Title Implications of Embedded Topicalization( 本文(Fulltext) )

Author(s) MAKI, Hideki; KAISER, Lizanne

Citation [ENGLISH LINGUISTICS] vol.[15] p.[290]-[300]

Issue Date 1998

Rights The English Linguistic Society of Japan (日本英語学会)

Version 出版社版 (publisher version) postprint

URL http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12099/36461

※この資料の著作権は、各資料の著者・学協会・出版社等に帰属します。

IMPLICATIONS OF EMBEDDED TOPICALIZATION

HIDEKI MAKI and LIZANNE KAISER

Salem-Teikyo University and Yale University*

1. Introduction

There have been two approaches to embedded topicalization in Eng-lish. Baltin (1982) and Lasnik and Saito (1992), among others, arguethat it involves IP adjunction, while Authier (1992) and Watanabe

(1993), among others, argue that it involves CP recursion. The pur-pose of this paper is to defend the IP adjunction analysis with a mod-ification that a topic phrase is in SPEC-head agreement with INFL inovert syntax and to derive restrictions on embedded topicalization froman independently motivated restriction on adjunction. We will arguethat embedded topicalization requires two kinds of licensing: 1) a topicis licensed in the projection of INFL; and 2) INFL is licensed by ad-

joining to COMP in LF. We also discuss implications of the proposedanalysis.

2. Two Kinds of Licensing

Let us first consider the issue of the landing site of embedded topical-ization. The examples in (1), which are from Lasnik and Saito (1992)with slight modification, constitute evidence against the CP recursionanalysis.

(1) a. The robot1 thinks that itselfi, Mary likes ti.b. *The robot1 thinks that itselfi ti likes Mary.

This is a revised version of the paper presented at the 1998 Spring LinguisticsColloquium held at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We are indebtedto the participants of the colloquium, Larisa Avram, Zeljko Boskovic, Masao Ochi,Daiko Takahashi, Yukiko Ueda, Gert Webelhuth, and two anonymous EL review-ers for suggestions and discussions. All remaining errors are our own.

English Linguistics 15 (1998) 290-300(C) 1998 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan

-290-

IMPLICATIONS OF EMBEDDED TOPICALIZATION 291

(1a), which involves topicalization of the object in the embeddedclause, is grammatical, while (1b) is ungrammatical. If the subject ofthe embedded clause in (1b) were topicalized, and thus, adjoined to IPor moved to CP SPEC, (1b) would be expected to be grammatical, justlike (1a). Under the CP recursion analysis, the embedded subjectmoves to the SPEC of a phonetically null COMP within the clauseheaded by that, and there is no obvious way to rule out this derivation.Therefore, the CP recursion analysis cannot be maintained as it is.

On the other hand, under the IP adjunction analysis, there is a wayto account for the ungrammaticality of (1b). In the following discus-sion, we will assume Egashira's (1997) Minimalist analysis.1 Under theMinimalist Program put forth by Chomsky (1993, 1995), movement op-erations must be triggered by feature checking. Given this, the ques-tion arises as to how feature checking is done in the topicalization con-struction under the IP adjunction analysis. Because the topic adjoinsto IP, feature checking should be done between it and the head INFL.If this is the case, in (1a) the topic adjoins to the embedded IP and fea-ture checking is done between the topic and INFL. On the otherhand, in (1b) there is no need for the topic to adjoin to the embeddedIP, since feature checking should be able to be done between the topicin the surface position and INFL. Therefore, itself in (1b) violates theCondition A of the binding theory, and (1b) is ruled out. Note herethat itself in (1b) cannot adjoin to IP by the Last Resort Principle origi-nally due to Chomsky (1986). Therefore, if topicalization involvesSPEC-head agreement between a topic and INFL, the contrast in (1) isdirectly accounted for.

Let us turn to restrictions on embedded topicalization in English.Authier (1992) and Watanabe (1993) point out that it is allowed only in L-marked clauses whose head or SPEC is overtly present, as shown in (2).

(2) a. John believes *(that) this book, Mary wrote.b. John wonders if/whether this book, Mary wrote.

1 Egashira (1997) argues that topicalization involves feature checking in overt syn-tax on the basis of the topicalization construction in Illongo reported by Schachter(1973). In Illongo a topic of the sentence shows morphological agreement with theverb (INFL). We will therefore assume with Egashira (1997) that topicalization inEnglish also involves feature checking in overt syntax. Note, however, that we willargue below that overt feature checking must be followed by LF feature checking inembedded topicalization.

292 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 15 (1998)

c. *John regrets that this book, Mary wrote.d. *John believes the rumor that this book, Mary wrote.e. *Before this book, Mary wrote, John had been a student.f. *That this book, Mary wrote is true.

(2a) shows that embedded topicalization is impossible without an overtcomplementizer. (2b) shows that topicalization is possible in inter-rogative clauses. (2c) and (2d) show that topicalization is impossible incomplement clauses of factive verbs and nouns. (2e) and (2f) showthat topicalization is impossible in an adjunct clause and in a sententialsubject. These examples suggest that either a topic or INFL has aclose relation with an L-marked COMP which or whose SPEC is

phonetically realized. Thus, it is plausible to assume that a relevantfeature in either a topic or INFL is licensed by such a COMP.

There have been considered to be two ways to license a feature.One is by binding and the other is by movement. See Baker (1970)and Pesetsky (1987), among others, for licensing of wh-phrases by bind-ing. Suppose that licensing by COMP in the topicalization construc-tion involves binding. Then, all the examples in (2) would be pre-dicted to be grammatical, since each example has its COMP bind therelevant feature. Therefore, in the topicalization construction, licens-ing by binding is not plausible.

Suppose then that licensing by COMP in the topicalization construc-tion involves movement. The question is what moves when to COMP.As for the timing of movement, since the topic does not move acrossCOMP or INFL does not move to COMP in overt syntax, let usassume that the movement takes place in LF. Then, the question iswhat moves to COMP in LF. The candidates are: 1) a feature in thetopic; 2) a feature in INFL; and 3) INFL. Note that the ungrammati-cality of (1b) suggests that the entire topic cannot move to COMP inLF. For reasons to be clarified later, let us assume that INFL movesto COMP in LF. Using Takahashi's (1994) arguments about adjunc-tion, we will show below that this LF movement hypothesis correctly

predicts the grammaticality of the examples in (2).Takahashi (1994) provides evidence that adjunction to non-L-marked

phrases, namely, derived subjects and adjuncts, is prohibited.2 In

2 To be more precise, Takahashi (1994) proposes the Uniformity Corollary onAdjunction (UCA) to derive the prohibition against adjunction to non-trivial chains

IMPLICATIONS OF EMBEDDED TOPICALIZATION 293

showing the evidence, he assumes that specifiers are created by adjunc-tion rather than substitution, following Fukui and Saito (1992), Kayne

(1994), and Chomsky (1994), among others. See Takahashi (1994) fordetailed discussion. Although he did not discuss this, there is also evi-dence that adjunction to factive complements is prohibited. The

que/qui alternation in French constitutes evidence for this. In Frenchthe complementizer que must be realized as qui when the subject of itscomplement undergoes A'-movement, and as que otherwise, as shownin (3).

(3) a. Qui crois-tu [CP qui/*que [IP test parti]]?who think-you that has left'Who do you think left?'

b. Quel livre crois-tu [CP *qui/que [IP Jean a achete t]]?which book think-you that has bought'Which book do you think that Jean bought?'

Following Rizzi (1990), let us assume that the alternation is a reflectionof agreement between the COMP and what moves to the SPEC of theCOMP. Under the assumption that specifiers are created by adjunc-tion, the alternation stems from adjunction of a wh-phrase to C'. Letus then consider the examples in (4), which we owe to Zeljko Boskovic

(personal communication).(4) a. Jean regrette [CP que Marie a lu le livre].

regret that read the book'Jean regrets that Marie read the book.'

b. *[CP Qui Jean regrette-t-il [CP qui t a lu le livre]]?who regret that read the book

'Who does Jean regret that t read the book?'

(4b) is totally ungrammatical. In (4b) the wh-phrase first adjoins tothe embedded C' (factive complement), and then adjoins to the matrix

and part of coordinate structures. Relevant in this paper is the fact that the UCAprohibits adjunction to derived subjects and adjuncts. Note that he assumes thatan adjunct and the clause it adjoins to constitute a coordinate structure. Since de-rived subjects and adjuncts are not L-marked, we say that adjunction to non-L-marked phrases is prohibited in this paper. Note also that although the status ofthe UCA is not clear in the Minimalist Program, as pointed out by an anonymousreviewer, since the empirical arguments for the prohibition against adjunction tonon-L-marked phrases are well established, we will use them in the following discus-sion, and leave for future research the issue of deriving the UCA effects from Mini-malist principles.

294 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 15 (1998)

C'. The ungrammaticality of (4b) thus suggests that adjunction to fac-tive complements is disallowed. This in turn suggests that factive com-

plements constitute a natural class with derived subjects and adjuncts interms of adjunction to them. For the sake of discussion, we say thatthey are not L-marked, and adjunction to non-L-marked phrases is pro-hibited.

Given that adjunction to non-L-marked phrases is prohibited, it is

plausible to assume that adjunction to a projection of a non-L-markedhead is prohibited, since the head of a non-L-marked phrase is not L-marked, either.

With this in mind, let us analyze the data in (2) under the assump-tion that INFL moves to COMP in LF (after the topic phrase adjoinedto IP (I') in overt syntax). First, consider (2a) with the complement-izer that. Since the C' is L-marked, adjunction of INFL to the headC does not violate anything. Therefore, (2a) is correctly predicted tobe grammatical. Second, consider (2a) without that. Boskovic (1996)shows that a clause that can be headed by that is an IP (I') rather thanCP (C') if that does not appear in overt syntax. If this is the case, thecomplement clause is IP (I') in this case, and there is no C that can en-ter into checking of the feature F. Therefore, (2a) without that isruled out. Third, let us turn to (2b). In this case the complementclause is L-marked and thus adjunction of INFL to the head C doesnot violate anything. Therefore, (2b) is expected to be grammatical.Fourth, consider (2c). As discussed above, adjunction to factive com-

plements is prohibited. Since the nature of a given head determinesthe nature of a projection of the head, this suggests that adjunction toa projection of a factive complement be prohibited. Given this, ad-

junction of INFL to the head C is disallowed and thus (2c) is predictedto be ungrammatical. Fifth, consider (2d). Stowell (1981) and Grim-shaw (1990), among others, argue that complement clauses of nounsare adjuncts. Given this and the prohibition against adjunction to a

projection of a non-L-marked head, (2d) is predicted to be ungramma-tical. Sixth, consider (2e). The ungrammaticality of (2e) is given thesame account as (2d), since the LF movement of INFL involves adjunc-tion to the head of an adjunct clause. Finally, consider (2f). Underthe VP Internal Subject Hypothesis (Kitagawa (1986), among others),in (2f) the sentential subject is a derived subject and thus not L-marked. Given the prohibition against adjunction to a projection of anon-L-marked head, the LF adjunction of INFL to the head of the

IMPLICATIONS OF EMBEDDED TOPICALIZATION 295

sentential subject that is prohibited and thus (2f) is predicted to be un-

grammatical. Therefore, the proposed analysis coupled with an inde-pendently motivated restriction on adjunction accounts for all the datain (2).3 Note that if this analysis is correct, it makes irrelevant techni-cal assumptions under the CP recursion analysis such as positing a nulloperator for factive complements proposed in Watanabe (1993).

Before leaving this section, let us return to the question as to whatactually moves to COMP in LF among the three candidates: 1) a fea-ture in the topic; 2) a feature in INFL; and 3) INFL. Travis (1984),among others, shows that head movement is strictly local in such a waythat a head cannot move across another head. On the other hand,Maki (1995) shows that feature movement is not local and a featuremay move to the target unless there is an intervening feature that cancontribute to checking of the target feature. With this in mind, let usconsider the examples in (5).

(5) a. *John believes this book, Mary wrote.b. *Susan thinks that John believes this book, Mary wrote.

(5b) contains (5a) as an embedded clause and both (5a) and (5b) areungrammatical. The ungrammaticality of (5a) is expected, since there

3 The proposed analysis will also apply to negative inversion in embedded con-texts. Hooper and Thompson (1973), Authier (1992), and Watanabe (1993),among others, observe that embedded topicalization and embedded negative inver-sion are allowed in the same contexts. Therefore, negative inversion is possible inthe complement clause of bridge verbs, as in (ia), but not in the complement clauseof nouns, as in (ib), for example.

(i) a. John believes that at no time would Mary agree to visit him.b. *John believes the rumor that at no time would Mary agree to visit

him.Negative inversion is accompanied by inversion of subject and the auxiliary verb(AUX). Given the assumption that a head moves to a head position, AUX shouldmove to a certain head. For the sake of discussion, let us assume with Authier(1992) and Watanabe (1993) that AUX moves to COMP with the inverted elementmoving to CP SPEC in overt syntax. If negative inversion did not involve anyother operation, there would be no way to account for the contrast in (i). How-ever, the fact that embedded topicalization and embedded negative inversion takeplace in the same contexts suggests that the LF movement proposed for embeddedtopicalization should also apply to embedded negative inversion. If this is the case,embedded negative inversion also involves two kinds of licensing: 1) an inverted ele-ment is licensed in the projection of COMP; and 2) COMP is licensed by adjoiningto the higher COMP in LF. Given this and the restriction on adjunction, the con-trast in (i) is correctly accounted for.

296 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 15 (1998)

is no COMP that can license the relevant feature in the topic or INFL.On the other hand, the ungrammaticality of (5b) is not so obvious,since it has an L-marked COMP, which is potentially able to license therelevant feature in the topic or INFL. Suppose that what moves toCOMP is the feature in the topic or INFL. If Maki (1995) is correct,the feature can move to the embedded COMP, and (5b) would be in-correctly ruled in. On the other hand, suppose that what moves toCOMP is INFL. If Travis (1984) is correct, INFL cannot move to theembedded COMP across the intervening heads, and the example is cor-rectly predicted to be ungrammatical. Hence, in embedded topicaliza-tion INFL moves to COMP in LF.

3. Implications

The above analysis has some implications. First, it sheds light onthe nature of functional categories. If the above analysis is correct, itsuggests that INFL in English may have multiple SPECs for a derivedsubject and a topic. This in turn suggests that a functional head mayhave multiple SPECs even in languages like English according to thenature of the head.4,5

4 Koizumi (1995) is the first who proposes a multiple-SPEC analysis of topicaliza-tion and negative inversion. He argues that a topic and an inverted element moveto Polarity Phrase (PolP) SPEC and the head Pol may have multiple specifier posi-tions. Our analysis thus supports the core idea of his. Note, however, that thePolP analysis would incorrectly predict examples such as (1b) to be grammatical,just like the CP recursion analysis. Therefore, we do not pursue the PolP analysisfurther in this paper, but his insight is well incorporated into our analysis.

5 An anonymous reviewer raises the question as to how to fix the order of a sub-

ject and a topic if INFL in English allows multiple SPECs. In other words, thequestion is how to block the subject-topic order, as shown in (i).

(i) *[lP Johni [lP this books [VP ti read tj]]]Egashira (1997) addresses the very issue and tries to derive the impossibility of thesubject-topic order from the Maximal Checking Condition proposed by Fujita(1997). See Egashira (1997: 34) for the analysis, which we assume in this paper.Alternatively, there is a possibility that the impossibility of the subject-topic orderwill be an instance of the that-trace effect, as shown in (ii).

(ii) *Whoi do you think [CP t'i [C' that [lP ti read this book]]]In both (i) and (ii) the trace of the subject ti is not properly governed in the GBframework. A Minimalist analysis of the that-trace effect, which we leave for fu-ture research, will automatically account for the impossibility of the subject-topicorder.

IMPLICATIONS OF EMBEDDED TOPICALIZATION 297

Second, Japanese wh-constructions must involve overt wh-featuremovement. Maki (1995) proposes that in Japanese wh-constructions

(wh-interrogatives and concessives) wh-feature movement takes place inLF, and accounts for the existence of the Wh-Island Condition effectand the lack of Ross' (1967) Complex NP Constraint effect of argumentwh-phrases in situ in Japanese.6 However, if adjunction to a projec-tion of a non-L-marked head is prohibited, as argued above, the LFwh-feature movement hypothesis would incorrectly rule out concessiveclauses in Japanese. Consider the example in (6).

(6) [CP dare-ga kite mo], kamawa nai.who-Nom come COMP care not

'No matter who comes, I don't care.'

(6) is perfect. However, since a concessive clause counts as an adjunctat the point it is introduced to the phrase structure by generalizedtransformation, if in (6) the wh-feature moved to COMP after spell-out, it would adjoin to a non-L-marked head, and thus, the examplewould be incorrectly ruled out. This suggests that wh-feature move-ment in Japanese must take place before spell-out, namely, before LF.This is because a concessive clause does not count as an adjunct beforeit is adjoined to the main clause by generalized transformation, and

6 See Nishigauchi (1986, 1990), among others, for the relevant data. The exam-

ples in (i) and (ii) indicate that both wh-interrogatives and concessives show theWh-Island Condition effect, but not the Complex NP Constraint effect.

(i) a. ??John-wa [Mary-ga nani-o katta kadooka] sitteiru no?-Top -Nom what-Acc bought whether know Q

'??What does John know whether Mary bought?'b.??John-ga [Mary-ga nani-o katta kadooka] sitteite mo,

-Nom -Nom what-Acc bought whether know COMPboku-wa kamawa nai.I-Top care not'??No matter what John knows whether Mary bought, I don't care.'

(ii) a. Kimi-wa [NP [IP nani-o katta] hito]-ni atta no?you-Top what-Acc bought man-to met Q

What did you meet the man that bought?'b. [NP [IP nani-o katta] hito]-mo waratteita.

what-Acc bought man-COMP smiling'For all x y, x a person, y a thing x bought, x was smiling.'

This suggests that the two wh-constructions should be given a unified account.Maki (1995), reinterpreting Nishigauchi's (1986, 1990) LF wh-phrase movementhypothesis in terms of the Minimalist Program, proposes the LF wh-feature move-ment hypothesis for Japanese wh-constructions in general.

298 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 15 (199b)

thus, adjunction to the COMP does not violate the ban against adjunc-tion to a projection of a non-L-marked head. If this is correct, it inturn gives support to Watanabe's (1992) idea that Japanese [+Q] has a

[strong] feature.Third, and finally, a feature moves to the target in one step without

adjoining to the intervening heads. Kuno (1973), among others,

points out that an argument wh-phrase may appear in a complex NP inJapanese, as shown in (7).

(7) Kimi-wa [NP [IP nani-o katta] hito]-ni atta no?you-Top what-Acc bought man-to met Q'*What did you meet the man who bought?'

Suppose with Murasugi (1991) that Japanese relative clauses are IPs.If the wh-feature of the wh-phrase in the relative clause moves to thetarget by adjoining to the intervening heads, it will necessarily adjoin tothe head of the relative clause INFL, which is not L-marked. There-fore, movement of the wh-feature ends up with violating the banagainst adjunction to a projection of a non-L-marked head, and (7)would be incorrectly predicted to be ungrammatical. Hence, when afeature moves, it must move to the target in one step without adjoiningto the intervening heads.7

4. Conclusion

To conclude, we defended the IP adjunction analysis of embeddedtopicalization, and derived restrictions on it from the LF INFL move-ment hypothesis coupled with the ban against adjunction to a projec-tion of a non-L-marked head. Then, we discussed implications of the

7 An anonymous reviewer points out that the fact that scrambling can take placein a relative clause may pose a potential problem for the assumption that adjunctionto a projection of a non-L-marked head is prohibited. Consider (i).

(i) [NP [IP sono hon-oi [IP John-ga ti ageta]] hito]that hook-Acc -Nom gave man

'the man to whom John gave the hook'In (i) the NP sono hon-o 'that book-Acc' is adjoined to the relative clause IP.Since the IP is an adjunct, (i) would be incorrectly ruled out. Note, however, thatsince a relative clause counts as an adjunct only after it is merged with the headnoun, adjunction of the NP to the IP should be allowed before the merger. There-fore, example (i) does not pose a problem for the assumption that adjunction to aprojection of a non-L-marked head is prohibited.

IMPLICATIONS OF EMBEDDED TOPICALIZATION 299

analysis. We argued 1) that a functional head may have multipleSPECs in any language according to the nature of the head; 2) that wh-feature movement in Japanese must take place in overt syntax; and 3)that a feature moves to the target in one step without adjoining to theintervening heads.

REFERENCES

Authier, Marc (1992)“Iterated CPs and Embedded Topicalization,”Linguistic

Inquiry 23, 329-336.

Baker, C. Lee (1970)“Notes on the Description of English Questions: The

Role of an Abstract Question morpheme,”Foundation of Language 6,

197-219.

Baltin, Mark (1982)“A Landing Site Theory of Movement Rule,”Linguistic

Inquiry 13, 1-38.

Boskovic, Zeljko (1996)“Selection of Infinitival Complements,”Natural Lan-

guage and Linguistic Theory 14, 269-304.

Chomsky, Noam (1986) Knowledge of Language, Praeger, NewYork.

Chomsky, Noam (1993)“A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory,”ed. by

Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, The View from Building 20, MITPress, Cambridge, MA.

Chomsky, Noam (1994) Bare Phrase Structure, MIT Occasional Papers in Lin-

guistics 5, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Egashira, Hiroki (1997)“Topicalization and Relativization in Minimalist Syn-

tax,”English Linguistics 14, 28-51.

Fujita, Koji (1997)“Local Economy and a Generalized Theory of Attract,”

Eibungaku Hyoron (Review of English Literature) 69, 97-145, Kyoto Uni-

versity.

Fukui, Naoki and Mamoru Saito (1992)“Spec-Head Agreement, X'-Compati-

bility, and Optional Movement,”ms., University of California, Irvine, and

University of Connecticut.Grimshaw, Jane (1990) Argument Structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Hooper, Joan and Sandra Thompson (1973)“On the Applicability of Root

Transformations,”Linguistic Inquiry 4, 459-497.

Kayne, Richard (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa (1986) Subject in Japanese and English, Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Distributed by GLSA, Uni-versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1987.]

Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Doctoral dis-sertation, MIT.

300 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 15 (1998)

Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.

Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move α, MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA.Maki, Hideki (1995) The Syntax of Particles, Doctoral dissertation, University

of Connecticut.Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in

Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut.

Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1986) Quantification in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1990) Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Reidel,Dordrecht.

Pesetsky, David (1987)“Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding,”ed.

by Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, The Representation of

(In) definiteness, 98-129, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Ross, John R (1967) Constrains on Variables in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation,

MIT.Schachter, Paul (1973)“Focus and Relativization,”Language 49, 19-46.

Stowell, Timothy (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation,MIT.

Takahashi, Daiko (1994) Minimality of Movement, Doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Connecticut.

Travis, Lisa (1984) Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, Doctoraldissertation, MIT.

Watanabe, Akira (1992) Wh-in-Situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation, MITOccasional Papers in Linguistics 2, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Watanabe, Akira (1993)“Larsonian CP Recursion, Factive Complements, and

Selection,”NELS 23, 523-537.

(Hideki Maki)Department of Japanese StudiesSalem-Teikyo UniversitySalem, WV 26426-0500 U.S.A.e-mail: maki@salem.wvnet.edu

(Lizanne Kaiser)Linguistics DepartmentYale UniversityP.O. Box 208236New Haven, CT 06520-8236 U.S.A.e-mail: lizanne.kaiser@yale.edu