR, unlike (13), is not derived by ATB-movement. This is natural given
that movement is island-sensitive; as the second empty argument in (16) is
included within an island, it cannot be a trace. Given this, we argue that this
complex case of LNR is derived by clause-internal scrambling in the first
conjunct and a resumptive pro within the island, as shown in (17).
(17) Sono zyoyuu1-o John-ga t1 nagusame,
The actress-Acc John-Nom
comfort
Tom-ga [pro(DAT)1 kisusita stookaa]-o oikaketa.
Tom-Nom
kissed stalker-Acc chased
Presumably, pro in LNR is available only when movement from the second
conjunct is prohibited. Such a view on a null resumptive pronoun is not
novel. For example, Ishii (1991) claims that a resumptive pro is available in
Japanese relative clause formation only when movement is prohibited. (See
Hornstein 2001 for a similar analysis).
1
Nakao (2009) reports that not all speakers accept (16). The speakers who reject
(16), however, do not accept examples of LNR with an island such as (i),
irrelevant of Case mismatch.
(i) Sono saifu-o
Taro-ga
_ hiroi,
The
wallet-Acc Taro-Nom
pick-up,
Hanako-ga [ _ nusum-ooto sita otoko]-o oikaketa.
Hanako-Nom steal
did man-Acc chased
‘The wallet, Taro picked up _, and Hanako chased [the man who tried to
steal _ ].’
For those speakers, the second gap position in LNR is simply island-sensitive,
and the pro-strategy illustrated in (17) seems to be unavailable. Although the
unavailability of resumptive pro for those speakers is mysterious, the island
effect is independently an indication that LNR involves movement also for
those speakers.
108
On ATB-Movement and Parasitic Gaps in Japanese
In sum, (i) the Case matching effect and (ii) the availability of
resumption inside an island indicate that LNR is derived via movement.
Thus we conclude that Japanese has a genuine case of ATB-movement.
3. Japanese parasitic gap constructions
In this section, we demonstrate, despite the standard belief that the
availability of pro makes it almost impossible to detect the properties typical
of PGs in Japanese, that this language also exhibits such properties in the
contexts where pro is unavailable for independent reasons.
3.1. “Apparent” parasitic gap constructions
At first blush, Japanese does not seem to have PGs, since an apparent
PG example such as (18) below does not show typical properties of PGs:
(18) Dono ronbun-o1 John-wa t1 [e1 yomi-mo sezu ni] hihansita no?
Which article-Acc John-Top
read
without criticized Q
‘Which article1 did John criticize t1 [without reading e1]?’
Unlike real PGs, such an empty argument as e1 above is licensed by a whphrase in situ (cf. (19)), does not obey the so-called anti-command
requirement (cf. (20)), is island insensitive (cf. (21)) and does not show a
Case-matching effect with a real gap (cf. (22)):
(19) John-wa dono ronbun-o1 [e1 yomi-mo sezu ni] hihansita no?
John-Top which article-Acc
read
without criticized Q
‘Lit. John criticized which article1 [without reading e1]?’
(20) Dare-ga1 [John-ga e1 hanasi-kakeru mae-ni] tatisatta no?
Who-Nom John-Nom
talk
before left
Q
‘Who1 left [before John talked to e1]?’
(21) a. Dono ronbun-o1 John-wa t1 [e1 yonda ka dooka
Which article-Acc John-Top
read whether
oboete-mo izu ni] hihansita no?
remember without criticized Q
‘Which article1 did John criticize t1 [without remembering
whether he had read e1]?’
b. Dono ronbun-o1
John-wa t1 [e1 kaita hito-ni
au
Which article –Acc John-Top
wrote person-Dat see
mae-ni] hihansita no?
before criticized Q
Jun Abe and Chizuru Nakao
109
‘Which article1 did John criticize t1 [without seeing the person
who wrote e1]?’
(22) Dare-o1
[hazimete e1(Dat) atta] hito-ga
t1(Acc) kenasita no?
Who-Acc for-the-first-time saw person-Nom
criticized Q
‘Who1 did the person [who saw e1 for the first time] criticize t1?’
The following English example shows that real PGs are subject to Casematching effects:2
(23) a. It was John that Mary believed t to be a genius before Susan
proved e to be (a genius).
b. ?*It was John that Mary believed t was a genius before Susan
proved e to be (a genius).
All the above Japanese facts are standardly explained by the availability of
pro, so that all instances of e1 in (19)-(22) are in fact instances of pro, which
is immune from any property enumerated above. We demonstrate in the next
subsections, however, that in those cases where pro is not available for
independent reasons, the properties of PGs do manifest themselves,
indicating that such cases are true PG constructions. We show two such
cases.
3.2. Reconstruction effects with respect to Condition A
It has been well-known since Chomsky (1986) cited Kearney’s (1983)
data given below, that there is no Condition A reconstruction into PGs:
(24) a.
b.
Which books about himself did John file t before Mary read e?
*Which books about herself did John file t before Mary read e?
However, Munn (1994) provides such data as below which constitute
counterevidence to this generalization:
(25) a. Which picture of himself did [every boy who saw e] say Mary
liked t?
b. *Which picture of herself did [every boy who saw e] say Mary
liked t?
(Munn 1994, p. 407)
2
See Franks (1993) for the claim, based upon Slavic languages, that PG
constructions exhibit the same Case-matching effects as ATB constructions.
110
On ATB-Movement and Parasitic Gaps in Japanese
Unlike adjunct PG cases such as (24), such a subject PG construction as (25)
exhibits the opposite pattern regarding Condition A reconstruction: the
reflexive contained in the fronted wh-phrase can be reconstructed into not
the real gap but the PG.
Keeping this in mind, let us consider the Japanese counterparts of these
PG constructions. The following example corresponds to the adjunct PG
cases given in (24):
(26) Zibun-no dono hon-o1
John-wa t1 [Mary-ga e1 yomu
Self-Gen which book-Acc John-Top
Mary-Nom read
mae-ni] sutetesimatta no?
before threw away Q
‘[Which book of self]1 did John throw t1 away [before Mary read e1]?’
In this example, the Japanese reflexive zibun can refer to John but not Mary,
which thus indicates that this reflexive cannot be reconstructed into the
position e1, just like the adjunct PG cases given in (24). Although e1 behaves
just like PGs with respect to Condition A reconstruction, this fact is
immediately explained by assuming that this gap is in fact a pro, since there
is no Condition A reconstruction into pronouns. Hence, (26) itself does not
show that this construction is an instance of PG constructions. On the other
hand, it is more interesting to consider the Japanese counterpart of the
subject PG cases given in (25), since they illustrate a case where Condition
A reconstruction takes place in PGs. The relevant Japanese example is given
below:
(27) Zibun-no donna syasin-o1 [e1 mita] subete-no hito-ga
Self-Gen what picture-Acc
saw every-Gen person-Nom
Mary-ga t1 kiniitteiru to itta no?
Mary-Nom like
C said Q
‘[What picture of self]1 did everyone [who saw e1] say that Mary
liked t1?”
Interestingly enough, zibun in this case can refer to subete-no hito
‘everyone’, but not Mary, hence indicating that e1 behaves just like the PGs
in (25). Now the question is whether the pro-strategy helps to explain this
fact. Obviously not, since if e1 were in fact a pro, it would not allow
Condition A reconstruction, contrary to fact. It is thus reasonable to claim
that (27) manifests a genuine instance of PG in Japanese. We can test this
claim by examining whether this construction shows another property of PG,
and in fact it shows a Case-matching effect, as witnessed by the
Jun Abe and Chizuru Nakao
111
ungrammaticality of the following example (Recall from (16) that kisusuru
‘kiss’ is a Dative-assigning verb):
(28) ?*Zibun-no donna syasin-ni1 [e1(Acc) mita] subete-no
Self-Gen what picture-Dat
saw every-Gen
hito-ga
Mary-ga t1 kisusita to itta no?
person-Nom Mary-Nom
kissed C said Q
‘[What picture of self]1 did everyone [who saw e1] say that Mary kissed
t1?’
Here the Case carried by e1 does not match that of the fronted wh-phrase.
Thus, under the present assumptions (cf. (23)), e1 cannot be an instance of
PG. Furthermore, even if e1 is taken as pro, (28) induces a weak crossover
(WCO) violation irrespective of which subject zibun refers to, since the
fronted wh-phrase involves long-distance scrambling, which is characterized
by Saito (1992) and Tada (1994) as an instance of A’-movement, and its
trace does not c-command e1. This is confirmed by the fact that when e1 is
replaced by the overt pronoun sore-o ‘it-Acc’, the resulting sentence is as
unacceptable as (28), as shown below:
(29) ?*Zibun-no donna syasin-ni1
[sore1-o
Self-Gen what picture-Dat it-Acc
hito-ga
Mary-ga t1 kisusita to itta
person-Nom Mary-Nom kissed C said
‘[What picture of self]1 did everyone [who
kissed t1?’
mita] subete-no
saw every-Gen
no?
Q
saw it1] say that Mary
This explains the ungrammaticality of (28), which in turn suggests that e1 in
(27) is a genuine instance of PG.
3.3. Sloppy identity
Takahashi (2006) observes that such a cleft sentence as (30) below
allows the sloppy reading on which the reflexive zibun takes different values
in the real gap and PG: a picture of Hanako for the real gap and a picture of
Taroo for the PG:
(30) [[Taroo-ni e1 suteru yoo-ni meezita] hito-ga
Taroo-Dat
discard
ordered person-Nom
totteoku yoo-ni meezita] no-wa zibun-no donna
keep
ordered NL-Top self-Gen what
Hanako-ni t1
Hanako-Dat
syasin-o1
picture-Acc
112
On ATB-Movement and Parasitic Gaps in Japanese
desu ka?
be
Q
‘[What picture of self]1 was it that the person [who ordered Taroo to
throw e1 away] ordered Hanako to keep t1?’
The same reading can obtain in the LNR counterpart of this sentence, as
shown below:
(31) Zibun-no donna syasin-o1 [[Taroo-ni e1 suteru yoo-ni meezita]
Self-Gen what picture-Acc Taroo-Dat
discard
ordered
hito-ga
Hanako-ni t1 totteoku yoo-ni meezita] no?
person-Nom Hanako-Dat
keep
ordered Q
‘[What picture of self]1 did the person [who ordered Taroo to throw e1
away] ordered Hanako to keep t1?’
Notice that if the apparent PGs in (30) and (31) were taken as instances of
pro, they would not give rise to such a sloppy reading. This might lead one
to jump to the conclusion that these sentences illustrate cases of PG
constructions. However, Takahashi (2006) argues that (30) is not a real PG
construction, since typical instances of PG constructions do not allow such a
sloppy reading, as noted by Haik (1985):
(32) Which picture of himself did John look at t before Peter threw out e?
Rather, Takahashi claims that (30) shares some crucial properties with such
a sentence as (33) below, which involves VP ellipsis:
(33) Which picture of himself did John look at t before Peter did?
This sentence has the reading at stake; that is, himself is interpreted as John
in the real gap and as Peter in the VP elliptic site. Based upon this fact,
Takahashi (2006) reaches the conclusion that e1 in (30) is not a PG but
rather involves ellipsis, in fact NP-ellipsis, which has been independently
motivated by Oku (1998) and Kim (1999), among others.
We argue, however, that (30) and (31) do instantiate PG constructions.
Note that if they are, they will be instances of subject PG constructions
rather than adjunct PG ones. Interestingly, it seems to be the case that
subject PG constructions in English differ from adjunct PG ones in allowing
sloppy readings, as shown below:
(34) What kind of picture of himself did the person who ordered John to
Jun Abe and Chizuru Nakao
113
throw e away insist that Bill keep t?’
Thus, it is not unreasonable to claim that (30) and (31) illustrate real PG
constructions. Again, further confirmation for this claim comes from the fact
that when the real gap and the PG in such constructions are mismatched in
Case, then the sloppy reading does not obtain, as shown below (the ‘*’ put
to (35a,b) means that these sentences are unacceptable with the sloppy
readings):
(35) a.
b.
*Zibun-no donna syasin-ni1 [Taroo-ni e1(Acc) suteru yoo-ni
Self-Gen what picture-Dat Taroo-Dat
discard
meizita] hito-ga
Hanako-ni t1 kisu-maaku-o
ordered person-Nom Hanako-Dat kiss-mark-Acc
tukete-oku yoo-ni meizita no?
put
ordered Q
‘[What picture of self]1 did the person [who ordered Taroo to
throw away e1] order Hanako to put a kiss-mark on t1?”
*[[Taroo-ni e1(Acc) suteru yoo-ni meizita] hito-ga
Taroo-Dat
discard
ordered person-Nom
Hanako-ni t1 kisu-maaku-o tukete-oku yoo-ni meizita
Hanako-Dat kiss-mark-Acc put
ordered
no]-wa zibun-no donna syasin-ni1 desu ka?
NL-Top self-Gen what picture-Dat be
Q
‘[What picture of self]1 was it that the person [who ordered Taroo
to throw away e1] order Hanako to put a kiss-mark on t1?’
The predicate ‘put a kiss-mark on’ assigns Dative Case while the predicate
‘discard’ assigns Accusative Case. These sentences do not allow the sloppy
reading of zibun. Under the present assumptions, this is because e1 does not
match with the moved wh-phrases in Case, hence cannot be a PG. Notice
that under Takahashi’s (2006) claim that e1 involves NP-ellipsis, the
unavailability of the sloppy reading to (35a,b) is unexpected, since
Takahashi assumes that NP-ellipsis is insensitive to Case-mismatch. Thus,
the data in (35) lend strong support to our claim that such sentences as (30)
and (31) instantiate real instances of PG constructions.
4. Conclusions and Further Issues
We have demonstrated that despite the wide availability of pro,
Japanese exhibits typical properties of ATB-movement in LNR and of PG
constructions once we manipulate the relevant constructions in such a way
114
On ATB-Movement and Parasitic Gaps in Japanese
to exclude the emergence of pro. These findings are theoretically very
important in light of language acquisition, since they indicate that despite
very restricted relevant data available to children, the core properties of
ATB-movement and PG constructions are learnable, and hence that
substantial part of these properties is simply provided by UG.
We also found out that whenever ATB-movement is available in LNR,
the pro-strategy is excluded, which thus suggests that the latter strategy is a
last resort option. One is then naturally led to the question whether the same
holds true for PG constructions. In addressing this question, we need to
discuss the important question of exactly how these constructions are
analyzed. Given the above discussions, it is tempting to pursue a unified
analysis of LNR and PG constructions in terms of ATB-movment, as argued
for by Haik (1985) and Williams (1989/90). Or conversely, following Munn
(1993), it might be possible that LNR might be subsumed under the null
operator analysis that is standardly taken for PG constructions. These are
issues we want to investigate for further research.
References
Abels, Klaus (2004) “Right Node Raising: Ellipsis or Across the Board Movement,”
in Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 34, ed. by Keir Moulton
and Matthew Wolf, 45-60, GLSA publications: Amherst.
Citko, Barbara (2003) “ATB Wh-Movement and the Nature of Merge,” in
Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 33, ed. by Makoto
Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawahara, 87-102, GLSA publications: Amherst, MA.
Chomsky, Noam (1980) Rules and Representations, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Dyła, Stefan (1984) “Across the Board Dependencies and Case in Polish,” Linguistic
Inquiry 15: 701-705.
Franks, Steven (1993) “On Parallelism in Across-the-Board Dependencies,”
Linguistic Inquiry 24: 509-529.
Franks, Steven (1995) Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax, Oxford Press: New York.
Haik, Isabelle (1985) The Syntax of Operators, Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Hornstein, Norbert (2001) Move! A Minimalist Approach to Construal, Blackwell:
Oxford.
Ishii, Yasuo (1991) Operators and Empty Categories in Japanese, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Kearney, Kevin (1983) “Governing categories,” ms., University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT.
Kim, Soowon (1999) “Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 255-284.
Munn, Alan (1993) Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures,
Jun Abe and Chizuru Nakao
115
Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Munn, Alan (1994) “A Minimalist Account of Reconstruction Asymmetries,” in
Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24, ed. by Merce Gonzalez,
397-410, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Nakao, Chizuru (2009) “Japanese Left Node Raising as ATB-scrambling,” A paper
presented at The 33rd Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC 33), University of
Pennsylvania, March 2009.
Oku, Satoshi (1998) A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist
Perspective, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical
Implications, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Saito, Mamoru (1992) “Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 1: 69-118.
Tada, Hiroaki (1994) A/A-bar Partition in Derivation, Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Takahashi, Daiko (2006) “Apparent Parasitic Gaps and Null Arguments in
Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 1-35.
Tanaka, Hidekazu (2008) “Clausal Complement Ellipsis,” ms., University of York.
Williams, Edwin (1989/90) “The ATB Theory of Parasitic Gaps,” The Linguistic
Review 6: 265-279.