The derivation of Japanese relative clauses with scrambling and quantifier float
By comparing relative clauses with scrambling, I would like to show that A’-movement
employed in the derivation of relative clauses is not Agree-based in Japanese. To substantiate
this claim, I will first present evidence for a movement account despite the dominant viewthat no movement is involved in Japanese relative clauses (Murasugi (1991)). Specifically, thehead noun of a relative clause is first base-generated inside its own clause and goes throughA’-movement to CP spec (i.e. a promotion analysis, cf. Aoun and Li (2003)). Next I will
reveal that such A’-movement is actually (A’-) scrambling. Finally, I will indicate that afterscrambling to CP spec, quantifier floating applies to the head noun (DP), which makes it
possible to extract NP out of the DP later. As a result, the NP will be reused as the head nounby merging with a new D in the higher phase.
A few pieces of evidence are introduced here to demonstrate that a certain kind ofovert movement to CP spec is involved to derive relative clauses in Japanese. Examine thefollowing sentences:(1) a. [DP zibunzisin-no shasin-o]i
daremo-ga ti totta. [scrambling (henceforth, SCR) ]oneself-Ge picture-Acc everyone-Nom took‘(Lit.) Pictures of themselves, everyone took.’b. [CP daremo-ga ti totta] [DP zibunzisin-no shasin]i [relative clause (henceforth, RL)]
‘Pictures of themselves that everyone took’(2) a. [DP go-satu-izyoo-no hon-o]i
daremo-ga sorezore ti yonda. [SCR]
five-CL-more.than-Gen book-Acc everyone-Nom individually read‘More than five books, everyone read.’ more than 5>>every; every>>more than 5b. [CP daremo-ga sorezore ti yonda] [DP go-satu-izyoo-nohon]i. [RL]
‘More than five books that everyone read.’ more than 5>>every; every>>more than 5
As (1) shows, daremo ‘everyone’ can bind the anaphoric noun phrase, zibunzisin-no shasin‘pictures of oneself’, which indicates that the noun phrase moves overtly in both scrambled
and relative clause construction. Furthermore, the scopal ambiguity of (2)a (scrambled) and b(relative clause) suggests that ‘more than five books’ is reconstructed to generate more than
one interpretation. These data support that overt movement is involved not only in scrambling
but also in the derivation of relative clauses in Japanese contra Murasugi (1991).
Moreover, there is new data to suggest that movement employed in the derivation ofrelative clauses in Japanese is long-distance (or A'-) scrambling as follows:(3) a. *[Mary-ga [John-ga ti sono setu-o sinziteiru to] omotteiru] [DP riyuu]i. [RL]-Nom-Nom that theory-Acc believe C thinkreason‘The reasoni [that Mary thinks [that John believes that theory ti]]b. *[AdvP riyuu-mo -naku]i Mary-ga [John-ga ti sono setu-o sinziteiru to] omotteiru.
reason-even-without-Nom -Nom that theory-Acc believe C think [SCR]‘Without a reasoni, Mary thinks [that John believes that theory ti].’ (Saito 1985: 175)
Murasugi (1991) presents examples such as (3)a to show that a ‘reason’ (as well as a‘manner’) adverb cannot go through long-distance relativization and to argue that nomovement is involved in Japanese relative clauses. However, as Saito (1985) notes, thephenomenon is not limited to relative clauses: long-distance scrambling shows the same effectas in (3)b. Furthermore, when the domain of a ‘reason’ adverb is over individuals rather thanpropositions, long-distance movement of a ‘reason’ adverb is possible as in (4), where ikutuka‘several’ is added to riyuu ‘reason’ so that its scope is over individuals:(4) a. [PP ikutuka-no riyuu-de]i Mary-ga [John-ga ti sono setu-o sinjiteiru to] omotteiru.
several-Gen reason-at-Nom-Nom that theory-Acc believe C think[SCR]‘For several reasonsi, Mary thinks [that John believes that theory ti].’ (Saito 1985: 175)b. [Mary-ga [John-ga ti sono setu-o sinjiteiru to] omotteiru] [DP ikutuka-no riyuu]i. [RL]
‘Several reasonsi [that Mary thinks [that John believes that theory ti]]1

This similarity suggests that the same movement applies to long-distance scrambling andrelativization in Japanese.
Nonetheless, one peculiar phenomenon remains as follows:(5) [CP daremoi-ga ti totta] [DP *zibuni-no nanmaika-no shasin/nanmaika-no zibuni-no shasin]-Nom took
self -Gen some-Gen pictures/some-Gen self-Gen pictures‘Some of their pictures that everyone took’
In (5), if a head noun is headed by zibun ‘self’, the reconstruction effect is unobserved.
However, if a modifier is placed before zibun, reconstruction is possible, which has not been
discussed in the literature. To account for the contrast, I argue that after scrambling to CP spec,
NP inside the DP is raised to its DP spec through quantifier floating. Since the NP is nowvisible to the higher phase, it will be reused and serve as the head noun. This account explains
the strange phenomenon of (5). Suppose zibun is base-generated at DP spec. Then the NP
cannot be raised to DP spec; as a result, the NP itself remains invisible to outside DP, andhence, cannot be reused as the head noun of a relative clause. However, if zibun iscomplement of shasin ‘picture’, it should follow the quantifier, nanmaika ‘some’, in whichcase nanmaika-no zibun-no shasin ‘several pictures of oneself’ can be raised to DP spec andrelativization becomes possible. (6) supports this analysis:(6) a. daremo -ga [DP zibun-no nanmaika-no shasin-o]
totta.
everyone-Nomself-Gen some -Gen picture-Acc took*‘Everyone took some pictures of themselves.’b. daremo-ga [DP nanmaika-no zibun-no shasin-o] totta.
c. daremo-ga [DP [NP zibun-no shasin-o]i nanmaika ti] totta.
(Quantifier-floated )As (6)a shows, when zibun heads DP, i.e. being at DP spec, VP does not mean ‘taking apicture of oneself.’ However, when zibun does not head DP as in (6)b, i.e. being not at DP
spec, the interpretation of VP is available because zibun is complement of shasin there. (6)c is
an instance of quantifier floating, and it allows the interpretation of self-portrait, whichindicates that quantifier floating is available when zibun is not at DP spec. These facts suggestthat DP spec of the head noun has to be empty before relativization applies to the noun.
The present analysis indicates one important difference between languages which
employ wh-elements to derive relative clauses such as English and ones which do not as inJapanese. The former type uses Agree to initiate A’-movement. When the head noun itself
rather than a wh-element is raised (i.e. a promotion analysis) to CP spec through Agree, thehead noun is encapsulated in another covert DP (Hicks (2009)). After Agree, the wh-feature of
the outer DP is checked off and erased, so that the head noun inside is then visible to the next
higher phase. In contrast, Japanese resorts to scrambling to move DP to CP spec. Since
scrambling does not involve Agree, no feature is deleted after scrambling to CP spec. Thus,
the scrambled phrase, D of which has already received a theta-role and Case, cannot be usedas the head noun as it is. To resolve this situation, quantifier floating is applied to expose NP
out of DP so that the NP can be reused later as the head noun. The claims made here, if correct,
implicate not only that every overt A’-movement in Japanese does not involve Agree and isachieved by an alternative overt mechanism such as scrambling, but also that covert
wh-movement languages may have to employ a different mechanism from Agree to build
relative clauses.
[Selected references] Aoun, Joseph and Y-h Audrey Li (2003) Essays on the Presentationaland Derivational Nature of Grammar: The Diversity of WH-Constructions, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts; Hicks, Glyn (2009) “Tough-Construction and Their Derivation,”
LI 40, 535-566; Murasugi, Keiko (1991). Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study inSyntax Learnability and Acquisition, doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut; Saito,
Mamoru (1985). Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Consequences,doctoral dissertation, MIT.
2