Japanese gapless relativization:
The syntax–prosody interface to semantics
Chihiro Taguchi
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Notre Dame

Abstract
Analysis of Japanese Gapless Relativization (GR) in LFG
Proposals:
In Japanese, the rel argument is introduced at the syntax–prosody interface
GR generates a non-subcategorizable GF (relative) in syntax
Weak semantic role (relative) in semantics

Introduction: Gapless Relativization
Gapless Relativization (GR): Relativization in which the gap for the head noun is notfound in the modifying relative clause (RC).
(1) neko=ga nezumi=wo toraeta
cat=nom mouse=acc caught‘The cat caught the mouse’(2) [nezumi=wo toraeta] nekoi
mouse=acc caught cat‘The cat that caught the mouse’ (Subject relativized)i(3) [neko=gai toraeta] nezumii
cat=nomcaught mouse‘The mouse that the cat caught’ (Object relativized)(4) [neko=ga nezumi=wo toraeta] oto
cat=nom mouse=acc caught sound‘The sound (that is caused by the event where) the cat caught the mouse’ (Gaplessrelativization)

1. Prosody to syntax: Introducing REL(ative)

3. rel(ative) as a semantic role

No relativizer in Japanese — how does it mark relativization?
Pitch assimilation
Pitch assimilation in Tokyo Japanese: the preceding modifier’s pitch spreads to themodified noun, as in Table 1 and Figure 1 (Uyeno et al., 1980; Jun and Koike, 2003)
Pitch accent of Tokyo Japanese: each mora has a high or low tone
Pitch without assimilation sounds unnatural (Table 1)
Following Jun (2003), these prosodic words (PW) form a unit as an accentualphrase (AP).

FormUnit Pitch

In semantics, typical gapped RCs are computed by assuming the Predicate Modification(PM) rule (Heim and Kratzer, 1998), but this does not work for GR.
JsoundK = λx.sound(x)Jthe cat caught the mouse in the houseK= ∃e.catch(e) ∧ [agent(e) = c] ∧ [theme(e) = m] ∧ [loc(e) = h]
→ Type mismatch

Translation

toraeta
PW /tò.rá.è.tà/“caught”
oto
PW /ò.tó/“sound”
toraeta oto AP /tò.rá.è.tà.ò.tò/ “catching sound”??/tò.rá.è.tà.ò.tó/

Problems:
Where does this P come from?
How does P become semantically vacuous?

https://ctaguchi.github.ioLexicon Meaning constructorc :↑σm :↑σλyλxλe.catch(e) ∧ ag(e) = x ∧ th(e) = y : (↑ obj)σ ( (↑ subj)σ ( (↑ ev)σ (↑σιx.sound(x) :↑σ
λxλe.rel(e) = x : (↑ arg)σ ( (↑ ev)σ (↑σTable 2. Lexicon.
λyλxλe.catch(e) ∧ ag(e) = x ∧ th(e) = ym
λxλe.catch(e) ∧ ag(e) = x ∧ th(e) = mc
λxλe.rel(e) = xx1
CPA
λe.catch(e) ∧ ag(e) = c ∧ th(e) = mλe.rel(e) = x1
PMλe.catch(e) ∧ ag(e) = c ∧ th(e) = m ∧ rel(e) = x1
λxλe.catch(e) ∧ ag(e) = c ∧ th(e) = m ∧ rel(e) = x
ιx.sound(x)λe.catch(e) ∧ ag(e) = c ∧ th(e) = m ∧ rel(e) = ιx.sound(x)Figure 1. Pitch (blue line),pronounced by the author.

Table 1. Pitch assimilation.

Japanese relativization is marked by prosody forming AP:

Figure 3. Glue proof. CPA: Conditional Proof Assumption, PM: Predicate Modification rule.

Introduces an abstract argument rel
Provides an f-description (↑ adj rel) = (↑ pred) (shared value) in the lexical
entry of the head noun

Conclusion
This study...

Mapping from the prosody to the c-/f-structures
Pitch assimilation gives the f-description defining the rel argument (see Figure 2a)
The f-structure shows the shared value (see Figure 2b)
In gapped RCs, the rel further shares its value with the gap (subj, obj, etc.)

Provided an alternative analysis for Japanese GR with LFG
Identified the source of Japanese relativizer: syntax–prosody interface
Demonstrated the mapping from syntax to semantics
Discussions:
Do we really need the abstract rel? Can’t we just stick with adj?
How about languages with GR but without pitch accent (e.g., Seoul Korean)?

NPN’↑=↓

Cha’s (1999) explanation:
A special predicate P (e, x), taking an event e and an entity x, is conjoined
P only specifies that the event and the entity share some relationship reasonably
inferred from the context and syntax
P becomes “semantically vacuous” in gapped RCs

Same semantic derivation as other semantic roles (shown below)
Weak semantic roles have already been proposed: content for noun complement
clauses (Moulton, 2015) and participant for tough constructions (Gluckman, 2021)
The rel arguments give λxλe.rel(e) = x to be conjoined with the event predicate

nekonezumi
toraetaotoθrel

2. REL in syntax
Previous analyses and their issues

Rather than using an underdefined predicate P , assume a weak thematic relation representing the relatedness to the eventS(↑ adj) =↓NP(↑ gf) =↓NP(↑ gf) =↓neko=ganezumi=o(↑ pred) = ‘cat’ (↑ pred) = ‘mouse’

AcknowledgmentsN’↑=↓V↑=↓N↑=↓toraetaoto(↑ pred) =(↑ pred) = ‘sound’‘catchsubj, obj’(↑ adj rel) =(↑ pred)(a) c-structurepred

‘sound’
adj

pred
subj

obj







rel






‘catchhsubj, obji’









pred ‘cat’




  

pred ‘mouse’ 

(b) f-structure

Figure 2. c- and f-structures for (4). Other grammatical information such as tense is omitted forsimplicity.

The 28th Annual Lexical-Functional Grammar ConferenceThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant
No. BCS-2109709.

References
Cha, Y. (1999). Semantics of Korean gapless clause constructions. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 29(1).
Gluckman, J. (2021). The meaning of the tough-construction. Natural Language Semantics, pages 453–499.
Heim, I. and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
Jun, S.-A. (2003). Prosodic phrasing and attachment preferences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(2).
Jun, S.-A. and Koike, C. (2003). Default prosody and relative clause attachment in Japanese. In 13th Japanese-Korean
Linguistics Conference.
Moulton, K. (2015). CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(2):305–342.
Uyeno, T., Hayashibe, H., Imai, K., Imagawa, H., and Kiritani, S. (1980). Comprehension of relative clause construction
and pitch contours in Japanese. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 14:225–236.

ctaguchi@nd.edu