An Analysis of Elliptical Phenomena Based on Non-Constituent Deletion by Daisuke Hirai B. A., Kyoto University of Foreign Studies, 1997 M. S., University of Wisconsin-River Falls, 1999 A Dissertation Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to Kansai Gaidai University 2018 Acknowledgements It is hardly a trivial task to properly acknowledge everyone who has helped me during my research and reach this point. Without their help, this dissertation would never have come into existence or taken shape as it is. First and foremost, I would like to thank Yukio Oba, my thesis supervisor. He has given me a lot of advice and constant encouragement since I was a graduate student at Nagoya University. I am very fortunate that he invited me to study at Kansai Gaidai University and work on this topic to complete this dissertation. It has been a great pleasure to study under his guidance. I cannot thank him enough for reading my rough draft and giving me a lot of comments on it. I would also like to thank the other members of the committee, Nobuo Okada, Kansai Gaidai University, and Sadayuki Okada, Osaka University for reading my paper and giving me a lot of valuable comments. Their comments helped me look into more ellipsis-related examples. This will lead me to work on another topic as a next step. I would also like to acknowledge the past and present members of the graduate school of Kansai Gaidai University, Jun Omune and Shota Tanaka for reading my first version of this dissertation and their comments on it. They spent a lot of time studying with me and provided me with a lot of insight on the current theory. I also owe very special thanks to Howard Lasnik. He gave me very exciting opportunities to participate in his graduate courses at University of Maryland (UMD) from August 2017 to August 2018. I have benefited from his invaluable comments and insightful suggestions on some of my unformed ideas. I am also grateful to the teachers at UMD, Juan Uriagereka, Alex Williams, Norbert Hornstein, and Omer Preminger for their helpful discussions. I would also like to thank my UMD colleagues, Gesoel Mendes, Masa Yano and Hisao Kurokami for discussions and their comments on my thesis. They made my time in Maryland really precious and just great. I also wish to express my gratitude to Takahiro Ono for his guidance and invitation to studies of Linguistics. If I had not met him when I was an undergraduate student at Kyoto i University of Foreign Studies, my interests in Syntax and linguistics would have never started. I am also indebted to the teachers and colleagues at Nagoya University, Masachiyo Amano, Tomoyuki Tanaka, Hiroyuki Nawata, Naoshi Nakagawa, Eiko Mizuno, Satoko Osawa, Tomohiro Yanagi, Yuka Makita, Yasuaki Ishizaki, Shin-ichi Nimura, Hiroki Maezawa, and Azusa Yokogoshi for their support and giving me not only a hard time but also a good time. My life in Nagoya was tough, but I learned a lot from the classes and discussion with them. Needless to say, my heartfelt thanks go to my colleagues at Kindai University, Taikyoku Shirakawa, Koji Yoshida, Akihiro Mikami, Michiko Takahashi, Michiko Hirata, So Fujii, Joshua Cohen, Alison Kitzman, Kimiho Izuka, Makoto Harada, and Tetsuya Kumagai. Among them, Koji gave me very insightful comments and advice on working on this topic and offered me several opportunities to present my early ideas of this paper at conferences. I am also deeply grateful to Joshua for his assistance. He proofread the early versions of this dissertation and provided me with not only stylistic modifications but also comments on the English examples in this dissertation. I would also like to thank Alison for judging the difficult and complicated examples in this paper, which might have really bothered her because too many wh-questions are included in them. I would also like to offer thanks to the Chinese teachers, Kimiho and Makoto for helping me write the abstract in Chinese. I have had the generous support and encouragement from my parents Keiji and Kayoko Hirai for having supported me in various stages of my life. It was really hard to persuade them to let me become a linguist. I hope this dissertation shows them how interesting linguistics is. Finally and most importantly, I would like to extend my indebtedness to my wife Noriko, my daughter Riko and my son Hikaru for their endless love, understanding, support, encouragement and sacrifice throughout my study. I can never thank them enough now and forever. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework &Two Approaches ................................................. 7 2. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7 2. 2 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 7 2. 3 LF Copying vs PF Deletion ................................................................................... 19 2. 3. 1 LF Copying Approach: Williams (1977) -VP Deletion- ................. ............ 21 2. 3. 2 PF Deletion Approach ........................................................................................ 25 2. 3. 2. 1 PF Deletion Approach 1: Hankmer and Sag (1976) -VP Deletion – ........ 25 2. 3. 2. 2 PF Deletion Approach 2: Ross (1969) and Merchant (2001) -Sluicing- .. 28 2. 4 What Licenses Deletion ? -Parallelism- ................................................................. 32 Notes for Chapter 2 .......................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3 On Sluicing .................................................................................................... 39 3. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 39 3. 2 Empirical Facts ......................................................................................................... 41 3. 2. 1 Is PF Deletion Related to Sluicing (SS)? .......................................................... 41 3. 2. 2 Mysteries: Question .......................................................................................... 43 3. 3 The LF Copying and PF Deletion Debate Again .................................................. 46 3. 3. 1 TP-Copying (Recycling) ................................................................................... 46 3. 3. 1. 1 TP-Recycling in SS ..................................................................................... 46 3. 3. 1. 2 Some Problems with LF-Recycling .......................................................... 49 iii 3. 3. 2 PF Deletion ........................................................................................................ 50 3. 3. 2. 1 Some Evidence to Support PF Deletion Approach ................................... 50 3. 3. 2. 2 PF Deletion Approach: Violation Repair by Ross (1969) and Chomsky (1972) .......................................................................................................... 52 3. 3. 2. 3 PF Deletion Approach: Violation Repair by Fox and Lasnik (2003) .......................................................................................................... 55 3. 3. 2. 3. 1 Parallelism of LF Structures and Choice Function ............................. 55 3. 3. 2. 3. 2 Problems with Fox and Lasnik’s Analysis ............................................ 59 3. 3. 2. 4 PF Deletion Approach: Short Source by Marchant (2001) and Maximal Deletion by Merchant (2008) and Hartman (2011) ................................... 60 3. 4 A Non-movement Analysis of Sluicing ................................................................... 64 3. 4. 1 Proposals: Overview .......................................................................................... 64 3. 4. 2 Abstract Question Morpheme (Q-morpheme) and Elements in situ .............. 66 3. 4. 3 Wide Scope of Wh-Phrases in situ and Indefinite Nouns Phrases: Island Insensitivity ........................................................................................................ 76 3. 4. 3. 1 Wh-phrases .................................................................................................. 77 3. 4. 3. 2 Specificity of Indefinite Noun Phrases ...................................................... 79 3. 4. 4 Identity and Parallelism ..................................................................................... 82 3. 5 An Analysis ............................................................................................................... 88 3.6 Remaining Issues .................................................................................................... 94 3. 6. 1 Swiping ............................................................................................................... 94 3. 6. 2 The Ungrammaticality of VP Deletion with SS .............................................. 97 3. 6. 3 Contrast Type .................................................................................................... 99 3. 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................