Lecture 8a: Weak Islands

THE NATURE OF WEAK ISLANDS Shigeru Miyagawa MIT 1. Introduction (1) Strong island: for example, relative clause (e.g., Chomsky 1977, Ross 1967) a. * Whati do [TP you know [DP the author who [TP wrote ti ]]]? b. * Why i do [TP you know [DP the man who [TP quit his job t i ]]]? Weak island (2) Wh-island (Chomsky 1977) a. Whati do you wonder [whether to fix ti ]? b. *Why i do you wonder [whether to fix the car ti ]? (3) (4) Negative island (Ross 1983) a. Whoi don't you think that John talked to ti ? b. *Why i don't you think that John talked to Mary ti ? ARGUMENT WH EXTRACTION ADJUNCT WH EXTRACTION ARGUMENT WH EXTRACTION ADJUNCT WH EXTRACTION Empty Category Principle (Chomsky 1981), Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990), Conditions on Extraction Domain (Huang 1982) 2. Rizzi (1990, 1992) Weak Island (5) A. Relativized Minimality B. Differentiating between argument and adjunct extraction (Rizzi 1992; cf. also Cinque 1990, Rizzi 1990): referentiality X can carry a referential index only if it bears an argumental Theta role on some level of representation. (i) if X, a chain, bears a referential index, the head of the chain only needs to bind the tail; (ii) if not, the head must govern the tail. 1 (6) Problem Weak island violations show up in certain cases even with argument wh-phrases. (7) Two inter-related questions: (i) exactly what is being violated with weak islands (Rizzi's RM)? (ii) exactly what is responsible for the (non-)referential nature of chains? (8) Proposal for (i): Quantifier-Induced Barriers (Beck 1995, 1996a, 1996b) Proposal for (ii): Nature of chains and “referentiality” (e.g., Beck 1995, Cresti 1995, Lahiri 2002) 3. How many X and Quantifier-Induced Barrier (9) How many people do you think I should talk to? (i) For what n: there are n-many people x, such that you think I should talk to x. (outer reading) (ii) For what n: you think it should be the case that there be n-many people that I talk to? (inner reading) (Cresti 1995; cf. also Lahiri 2002) A description (10) (At least for some wh-chains), if it is interpreted as presuppositional, all parts of the whphrase are interpreted high in the structure, while if it is interpreted as nonpresuppositional, some relevant part of the wh-phrase is interpreted low in the structure. (11) The inner reading (non-presuppositional) disappears in weak islands (Beck 1995, Cresti 1995): an instance of a weak island effect with an argument wh a. How many people do you wonder whether I should talk to? (wh-island) (i) For what n: there are n-many people x, such that you wonder whether I should talk to x. (ii) * For what n: you wonder whether it should be the case that there be n-many people that I talk to? b. Wieviele Hunde hat Karl nicht gefüttert? (negative island) how many dogs has Karl not fed (i) For which n: there are n dogs that Karl didn’t feed. (ii) * For which n: it is not the case that Karl fed n dogs. 2 (12) Quantifier Induced Barrier (QUIB) (Beck 1996a, Beck and Kim 1997) The first node that dominates a quantifier, its restriction, and its nuclear scope is a Quantifier Induced Barrier. (13) * BINDERi QUIB α (e.g., Neg) βi QUIBs apply only to LF movement (Beck) (14) * Was glaubt niemand, wen Karl gesehen hat? what believes nobody whom Karl seen has ‘Who does nobody believe that Karl saw?’ No problem if there is no QUIB (15) Was glaubt Hans, wen Karl gesehen what believes Hans whom Karl seen ‘Who does Hans believe that Karl saw?’ hat? has (16) While I will adopt Beck's approach virtually intact, one assumption I will abandon is the idea that only LF movement is subject to QUIBs. (17) how many x (from Beck and Kim 1996): outer reading (presuppositional) CP QUANTIFIER wievielei C’ Co RESTRICTION IP [ti LF Hunde]k IP nicht QUIB IP Karl hat tk gefüttert 3 (18) how many x (from Beck and Kim 1996): inner reading (non-presuppositional) * QUANTIFIER CP wievielei C’ Co IP nicht RESTRICTION QUIB IP [ti LF Hunde]k IP Karl hat tk gefüttert Cresti (1995): no portion of a wh-phrase moved out of a wh- island may be interpreted inside the island (cf. Frampton 1990). Another instance of a weak island effect with an argument wh. (19) How many people do you wonder whether I should talk to? (wh-island) (i) For what n: there are n-many people x, such that you wonder whether I should talk to x. (ii) * For what n: you wonder whether it should be the case that there be n-many people that I talk to? (20) a. b. presuppositional for what n, ... n-many people x....[wh-island .... x....] non-presuppositional *for what n, .... [wh-island ... n-many people ...] (21) What is the exact nature of the barrier effect induced by the wh-island? Following Beck (1996a) and Beck and Kim (1997), I will assume that any quantificational element potentially induces a Quantifier-Induced Barrier. Suppose that in a wh-island, this is induced by the question morpheme Q that heads the CP of the island. (22) Q, which heads the CP in questions, induces a QUIB; hence the CP, which is a QUIB, cannot intervene in a wh-chain in which some portion of the wh-phrase occurs below this CP. (23) Q is an existential quantifier (Karttunen's 1973; cf. Hagstrom 1998) 4 4. The Apparent Argument/Adjunct Distinction QUIBs in Japanese (Hoji 1985),Takahashi 1990, Tanaka 1999). (24) * Taroo-sika nani-o kawa-nakat-ta no? Taro-only what-Acc buy-Neg-Past Q 'What did only Taro buy?' Scrambling can save a potential QUIB violation (Beck 1996a, Beck and Kim 1996). (25) Nani-oi Taroo-sika t i kawa-nakat-ta no? what-Acci Taro-only t i buy-Neg-Past Q (26)a.* Amuto mwues-ul ilk-ci-an-ass-ni? anyone what-Acc read-CI-not-do-past-Q ‘Who did no one read?’ b. mwues-uli amuto ti ilk-ci-an-ass-ni? what-Acci anyone ti read-CI-not-do-past-Q Not limited to wh-in-situ languages: German (Beck 1996a) (27) *Was glaubt niemand, wen Karl gesehen what believes nobody whom Karl seen ‘Who does nobody believe that Karl saw?’ hat? has French: Chang (1997) notes that the wh-in-situ option is subject to the QUIB. (28) a. *? Jean ne mange pas quoi? Jean Neg eat Negwhat 'What didn't Jean eat?' b. Que ne mange-t-il pas? what Neg eat-he Neg How does the wh-phrase take scope? (29) a. * Taroo-sika nani-o kawa-nakat-ta no? Taro-only what-Acc buy-Neg-Past Q 'What did only Taro buy?' b. Taroo-ga nani-o kawa-nakat-ta no? Taro-Nom what-Acc buy-neg-Past Q 'What didn't Taro buy?' 5 Huang (1982) (30) * what x, x a thingi , QUIB ... xi ... On this approach only LF movement is subject to the QUIB (31) Nani-oi Taroo-sika t i kawa-nakat-ta no? what-Acci Taro-only t i buy-Neg-Past Q Overt movement: (32) [CP OP i .......[t i nani] ...] (Watanabe (1992) (33) [CP.......[t i nani] ... Qi ] (Hagstrom 1998) (34) Intervention effect (universal characterization) (Pesetsky 2000, p. 67) A semantic restriction on a quantifier (including wh) may not be separated from that quantifier by a scope-bearing element. (35) * OP i /Qi ... QUIB ... [ti nani] .... . 4. QUIBs in Japanese QUIBs in Japanese (36) QUIBs with -ka a. NPI sika-nai 'only' (Takahashi 1990) *Taroo-sika nani-o kawa-nakat-ta Taro-only what-Acc buy-Neg-Past 'What did only Taro buy?' b. Existential quantifier (Hoji 1985) ??Dareka-ga nani-o katta no? someone-Nomwhat-Acc bought Q ‘Someone bought what?’ c. Disjunction -ka (Hoji 1985) ?* [John-ka Mary]-ga nani-o [John-or Mary]-Nom what-Acc ‘John or Mary bought what?’ 6 no? Q katta no? bought Q (37) QUIBs with universal -mo a. Universal quantifier (Hoji 1985) ?*Dare-mo-ga nani-o katta no? everyone-Nom what-Accbought Q ‘Everyone bought what?’ b.“Almost every” (Miyagawa 1998) *Hotondo dare-mo-ga nani-o katta no? almost everyone-Nom what-Acc bought Q ‘Almost everyone bought what?’ (38) a. NPI sika-nai 'only' Nani-oi Taroo-sika t i kawa-nakat-ta no? what-Acci Taro-only t i buy-Neg-Past Q 'What did only Taro buy?' b. Existential quantifier Nani-oi dareka-ga t i katta no? hat-Acci someone-Nom t i bought Q ‘What, someone bought?’ c. Disjunction -ka (Hoji 1985) Nani-oi [John-ka Mary]-ga t i katta no? what-Acci [John-or Mary]-Nom t i bought Q ‘What, John or Mary bought?’ d. Universal quantifier Nani-oi dare-mo-ga t i katta no? what-Acci everyone-Nom t i bought Q ‘What, everyone bought?’ e. “Almost every” Nani-oi hotondo dare-mo-ga t i katta no? what-Acci almost everyone-Nom t i bought Q ‘What, almost everyone bought?’ 5. QUIBs and Adjunct Wh-phrase Naze 'why' (39) a. Why doesn't Mary come home? b. *Why i don't you think [Mary will come home ti ]? (40) ? Nazei Hanako-ga [t i Taroo-ga sigoto-o yameta to] omotteiru no? why i Hanako-Nom [t i Taro-Nom job-Acc quit C] think Q ‘Why does Hanako think that Taro quit his job?’ 7 (41) naze extraction long-distance across QUIB a. NPI sika-nai 'only' *Naze i Hanako-sika [t i Taroo-ga sigoto-o yametato] omottei-nai no? why i Hanako-only [t i Taro-Nom job-Acc quit C] think-Neg-Past Q ‘Why does only Hanako think that Taro quit his job?’ b. existential quantifier ?? Nazei dareka-ga [t i Taroo-ga sigoto-o yameta to] itta no? why i someone-Nom [t i Taro-Nomjob-Acc quit C] said Q ‘Why did someone say that Taro quit his job?’ c. disjunctive -ka * Nazei [John-ka Mary]-ga [t i Taroo-ga sigoto-oyameta to] itta no? why i [John-or Mary]-Nom [t i Taro-Nom job-Accquit C] said Q ‘Why did John or Mary say that Taro quit his job?’ d. universal quantifier ?* Nazei daremo-ga [t i Taroo-ga sigoto-o yameta to] itta no? why i everyone-Nom [t i Taro-Nom job-Acc quit C] said Q ‘Why did everyone say that Taro quit his job?’ e “almost” and universal quantifier * Nazei hotonto daremo-ga [t i Taroo-ga sigoto-o yameta to]itta no? why i almost everyone-Nom [t i Taro-Nom job-Acc quit C] said Q ‘Why did almost everyone say that Taro quit his job?’ (42) ??Dareka-ga nani-o katta no? someone-Nom what-Acc bought Q ‘Someone bought what?’ Argument wh-phrase: can undergo scrambling across a QUIB (43) Nani-oi Hanako-sika [Taroo-ga t i katta to] omottei-nai no? what i Hanako-only [Taro-Nom ti bought C] think-Neg-Past Q 'What does only Hanako think that Taro bought?’ (44) minna 'all' a. Minna -ga nani-o katta no? (cf. Hoji 1986) all-Nom what-Acc bought Q 'What did all buy?' b. ? Nazei minna-ga [t i Taroo-ga sigoto-o yameta why i all-Nom [t i Taro-Nom job-Acc quit 'Why do all think that Taro quit his job?' 8 to] omotteiru no? C] think Q 6. Why/Naze (45) a. Wh-island E: *Whyi do you wonder [whether to fix the car ti ]? b. Negative/NPI island E: *Why i don't you think that John talked to Mary ti ? J: *Nazei Hanako-sika [t i Taroo-ga sigoto-o yameta why i Hanako-only [t i Taro-Nom job-Acc quit ‘Why does only Hanako think that Taro quit his job?’ (46) to] omottei-nai C] think-Neg-Past Intervention effect (universal characterization) (Pesetsky 2000, p. 67) A semantic restriction on a quantifier (including wh) may not be separated from that quantifier by a scope-bearing element. (47) what reason x, [John left [because of x]] (Beck 1996a) (48) why is a sentential adverb (Bromberger 1992, Rizzi 1990) Make it parallel with argument wh (49) a. OP i ... [t i nani]: what x...[x a thing]... (cf. Watanabe 1992) b. what xi ... [because of [x a reason]] Surprising asymmetry between argument and why relative to QUIBs (Miyagawa 1998) (50) a. * Hanako-sika dare-ni erab-are-nakat-ta no? Hanako-only who-by choose-Pass-Neg-Past Q 'Who was chosen only by Hanako?' b. Hanako-sika naze erab-are-nakat-ta no? Hanako-only why choose-Past-Neg-Past Q 'Why was only Hanako chosen?' The same point has been observed in Korean (Cho 1998, Ko 2002). (51) Amuto way ku chayk-ul ilk-ci-an-ass-ni? anyone why the book-acc read-CI-Neg-Past-Q 'Why did no one read the book?' 9 (Ko 2002) no? Q (52) CP what xi TP TP C [because of [reason x]] QUIB t i ... (53) Why didn't you come? (54) *Why i don't you think [Mary will come home ti ]? The same is observed for Japanese (Miyagawa 1998) and Korean (Ko 2002) (55) (a) Japanese * Hanako-sika [Taroo-ga naze kono-hon-o katta ka] sira-nai no? Hanako-only [Taro-Nom why this-book-Acc bought Q] know-Neg Q 'Why does only Hanako know that Taro bought this book?' (b) Korean * Amwuto[John-i way saimha-ass-ta-ko] malha-ci-an-ass-ni? anyone [John-Nom why resign-Past-Dec-C] say-CI-Neg-Past-Q 'Why didn't anyone say that John resigned?' (56) * CP what xi TP QUIB C CP TP TP [because of [reason x]] 10 6.1 Two additional arguments indeterminate + mo/ka (57) Universal paradigm with -mo wh/indeterminate expression dare 'who' nani 'what' doko where' itu 'when' naze 'why' -mo universal dare-mo 'everyone' nani-mo 'everything' doko-mo 'everywhere' itu-mo 'whenever' *naze-mo (58) Existential paradigm with -ka wh/indeterminate expression dare 'who' nani 'what' doko where' itu 'when' naze 'why' -ka existential dare-ka 'someone' nani-ka 'something' doko-la 'somewhere' itu-ka 'sometime' naze-ka 'for some reason'a) (59) *Gakusei-ga daremo student-Nom everyone 'Every student came.' kita. came (60) Gakusei-ga dareka kita. student-Nom someone came 'Some student came.' (61) a. b. (62) * Taroo-ga naze-ka waratta. Taroo-Nom some.reason laughed There exists a reason x, [Taro laughed [because of x]] Taroo-ga siranai-riyuu-de naze-ka waratta. Taro-Nomunknown-reason-bysome.reason laughed 'For some unknown reason, Taro laughed.' 11 Anti-superiority Saito (1982, 1985) (63) a. Taroo-wa nani-o naze katta Taro-Top what-Acc why bought 'Why did Taro buy what?' b. ??Taroo-wa naze nani-o katta Taro-Top why what-Acc bought no? Q no? Q Bolinger (1978). (64) a. It's nice to have all those times scheduled, but when are you doing what? (#But what are you doing when?) b. It's nice to have all those activities ahead of you, but what are you doing when? (#But when are you doing what?) (65) D-linking and pair-list (Comorovski 1996, Hornstein 1994). (66) Naze is non-presuppositional because its restriction is interpreted low in the structure relative to the quantifier. (67) Why did you buy what? (68) ... nazei ... nanij ... t i ... t j ... 7. Pair-list interpretation (69) a. b. Who bought everything?*PL What did everyone buy t? PL The Japanese counterpart may be in two forms, given below. (70) a. ?* Daremo-ga nani-o katta no? everyone-Nom what-Acc bought Q 'What did everyone buy?' b. Nani-oi daremo-ga ti katta no? what-Acci everyone-Nom ti bought Q 'What did everyone buy?' *PL (Hoji 1986) 12 (71) Daremo-ga sorezore nani-o katta no? everyone-Nom each what-AccboughtQ 'What did everyone each buy?' (Pair-list possible) (Hoji 1986) May (1985, 1988) (for focus movement, cf. Culicover and Rochemont 1993) (72) a. Who loves every girl? (no pair-list) b. Who loves each girl? (pair-list) (73) [CP [daremo-ga [CP [everyone-Nom sorezore]i [CP each ]i [CP C-wh i [IP .... t i RESTRICTION...]]] C-wh i [IP .... t i RESTRICTION...]]] (74) Dareka-ga daremo-o syootaisita. someone-Nom everyone-Acc invited 'Someone invited everyone.' some > every, *every >some (75) Dareka-ga daremo-o sorezore syootaisita. (cf. Hoji 1985) someone-Nom everyone-Acc each invited 'Someone invited everyone each.' some > every, everyone each >some REFERENCES Beck, Sigrid. 1995. Negative Islands and Reconstruction, in Uli Lutz and Jürgen Pafel (eds.), Extraction and extraposition in German, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 121-143. Beck, Sigrid. 1996a. Quantified Structures as Barriers for LF Movement” Natural Language Semantic.cs 4, 1-56. Beck, Sigrid. 1996b. Wh-constructions and transparent Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen Beck, Sigrid and S.-S. Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 339-384. Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Asking more than one thing at a time, in H. Hiz, ed., Questions. Doredrecht: Reidel. Boskoviç, Zeljko, and Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 347-366. Bromberger, Sylvain. 1992. On what we know what we don’t know. University of Chicago Press. Chang, Lisa. 1997. Wh-in-situ phenomena in French. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. 1991. On the Typology of Wh-Questions.” Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Cho, Eun. 1997. Dual nature of contrastive topic and LF movement. In Susumu Kuno, et. al, (eds.), Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 7. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Department of Linguistics. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh movement, in P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, Academic Press, pp. 71-132. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Cinque, Gueglimo. 1990. Types of A'-dependencies. MIT Press. Comorovski, Ileana. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 13 Cresti, Diana. 1995. Extraction and reconstruction, Natural Language Semantics 3, 79-122. Culicover, Peter and Michael Rochemont. 1983. Stress and focus in English, Language 59, 123-165. Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in Wh Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, Dordrecht/Boston/London. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Frampton, John. 1990. The fine structure of wh-movement and the proper formulation of the ECP. Ms., Northeastern University. Fukui, Naoki. 1993. Parameter and optionality in a grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 399-420. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1984) Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Amsterdam: Academisch Proefschrift. Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague English, Foundations of Language 10, 41-53. Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Higginbotham, James. 1991. Interrogatives I, MIT Working papers in linguistics, 15, 47-76. Higginbotham, James. 1993. Interrogatives, in Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 195-227. Higginbotham, James. 1996. The semantics of questions, in S. Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 361-383. Higginbotham, James and Robert May. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing, The Linguistic Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Hoji, Hajime. 1986. Scope interactions in Japanese and its theoretical implications, Proceedings of the WCCFL 5, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford University, California. Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form: from GB to minimalism, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3-44. Ko, Heejong. 2002. Intervention effect and why-in-situ. Ms., MIT. Konoshima, M. (1983) Jodooshi, Joshi Gaisetsu (Auxiliary Verbs and Case Marking, an Outline), Tokyo: Ofusha. Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. On the proper treatment of 'expletive wh' in Hindi, Lingua. Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru 1984. On the nature of proper government. LI. Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1985. Connectedness, Scope, and C-command. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 163-192.McDaniel, D. (1989) Partial and multiple wh-movement, NLLT 7.4, pp. 565-604. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1987. Extraction from NP and the proper notion of head government, in Alessandra Giorgi and Giuseppe Longobardi, eds., the Syntax of Noun Phrases, Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-112. May, Robert. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. MIT Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. On wh-scope. Ms. MIT. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A life in language, 293-338. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1986. Quantification in the theory of grammar, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Richards, Norvin. 2000. An island effect in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9:187-205. Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1984. On pied-piped infinitives in German relative clauses. In Jindrich Toman (ed.), Studies in German Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 165-192. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 14 Review 1: 41-80. Rizzi, Luigi. 1992. Argument/adjunct (A)symmetries. NELS 22, pp. 365-381. Ross, John. 1983. Inner islands, Proceedings of tenth meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 258-265. Saito, Mamoru. 1982. Scrambling, topicalization and strong crossover. Ms., MIT. Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,Mass. Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, ed. Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch, 182-200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 69-118. Saito, Mamoru. 1994. Additional wh effects and the adjunction site theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 195-240. Saito, Mamoru, and Naoki Fukui. 1998. Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29:439-474. Takahashi, Daiko. 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP. English Linguistics 7, 129-146. Linguistic Theory 11:655-678. Takano, Yuji. 1998. Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:817-889.T Tanaka, Hidekazu. 1997. “Invisible movement in sika-nai and the linear crossing constraint,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 143-178. Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2002. Large-scale pied-piping and feature interpretability. Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 3, MIT working papers in linguistics. Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 255-291. Watanabe, Shin. 1994. (Anti-)superiority as weak crossover, in Hiroyuki Ura and Masatoshi Koizumi, eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1, The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Yoshida, Keiko, and Tomoyuki Yoshida. 1997. Question marker drop in Japanese. International Christian University Language Research Bulletin. Vol. 11. 15