To sluice or not to sluice? On sluicing in wh-in-situ...

1
To sluice or not to sluice? On sluicing in wh-in-situ languages
Andrew Murphy
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
[email protected]
1
Overview



2
I will argue against a common claim that sluicing in wh-in-situ languages are not derived from
cleft-like structures.
Instead, it will be claimed that we need to assume clausal ellipsis (as in English).
I will show how we can explain sluicing in wh-in-situ languages by appealing to an analysis
using focus movement followed by deletion.
What is sluicing?
Sluicing is arguably one of the most widely-discussed elliptical constructions. Typical sluicing
examples are given in (1):
(1)
a. Joe says he is investigating someone, but he won’t tell me who.
b. She’s complaining, but we don’t know about what.
c. My library card has just been cancelled; it’s unclear why.
(Chung 2013)
The standard analysis of sluicing (Ross 1969, Merchant 2001) assumes full clausal ellipsis:
(2)
a. Joe says he is investigating someone, but he won’t tell me who he is investigating.
b. She’s complaining, but we don’t know about what she is complaining.
c. My library card has just been cancelled; it’s unclear why my library card has just been
cancelled.
Case-matching (Ross 1969):
(3)
Hans
will
jemandem
schmeicheln, aber
Hans
wants.to
somebody.DAT
flatter
but
wem/*wen
who.DAT/who.ACC
‘Hans is trying to flatter someone, but we don’t know who.’
wir wissen
we know
nicht
not
We observe that the wh-phrase in the second clause of (3) also bears dative case. Interestingly, the
verb in the second clause wissen (‘know’) can assign only accusative case to its direct object (4).
(4)
Wir wissen *der/die
Antwort
we know
the.DAT/the.ACC answer
‘We don’t know the answer.’
nicht.
not
2
We can account for this by assuming that dative case is assigned to the wh-phrase from the verb
schmeicheln (‘to flatter’) in an elided clause:
(5)
Hans
will
jemandem
schmeicheln, aber
Hans
wants.to
somebody.DAT
flatter
but
[CP wem
[TP Hans <wem> schmeicheln will]].
who.DAT
wir wissen
we know
nicht
not
The standard analysis of sluicing (following Merchant 2001) assumes two steps:
 wh-movement
 deletion of TP
The C head bears an ‘E-feature’, which licenses ellipsis of its complement at PF:
(6)
John wants to see someone, but I don’t know who.
know
CP
whoi
C’
C[E]
<TP>
John wants to see ti
Sluicing in wh-in-situ languages:
Problem: what about languages which lack wh-movement. We would predict that these cannot
derive sluicing. Mandarin Chinese lacks wh-movement to form questions (it is wh-in-situ) (8).
Nevertheless, they still evidence sluicing structures (7):
(7)
Zhangsan xihuan shei?
Zhangsan like
who
‘Who does Zhangsan like?’
(8)
Zhangsan xihuan mouren,
keshi wo bu zhidao
Zhangsan like
someone
but I
NEG know
‘Zhangsan likes someone, but I don’t know who.’
shi shei.
SHI who
Therefore, it seems we cannot derive sluicing in wh-in-situ languages in the same way as English.
3
3
Deriving sluicing from clefts
As a result, it has been widely claimed that sluicing in wh-in-situ languages is derived from a cleft-like
structure. This analysis comes in two main forms: the reduced cleft analysis and the pseudosluicing
analysis.
3.1
Reduced cleft analyses
First option is a so-called ‘reduced cleft’. We take an ordinary cleft structure and elide the relative
clause:
(9)
[wh-phrase [RelC <...> ]]
Japanese (Takahashi 1994):
(10)
Mary-ga
nanika -o
katta
rasii
ga, boku-wa
Mary-NOM
something-ACC
bought likely
but I-TOP
ka wakara-nai.
Q know-not
‘It is likely Mary bought something, but I don’t know what.’
(11)
(12)
3.1.1
[Taroo-ga
tataita no]-wa
Taroo-NOM hit
REL-TOP
‘It was Hanako that Taroo hit.’
Hanako( -o)
Hanako-ACC
…boku-wa [CP [CP
I-TOP
wakara-nai.
know-not
katta
no ]-ga
bought REL -NOM
kanozyo-ga
she-NOM
nani-o
what-ACC
(da)
COP
da.
COP
nani -o
what-ACC
(da)
COP
ka]
Q
Arguments against reduced clefts
However, a number of scholars have shown that wh-phrases in sluicing have a number of properties,
which differ from the wh-phrases found in clefts.
3.1.1.1
Case-matching effects
Turkish (Ince 2009):
(13)
a. [Hasan-ın
borç
al-dı-ğ-ı ]
Hasan-GEN
debt
take-PAST-COMP-POSS.3SG
‘Who is it that Hasan borrowed money from?’
b. [Hasan-ın
borç
al-dı-ğ-ı ]
Hasan-GEN
debt
take-PAST-COMP-POSS.3SG
‘It is Ibrahim that Hasan has borrowed money from.’
KIM-Ø?
who-NOM
IBRAHIM-Ø
Ibrahim-NOM
4
(14)
Hasan
biri-nden
borç
al-dı,
ama
Hasan-NOM someone-ABL
debt
take-PAST
but
bil-mi-yor-um.
know-NEG-PRES-1SG
‘Hasan borrowed money from someone, but I don’t know who.’
kim(-den/*-Ø)
who(-ABL/*NOM)
Mongolian (Sakamoto 2011):
(15)
Oyuna-gin
id -sen ni tort -Ø/ *-ig.
Oyuna-GEN eat-PERF NI cake -NOM/-ACC
‘It is the cake that Oyuna ate.’
(16)
Oyuna-Ø
yamar_negen_zuil-ig id –sen gevch
Oyuna-NOM something-ACC
eat-PERF but
med-eh-gui.
know-INF-NEG
‘Oyuna ate something, but I don’t know what.’
3.1.1.2
Adjuncts
bi
I
yu(-g/*- Ø)
ni
what(-ACC/*NOM) NI
Turkish:
(17)
*Ali-nin git-tiğ-i
dün
/
ne
zaman?
Ali-GEN go-COMP-POSS.3SG yesterday
what time
‘It’s yesterday that Ali went/When is that Ali went?’
(18)
Ali-Ø
Ankara-ya
git-ti-Ø,
ama
Ali-NOM Ankara-DAT go-PAST-3SG but
‘Ali went to Ankara, but I don’t know when’
ne
zaman bil-m-iyor-um.
what time know-NEG-PRES-1SG
Mongolian:
(19)
*Oyuna-Ø
ene nom-ig
hudal_dag_av_san
Oyuna-NOM this book -ACC
bought
‘It was yesterday that Oyuna bought this book.’
(20)
Bat-Ø
Mie yav-san, gevch bi hezee -g
Bat-NOM Mie go-PERF but
I
when-ACC
‘Bat went to Mie, but I don’t know when.’
3.1.1.3
Multiple sluicing
ni
NI
uchigdur.
yesterday
ni] med-eh-gui.
NI know-INF-NEG
Turkish:
(21)
*[Ahmet-in ti tj al-dığı] Hasan-dani kitapj.
Ahmet-GEN
take-REL Hasan-ABL
book-NOM
‘It’s a book from Hasan that Ahmet borrowed’
5
(22)
Ahmet-Ø
biri-nden
birşey al-mış-Ø;
ama
kim-den
ne
Ahmet-NOM one-ABL
thing
take-HRS-3SG but
who-ABL
what
bil-mi-yor-um.
know-NEG-PRES-1SG
‘Ahmet borrowed something from someone, but I don’t know what (or) from whom.‘
3.2
Pseudosluicing
Kizu (2000) in particular claimed that all wh-in-situ languages exhibit ‘pseudosluicing’ structures,
which look like sluicing in English but have a distinctly different structure.
(23)
a. A celebrity is coming to dinner, but John won’t tell me who is coming to dinner.
b. A celebrity is coming to dinner, but John won’t tell me who it is.
(24)
Pseudosluicing structure:
[ …indefinitei …] , but I don’t know [proi copula wh-phrase]
3.2.1
Arguments for pseudosluicing
3.2.1.1
Copula
Pseudosluicing can provide a natural explanation for the fact that the copula often occurs in sluicing:
Mandarin Chinese:
(25)
Lisi mai le yi-jian liwu,
danshi ta bu gaosu
Lisi buy LE one-CL present but
he NEG tell
‘Lisi bought a present, but he didn’t tell me what.’
Korean:
(26)
Mimi-nun
nwukwunka-lul
manass-nuntey,
Mimi-TOP
someone-ACC
met-but
‘Mimi met someone, but I don’t know who.’
wo *(shi)
me COP
shenme.
what
nwukwu-i-nci molukessta.
who-COP-Q not.know
3.2.1.2
Island repair
(27)
a. John married [DP a woman, [CP who speaks Bulgarian]].
b. Which language did John marry [DP a woman, [CP who speaks ____ ]]?
(28)
They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I’m not sure [CP which
Balkan language [TP they want to hire [DP someone [CP who speaks _____ ]]]].
(29)
[DP [CP Mei-ge
cong
mou-gei
guojia lai
de] xuesheng]
dou tong
every-CL
from
some-CL
country come
de student
all pass
guo kaoshi, wo xiang
zhidao proi shi na
yi-ge
guojia.
ASP exam
I
want
know
SHI which
one-CL country
‘Every student from some country passed the exam, and I wonder which country (it is).’
6
3.2.1.3
Sprouting
Chung et al. (1995) discuss cases in which there is no overt antecedent for sluicing. This can be
explained by the pseudosluicing analysis if we say that pro needs an overt antecedent.
(30)
a. John is eating, but I don’t know what.
b. *Zhangsan
zhengzai chi, dan
wo bu zhidao
Zhangsan
PROG
eat but
I
NEG know
Int. ‘Zhangsan is eating but I don’t know what.’
3.2.2
Arguments against pseudosluicing in Mandarin Chinese
3.2.2.1
Distrubtion of shi
pro?
shi shenme.
SHI what
In sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, the copula shi is obligatory with simplex wh-arguments (who, what)
and optional with complex wh-arguments (which person) and adjuncts.
(31)
Zhangsan
kandao mouren,
danshi wo bu
zhidao
Zhangsan
saw
someone
but
I
NEG
know
(shi)
shenme ren.
SHI
what
person
‘Zhangsan saw somebody, but I don’t know who/what person.’
*(shi)
SHI
shei /
who
(Wei 2004: 7)



Why does the distribution depend on the wh-phrase?
Adams (2004) and Wei (2004) claim that simplex wh-phrases are not predicates (<e>) (and
therefore require shi as a linking verb.
Complex wh-phrases are predicates (<e, t>) and therefore only optionally occur with shi (for
emphasis?).
Pseudoclefts:
(32)
a. Zhangsan zai yi ge canguan
chifan, danshi wo
bu
zhidao
Zhangsan at one CL restaurant
eat
but
I
NEG
know
[DP pro]
(shi)
shenme canguan.
SHI
which restaurant
‘Zhangsan is eating at a restaurant, but I’m not sure which (restaurant).’
b. [DP [CP Zhangsan zui
xihuan chifan de] defang] *(shi)
shenme canguan?
Zhangsan most like
eat
DE place
SHI
which restaurant
‘Which restaurant is Zhangsan’s favourite place to eat?’
The na-construction:
(33)
a. Zhangsan
Zhangsan
pro (shi)
xihuan yi
ge ren,
danshi
like
one
CL person but
shenme ren
SHI
which person
‘Zhangsan likes someone, but I don’t know who.’
wo
I
bu
not
zhidao
know
7
b. Zhangsan
Zhangsan
na
*(shi)
xihuan yi
ge ren,
danshi
like
one
CL person but
shenme ren
DEM
SHI
which person
‘Zhangsan likes someone, but I don’t know who.’
3.2.2.2
wo
I
bu
not
zhidao
know
Sloppy readings
Sloppy readings with VP ellipsis:
(34)
John knows how to make his mother smile and Peter does too.
a. Strict reading: ‘John knows how to make his (own) mother smile and Peter also knows
how to make John’s mother smile.’
b. Sloppy reading: ‘John knows how to make his (own) mother smile and Peter also knows
how to his own mother smile.’
(35)
a. Johni loves hisi cat and Billj does [love hisi cat] too.
b. Johni loves hisi cat and Billj does [love hisj cat] too.
(strict)
(sloppy)
(Hardt 2003)
Sloppy readings in sluicing in MC:
(36)
Laowu zhidao ta weisheme yao jiehun, Lisi ye
zhidao weisheme.
Laowu know
he why
get marry Lisi also
know
why
‘Laowui knows why he is getting married, and Lisij also knows why hei/j is getting married.’
(Wang & Wu 2006)
Identity Condition on sloppy readings:
Pseudosluicing cannot explain why sloppy readings are only available if both wh-phrases are identical
(Wei 2009):
(37)
a. Zhangsani zhidao [shei zai piping tai], dan Lisij bu zhidao shi shei.
Zhangsan know who at criticize him but Lisi not know
SHI who
‘Zhangsani knows who is criticizing himi, but Lisij doesn’t know who (is criticizing himi/j).’
(strict/sloppy)
b. Zhangsani zhidao [shei zai piping tai], dan Lisij bu zhidao (shi) weishenme.
Zhangsan know who at criticize him but Lisi NEG know SHI why
‘Zhangsani knows who is criticizing him, but Lisij doesn’t know why (that person is
criticising himi/*j).’ (strict/*sloppy)
(38)
Lexical Identity Condition on Sloppy Identity in MC
A sloppy reading is only available if every item in the antecedent TP (TPA) is lexically
identical to an item in the elided TP (TPE).
8
(39)
Zhangsani
bu zhidao [CP [TP tai weishenme bei ma]],
dan Lisij
Zhangsan not
know
he why
PASS scold
but Lisi
(shi)
weishenme [TP tai weishenme bei ma].
SHI
why
he why
PASS scold
‘Zhangsani didn’t know why hei was scolded, but Lisij knows why (hei/j was
scolded).’ (strict/sloppy)
zhidao
know
TPA = [ta weishenme bei ma]
TPE = [ta weishenme bei ma]

For (37b), the wh-phrases in the TPs do not match (shei vs. weishenme) and therefore no
sloppy reading is licensed.
The ‘na-effect’ (Wei 2009):
(40)
Zhangsani
bu zhidao [tai weishenme bei
ma],
dan Lisij
Zhangsan
not know he why
PASS
scold
but Lisi
na (shi)
weishenme.
that SHI
why
‘Zhangsani didn’t know why hei was scolded, but Lisij knows why (it is) hei/j was
scolded.’ (strict/*sloppy)
3.2.2.3
zhidao
know
Binding with picture-NPs
In English, reflexives such as himself can only be co-referent with an antecedent in the same clause:
(41)
Johni said [that Peterj likes himself*i/j].
Only himself is possible in sluicing, despite the antecedent being in a different clause:
(42)
a. Harryi likes that black-and-white photo of Sally you took, but I don’t know which
photo of himselfi/*himi.
b. I heard Johni drew a picture of himself and I’d be interested to know what kind of
picture (of himselfi/*himi).
(43)
I heard Johni drew a picture of himself and I’d be interested to know [CP what kind of picture
of himselfi [TP Johni drew what kind of picture of himselfi]].
(44)
Zhangsanj
zhidao [ Lisik xihuan ta-zijik/*j]
Zhangsan
know
Lisi like
he-self
‘Zhangsanj knows that Lisik likes himselfk/*j’
(45)
Zhangsani renchu
le yi
zhang ta-zijii de zhaopian,
keshi
wo bu
Zhangsan recognize LE one CL
he-self DE picture
but
I
not
jide
[TP pro shi
(ta-zijii de)
na-zhang
zhaopian.]
remember
SHI
he-self DE
which-CL
picture
‘Zhangsan recognized a picture of himself, but I can’t remember which picture (of himself).’
9
4
A Focus Movement Analysis


We have seen evidence for an elided clause even in wh-in-situ languages.
We cannot appeal to wh-movement in these languages (although see Takahashi 1994).
For a number of languages, it has been proposed that there is focus movement followed by deletion
of TP:
(46)
FocP
wh-phrase
Foc’
Foc0[E]
<TP>
… <wh-phrase>
(47)
A: Wen hat Peter gestern Abend getroffen?
B: Peter hat [MARIA]F gestern Abend getroffen.
Focus markers and copulas:
Heine & Reh (1984) have shown that there is a clear grammaticalization path from copula to FM:
French (48) & Haitian Creole (49):
(48)
C’est
Jean [RelC
qui
a tué
it.is
John
who
has killed
‘It was John who killed the deer.’
le cerf]
the deer
(49)
Se [sou
pis.
flea
chen
mèg]
yo wè
FOC LOC
dog
thin
3PL see
‘It’s on the thin dog that fleas can be seen.’
(Heine & Kuteva 2002)
Japanese sluicing as a focus construction (Hiraiwa & Ishihara 2002):
‘da’ as head of a focus phrase:
(50)
a. [FocP [CP TAROF-ga
kono-ringo-o
Taro-NOM this-apple-ACC
‘It is Taro who ate this apple.’
b. [FocP [CP Taro-ga
KONO-RINGOF-o
Taro-NOM this-apple-ACC
‘It is THIS APPLE that Taro ate.’
tabeta
ate
no]
da]
COMP
FOC
tabeta
ate
no]
da]
COMP
FOC
10
(51)
Mary-ga
nanika -o
katta
rasii
ga, boku-wa [CP [FocP nani-o
Mary-NOM
something-ACC
bought likely
but I-TOP
what-ACC
[TP Mary-ga nani-o katta] da] ka]
wakara-nai.
FOC Q
know-not
‘It is likely Mary bought something, but I don’t know what.’
(52)
CP
C0
ka
FocP
wh-phrase
Foc’
Foc0
da[E]
<TP>
… <wh-phrase>…
Mandarin Chinese (Wang 2012, Murphy 2014):
Recap: the distribution of shi = obligatory with simplex wh-arguments (who, what), optional with all
others.
(53)
Zhangsan xihuan mouren, keshi wo bu zhidao *(shi)
Zhangsan like
someone but I
NEG know
SHI
‘Zhangsan likes someone, but I don’t know who.’
shei/ (shi) shenme ren.
who/ SHI which person
Following Wang (2012), I assume that shi is the head of a focus phrase:
(54)
FocP
wh-phrase
Foc’
Foc0
shi
<TP>
… <wh-phrase>
(55)
a. Shi
[Zhangsan]F zai
Beijing
xue
yuyanxue
SHI
Zhangsan
at
Beijing
study
linguistics
‘Zhangsan studies linguistics in Beijing (and not my brother).’
b. Zhangsan shi [zai
Beijing]F
xue
yuyanxue
Zhangsan SHI
at
Beijing
study
linguistics
‘Zhangsan studies linguistics in Beijing (not in Shanghai).’
(Hole 2012: 48)
11
Assumption: simplex wh-phrases are minimal/maximal phrases such as clitics, which incorporate into
a head1:
(56)
Marco lo+ vedrà [VP <vedrà> (*lo)]
Marco
will.see
CLT
‘Marco will see him tomorrow.’
domain.
tomorrow
These bear a feature (I will simply call it EPPmin), which triggers head movement of the closest head:
(57)
FocP
shi+shei[EPPmin]
Foc’
Foc0[E]
<shi>
<TP>
Zhangsan
T‘
T
νP
<Zhangsan> xihuan <shei>
This derives the optionality of shi, since shi+wh-phrase form a complex head. Complex wh-phrases do
not have this property (cf. Footnote 1) and therefore shi is optional.
(58)
CP
C[EPPmin]+shi
FocP
shenme ren
Foc‘
<Foc0>[E]
shi
<TP>
Zhangsan
T‘
T
νP
<Zhangsan> xihuan <shenme ren>

1
In Murphy (2014), I present empirical evidence for a number languages that the Foc0
position is never realized in sluicing (Sluicing-FOC Generalization) and therefore shi has to
move higher in order to ‘escape ellipsis’.
Evidence for this comes from swiping. Merchant (2002) analyses the inversion of preposition and sluice as
(i)
Mary got a letter today, but she wouldn’t say [who+from].
(ii)
*Mary got a letter today, but she wouldn’t say [which person+from]
12

Therefore: if shi does not move, shi is deleted. If it does move, it is realized (preceding the
wh-phrase).
Summary
 Problem: the standard analysis of sluicing has wh-movement a pre-requisite. This posed a
derivational problem for wh-in-situ languages.
 We have seen that sluicing structures tend to behave differently from clefts in wh-in-situ
languages (case-matching effects, adjuncts, multiple sluicing).
 Pseudosluicing (…I don’t know who it is.) has been widely adopted for Mandarin Chinese in
recent years (Adams & Tomioka 2012, Li & Wei to appear).
 I presented a number of arguments against this analysis (distribution of shi, sloppy readings,
binding).
 I have shown that despite the presence of the copula (which can be analysed as a focus
marker), we can appeal to a focus movement analysis for wh-in-situ languages. Such analyses
have been proposed for Korean (Kim 1997), Japanese (Hiraiwa & Ishihara 2002), Bahasa
Indonesia (Fortin 2007) Farsi (Toosarvandani 2008), Mongolian (Sakamoto 2011) and Turkish
(İnce 2009).
What next?
Look at lesser-studied languages such as Vietnamese! (Duffield 2013):
(59)
Amy co mua mot cai gi
do, nhung
Amy ASR buy one
CLS what
DEM but
cai gi.
CL what
‘Amy bought something, but I don’t know what.’
toi khong
I
neg
biet
know
?(la)
COMP
References
Duffield, Nigel. 2013. Minimalism and Semantic Syntax: Interpreting Multifuctionalism in Vietnamese. Ms. Konan University,
Japan.
Hiraiwa, Ken & Shinichiro Ishihara. 2002. Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing, and “No da” Construction in Japanese. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 43. 35–54.
Hole, Daniel. 2012. The information structure of Chinese. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.). The Expression of
Information Structure. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 45-70.
İnce, A. 2009. Dimensions of ellipsis: Investigations in Turkish. PhD thesis, University of Maryland.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: OUP.
Murphy, Andrew. 2014. The Syntax of shì: A Focus Movement Account of Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese. MA Thesis.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Sakamoto, Yuta. 2011. Toward the Reconsideration of the Cleft Analysis of Sluicing in Wh-in-situ Languages. Proceedings of
GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars. 277-291.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3. 265-300.
13
Wei, T.-C. 2004. Predication and Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, Ph.D. dissertation, National Kaohsiung Normal University,
Taiwan.
Wei, T.-C. 2009. Some Notes on Sloppy Identity in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 35.2. 269-306