the mechanism of inverted relativization in japanese: a …hiraiwa/pdf/hiraiwa2012_jl.pdf(5b), the...

The mechanism of inverted relativizationin Japanese: A silent linker and inversion1

KEN HIRAIWA

Meiji Gakuin University

(Received 2 September 2009; revised 2 March 2011)

Japanese has two peculiar types of relative clause (RC), No-RCs and De-RCs. In these

types of relative clause, what looks like a (pivot) head noun appears at the left edge of

the clause and is accompanied by no and de, respectively. This sharply contrasts with

regular prenominal relative clauses in Japanese, which conform to the head-final

word order pattern. The aim of this article is to investigate the syntax and semantics

of these two types of relative clause in detail and reveal differences between them.

Specifically, I will propose that (i) no in No-RCs is an appositive genitive particle

licensed by a silent LINKER head, and (ii) de in De-RCs is a continuative/participial

form of the copula da. Drawing a parallel with NP-no NP constructions and building

on an idea from S.-Y. Kuroda’s dissertation, it will be argued that No-RCs are de-

rived by DP-internal inversion mediated by the linker. On the other hand, De-RCs

will be shown to be relatives conjoined with the copula de. It will be further suggested

that the fact that Korean and Mandarin Chinese lack equivalents of De-RCs is

due to the absence of the appositive genitive particle and hence of DP-internal

inversion.

1. IN T R O D U C T I O N

Japanese is a strictly head-final language with SOV word order, wh-in-situ,

and postpositions, and hence its Head-External Relative Clauses (HERCs),

along with attributive adjectives, are prenominal, conforming to Bach’s

Generalization (Bach 1971) and Greenberg’s implicational universal, cited in

[1] I am deeply grateful to two anonymous JL referees for very helpful comments. This work isdedicated to the memory of S.-Y. Kuroda. The project reported here is partially funded bythe Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (No. 22720168) for which I am very grateful.Thanks to Edith Aldridge, Tomo Fujii, Satoshi Kinsui, Akira Watanabe, John Whitman,and participants in the TCP Workshop 2010 (Keio University) and the 20th Japanese/Korean Linguistics (University of Oxford) as well as my graduate seminars at Meiji GakuinUniversity and Kwansei Gakuin University. I would like to thank Chung-hye Han andHeejeong Ko for Korean data, and Feng-Fan Hsieh for Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanesedata. I thank Adams Bodomo for kindly proofreading the manuscript. Finally, specialthanks to Caroline Heycock and Ewa Jaworska for their kind editorial help.

J. Linguistics, of 44. f Cambridge University Press 2012doi:10.1017/S0022226712000126

1

(2) below. In (1), the relativized head NP negi ‘ scallion’ follows the relative

clause.2

(1) Head-External Relative Clauses (HERCs; prenominal)

[[ei komakaku kizan-da] negii]-o tukat-ta.

finely cut-PST scallion-ACC use-PST

‘I used the scallions that were cut finely. ’

(2) Universal 24 (Greenberg 1963: 91)

If the relative expression precedes the noun either as the only construc-

tion or as an alternate construction, either the language is postposi-

tional, or the adjective precedes the noun or both.

In addition to prenominal HERCs, Japanese allows Head-Internal

Relative Clauses (HIRCs; see Kuroda 1974, 1992, 1999, 2008; Hiraiwa 2009;

Bodomo & Hiraiwa 2010, among many others). An HIRC is a relative clause

in which the relativized head noun remains in-situ with its original case

marking retained. In (3), the head noun negi ‘ scallion’ appears in the object

position of the embedded predicate kizan-da ‘cut-PST’ and hence must take

the accusative case particle -o. In addition, the fact that it is preceded by the

adverb komakaku ‘finely’ clearly indicates that it is structurally internal to

the relative clause.

(3) Head-Internal Relative Clauses (HIRCs)

[komakaku negi-o kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

finely scallion-ACC cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


Case marking does not change even if the head noun is scrambled to the left

of the adverb.

(4) HIRC

[negi-oi komakaku ti kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

scallion-ACC finely cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


However, Japanese has another peculiar type of relative clause – prima

facie ‘ left-headed’ relative clauses that Kuroda (1974, 1975–76, 1976–77,

1992) called no-introduced relatives (hereafter No-RCs) and de-introduced

relatives (hereafter De-RCs), exemplified in (5a) and (5b), respectively.

(5) (a) No-RC

[negi-no komakaku kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

scallion-NO1 finely cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


[2] In this article, I will use the notation e to avoid commitment to the issue of whether theelement in question is a movement trace/copy or a pro. See Appendix for list of abbrevia-tions used in example glosses.

K E N H I R A I W A

2

(b) De-RC

[negi-de komakaku kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

scallion-DE finely cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


In each example, the head of the relative clause is a thematic object of the

transitive verb kizan-da ‘cut-PST’, which is usually marked by the accusative

case particle -o, as we have seen in (3). In (5a), however, the head of the

relative clause negi ‘ scallions ’ is located at the left periphery and marked by

no, which is homophonous with the genitive case particle no. Similarly, in

(5b), the head of the relative clause is marked by de. Kuroda called such

relative clauses ‘ left-headed’.

Ever since Kuroda’s initial work, the phenomena have not been exten-

sively addressed (see Martin 1975, Kitagawa 1977 and Tsubomoto 1981 for

some sporadic discussions). These relative clauses are of special interest be-

cause what looks like the syntactic head noun, with the interesting markers

no and de, is located at the left edge of the relative clause. No in Japanese is

notoriously multifunctional : it is a genitive case particle, a complementizer, a

pronoun, and sometimes even a copula. Likewise, de is also ambiguous: it is

a copula, an instrumental, a locative, a verbal coordinator, and so on. The

main aim of this paper is to uncover the syntax of these relative clauses and

the nature of no and de found in them.

Let us look at the schema in (6) below. In the discussion that follows, I will

call the DPs headed by no1 and de a no-introduced NP and a de-introduced

NP, respectively. The element no2 at the end of the relative clause will be

called a POST-RELATIVE NO. These two instances of no will be glossed as NO1

and NO2, respectively, to avoid an a priori conclusion about the nature of

these elements for the moment.

(6) The schematic structure of No-RCs and De-RCs

[NP-no1/de _ V no2]

The main issue that I will address in this article are summarized in (7).

(7) (a) The syntactic structures of No-RCs and De-RCs (i.e. the positions of

the no- introduced NP and the de-introduced NP).

(b) The syntactic identities of no1 and de.

(c) The syntactic identity of the post-relative no2.

(d) The derivation of these two types of relative clause.

Specifically, I will argue that No-RCs are derived by DP-INTERNAL INVERSION

mediated by a silent LINKER head. On the other hand, following Kuroda

(1992), I will argue, with substantial evidence, that De-RCs are concealed

conjoined relative clauses. In other words, I will demonstrate that both

relative clauses are syntactically externally-headed. The syntactic structures

are represented below (we will consider the light noun projection (nP) later,

in Section 3).

I N V E R T E D R E L A T I V I Z A T I O N I N J A P A N E S E

3

(8) No-RCs

DP

LkP

NPi-no Lk

nP

CP n

tNP n

noi

Lk

D

(9) De-RCs

2

1

i

2

2Ø

i

As I will show, counterparts of No-RCs and De-RCs are not found in other

East Asian languages – Korean and Mandarin Chinese (and Taiwanese).

Thus, it is important to uncover the principle that is involved in the differ-

ence between Japanese and those languages.

The organization of this article is as follows. Section 2 overviews previous

studies and discusses the syntactic position of the no-introduced and

de-introduced NPs. Section 3 proposes analyses of No-RCs and De-RCs.

Sections 4 and 5 examine their syntactic structures in detail. Section 6 shows

that Korean and Chinese have no counterparts of No-RCs and De-RCs, and

K E N H I R A I W A

4

links their absence to the absence of the appositive X-Gen Y constructions.

Section 7 concludes the article.

2. PR E V I O U S A N A L Y S E S O F NO-RCS A N D DE-RCS

2.1 Kuroda (1974, 1975–76, 1976–77)

In a series of papers in the 1970s, S.-Y. Kuroda investigated No-RCs and De-

RCs for the first time in a generative framework. To the best of my knowledge,

there is no other detailed work on these constructions in other frameworks,

and his work still remains the only extensive study to date (but see Ishigaki

1955 and Kondo 2000 for some important observations about No-RCs).

Kuroda (1975–76) focused more on semantic/pragmatic differences

between these two types of relative clause and HIRCs than on their syntax.

Kuroda (1976–77) took up the issue of the syntactic status of no2 and

proposed an important syntactic analysis, shown in (11) below, of a No-RC

in (10), which involves ‘a major constituent break’ (Kuroda 1976–77: 169)

between the no-introduced NP and the rest. Thus, in the surface structure

(11b), Kuroda placed the no-introduced NP outside the relative clause S. He

proposed that the surface form obtains by applying Equi-NP deletion to the

underlying form (11a), which deletes the second NP.

(10) No-RC

[ringo-no aka-i no]-o tabe-ta.

apple-NO1 red-PRES NO2-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate a red apple. ’

(11) Kuroda’s (1976–77) derivation of No-RCs

(a) [NP [NP NP ] [S NP...V ] no]

(b) [NP [NP NP ] [S NP _ V ] no] (Equi-NP deletion)

While his insight that the no-introduced NP is syntactically located outside

the relative clause turns out to be significant and correct, Kuroda did not pro-

vide evidence for the structure that he proposed. Furthermore, the status of

no1 is left unclear. From a viewpoint of the goal of syntactic theory, an ex-

planation of the principles that make the structure (11b) possible was missing.

Kuroda (1965: 121), on the other hand, suggested a possibility of inversion

very briefly.

(12) (a) No-RC

[ringo-no aka-i no]-o tabe-ta.

apple-NO1 red-PRES NO2-ACC eat-PST


(b) HERC

[aka-i ringo]-o tabe-ta.

red-PRES apple-ACC eat-PST



5

He wrote : ‘ [t]he above form [(12a)] has an inverted order and is clearly re-

lated to the normal form [(12b)] ’. However, details were not made explicit

and the analysis was not developed further in his subsequent work. In the

rest of this article, I will fully develop this inversion analysis, taking

Kuroda’s insight as a starting point and providing substantial evidence.

As noted by Kuroda (1974: 69; 1992: 162–166), there are other traditional

analyses. One possibility is to take no1 to be a genitive case marker and the

other is to regard no1 either as an adnominal form or a continuative/par-

ticipial form of the copula da (assimilating it structurally to an analysis of

De-RCs, as I will show in Section 4.1 below). The latter analysis was pro-

posed in Martin (1975) and Kitagawa (1977). I will demonstrate, however,

that these analyses cannot be maintained on empirical grounds.3

Regarding De-RCs, Kuroda (1976–1977) proposed a conjunction struc-

ture, which I will eventually adopt later in this article. Under this analysis, de

is taken to be a continuative form of the copula da.

(13) De-RC

[[CP2 [CP1 proi ringo-de] [CP2 aka-i]] noi]-o tabe-ta.

apple-DE red-PRES NO2-ACC eat-PST


(Lit. : ‘ I ate a thing that is an apple and that is red. ’)

But again, substantial evidence was lacking. Thus, I will investigate the

structure in detail and provide substantial empirical evidence.

2.2 Certain differences between No-RCs/De-RCs and HIRCs

At first sight, the surface sequences of No-RCs, De-RCs, and HIRCs look

quite similar. Therefore, I will first establish that No-RCs and De-RCs are

not HIRCs syntactically as well as semantically.

2.2.1 The Relevancy Condition

Initially, the semantic interpretations of these three types of relative clauses,

exemplified in (14), seem to be the same.

(14) (a) HIRC

[negi-o komakaku kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.



[3] Japanese verbs (and some adjectives) have six basic conjugations: irrealis, continuative/participial, ending/conclusive, adnominal, realis, and imperative. The continuative/parti-cipial form of a verb is the one used when a CP or a VP containing it is adverbiallysubordinated to a main clause.

K E N H I R A I W A

6

(b) No-RC

[negi-no komakaku kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

scallion-NO1 finely cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


(c) De-RC

[negi-de komakaku kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.



However, as the data in (15) illustrate, not all the HIRCs can be paraphrased

by No/De-RCs. The HIRC example (15a) is ungrammatical, whereas the

No-RC and the De-RC in (15b) and (15c) are well-formed.

(15) (a) HIRC

*[ookina ringo-ga oisisoona no]-o tabe-ta.

big apple-NOM tasty.looking NO2-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate the big apple that looks tasty. ’

(b) No-RC

[ookina ringo-no oisisoona no]-o tabe-ta.

big apple-NO1 tasty.looking NO2-ACC eat-PST


(c) De-RC

[ookina ringo-de oisisoona no]-o tabe-ta.

big apple-DE tasty.looking NO2-ACC eat-PST


Kuroda (1974) observed that HIRCs are subject to a certain semantico-

pragmatic condition. Consider the acceptability contrast below.

(16) (a) HIRC

*Ken-wa [ringo-ga kinoo todoi-ta no]-o tot-ta.

Ken-TOP apple-NOM yesterday arrive-PST NO2-ACC pick.up-PST

‘Ken picked up the apple that arrived yesterday. ’

(b) HERC

Ken-wa [kinoo todoi-ta ringo]-o tot-ta.

Ken-TOP yesterday arrive-PST apple-ACC pick.up-PST


Kuroda proposed what he called the Relevancy Condition (cited in (17)

below) and attributed the ungrammaticality of an HIRC like (16a) to this

condition (see also Hoshi 1995 and Shimoyama 1999 for discussions of

the Relevancy Condition). In (16a), the embedded clause and the matrix

clause are not ‘tightly connected’ and hence the sentence is not felicitous.

This is because the event time of the HIRC is distant from the event time

of the matrix clause. In contrast, the HERC sentence (16b) is perfectly well-

formed.


7

(17) The Relevancy Condition (Kuroda 1975–76: 86)

For a p.-i. [i.e. pivot-independent – KH] relative clause to be accept-

able, it is necessary that it be interpreted pragmatically in such a way as

to be directly relevant to the pragmatic content of its matrix clause.

However, Kuroda (1975–76: 93) made an important observation that

No-RCs and De-RCs, exemplified in (18), are not subject to the Relevancy

Condition. In other words, they pattern with the HERC, like that in (16b)

above.

(18) (a) No-RC

Ken-wa [ringo-no kinoo todoi-ta no]-o tot-ta.

Ken-TOP apple-NO1 yesterday arrive-PST NO2-ACC pick.up-PST


(b) De-RC

Ken-wa [ringo-de kinoo todoi-ta no]-o tot-ta.

Ken-TOP apple-DE yesterday arrive-PST NO2-ACC pick.up-PST


This establishes that No-RCs and De-RCs are syntactically distinct from

HIRCs.

2.2.2 Head positions and the left periphery

As I have already mentioned, at first sight, No-RCs are similar to HIRCs.

Given a pair of sentences like those in (19), one might entertain a possibility

that the No-RC in (19b) is derived by applying the Nominative–Genitive

Conversion (ga/no conversion) to an HIRC (see Harada 1971, 1976;

Watanabe 1996; Hiraiwa 2005; for discussion see also Kuroda 1992:

155–157).

(19) Nominative–Genitive Conversion

(a) Naomi-wa [ringo-ga sara-no ue-ni oite-at-ta

Naomi-TOP apple-NOM plate-GEN on-LOC put-be-PST

no]-o tabe-ta.

C-ACC eat-PST

‘Naomi ate the apple that was put on the plate. ’

(b) Naomi-wa [ringo-no sara-no ue-ni oite-at-ta

Naomi-TOP apple-GEN plate-GEN on-LOC put-be-PST

no]-o tabe-ta.

C-ACC eat-PST


Nominative–Genitive Conversion is a phenomenon in which the nominative

case marking alternates with the genitive case marking in certain syntactic

structures (typically relative clauses) (see Harada 1971). However, it is well

K E N H I R A I W A

8

known that Nominative–Genitive Conversion only applies to nominative

elements. In other words, Accusative–Genitive Conversion is generally un-

grammatical in Japanese. In contrast, in No-RCs, a no-introduced NP can be

an object, as we have already seen in (5a). Thus, the No-RC in (5a) cannot be

an instance of Nominative–GenitiveConversion).4 Similarly, the grammatical

example (18b) cannot be derived by Nominative–Genitive Conversion

because its nominative counterpart, (16a), is ungrammatical due to the

Relevancy Condition. Thus, because Nominative–Genitive Conversion

cannot account for the derivation of all No-RCs, it follows that no in the

No-RCs is not a simple genitive case particle.5

However, for such examples as (19), for which the Relevancy Condition is

irrelevant, distinguishing between the two different structures – a No-RC and

an HIRC with Nominative–Genitive Conversion – is not simple. Thus, we

need to seek another syntactic test.

As briefly noted by Kuroda (1975–76: 94), the no-introduced and de-

introduced NPs cannot remain in their original positions (see also Kuroda

1974: 64–65 for some observations on Classical Japanese). Thus, they are

obligatorily placed at the left periphery of the clause, as shown in (20).

Notice that the no-/de-introduced NPs cannot follow the subject, while such

a restriction does not apply to HIRCs, as shown by the grammaticality of the

accusative version, marked with -o, in (20a).6

(20) (a) In-situ

[Ken-ga negi-o/*no/*de kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

Ken-NOM scallion-ACC/NO1/DE cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST

‘I used the scallions that Ken cut finely. ’

(b) Left-dislocated

[negi-o/no/de Ken-ga kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

scallion-ACC/NO1/DE Ken-NOM cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST

‘I used the scallions that Ken cut finely. ’

The example in (20b) does not tell us where the dislocated no-/de-introduced

NPs are located, although it at least shows that they must be located

above TP. However, there is good evidence indicating that their position, in

[4] Asano & Ura (2010) observe that under certain conditions, Accusative–GenitiveConversion (o/no conversion) is allowed. However, as they admit, there is a great degree ofspeaker variation in such case alternation. On the other hand, it should be noted that No-RCs and De-RCs are accepted universally. In this article, I will intentionally use exampleswhere no- and de-introduced NPs are semantically objects of verbs in order to excludepossible confusion with Nominative–Genitive Conversion sentences.

[5] According to Kondo (2000: 341), Yuzawa (1929) suggested that it is not an ordinary geni-tive case particle.

[6] In my judgment, subjects in No-RCs and De-RCs (such as (20b)), if present, must receive acontrastive focus interpretation obligatorily. Otherwise, overt subjects degrade the sen-tences. See Abe (1994) for discussion of de-thematization of subjects in a particular type ofmodification constructions in Japanese (see also Kinsui 1994).


9

contrast with the position of the internal head of HIRCs, is outside of the

relative clause. This can be shown by the fact that none of the elements

internal to the relative clause can precede the no-/de-introduced NPs. As

shown in (21c) and (21d), an adverb (high or low) cannot be scrambled

to the left of the no-/de-introduced NP, in contrast with the HIRC counter-

part (21b).

(21) Adverbs

(a) [negi-o/no/de komakaku kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

scallion-ACC/NO1/DE finely cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


(b) HIRC

[komakakui negi-o ti kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.

finely scallion-ACC cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


(c) No-RC

*komakakui negi-no ti kizan-da no-o tukat-ta.

finely scallion-NO1 cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


(d) De-RC

*komakakui negi-de ti kizan-da no-o tukat-ta.

finely scallion-DE cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


The examples in (22) illustrate the same point with an instrumental ex-

pression.

(22) Instrumentals

(a) [ninniku-o/no/de hootyoo-de mizingiri-ni si-ta

garlic-ACC/NO1/DE kitchen.knife-with mince.cut-DAT do-PST

no]-o tukat-ta.

NO2-ACC use-PST

‘I used the garlic minced with the knife. ’

(b) HIRC

[hootyoo-dei ninniku-o ti mizingiri-ni

kitchen.knife-with garlic-ACC mince.cut-DAT

si-ta no]-o tukat-ta.

do-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


(c) No-RC

*[hootyoo-dei ninniku-no ti mizingiri-ni si-ta

kitchen.knife-with garlic-NO1 mince.cut-DAT do-PST

no]-o tukat-ta.

NO2-ACC use-PST


K E N H I R A I W A

10

(d) De-RC

*[hootyoo-dei ninniku-de ti mizingiri-ni

kitchen.knife-with garlic-DE mince.cut-DAT

si-ta no]-o tukat-ta.

do-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


Now returning to (19a, b), we can establish the syntactic structure of these

sentences by placing another element to the left of the genitive phrase. Below,

a locative phrase is scrambled to the position preceding the genitive phrase.

The fact that (23b) is still grammatical means that it is an instance of

Nominative–Genitive Conversion, not a No-RC).7

(23) Nominative–Genitive Conversion and HIRC

(a) Naomi-wa [[sara-no ue-ni]i ringo-ga ti oite-at-ta

Naomi-TOP plate-GEN on-LOC apple-NOM put-be-PST

no]-o tabe-ta.

NO2-ACC eat-PST


(b) Naomi-wa [[sara-no ue-ni]i ringo-no ti oite-at-ta

Naomi-TOP plate-GEN on-LOC apple-GEN put-be-PST

no]-o tabe-ta.

NO2-ACC eat-PST


Diachronic evidence also corroborates the conclusion that No-RCs are

guaranteed by a mechanism different from one that is responsible for

HIRCs. Kondo (2000) notes that No-RCs as well as HERCs, but not HIRCs,

are found as early as in the Nara period (the 8th century). Watanabe (2004)

observes that HIRCs only appeared later, in the Heian period (the 9th–12th

centuries), at the time of the loss of overt wh-movement in Japanese.8

[7] However, this does not eliminate the possibility that (19b) is a No-RC. (19b) remainsstructurally ambiguous and rightly so. I am grateful to an anonymous JL referee for thispoint. As already noted in footnote 4 above, no-introduced NPs in this paper are objects,not subjects. For this reason, I will limit myself to examples where no-introduced NPs arenot subjects.

[8] The left-headedness here is different from left-headedness in HIRCs in some other lan-guages. According to Basilico (1996), some languages allow an internal head of an HIRC tobe fronted to the left periphery of the clause. In Diegueno (a Native American language),the internal head, wi ‘ rock’ in (ia), can be fronted to the clause-initial position (with aresumptive pronoun in-situ), as shown in (ib).

(i) The Mesa Grande dialect of Diegueno (Basilico 1996: 501, 505)

(a) xatt.cok(-Ø) wi:m tuc-pu-c nyiLy.dog-OBJ rock-COMIT I.hit-DEM-SUBJ black‘The rock that I hit the dog with was black. ’

(b) ‘wiy ‘xatt.(-Ø) niyi-m ?tu:-pu-c nyiLycis.rock dog-OBJ that-COMIT I.hit-DEM-SUBJ black.indeed‘The rock that I hit the dog with was black. ’


11

To summarize, the above discussion leads us to the structure in (24).

(24)

The fact that no other elements of the relative clause can be scrambled to the

front of the no-/de-introduced NPs and that no-/de-introduced NPs lose their

original clause-internal case marking shows clearly that the head noun NP-

no/-de is syntactically outside of the relative clause CP.

3. A P R O P O S A L

3.1 Linker and copula

In this article, I will demonstrate that no1 in No-RCs is a LINKER, whereas de

in De-RCs is a continuative/participial form of the copula da.

(25) Proposal : nolde

(a) No1 is a linker.

(b) De is a continuative/participial form of the copula (Kuroda

1976–77, 1992).

The proposal is significant because of the polyfunctionality of the particles

no and de in the grammatical system of Japanese.

De in Japanese may be a postposition, with locative and instrumental

meanings, as illustrated in (26). It may also be the surface realization of

the verbal coordinator te, the voiced form de appearing after a nasal, as

in (27).

(26) (a) De as a locative postposition

Ken-ga Tsukiji-de sushi-o tabe-ta.

Ken-NOM Tsukiji-in sushi-ACC eat-PST

‘Ken ate sushi in Tsukiji. ’

However, the Diegueno examples differ from No-/De-RCs in Japanese in that the internalhead still maintains its original case marking -Ø within the relative clause and hence cannotbe marked by the subject marker -c, as evidenced by the ungrammaticality of (ii), where thefronted head noun cannot get case marked by the matrix predicate.

(ii) *‘wily-pu-c ‘xat-Ø niyi-m ‘tu:-pu-c ny iLycis.rock-DEM-SUBJ dog-OBJ that-COMIT I.hit-DEM-SUBJ black.indeed

‘The rock that I hit the dog with was black.’In contrast, in Japanese No-RCs, the ‘relativized head’ loses its original (i.e. accusative)case marking, which suggests that it is no longer in the relative clause.

K E N H I R A I W A

12

(b) De as an instrumental postposition

Ken-ga te-de sushi-o tabe-ta.

Ken-NOM finger-with sushi-ACC eat-PST

‘Ken ate sushi with his fingers. ’

(27) De as a verbal coordinator

Ken-wa koron-de nai-ta.

Ken-TOP fall-and cry-PST

‘Ken fell down and cried. ’

In the following sections, I will argue that de in De-RCs is not any one of

these elements and is a continuative/participial form of the copula da, as

exemplified by (28).

(28) Copula

Naomi-wa gakusee-de mazimena zyosee da.

Naomi-TOP student-COP honest woman COP

‘Naomi is a student and an honest woman.’

The particle no in Japanese is also a multifunctional category (see

Tsubomoto 1981 ; Kitagawa & Ross 1982; Tonoike 1990; Murasugi 1991;

Kuroda 1992, 1999; Kinsui 1995; Horie 1998; Hiraiwa 2001, 2005; Watanabe

2010, amongothers). Even ina rough classification, it has threemain functions.

(29) The functions of no in Japanese

(a) Genitive case marker

(b) Pronoun

(c) Complementizer/nominalizer

No as a genitive case marker can encode various semantic relations. Some

examples are given in (30).

(30) (a) (In)alienable possession

Ken-no me

Ken-GEN eyes

‘Ken’s eyes’

(b) Location

Kyoto-no ozi

Kyoto-GEN uncle

‘my uncle in Kyoto’

(c) Time

aki-no hi

autumn-GEN day

‘an autumn day’

(d) Object

tosi-no hakai

city-GEN destruction

‘the destruction of the city ’


13

In addition to its use as a genitive case marker, no is also used as a pronoun

and a complementizer/nominalizer :

(31) (a) Pronoun

akai kuruma/no

red car/GEN

‘the red car/one’

(b) Complementizer/Nominalizer

Ken-wa [Naomi-ga basu-ni noru no]-o mi-ta.

Ken-TOP Naomi-NOM bus-DAT ride C-ACC see-PST

‘Ken saw Naomi ride on the bus. ’

Regarding the genitive particle no in No-RCs, I propose, however, that it is

a LINKER, different from the uses above but identical to the following use:

(32) Linker

negi-no mizingiri

scallion-NO1 mince.cut

‘minced scallions’

3.2 The post-relative no2

In addition to the status of no1 and de at the left periphery in No-RCs and

De-RCs, there is another important question, one about the nature of the

right-peripheral no2. This no2 is obligatory in No-RCs and De-RCs, as well as

in HIRCs.

The status of this element has been in debate since Okutsu (1974). It is well

known that such an element is required when a head noun is omitted, leaving

adjectives or relative clauses behind. Thus, it has been often considered to be

a pronoun.

(33) (a) akai kruma

red car

‘a red car ’

(ak) akai *(no)

red NO2

‘a red one’

(b) Ken-ga kyonen ka-ta kuruma.

Ken-NOM last.year buy-PST car

‘ the car that Ken bough last year’

(bk) Ken-ga kyonen ka-ta *(no)

Ken-NOM last.year buy-PST NO2

‘ the one that Ken bough last year’

Following Okutsu (1974), Murasugi (1991), and, in particular, the suggestion

in Kuroda (1965: 121), I assume that no is a pronoun, inserted whenever an

K E N H I R A I W A

14

NP is missing. I will specifically assume, however, that it is inserted into n,

which is located between the NP projection and the DP projection, as is

shown in (34).

(34)

2

In other words, in the diagram above, no is a pro-form of the NP.

In No-RCs and De-RCs, no2 can be replaced with what I call a LIGHT

noun (see Hiraiwa 2010). It can be an element such as yatu or mono ‘ thing’

but cannot be the same noun as the one in the no-introduced NP (see

Kuroda 1992). Nor can it be replaced with a normal noun such as negi

‘ scallion’ or yasai ‘vegetable’.9,10 Examples (35) and (36) illustrate these

patterns.

[9] Akira Watanabe (p.c.) first pointed out to me that these nouns could be analyzed as ‘ lightnouns’ (see also Kishimoto 2000). The table below illustrates parallels between indetermi-nate pronouns and light nouns.

Indeterminate pronouns Light nouns

Human dare ‘who’ hito ‘person’Thing nani ‘what’ mono/koto/yatu ‘ thing’Time itu ‘when’ toki ‘ time’Place doko ‘where’ tokoro ‘place’Manner doo ‘how’ huu ‘manner’Reason naze ‘why’ —

Roughly speaking, indeterminate pronouns need to be bound by quantificational particlessuch as ka and mo. On the other hand, light nouns need to be determined by an elementsuch as an adjective and a demonstrative. Such light nouns are reminiscent of noun classesin African languages. It should be also noted that indeterminates (and demonstratives) inJapanese can be further decomposed morphologically. I investigate these in detail in aseparate paper (see Hiraiwa 2010).

[10] De-RCs pattern with No-RCs in this respect. However, for a reason that I do not under-stand, the repetition of a noun in place of no2 is not always unacceptable in the case of De-RCs, in contrast with No-RCs. The following attested example from a newspaper soundsperfect:

(i) kaigai-no sensyu-de oogara-na sensyuabroad-GEN athletes-DE big-PRES athletes‘ the athletes who are from abroad and big’


15

(35) No2 and substitution (No-RCs)

(a) [negi-no komakaku kizan-da no]

scallion-NO1 finely cut-PST NO2

‘The scallions that were cut finely. ’

(b) [negi-no komakaku kizan-da yatu/mono]

scallion-NO1 finely cut-PST thing/thing


(c) *[negi-no komakaku kizan-da negi/yasai]

scallion-NO1 finely cut-PST scallions/vegetable


(36) No2 and substitution (De-RCs)

(a) [negi-de komakaku kizan-da no]

scallion-DE finely cut-PST NO2


(b) [negi-de komakaku kizan-da yatu/mono]

scallion-DE finely cut-PST thing/thing


(c) [negi-de komakaku kizan-da ??negi/*yasai]

scallion-DE finely cut-PST scallions/vegetable


Thus, no2 (like other light nouns) is syntactically distinct from an ordinary

N. The pronominal no2 and the light nouns mono/yatu share one important

distributional feature : namely, they cannot be used alone. They are bound

morphemes in that they require modifiers, as shown in (37). This makes it

reasonable to place modifiers in the nP domain, as indicated in (34) above.

Therefore, I take (some but not all of) the light nouns to be a kind of pro-

noun because their exact reference must be supplied by their antecedent. In

this respect, they are similar to the anaphoric pronoun one in English (thanks

to an anonymous JL referee for pointing this out to me), although even more

restricted in their distribution, as (37b) is unacceptable in Japanese, while one

in this context is fine in English.

(37) (a) boku-wa [oisii no/mono/yatu]-o tabe-ta.

1SG-TOP tasty NO2/thing/thing-ACC eat-PST

‘I had a tasty one. ’

(b) *boku-wa [no/mono/yatu]-o tabe-ta.

1SG-TOP NO2/thing/thing-ACC eat-PST

‘I had one. ’

(c) boku-wa [negi/yasai]-o tabe-ta.

1SG-TOP scallion/vegetable-ACC eat-PST

‘I had scallions/vegetables. ’

It has been well known that the pronoun no2 in Japanese cannot refer to

humans without a pejorative implication (McGloin 1985, Kinsui 1995).

K E N H I R A I W A

16

Kuroda (1976–77) observed that the post-relative no2 in De-RCs is a pro-

noun, whereas he does not draw a conclusion about the status of no2 in No-

RCs. Given examples like those in (38), it may appear that no2 in No-RCs

and De-RCs is not completely incompatible with human antecedents.

(38) (a) HERC

[atama-ga ii gakusee]-ga happyoo-si-ta.

brain-NOM good student-NOM presentation-do-PST

‘A brilliant student presented a paper. ’

(b) HERC (no2)

?[atama-ga ii no]-ga happyoo-si-ta.

brain-NOM good NO2-NOM presentation-do-PST

‘A brilliant one presented a paper. ’

(c) No-RC (no2)

?[gakusee-no atama-ga ii no]-ga happyoo-si-ta.

student-NO1 brain-NOM good NO2-NOM presentation-do-PST


(d) De-RC (no2)

?[gakusee-de atama-ga ii no]-ga happyoo-si-ta.

student-DE brain-NOM good NO2-NOM presentation-do-PST


However, (38b–d) have a sense of arrogance, if not unacceptability, in that

no2 refers to humans as ‘ things ’. This becomes more explicit when gakusee

‘ student ’ is replaced with kyoozyu ‘professor’, the referent of the latter re-

garded as typically more deserving of respect. In this case, the sentences like

those in (39b–d) are far less acceptable than those in (38b–d) (see also

Kitagawa 1977 for some relevant discussion).

(39) (a) HERC

[atama-ga ii kyoozyu]-ga happyoo-si-ta.

brain-NOM good professor-NOM presentation-do-PST

‘A brilliant professor presented a paper. ’

(b) HERC (no2)

*[atama-ga ii no]-ga happyoo-si-ta

brain-NOM good NO2-NOM presentation-do-PST

‘A brilliant one presented a paper. ’

(c) No-RC (no2)

*[kyoozyu-no atama]-ga ii no-ga happyoo-si-ta.

professor-NO1 brain-NOM good NO2-NOM presentation-do-PST


(d) De-RC (no2)

*[kyoozyu-de atama-ga ii no]-ga happyoo-si-ta.

professor-DE brain-NOM good NO2-NOM presentation-do-PST



17

In contrast, when kyoozyu ‘professor ’ and no co-occur in an HIRC, as in

(40), there is no such problem of interpretation because no there is not a

pronoun but a complementizer/nominalizer, as is well known (see Kuroda

1992 and others).

(40) HIRC

Ken-wa [kyoozyu-ga tootyaku-si-ta no]-o demukae-ta.

Ken-TOP professor-NOM arrive-do-PST NO2-ACC meet-PST

‘Ken met the professor as he arrived. ’

Furthermore, note that mono/yatu cannot be used in HIRCs.

(41) HIRC

Ken-ga [teeburu-no ue-ni ringo-ga oite-at-ta

Ken-NOM table-GEN on-LOC apple-NOM put-exist-PST

no/*yatu/*mono]-o tabe-ta.

NO2/thing/thing-ACC eat-PST

‘Ken ate the apple that was put on the table. ’

The data suggest that no2 in No-RCs and De-RCs is a pronoun rather than

a complementizer. It should be noted that the sentences in (39c–d) improve

when no2 is replaced with the light noun hito ‘man/person’.

(42) (a) No-RC

??[kyoozyu-no erasoona hito]-ga ki-ta.

professor-NO1 arrogant.looking person-NOM come-PST

‘An arrogant person who is a professor came. ’

(b) De-RC

[kyoozyu-de erasoona hito]-ga ki-ta.

professor-DE arrogant.looking person-NOM come-PST

‘An arrogant person who is a professor came. ’

In this section, we focused on the syntax of post-verbal no. In No-RCs and

De-RCs, no is a pronoun (no2). Hence it cannot readily refer to humans to

whom respect is due, but replacing it with a human light noun improves the

sentences. In contrast, the post-verbal no in HIRCs is a complementizer,

which is not interchangeable with light nouns.

4. CO P U L A A N D T H E S T R U C T U R E O F DE-RCS

In this section I will focus on the syntax of De-RCs, and make some com-

parisons with No-RCs. Building on four pieces of evidence, I will demon-

strate that de in De-RCs is syntactically distinct from no1 in No-RCs and that

De-RCs have a clausal conjunction structure.

4.1 Copula

It is intuitively uncontroversial that de in De-RCs is not an instance of those

postpositions that I mentioned in the previous section. Following Kuroda

K E N H I R A I W A

18

(1976–77, 1992), we assume here that de in De-RCs is a form of the copula

da ‘ to be’. One piece of evidence for this comes from the fact that de in

De-RCs can be paraphrased by a continuative/participial form of the full

copula de-ar-u ‘ to be’, as shown in (43). The form de-atte consists of a copula

de, an existential verb ar-, and a verbal coordinator -te. Although somewhat

stilted, the result suggests that de in De-RCs has some affinity with a con-

tinuative/participial form of the copula.

(43) De-RC

(a) ringo-de oisisoona no-o tabe-ta.

apple-DE tasty.looking NO2-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate the apple that looked tasty. ’

(b) ?ringo-de-atte oisisoona no-o tabe-ta.

apple-DE-exist tasty.looking NO2-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate the apple that looked tasty. ’

There are two end forms of the copula in contemporary Japanese. One is

da, as in (44a), and the other is de-ar-u, as in (44b). Ar-u is originally a verb

of existence, and as a main verb, it is used for inanimate subjects. The con-

tinuative/participial form of the copula is de(-atte). As we can see, there is

morphological parallel between the De-RCs in (43a,b) and the copula con-

struction in (44c).

(44) Copula (de+aru)

(a) Ken-wa gakusee da.

Ken-TOP student COP

‘Ken is a student. ’

(b) Ken-wa gakusee de-aru.

Ken-TOP student COP-exist

‘Ken is a student. ’

(c) Ken-wa gakusee de(-atte) kyoozyu de-wa nai.

Ken-TOP student COP-exist.CONT professor COP-TOP NEG.PRES

‘Ken is a student not a professor. ’

The de(-atte) form also appears when coordinated with another clause. In

(45a), two CP clauses are conjoined. In (45b), on the other hand, two

predicate nominals are conjoined. In either case, the first copula takes the

form de(-atte).

(45) Copula

(a) [[Ken-wa gakubusee-de(-atte)], Naomi-wa insee da.

Ken-TOP undergrad-COP-exist.CONT Naomi-TOP grad.student COP

‘Ken is an undergraduate student and Naomi is a graduate

student. ’

(b) Naomi-wa insee-de(-atte), nihonzin da.

Naomi-TOP grad.student-COP-exist.CONT Japanese COP

‘Naomi is a graduate student and a Japanese. ’


19

Thus, the morphological and distributional evidence gives us a good reason

to consider de in De-RCs as a continuative/participial form of the copula

with the existential verb dropped. In contrast, the same evidence indicates

that no1 in No-RCs cannot be an (adnominal or continuative/participial)

form of the copula.

4.2 Connective katu ‘and ’

Another piece of supporting evidence for de being a continuative/participial

form of the copula comes from the insertion of the sentential conjunction

marker katu ‘and’. The example in (46) shows that De-RCs allow katu to

intervene between the left-edge head NP and the rest of the relative clause,

but No-RCs do not.

(46) No-RC and De-RC (katu conjunction)

ookina ringo-*no/de katu oisisoona no-o tabe-ta.

big apple-NO1/DE and tasty.looking NO2-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate the big apple that looked tasty. ’

The fact that de is compatible with the connective katu is parallel to the

behavior of the copula da. In (47), two copula phrases are conjoined and the

first copula takes the continuative/participial form de(-atte) and the con-

nective katu is licit (compare (45b) above).

(47) Copula (with the conjunction katu ‘and’)

Naomi-wa insee-de(-atte) katu nihonzin da.

Naomi-TOP grad.student-COP(-exist.CONT) and Japanese COP

‘Naomi is a grad student and a Japanese (at the same time). ’

In contrast, two genitive phrases cannot usually be coordinated in this way,

as shown in (48b). Instead, the entire coordinated phrase receives genitive

marking, as shown in (48a). However, NPs can be coordinated, and then

katu is obligatory, as in (48c). In contrast, katu is only optional with the

copula de, as in (48d).

(48) NP and genitive (katu conjunction)

(a) kono hito-wa [Ken-to Naomi]-no sensee da.

this person-TOP Ken-and Naomi-GEN teacher COP

‘This person is Ken’s and Naomi’s teacher. ’

(b) *kono hito-wa [Ken-no (katu) Naomi-no] sensee da.

this person-TOP Ken-GEN and Naomi-GEN teacher COP


(c) kono hito-wa [Ken-no sensee *(katu) Naomi-no

this person-TOP Ken-GEN teacher and Naomi-GEN

sensee] da.

teacher COP


K E N H I R A I W A

20

(d) kono hito-wa [Ken-no sensee] de(-atte) (katu) [Naomi-no

this person-TOP Ken-GEN teacher COP and Naomi-GEN

sensee] da.

teacher COP


The above grammatical examples involving katu show that de in De-RCs is a

copula and that no in No-RCs cannot be. Thus, they have totally distinct

syntax.

4.3 Predicates and HIRCs

The third piece of evidence for the structure of De-RCs is based on a re-

striction on HIRCs. Since Kuroda (1999), it has been well known that

HIRCs cannot appear as predicate nominals. Consider the contrast be-

tween and an HIRC and an HERC in (49). In (49a), the HIRC functions as

an object. In (49b), on the other hand, the HERC serves as a predicate

nominal. However, (49c) shows that the HIRC cannot appear in this

position.

(49) (a) HIRC

keesatu-wa [HIRC gootoo-ga ginkoo-kara dete-ki-ta

police-TOP robber-NOM bank-from out-come-PST

no]-o tukamae-ta.

NO2-ACC catch-PST

‘The police arrested the robber who just came out of the bank.’

(b) HERC and copula

ano otoko-ga [HERC ginkoo-kara dete-ki-ta gootoo] desu.

DEM man-NOM bank-from out-come-PST robber COP

‘That man is the robber who just came out of the bank.’

(Kuroda 1999: 54)

(c) HIRC and copula

*ano otoko-ga [HIRC gootoo-ga ginkoo-kara

DEM man-NOM robber-NOM bank-from

dete-ki-ta no] desu.

out-come-PST NO2 COP

‘That man is the robber who just came out of the bank.’

(Kuroda 1999: 54)

Applying this to the No-RCs and De-RCs reveals that an entire

HIRC cannot be in the de-introduced position in De-RCs, as shown in

(50b). In contrast, it is felicitous in the no1-introduced position, as shown

in (50c), if not perfect due to the two adjacent instances of no (see Kuroda

1999).


21

(50) (a) No/De-RC and HERC

[HERC teeburu-no ue-ni oiteat-ta negi]-no/de

table-GEN on-at put-be-PST scallion-/NO1/DE

komakaku kizan-da no-o tabe-ta.

finely cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST

‘I used the scallions that were on the table and that were cut

finely. ’

(b) De-RC and HIRC

*[HIRC teeburu-no ue-ni negi-ga oiteat-ta

table-GEN on-at scallion-NOM put-be-PST

no]-de komakaku kizan-da no-o tabe-ta.

NO2-DE finely cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


finely. ’

(c) No-RC and HIRC

[HIRC teeburu-no ue-ni negi-ga oiteat-ta

table-GEN on-at scallion-NOM put-be-PST

no]-no komakaku kizan-da no-o tukat-ta.

NO2-NO1 finely cut-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


finely. ’

Another semantic restriction on predicates is that indefinite pronouns are

excluded from the predicate nominal position in Japanese. In (51a), the in-

definite pronoun nanika ‘ something’ is a predicate in the matrix clause while

in (51b), it is a predicate within the relative clause.

(51) Indefinite pronouns and predicates

(a) #sore-wa nanika desu.

it-TOP something COP

‘It’s something. ’

(b) #[[nanika de-aru] mono]

something COP-exist thing

‘the thing that is something’

The indefinite pronoun nanika expectedly cannot function as a de-introduced

NP, while it is fine as a no-introduced NP:

(52) (a) *nanika-de kizan-da no-o tabe-ta.

something-DE cut.finely-PST NO2-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate something that was cut finely. ’

(b) nanika-no kizan-da no-o tabe-ta.

something-NO1 cut.finely-PST NO2-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate something that was cut finely. ’

Once again, the data demonstrate that de is a form of the copula, whereas no

is not, in support of Kuroda (1975–76, 1992).

K E N H I R A I W A

22

4.4 Indefiniteness and predicate nominals

The fourth piece of evidence comes from the fact that certain definite el-

ements are excluded from the de-introduced position. The head noun in

HIRCs and the no-introduced NP do not need to be indefinite in Japanese, as

shown below.

(53) Definiteness and HIRC

[kono/sono/ano negi-o kizan-da no]-o mazete.

DEM scallion-ACC cut-PST NO2-ACC mix.IMP

‘Mix these/the/those scallions that are cut finely. ’

(54) Definiteness and No-RC

[kono/sono/ano negi-no kizan-da no]-o mazete.

DEM scallion-NO1 cut-PST NO2-ACC mix.IMP


In contrast, a de-introduced NP is required to be indefinite and hence is

incompatible with demonstratives, as shown below.11

(55) Definiteness and De-RC

*[kono/sono/ano negi-de kizan-da no]-o mazete.

DEM scallion-DE cut-PST NO2-ACC mix.IMP


This suggests, at first sight, that the De-RC is subject to the Indefiniteness

Restriction, originally proposed for HIRCs by Williamson (1987).

Williamson (1987) observes that the internal head noun in HIRCs must be

indefinite, as shown in his Lakhota examples in (56).

(56) Lakhota (Williamson 1987: 171)

(a) [Mary owiza wa kage] ki he ophewathu.

Mary quilt ID make D DEM 1SG-buy

‘I bought the quilt that Mary made. ’

(b) *[Mary owiza ki kage] ki/k’u/cha he ophewathu.

Mary quilt D make D/D/ID.F DEM I-buy

‘I bought a/the/the [previously mentioned] quilt that Mary made. ’

[11] This fact also eliminates the possibility that de is analyzed as a reduced form of -no naka-de‘ -GEN inside -DE’. Within such an analysis, the De-RC in (5b) above may be interpreted as‘the ones that were cut finely among scallions’. As shown in (i) below, it is the case that -nonaka ‘ -GEN in’ can be dropped, but observe that the head noun can take a definite de-monstrative. Thus, the ungrammaticality of (55) as involving a De-RC indicates that de inDe-RCs is different from the de in (i).

(i) Naomi-wa kono-kurasu(-no naka)-de itiban se-ga taka-i.Naomi-TOP dem-class-GEN inside-DE most height-NOM tall- PRES

‘Naomi is the tallest in this class. ’


23

However, as is well known, Japanese HIRCs are in fact immune to the

Indefiniteness Restriction (Hoshi 1995, Kuroda 1999, Shimoyama 1999,

among others). As shown in (57), the HIRC with a proper noun as the

internal head is grammatical in Japanese.

(57) Definiteness and HIRC

Taro-wa [[daidokoro-no mado-kara Lucky-ga

Taro-TOP kitchen-GEN window-from Lucky-NOM

haitte ki-ta]-no]-o tukamae-ta.

come.in-PST-NO2-ACC catch-PST

‘Taro caught Lucky as she came in from the kitchen window.’

(Shimoyama 1999: 173)

Rather, such a restriction on De-RCs is actually reminiscent of Scottish

Gaelic and Irish. Adger & Ramchand (2003) observe that definite DPs

cannot appear in the predicate position in these languages.

(58) Gaelic (Adger & Ramchand 2003: 337)

(a) Is tidsear Calum.

COP.PRES teacher Calum

‘Calum is a teacher. ’

(b) *Is an tidsear Calum.

COP.PRES the teacher Calum

‘Calum is the teacher. ’

In this respect, of relevance here is the definiteness restriction on there-

constructions in English, according to which post-copular nominals must be

indefinite (see Milsark 1979 among others).

(59) There was an/*the/*that apple on the table.

Thus, even though Japanese lacks overt determiners/articles, the fact that

an NP with a demonstrative cannot appear in the de-introduced position

supports my claim that de is a continuative/participial form of the copula

and the de-introduced NP is a predicate nominal.

4.5 Summary and implications of the analysis

The above considerations have given us four pieces of evidence for

analyzing de in De-RCs as a continuative/participial form of the copula.

The structure of De-RCs is naturally considered to be conjoined

relative clauses of the form ‘the NPi [RC1 _ ei _ is NP] and [RC2 _ ei _ V]’,

as shown in (60), the literal meaning being ‘the things that were

scallions and were cut finely’, on a par with a normal conjoined relative

clause (61).

K E N H I R A I W A

24

(60) De-RC (=(5b))

[[CP2 [CP1 ei negi-de] [CP2 komakaku ei kizan-da]] noi]-o tukat-ta.



(Lit. : ‘ I used the things that were scallions and were cut finely. ’)

(61) Conjoined relative clauses

kore-wa [[[Ken-ga ei kat-te] Naomi-ga ei tukate-i-ru]

this-TOP Ken-NOM buy-CONT Naomi-NOM use-Prog-PRES

conpyuutaai] desu.

computer COP

‘This is the computer that Ken bought and Naomi uses. ’

As shown in (62), a De-RC consists of two relative clauses, CP1 and CP2,

and the entire relative clause modifies an NP. The predicate of the CP1 is the

copula de and the empty category (=subject) in front of it is coindexed with

the pronoun no2.

(62) De-RCs

2

1

i i

2

i

2

i

Ø

This structure makes some predictions. First, it should be possible to have

more than two relative clauses in one sentence modifying the same head

noun. The following example confirms the prediction:

(63) De-RC

[[insee-de] [[gengogakusya-de] [yokudekiru]]] hito

grad.student-DE linguist-DE excellent person

‘a person who is a graduate student, a linguist, and excellent ’

Second, CP1 and CP2 could be switched around, that is the relative clause

containing a de-introduced NP could also appear after another relative

clause. This is indeed the case, as shown in (64).


25

(64) (a) De-RC

[[genzai insee-de] [Ph.D.-o mezasitei-ru]] hito

currently grad.student-DE Ph.D.-ACC pursue-PRES person

‘a person who is currently a graduate student and pursuing a Ph.D.’

(b) RC

[[Ph.D.-o mezasitei-te] [genzai insee

Ph.D.-ACC pursue-PRES.CONT currently grad.student

de-aru]] hito

DE-exist person

‘a person who is pursuing a Ph.D. and currently a graduate student ’

The example in (64a) is a De-RC and in (64b) the order between the two

relative clause CPs has been reversed. Note that the verb in the preceding CP

takes the continuative/participial form -te and the copula now takes the ad-

nominal form de-aru (see Section 4.1 above).12

5. L I N K E R A N D T H E S T R U C T U R E O F NO-RCs

In this section, I will investigate the nature of no1 in No-RCs in detail and

propose that it is related to the linking function that is one of the various

functions of the particle no in Japanese. Building on this observation, I will

further argue that No-RCs are derived by inversion from HERCs.

5.1 Linker and inversion

In the previous section, I demonstrated that the no1 of the no-introduced NP

in question is not an allomorph of an (adnominal or continuative/participial)

form of the copula da, citing a number of differences. In this section, I claim

that no1 in No-RCs is analogous to an appositive linking element. To see this,

let us examine nominal modifier constructions in (65).

(65) NP2-no NP1

(a) [teriyaki-no buri]-o tabe-ta.

teriyaki-GEN yellowtail-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate yellowtail teriyaki. ’

(b) [mizingiri-no negi]-o maze-ta.

mince.cut-GEN scallion-ACC mix-PST

‘I mixed minced scallions. ’

(c) [sinsimono-no kasa]-o kat-ta.

for.men-GEN unmbrella-ACC buy-PST

‘I bought a men’s umbrella. ’

[12] However, for some reason, certain light nouns seem to resist being immediately preceded bya copula.

K E N H I R A I W A

26

(d) [kobuzime-no kinmedai]-o tabe-ta.

kelp.prepared-GEN red.snapper-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate sashimi of red snapper prepared with kelp. ’

(e) [32GB-no iPhone]-o kat-ta.

32GB-GEN iPhone-ACC buy-PST

‘I bought a 32GB iPhone. ’

The NP2-no NP1 in (66) is in a modifier–modifiee relation. In other words,

NP2-no is a modifying predicate for NP1. I propose that the genitive case

marking no is assigned by D whenever two NPs are adjacent (see Kitagawa &

Ross 1982, and others).

(66) NP2-no NP1 (=(65))

2

1

Now let us compare (65) and (67). Interestingly, NP1 and NP2 can be

switched around, as the respective pairs in (65) and (67) illustrate.

Significantly, these pairs are semantically equivalent. Note that in (67), NP1

and NP2 are in an appositive relation and in this environment, de cannot be

used.

(67) NP1-no NP2

(a) [buri-no/*de teriyaki]-o tabe-ta.

yellowtail-NO1/DE teriyaki-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate teriyaki yellowtail. ’

(b) [negi-no/*de mizingiri]-o maze-ta.

scallion-NO1/DE mince.cut-ACC mix-PST

‘I mixed minced scallions ’

(c) [kasa-no/*de sinsimono]-o kat-ta.

umbrella-NO1/DE for.men-ACC buy-PST


(d) [kinmedai-no/*de kobuzime]-o tabe-ta.

red.snapper-NO1/DE kelp.prepared-ACC eat-PST


(e) [iPhone-no/*de 32GB]-o kat-ta.

iPhone-NO1/DE 32GB-ACC buy-PST



27

The appositive relation in (67) seems to be the same as the one expressed by

predicative sentences like (68), where NP1 appears as the subject and topic,

and NP2 as the predicate and comment.

(68) NP1-wa NP2 da

(a) sono buri-wa teriyaki da.

DEM yellowtail-TOP teriyaki COP

‘The yellowtail is teriyaki. ’

(b) sono negi-wa mizingiri da.

DEM scallion-TOP mince.cut COP

‘The scallions are minced. ’

(c) sono kasa-wa sinsimono da.

DEM umbrella-TOP for.men COP

‘The umbrella is for men. ’

(d) sono kinmedai-wa kobuzime da.

DEM red.snapper-TOP kelp.prepared COP


(e) sono iPhone-wa 32GB da.

DEM iPhone-TOP 32GB COP

‘The iPhone is 32GB.’

Given the semantic identity seen in (65) and (67), I argue that the examples

in (67) are derived by syntactic inversion from the underlying ‘NP2-no NP1 ’

construction present in (65) ; in both pairs NP2 is a modifier and NP1 is

a modifiee.13 Therefore, the semantic interpretation is preserved even after

inversion. Specifically, I propose that the appositive particle no in (67) and

no1 of No-RCs are an instance of a LINKER licensed by a silent linker head

(Lk), and that this Linker Phrase (LkP) mediates INVERSION, as stated in (69).

(69) Appositive linker no in Japanese is licensed by a linker head Lk.

It may appear confusing that the linker and the genitive case particle happen

to be morphologically identical in Japanese (see Larson 2009, Hiraiwa 2012).

Theoretical studies on linkers have only begun relatively recently (Richards

1999 for Tagalog, Baker & Collins 2006 for Kinande and Koisan languages,

den Dikken 2006 for English and several other languages, and Larson 2009

for Iranian languages), and the identity of linkers is still under much debate.

A rough characterization is that a linker is some functional element that

establishes some sort of link. Although their properties are not completely

uniform cross-linguistically, one of their important functions is that they

mediate inversion by providing a specifier (see footnote 15 below and Baker

& Collins 2006).

[13] These constructions are somewhat reminiscent of the Qualitative Binominal Noun Phrasein English and other languages, e.g. an idiot of a doctor and a fool of a president (see denDikken 2006 and references therein). Although interesting, I will not pursue a comparisonof such phrases with the examples in (67) in this article.

K E N H I R A I W A

28

Thus, in (70), the modified noun phrase NP negi ‘ scallions ’ moves to

[Spec, LkP]. After movement, the NP is marked by the genitive assigned by

the linker head, and the genitive case on the lower NP mizingiri ‘mince.cut ’

optionally disappears (indicated in the diagram by a crossed-out -no) in the

absence of any noun following it.

(70) NP1-no NP2 (=(67))

1

2

NP1

Note that in the representation in (70), the linker head itself is morphologi-

cally ‘silent ’. Another possibility is that LkP is head-initial and no1 is the

head of LkP. In the absence of convincing evidence, I will assume the former

hypothesis in this article.14

With this in mind, let us consider No-RCs again.

(71) (a) HERC

[[ei mizingirini-si-ta] negii]-o tukat-ta.

mince.cut-do-PST scallions-ACC use-PST

‘I used the scallions that were minced. ’

[14] The possessive NP2-Gen NP1 constructions do not permit inversion. In fact, all the othertypes of constructions mentioned earlier in (30) do not, either.

(i) (a) Naomi-no honNaomi-GEN book‘Naomi’s book’

(b) *hon-no Naomibook-NO1 Naomi

(c) ?*hon-no Naomi nobook-NO1 Naomi NO2

(d) hon-no Naomi-no yatubook-NO1 Naomi-NO2 thing


29

(b) HIRC

[negi-o mizingirini-si-ta no]-o tukat-ta.

scallion-ACC mince.cut-do-PST NO2-ACC use-PST


(c) No-RC

[negi-no mizingirini-si-ta no]-o tukat-ta.

scallion-NO1 mince.cut-do-PST NO2-ACC eat-PST


I propose that exactly the same mechanism of inversion derives No-RCs.

Specifically, I argue that the No-RC in (71c) has the HERC (71a) as an

underlying structure.

Let us first consider the structure of HERCs in (72).

(72) HERC

RC

In this diagram, the external head noun negi ‘ scallions ’ is modified by the

relative clause CP. As can be further seen in (73) below, the external NP

undergoes inversion to [Spec, LkP]. This inverted NP is assigned genitive

case marking by the linker head, and the n head is realized as no. This derives

the surface structure of No-RCs such as that in (71c) above.

(73) No-RCs

RC

NP

K E N H I R A I W A

30

This analysis correctly accounts for the syntactic and semantic parallels be-

tween HERCs and No-RCs shown in Section 2.1 above. Recall that it is also

supported by the diachronic evidence mentioned towards the end of Section

2 that No-RCs and HERCs existed earlier than HIRCs.15

5.2 Nk-deletion

So called Nk-deletion provides corroborating evidence that no1 in No-RCs

is not a genitive case marker. It is well known that a genitive modifier

licenses Nk-deletion in Japanese (see Saito & Murasugi 1990). Saito &

Murasugi (1990) and Lobeck (1990, 1995) convincingly argue that Nk-deletion is licensed under Spec–head agreement between D and its specifier

and is reformulated as NP-deletion. The diagram in (74) illustrates this

analysis.

[15] An anonymous JL referee points out that within den Dikken’s theory linkers appear only ifpredicates are inverted to an A-position (see den Dikken 2006). Den Dikken (2006) suggeststhat a linker appears when equidistance is required in the sense of Chomsky (1993). Thus, inthe following derivation, NP2 is closer to [Spec, X] and hence NP1 cannot move there. Butin the system of Chomsky (1993), such an inversion becomes possible if Y adjoins on X,rendering the two NPs equidistant. Den Dikken (2006) proposes that X below is a linkerhead.

(i) Domain-extending head-movement and equidistance (Chomsky 1993)

XP

X

X YP

NP2 Y

Y NP1

At this moment, I cannot offer a plausible suggestion on how to translate his insight into amore current thinking of locality which does not make use of the notion of ‘domain-extension by head movement’. Even though I have nothing to say about the A/Ak-status ofthe [Spec, LkP], it would be expected to be an A-position, if den Dikken (2006) is right.

Indeed, Baker & Collins (2006) discuss various cases of VP-internal inversion mediatedby linkers in Kinande, Ju|’hoansi and lHoan. In the Kinande examples in (iia, b), eitherthe direct object or the locative phrase can move to the specifier of LkP, shown in (iic),which creates the word order permutation.

(ii) Kinande (Baker & Collins 2006: 311–312)

(a) Mo-n-a-hir-ire okugulu k’- omo-kihuna.AFF-1SG.S-T-put-EXT leg.15 LK.15 LOC.18-hole.7‘I put the leg in the hole. ’

(b) Mo-n-a-hir-ire omo-kihuna m’- okugulu.AFF-1SG.S-T-put-EXT LOC.18-hole.7 LK.18 leg.15‘I put the leg in the hole. ’


31

(74)

Saito, Lin & Murasugi (2008) reinterpret the analysis of Nk-deletion in

Japanese in such a way that the deletion of the complement of D is licensed

only when [Spec, DP] is occupied by a phrase with no, as shown in (75). Thus,

translating this analysis into our structure, the genitive modifiers in NP2-no

NP1 constructions license nP-deletion, as shown in (76) (with the raising of

NP2 at least forced when deletion occurs). The square indicates the deletion

domain.

(75) NP2-no

2

NP2

1

(c) vP

DP

I

v

v

v V

put

LkP

Lk

Lk VP

DP

leg

V

V

tput

DP/PP

in-hole

Thus, one possibility worth pursuing is this : in (73), NP inverts over the relative clause CP(given that historically some CPs were ambiguous between nouns and clauses in Japaneseand hence CPs and NPs share some feature relevant to the Relativized Minimality; seeRizzi 1990).

K E N H I R A I W A

32

(76) NP2-no NP1

(a) [teriyaki-no buri]-o tabe-ta.

teriyaki-GEN yellowtail-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate a teriyaki yellowtail. ’

(b) [mizingiri-no negi]-o maze-ta.

mince.cut-GEN scallion-ACC mix-PST


(c) [sinsimono-no kasa]-o kat-ta.

for.men-GEN unmbrella-ACC buy-PST


(d) [kobuzime-no kinmedai]-o tabe-ta.

kelp.prepared-GEN red.snapper-ACC eat-PST


(e) [32GB-no iPhone]-o kat-ta.

32GB-GEN iPhone-ACC buy-PST


The proposed analysis further predicts that the NP1-no NP2 constructions

should not allow ‘Nk-deletion’ because no in NP1-no is not a genitive case but

a linker, and the entire phrase is in [Spec, LkP], as shown in (77). The ex-

amples in (78) show that Nk-deletion is in fact ungrammatical in such cases.

(77) NP1-no

1

2

NP1

(78) NP1-no NP2

(a) *[buri-no teriyaki]-o tabe-ta.

yellowtail-NO1 teriyaki-ACC eat-PST

‘I ate teriyaki yellowtail. ’

(b) *[negi-no mizingiri]-o maze-ta.

scallion-NO1 mince.cut-ACC mix-PST



33

(c) *[kasa-no sinsimono]-o kat-ta.

umbrella-NO1 for.men-ACC buy-PST


(d) *[kinmedai-no kobuzime]-o tabe-ta.

red.snapper-NO1 kelp.prepared-ACC eat-PST


(e) *[iPhone-no 32GB]-o kat-ta.

iPhone-NO1 32GB-ACC buy-PST


The proposed mechanism of inverted relativization further predicts that No-

RCs should not allow Nk-deletion either. The prediction is indeed borne out.

The no-introduced NP does not license Nk-deletion, as shown in diagram (79)

and the examples in (80).

(79) No-RC and deletion

NP

(80) (a) mazu [negi-no komakaku kizan-da no]-o irete,

first scallion-NO1 finely cut-PST NO2-ACC put

sonoato-ni [syooga-no komakaku kizan-da no]-o irete.

then-at ginger-NOM finely cut-PST NO2-ACC put.IMP

‘First put the scallions that are cut finely and then put the ginger

that are cut finely. ’

(b) *mazu [negi-no komakaku kizan-da no]-o irete,

first scallion-NO1 finely cut-PST NO2-ACC put

sonoato-ni [syooga-no komakaku kizan-da no]-o irete.

then-at ginger-NOM finely cut-PST NO2-ACC put.IMP

‘First put the scallions that are cut finely and then put the ginger

that are cut finely. ’

Summarizing the discussions so far, I have argued that No-RCs are de-

rived from HERCs by ‘inverting’ the head noun NP to [Spec, LkP]. This

K E N H I R A I W A

34

analysis captures the parallel between NP-no NP appositive constructions

and No-RCs. I have also shown that the Nk-deletion test lends further sup-

port to the inversion analysis.16

5.3 Heads and split pivot

In the preceding discussions, I have argued that de-introduced NPs are

predicate nominals with de being a copula. In contrast, no-introduced NPs

are real heads derived via inversion, and no2 is a pronoun. This contrasts with

HIRCs, where the real head is the internal NP and the post-relative no2 is

best considered to be a complementizer. There is further evidence for this

conclusion from coordination.

Consider the following sentences with subordinated HIRCs:

(81) HIRC and split pivot

(a) Ken-wa [negi-o kizam-i, syooga-o orosi-ta no]-o

Ken-TOP scallion-ACC cut-CONT ginger-ACC grate-PST C-ACC

(ryoohoo) tukat-ta.

both use-PST

‘Ken used finely-cut scallions and grated ginger. ’

(b) Ken-wa [kabotya-o ni-te toriniku-o yai-ta no]-o

Ken-TOP pumpkin-ACC cook-CONT chicken-ACC broil-PST C-ACC

(ryoohoo) tukat-ta.

both use-PST

‘Ken used (both) cooked pumpkin and broiled chicken. ’

Note that (81a) means that Ken used both scallions and ginger, and (81b)

that he used both pumpkin and chicken. Given that the head of an HIRC is

an internal NP, the entire HIRC in (81a, b) has two head nouns. Thus, the

interpretation is indeed expected. Such SPLIT PIVOT phenomena were first

observed for HIRCs by Kuroda (1975–76: 91) and subsequently discussed in

Kuroda (1992). The example in (82) is three-way ambiguous, captured by the

annotated English paraphrases.

[16] An anonymous JL referee has pointed out to me that Furuya (2009) discusses relatedJapanese constructions, of the type us linguists, as in (ib) (see also Postal 1969).

(i) (a) gengogakusya-no watasi-tatilinguists-GEN 1-PL

‘we, who are linguists’(b) watasi-tati gengogakusya

1-PL linguist‘we/us linguists’

A detailed comparison of this construction with No-RCs is far beyond the scope of thisarticle and I will leave it for future research.


35

(82) HIRC and split pivot (Kuroda 1992: 155)

[zyunsa-ga doroboo-o kawa-no hoo-e oitumette i-tta no]-ga

policeman-NOM thief-ACC river-GEN toward track.down go-PST C-NOM

ikioi amatte hutaritomo kawa-no nake-e tobikon-da.

power exceed both.two river-GEN in-to jump-PST

‘A policemani was tracking down a thiefj toward the river, both of

whomi,j, losing control, jumped into the river. ’

‘A policemani was tracking down a thiefj toward the river, whoj jumped

into the river. ’

‘A policemani was tracking down a thiefj toward the river, whoi jumped

into the river. ’

On the other hand, in No-RCs and De-RCs, such a split interpretation is

never available and the sentences are ungrammatical :

(83) (a) De-RC and split pivot

*Ken-wa [negi-de kizam-i, syooga-de orosi-ta no]-o

Ken-TOP scallion-DE cut-CONT ginger-DE grate-PST NO2-ACC

tukat-ta.

use-PST

Intended: ‘Ken used finely-cut scallions and grated ginger. ’

(b) No-RC and split pivot

*Ken-wa [negi-no kizam-i, syooga-no orosi-ta no]-o

Ken-TOP scallion-NO1 cut-CONT ginger-NO1 grate-PST NO2-ACC

tukat-ta.

use-PST

Intended: ‘Ken used finely-cut scallions and grated ginger. ’

Both sentences are hopelessly uninterpretable. This is expected in the case of

a De-RC like that in (83a) because the de-introduced NPs are predicate

nominals and hence the pronoun no2 has to mean ‘the x such that x is a

scallion ^ x is ginger ’, which is not the intended split pivot interpretation. On

the other hand, the grammaticality of the No-RC in (83b) is attributable to

the fact that multiple pivots in the underlying HERC are also ungrammati-

cal, as (84) shows.

(84) HERC

*Ken-wa [kizam-i, orosi-ta negi syooga]-o tukat-ta.

Ken-TOP cut-CONT grate-PST scallion ginger-ACC use-PST

‘Ken used finely-cut scallions and grated ginger. ’

Thus, the split pivot test lends support to the conclusion that No-RCs

and De-RCs differ from HIRCs and that the post-verbal no2 in No-RCs and

De-RCs is not a complementizer.

K E N H I R A I W A

36

6. A T Y P O L O G I C A L V I E W W I T H I N EA S T AS I A

As I mentioned at the beginning of the article, No-RCs and De-RCs are, to the

best of my knowledge, typologically not common.17 For example, No-RCs

are not observed in Korean and Mandarin Chinese. Such asymmetry sug-

gests an existence of a parameter (see Hiraiwa 2012 for discussion).

In Korean, the HIRC counterpart is grammatical as shown in (85b), but

the relativized head cannot be marked by the genitive case, as shown in (85a).

Mandarin Chinese, on the other hand, lacks HIRCs (Aoun & Li 1993). It

also lacks No-RCs as (86) indicates (Feng-fan Hsieh p.c. confirms that

Taiwanese also lacks both of them).

(85) Korean (Heejeong Ko, p.c.)

(a) *[tomato-uy calu-n kes]-ul mek-ess-ta.

tomato-GEN slice-REL thing-ACC eat-PST-DECL

‘I ate tomatoes that were sliced. ’

(b) [tomato-lul calu-n kes]-ul mek-ess-ta.

tomato-ACC slice-REL thing-ACC eat-PST-DECL

‘I ate tomatoes that were sliced. ’

(86) Mandarin Chinese (Feng-fan Hsieh, p.c.)

*fanqie-de qie-le-de

tomato-GEN slice-PERF-NML

‘tomatoes that were sliced’

This is expected under the analysis suggested above. Despite their functional

similarities with no, genitive markers in Korean and Mandarin Chinese

crucially do not have an appositive linker, as is shown in (87) and (88) be-

low.18 The ungrammaticality of (88ak–ck), with the inverted order NP1-Gen

[17] Typological surveys of relative clauses such as Keenan (1985), de Vries (2002) and Andrews(2007) do not record any possible counterparts of these peculiar relative clauses.

[18] A copula can also be used here instead of the genitive in Korean, as is shown in (ia).However, as is shown in (ib), inversion is ungrammatical.

(i) Korean

(a) babo-i-n Ken-ka tasi silswu.hass-ta.fool-COP-REL Ken-NOM again mistake.make-PST

‘Ken, who is a fool, made a mistake again. ’(b) *Ken-i-n babo-ka tasi silswu.hass-ta.

Ken-COP-REL fool-NOM again mistake.make-PST

‘Ken, who is a fool, made a mistake again. ’

As the examples in (ii) show, both options are possible in Japanese.

(ii) Japanese

(a) [baka-no Ken]-ga mata sippai-si-ta.fool-GEN Ken-NOM again mistake.make-do-PST

‘Ken, who is a fool, made a mistake again. ’(b) [Ken-no baka]-ga mata sippai-si-ta.

Ken-NO1 fool-NOM again mistake.make-do-PST

‘Ken, who is a fool, made a mistake again. ’


37

NP2, is attributable to Saito et al. (2008), who argue that de in Chinese is

actually a determiner head D.

(87) Korean (Chun-hye Han, p.c.)

(a) John-i [32GB-uy iPhone]-lul sa-ss-ta.

John-NOM 32GB-GEN iPhone-ACC buy-PST-DECL

‘John bought a 32GB iPhone. ’

(b) *John-i [iPhone-uy 32GB]-lul sa-ss-ta.

John-NOM iPhone-GEN 32GB-ACC buy-PST-DECL

‘John bought a 32GB iPhone. ’

(88) Mandarin Chinese (Feng-fan Hsieh, p.c.)

(a) tankao-de jirou

charcoal.broil-GEN chicken

‘charcoaled chicken’

(ak) *jirou-de tankao

chicken-GEN charcoal.broil

‘charcoaled chicken’

(b) hong-de xin che

red-GEN new car

‘a red new car’

(bk) *xin che-de hong

new car-GEN red

‘a red new car’

(c) 32GB-de iPhone

32GB-GEN iPhone

‘a 32GB iPhone’

(dk) *iPhone-de 32GB

iPhone-GEN 32GB

‘a 32GB iPhone’

Given that the linker plays a crucial role in inversion in NP-Gen NP con-

structions as well as in No-RCs, the ungrammaticality of the counterparts of

No-RCs in Korean and Chinese follows, providing further cross-linguistic

evidence for the proposed inversion analysis of No-RCs in Japanese.

Thus, we are led to a hypothesis that the functional head Lk is active in

Japanese but not in Korean and Chinese.

(89) LANGUAGE LINKER

Janpaness Yes

Korean/Chinese No

Outside Asia, I only know of two languages that have what might be a

counterpart of No-RCs: Farsi and Ewe. Let us briefly draw a parallel with

so-called ezafe constructions in Farsi first. According to Larson &

Yamakido (2008) and Larson (2009), ezafe constructions are found in some

K E N H I R A I W A

38

Iranian languages such as Modern Persian (Farsi), Kurdish (Kurmanji and

Sorani) and Zazaki. The ezafe morpheme does not appear in prenominal

constructions in Farsi (90a), but it appears in postnominal constructions

(90b). Even though finite relative clauses do not permit it (90c), still, the non-

finite relative clause (90d) and the surface form (90b) are reminiscent of

No-RCs in Japanese (see Hiraiwa 2012 for more discussions on linkers).

(90) Farsi (Larson & Yamakido 2008: 44–45)

(a) kuechektarin mive

smallest fruit

‘smallest fruit ’

(b) otaq-e besyar kucik

room-EZ very small

‘very small room’

(c) otaq-ı [k’e bozorg ast]

room-REL that big is

‘room that is big’

(d) aks-e [cap sode dar ruzname]

photo-EZ publication become in newspaper

‘the photo published in the newspaper’

In Ewe (a Kwa language, West Africa), as reported in Collins (1994), the

object of the verb is fronted to the left and receives genitive case marking in

the relative examples (91) below. However, this type of construction seems to

be limited to FACTIVE interpretations, in contrast with Japanese. A further

investigation is left for future research.

(91) Ewe (Collins 1994: 41)

(a) Kcsi xe Mana fo

Kcsi which Mana hit

‘ the fact that Mana hit Kcsi ’(b) Mana me Kcsi xe wo fo

Mana GEN Kcsi which 3SG hit

‘ the fact that Mana hit Kcsi ’

7. CO N C L U S I O N A N D F U R T H E R I S S U E S

In this article, I have demonstrated that No-RCs and De-RCs are externally-

headed. Specifically, I have argued that No-RCs are derived from HERCs

via inversion with NP-no1 appearing at the left periphery, and that De-RCs

are conjoined relatives, which lends further support to Kuroda’s original

observations. I have also argued that both types of relative clause are similar

in that they include a post-relative no2 which in both cases is a pronoun in n

rather than a complementizer. Finally, I have proposed that the absence of

No-RCs in Korean and Mandarin Chinese (and Taiwanese) is due to the fact

that appositive linkers are inactive in these languages.


39

(92) The syntax of No-RCs and De-RCs

(a) de in De-RCs=a continuative/participial form of the copula da

(b) no1 in No-RCs=a linker

(c) no2 in No-RCs and De-RCs=a pronoun in n

An issue remaining for future research is a comparison of No-RCs and

De-RCs with so-called CHANGE-RELATIVES (Change-RCs). Semantically,

No-RCs and De-RCs either require restrictive stative predicates or a change-

of-state predicates. The latter type of predicate shows some interesting

similarity with predicates in Change-RCs. Hoshi (1995) and Tonosaki (1998)

observe that the following HIRCs are of a special type of HIRC. Tonosaki

(1998) calls them Change-Relatives because they involve predicates which are

change-of-state verbs ; see examples in (93) below. Although they are known

to exhibit different syntax and semantics from familiar HIRCs, they are

nevertheless internally-headed in the sense that the internal head nouns re-

tain original case marking.

(93) Change-RCs

(a) HIRC

[negi-o komakaku kizan-da no]-o tukat-ta.



(b) [otamazyakusi-ga kaeru-ni nat-ta no]

tadpole-NOM frog-COP become-PST NO2

‘ the frog which is the result of changing from a tadpole ’

(c) [kurozatoo-o tokasi-ta no]

brown.sugar-ACC melt-PST NO2

‘melted brown sugar ’

Change-RCs appear to be similar to No-RCs in that (i) they have restric-

tive interpretation, (ii) no2 can be replaced with another light noun, and (iii)

they require change-of-state predicates.19 Therefore, the ‘heads’ of Change-

RCs are either nominative subjects or accusative objects that undergo

change-of-state, as shown in (93). The question to ask is : What is the syntax

of Change-RCs?

Cinque (2009) has made a significant proposal that postnominal relative

clauses seen in languages such as English and Italian originate from

prenominal positioning of the relative clause and leftward movement of

the relativized head noun past it. His arguments are built on a detailed

[19] Kuroda (1975–76: 94) sates: ‘ [A]nother point that distinguishes the no-introduced relativeclause from the p.-i. [ i.e. pivot-independent – KH] relativization discussed earlier is thataccording to my intuition a no-introduced relative clause, semantically speaking, forms arestrictive relative clause, while a p.-i. relative clause with the ordinary case markers func-tions as a non-restrictive relative clause in the sense specified in section 1.1.3’.

K E N H I R A I W A

40

typological observation about ordering of elements within noun phrases.

While his particular approach is framed within a theory of antisymmetry

(Kayne 1994), my proposal in this article and his universal mechanism share

an important aspect : apparently postnominal relative clauses in Japanese are

derived from prenominal relative clauses via a leftward movement of re-

lativized head nouns. While the trigger for the movement in Japanese is a

linker head and the head noun receives genitive case marking, the principle

underlying the derivations might be common to both approaches.

APPENDIX 1

List of abbreviations

1, 2, 3=1st, 2nd, 3rd person

ACC=Accusative

AFF=Affix

C, C=Complementizer

COMIT=Comitative

CONT=Continuative form

COP=Copula

D, D=Determiner

DAT=Dative

DECL=Declarative form

DEM=Demonstrative

EXT=Extended aspect suffix

EZ=Ezafe

F=Focus

GEN=Genitive

ID=Indefinite determiner

IMP=Imperative

LK, Lk=Linker

LOC=Locative

Mod=Mood

n=Noun

NEG=Negation

NML=Nominalizer

NOM=Nominative

OBJ=Object marker

PERF=Perfective form

PL=Plural

PRES=Present

PST=Past

REL=Relative form

S=Subject

SG=Singular

SUBJ=Subject marker

T, T=Tense

TOP=Topic

REFERENCES

Abe, Yasuaki. 1994. Rentaisyuusyoku no syomondai [Issues in noun modification]. In Takubo(ed.), 153–171.

Adger, David & Gillian Ramchand. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34.3,325–359.

Andrews, Avery. 2007. Relative clauses. In Shopen (ed.), 206–236.Asano, Shin’ya & Hiroyuki Ura. 2010. Mood and case: With special reference to genitive case

conversion in Kansai Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 37–59.Aoun, Joseph & Audrey Li. 1993. On some differences between Chinese and Japanese

wh-elements. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 365–372.Bach, Emon. 1971. Questions. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 153–166.Baker, Mark & Chris Collins. 2006. Linkers and the internal structure of vP. Natural Language &

Linguistic Theory 24, 307–354.


41

Basilico, David. 1996. Head positions and internally headed relative clauses. Language 72,498–532.

Bodomo, Adams & Ken Hiraiwa. 2010. Relativization in Dagaare and its typological implica-tions: Left-headed but internally-headed. Lingua 120.4, 953–983.

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. The Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale &Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of SylvainBromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2009. The prenominal origin of relative clauses. Ms., University of Venice.[Handout at http://lear.unive.it/handle/10278/1055.]

Collins, Chris. 1994. The factive construction in Kwa. In Claire Lefebvre (ed.), Travaux derecherche sur le creole haıtien, 31–65. Montreal: Groupe de recherche sur le creole haıtien,Department de linguistique, Universite du Quebec a Montreal.

de Vries, Mark. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Linkers and relators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Furuya, Kaori. 2009. The DP hypothesis through the lens of Japanese nominal collocation

constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with special reference to the order

of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of grammar, 73–113.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harada, S.-I. 1971. Ga–No conversion and idiolectal variation in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60,25–38.

Harada, S.-I. 1976. Ga–No conversion revisited. Gengo Kenkyu 70, 23–38.Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. On Nominative–Genitive Conversion. In Elena Guerzoni & Ora

Matushansky (eds.), A few from Building E39 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39),65–123. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture.Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2009. The head-internal relativization parameter in Gur: D and EPP. In AnisaSchardl, Martin Walkow & Muhammad Abdurrahman (eds.), North East Linguistic Society(NELS) 38.1, 297–310. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2010. The syntax of light nouns and indeterminates in Japanese. Ms., MeijiGakuin University.

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2012. Kuroda’s left-headedness and linkers. In Bjarke Frellesvig & Peter Sells(eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20, 321–336. Chicago, IL: CSLI/The University ofChicago Press.

Horie, Kaoru. 1998. On the polyfunctionality of the Japanese particle no : From the perspectiveof ontology and grammaticalization. In Toshio Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammatica-lization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 169–192. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.

Hoshi, Koji. 1995. Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relativeclauses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester.

Ishigaki, Kenji. 1955. Zyosi no rekisiteki kenkyuu [A historical study of particles]. Tokyo:Iwanami.

Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Keenan, Edward. 1985. Relative clauses. In Shopen (ed.), 141–170.Kinsui, Satoshi. 1994. Rentaisyuusyoku no ‘ta’ ni tuite [On ‘ta’ in relative clauses]. In Takubo

(ed.), 19–65.Kinsui, Satoshi. 1995. Iwayuru nihongo no Nk-sakuzyo ni tuite [On the so-called Nk-deletion in

Japanese]. 1994 Nanzan Symposium, 153–176. Nagoya: Nanzan University.Kishimoto, Hideki. 2000. Indefinite pronouns and overt N-raising. Linguistic Inquiry 31,

557–566.Kitagawa, Chisato. 1977. No-introduced relative clauses. Journal of the Association of Teachers

of Japanese XII, 229–247.Kitagawa, Chisato & Claudia Ross. 1982. Prenominal modification in Chinese and Japanese.

Linguistic Analysis 9.1, 19–53.Kondo, Yasuhiro. 2000. Nihongo kizyutubunpoo no riron [A theory of Japanese descriptive

grammar]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D. dissertation,

MIT.

K E N H I R A I W A

42

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1974. Pivot-independent relativization in Japanese I. Papers in JapaneseLinguistics 3, 59–93.

Kuroda, S.-Y 1975–76. Pivot-independent relativization in Japanese II. Papers in JapaneseLinguistics 4, 85–96.

Kuroda, S.-Y 1976–77. Pivot-independent relativization in Japanese III. Papers in JapaneseLinguistics 5, 157–176.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Kuroda, S.-Y. 1999. Syubunaizai kankeisetu [Head-internal relative clauses]. In S.-Y. Kuroda &

Masaru Nakamura (eds.), Kotoba no kaku to syuuen [The core and periphery of language],27–103. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 2008. Head internal relative clauses, quantifier float, the definiteness effect and themathematics of determiners. San Diego Linguistics Papers 3, 126–183.

Larson, Richard K. 2009. Chinese as a reverse Ezafe language. Yuyanxue Luncong [Journal ofLinguistics] 39, 30–85. Pekin: Pekin University.

Larson, Richard [K.] & Hiroko Yamakido. 2008. Ezafe and the deep position of nominalmodifiers. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax,semantics, and discourse, 43–70. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lobeck, Anne. 1990. Functional heads as proper governors. In Juli Carter (ed.), North EastLinguistic Society (NELS) 20, 348–362. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven & London: YaleUniversity Press.

McGloin, Naomi. 1985. ‘No-pronominalization’ in Japanese. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 10,1–15.

Milsark, Gary L. 1979. Existential sentences in English. New York: Garland.Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun phrases in Japanese and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Connecticut.Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1974. Seisei nihon bunpooron [Generative grammar of Japanese]. Tokyo:

Taishukan.Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’. In David Reibel & Sanford Schane (eds.),

Modern studies in English, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Richards, Norvin. 1999. Complementizer cliticization in Tagalog and English. In

Catherine Kitto & Carolyn Smallwood (eds.), Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association(AFLA) 6 (Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 16.2), 297–312. Toronto: University ofToronto.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Saito, Mamoru, T.-H. Jonah Lin & Keiko Murasugi. 2008. Nk-ellipsis and the structure of noun

phrases in Chinese and Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17.3, 247–271.Saito, Mamoru & Keiko Murasugi. 1990. Nk-deletion in Japanese: A preliminary study.

In Hajime Hoji (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1, 258–301. Stanford, CA: CSLIPublications.

Shimoyama, Junko. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora.Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.2, 47–182.

Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2, 2nd edn.:Complex constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Takubo, Yukinori (ed.). 1994. Nihongo no meisi syuushoku hyoogen [Noun modifications inJapanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.

Tonoike, Shigeo. 1990. ‘No’ no ronrikeisiki [The logical form of no]. Meiji Gakuin Ronso [TheJournal of English & American Literature and Linguistics] 467, 69–99.

Tonosaki, Sumiko. 1998. Change-relatives in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16,143–160.

Tsubomoto, Atsuro. 1981. It’s all no : Unifying function of no in Japanese. Chicago LinguisticSociety (CLS) 17, 393–403. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative–Genitive Conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5.4, 373–410.

Watanabe, Akira. 2004. Parametrization of quantificational determiners and head-internalrelatives. Language and Linguistics 5.1, 59–97. Taiwan: Academia Sinica.


43

Watanabe, Akira. 2010. Notes on nominal ellipsis and the nature of no and classifiers inJapanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 61–74.

Williamson, Janis S. 1987. An indefiniteness restriction for relative clauses in Lakhota. In Eric J.Reuland & Alice G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 168–190.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Yuzawa, Kokichiro. 1929. ‘No’ ‘ga’ o tomonau ku no itikeisiki – syuusyokuhoo no ichi [A formof phrases with nominative and accusative]. Kokugokyooiku [Language Education] 2.

Author’s address : 1-2-37 Shirokane-dai, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan [email protected]

K E N H I R A I W A

44

the mechanism of inverted relativization in japanese: a …hiraiwa/pdf/hiraiwa2012_jl.pdf(5b), the...

Documents