Search

The principal thesis defended in this paper is that the most recent and successful approach to the internally-headed relative (IHR) constructions of Japanese and Korean, i.e., the one in Kim (Nat Lang Semant 15:279–315, 2007)—which proposes, building on Hoshi (Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative clauses, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1995) and Shimoyama (J East Asian Linguist 8:147–182, 1999; Wh-constructions in Japenese, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2001), that the analysis of these IHRs needs to rely on the E-type strategy—is demonstrably wrong empirically in relation to both the procedure for licensing IHs and the characterization of temporal relations between the IHR and its matrix, as well as conceptually objectionable in attaching the E-type label to analyses that have to rely on mechanisms that are entirely independent of those used in analyses of E-type anaphora in discourse. The paper proposes an alternative analysis that avoids the difficulties encountered by E-type analyses, and which relies on local equation of the IH with a variable, ultimately assigning to the relative clause the status of a singleton predicate, thereby bringing these IHRs under the more general umbrella of definite/maximalizing relative constructions, while at the same time providing a motivated account of certain similarities between such IHRs and E-type anaphora, which, while real, do not justify an analytical reduction of the former to the latter.

This paper examines one type of distributive interpretation in Japanese available only in sentences containing a numeral quantifier (NQ) with the distributive affix zutsu in a pre-nominal position. I propose that what appears to be the simple complex of an NQ with the distributive affix actually turns out to be a relative clause, which must appear within the NP. I further show that simple NQs can also be located inside the NP. The fundamental premise of my proposal is the predicative nature of NQs in Japanese (Miyagawa in structure and case marking in Japanese, 1989; Ueda in Oriental linguistics, 1986). The property of NQs in point allows us to account for the availability of the interpretation in question in Japanese.

It has been claimed widely that in Indonesian the most frequent type of relative clause, that formed with the complementizer yang and with a gap in place of the relativized NP, is restricted to subject relativization. We challenge this claim and argue that complementizer/gap direct object relativization is also well formed. Furthermore, we argue against the proposal that the grammar of Indonesian contains a stipulation that complementizer/gap relativization is restricted to subjects and direct objects. Rather, the appearance of constraints which conform to the Accessibility Hierarchy of Keenan and Comrie [Linguist. Inquiry 8 (1977) 63] is due to the interaction of ECP-like restrictions on extraction with the structure of various clause types in Indonesian. Specifically, Indonesian exhibits a VP shell structure along the lines of Larson [Linguist. Inquiry 19 (1988) 335], which predicts the extraction facts. While the resulting distribution appears to conform to the Accessibility Hierarchy, there does not appear to be any motivation on the basis of the facts of Indonesian to attribute to the Accessibility Hierarchy an independent role in the grammar. Rather, the appearance of conformity to the Accessibility Hierarchy is epiphenomenal.

This paper examines Ga/No Conversion in Japanese under the Move F theory of movement (Chomsky (1995)). Building on Miyagawa's (1993) analysis, the present paper argues that a genitive phrase raises out of a prenominal gapless clause in either overt or covert syntax. This claim is crucially based on Lasnik's (1999a) analysis of Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions in English, according to which the ECM subject raises into a higher clause either overtly or covertly. It is also demonstrated that when a genitive subject originates in a relative clause, its raising is limited to covert syntax. This non-uniform behavior of the genitive subject is argued to follow from a particular implementation of Attract F.

This paper examines the so-called internally headed relative clause construction in Japanese, with particular focus on new data that involve quantificational NPs and wh-phrases. The data provide arguments for representations in which the internal head remains internal at LF. Furthermore, it is shown that the interpretation of this construction involves E-type anaphora, providing evidence for Hoshi's (1995) suggestion. An explicit mechanism for compositional interpretation is proposed, which also derives a restriction on possible internal heads. This study has the cross-linguistic implication that the constructions called "internally headed relative clauses" in various languages do not form a homogeneous class.

This paper argues that the clausal structure of Mandarin Chinese contains an object clitic projection (SuoP). The discussion is based on the syntactic behavior of the particlesuo, which occurs when syntactic movement of an accusative NP has occurred.Suo is triggered when the movement has proceeded through SpecSuoP. Drawing the evidence fromsuo, I argue that Chinese inflectional structure contains Case projections: NomP (nominative Case projection) and SuoP (accusative Case projection). The presence of these projections has far-reaching consequences for the analyses of various syntactic constructions, such as relative clauses, thebei-construction, and topicalization structures. An unified analysis is given to these constructions.

Relative clauses in Japanese and Korean appear to represent a minimal contrast: modern Japanese lacks the affixal complementizers characteristic of adnominal clauses in Korean. The absence of overt complementizers has frequently been related to the hypothesis that adnominal clauses in Japanese have less structure than their counter-parts in languages with overt complementizers. This paper argues that the absence of an overt head in this specific case does not indicate the absence of a CP projection. The behavior of the copula in Japanese relative clauses and the distribution of the overt complementizerno both provide support for an analysis positing an empty complementizer position. At the same time, certain apparent peculiarities of relative operator movement in Japanese, in particular the clause-boundedness of adjunct relative operator movement, are also found in Korean and therefore cannot be attributed to the absence of a relative clause complementizer and its projection. These peculiarities reflect instead a general restriction on null operators which severely restricts their availability in relative clause structures, with the consequence that the adjunct relative clauses in question are in fact gapless.

Chinese emphatic sentences are usually referred to asshi...de constructions. Contrary to common assumptions,de should not be analyzed as a nominalizer andshi not a copula in emphatic sentences. It is argued in this paper thatshi is a modal verb and the primary marker of emphatic sentences whilede only has a secondary function, most likely as an aspect marker. Emphaticshi cannot appear in the main clause of a relative clause nor can it co-occur in the same clause with a WH-element or a V-not-V verb unless the WH-element is being emphasized orshi takes the V-not-V form.Shi cannot c-command WH-elements or V-not-V verbs that have a scope over it, either. The distribution of emphaticshi in relative clauses is regulated by the Spec-head agreement; and its distribution in WH-questions and A-not-A questions is accounted for on the basis of the conflict in emphasis domain, which arises when two emphatic variables have the same domain.

There is currently no consensus in the literature with the respect to the semantic status of relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Some authors (Zhang 2001; Del Gobbo 2003, 2004, 2005) claim that relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese can only be interpreted as restrictives; others (see Lin 2003) instead maintain that relative clauses in this language can be both restrictive and appositive. In this paper, I claim that Chinese relative clauses modifying proper names and pronouns can indeed be appositive, but they are still crucially different from appositive relative clauses in English. Following Cinque’s (2006a, 2008a) distinction between “integrated appositive relative clauses” and “non-integrated” ones, I claim that Chinese appositive relatives belong to the class of the “integrated” ones. I furthermore propose that the typological difference between the “integrated” appositives and the “non-integrated” ones is due to the absence versus presence of the relative pronoun. Adopting Cinque’s (2006a, 2008a) theory of relativization, I propose a structure for Chinese relative clauses whereby c-command of the internal head of the relative is disallowed. This explains why the internal head of the Chinese relative clause can never be generated as a relative pronoun and, more generally, why overt relative pronouns are unavailable in prenominal relative clauses cross-linguistically. Last, the theory here outlined makes the strong empirical prediction that no prenominal relative clause can be appositive in the canonical sense.