Overtly Empty but Covertly Complex

In this article, I argue for an ellipsis analysis of Japanese null arguments on the basis of a novel observation that covert extraction (i.e., extraction that does not affect word order) is possible out of them. Specifically, assuming that the extraction possibility is a diagnostic for surface anaphora/ellipsis, I claim that the covert extraction possibility indicates that Japanese null arguments can be elliptic: they cannot be uniformly silent deep anaphora/proforms. Furthermore, I show that there is an overt/covert extraction asymmetry in that only covert extraction is allowed out of Japanese null arguments. I argue that the LF copy analysis of argument ellipsis provides a solution for the overt/covert extraction asymmetry. The discussion also has consequences for the proper analysis of several phenomena of Japanese syntax, including wh-in-situ.

Japanese

This chapter provides an overview of, while examining various proposals for, ellipsis in Japanese. Fragments are examined, and it is claimed to be reasonable to assume that stripping, sluicing, and ellipsis in comparatives are a uniform phenomenon while short answers are distinct. It is also argued that the properties of Right-Node Raising can be best captured by a non-constituent string deletion analysis. Three approaches to null arguments are examined, and shortcomings in each are discussed. N’-deletion is then explored and claimed to be ambiguous between two structural possibilities: ellipsis and non-ellipsis. VP-ellipsis, gapping, and pseudo-gapping are also touched upon. One significant aspect of the ellipsis phenomena in Japanese illustrated in this chapter is that the presence and absence of a case-marker plays a crucial role, with case-marked and non-case-marked fragments being analyzed as instances of surface anaphora and deep anaphora, respectively. This indicates the importance of focusing on case-marked versions in the syntactic investigation of these phenomena.

Contrasting Contrastive Left-Dislocation Explications

Of the three logically possible approaches to contrastive left-dislocation (CLD) (base-generation cum deep anaphora; movement cum surface anaphora; elliptical clausal juxtaposition cum resumption), two are represented prominently in the recent literature. Ott’s (2014) account treats CLD uniformly in terms of clausal juxtaposition, the first clause being stripped down to its contrastive topic via an ellipsis operation said to be akin to sluicing. He argues that this analysis is superior to Grohmann’s (2003) approach, featuring movement within a single prolific domain and late spell-out of a resumptive element. Using data mainly from Hungarian and Dutch, we reveal problems for Ott’s biclausal account that undermine its apparent conceptual appeal and compromise its descriptive accuracy. We show that the ellipsis operation required is sui generis, that the approach fails to assimilate the crosslinguistic variation attested in the availability of multiple CLD to known cases of parametric variation in the left periphery, and that it undergenerates in several empirical domains, including P-stranding and “floated” arguments. Grohmann’s movement- cum-surface-anaphora analysis as it stands also cannot handle all these data, but it can be fixed to fit the facts. For Ott’s analysis, no patches seem available. Some further empirical properties of CLD appear underivable from either of these approaches. For these, the base-generation- cum-deep-anaphora analysis can be considered.

Fragments vs. null arguments in Korean

Korean has two types of answers shorter than full sentential answers: Fragments and null argument constructions. Apparently the two constructions have the same interpretative processes. However, there are some cases where the fragment and null argument construction behave differently: e.g., wh-puzzles, sloppy interpretation. We suggest that the two constructions involve two different types of anaphora and that the sources of sloppy(-like) interpretation are fundamentally distinct. Fragments pattern differently with null arguments in that only the former may display genuine sloppy readings. The latter may yield sloppy-like readings which are pragmatically induced by the explicature that can be cancelled unlike genuine sloppy readings in fragments. Evidence (wh-ellipsis, quantifier ellipsis) all lends substantial support to our claim that fragments are analyzed as an instance of clausal ellipsis while null arguments are analyzed as an instance of null pronoun pro; hence, the former is surface anaphora whereas the latter is deep anaphora in the sense of Hankamer & Sag (1976).