You are on page 1of 27

THE LEFT PERIPHERY OF JAPANESE EXCLAMATIVES*

Naoyuki Yamato
Abstract. In this paper, I intend to shed light on the fact that Japanese exclamatives, unlike their English counterparts, may not be embedded under factive verbs but instead may be embedded under a set of assertive predicates such as say and think (rst observed in Ono 2006). I argue that this contrast is attributed to the interrogative and declarative syntax that English and Japanese exclamatives have, respectively. In order to account for the selection of predicates that may embed Japanese exclamatives, I further argue for a cartographic approach based on Rizzis (1997) and Haegemans (2006) left periphery structures and following Ono (2006), namely that Japanese exclamatives always contain MoodP, which allows only a subset of assertive matrix predicates to embed exclamatives given its position above TopicP and FocusP in the hierarchy. Another observation made in the paper is that the subject DP in Japanese exclamatives is obligatorily either aboutness topicalized or exhaustive listing focalized.

1. Introduction Since Rizzi (1997) and Cinque (1999), there have been a number of so-called cartographic approaches to various phenomena in the CP domain (e.g., subsequent works by Rizzi himself, Haegeman 2006 and Endo 2007, a study of the left periphery in Japanese, among others). The cartography, which assumes xed functional positions for elements in the left periphery, has been used as a tool to account for the distribution and the order of such elements. The present paper is a study of the left periphery of exclamative clauses in Japanese that behave dierently from their English counterparts. Firstly, Japanese exclamatives may not be embedded under factive predicates (1 vs. 2a) but they may be embedded under a set of assertive predicates (1 vs. 2b):1 (1) Mary knows/*thinks/*wonders how very cute he is. (Zanuttini & Portners 2003:48 12)

* I would like to thank the editors of this volume and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions; especially special thanks goes to Klaus Abels for reading previous versions of the paper and providing me with numerous comments and suggestions. I am also indebted to all of my informants for their grammaticality judgments on the examples that appear in the present paper. 1 Abbreviations used in the examples in this paper: acc = accusative; c(omp) = complementizer; cop = copular; dat = dative; dem = demonstrative; fin = nite; fn = formal noun (following Ono 2006); foc(.polite) = focus (polite); gen = genitive; loc = locative; n = nominalizer; neg = negation; nom = nominative; p = postposition; past = past tense; pres = present tense; prog = progressive; stat = stative; top = topic
Studia Linguistica 64(1) 2010, pp. 5580. The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

56 Naoyuki Yamato (2) a. *John-wa [Mary-ga nante takusan-no gakusee-ni okotta J-top M-nom nante2 many-gen student-dat angry noda-roo]-koto-o/to sitteiru. foc-mood-fn-acc/c know John knows how very many students Mary got angry at. (Onos 2006:51 6) b. John-wa [Mary-ga nante takusan-no hon-o yonda J-top M-nom nante many-gen book-acc read noda-roo-ka]-to omotteiru. foc-mood-q-c think-be John thinks, how very many books Mary read. (Onos 2006:51 10) In this paper I argue that the above-observed cross-linguistic discrepancy on the embedded distribution of exclamatives is attributed to the interrogative and declarative syntax that English and Japanese exclamatives have, respectively. Further, I claim that the restriction on the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives is straightforwardly explained by assuming the left periphery structure in line with Onos (2006) proposal. He argues that the clause-nal particles in Japanese exclamative clauses, namely no da roo, are realizations of the heads of the functional projections in the left periphery: FiniteP, FocusP and MoodP, respectively.
(3) Syntactic structure of Japanese exclamatives proposed in Ono (2006) MoodP

FocusP

Mood roo

FiniteP

Focus da

IP John

Finite no what a big car bought

2 The morpheme nante in Japanese exclamatives is glossed in Ono and generally as a wh-element, but throughout in this paper it is glossed simply as nante for a reason discussed later in the paper: I argue that exclamatives in Japanese have declarative syntax.

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 57 Another property of Japanese exclamatives I illustrate in this paper is that the subject DP in exclamatives, when it does not bear the morpheme nante, is obligatorily marked as an aboutness topic or an exhaustive listing focus:3 (4) a. John-wa nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no John-top nante big car-acc buy-past fin What a big car John bought! b. John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin What a big car John *(and only John) bought! da (roo)! foc mood da (roo)! foc mood

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, I use the tests for exclamativity from Portner & Zanuttini (2000) and Zanuttini & Portner (2000, 2003) to show that what Ono (2006) and I refer to as exclamatives in Japanese are indeed exclamatives in Zanuttini & Portners sense, i.e., they pattern with the English exclamatives that they discuss. The above-mentioned cross-linguistic discrepancy on the embedded distribution of exclamatives is discussed in Section 3. In Section 4 I argue for a cartographic analysis of the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives using a left periphery structure based on Rizzis (1997) and Haegemans (2006) approaches as well as Onos proposal. Section 5 presents the obligatory aboutness topic/exhaustive listing focus reading on the subject DP in exclamatives. Section 6 summarizes the discussions.

2. Exclamativity of exclamatives in Japanese In Japanese, the ingredients of the exclamative construction are the morpheme nante and a sequence of clause-nal morphemes, no da (roo): (5) John-wa nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da (roo)! John-top nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc mood What a big car John bought! (6) John-wa nante kuruma-o kat-ta no da (roo)! John-top nante car-acc buy-past fin foc mood What a car John bought!

3 I call X-ga as an exhaustive listing ga-marked argument when X is the only argument that satises the predicate of the clause: the notion is more extensively discussed in the literature, e.g., Kuno (1973) and Kuroda (2005).

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

58 Naoyuki Yamato (7) John-wa nante chooshin na no da (roo)! John-top nante tall cop fin foc mood How tall John is! (8) John-wa nante hayaku gakkoo-ni ki-ta no da (roo)! John-top nante early school-loc come-past fin foc mood How early John came to the school! In Portner & Zanuttini (2000) and Zanuttini & Portner (2000, 2003), one can nd three criteria for exclamatives: the scalar implicature test, the question/answer test and the factivity test. I show in this section that Japanese exclamatives pattern with their English counterparts when the rst two tests are applied. In the next section, I show that this is not the case for the factivity test.

2.1. Scalar implicature test Since [e]xclamatives introduce a conventional scalar implicature to the eect that the proposition they denote lies at the extreme end of some contextually given scale (Zanuttini & Portner 2003:47), an expression of scalar implicature is used as a criterion for exclamatives. It was rst noticed by Elliott (1974) that exclamatives are not compatible with negated scalar implicature expressions (9a) while they are compatible with positive scalar implicature expressions (9b) (Zanuttini & Portners 2003:47 15): (9) a. *It isnt amazing how very cute he is! b. It is amazing how very cute he is! As one can see from the examples below, Japanese exclamatives pattern with their English counterparts in this respect: (10) a. *Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past da (roo) to] odoroka-nakat-ta. foc mood comp be.amazed-neg-past Mary was not amazed at what a big car John bought. b. Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past da (roo) to] odoroi-ta. foc mood comp be.amazed-past Mary was amazed at what a big car John bought. no fin

no fin

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 59 2.2. Question/answer test In order to distinguish exclamatives from interrogatives, which may also contain wh-elements, Zanuttini & Portner introduce the question/answer test: interrogatives may be responded to with an answer (11) but not exclamatives (12) (Zanuttini & Portners 2003:47 1718): (11) A: How tall is he? B: Seven feet. (12) A: How very tall he is! B: *Seven feet. The same contrast is observed between interrogatives (13) and exclamatives (14) in Japanese: (13) A: John-wa dore-dake ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no? John-top which-much big car-acc buy-past fin How big car did John buy? B: 4-ton torakku. 4-ton truck (14) A: John-wa nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da (roo)! John-top nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc mood What a big car John bought! B: *4-ton torakku. 4-ton truck Zanuttini & Portner also show that in English, the exclamative construction cannot be used as an answer to a question (15) (Zanuttini & Portners 2003:48 21). This holds for Japanese as well (16). (15) A: How tall is Tonys child? B: *How very tall he is! (16) A: John-wa dore-dake ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no? John-top which-much big car-acc buy-past fin How big a car did John buy? B: *Kare-wa nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da (roo)! he-top nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc mood What a big car he bought!

3. Cross-linguistic discrepancy on the embedded distribution of exclamatives The factivity of exclamatives was rst noticed by Elliott (1974), and it is Zanuttini & Portners (2003) third criterion for exclamatives: exclama The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

60 Naoyuki Yamato tives may be embedded under factive predicates, but not under nonfactive ones (Zanuttini & Portners 2003:48 12): (17) Mary knows/*thinks/*wonders how very cute he is. In Japanese, however, exclamatives may not be embedded under a factive predicate such as shiru know (18a) while they may be embedded under a non-factive predicate such as omou think and iu say (18bc) exactly the opposite pattern to what is observed in English. (18) a. *John-wa [Mary-ga nante takusan-no gakusee-ni okotta J-top M-nom nante many-gen student-dat angry noda-roo]-koto-o/to sitteiru. foc-mood-fn-acc/c know John knows how very many students Mary got angry at. (Onos 2006:51 6) b. John-wa [Mary-ga nante takusan-no gakusee-ni John-top Mary-nom nante many-gen student-dat okot-ta no da roo to] omot-teiru. get.angry-past fin foc mood comp think-stat John thinks how very many students Mary got angry at. c. John-wa [Mary-ga nante takusan-no gakusee-ni John-top Mary-nom nante many-gen student-dat okot-ta no da roo to] it-ta. get.angry-past fin foc mood comp say-past John said how very many students Mary got angry at. One might wonder whether the instances of exclamatives in (18bc) are in fact cases of embedding because verbs such as iu say and omou think in the language may occur with a direct quotation: (19) a. Maryi-wa [watashii-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta to] Mary-top I-nom big car-acc buy-past comp it-ta. say-past Mary said: I bought a big car. b. Maryi-wa [watashii-ga ichiban kashikoi to] omot-teiru. Mary-top I-nom most intelligent comp think-stat Mary thinks: I am the most intelligent. In order to test whether the embedded exclamatives are embedded clauses or main clauses, I use pronoun binding as a test: whether a third person pronoun can be bound by the matrix quantier subject or not. The result

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 61 of the test indicates that Japanese exclamatives may in fact be embedded under verbs such as iu and omou:4 (20) Daremoi-ga [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o karei/j-no everyone-nom John-nom nante big car-acc he-gen gareeji-ni tome-ta no da (roo) to] omot-teiru. garage-loc park-past fin foc mood comp think-stat Everyone thinks what a big car John parked in his garage. Returning to the cross-linguistic contrast on the embedded distribution of exclamatives observed in (1718), there are essentially two logically possible approaches to the contrast, namely (i) attributing it to complement taking properties of the matrix predicates in the two languages and (ii) attributing it to the nature of exclamatives in the languages. The former approach, however, seems unlikely to work because English know and Japanese shiru behave in the same way in terms of complement taking elsewhere, and so do English think and Japanese omou. The point is illustrated below with declaratives (2122), wh-interrogatives (2324) and yes/no-interrogatives (2526): (21) a. Mary knows that John ate the cake. b. Mary-wa [John-ga keeki-o tabe-ta to] shit-teiru. Mary-top John-nom cake-acc eat-past comp know-stat

At rst, it seems that what looks like embedded exclamatives are instances of direct quotations: [kare??i/j-ga nante ookina kuruma-o mi-ta no da (roo) (i) Daremoi-ga everyone-nom he-nom nante big car-acc see-past fin foc mood to] omot-teiru. comp think-stat Everyone thinks what a big car he saw. As one can see in (i), the third person pronoun, kare he, cannot be bound by the matrix quantier subject, daremo everyone, which suggests that the exclamative part in the example is not an instance of embedding. A closer look, however, shows that this is an instance of what is known as the Montalbetti eect. Montalbetti (1984) observes that in pro-drop languages such as Spanish and Japanese, an overt pronoun cannot be A-bound if an empty pronoun is possible in that position (Montalbetti 1984:183 2): [kare*i/j-ga atama-ga ii to] omotte iru. (ii) a. Daremoi-ga everyone-nom he-nom be-smart comp think Everyone thinks that he is smart. b. Daremoi-ga [[ei/j] atama-ga ii to] omotte iru. On the other hand, it turns out that genitive pronouns are harder to be empty, and, as Montalbetti would predict, possible to be A-bound: (iii) a. Daremoi-ga [John-ga karei/j-no gareeji-ni kuruma-o tome-ta to] everyone-nom John-nom he-gen garage-loc car-acc park-past comp omot-teiru. think-stat Everyone thinks that John parked a car in his garage. b. Daremo-ga [John-ga (??[e]) gareeji-ni kuruma-o tome-ta to] omot-teiru.
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

62 Naoyuki Yamato (22) a. Mary thinks that John ate the cake. b. Mary-wa [John-ga keeki-o tabe-ta to] omot-teiru. Mary-top John-nom cake-acc eat-past comp think-stat (23) a. Mary knows what John ate. b. Mary-wa [John-ga nani-o tabe-ta ka] shit-teiru. Mary-top John-nom what-acc eat-past q know-stat (24) a. *Mary thinks what John ate. b. *Mary-wa [John-ga nani-o tabe-ta ka] omot-teiru. Mary-top John-nom what-acc eat-past q think-stat (25) a. Mary knows whether John ate the cake. b. Mary-wa [John-ga keeki-o tabe-ta kadooka] shit-teiru. Mary-top John-nom cake-acc eat-past whether know-stat (26) a. *Mary thinks whether John ate the cake. b. *Mary-wa [John-ga keeki-o tabe-ta kadooka] omot-teiru. Mary-top John-nom cake-acc eat-past whether think-stat Another approach, namely attributing the above-observed cross-linguistic contrast regarding the embedded distribution of exclamatives to the nature of exclamatives, seems to fare better although the property in question cannot be factivity because Japanese exclamatives do occur under some factive verbs: (27) Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc (roo) to] odoroi-ta. mood comp be.amazed-past Mary was amazed at what a big car John bought. A number of authors have argued that exclamative clauses essentially have a syntax/semantics of wh-interrogatives (see for example dAvis 2002, Zanuttini & Portner 2000, 2003 and Sb this volume). In the rest of this section, I argue that the above-observed contrast between English exclamatives and their Japanese counterparts is an indication that, unlike in English, Japanese exclamatives have a declarative syntax. First observe in (28) below that Norwegian has two constructions to express adjectival exclamatives, with hvor how and with sa so, and when they are embedded, they both pattern with English exclamatives in the sense that they can be embedded under factive predicates (29a) but not under, say, assertive verbs (29b):

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 63 (28) a. Hvor veldig vakker han er. how very beautiful he is b. Sa veldig vakker han er. so very beautiful he is (29) a. Det er utrolig hvor/sa it is incredible how/so b. *Marit sier hvor/sa veldig Marit says how/so very veldig vakker han er. very beautiful he is vakker han er. beautiful he is

However, ystein Vangsnes (personal communication) provides me with a case where the predicate a vite to know may embed hvor-exclamatives but not sa-exclamatives: (30) Marit vet hvor/*sa veldig vakker han er. Marit knows how/so very beautiful he is This seems to be an indication that the hvor-exclamatives pattern with English exclamatives, and that the sa-exclamatives pattern with Japanese exclamatives. This further indicates that the former may be a type of embedded interrogatives and thus embedded under (a subset of) the predicates that embed interrogatives whereas the latter are declarative exclamatives in the sense that they are embedded under a subset of predicates that embed declarative clauses, such as say and think (cf. Grimshaw 1979). The fact that the former type of exclamatives contains an overt wh-element whereas it is not the case with the latter supports this view. Japanese exclamatives at rst do seem to contain a wh-phrase, nante, but unlike in languages like English and Norwegian, where the wh-element used in exclamatives, how and hvor, are widely used in interrogatives (31ab), the use of nante in interrogatives is quite restricted: it only has a quotative use (32ab). (31) a. How tall is John? b. Hvor vakker er han? how beautiful is he (32) a. John-wa dore-dake/*nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no? John-top which-much/nante big car-acc buy-past fin How big a car did John buy? b. John-wa nante it-ta no? John-top nante say-past fin What did John say? Assuming nante is not a wh-phrase in the same sense as how is in English and hvor is in Norwegian, the generalization seems to hold that wh-exclamatives, i.e., English exclamatives and hvor-exclamatives in Norwegian, may only be embedded under a subset of question-embedding predicates whereas non-wh-exclamativs, i.e., sa-exclamatives in Norwegian
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

64 Naoyuki Yamato and Japanese exclamatives, may only be embedded under declarativeembedding predicates (cf. behaviours of English know and think and Japanese shiru know and omou think in terms of complement taking in 2126).5,6 4. A cartographic approach to a correlation among the embedded distributions of exclamatives, aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci in Japanese In the last section I have shown that the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives can be explained by analyzing them as embedded declaratives, as opposed to the standard analysis of exclamatives as interrogatives (e.g., Zanuttini & Portner 2003). In this section I will rst review Onos (2006) account of the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives in Subsection 4.1. In Subsection 4.2, I will present a correlation between the embedded distribution of exclamatives and that of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci in the language, and I argue that the observed distributional correlation can be best explained by a cartographic account that Ono calls a size account. 4.1. Onos (2006) accounts of the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives Onos (2006) study of Japanese exclamatives reveals not only that verbs that require an interrogative clause complement (i.e., tazuneru ask and kiku ask) cannot take an exclamative clause as a complement (Ono 2006:49) but also that verbs that only take a proposition as their complement are unable to embed exclamatives (sinziru believe, syutyooThe selection of predicates that embed English exclamatives and hvor-exclamatives in Norwegian among the question-embedding predicates is however outside the scope of the present paper. For example, lure wonder may embed interrogatives (ia) but not hvorexclamatives (ib) (see also 17 for English): (i) a. Marit lurer hvor vakker han er. Marit wonders how beautiful he is b. *Marit lurer hvor veldigvakker han er. Marit wonders how very beautiful he is Rett (2009) also provides an account where wh-exclamatives are not analyzed as interrogatives. Namely, she claims, given that the content of wh-exclamatives is a degree property, that wh-exclamatives are free relatives. She further argues that multiple wh-exclamatives such as (i) below is ungrammatical because the illocutionary force operator associated with wh-exclamatives binds a free degree argument and because each utterance can presumably be expressed with only one ilocutionary force operator (Rett 2009:610): (i) *How very fat how very many people are! (Retts 2009:610 18b) Japanese, however, allows for multiple exclamatives as observed by Ono (2006:71 75a): (ii) [Nante osanai kodomo]-ga [nante muzukasii mondai]-o toita no da roo! nante young child-nom nante difficult problem-acc solved exc It is, therefore, not clear to me how Japanese exclamatives could be analyzed as free relatives.
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.
6 5

Japanese exclamatives 65 suru claim) (Ono 2006:49); see a summary of the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives in (34) below: (33) a. *John-wa [Mary-ga nante takusan-no gakusee-ni okotta J-top M-nom nante many-gen student-dat angry noda-roo-ka]-(to) tazuneta. foc-mood-c asked John asked how very many students Mary got angry at. (Onos 2006:49 1a) b. *John-wa [Mary-ga nante takusan-no hon-o yonda J-top M-nom nante many-gen book-acc read noda-roo]-to sinziteiru. foc-mood-c believe John believes how very many books Mary read. (Onos 2006:49 3a) (34) Summary of the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives (Onos 2006:52 12) koto-comp A. tazuneru ask kiku ask B. sinziru believe syutyoosuru claim C. sitteiru know oboeteiru remember D. kitaisuru hope nozomu wish E. omou think iu say F. odoroku be surprised akireru be amazed No Yes Yes Yes No Yes to-comp Yes exc = No Yes exc = No Yes?? exc = No Yes?? exc = No Yes exc = Yes Yes exc = Yes

As summarized in the table above, Ono observes an interesting condition for embedding exclamatives, namely that exclamatives are embedded only under the simplex complementizer to but not under what Ono calls a nominal complementizer (to-iu-)koto, which is best illustrated by the contrast in (35) below: (35) a. Mary-wa [John-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta Mary-top John-nom big car-acc buy-past to](-iu-koto-ni) odoroi-ta. comp-say-thing-dat be.amazed-past Mary was amazed that John bought a big car.

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

66 Naoyuki Yamato b. Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin da (roo) to](*-iu-koto-ni) odoroi-ta. foc mood comp-say-thing-dat be.amazed-past Mary was amazed at what a big car John bought. In order to account for the above-observed embedded distribution of exclamatives in Japanese, Ono considers two approaches that he calls a size account and an adnominal form account. The size account is a cartographic approach based on the functional hierarchy in the left periphery (cf. Rizzi 1997). Namely, the argument presented in Ono (2006) is that Japanese exclamatives contain the functional projections of FiniteP, FocusP and MoodP in the left periphery, and assuming that the noun complement structure is at most the size of FiniteP, exclamatives are too big to be embedded under the nominal complementizer (to-iu-)koto:
(36) Syntactic structure for Japanese exclamatives proposed in Ono (2006) MoodP

FocusP

Mood roo

FiniteP

Focus da

IP John

Finite no what a big car bought

As one can see in the structure above, Ono analyzes the clause-nal morphemes in the exclamative construction, no, da and roo to be realizations of the heads of FiniteP, FocusP and MoodP, respectively, in the left periphery of the clause (see his arguments in Chapter 2 of Ono 2006 together with Hiraiwa & Ishihara 2002 on which Ono builds his arguments on no-da), and thus the surface order of these morphemes is attributed to the hierarchical order of the functional projections that realize the morphemes as the head. This account makes a strong prediction that not only exclamatives but any construction that contains FiniteP, FocusP and MoodP in the left periphery, i.e., the morphemes no, da and roo clause-nally on the surface, would not be allowed under the
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 67 nominal complementizer (to-iu-)koto. This prediction is indeed borne out. As Ono (2006) points out, following Johnson (2003), the mood morpheme roo indicates the judgment of the speaker toward the proposition to which the morpheme attaches (Ono 2006:24). This is obviously not a property exclusive to exclamatives (Onos 2006:26 74): (37) John-wa osoraku hon-o kau-n(o)da-roo. J-top probably book-acc buy-noda-mood Probably, John would buy a book. It turns out that the embedded distribution of such constructions is identical to that of exclamatives. Namely, it may be embedded under the predicates that take the simplex complementizer to, such as omou think, but not under those that take the nominal complementizer to-iu-koto, such as shiru know: (38) a. Mary-wa [John-wa osoraku hon-o kau-no-da-roo Mary-top John-top probably book-acc buy-fin-foc-mood to] omot-teiru. comp think-stat Mary thinks John would probably buy a book. b. ??Mary-wa [John-wa osoraku hon-o kau-no-da-roo Mary-top John-top probably book-acc buy-fin-foc-mood to]-iu-koto-o shit-teiru. comp-say-thing-acc know-stat Mary knows John would probably buy a book.

Ono, however, further observes that a construction with the morpheme roo can be embedded under the nominal complementizer (to-iu-)koto when the morpheme no is dropped (note that no-de-ar-oo is merely a more complex/formal version of no-da-roo; cf. Onos 2006 Chapter 2): (39) a. *[John-ga kaetta-no-de-ar-oo]-koto-wa yooini soozoo-dekiru J-nom left-n-p-exist-mood-fn-top easily imagine-can It is very easy to imagine that John left. (Onos 2006:28 82) b. [John-ga kaetta-de-ar-oo]-koto-wa yooini soozoo-dekiru J-nom left-p-exist-mood-fn-top easily imagine-can It is very easy to imagine that John left. (Onos 2006:28 84) This piece of evidence leads Ono to reject the size account and, alternatively, propose an approach he calls an adnominal form account, where he argues that what is embedded under the nominal complementizer (to-iu-)koto is an adnominal form licensed by a syntactic C-T-v-V head amalgamation (see Hiraiwa 2001, 2002). Under Hiraiwas account of head amalgamation, the complementizer has to be axal in order to attract the verb to raise, pied-piping the functional projections, to form a morphological unit. According to this adnominal form account, therefore, the unavailability of a construction with no-da-roo is because
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

68 Naoyuki Yamato the particles no-da/no-dearu are quite dierent from the copula, and are in fact a realization of the complementizer (Ono 2006:23), and since it is then not axal, licensing of a legitimate adnominal form fails, yielding ungrammaticality, whereas this is not the case when the morpheme no is dropped. In the remainder of this section, I will present a piece of data that shows a correlation between the embedded distribution of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci and that of exclamatives in Japanese, and I will argue that the observed correlation is best accounted for by a cartographic account in terms of the size of the left periphery.

4.2. Parallel embedded distributions of aboutness topics, exhaustive listing foci and exclamatives in Japanese a cartographic approach Based on the classication of predicates in Hooper & Thompson (1973), Yamato (2007) shows that in Japanese, (strongly- and weakly-)assertive predicates (Class A and B predicates in Hooper & Thompsons taxonomy) may embed exhaustive listing focus (or aboutness topic) constructions (4041). Non-assertive predicates (Class C) (42) and factive verbs (Class D) (43) may not: (40) Class A: strongly-assertive predicates Mary-wa [John-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta to] it-ta. Mary-top John-nom big car-acc buy-past comp say-past Mary said John (and only John) bought a big car. (41) Class B: weakly-assertive predicates Mary-wa [John-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta to] omot-teiru. Mary-top John-nom big car-acc buy-past comp think-stat Mary thinks John (and only John) bought a big car. (42) Class C: non-assertive predicates Mary-wa [John-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta Mary-top John-nom big car-acc buy-past to]-iu-koto-o utagat-teiru. comp-say-thing-acc doubt-stat Mary doubts that John (*and only John) bought a big car. (43) Class D: factive predicates Mary-wa [John-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta Mary-top John-nom big car-acc buy-past to]-iu-koto-o shit-teiru. comp-say-thing-acc know-stat Mary knows that John (*and only John) bought a big car.
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 69 Based on Rizzis (1997) and Haegemans (2006) left periphery structures, Yamato (2007) argues that in Japanese, aboutness topicalized / exhaustive listing focalized argument DPs occupy positions in the left peripheral functional projections, namely SpecTopicP and SpecFocusP, respectively. Non-aboutness topicalized and non-exhaustive listing arguments are within the IP domain. The paper further contends that this is why aboutness topicalized / exhaustive listing focalized argument DPs do not appear in the complements of non-assertive predicates and factive predicates while they do appear in the complements of assertive predicates. The former do not have ForceP and thus may not project TopicP and FocusP, while the latter do have ForceP and thus may project TopicP and FocusP above it:
(44) Syntactic positions for wa/ga-marked elements proposed in Yamato (2007) TopicP X-waTOP FocusP Y-gaexh

ForceP

IP Z-ganon-exh

Let us now return to exclamatives. It turns out that the embedded distribution of exclamatives parallels that of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci in the sense that assertive predicates embed exclamatives (4546) whereas non-assertive and factive predicates do not (4748). (45) Class A: strongly-assertive predicates Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc (roo) to] it-ta. mood comp say-past Mary said what a big car John bought.

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

70 Naoyuki Yamato (46) Class B: weakly-assertive predicates Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc (roo) to] omot-teiru. mood comp think-stat Mary thinks what a big car John bought. (47) Class C: non-assertive predicates *Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc (roo) to]-iu-koto-o utagat-teiru. mood comp-say-thing-acc doubt-stat Mary doubts what a big car John bought. (48) Class D: factive predicates *Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc (roo) to]-iu-koto-o shit-teiru. mood comp-say-thing-acc know-stat Mary knows what a big car John bought. A closer look, however, reveals that the distribution of exclamatives is more restricted than that of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci. Assertive predicates such as shinjiru believe and shuchoo suru claim may embed aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci (49a) but not exclamatives (49b): (49) a. Mary-wa [John-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta to] Mary-top John-nom big car-acc buy-past comp shinji-teiru. believe-stat Mary believes that John (and only John) bought a big car. b. *Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin da (roo) to] shinji-teiru. foc mood comp believe-stat Mary believes what a big car John bought. We have observed above that the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives is not identical to that of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci; the former is more restricted than the latter. We now need an analysis that (i) accounts for the embedded distribution of exclamatives independently of that of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci yet still (ii) links the two phenomena since the predicates that may embed exclamatives seem to be a subset of those that embed topics and exhaustive listing foci. Onos (2006) adnominal form account, as presented in the last subsection, accounts for the independent embedded
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 71 distribution of exclamatives but does not account for the above-observed correlation. The cartographic approach, on the other hand, neatly takes care of the both problems. As seen in works such as Haegeman (2006), cartography provides a tool for explaining embedded distribution of various phenomena related to the CP domain. The richer the functional projections in the left periphery a construction requires, the more restricted the embedded distribution of the construction is. For example, Haegeman shows that in English, the availability of argument fronting in peripheral adverbial clauses (50a) and its unavailability in central adverbial clauses (50b) are due to the presence/absence of ForceP, which accommodates the assertion of the clause and makes available higher functional projections such as TopicP and FocusP which host the fronted arguments (51): (50) a. If these problems we cannot solve, there are many others that we can tackle immediately. (Haegemans 2006:33 14f) b. *If these exams you dont pass you wont get the degree. (Haegemans 2006:33 12a) 18bd) Fin Fin Fin

(51) The left periphery structure (Haegemans 2006:36 a. Central adverbial clause: Sub Mod* b. Peripheral adverbial Sub Top Focus Force Mod* clause: c. Root clause: Top Focus Force Mod*

Onos size account of the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives works in much the same way as Haegemans (2006) analysis of English argument fronting in adverbial clauses. The claim is that the restriction on the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives is due to the presence of MoodP in the left periphery, which hosts the notion of the presumptive mood (Johnson 2003) of the clause. Implementing Onos size account and extending Yamatos (2007) proposal that the restricted embedded distribution of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci is due to the presence/absence of ForceP, I argue that the restriction on the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives is attributed to the presence/absence of MoodP: (52) a. Embedding under non- Sub Fin assertive V: b. Embedding under Sub Top Focus Force Fin believe-V: c. Embedding under say/ Sub Mood Top Focus Force Fin think-V: d. Root clauses Mood Top Focus Force Fin
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

72 Naoyuki Yamato Yamato (2007) argues that aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci may be embedded under assertive predicates but not under non-assertive and factive ones. This is because the former may embed a clause with a functional projection, namely ForceP, which allows for higher projections in the left periphery such as TopicP and FocusP. These, in turn, host aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci. In the present paper I extend the argument that the embedded distribution of exclamatives is more restricted than that of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci because exclamatives contain a functional projection, namely MoodP, which is projected higher than TopicP and FocusP. The evidence for this assertion comes from the morphological order of the clause-nal particles, as well as from the fact that only a limited set of assertive predicates (which includes iu say and omou think but excludes shinjiru believe) may embed a clause with MoodP. The analysis is further strengthened when one notes that the observed restriction on embedding occurs not only with exclamatives but also with other types of clauses with the mood morpheme. The following example demonstrates that any clause with the clause-nal morpheme roo cannot be embedded under shinjiru believe (compare also 18 ab and 38): (53)
??

Mary-wa [John-wa osoraku hon-o kau-no-da-roo to] Mary-top John-top probably book-acc buy-fin-foc-mood comp shinji-teiru. believe-stat Mary believes John would probably buy a book.

This piece of evidence provides further support for the present claim that the restriction on the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives is attributed to the presence of the functional projection MoodP in the left periphery. I have argued above that presence of MoodP, of which the morpheme roo is the morphological realization, is responsible for the restriction on the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamatives. Given the argument, it is predicted that as soon as the morpheme roo is dropped, the restriction will be weakened. The data presented in this paper, however, points to the opposite. As one can see from the examples presented, the mood morpheme roo seems to be optional in Japanese exclamatives. Yet it is observed that the embedded distribution of exclamatives is restricted in the same way no matter if they contain the morpheme roo or not. In order to account for this observation, I follow Onos (2006) claim that the morpheme roo in Japanese exclamatives must be covertly present when it

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 73 is not pronounced. A piece of evidence for his claim is that in the polite form of exclamatives, the morpheme yoo, the counterpart of roo, is obligatory: (54) a. *John-wa nante kasiko-i-no-desu! J-top nante intelligent-pres-fin-foc.polite b. John-wa nante kasiko-i-no-des-yoo! J-top nante intelligent-pres-fin-foc.polite-mood How very intelligent John is! (Onos 2006:6 4) I argue, therefore, that MoodP is always projected in exclamatives and blocks embedding under the believe-type of predicates. Before concluding the section, I illustrate yet another correlation between embedded exclamatives and embedded aboutness topics/ exhaustive listing foci, with respect to complementizer selection. Recall that the grammaticality of embedded exclamatives depends on the selection of the complementizer. Exclamatives are allowed under the simplex complementizer to whereas they are not allowed under the complex to-iu-koto. It is demonstrated in (35), which is repeated below: (55) a. Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin da (roo) to] odoroi-ta. foc mood comp be.amazed-past Mary was amazed at what a big car John bought. b. *Mary-wa [John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o Mary-top John-nom nante big car-acc kat-ta no da (roo) to]-iu-koto-ni odoroi-ta. buy-past fin foc mood comp-say-thing-dat be.amazed-past Mary was amazed at what a big car John bought. As demonstrated in (4043) and (4548), this seems to hold for the embedded distributions of both aboutness topics / exhaustive listing foci and exclamatives under predicates of all classes. Onos (2006) adnominal form approach assumes that the inability of exclamatives to be embedded under the nominal complementizer (to-iu-)koto is attributed to the fact that exclamatives resist the syntactic amalgamation to form a legitimate adnominal form, and he illustrates this point by showing that Japanese exclamatives in general resist nomi-

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

74 Naoyuki Yamato nalization (56b) as opposed to for example interrogatives (56a) (Onos 2006:53 14a and 15a): (56) a. John-wa [Mary-ga doko-e itta]-ka(-o) tazuneta. J-top M-nom where-to went-q-acc asked John asked where Mary went. b. *John-wa [Mary-ga nante mazusii]-no-da-roo(-o) nageita. J-top M-nom nante poor-fin-foc-mood-acc lamented John lamented how very poor Mary is.

Under Onos adnominal form account, aboutness topics and exhaustive foci are not predicted to resist nominalization as long as they do not contain the non-axal complementizer no-da. However, this prediction is not borne out: (57) a. *John-wa keeki-o tabe-ta to-iu jijitsu John-top cake-acc eat-past comp-say fact the fact that John ate the cake b. John-ga keeki-o tabe-ta to-iu jijitsu John-nom cake-acc eat-past comp-say fact the fact that John (*and only John) ate the cake A plausible explanation for why this is so would be to attribute the absence of aboutness topics and exhaustive foci (and hence exclamatives) under the to-iu-koto complementizer and in nominalization to lack of illocutionary force in such constructions, i.e., the lack of ForceP failing at licensing TopicP and FocusP and thus also failing at accommodating necessary ingredients for the left periphery composition of exclamatives. In this subsection I have sketched out a cartographic approach that accounts for both (i) the embedded distributional parallelism among aboutness topics, exhaustive listing foci and exclamatives in Japanese and (ii) a more restricted distribution of embedded exclamatives compared to that of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci. I have shown that both observations are straightforwardly accounted for by assuming the functional projection MoodP in the left periphery of the exclamative construction in Japanese. Namely, that MoodP is projected above FocusP (and presumably TopicP), which receives evidence from the surface order of the clause-nal morphemes, provides an explanation for the restriction on the embedded distribution of the exclamatives that is stricter than that on the embedded distribution of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci:

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 75
(58) Embedded distribution of aboutness topics, (non-)exhaustive listing foci and exclamatives Subset of assertive verbs (e.g., say/think) MoodP Assertive verbs (e.g., say/think, believe) TopicP X-waTOP FocusP Y-gaexh ForceP (Non-)assertive verbs (e.g., say/think, believe, doubt, know) IP Z-ganon-exh

5. Obligatory aboutness topic or exhaustive listing focus reading on the subject DP of Japanese exclamatives In Japanese, the subject DP may be marked with either the nominative case marker, ga (59a), or the aboutness topic marker, wa (59b). When it is ga-marked, as seen in (59a), and similarly, when an object DP is accusative o-marked, the reading is ambiguous between an exhaustive listing reading and a non-exhaustive listing reading: (59) a. John-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta. John-nom big car-acc buy-past John (and only John) bought a big car (and only a big car). b. John-wa ookina kuruma-o kat-ta. John-top big car-acc buy-past As for John, he bought a big car (and only a big car). One may have noticed that the subject DPs of all the matrix exclamatives in this paper (and in fact most of the exclamative examples in the literature) are topic wa-marked. The question is, then, whether they are obligatorily wa-marked, or whether there are cases where the subject is simply nominative case-marked in the exclamative construction. The
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

76 Naoyuki Yamato answer is that there are indeed cases where the exclamative subject is ga-marked, but in such a case, it gets a special interpretation: it is obligatorily interpreted with an exhaustive listing reading unlike in normal declarative construction (compare 60 with 59a).7 (60) John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da (roo)! John-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin foc mood What a big car (and only what a big car) John *(and only John) bought! This is exemplied by the fact that the example is infelicitous under a context that requires the subject argument to bear a non-exhaustive listing reading such as the following: (61) Context: A bunch of people including John bought a surprisingly big car. #John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da (roo)! Notice, however, that the obligatory exhaustive listing reading is not imposed on the object DP, kuruma car, in (60). The interpretation of the object DP in exclamatives is still ambiguous between an exhaustive listing reading and a non-exhaustive listing reading as in normal declarative constructions (see 59). Another example of this subject-object asymmetry is found in the example below: (62) John-ga keeki-o nante hayaku tabe-ta no da (roo)! John-nom cake-acc nante quickly eat-past fin foc mood How very quickly John *(and only John) ate the cakes (and only the cakes)! In the literature, there are a number of tests for exhaustivity. In this section, I apply (i) the coordination and entailment test taken from Szabolcsi (1981) and (ii) the compatibility test with oozeino hito many people taken from Kuno (1973), to show that the subject DP in exclamatives does have an obligatory exhaustive listing reading. The rst test I apply is the coordination and entailment test (Szabolcsi 1981). A sentence with coordination, with an exhaustive listing reading, does not entail the same sentence without one of the coordinates. A sentence with non-exhaustive listing coordination, however, does entail the same example with one of the coordinates dropped. When given a context which forces a non-exhaustive listing reading, therefore, a normal
It is noteworthy that the subject DP of simplex stative predicates is also obligatorily topicalized or exhaustive listing focalized (observed in the literature, e.g., Kuno 1973): (i) John-ga gakusee da. John-nom student cop John *(and only John) is a student. (ii) John-wa gakusee da. John-top student cop
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.
7

Japanese exclamatives 77 declarative sentence with coordination will entail the same sentence without one of the coordinates: (63) Context: (A bunch of people, including) Taroo and Mary, each bought a big car. a. Taroo to Mary-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta. Taroo and Mary-nom big car-acc buy-past Taroo and Mary bought a big car. b. ) Taroo-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta. Taroo bought a big car. When the test is applied to an exclamative construction, however, a dierent result is obtained. When the nominative-marked subject of an exclamative clause is coordinated, the sentence does not entail the same example with one of the coordinated subjects dropped: (64) Context: John and Mary each bought a surprisingly big car. a. John to Mary-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no John and Mary-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin da (roo)! foc mood What a big car John and Mary bought! b. ; John-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no da (roo)! What a big car John bought! This test therefore shows that the subject DP of exclamatives cannot be interpreted without an exhaustive listing reading. The second test deals with compatibility of exhaustivity with the DP oozeino hito many people. It is rst observed in Kuno (1973) that this DP, oozeino hito, never gets an exhaustive listing reading (65a). Similarly, the English counterpart is also ungrammatical (65b): (65) a. oozeino hito-ga ookina kuruma-o kat-ta. many person-nom big car-acc buy-past Many people bought a big car. b. *Many people and only many people came to the party. If the nominative-marked subject DP in exclamatives always has an exhaustive listing reading, we would predict that oozeino hito may not be in the subject position of the exclamative construction with the nominative marker. This prediction is borne out: (66) *oozeino hito-ga nante ookina kuruma-o kat-ta no many person-nom nante big car-acc buy-past fin da (roo)! foc mood What a big car many people bought!

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

78 Naoyuki Yamato Assuming the left periphery structure argued for in this paper, I will attempt a tentative approach to the above-observed obligatory reading on the subject of exclamatives. Notice (i) that the relevant projections, namely TopicP and FocusP, are hierarchically lower than the other crucial ingredient of exclamatives, MoodP, in the left periphery, and (ii) that the hierarchical order between FocusP and MoodP is determined by the morphological order of the head morphemes of these projections. Since it was shown that MoodP is always present in Japanese exclamatives, I would like to suggest that FocusP (and presumably also TopicP) is also always present in the exclamative construction. Assuming a sort of EPP feature in the specier of such projections, the obligatory topic/exhaustive listing focus interpretation on the subject of exclamatives obtains. This solution, however, suers from a number of problems. Firstly, the proposed suggestion does not account for the fact that only the subject DP but not the object undergoes movement to receive an obligatory aboutness topic or exhaustive listing focus reading (see 60/62). Moreover, there exists a case in which the subject DP in an exclamative clause does not seem to have an exhaustive listing reading. It is when nante is attached to the subject DP: (67) nante oozeino hito-ga sono kuruma-o kat-ta no da nante many person-nom dem car-acc buy-past fin foc (roo)! mood How very many people bought the car (and only the car)! As one can see in comparing (66) and (67), oozeino hito, which is incompatible with an exhaustive listing reading, can be the subject of exclamatives only if the nante is attached to it. Secondly, the system does not account for the fact that it is enough to activate either one of TopicP or FocusP to further project the higher projection MoodP, i.e., the subject only gets either an aboutness topic reading or an exhaustive listing focus reading but not both. Since I do not have a proposal that accounts for these problems, I leave the issues for future research. 6. Conclusion In this paper, I have proposed an account of the embedded distribution of Japanese exclamative clauses. Unlike in English, Japanese exclamatives may not be embedded under factive (or question-taking) predicates but may be embedded under some declarative-embedding predicates. With the observation that Norwegian wh-exclamatives pattern with English exclamatives whereas Norwegian non-wh-exclamatives pattern with Japanese exclamatives in terms of their embedded distribution,
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Japanese exclamatives 79 I have argued that this cross-linguistic discrepancy is attributed to the interrogative and declarative syntax that English and Japanese exclamatives have, respectively. I have further presented data that shows a correlation between the embedded distribution of aboutness topics and exhaustive listing foci and that of exclamatives. Given the observation, I have argued that the restriction on the embedding distribution of Japanese exclamatives is best explained by a cartographic approach Ono (2006) calls a size account. I have also presented a piece of data that shows that the subject DPs of Japanese exclamatives are obligatorily interpreted with either an aboutness topic or an exhaustive listing focus. I have left unsolved, however, some of the problems such the subjectobject asymmetry, which are therefore left for future research. References
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. DAvis, F.-J. 2002. On the interpretation of wh-clauses in exclamative environments. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 531. Elliott, D.E. 1974. Toward a grammar of exclamations. Foundations of Language 11: 231246. Endo, Y. 2007. Locality and information structure: A cartographic approach to Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grimshaw, J. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10 Vol.2, 279326. Haegeman, L. 2006. Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the left periphery. Negation, tense and clausal architecture: Cross-linguistic investigations. eds. R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger & P. Portner, 2752. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Hiraiwa, K. 2001. On nominative-genitive conversion. A few from building E39: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39. eds. E. Guerzoni & O. Matushansky, 66124. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Hiraiwa, K. 2002. Nominative-genitive conversion revisited. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10. eds. N. Akatsuka, S. Strauss & B. Comrie, 546558. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Hiraiwa, K. & Ishihara, S. 2002. Missing links: Cleft, sluicing, and no da construction in Japanese. Proceedings of HUMIT 2001: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43. eds. T. Ionin, H. Ko & A. Nevins, 3554. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Hooper, J. & Thompson, S. 1973. On the applicability of root transformation. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465497. Johnson, Y. 2003. Modality and the Japanese language. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan. Kuno, S. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kuroda, S.-Y. 2005. Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14: 158. Montalbetti, M. 1984. After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ph.D. diss. Ono, H. 2006. An investigation of exclamatives in English and Japanese: Syntax and sentence processing. University of Maryland. Ph.D. diss.
The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

80 Naoyuki Yamato
Portner, P. & Zanuttini, R. 2000. The force of negation in wh exclamatives and interrogatives. Studies in negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives. eds. L. R. Horn & Y. Kato, 201239. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rett, J. 2009. A degree account of exclamatives. Proceedings of SALT XVIII. eds. T. Friedman & S. Ito, 601618. CLC Publications. Rizzi, L. 1997. The ne structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar. ed. L. Haegeman. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Szabolcsi, A. 1981. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. Formal methods in the study of language. eds. J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen & M. Stokhof, 513541. Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum. Yamato, N. 2007. On topic and focus: An account of wa/ga-markers in Japanese. University of Troms. M.Phil. thesis. Zanuttini, R. & Portner, P. 2000. The characterization of exclamative clauses in Paduan. Language 76 Vol. 1, 123132. Zanuttini, R. & Portner, P. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79 Vol. 1, 3981. Naoyuki Yamato University of Troms/CASTL Fakultet for humaniora, samfunnsvitenskap og lrerutdanning Universitetet i Troms N-9037 Troms Norway naoyuki.yamato@uit.no

The author 2010. Journal compilation The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2010.

Copyright of Studia Linguistica is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.