This paper investigates empty categories in Japanese that show behavior that is apparently similar to parasitic gaps in that they allow bound readings only with movement of the wh-phrase. This obligatory movement, however, is mysterious considering the island-insensitivity of Japanese. The primary aim of this paper is to get a better understanding of the nature of this empty category in Japanese by referring to more general discussions on parasitic gaps in other languages and also exploiting the experimental data. Given the contrasting behavior of parasitic gaps in Japanese and the results of two experiments, I propose that parasitic gaps in Japanese be analyzed as
In this paper, I will investigate some gaps in Japanese that seem to behave similarly to parasitic gaps observed in English or other languages in some respects. In Engdahl (
(1) | a. | John filed a bunch of articles |
b. | [Mary’s talking to * |
When there is a legitimate gap in another place, suddenly the empty category can be bound by the wh-phrase which also binds the real gap (
(2) | Which article did John file _ without reading _? |
Looking at the parallel constructions in Japanese, which allows
(3)
a.
Taroo-wa
Taro-
syorui
document-
[
yom-azuni]
read-without
tozita.
filed
‘Taro filed the document without reading it.’
b.
[Hanako-ga
Hanako-
mitsumeru
staring at
koto]-wa
Taroo
Taro-
nayamaseta.
bothered
‘Hanako’s staring at him bothered Taro.’
The existence of
(4)
*[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
Hanako-o
Hanako-
kenasita
criticized
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘Who was it that a person who saw
(5)
[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
kenasita
criticized
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘Who was it that a person who saw
Looking at the grammatical example (5) more closely, we can find there are two gaps: one is inside the subject relative clause island, and the other is in the object position of the matrix clause. It is possible that the gap inside the island is
Now comparing (5) to (6), we encounter a problem: (6) does not have the bound reading that (5) has. The difference between (5) and (6) is whether there is overt movement of the wh-phrase or not. In (5), a wh-phrase is overtly moved whereas it is in situ in (6).
(6)
*[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
kenasimasita
criticized
ka?
‘Who
The contrast between (5) and (6) suggests the following: an empty category in a syntactic island can be bound by a wh-phrase when it is moved, but the bound reading cannot be obtained when the wh-phrase is in situ. Remember that the empty category in the syntactic island can refer to the same entity as the DP in the object position of the matrix clause without any problem in (3). Given that and also considering Japanese questions are island insensitive as shown in (7), it is puzzling that the bound reading is impossible in (6) compared to (3).
(7)
Taro-wa
Taro-
[
tabetagatta
want to eat
kara]
because
udon-o
udon-
tukurimasita
made
ka?
‘For which person
If the empty elements in the syntactic island are
In fact, this paradigm in Japanese looks similar to parasitic gap cases that have been reported in English and other languages. In particular, it has been known that the wh-phrase in situ cannot license a parasitic gap. That is, overt A’-movement is obligatory to get a bound reading as illustrated by the contrast between (8a) and (8b).
(8) | Engdahl ( |
|
a. | Which articles |
|
b. | *I forget who filed which articles |
In all, the empty category in (5) apparently looks like a parasitic gap in that it seems to show one of the fundamental characteristics of parasitic gap constructions discussed in Engdahl (
The primary goal of this paper is to give a better analysis to this kind of construction in Japanese, solving the puzzle I have just introduced. In order to do so, I will investigate Japanese parasitic gap constructions more carefully by referring to peculiar aspects of parasitic gaps in other languages reported in the literature so as to understand exactly what these empty categories are. Even though Japanese parasitic gap constructions are superficially similar to those observed in English or other languages, what we have just observed is merely a subset of the unique properties of parasitic gap constructions. Furthermore, in this paper I would like to point out that the analyses in the literature are not necessarily supported by the empirical data (i.e. the intuition of native speakers). Therefore, I will exploit the results of experiments I conducted to get a better understanding of this construction and to support my theoretical analysis.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: In section 2, I will review various characteristics of parasitic gaps in English and other languages, and see if Japanese parasitic gap constructions exhibit similar behavior. I also pay a special attention to the two characteristics discussed in the literature of Japanese parasitic gaps: reconstruction effects and category restriction. In section 3, I propose that all of Japanese parasitic gaps are
In this section, I will review the distinctive characteristics of parasitic gaps
As mentioned in the introduction, in order for a parasitic gap to be licensed, movement should be overt. In other words, a wh-phrase in situ cannot license a parasitic gap, illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (9).
(9)
*I forget who filed which
We have seen a wh-phrase in situ cannot license a parasitic gap in Japanese either, as shown in (10). This observation was first made in Hoji (
(10)
*[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
au
see
hito]-ga
person-
kenasimasu
criticize
ka?
‘Who
Note that in the discussion above, there is a background assumption: there is LF movement in Japanese like in English. However, there is evidence that shows that the wh-phrase should be interpreted in-situ in Japanese, which is called radical reconstruction by Saito (
(11)
Taro-wa
Taro-
[dare-ga
who-
tukutta]
made
udon-o
udon-
tabemasita
ate
ka?
‘For which
(11) shows that Japanese is a wh-in-situ language — a wh-phrase can appear inside an island, and the sentence can be interpreted as a matrix question. However, now it is puzzling why wh-phrases in-situ cannot license parasitic gaps in Japanese, as shown in (10), even though this characteristic makes us think Japanese parasitic gaps look like those in English.
As Engdahl (
(12)
These papers
By contrast, A-movement including passive (13a) and subject raising (13b) cannot license parasitic gaps in English (
(13) | a. | *John |
b. | *Mary |
In Japanese, movement that licenses a bound reading does not have to be A’-movement. Unlike English, A-movement can also license the bound reading. In the following, I review several kinds of movements observed in Japanese regarding whether they can license a parasitic gap or not.
Besides a cleft, which I introduced in the previous section, clause-internal scrambling also makes the intended bound reading possible, as in (14) (
(14)
[hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
kenasita
criticize
no
desu
ka?
Q
‘Who
On the other hand, long-distance scrambling is unambiguously A’-movement, according to Saito (
(15)
a.
[Masao-ga
Masao-
[[hazimete
for the first time
Hanako-ni
Hanako-
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
dare-o
who-
kenasita
criticized
ka]
itta
said
(koto)].
‘(That) Masao told who
b.
[Masao-ga
Masao-
[[hazimete
for the first time
Hanako-ni
Hanako-
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
kenasita]
criticized
ka
itta]
said
(koto).
‘(That) Masao told who
c.
?
[Masao-ga
Masao-
[[hazimete
for the first time
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
kenasita]
criticized
ka
itta]
said
(koto).
Intended: ‘(That) Masao told who
Another kind of A’-movement, namely tough-movement, seems to be able to license the bound reading as well. According to Inoue (
(16)
[
rikaise-zuni-wa]
understanding-without-
tukai-nikui
use-hard
desu
ka?
‘Which equation is hard to use without understanding?’
We have seen that most types of A’-movement can license parasitic gaps in Japanese, just as in English. However, unlike English, A-movement such as passive (17) can also license the bound reading in Japanese.
(17)
[
iiyoru
advancing
dansei-ni-yotte]
man-
korosaremasita
be killed
ka?
‘Who was killed by a man advancing to her?’
Just involving movement is not sufficient to license a bound reading, however. In the following sentence in (18), even though the object wh-phrase is supposed to move from the subject position of the small clause to the object position of the matrix clause (
(18)
*[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
met
hito-ga
person-
who-
orokanimo
stupidly
baka
fool
da
to
omotta
thought
no?
‘Who
(19)
who-
[hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
met
hito-ga
person-
orokanimo
stupidly
baka
fool
da
to
omotta
thought
no?
So we can conclude the bound reading is available as long as the wh-phrase c-commands the two gaps. This also implies that the anti-c-command condition does not hold in Japanese, and that is indeed the case. Unlike English, we do not get ungrammaticality even when a real gap c-commands a parasitic gap, as shown by the contrast between (20) and (21).
(20) | Engdahl ( |
|
a. | *Which articles |
|
b. | *Who |
(21)
a.
Hanako-ni
Hanako-
[Taroo-ga
Taro-
sagasu
look for
mae-ni]
before
mitukatta
got found
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘Which student
b.
Hanako-ni
Hanako-
[Taroo-ga
Taro-
sagasu
look for
mae-ni]
before
mitukatta
got found
no?
‘Which student got found by Hanako before Taro looked for
As pointed out by Kayne (
(22) | Kayne ( |
|
a. | ?the books |
|
b. | *the books |
By contrast, the Japanese counterparts do not seem to show this effect. As reported in Yoshimura (
(23)
Masao-wa
Masao-
[Hanako-ga
Hanako-
[
kaita
wrote
hito]-ni
person-
au
see
maeni]
before
yonda
read
no?
‘Which book
An experiment was carried out to confirm whether the judgment is shared by non-linguists. In the experiment shown below, I controlled the complexity of the items by including the sentences where proper nouns filled the parasitic gap positions. The question was if there was a contrast in acceptability between (24) and (25).
(24)
Examples with two gaps and scrambled wh-phrases
a.
[hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta
saw
hito-ga]
person-
kenasita
criticized
no?
‘Who
b.
[[Hanako-ga
Hanako-
hazimete
for the first time
atta
saw
toiu
uwasa]-o
rumor-
kiita
heard
hito]-ga
person-
kenasita
criticized
no?
‘Who
(25)
Controls (parasitic gap positions are filled with proper nouns)
a.
[hazimete
for-the-first-time
Taro
atta
saw
hito-ga]
person-
kenasita
criticized
no?
‘Who
b.
[[Hanako-ga
Hanako-
hazimete
for the first time
Taro-
atta
saw
toiu
that
uwasa]-wo
rumor-
kiita
heard
hito]-ga
person-
kenasita
criticized
no?
‘Who
32 native speakers of Japanese joined this experiment online. The task was a 7-point scale acceptability judgment. There were 16 items and 34 fillers. As for the parasitic gap examples, the sentences were shown with a possible answer, and participants were asked to judge the acceptability of the question sentence. Therefore, technically speaking, the acceptability of parasitic gap sentences is not the acceptability of the sentence per se, but the judgment was about how acceptable a question was given an answer that forces the bound reading.
The results of acceptability judgments are summarized in Table
Mean and standard deviation (in parenthesis) of ratings of Experiment 2.
1 island, PG | 1 island, DP | 2 islands, PG | 2 islands, DP |
---|---|---|---|
4.13 (1.97) | 4.12 (2.05) | 3.25 (1.82) | 3.55 (1.96) |
The results of acceptability judgement.
If parasitic gaps in Japanese were island sensitive, sentences with parasitic gaps and two island boundaries would have been judged least acceptable. That is, we would get results like those in Figure
An imaginary plot with an interaction effect.
In languages which have rich Case declensions, it is reported that the case of two gaps must match in some way. For example, (26) is ungrammatical because of Case-mismatch (
(26)
*Milyan
what
vesztek
got
el
lost
[mielőtt
away
elovastál volna
before you had read
‘What papers were lost before you had read?’
On the other hand, Franks (
(27)
a.
mal’čik,
boy
who.
Maša
Masha.
davala
gave
den’gi
money
do togo,
until
kak
(ona)
she
stala
started
izbegat’
to-avoid
‘the boy who Masha gave money to until she started to avoid him’
b.
devuška,
girl
who. (
Ivan
Ivan.
daval
gave
den’gi
money
do togo
until
kak
(on)
he
stal
started
izbegat’
to-avoid
‘the girl who Ivan gave money to until he started to avoid her’
The verb
In Japanese, morphological case mismatching does not cause ungrammaticality, as pointed by Yoshimura (
(28)
[[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
saw
hito-ga
person-
kenasita]
criticized
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘Who
Here,
Also, notice that the wh-phrase should bear the case of the real trace. Otherwise, the sentence is ungrammatical, as in (29). Moreover, in Japanese ATB sentences like (30), which are called Left Node Raising by Abe & Nakao (
(29)
*[[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
saw
hito-ga
person-
kenasita]
criticized
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘Who
(30)
who-
Taro-ga
Taro-
hazimete
for-the-first-time
atte,
met
Hanako-ga
Hanako-
kenasita
criticize
no?
‘Who
In this section, I will pay special attention to two properties of parasitic gaps: reconstruction asymmetry and category restrictions. These are two important factors that lead Abe (
Kearney (
(31) | Condition A | |
a. | Which picture of himself |
|
b. | *Which picture of himself |
(32) | Condition C | |
a. | *Which picture of John |
|
b. | Which picture of John |
For (31b) to be grammatical, the wh-phrase must be reconstructed into the parasitic gap, which is not a possible option. (32a) is out as well because the wh-phrase must be reconstructed into the real gap, which ends up with a Condition C violation.
However, reconstruction into parasitic gap positions is not always prohibited. As Munn (
(33) | a. | Which picture of himself did [every boy who saw |
b. | *Which picture of herself did [every boy who saw |
In sum, reconstruction into parasitic gaps is allowed only in subject relative clause islands, but otherwise, it is prohibited.
In Japanese, we have a little more complicated picture. Abe (
(34)
John-ga
John-
[Mary-ga
Mary-
miru
saw
mae-ni]
before
sutetesimatta
threw away
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘[Which picture of self]
(35)
[
mita]
saw
subete-no
every-
hito-ga
person-
Mary-ga
Mary-
kiniitteiru
like
to
itta
said
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘[What picture of self]
In (34),
However, it should be noted that reconstruction into the subject does not always happen in Japanese even when a parasitic gap is inside the subject relative clause island. Abe & Nakao (
(36)
[
Taroo-ni
Taro-
suteru
throw away
yoo-ni
meezita]
ordered
hito-ga
person-
Hanako-ni
Hanako-
kisu-maaku-o
lipstick mark-
tukete-oku
put
yoo-ni
meizita
ordered
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘[What picture of self]
The verb
Compare the sentence above with the following one without case-mismach:
(37)
[
Taroo-ni
Taro-
suteru
throw away
yoo-ni
meezita]
ordered
hito-ga
person-
Hanako-ni
Hanako-
totte-oku
keep
yoo-ni
meizita
ordered
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘[What picture of self]
In this sentence, both two verbs
Even though Abe and Nakao exhibit this phenomenon as one instance of a case-mismatching effect, note that this case-matching effect is different from what is discussed in the literature in that case-mismatching does not lead to ungrammaticality in Japanese. This is because using
However, there are several problems in their arguments. First of all, the argument by Abe and Nakao is crucially dependent on the interpretation of the reflexive pronoun
(38)
Taro-ga
Taro-
Mary-ga
Mary-
kiniitteiru
like
to
itta.
said
‘Taro
This sentence suggests that the wh-phrase does not have to be reconstructed into a parasitic gap in (37).
In addition, their claim that there are real parasitic gaps also depends on the assumption that
(39)
Ittai
the hell
zibun-no
self-
dono
which
syasin-o
picture-
John-ga
John-
[Bill-ga
Bill-
it
katta
bought
toki-ni]
when
nagameteita
was looking
no?
‘Which pictures the hell of himself was John looking at
Given the data above, I concluded that the factor which makes it sometimes hard or easy to get sloppy readings is not a syntactic one, but a pragmatic one. As one more piece of supportive evidence, the sentence below contains the subject parasitic gap and case-mismatching, where Abe and Nakao argue that a sloppy reading cannot be obtained. Here, the parasitic gap is supposed to have a dative, while the real trace is supposed to have an accusative. Regardless, I think a sloppy reading is available presumably because there is a kind of parallelism between two events depicted in the sentence.
(40)
[
Taroo-ni
Taro-
hi-o
fire-
tukete
put
moyasu
burn
yoo-ni
meezita]
ordered
hito-ga
person-
Hanako-ni
Hanako-
syuredda-ni
shredder-
kaketeru
put
yoo-ni
meizita
ordered
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘[What picture of self]
It seems, however, that a clear reconstruction asymmetry is observable with respect to the Condition C effect. (41a) is ungrammatical presumably because the reconstruction should be into the real gap position, where an R-expression is bound by another expression
(41)
A wh-phrase should be reconstructed into a real gap when a parasitic gap is inside an adjunct island.
a.
*
soitu
that guy
[Hanako
Hanako-
miru
see
mae-ni]
before
utta
sold
no?
‘[Which picture of Taro
b.
Hanako-wa
Hanako-
[soitu
that guy-
miru
see
mae-ni]
before
utta
sold
no?
‘[Which picture of Taro
(42)
A wh-phrase should be reconstructed into a parasitic gap when an island is a subject relative clause island.
a.
*
[
mita
saw
sono
that
gakusee
student
Hanako
Hanako-
kiniitta
liked
to
itta
said
no?
‘Which picture of Taro
b.
[
mita
saw
sono
that
gakusee
student-
sono
that
syonen
boy-
kiniitta
liked
to
itta
said
no?
‘Which picture of Taro
The data above show that we can notice reconstruction asymmetries regarding Condition C effects in Japanese. However, whether this asymmetry comes from the syntactic configuration is not so clear. For example, there are exceptions such as that epithets that do not obey Condition C. This is why this condition is often regarded as not a syntactic constraint but rather as a pragmatic one (
In English or Italian, APs and PPs cannot license parasitic gaps as shown by examples below (
(43)
*How great
(44)
*[To whom]
This observation leads us to conclude that categories other than NP cannot be antecedents of parasitic gaps in English or Italian.
As for Japanese, Yoshimura (
(45)
a.
[
kogitte-o
check-
moratta
received
hito]-ga
person-
genkin-mo
cash-also
moratta
received
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘From whom
b.
[Zissai
actually
natta
became
hito]-ga
person-
Taroo-ni
Taroo-
naru-yooni
become-to
susumeta
advised
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘How slim
c.
[Ano
that
mondai-ni
issue-to
tuketa
attached
hito]-ga
person-
tugini
next
kono
this
mondai-ni
issue-to
tuke-yooto
attach-to
siteiru
is trying
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘What end
I find, however, that while DP and PP gaps are acceptable, AP or idiom gaps are degraded. To test this intuition, I carried out a survey with 18 native speakers of Japanese.
(46)
a.
[Kaigi-de
at meeting
kooron-sita
quarrel
dansee]-ga
men-
ato-de
later
hinan-sita
criticized
no
wa
who-
desu
ka?
‘Who
b.
[Yoga
yoga
kyooshitu-de
class-
soodan-o
advice-
uketa
asked
hito]-ga
person-
zyogen-mo
suggestion-also
moratta
received
no
wa
who
from
desu
ka?
‘From whom was it that the person who was asked advice
c.
[Zimu-de
at gym
natta
became
hito]-ga
person-
Taroo-ni
Taro-
naru-yooni
become-to
susumeta
advised
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘How slim
Participants were asked to judge acceptability on a 7-point scale (1 is completely unacceptable, and 7 is perfect). 24 sets of experimental items were balanced using a Latin Square Design and randomized with 26 fillers. The six sets of questionnaires were distributed in a Google Doc.
The results of this survey corresponded to my intuition: as Table
Mean and standard deviation (in parenthesis) of ratings of Experiment 1.
DP + PP | AP |
---|---|
4.08 (2.15) | 3.21 (2.20) |
Ratings of the sentences with DP + PPs.
Ratings of the sentences with APs.
The difference of the acceptability between DP/PP and AP was statistically significant (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 15826.5,
So far we have seen how Japanese parasitic gaps behave regarding the well-known characteristics of this construction. The results are summarized in Table
Characteristics of Japanese parasitic gap constructions.
Eng | Jp | |
---|---|---|
Must the antecedent be in an A’-position? | Yes | Could be A-position |
Can in-situ wh-phrases license pgs? | No | Subject wh does not need movement |
Does the anti-c-command condition hold? | Yes | No. The wh must c-command a pg |
Is a pg island sensitive? | Yes | No |
Is there Case-matching Effect? | – | No |
Is reconstruction into subjects obligatory? | Yes | Not always |
What category can be a pg? | NP | NP and PP |
In the previous section, we saw that Japanese parasitic gaps exhibit behavior that is distinct from parasitic gaps in other languages. Any account of Japanese parasitic gaps should explain why they behave so differently. To achieve this aim, we need to address the following two questions in particular: (i) What kind of empty category is the parasitic gap in Japanese? (ii) Why do we need movement to license parasitic gaps, even though Japanese is otherwise a wh-in-situ language? The first question is important because when there is an empty category, in Japanese we have at least three possible candidates:
In Japanese, parasitic gaps cannot appear in anti-pronominal contexts. Anti-pronominal contexts are certain syntactic environments in which anaphoric pronouns (e.g. English
(47) | a. | *Hanako painted the wall blue |
b. | *Hanako named her son Taro |
In Japanese, too, regardless of whether it is overt or null, a pronoun cannot be used in anti-pronominal contexts, as demonstrated in (48a) and (49a). Note that extracting a wh-phrase is still possible, as shown by grammaticality of (48b) and (49b). As for parasitic gaps, we can observe that they cannot appear at all both in English and Japanese. That is, in English (48c) and (49c) are ungrammatical in the same way as they do not have the bound reading in Japanese. In (48c), we do not get an interpretation in which this is the question of the color that is used to paint both the wall and the chair. The only possible interpretation is the question is asking the color the person painted the chair, and the color of the wall is unspecified. In the same way, from (49c) we do not get the interpretation that the question is about the name of Mari’s son and Hanako’s. This question is about the name of Hanako’s son, and Mari’s son’s name is unspecified.
(48)
Change-of-color environments
a.
*Hanako-wa
Hanako-
kabe-o
wall-
ao
blue
nutta.
painted
Taro-wa
Taro-
isu-o
chair-
nutta.
painted
‘Hanako painted the wall blue
b.
Hanako-ga
Hanako-
kabe-o
wall-
t
nutta
painted
no-wa
naniiro
what color
desu
ka?
‘What color
c.
*[Kabe-o
wall-
nutta
painted
hito]-ga
person-
isu-o
chair-
nutta
painted
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘
(49)
Name positions
a.
*Hanako-wa
Hanako-
musuko-o
her son-
Taro
Taro
naduketa.
named
Mari-mo
Mari-too
musuko-o
her son-
naduketa.
named
‘Hanako named her son Taro
b.
Hanako-ga
Hanako-
musuko-o
her son-
naduketa
named
no-wa
nan-to
what
desu
ka?
‘What
c.
*[Mari-ga
Mari-
musuko-o
her son-
nadukeru
named
mae-ni]
before
Hanako-ga
Hanako-
musuko-o
her son-
naduketa
named
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘What
In addition, manner adverbials and reason adverbials cannot be replaced by pronouns, as illustrated by (50a) and (51a). These contexts are places in which Takahashi (
A sentence with a parasitic gap and a manner adverbial is (50c). Even though this sentence is syntactically grammatical, it is not possible to get a bound reading from this sentence. The judgments on the sentences with parasitic gaps and manner adverbials or reason adverbials are Takahashi’s. This sentence cannot be interpreted as a question about a way how the person solved two problems.
(50)
Manner Adverbials
a.
*Hanako-wa
Hanako-
kousite
in this way
sono
that
teiri-o
theorem-
syomeisita.
proved
Taro-wa
Taro-
kono
this
teiri-o
theorem-
syomeisita.
proved
‘Hanako proved that theorem this way. Taro proved this theorem
b.
Hanako-ga
Hanako-
sono
that
teiri-o
theorem-
syoomeisita
proved
no-wa
dooyatte
how
desu
ka?
‘How was it that Hanako proved that theorem?’
c.
*[Sono
that
teiri-o
theorem-
syoomeisita
proved
hito]-ga
person-
kono
this
teiri-mo
theorem-too
syoomeisita
proved
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘How
An example sentence with a parasitic gap and a reason adverbial is (51c). This sentence only asks the reason for which the person is trying to fire Hanako. The reason she or he fired Taro is not mentioned in this sentence.
(51)
Reason Adverbs
a.
*Syatyoo-ga
president-
Taro-o
Taro-
kousita
these
riyuu-de
reason
kaiko
fired
sita.
Syatyo-wa
president-
Hanako-mo
Hanako-too
kaikosiyooto
trying to fire
siteiru.
being
‘The president fired Taro for these reasons. He is trying to Hanako
b.
Syatyoo-ga
president-
Taro-o
Taro-
kaikosita
fired
no-wa
naze/dooyuu
why/what
riyuu
reason
de
desu
ka?
‘Why/For what reason
c.
*[Taro-o
Taro-
kaikosita
fired
hito]-ga
person-
Hanako-mo
Hanako-too
kaikosiyooto siteiru
is trying to fire
no-wa
de
desu
ka?
‘Why/For what reason
Assuming that parasitic gaps are
The second piece of supportive evidence comes from a sharp discrepancy in the acceptability of DP/PP parasitic gaps on the one hand and AP parasitic gaps on the other. This matches the possible categories of
(52)
Taro-wa
Taro-
[DPsuugaku-o]
math-
[PPjuku-de]
cram school-
benkyoo-site
studied and
[AdjPkasikoku]
smart
natta.
became
‘Taro studied math at cram school and became smart.’
a.
Hanako-wa [DP
‘Hanako studied
b.
Hanako-wa eigo-o [PP
‘Hanako studied English
c.
*Hanako-wa eego-o gakkoo-de benkyoo-site [AdjP
Hanako studied English at school and became
As I mentioned in the previous section, Japanese parasitic gaps can be licensed even when there is more than one island boundary, which suggests there is no movement involved in parasitic gap constructions in Japanese, unlike in English. A pronominal approach pursued in this paper can straightforwardly account for this property, since it requires no movement.
In the previous section, I introduced some data that support the claim that parasitic gaps in Japanese are
Takahashi (
(53) | a. | [CP |
b. | [CP |
It is worth noting that the kind of ellipsis Takahashi argues works here is a generalized version of DP-ellipsis (
(54)
[Hanako
Hanako
kara
from
[
sigoto-o
job-
yameru
quits
toyuu]
uwasa-o
rumor-
kiita
heard
hito]-ga
person-
atta
saw
no-wa
who-
desu
ka?
‘Who
Another thing to be noted is that Takahashi also claims that DP-ellipsis should be generalized, because this kind of ellipsis happens over various categories. As we have seen, PPs, APs, and parts of idiom chunks can be a target of ellipsis. If ellipsis can be applied to these categories — not only DPs but also PPs, APs, and a part of idiom chunks —, they should be able to be parasitic gaps in Japanese without any problem. However, this is not what was obtained by the experiment, in which we could see the acceptability degraded for AP parasitic gaps. If DPs, PPs, APs and parts of idiom chunks are equal before ellipsis, we cannot explain why people find AP gaps less acceptable.
This XP ellipsis analysis predicts that parasitic gaps can appear in a very wide range of context. However, Takahashi (
(55)
a.
*[Sono
that
teiri-o
theorem-
syoomeisita
proved
hito]-ga
person-
kono
this
teiri-mo
theorem-too
syoomeisita
proved
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘How
b.
*[Taro-o
Taro-
kaikosita
fired
hito]-ga
person-
Hanako-mo
Hanako-too
kaikosiyooto siteiru
is trying to fire
no-wa
de
desu
ka?
‘Why/For what reason
Takahashi argues that this is because adjuncts cannot be subject to ellipsis. However, if adjuncts are the only contexts where apparent parasitic gaps cannot appear, parasitic gaps should be able to occur in change-of-color contexts or name positions, where DPs are arguments in a sense. In this analysis, it is not clear why parasitic gaps are not available in change-of-color environments and name positions, opposed to manner/reason adverbials, while if they are
To conclude, the analysis of parasitic gaps based on ellipsis overgenerates possible environments where parasitic gaps can appear. It cannot explain why AP parasitic gaps are degraded or why parasitic gaps cannot appear in some anti-pronominal contexts, where DP positions are arguments.
The other possibility is that parasitic gaps are traces of null operator movement. This idea is in line with the analysis of parasitic gaps in English by Nissenbaum (
(56)
[OP2 [ hazimete
If a parasitic gap is a trace of null operator movement, it should be able to appear wherever this kind of movement is possible. Recall that the wh-extraction is possible from anti-pronominal contexts. This means, an empty category in an anti-pronominal context should be able to work as a parasitic gap if it is a trace of operator movement. In addition, this approach would predict that any category that can appear with operator movement can be parasitic gaps.
(57)
Dorekurai
how
hayaku
fast
Taroo-wa
Taro-
hasitta
ran
no?
‘How fast did Taro run?’
(58)
Donna
what kind of
keri-o
end-
Taro-wa
Taro-
sono
that
mondai-ni
problem-to
tuketa
attached
no?
‘lit. What end did Taro attached to that problem?’
This analysis makes another two other important predictions about the behavior of parasitic gaps. First of all, the anti-c-command condition can be automatically derived from the compositional mechanism, which exploits predicate modification. The reason a real gap cannot c-command a parasitic gap is that the configuration induces a type-mismatch. In other words, when the subject itself is a gap, there is nothing with which an adjunct with a gap can be composed. It does work well to explain why English parasitic gaps should follow the anti-c-command condition. However, recall that the anti-c-command condition does not hold in Japanese, but a different restriction is imposed: a wh-phrase must c-command a parasitic gap. Regarding this property, I will show that the semantics of questions in Japanese can correctly derive this characteristic in the next section.
The other important prediction that this theory makes is that a parasitic gap should be island sensitive. Even though again, this prediction is valid as an account for the behavior of parasitic gaps in English, it is not viable in Japanese, where the dependency between a binder and a parasitic gap is island insensitive as discussed in the literature (
In sum, this type of analysis does not succeed in accounting for the behavior of parasitic gaps in Japanese, either. It over-generates with respect to the range of contexts where we expect parasitic gaps to appear; DPs in anti-pronominal contexts, APs and parts of idiom chunks should be perfect candidates for parasitic gaps, but they are not. Furthermore, it underestimates conditions that can license parasitic gaps. Japanese parasitic gaps can be licensed by a wider variety of contexts than English parasitic gaps, which this approach cannot predict at all.
The argument that parasitic gaps are
(59)
In this section, I will argue that the apparent weak crossover effect is not a real problem, following in part Abe (
First of all, let me show how weak crossover effects are observed in Japanese. In (60), the wh-phrase is in-situ, and we do not get the bound reading. Note that
(60)
Saito (
?*
[Soitu
that guy-
hahaoya]-ga
mother-
dare
who-
aisiteru
love
no?
‘His
This can be explained once we assume there is covert movement of the wh-phrase in Japanese. At LF, we do get a configuration shown in (59).
In order to get the bound reading, the wh-phrase must undergo clause-internal scrambling, as observed by Hoji (
(61)
Saito (
Dare
who-
[soitu
that guy-
hahaoya]-ga
mother-
aisiteru
love
no?
‘Who
Recall that parasitic gaps in Japanese can be licensed by clause internal scrambling. Schematically we get a configuration in (59), but thanks to clause-internal scrambling, we do not get weak crossover effect.
This makes another prediction.
(62)
*
who-
[hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
saw
hito-ga
person-
[CP
John-ga
John-
kenasita
criticized
to]
itteita
said
no?
‘Who did the person who saw for the first time say that John had criticized?’
In this case, a parasitic gap is inside the subject relative clause island and a real trace is in the embedded complement clause. Therefore, movement that crosses a pronoun must be A’-movement, which cannot remedy WCO violation.
As for a cleft, following Abe (
(63)
a.
[
-wa[TP[CP
[hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
saw
hito-ga
person-
dare-o
who-
kenasita
criticized
no]
desu]
ka
b. | [ |
c. | [CP[hazimete |
In all, the proposed analysis that parasitic gaps in Japanese are all
In the previous section, we concluded that parasitic gaps in Japanese should be analyzed as
(64)
*[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
kenasimasita
criticized
ka?
‘Who
(65)
a.
[[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
saw
hito-ga
person-
kenasita]
criticized
no-wa
desu
ka?
‘Who
b.
[hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
saw
hito-ga
person-
kenasita
criticize
no
desu
ka?
‘Who
The puzzle is why movement is required in Japanese, in which the wh-phrase can scope over matrix clause even they stay in-situ. In this section, I will derive this obligatory movement of the wh-phrase from the semantics of questions in Japanese. First, I will provide some background on questions in Japanese. In particular, I will show that Japanese wh-phrases do not show island effects, and therefore, wh-phrases must be interpreted in situ. Given that, I will adopt a semantics of questions that involves no movement (
Wh-questions in Japanese do not show sensitivity to most island constraints; only the wh-island constraint is observed in Japanese. In other words, as long as the wh-phrase stays in situ, we can get an interpretation in which the wh-phrase takes matrix scope over the sentence, shown by (66–68), in which the wh-phrase, though inside a syntactic island, can take scope over the entire sentence.
(66)
✓
Taro-wa
Taro-
[
tukutta]
made
udon-o
udon-
tabemasita
ate
ka?
‘For which person
[Complex NP island]
(67)
✓
Taro-wa
Taro-
[
tabetagatta
want to eat
kara]
because
udon-o
udon-
tukurimasita
made
ka?
‘For which person
[Adjunct island]
(68)
✓
[
izimeta
bullied
hito
person
]-ga
-
sikarareta
be scolded
no?
‘For which person
[Subject Relative Clause island]
This said, I adopt a semantics for questions that allows the wh-phrase to be interpreted in situ without movement (
(69) | a. | Wh-phrases introduce alternatives |
⟦dare⟧ |
||
b. | A question particle is an identity function | |
⟦no⟧ |
Let us look at how this idea works by taking a simple wh-question as in (71a). When the wh-phrase is composed with a verb
(70)
Pointwise Functional Application
If
(71)
An example of a simple wh-question
a.
Dare-ga
who-
tabeta
ate
no?
Q
‘Who ate?’
b.
As illustrated in the derivation in (71b), at the VP level, we get a set of propositions where the subject position of a verb is substituted by all individuals in the domain: {
Remember that this compositional mechanism does not involve any movement. Therefore, no island effect would be expected under this approach. Moreover, this computation predicts that the wh-phrase can manipulate alternatives as long as there is no intervening question particle or a universal particle
With this semantics for wh-questions in Japanese, obligatory movement with parasitic gaps comes for free. Let us look at the derivation of the sentence without movement (72), illustrated in (73a). Remember that (72) is ungrammatical only under the bound reading. In other words, it is grammatical on the reading in which
(72)
*[Hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta
saw
hito]-ga
person-
kenasimasita
criticized
ka?
‘Who
(73) | a. | |
b. | ={a man who saw |
The crucial part of the derivation comes when VP is combined with the subject, which contains
On the other hand, when the wh-phrase is moved, let us say by clause-internal scrambling, as in (74), lambda abstraction over the trace left behind by movement makes covariation possible.
(74)
[hazimete
for-the-first-time
atta]
saw
hito-ga
person-
kenasita
criticize
no
desu
ka?
‘Who
(75) | a. | |
b. | ⟦QP⟧ | |
={∃ |
||
={a man who saw Bob at the meeting criticized Bob, a man who saw John at the meeting criticized John, …} |
Looking at the derivation in (75a), this time, a trace with some index occupies the object position of
To sum up, the semantics of questions in Japanese, which uses alternatives instead of movement, correctly predicts that covariation between the wh-phrase and the parasitic gap (
The analysis also accounts for two significant differences between parasitic gaps in English and Japanese: (i) the bound reading is not obligatory in Japanese parasitic gap constructions, and (ii) the anti-c-command condition does not hold in Japanese.
Under the analysis presented in this section, the movement is not motivated by a type mismatch, which motivates movement in English parasitic gap constructions according to the analysis of Nissenbaum (
The second point is on the anti-c-command condition. While Nissenbaum’s analysis of English parasitic gaps gives us the anti-c-command condition for free, the analysis pursued here predicts that the condition does not hold in Japanese. In Nissenbaum’s analysis, English parasitic gap constructions relies on Predicate Modification to make the co-binding possible. This analysis predicts that we would face a problem when the subject is the wh-phrase. In this configuration, in which a real trace c-commands a parasitic gap, there arises type-mismatch as illustrated in (76). This derives a so-called the anti-c-command condition: a real gap cannot c-command a parasitic gap, as in (77).
(76)
(77)
*Which articles
However, there is no anti-c-command condition in Japanese. Recall that a different constraint governs the bound reading in Japanese: the bound reading is possible as long as the wh-phrase is moved regardless of whether it is A-movement or A’-movement, and the wh-phrase c-commands a parasitic gap. According to this constraint, it is no problem that a wh-subject c-commands a parasitic gap, as shown by grammaticality of (78).
(78)
[
iiyoru
advancing
dansei-ni-yotte]
man-
korosaremasita
be killed
ka?
‘Who was killed by a man advancing to her?’
The grammaticality of (78) can be accounted for assuming the subject wh-phrase leaves a trace during A-movement. Just as we saw in the previous section, the trace and
In this paper, I tried to give a better analysis of Japanese parasitic gaps by answering two questions: (i) What the empty category inside the island is, and (ii) What motivates obligatory movement. To answer the first question, I looked into Japanese parasitic gaps by comparing them with parasitic gaps in English or other languages. Then I concluded that the behavior of parasitic gaps in Japanese is too different from that in English, and claimed that they should be analyzed as
To answer the second question, I showed that the semantics of questions in Japanese, which allows us to interpret the wh-phrase and make the alternatives in-situ, could derive obligatory movement for free. The semantics of questions predicts that the covariation of the real trace and the gap inside the island cannot be obtained without movement. In addition, this analysis also derives two important difference between English parasitic gaps and Japanese ones: (i) the co-variation is optional in Japanese whereas it is obligatory in English, and (ii) the anti-c-command condition does not hold in Japanese, unlike in English.
The pronominal analysis of parasitic gaps itself is not new at all. As for English parasitic gaps, Cinque (
Another contribution is that this paper illustrated possible patterns of variation among parasitic gap constructions. Japanese is a wh-in-situ language and also a
A question that naturally arises from the outcome of this paper is why Japanese does not have a parasitic gap as a null operator movement, unlike English. In other words, it is still necessary to explore what language parameter is related to the typology of parasitic gaps cross-linguistically. One possibility is that Japanese has
Throughout this paper, syntactic islands are indicated by square brackets.
Japanese has two types of cleft. It has been pointed out that only one of them, which is exemplified by (5) involves movement (
(i) [Hazimete for-the-first-time atta saw hito]-ga person- kenasita criticized no-wa desu ka? ‘Who was it that a person who saw
This Case-less cleft is also called pseudo-cleft (
Throughout this paper, the ungrammaticality of the parasitic gap sentence is marked under the bound reading. Under the reading in which the empty category refers to some contextually salient entity, the sentence is grammatical.
For a more detailed review on this topic, see Culicover (
Heavy NP shift also can license parasitic gaps in English. However, whether Heavy NP shift does involve movement of a heavy NP is a controversial topic. I will not go into exactly how heavy NP shift is derived in English, since there is no parallel phenomenon in Japanese and it is beyond the scope of this paper.
An anonymous reviewer mentioned that (15c) sounded ungrammatical to them. They also reported (15b) was degraded, too. I agree that this sentence is marked and therefore a little hard to parse. In fact, as the reviewer also pointed it out, Saito (
Eventually we need to say A’-movement in this case involves A-movement as an intermediate movement. The intermediate movement needs to be assumed in order to remedy WCO violation and make the bound reading available. See a relevant discussion in Section 3.3.
I feel the example (16) is degraded when the adjunct phrases lack
Note also that in (21b) the wh-phrase is apparently in-situ, which contrasts with the case with an object wh-phrase. Ultimately, I assume there is movement of the subject in (21b). That is, there is vacuous scrambling of the subject. As a result, there will be a trace left, and we can bind the trace and a
I added this complication just because in some cases it was possible for participants to interpret a parasitic gap referring to other arguments in a sentence.
The same result was obtained with z-score ratings.
This is not a whole picture. Even when the case of the real gap and that of the parasitic gap do not match, the sentence can be saved if the real gap has the same case as the parasitic gap in the course of the derivation.
Abe (
(i)
a.
It was John that Mary believed
b.
?*It was John that Mary believed
When we replace the verb with one that does not bring such an ambiguity, such as
(ii)
a.
Who did Bill believe
b.
Who did Bill believe
So I would rather focus on the languages that show obvious case matching effects.
Two anonymous reviewers noted that (30) sounds OK to them. I agree that this sentence does not sound completely ungrammatical. The original ATB sentences with Case-mismatch below in Abe & Nakao (
(i) ??Mary-ni Mary- John-ga John- hana-o flower- okuri, give Tom-ga Tom- nagusameta. comforted ‘(To) Mary, John give a flower and Tom comforted.’ (ii) ??Mary-o Mary- John-ga John- dansu-ni dance-to sasoi, invite Tom-ga Tom- rabu love retaa-o letter- kaita. wrote ‘(To) Mary, John invited to a dance, and Tom wrote a love letter.’
An anonymous reviewer pointed out that using
Not every language behaves like English. According to Engdahl (
The age varies from 25 to 60 years old, and they claim that they are not specialized in linguistics.
I did not include idiom chunk gaps, which Takahashi says are possible parasitic gaps in Japanese, just for the sake of simplicity. The sentences with idiom chunk gaps are far worse than those with AP gaps according to my intuition. This difference is compatible with the analysis I give in this paper because it is impossible to replace parts of idioms with pronouns.
The same analysis with z-score gave the same result: the difference between the mean of DPs and PPs on one hand and the mean of APs on the other was significant.
Postal also argues that
(i) Niwa-ni garden- Taro-ga Taro- imasu. exists ‘There is Taro in the garden.’ (ii) Niwa-ni garden- kare/soitu-ga he/that guy- imasu. exists ‘There is him/that guy in the garden.’
In addition, unlike in English it is possible to topicalize pronouns or demonstrative expressions in the pivot.
(iii) Kare/soitu-wa he/that guy- niwa-ni niwa- imasu. exists ‘(lit.) As for him/that guy, he exists in the garden.’ (iv) *Him/that guy, there is in the garden.
In sum, existentials in Japanese are not anti-pronominal contexts.
Nissenbaum (
The literal translation of English
I appreciate an anonymous reviewer who pointed this out.
If a parasitic gap and a real trace are in the same clause, apparently a bound reading is available with A’-movement (see (15c)). However, in (15c), there can be A-movement before A’-movement, and it is the first A-movement that can remedy WCO.
This is not the only option for the denotation of a question particle, however. As Shimoyama (
The idea that scrambling leaves behind a trace might seem to be opposed to Saito’s argument that scrambling can always undergo total reconstruction at LF (
It should be noted that this lambda abstraction should be a particular kind of lambda abstraction because it does not abstract a set of alternatives itself, but the abstraction is actually over variables inside the set.
This assumption is necessary because even with movement, the covariation is not obligatory unlike in English parasitic gap constructions. In other words,
I would first like to thank Maziar Toosarvandani for the patience and very productive discussions throughout working this paper. I also thank Jim McCloskey and Matt Wagers for insightful comments and encouragement. I am grateful to Sandy Chung and all the members of Winter 2016 Research Seminar for helping me polish up the project. I appreciate very helpful comments from anonymous reviewers and the audience at FAJL 8. All errors are my own.
The author has no competing interests to declare.