1887
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study conducted two experiments to examine the derivation of the head noun phrase in Japanese relative clauses, with a focus on whether the anaphors ‘self’ and ‘self-self’ within the head noun phrase can be co-referential with the relative clause subject. It aims to settle a long-standing debate among the previous studies concerning the interpretation of the anaphors inside the head noun phrase: while several studies claimed that the co-reference between the anaphor ‘self’ and the relative clause subject is prohibited, many other studies argued that such co-reference is possible. In addition, it has been claimed that while co-indexing the anaphor with the relative clause subject might be marginally acceptable, it would become fully acceptable if we replace with the morphologically complex anaphor ‘self-self’, which implies that the morphological make-up of an anaphor may affect its ability to be co-indexed with the relative clause subject.

The results of two carefully controlled truth value judgment experiments show that neither the simplex anaphor nor the complex anaphor within the head noun phrase of relative clauses can take the relative clause subject as its antecedent, which suggests that the head noun phrase does not reconstruct and therefore lends support to the -binding analysis of Japanese relative clauses. Moreover, the findings also suggest that the morphological make-up of an anaphor does not affect its ability to take the relative clause subject as its antecedent, despite the claim that it is more acceptable to co-index the complex anaphor with the relative clause subject than the simplex anaphor .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00082.che
2021-03-17
2021-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abe, Jun
    1997 The locality of zibun and logophoricity. InInoue, Kazuko (ed.), Researching and verifying an advanced theory of human language (COE Research Report 1), 595–626. Chiba: Kanda University of International Studies. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4d3n8VR​srgmNDBjYWI4OGQtYjUzMC00Y2JmLWIwMDEtYjJhNDgxMTM3N2Jj/view) (Accessed2020-09-25.)
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikawa, Takako
    2002 [1999] Reflexives. InTsujimura, Natsuko (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 154–190. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aoun, Joseph E. & Li, Yen-hui Audrey
    2003Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/2832.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2832.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhatt, Rajesh
    2002 The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics10(1). 43–90. 10.1023/A:1015536226396
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015536226396 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chomsky, Noam
    1993 A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. InHale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (Current Studies in Linguistics 24), 1–52. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clements, George. N.
    1975 The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages10(2). 141–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Crain, Stephen & Thornton, Rosalind
    1998Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fukui, Naoki & Takano, Yuji
    2000 Nominal structure: An extension of the symmetry principle. InSvenonius, Peter (ed.), The derivation of VO and OV (Linguistics Today 31), 219–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.31.09fuk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.31.09fuk [Google Scholar]
  9. Gunji, Takao
    2002 Tango to bun no koozoo [Structures of words and sentences]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
  10. Hara, Takaaki
    2001 Anaphoric expressions in Japanese. Linguistics in the Netherlands18(1). 113–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/avt.18.13ana
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.18.13ana [Google Scholar]
  11. Hasegawa, Nobuko
    1988 Remarks on ‘zero pronominals’: In defense of Hasegawa (1984/85). InTawa, Wako & Nakayama, Mineharu (eds.), Proceedings of Japanese Syntax Workshop: Issues on empty categories, 50–76. New London: Connecticut College.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hoji, Hajime
    1985Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Seattle: University of Washington. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoshi, Koji
    2004 Remarks on N-final relativization in Japanese. English Language and Literature44. 113–147. Yokohama: Keio University.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Huang, C.-T. James & Liu, C.-S. Luther
    2001 Logophority, attitude, and ziji at the interface. InCole, Peter & Hermon, Gabriella & Huang, C.-T. James (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 33: Long distance reflexives, 141–195. Bingley: Emerald.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ishii, Yasuo
    1991Operators and empty categories in Japanese. Storrs: University of Connecticut. (Doctoral dissertation.) 10.1515/jjl‑1991‑0113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-1991-0113 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ishizuka, Tomoko
    2010 Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Japanese: Antisymmetric approach. (Manuscript.)
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kameyama, Megumi
    1984 Subjective/logophoric bound anaphor zibun. InDrogo, Joseph & Mishra, Veena & Testen, David (eds.), CLS 20: Papers from the 20th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 228–238. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1985Zero Anaphora: The case of Japanese. Stanford: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Katada, Fusa
    1988 LF-binding of anaphors. InBorer, Hagit (ed.), WCCFL 7: Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 171–186. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1991 The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry22(2). 287–313.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim, Ji-Hye & Yoon, James H.
    2009 Local-distance bound local anaphors in Korean – An empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. Lingua119(5). 733–755. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kishida, Maki
    2011Reflexives in Japanese. College Park: University of Maryland. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kitao, Yasuyuki
    2009The nature of relativization: A minimalist perspective. Osaka: Osaka University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011 The presence of head-raising and resumptive-stranding in Japanese relative clauses. Acta Linguistica Hungaria58(3). 313–335. 10.1556/ALing.58.2011.3.7
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.58.2011.3.7 [Google Scholar]
  25. Klein, Udo & Guntsetseg, Dolgor & von Heusinger, Klaus
    2012 Case in conflict: Embedded subjects in Mongolian. InLamers, Monique & de Swart, Peter (eds.), Case, word order and prominence: Interacting cues in language production and comprehension (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 40), 43–64. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1463‑2_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuno, Susumu
    1973The structure of the Japanese language (Current Studies in Linguistics 3). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1978 Danwa no bunpoo [Grammar of discourse]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
  28. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    1997Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame semantic approach (Studies in Language Companion Series 35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.35 [Google Scholar]
  29. McCawley, Noriko Akatsuka
    1976 Reflexivization: A transformational approach. InShibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 5: Japanese Generative Grammar, 51–116. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Morita, Hisashi
    2013 Optional movements derive Japanese relative clauses. US-China Foreign Language11(9). 645–658.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Murasugi, Keiko
    2000 An antisymmetry analysis of Japanese relative clauses. InAlexiadou, Artemis & Law, Paul & Meinunger, André & Wilder, Chris (eds.), The syntax of relative clauses (Linguistics Today 32), 231–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.32.07mur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.32.07mur [Google Scholar]
  32. Nakamura, Masaru
    1987 Parameterized extension of binding theory. InBrowning, M. A. & Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa & Ritter, Elizabeth (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 9: The 25th anniversary of MIT Linguistics, 193–223. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Perlmutter, David
    1972 Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization. InPeranteau, Paul M. & Levi, Judith N. & Phares, Gloria C. (eds.), The Chicago which hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, a paravolume to papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 73–105. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.
    1992 Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry23(2). 261–303.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schachter, Paul
    1973 Focus and relativization. Language49(1). 19–46. 10.2307/412101
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412101 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00082.che
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00082.che
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): anaphor; head noun phrase; Japanese; relative clause
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error