Syntactic Metamorphosis: Clefts, Sluicing, and In‐Situ Focus in Japanese

Abstract

Abstract. In this article, we propose that three types of focus constructions in Japanese—clefts, in‐situ focus, and sluicing/stripping—share the same underlying structure and are derived by syntactic “metamorphosis” from one structure to another. After revealing similarities between cleft constructions and in‐situ focus constructions, we specifically propose that the latter underlies the former, which is derived by a focus movement followed by a heavy remnant movement. It is shown that various properties of cleft constructions follow from the syntax of in‐situ focus constructions and movement operations. Then, it is further argued that cleft constructions underlie sluicing/stripping under certain conditions. The article also touches on the so‐called clausemate condition found in multiple cleft sentences. A new set of data will be presented that poses a problem for syntactic explanations of this effect.

Developing a useful and integrative STEM disciplinary language

“…In fact, the idea of syntactic metamorphosis (e.g. Hiraiwa, & Ishihara, 2012) dealing with changes in Japanese language syntax is closely related to how we conceptualize semantic metamorphosis. English is a dynamic language with new words being added regularly as compared to other languages that do not evolve but simply combine existing words to convey new meaning.…”

Japanese pseudoclefts

“…It follows that the findings of Japanese pseudoclefts in future research can contribute to the literature on copular sentences as well as pseudoclefts, as it is said that "the analysis of pseudoclefts plays an important role in the evaluation of proposal for the treatment of copular sentences," (Partee, 1998, p. 2). Also, it has been proposed that elliptical constructions known as sluicing and stripping in Japanese are derived from a cleft/conventional pseudocleft (e.g., Fukaya and Hoji, 1999;Hiraiwa and Ishihara, 2012) and that Malagasy sluicing is derived from a pseudocleft (Potsdam, 2007). Thus, the conclusion that conventional pseudoclefts are indeed pseudoclefts enables the study of the sluicing/stripping to be conducted more efficiently because the authors can now take account of various properties of pseudoclefts proposed for many languages.…”

“…(Murasugi, 1991, (142a), p. 93) Sentences (17a) and (18) differ only in whether Russell is case-marked or not. Abstracting away from the exact analysis of Japanese clefts, I note that no in (17a) is widely accepted as a complementizer and XP 1 is a CP (e.g., Hoji, 1990;Kizu, 1999;Hiraiwa and Ishihara, 2012). 13 As for no in (17b), this is a question particle used in colloquial speech, and it corresponds to a more well-known question particle ka in formal speech.…”

“…Despite the term pseudocleft being well known in the Japanese literature, Japanese pseudoclefts have not captured much attention, and their existence has been assumed without much justification. For example, although Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2012) call sentences like (2) pseudoclefts, it has not been clarified in what sense they are pseudoclefts, or whether they share some properties with pseudoclefts in other languages. In fact, as recently as 2014, Park (2014) says, "it is a historical accident that sentences such as [(2)] are called pseudoclefts."…”

“…It should be pointed out clearly that the structure in (13) is novel. Consider, for example, (14), where Hoji's (1990) and Hiraiwa and Ishihara's (2012) structures of conventional pseudoclefts are given. 10 (14) a.…”