Some gapless relatives in Japanese are not gapless.
Yohei Takahashi
Aoyama Gakuin University
ABSTRACT:This presentation targets a subcategory of gapless relatives (GRs) in Japanese exemplified in (1) where therelativized head nominal forms a causal connection to the event described in the embedded clause:(1) sakana-ga kogeru nioi(1) fish-NOM burn smell(1) ‘the smell of fish’s burning’
We argue for a proposal where an implicit event argument (IEA) undergoes relativization, in a manner similar to but extended from earlier proposals (Kunihiro 1980 and Tsai 1997). Its schematic representation isgiven in (2)(2) [[[sakana-ga kogeru VP] [TOKI] VP] kogeru TP] C [TOKI] CP] [TOKI DP] DP] NO ModP] [nioi DP] DP]
Here, the capitalized relativized head TOKI ‘time’ is an IEA originally base-generated as the temporal modifier of the embedded stage-level (s-level) predicate kogeru ‘burn’. This IEA is displaced from thebase-generated position via overt Move in the manner proposed by Tonoike (2008), finally landing in thecomplement position of the covert modification particle NO ‘of’.
It is widely known that Japanese and Chinese have GRs. GRs differ from ordinary relative clauses inthat embedded clauses of GRs have no argument slot for the relativized head to occur. Japanese GRs are
exemplified below:(3) a. sakana-ga kogeru nioi(=(1))(3) b. Yamada-ga
kanningu-shita kekka(3) b. Yamada-NOM cheat-didresult(3) b. ‘the result of Yamada’s cheating’(3) c. shushoku-ga
muzukashii gengogaku(3) c. getting_job-NOM hardlinguistics(3) c. ‘linguistics, which is hard to get a job’Throughout generative researches (e.g., Tsai 1997 for Chinese, and Murasugi 2000 for Japanese), there havebeen much cross-linguistic discussions on GRs, but what “GR” refers to seems rather indeterminate among
those previous studies. Identification of GRs is based on conflicting evidence. Hence, in this presentation welimit our attention to GRs of (3a) type.
Argument for our proposed relativization approach comes from several facts. Above all, Tsai’s (1997)
argument for what he calls sloppy relatives in Chinese is worth paying attention to. Tsai points out that a stative predicate cannot be the predicate of an embedded clause of a sloppy relative. (4) is Tsai’s (25a) but theliteral translation is mine:(4) *[[Akiu (hen) congming] dehaochu] hen duo.
(5) a[[Akiu very intelligent PNM benefit very many
‘The benefits of Akiu being very intelligent are very many.’ (Lit.)
This suggests that the relevant expressions are associated with actions or events. From this Tsai concludes
that his sloppy relatives involve relativization of an IEA. Notice that the same restriction also holds in thecase of (3a):(5) *sakana-ga sekituidoobutsu-dearu nioi(6) fish-NOM vertebrate-issmell‘the smell of fish being a vertebrate’ (Lit.)(5) is headed by the nominal predicate sekitsuidoobtsu-dearu ‘verbebrate-is’. This predicate is categorized as

an individual-level (i-level) predicate. The ungrammaticality automatically follows by adopting the proposed
relativization analysis where an IEA TOKI is base-generated as the adjunct of an embedded predicate because i-level predicates cannot be typically associated with a spatiotemporal modifier (Kratzer 1996).
Another piece of evidence is the other side of the same coin as the one we saw above. Previous studies
have revealed that the distinction of s-level and i-level predicate is closely related to that of thetic and categorical interpretation: Typically, s-level predicates bring the thetic interpretation while i-level predicate thecategorical reading. The impossibility of (3a)’s selecting an i-level predicate is then borne out by the ungrammaticality of (6) given a shared assumption that -wa marked NP sentences bear the categorical reading:(6) *sakana-wa kogeru nioi
A crucial difference of a proposed analysis from Tsai’s proposal is found in that ours assumes an IEA
to undergo relativization via Move while Tsai assumes it to be base-generated in the embedded CP. Our
proposal is preferable when we consider Higginbotham’s (1985) requirement that event argument be existentially bound. Tsai’s proposal, as it stands, cannot satisfy this requirement. However, our proposal wherethe IEA is base-generated as the adjunct of an embedded predicate fares well given the widely held assumption that existential binding targets the predicate projection domain (Diesing 1992).
REFERENCES:Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On Semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 547-593.
Kratzer, A. (1996). Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates. In Carlson, N. G. and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book,
125-175, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kunihiro T. (1980). Henzha Hosetsu (Explanation by the Editor). In Nichieigohikakukooza dainikan (Lecutures on Comparative Studies on Japanese and English, Volume II), 267-276, Taishukan, Tokyo.
Murasugi, K. (2000). Antisymmetry Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses. In Alexiadou, A., P. Law, A. Meinunger, and C.
Wilder (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses, 231-264, John Benjamin, Amsterdam.
Tsai, W.-T. D., (1997). On the Absense of Island Effects, Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies New Series, 27, 125-149.
Tonoike, S. (2008). DP Movement Analysis of Relativization. Ms. University of Hawaii and Aoyama Gakuin Univerisity.

[792 words]