Island Sensitivity in Japanese Sluicing and Some Implications[*]
Teruhiko FUKAYA
Gunma Prefectural Women's University
This paper investigates island effects in Japanese sluicing and demonstrates thatcase-marked sluicing, a subtype of sluicing where the wh-phrase is case-marked, is sensitive to such syntactic islands as the relative clause and the adjunct islands, although it appears otherwise at first glance. This is demonstrated by closelyexamining whethercertain types of readings are availablein case-marked sluicing examples where the element in the first conjunct corresponding to the wh-expression in the second is a non-indefinite expression. Itis then shown that the behaviors of Japanese case-marked sluicing can be accounted for by the theory of ellipsis resolution proposed in Fukaya & Hoji 1999 in combination with a version of Merchant's (2001: ch.5) proposal for local movementin sluicing resolution. Also examined is another subtype of Japanese sluicing called non-case-marked sluicing, where the wh-phrase is not case-marked, and it is shown to exhibit no island effects, in contrast tocase-marked sluicing. It is claimed that theproperties of non-case sluicing can be accounted for by assuming a structure which is radically distinct from that of case-marked sluicing. English sluicing is then re-examined from the perspectives gained from the investigation of Japanese sluicing, and it is demonstratedthat some cases of English contrast sluicing exhibit island effects while others do not. It is suggestedthat two subtypes of sluicing be distinguished in English as well which correspond to case-marked and non-case-marked sluicing in Japanese.
1. Introduction
Ross (1969) was the first to bring to light the construction that he referred to as sluicing, as in the second conjunct in (1b).
(1)a.Somebody just left--guess who just left.
b.Somebody just left--guess who.
(Ross 1969: 252)
For ease of reference, I will refer to the wh-phrase in sluicing as the remnant and to the element in the first conjunct that corresponds to the remnant as the correlate. In (1b), for example, somebody is the correlate, and who is the remnant.
Ross (1969: 276-277) observed that the island effects are weaker in sluicing than in its non-elliptical counterpart, as in (2)-(4).
(2)[Complex NP Constraint (relative clause)]
a.*She kissed a man who bit one of my friends, but Tom doesn't realize which one of his friends she kissed a man who bit.
b.?She kissed a man who bit one of my friends, but Tom doesn't realize which one of his friends.
(Ross 1969: (72a-b))
(3)[Sentential Subject Constraint]
a.*That he'll hire someone is possible, but I won't divulge who that he'll hire is possible.
b. ??That he'll hire someone is possible, but I won't divulge who.
(Ross 1969: (73b))
(4)[Coordinate Structure Constraint]
a. *Irv and someone were dancing together, but I don't know who Irv and were dancing together.
b. ??Irv and someone were dancing together, but I don't know who.
(Ross 1969: (71))
Observing these facts, Ross gave the informal statement regarding island effects in sluicing in (5).
(5)If a node is moved out of its island, an ungrammatical sentence will result. If the island forming node does not appear in surface structure, violations of lesser severity will (in general) ensue.
(Ross 1969: (75))
Although Ross maintained that English sluicing still exhibits some island effects, it has been the general consensus in the literature that island effects are not observed in English sluicing (see Chomsky 1972, Levin 1982, Chung et al. 1995, Merchant 2001, 2008, Lasnik 2001, and Fox & Lasnik 2003 (F&L, henceforth), among others). (6) and (7) are taken from Merchant's works.
(6)[Complex NP Constraint (relative clause)]
a.*They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don't remember which Balkan language they want to hire [someone who speaks _ ].
b.They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don't remember which.
(Merchant 2001: ch.3 (5))
(7)[Adjunct Clause Constraint]
a.*Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers, but she couldn't remember which (of the teachers) Ben will be mad [if she talks to _].
b.Ben will be mad if Abby talks to one of the teachers, but she couldn't remember which.
(Merchant 2008: (13a-b))
Schematically, if the structure in (8)is obtained in the first conjunct and sluicing is acceptable, it has been considered as evidence that there are no island effects.
(8) ... [ISLAND ... correlate ... ] ...
Following Ross 1969,many researchers havemaintained that the remnant has undergone regular wh-movement.
The issue of why island effects are nullified in sluicing has been one of the prominent topics in the literature on sluicing. Chung, et al. (1995) propose an analysis where there is no movement involved in the derivation of sluicing; Merchant (2001) pursues an account in which only non-island-violating local movement is involved in the derivation of sluicing in island contexts; F&L and Merchant (2008) propose that syntactic islands are PF phenomena and that deletion of the violating structure ameliorates the island violation. Kimura (2010) argues that the remnant wh-phrase stays in-situ in some cases of sluicing.
In this paper, I will first examine case-marked sluicing (cm sluicing) in Japanese, in which the remnant is marked with a case-marker or a postposition, and demonstrate that despite appearing otherwise, it is in fact sensitive to the relative clause and the adjunct islands. I will then show that the copy theory of ellipsis resolution proposed in Fukaya & Hoji 1999 (henceforth, F&H) combined with a version of Merchant's (2001: ch.5) proposal forlocal movementin sluicingin propositional island contextscan account for what appears to be the peculiar behavior of Japanese sluicing.[1] I will also investigate non-case-marked sluicing (non-cm sluicing) in Japanese, where the remnant is not marked with a case-marker or a postposition, and argue that its apparent island insensitivityis due to the availability of a copula structure with an emptyproas the subject. I will then revisit English sluicing and demonstrate that it also exhibits relative clause island effects and suggest that the relative clause island is not a PF representational island in English, contra the widely-held view. To account for the new facts of English sluicing discussed in this paper, it will be suggested that two types of sluicing be distinguished in English, which correspond to cm and non-cm sluicing in Japanese.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 observes the instances of island sensitivity in cm sluicing in Japanese. Section 3 introduces F&H's theory of ellipsis resolution adopted in this paper. Section 4 examines how the facts observed in section 2are accounted for under the theory of ellipsis resolution in section 3 combined with a version of Merchant's (2001) proposal for local movement. Section 5 discussesisland sensitivity in non-cm sluicing in Japanese and shows how the facts are accounted for under the copula analysis. Section 6 re-examines English sluicingfrom the perspective gained from the examination of Japanese sluicing. Section 7concludes the paper.
2.Island sensitivity in Japanese sluicing
In this section I will show that Japanese sluicing respects syntactic islands, although in some cases it appears to be insensitive to them as in the case of English sluicing. I will examine two types of islands for that purpose: the relative clause island and the adjunct island. Before discussing island effects, let us first give an overview of sluicing in Japanese with respect to thetypes of elements that are allowed as the correlate.
2.1. Japanese sluicing
Inoue (1976, 1978) first observed that Japanese has a construction similar to English sluicing as in (9). (9a) is a simplex sentence example, and (9b) is an embedded sentence example.[2]
(9)a.John-wa dareka-o suisensita ga, boku-wa [dare-o ka] siranai.
John-top someone-acc recommended but I-top who-acc Q know:not
'John recommended someone, but I don't know who <Johnrecommended _>.'
b.John-wa Mary-ga dareka-o suisensita to itteita ga,
John-top Mary-nom someone-acc recommended that said but
boku-wa dare-o ka oboeteinai
I-top who-acc Q remember:not
'John said that Mary recommended someone, but I don't remember who <John said that Mary recommended _.'
(Inoue 1978: 56)
These are cases where the correlate is an indefinite; however, a definite can also be the correlate in Japanese sluicing, as in the case of what Merchant (2001: 36, 2008) refers to as contrast sluicing in English. (10a) is an example where a simplex sentenceappears to be missing, and (10b) is an example where a complex sentence appears to be missing.[3]
(10)a.Boku-wa [gakutyoo-ga Susan-ni renrakusita no]-wa oboeteiru ga,
I-top president-nom Susan-dat contacted that -topremember but
[[hoka-no dare]-ni ka]oboeteinai.
other-genwho-dat Q remember:not
'I remember that the presidentcontacted Susan, but I don't remember who elsethe presidentcontacted _>.'
b.Boku-wa [John-ga [gakutyoo-ga Susan-ni renrakusita to] itteita no]-wa oboeteiru ga,
I-top John-nompresident-nom Susan-dat contacted thatsaid that-top remember but
[[hoka-no dare]-ni ka] oboeteinai.
other-gen who-dat Q remember:not
'I remember that John said that the presidentcontacted Susan, but I don'tremember who else <John said that the presidentcontacted _>.'
In addition to indefinite and definite NPs, in-situ wh-phrases can be the correlate in Japanese sluicing as in (11). (11a) is a case where a simplex sentenceappears to be missing, and (11b) a case where a complex sentenceappears to be missing.
(11)a.Boku-wa [gakutyoo-ga [gengogakka-no dare]-ni renrakusita ka] oboeteiru ga,
I-top president-nom linguistics:department-genwho-dat contacted Q remember but
[[tetugakka-no dare]-ni ka]oboeteinai.
philosophy:department-genwho-dat Q remember:not
'I remember who in the Linguistics Departmentthe presidentcontacted, but I don'tremember who in the Philosophy Departmentthe presidentcontacted _ >.'
b.Boku-wa [John-ga [gakutyoo-ga [gengogakka-no dare]-ni renrakusita to]
I-top John-nom president-nom linguistics:department-gen who-dat contacted that
itteita ka] oboeteiru ga,[[tetugakka-no dare]-ni ka]oboeteinai.
said Q remember but philosophy:department-genwho-dat Q remember:not
'I remember who in the Linguistics Department John said that the presidentcontacted, but I don't remember who in the Philosophy Department <John said that the presidentcontacted _ >.'
We have illustratedthat (i) an indefinite, (ii) a definite, and (iii) an in-situ wh-phrase can be a correlate in Japanese sluicing. Next, weturn to island sensitivity in Japanese sluicing. In the following discussion,correlates of the types (ii) and (iii) will play a crucial role because only with these correlate types can the existence of island effects be demonstrated.
2.2. The relative clause island
Let us begin with the relative clause island. Prior to discussing sluicing, however, I will first demonstrate that relative clauses are indeed syntactic islands in Japanese. First, consider (12).
(12)[[kanari-no kazu]-no nikkei kigyoo]3-ga [seihu-ga [soko3-no kogaisya]-ni
a:large:number-gen Japanese company-nom the:government-nom that:place-gen subsidiary-to
aturyoku-o kaketeiru] to happyoo sita.
pressure-accis:putting thatannounced
'(lit.) [A large number of Japanese companies]3announced that the government is putting pressure on its3 subsidiary.'
The QP in the matrix subject position ([[kanari-no kazu]-no nikkei kigyoo]-ga 'a large number of Japanese companies') can enter into bound variable anaphora with the dependent term (soko 'it') within the embedded object, giving rise to the covariant reading "For each of the large number of Japanese companies x, x announced that the government is putting pressure on x's subsidiary." As illustrated in (13), the NP [soko3-no kogaisya]-ni 'to its subsidiary' within the embedded clause in (12)can be moved to the front of the matrix subject, retaining the covariant reading.
(13)[soko3-no kogaisya]-ni [[kanari-no kazu]-no nikkei kigyoo]3-ga [seihu-ga
that:place-gen subsidiary-to a:large:number-gen Japanese company-nom the:government
aturyoku-o kaketeiru] to happyoo sita.
pressure-accis:putting thatannounced
'(lit.) On its3 subsidiary,[a large number of Japanese companies]3announced that the government is putting pressure _.'
Next,consider (14), where the QP ([[kanari-no kazu]-no nikkei kigyoo]-ga 'a large number of Japanese companies')resides in the matrix subject position and the phrase containing the dependent term (soko 'it') sits within the matrix object complex NP.
(14)[[kanari-no kazu]-no nikkei kigyoo]3-ga [COMPLEX NP [soko3-no kogaisya]-ni
a:large:number-gen Japanese company-nom that:place-gen subsidiary-to
[kekkan buhin]-o noonyuu siteita meekaa]-o uttaeta.
defective parts-acc was:supplying maker -acc sued
'(lit.) [A large number of Japanese companies]3 sued a manufacturer that had been supplying defective parts to its3 subsidiary.'
In this case as well, the QP and the dependent term can enter into bound variable anaphora, giving rise to the covariant reading given in (15).
(15)For each of the large number of Japanese companies x, x sued a manufacturer who had been supplying defective parts to x's subsidiary.
In contrast to (13), the NP [soko3-no kogaisya]-ni 'to its subsidiary' within the object complex NP in (14)cannot be moved to the front of the matrix clause subject and still retain the covariant reading in (15). This is illustrated in (16).
(16)*[soko3-no kogaisya]-ni[[kanari-no kazu]-no nikkei kigyoo]3-ga
that:place-gen subsidiary-to a large:number-gen Japanese company-nom
[COMPLEX NP _ kekkan buhin-o noonyuu siteita meekaa]-o uttaeta.
defective parts-acc was:supplying maker -acc sued
'(lit.) To its3 subsidiary, [a large number of Japanese companies]3 sued a manufacturer that had been supplying defective parts _.'
The unacceptability of (16)with the intended covariant readingcontrastswith the acceptability of (13). The difference between (13) and (16) is whether the original site of the fronted NP is within the embedded clause in the former or within the relative clause in the latter. Thisshows that the dislocated element cannot be related to the underscored position within the relative clause, and I claim that this indicates that a relative clause is indeed a syntactic island in Japanese. Note that (16) does not simply involve an island that contains the 'gap' associated with the 'dislocated' phrase outside it; it involves reconstruction effects of binding. This is to ensure that the dislocated element is related by means of movement to the position marked by an underscore that is within the relative clause.[4]
Now let us return to sluicing. If we follow the criterion for island insensitivity in sluicing mentioned in section 1, i.e., whether sluicing is possible when the first conjunct is of the structure in (8), sluicing in Japanese appears not to exhibit island effects. Consider (17).
(17)keisatu-wa [ISLAND[pro2 Los Angeles-de [aru yuumee zin]-ni mayaku-o utta]
police-top Los Angeles-in a celebrity -to drug-acc sold
otoko2]-o taihosita rasii ga, boku-wa [dare-ni ka] siranai.
man -acc arrested seem but I-top who-to Q know:not
'(I heard) the police arrested a man who had sold drugs to a celebrity in LA, but I don't know to whom.'
In (17), the correlate is located within a relative clause island; nevertheless,sluicing is possible. This indicates that Japanese sluicing with an indefinite correlate does not exhibit island effects.[5] In sluicing with a definite correlate, island effects do not seem to be observed, either, as can be seen in (18) and (19).
(18)[keisatu-wa [ISLAND [pro2[Tanaka giin]-ni wairo-o okutta]
police-top Rep. Tanaka-to bribe-acc gave
otoko2]-o taihosita ga, Bill-wa [dono giin-ni ka] siranakatta rasii.
man -acc arrested but Bill-top which Rep. -to Q knew:not seem
'The police arrested the man who had given a bribe to Representative Tanaka, but it seems that Bill didn't know to which Representative.'
(19)boku-wa keisatu-ga [ISLAND[ pro2[Tanaka giin]-ni wairo-o okutta]otoko2]-o
I-top police-nom Rep. Tanaka-to bribe-acc gave man -acc
taihosita no-wa sitteiru ga, [[hoka-no dono giin]-ni ka]-wa siranai.
arrested that-top know but other-gen which Rep.-to Q -top know:not
'I know that the police arrested the man who had given a bribe to Representative Tanaka, but I don't know to which other Representative.'
Sluicing with a wh-phrase correlate does not seem to exhibit island effects, either, as is observed in (20) and (21).
(20)boku-wa [[ISLAND [sensyuu pro2[dono giin]-o
I-top last:week which congressman-acc
hihansita] sinbunsya2]-ga boikotto sareteiru ka] sitteiru ga,
criticized newspaper-nomis:being:boycotted Q know but
Bill-wa [[dono giin]-o ka] siranai rasii.
Bill-top which congressman-acc Q know:not seem
'(lit.)I know which congressman is such that the newspaper that criticized him last week has been boycotted, but it seems that Bill doesn't know which congressman.'
(21)boku-wa [[ISLAND [sensyuu pro2 [minsyutoo-no dono giin]-o
I-top last:week Dem. Party-gen which congressman-acc
hihansita] sinbunsya2]-ga boikotto sareteiru ka] sitteiru ga,
criticized newspaper-nom is:being:boycotted Q know but
[[kyoowatoo-no dono giin]-o ka](-wa) siranai.
Repub. Party-gen which congressman-acc Q (-top) know:not
'(lit.)I know which congressman of the Democratic Party is such that the newspaper that criticized him last week has been boycotted, but I don't know which congressman of the Republican Party.'
Note that the second conjuncts in (17), (18) and (20) seem to give rise to the readings in (22a), (22b), and (22c), respectively.
(22)a.I don't know who is such that the police arrested the man who sold drugs to him.
b.Bill didn't know which Representative is such that the police arrested the man who had given a bribe to him.
c.Bill doesn't know which congressman is such that the newspaper which criticized him last week has been boycotted.
If we take a closer look at the readings available in the examples in (19) and (21), however, a different picture emerges. The reading available in (19), where the remnant is attached with hoka-no'else/other', is given in (23) (let us call it the non-covariant reading). This reading corresponds to that of the non-elliptical sentence in (24).
(23)I know that the police arrested the man who had given a bribe to Representative Tanaka, but I don't know which other Representative he (=the man who the police arrested) had given a bribe to.
[The "same briber for different politicians" reading (the non-covariant reading)]
(24)...[sono otoko-ga [hoka-no dono giin]-ni wairo-o okutta ka]-wa siranai.
That:man-nom other-gen which Rep.-to bribe-acc gave Q -top know:not
'(I know that the police arrested [the man who had given a bribe toRepresentative Tanaka]3, but) I don't know which other Representative he3had given a bribe to.'
What is puzzling is that the reading available in the non-elliptical counterpart of (19), given in (25), is missing in (19).
(25)... [keisatu-ga [ISLAND[pro4[hoka-no dono giin]-ni wairo-o okutta] otoko4]-o
police-nom other-gen which Rep.-to bribe-acc gave man -acc
taihosita ka]-wa siranai.
arrested Q -top know:not
'... I don't know which other Representative is such that the police arrested the man who had given a bribe to him.'