Ryoichiro Kobayashi

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This paper tackles the issue of whether syntactic head movement exists in Japanese. Sato &amp; Hayashi (2018) and Sato &amp; Maeda (2021) propose that <jats:italic>Verb‐Echo Answers</jats:italic> (<jats:bold>VEAs</jats:bold>), an instance of <jats:italic>fragment answers</jats:italic>, in Japanese are derived via the so‐called <jats:italic>Verb‐stranding TP‐Ellipsis</jats:italic> (<jats:bold>VTPE</jats:bold>; i.e., TP‐ellipsis accompanied by verb‐raising to C), thereby claiming that head movement exists in Japanese as a syntactic operation. In response, this paper argues that <jats:italic>pro</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>Argument Ellipsis</jats:italic> (<jats:bold>AE</jats:bold>) in Japanese sufficiently account for the key observations presented in their works. Specifically, a careful examination of the discourse in each question‐answer pair reveals that the seemingly problematic scope patterns in VEAs do not call for the VTPE analysis. We also show that the unacceptability of voice mismatches in VEAs can be explained by a discourse‐based analysis within the Question Under Discussion framework. Further, we provide an extensive discussion on the alleged evidence against the <jats:italic>pro</jats:italic>/AE analysis concerning adjunct‐inclusive readings. We show that negative scope reversal effects, which Sato &amp; Maeda (2021) argue occur in VTPE, do not occur between adjuncts and negation in the novel data. Given this, we discuss possible ways to account for the availability of adjunct‐inclusive readings in VEAs with no recourse to VTPE, and suggest avenues for future research. The proposed analyses of VEAs shed new light on intriguing aspects of ellipsis phenomena, which involve complex interactions between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>This study argues against the verb-raising analysis of Japanese Non-Constituent Coordination (NCC), and consequently supports an alternative analysis with no recourse to verb movement in Narrow Syntax. I show that the verb-raising analysis under-generates regarding VP-fronting in Japanese. Furthermore, I point out that this analysis makes wrong predictions about the scope between heads and elements inside NCC. I conclude that there is no syntactic V-to-T-to-C verb-raising in Japanese NCC.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>The main aim of this study is to reconsider <jats:xref>Tomioka’s (2007)</jats:xref> pragmatic account of the <jats:sc>lf</jats:sc>-intervention effects (IE), and to claim that Polarity Sensitive Items (<jats:sc>psi</jats:sc>s) are genuine syntactic interveners. I will examine the parallelism among <jats:sc>psi</jats:sc>s in IE configurations, which is distinct from other interveners, and further claim that the study of IE should not be monolithic, but hybrid: Syntactic <jats:sc>lf</jats:sc>-interveners (<jats:sc>psi</jats:sc>s), blocking scopal interactions/Pragmatic interveners, causing illegal information structures. The predictions will be borne out that <jats:sc>psi</jats:sc>s actually cause IE in other contexts as well, which pragmatic accounts cannot explain (<jats:xref>Funakoshi &amp; Takahashi 2014</jats:xref>). Such hybrid perspectives bring back enormous findings on IE (e.g. <jats:sc>lf</jats:sc> wh-movement) to the field of syntax, without relegating all of them to pragmatics.</jats:p>