ON CHINESE AND JAPANESE RELATIVE CLAUSES AND NP-ELLIPSIS*
Yoichi Miyamoto
Osaka University

1.

Introduction

Aoun and Li (2003: A&L hereafter) argue that English relative clauses are derived byeither relative-head-raising (Brame 1968, Kayne 1994, Schachter 1973) or operator(Op)-movement (Chomsky 1977). According to A&L, a relative clause headed by thecomplementizer that is formed by the movement of the relative head to CP SPEC, whereas
Op-movement takes place when a relative clause is headed by an overt relative operator. Theybase their claim on the observation that only relative clauses headed by that exhibit
reconstruction effects such as scope reconstruction and idiomatic interpretation. Hulsey and
Sauerland (2006) further argue that when relative clauses headed by that are extraposed, theycannot have been formed by relative-head-raising. These previous works show that inprinciple, natural language allows both the head-raising and Op-movement options. The
purpose of this paper is to examine Chinese and Japanese relative clauses from theperspective of these two types of relative clause formation.
A&L (2003) argue that Chinese relative clauses make use of head-raising andOp-movement. Building upon Saito, Lin and Murasugi’s (2008: SL&M hereafter)
comparative study of Chinese and Japanese nominal architecture, this paper also attempts toshow that in principle, Chinese relative clauses allow both head-raising and Op-movement.
However, I show that A&L’s and my proposals make different predictions regarding*

A previous version of this paper was presented at the 8th Workshop of the International Research
Project on Comparative Syntax and Acquisition (Nanzan University) on March 15, 2010, and the
Linguistic Colloquium at National Tsing Hua University on April 16, 2010. Part of the material was
also discussed in the graduate seminar in the academic year of 2009 at Graduate School of Language
and Culture, Osaka University. I am indebted to the participants at these three occasions; in particular,
Tomohiro Fujii, Jonah T.-H. Lin, Mamoru Saito, Junri Shimada, Koji Sugisaki, Yuji Takano, andKensuke Takita. I am also thankful to Jon Clenton, Tomoko Haraguchi, Hideki Kishimoto, Jonah T.-H.
Lin, Hideki Maki, Keiko Murasugi, Mamoru Saito, Junri Shimada, and Pei-Tsuen Wang for valuablecomments and suggestions on the earlier drafts of this paper. This research was supported in part by
the grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education and Science to the Center for Linguistics at Nanzan
University for establishment of centers for advanced research (International Collaborative Research
Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition) as well as the grant-in-aid for scientificresearch (No. 22520397) awarded to the author. The usual disclaimers apply.
Nanzan Linguistics 6, 13-46©2010 Yoichi Miyamoto

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

NP-ellipsis to be triggered by a relative clause in one context.1 Support for my proposalcomes in the form of an examination of the (un)availability of NP-ellipsis in this particular
context. My proposal also allows us to dispense with A&L’s auxiliary condition on theidentification requirement on the relative Op.
If we turn our attention to other East Asian languages, we find that Japanese relative
clauses behave differently from their Chinese counterparts. Japanese relative clauses havebeen argued to be TPs (Saito 1985, Murasugi 1991). I suggest that the absence of the Japaneseequivalent of de prevents Japanese from adopting the head-raising option and therefore, a
relative clause must make use of an adjunction structure in this language (Murasugi 1991). As
a consequence, no NP-ellipsis is allowed in Japanese.
The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 introduces Simpson’s(2002)/SL&M’s proposal on relative clauses in Chinese. In Section 3, I propose that not only
Kaynean head-raising but also Op-movement is available in Chinese relative clauses. I namethis the “hybrid” hypothesis. I also show in this section that these two options are not always
equally available due to independent reasons. In Section 4, I turn to introduce A&L’s seminal
work on relative clauses in Chinese. Of our particular interest is their finding that a certain
type of relative clause in Chinese can trigger NP-ellipsis. Section 5 aims to support the hybrid
hypothesis by examining NP-ellipsis in two different contexts. When discussing these twocontexts, I compare predictions made by our hybrid hypothesis and those made by A&L. In
Section 6, I discuss relative clauses with resumption in Chinese and show that theunavailability of NP-ellipsis is not problematic for the hybrid hypothesis. In Section 7, I
speculate that the predicate of a relative clause in the noun-modifying form, or the rentai form
under traditional Japanese grammar, leads to the lack of the head-raising option in Japanese.
Section 8 concludes this paper.
2.

Kaynean Head-Raising in Chinese Relative Clauses

2.1.

Simpson (2002)/Saito, Lin and Murasugi (2008)

Simpson (2002) and SL&M propose an analysis of Chinese relative clauses, which isbased on Kayne (1994). In order to illustrate the essence of their proposal, let us consider theexample in (1):2

1

Under the Kaynean approach to relative clauses, standard “NP-ellipsis” should be understood asCP-ellipsis. In this paper, I use the term “NP-ellipsis” for CP-ellipsis, unless necessary, because of thefamiliarity of the terminology in point.
2

Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows:
Acc = accusative, CL = classifier, Nom = nominative, PERF = perfective marker, Q = question marker,
RC = relative clause, Top = topic marker.

-14-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)(1)[[wo zuotian
kanjian] de nanhai] bi[[ni zuotian kanjian] de[[Iyesterday see
DE boycompare [[you yesterday see
DE(nanhai)] geng youqian.
([boy
more rich‘The boy I saw yesterday is richer than the boy you saw yesterday.’(Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 263)

Under Simpson’s/SL&M’s proposal, the boldfaced DP has the structure given in (2):
(2)

DP
TP3

D’

ni zuotian kanjian t1 D

CP

de2

NP1
nanhai

C’
t3

C
t2

In (2), first, the relative head NP nanhai ‘boy’ is raised out of the relative clause TP to CP
SPEC, as shown in (3a). Second, de, which is generated in C, is raised to D, which makes DP
SPEC and CP SPEC “equidistant” from the CP complement position (Lin, Murasugi and
Saito 2001).3 The head-movement in point is illustrated in (3b). Finally, the relative clause
TP is raised to DP SPEC, as given in (3c).
(3)

a.

[DP [CP [NP nanhai]1 [C’ [TP ni zuotian kanjian t1] de]]]b.

[DP [D’ de2 [CP [NP nanhai]1 [C’ [TP ni zuotian kanjian t1] t2]]]]

3

SL&M base their claim that the original position of de is C on the observation that a homophone decan occupy the C position in cleft sentences as in (ia) and in the sentence-final position as in (ib):(i) a.
a.

Laowang shi zuotian [chi niu-rou mien de].
be yesterday [eat beef
noodle DE‘It is yesterday that Laowang ate beef noodle.’(Lin, Murasugi and Saito 2001: 22)b.

Laowang yinggai qu Taipei de.
should goDE‘Laowang should go to Taipei.’(Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 265)

It is therefore not unnatural to assume that de is generated as the C head in relative clauses as well.

-15-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010c.

[DP [TP ni zuotian kanjian t1]3 [D’ de2 [CP [NP nanhai]1 [C’ t3 t2]]]]

Notice that Chinese relative clauses can trigger NP-ellipsis (see also Aoun and Li 2003,
Huang, Li and Li 2009). For example, the boldfaced NP nanhai ‘boy’ can be elided in (1). In
this paper, I assume that empty NPs are licensed by D via proper government in the same waythat empty VPs are licensed by I (Saito and Murasugi 1990, Lobeck 1990). The importancehere is that NP-ellipsis can take place only when DP SPEC is filled. This requirement on
SPEC captures, for instance, the contrast between (4a) and (4b) in English:(4)a.

John bought [DP [D’ the *([NP car])]].

b.

John bought [DP Mary [D’ ’s ([NP car])]].

I dub this requirement on SPEC “the SPEC-R” throughout this paper. In (3c), the relative
clause satisfies this SPEC-R, and it is not surprising that the CP can be elided in (2).
The question concerning the NP-ellipsis in Chinese is how relative clauses come tooccupy DP SPEC. According to Saito and Murasugi (1990), the argument/adjunct asymmetry
is a crucial factor in Japanese to determine whether a phrase can trigger NP-ellipsis, and only
arguments can be raised to DP SPEC and license the operation in point. Consider (5a, b):
(5)
(5)

a.
a.

[Taroo-no taido]-wa
yoi ga,[Hanako-no (taido)]-wa yokunai.
[Taroo-NO attitude-Top good though [Hanako-NO (attitude-Top good-not

(5)

a.

‘Though Taroo’s attitude is good, Hanako’s isn’t.’b.

[hare-no hi]-wa yoi ga,[ame-no *(hi)]-wa ochikomu.
[clear-NO day-Top good though [rain-NO day-Top feel-depressedb.

‘Clear days are OK, but I feel depressed on rainy days.’(Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 253)

In (5a), Taroo-no and Hanako-no are subjects, and thus, they are arguments. Therefore, they
can be raised to DP SPEC. Consequently, Hanako-no can trigger NP-ellipsis. On the other
hand, in (5b), hare-no and ame-no are neither subjects nor objects, and thus, they are adjuncts.
Accordingly, they cannot move to DP SPEC. As a result, ame-no cannot trigger NP-ellipsis. It
is therefore natural to expect that Japanese relative clauses do not allow NP-ellipsis either.
This is in fact the case, as shown in (6):-16-On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)(6)[[Taroo-ga
kinooatta] hito]-wa
yasashii ga,[[Hanako-ga[[Taroo-Nom yesterday saw person-Top kindthough [[Hanako-Nomkinooatta] *(hito)]-wa kowai.
yesterday saw *(person-Top scary‘The person Taroo saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw yesterday isscary.’(Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 263)

Taking the contrast between (1) and (6) into consideration, SL&M, following Simpson(2002), suggest that de is an enclitic and requires some phrase in DP SPEC. In (1), de forces
the relative clause to move to DP SPEC. In short, the difference between (1) and (6) comesfrom the lexical nature of de, not from deeper principles of UG. It should be noted that under
the Kaynean approach to relative clauses, the relative clause TP in (1) is the complement of C,
and therefore, the argument/adjunct asymmetry in (5) is not a problem for Chinese relative
clauses. I return to Japanese relative clauses in Section 7.
2.2.

Positions available for Relative Clauses

The structure in (2) leads us to predict that Chinese relative clauses should always
precede other elements located below DP. With this prediction in mind, I consider cases
where a relative clause and a numeral accompanied by a classifier, dubbed as ClassifierPhrase (CLP hereafter), co-occur within a nominal. The CLP has a numeral in the SPEC andits classifier in the head, and it is located between DP and NP, as illustrated in (7) (Cheng andSybesma 1999, Li 1999, among others for Number Phrase/CLP in Chinese):(7)[DP D [CLP Num [CL’ CL [NP … N …]]]]
For instance, the DP in (8a) has the structure given in (8b):

(8)
(8)

a.
a.

Lisi de liang-ben shu
DE two-CL book

(8)

a.

‘Lisi’s two books’-17-Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

b.

DP
Lisi

D’
D
de

CLP
liang

CL’
CL

NP

ben

shu

Now, in order to clarify which position a numeral with a classifier occupies under
Simpson’s/SL&M’s proposal, let us first consider the grammatical contrast between (9a) and(9b) (Kayne 1994: 86):
(9)a. ?*I found the (two) pictures of John’s/his.
b.

I found the (two) pictures of John’s/his that you lent me.

In contrast to (9a), (10) is grammatical.
(10) I found two pictures of John’s.
The grammaticality of (10) shows that the complement two pictures of John’s is a constituent
and that the ungrammaticality of (9a) comes from the existence of the definite article. Now, if
the (two) pictures of John’s/his in (9b) had the same structure as the one for (9a) and therelative clause had simply been adjoined to this nominal, we would incorrectly predict (9b) tobe equally ungrammatical. Kayne therefore proposes the structures given in (11a, b) for (9a,b) respectively (see Kayne 1993 for (11a)):(11) a.
b.

[DP the [DP [QP two pictures]1 [D’ of [AGRP John [AGR’ [AGR ’s] t1]]]]][DP the [DP [QP two pictures of John’s/his]1 [C’ that [TP you lent me t1]]]]For Kayne, the contrast between (9a) and (9b) comes from the assumption that the, which istaken to be a D head, can take a CP complement, but not a DP complement. (9b), then, showsthat quantified phrases (QPs) can be subject to the head-raising operation in English.
Significantly, in Chinese, a numeral either precedes or follows a relative clause, as
exemplified in (12a, b) (Chao 1968, Huang 1982, Del Gobbo 2003, among others):-18-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)(12) a.

[Lisi xihuan] de liang-ben shu
likeDE two-CL book(12)

‘two books that Lisi likes’b.

liang-ben [Lisi xihuan] de shu
two-CLlike
DE bookGiven the derivational step in (11), it is natural to take it that the structure of (12a) is as shownin (13) with its derivational steps in (14):
(13)

DP
TP3

D’

Lisi xihuan t1 D
de2

CP
CLP1

liang

(14) a.

C’
CL’ t3

CL

NP

ben

shu

C
t2

[DP [CP [CLP liang-ben shu]1 [C’ [TP Lisi xihuan t1] de]]]b.

[DP [D’ de2 [CP [CLP liang-ben shu]1 [C’ [TP Lisi xihuan t1] t2]]]]c.

[DP [TP Lisi xihuan t1]3 [D’ de2 [CP [CLP liang-ben shu]1 [C’ t3 t2]]]]

In (14a), the CLP liang-ben shu ‘two-CL book’ is generated within the relative clause TP, and
it is raised to the CP SPEC. Subsequently, de is raised to the D position, as shown in (14b),
which makes DP SPEC and CP SPEC “equidistant”. This in turn allows the relative clause TP
to be raised to DP SPEC, as illustrated in (14c). What is important for our purposes here isthat in (14c), the relative clause is necessarily located above the CLP, which means that therelative clause necessarily precedes the CLP liang-ben.
Alternatively, one may consider the possibility that the DP optionally takes the CLP as
its complement, as shown in (15):-19-Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

(15)

DP
TP3

D’

Lisi xihuan t1 D
de2

CLP
liang

CL’
CL

✖
✖

ben

CP
NP1
shu

C’
t3

C
t2

This time, the NP shu is raised to CP SPEC, followed by the raising of de to D. However,notice that the CL intervenes between D and C, and the de-raising would violate thehead-movement constraint. Consequently, the relative clause cannot be raised to DP SPECeither, due to minimality. The structure in (15) therefore is not available for (12a).
To summarize, under Simpson’s/SL&M’s proposal, we only have the structure given in(13) for (12a), which in turn predicts that relative clauses necessarily precede numeral
quantifiers accompanied by a classifier. The fact that a relative clause can follow a numeral
accompanied by a classifier, as exemplified in (12b), therefore appears to be problematic for
the Kaynean approach to Chinese relative clauses.
The question here is whether the fact that (12b) is grammatical undermines
Simpson’s/SL&M’s analysis of Chinese relative clauses. It is obvious that their proposal
needs modifying; however, it is not immediately clear whether we should refute the proposal
in question altogether. In Section 3, building upon Lin, Murasugi and Saito’s (2001) analysis
of pure complex NPs in Chinese, I propose a “hybrid” hypothesis for Chinese relative clauses
in order to accommodate (12b) as well as (12a).
3.

ProposalLin, Murasugi and Saito (2001) propose that pure complex NPs involve adjunction of a
CP (CPPCNP hereafter) to N’. For instance, (16a) has the structure given in (16b):-20-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)(16) a.

[CP Huaqi-Yinhang pochan de] xiaoxi
Citibank
bankrupt DE news
‘the news that Citibank went bankrupt’(Lin, Murasugi and Saito 2001: 21)

b.

DP
D’
D

NP
N’
CP

N’
C’

xiaoxiTPC

Huaqi-Yinhang pochandeThis proposal nicely accommodates the relative order between CPPCNP’s and relative clauses.
As shown in (17a, b), the CPPCNP must be closer to the head N than the relative clause in
English:(17) a.

the rumor [that Citibank got robbed] [that John heard e yesterday]

b. *the rumor [that John heard e yesterday] [that Citibank got robbed](Lin, Murasugi and Saito 2001: 19)
The structure of (17a) is as shown in (18):-21-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

(18)

DP
D’
D
the

CP
NP1

C’
N’

C

TP

N’

CP thatJohn …t1 …

rumor

that Citibank …

The same contrast is observed in Chinese, as illustrated in (19a, b):(19) a.

[Laowang zuotian tingdao e de] [Huaqi-yinghang bei qiang de] yaoyan
yesterday hear
DE [Citibank
got rob DE rumor‘the rumor that Citibank got robbed which Laowang heard yesterday’b. * [Huaqi-yinghang bei qiang de] [Laowang zuotian tingdao e de] yaoyan[Citibank
got rob DE
yesterday hear
DE rumor‘the rumor which Laowang heard yesterday that Citibank got robbed’(Lin, Murasugi and Saito 2001: 19)
This is exactly what we expect if a relative clause occupies DP SPEC whereas a CPPCNP is
adjoined to N’. The structure of (19a) is as shown in (20):
(20)

DP
TP3

D’

Laowang … t1 D
de2

CP
NP1
N’

C’
t3

C

CP

N’

t2

Huaqi-yinghang … deyaoyan-22-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)Of our particular interest here is the fact that CPPCNP’s cannot trigger NP-ellipsis, as
shown in (21):(21) * [CP Huaqi-Yinhang pochan de] xiaoxi bi[CP Meiguo-Yinhang pochan de][CP Citibank
bankrupt DE news compareBank-of-America bankrupt DE[ e] geng ling shichang zhenjing.
more make market shock‘The news that Citibank went bankrupt shocks the market more than the news that
Bank of America went bankrupt.’(Lin, Murasugi and Saito 2001: 21)
This naturally follows if the structure exemplified in (16b) is correct. In (21), the CPPCNP is
not in the DP SPEC, and therefore, the SPEC-R is not met. As a result, no NP-ellipsis isallowed in this example.
Keeping in mind the hypothesis that Chinese CPPCNP’s are adjoined to N’, we now turnto relative clauses in Chinese. The potential problem raised in Section 2.2 for relative clauses
is that a relative clause can follow a numeral-classifier sequence in this language. Consideringthat an adjunction structure is available to Chinese CPPCNP’s, I would like to extend Lin,
Murasugi and Saito’s (2001) hypothesis and propose that relative clauses can also have an
adjunction structure in this language, that is, the traditional head-final structure (e.g. Aounand Li 1993, Tsai 2008). In principle, relative clauses can have either of the two structures
given in (22a, b) in Chinese:(22) a.

Head-Raising Option
DP
TP3

D’

… t1 … D
de2

CP
NP1

C’
t3

C
t2

-23-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010b.

Op-Movement Option
DP
D’
D

NP
CP

NP

Op1

C’

N’

TP

C

… t1 …

deN(22a) illustrates the Kaynean head-raising option, whereas the relative clause is adjoined to
NP in (22b).
With this hybrid hypothesis in mind, I return to (12a, b), repeated here as (23a, b):(23) a.

[Lisi xihuan] de liang-ben shu
likeDE two-CL book‘two books that Lisi likes’b.

liang-ben [Lisi xihuan] de shu
two-CLlike
DE bookLet us start with (23a) which can make use of the Kaynean head-raising option and has the
structure given in (13), repeated here as (24):
(24)

DP
TP3

D’

Lisi xihuan t1 D
de2

CP
CLP1

liang

C’
CL’ t3

CL

NP

ben

shu

-24-

C
t2

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)

In addition, suppose that the CLP intervenes between DP and NP. Then, this example
can also have the structure given in (25) on the assumption that the relative clause can beraised to a functional category above NP, thus to DP, plausibly for focal reasons (Zhang
2004) or referential reasons (Lu 1998):
(25)

DP
CP2

DP

[Op1 [Lisi xihuan t1] de]

D’
D

CLP
liang

CL’
CL
ben

NP
t2

NP
shu

Alternatively, as proposed in Hsieh (2005), the relative clause may be base-generated in a
DP-adjoined position.
As for (23b), since the relative clause follows the numeral-classifier sequence, thehead-raising option is unavailable, as we saw in Section 2.2. Thus, the Op-movement option
must be chosen. Accordingly, (23b) has the structure given in (26) with the relative clausenecessarily adjoining to NP:
(26)

DP
D’
D

CLP
liang

CL’
CL
ben

NP
CP

NP

[Op1 [Lisi xihuan t1] de]shu

To summarize, this section proposes that in principle, Chinese relative clauses can-25-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010choose either Kaynean head-raising or Op-movement. However, when a relative clausefollows a numeral-classifier sequence, the Kaynean head-raising option is not available. In thefollowing four sections, I aim to show that the hybrid hypothesis makes interesting
predictions regarding NP-ellipsis phenomena. First of all, Section 4 discusses A&L’s (2003)
seminal work on the context in which NP-ellipsis is (un)available with Chinese relative
clauses.
4.

Aoun and Li’s (2003) Discovery

A&L (2003) (see also Huang, Li and Li 2009) adopt Kayne’s (1994) head-raising
hypothesis of relative clauses in English for Chinese relative clauses in a “modified” manner.
According to A&L, the relative clause in (27a), for example, has the structure given in (27b):(27) a.

[[ta chi e1 de] cu1]bishei dou da.
[[he eat
DE vinegar compare who all big‘Lit. The vinegar he eats is greater than anyone else’s.
His jealousy is greater than anyone else’s.’(Huang, Li and Li 2009: 220)

b.

NP
CP

[Head NP]1

… [NP t1] …

(Aoun and Li 2003: 175)

Of importance is the fact that chi-cu ‘eat vinegar’ has an idiomatic meaning, namely ‘bejealous.’ Given the assumption that idiomatic meanings require reconstruction, which isassumed to be possible only with head-raising, (27a) necessarily involves the raising of the
NP cu to the relative head position.
A&L observe that this type of relative clauses can trigger NP-ellipsis. For instance, (28a,b) are both grammatical:(28) a.

[laizher] de [e][come here DE‘(the one) that came here’b.

[ta zuo] de [e][he do DE‘(the thing) that he did’(Aoun and Li 2003: 180)

-26-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)We therefore understand that for A&L, the syntactic context shown in (27b) is the one whereNP-ellipsis is possible.
A&L further find a correlation between the category of the gap within a relative clause
and the (un)availability of NP-ellipsis. Significantly, when the relative head is ‘reason’ or‘method,’ NP-ellipsis is not allowed. Consider the grammatical contrast between (28a, b)
above and (29a, b):(29) a. * [ta xiu che] de [e](29) a.
[he fix car DE‘(the way) that he fixed the car’b. *[ta likai] de [e](29) a.
[he leave DE‘(the reason) that he left’(Aoun and Li 2003: 180)
More examples are given in (30a, b). These examples become ungrammatical if the phrases inparentheses are elided:(30) a.

[[ta xiu che] de fangfa] bi[[wo xiu che] de *(fangfa)] hao.
[[he fix car DE method compare [[I fix car DE *(method good
‘The way he fixes cars is better than the way I fix cars.’b.

[[ta bu neng laide] yuanjin] wo zhidao le; [[ni bu neng lai] de[[he not can come DE reason I know LE [[you not can come DE*(yuanyin)] ne.
*(reason
Q‘The reason that he cannot come, I know; how about the reason you cannot come?’(Aoun and Li 2003: 181-182)

A&L argue that the Kaynean analysis of Chinese relative clauses is applicable only tocases where the gap inside a relative clause is an NP. This naturally follows from theassumption that the relative head must be an NP. This in turn indicates that the head-raising
option is not available in cases where the gap inside a relative clause is a non-NP.
Consequently, non-NP relative clauses must make use of Op-movement. Accordingly, therelative clause in (30a), for example, must have the structure given in (31):-27-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

(31)

NP
CP
Op1

[Head NP]1
C’

C

IP
… [PP t1] …

(Aoun and Li 2003: 175)

In short, according to A&L (and Huang, Li and Li 2009), the choice between
head-raising and Op-movement crucially depends on the categorical status of a phrase to berelativized: NP-relatives and non-NP relatives. Huang, Li and Li’s (2009: 225) summary isgiven below:(32) a.

Relatives with a gap in argument positions:
A relative can be derived by directly raising the nominal to be relativized to the
Head position. The Head is related to the trace in an argument inside the relative.

b.

Relatives with the Head related to an adjunct or a pronoun in an argument
position:
The Head of the relative is base-generated. The Head-relative clause relation is via
a relative operator at the peripheral position of the relative clause.

Section 5 focuses on this asymmetry between NP-relatives and non-NP-relatives, and I defer
discussion on NP-relatives with a resumptive pronoun until Section 6.
Notice that under A&L (see also Huang, Li and Li 2009), NP-relatives andnon-NP-relatives are both adjoined to NP. Accordingly, in order to make a distinction
between these two types of relatives with respect to NP-ellipsis, they rely on the internal
structure of relative clauses themselves: whether a relative clause involves Op-movement or
head-raising; when the Op-movement option is taken, NP-ellipsis is not allowed. A&L
explain the contrast in question by relying on a condition on the identification requirement of
the relative Op. They provide two possibilities given in (33a, b) (see also Aoun and Li 2003:
182):(33) Due to some requirement on the relative operator (Op):a. The Op needs to be identified in the sense that some content needs to be provided
for the Op to be interpreted. A null form does not have enough content to identify
the Op [underlined by Y.M.].

-28-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)b.

A relative clause is licensed when the Op and the head match in features, including
phi-features (person, number, gender) and substantive features such as [human],[place], [time]. However, an empty head does not have lexical content and does
not have these features [underlined by Y.M.].
(Huang, Li and Li 2009: 227)

The basic idea is that if the relative head is elided, the relative Op fails to be properly
identified. Consequently, NP-ellipsis is not permitted with non-NP-relatives.
It is clear that we need an identification requirement on the relative Op. However, it is
not obvious why we have to refer to the phonetic content of the relative head in licensing the
Op in question as suggested in (33a, b). One construction worth examining in this respect isthe temporal adverbial construction that Geis (1970) and Larson (1990) discuss. Consider(34):(34) I saw Mary in New York [PP before [CP1 she claimed [CP2 that she would arrive]]].
(Larson 1990: 170)
Geis (1970) observes that temporal adverbials of the type exemplified in (34) are ambiguous.
(34) can describe the situation in which I saw Mary in New York before she made the claim
on her arrival. (34) can also mean that I saw Mary prior to her scheduled arrival time. Larson(1990) accounts for this ambiguity based on temporal Op-movement. According to Larson,these two interpretations are distinguished, based on the position in which the Op isgenerated, as roughly illustrated in (35a, b):(35) a.

I saw Mary in New York [PP before [CP1 she claimed [CP2 that she would arrive]
Op]].

b.

I saw Mary in New York [PP before [CP1 she claimed [CP2 that she would arriveOp]]].

Within the before-clause, the Op modifies the matrix event and refers to the time when she
made the claim in (35a). On the other hand, in (35b), it modifies the embedded event andrepresents the time of her scheduled arrival.
Of interest here is the fact that (34) is basically equated with (36) where the overt NP thetime is present:(36) I saw Mary in New York [PP before [NP the time [CP1 she claimed [CP2 that she would
arrive]]]].
In (36), it is natural to assume that the NP the time licenses the temporal Op. However, in(34), due to the absence of this very NP, it is not obvious how the temporal Op is identified. It
is conceivable that the covert NP the time is also present in this example. If this is the case,the only difference between (34) and (36) is whether the NP in point is overt or covert. The-29-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

grammaticality of (34) then suggests that Op can be identified even if the identifier does nothave any phonetic content. We ought, therefore, to account for the unavailability ofNP-ellipsis in (28a, b) and (29a, b) without referring to the auxiliary condition of the typeunderlined in (33a, b). In Section 5.2, I show that under the hybrid hypothesis, the(un)availability of NP-ellipsis with non-NP relatives is independent of such an auxiliary
condition.
5.

Orders between Relative Clauses and Numeral-Classifier Sequences

To reiterate, relative clauses can trigger NP-ellipsis but CPPCNP’s cannot, as shown in (1)and (21), repeated here as (37a, b):(37) a.

[DP [TP wo zuotian kanjian] de nanhai] bi[DP [TP ni zuotian
I yesterday see
DE boycompareyou yesterday
kanjian] de (nanhai)] geng youqian.
see
DE (boy
more rich‘The boy I saw yesterday is richer than the boy you saw yesterday.’b.

[[CP Huaqi-Yinhang pochan de] xiaoxi] bi[[CP Meiguo-Yinhang
Citibank
bankrupt DE news compareBank-of-America
pochan de] *(xiaoxi)] geng ling shichang zhenjing.
bankrupt DE *(newsmore make market shock‘The news that Citibank went bankrupt shocks the market more than the news that
Bank of America went bankrupt.’

The contrast between (37a) and (37b) appears to follow from the hypothesis that relative
clauses can occupy DP SPEC, but CPPCNP’s cannot. Given the hybrid hypothesis, we now
have a finer distinction among relative clauses: if the Op-movement option is taken, no
NP-ellipsis is allowed even in relative clauses. It might appear to the reader that there is no
distinction between the present hypothesis and A&L’s. However, I show that this is not the
case.
5.1.

Asymmetry regarding NP-Ellipsis

A first case where a difference between the two hypotheses shows up concerns therelative order between a relative clause and a numeral with a classifier.4 As we already saw in
Section 2, if the NP is not elided, the numeral-classifier liang-ben can either precede or follow
the relative clause, as shown in (38a, b):4

We admit that variations exist among native speakers of Chinese for the data presented in Section 5.
These variations will be discussed in a separate occasion (but see the footnote 5).

-30-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)(38) a.

Lisi diu-le[Zhangsan mai] de [liang-ben] shu, Huazi diu-ledump-PERF
buy DE [two-CL
bookdump-PERF[Tailang mai] de [liang-ben] shu.
buy DE [two-CL
book‘Lisi threw away the two books Zhangsan bought. Huazi threw away the twobooks Tailang bought.’b.

Lisi diu-le[liang-ben] [Zhangsan mai de] shu, Huazi diu-ledump-PERF [two-CL
buy DE bookdump-PERF[liang-ben] [Tailang mai de] shu.
[two-CLbuy DE book‘Lisi threw away the two books Zhangsan bought. Huazi threw away the twobooks Tailang bought.’

However, when the NP is elided, a grammatical contrast arises between these examples.
First, when the relative clause precedes the numeral-classifier liang-ben, the relative
clause can elide the numeral-classifier-NP sequence, and the CLP can delete the NP, as shownin (39):(39) Lisi diu-le[Zhangsan mai] de [liang-ben] shu, Huazi ye diu-ledump-PERF
buy DE [two-CL
bookalso dump-PERF[Tailang mai] de ([liang-ben]) [e].
buy DE ([two-CL‘Lisi threw away the two books Zhangsan bought. Huazi also threw away the twobooks Tailang bought.’
In the case where liang-ben also seems to be elided, it might be the case that the numeral inpoint is not present in the structure after all, and the interpretation under consideration is just a
matter of inference. Yet, even if this is the case, we can still conclude that the relative clausecan trigger NP-ellipsis.
In contrast, if the relative clause follows the numeral-classifier sequence, the NP shu
cannot be elided, as illustrated in (40):55It should be noted that for some native speakers of Chinese, NP-ellipsis is available in (40). J. Lin(p.c.) suggests that these speakers may have taken the numeral-classifier sequence as a so-called“massifier,” which Cheng and Sybesma (1999) argue is a relative clause. If this is the case, it is naturalthat the numeral-classifier sequence in point can be adjoined to DP, which in turn allows the relative
clause [TP Tailang mai e] to occupy DP SPEC. Consequently, for these speakers, the NP-ellipsis canoccur in (40).

-31-Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010(40) * Lisi diu-le[liang-ben] [Zhangsan mai] de shu, Huazi ye diu-ledump-PERF [two-CL
buy DE bookalso dump-PERF[liang-ben] [Tailang mai] de [e].
[two-CLbuy DE‘Lisi threw away the two books Zhangsan bought. Huazi also threw away the twobooks Tailang bought.’
This is quite surprising given the discussion so far that Chinese relative clauses can trigger
NP-ellipsis. There is then an asymmetry between (39) and (40) with respect to the availabilityof NP-ellipsis triggered by a relative clause.
The contrast between (39) and (40), however, is precisely what we predict under the
hybrid hypothesis. Let us start with (39). Recall our discussion in Section 3 that when the
Op-movement option is taken, no NP-ellipsis is allowed. Therefore, we only consider the
Kaynean head-raising option. Under this option, when the relative clause precedes thenumeral-classifier sequence, it is necessarily the case that the CLP liang-ben shu is raised to
CP SPEC, as shown in (41):
(41)

DP
TP3

D’

Tailang mai t1 D
de2

CP
CLP1

liang

C’
CL’ t3

CL

NP

ben

shu

C
t2

Since Chinese numerals can trigger NP-ellipsis, as exemplified in (42), it is not surprising that
NP-ellipsis can occur within the CLP in (41):(42) suiran Zhangsan mai-le[san-ben shu], dan Lisi mai-le[wu-ben (shu)].
thoughbuy-PERF [three-CL book but
buy-PERF [five-CL (book‘Zhangsan bought three books, but Lisi bought five (books).’(Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 261)
In addition, the relative clause can trigger ellipsis of the entire CP in (41). If the CP is elided,
only the relative clause remains in (39).

-32-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)

In contrast to (39), Kaynean head-raising is not permitted in (40) since there is no SPECto which the relative clause can be raised. Consequently, Op-movement is the only option
available for this particular case, and the relative clause is necessarily adjoined to the NP, as
shown in (43):(43) [DP [CLP liang [CL’ ben [NP [CP Op1 [TP Tailang mai t1] de] shu]]]]In (43), since the relative clause in question does not occupy the DP SPEC position, theNP-ellipsis in point is expected to be prohibited in (40). In short, under the hybrid hypothesis,no stipulation is required to account for the contrast between (39) and (40).
It is worth considering what A&L can say about the fact in (40). Under the present
proposal, (38b) necessarily makes use of the Op-movement option. In contrast, for A&L, thisexample can involve head-raising. Under A&L’s proposal, (44) would be the structure of therelative clause in question:(44) [DP [CLP liang [CL’ ben [NP [CP Tailang mai t1 de] shu1]]]]
Although the CLP (possibly the DP as well) is present above NP, the relative clause, which
has been created through the head-raising operation, is adjoined to the NP. This appears to
conform to A&L’s generalization for NP-ellipsis. Consequently, NP-ellipsis should bepermitted, contrary to fact. In order to account for the unavailability of NP-ellipsis in (40),
A&L would say that the presence of the numeral-classifier sequence somehow prevents the
NP-ellipsis under consideration from taking place. Given the fact that (38b), in which no
NP-ellipsis has taken place, is grammatical, it is not immediately clear why this should be thecase under their head-raising proposal.
5.2.

NP/PP Dichotomy

Another case where we can tell the present hypothesis from A&L’s is not regarding thestructural position of the relative clause, but concerns the category of a gap within a relative
clause. As discussed in Section 4, A&L found a NP relatives/non-NP relatives asymmetry
with respect to NP-ellipsis triggered by relative clauses. The purpose of this section is to showthat the dichotomy in question does not pose any problem for the present proposal. In
addition, the contrast in point is shown to follow purely from a structural difference between
these two types of relatives.
First of all, under the hybrid hypothesis, for the reason that A&L exclude the samestructures, neither of the structures in (46a, b) should be assigned to the boldfaced DP in(30a), repeated here as (45):-33-Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010(45) [[ta e1 xiu che] de fangfa1] bi[[wo xiu che] de fangfa] hao.
[[hefix car DE method compare [[I fix car DE method good
‘The way he fixes cars is better than the way I fix cars.’(46) a.

DP
TP3

D’

wo [PP t1] xiu che D
de2

CP
PP1

C’
t3

C
t2

b.

DP
TP3

D’

wo [PP P [NP t1]] xiu che D

CP

de2

NP1

C’
t3

C
t2

(46a), in which the PP is raised to CP SPEC, should be excluded since we independently
know that the head of a relative clause must be an NP in category. In addition, even if empty
Ps are available in cases like (45), (46b) should also be ruled out due to a ban against
P-stranding in Chinese. It is known that Chinese observes a prohibition against P-stranding.
For instance, sentences like (47a, b) are ungrammatical if ta is not present.
(47) a.

nei-ge ren,wo wu fa
gen *(ta) hezuo.
that-CL person I no means with *(him cooperate‘That person, I cannot cooperate with *(him).

b.

nei-ben shu, wo ba *(ta) jie-gei-leLisi le.
that-CL book I BA *(it loan-to-PERF Lisi PERF
‘That book, I already loaned (it) to Lisi.’(Huang, Li and Li 2009: 249)

-34-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)Accordingly, whatever principle or constraint excludes (47a, b) rules out the possibility
illustrated in (46b). We therefore conclude that the Kaynean-type analysis of relative clauses
is not available for non-NP relatives, and that non-NP relatives must employ Op-movement.
This type of relative clause is then adjoined to NP, as shown in (48):
(48)

DP
D’
D

NP
CP

Op1

NP
C’

TP

C

… [PP t1] …

deHere, I assume that the relative clause can also be raised and adjoined to DP or it can bebase-generated in a DP-adjoined position (see (25) for its NP-relative counterpart).
Armed with the structure in (48), we have a different explanation from A&L’s regarding
the unavailability of NP-ellipsis in non-NP relatives. For A&L, the auxiliary condition on theidentification requirement on the relative Op discussed in Section 4 forces the relative head tobe overt. Consequently, no matter whether a non-NP-relative precedes or follows anumeral-classifier sequence, NP-ellipsis is expected to be unavailable with non-NP relatives.
In contrast, under the hybrid hypothesis, no NP-ellipsis is predicted to be permitted on
structural grounds. Non-NP relatives necessarily have an adjunction structure, which meansthat the relative clauses in question do not occupy the DP SPEC position. As a result, no
NP-ellipsis should be allowed.
We are now ready to present crucial data with this prediction in mind. First of all, whenno NP-ellipsis takes place, of course, no problem arises no matter whether the relative clauseprecedes or follows the CLP, as shown in (49a, b):(49) a.

Lisi zhidao [Zhangsan xiu che de] [liang-ge] fangfa, Xiaohua ye zhidao
know
fix car DE [two-CL method
also know[Xiaobao xiu motuoche de] [liang-ge] fangfa.
fix motorcycle DE [two-CL method‘Lisi knows the two ways Zhangsan fixes cars. Xiaohua also knows the two ways
Xiaobao fixes motorcycles.’-35-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010b.

Lisi zhidao [liang-ge] [Zhangsan xiu che de] fangfa, Xiaohua ye zhidao
know [two-CL
fix car DE method
also know[liang-ge] [Xiaobao xiu motuoche de] fangfa.
[two-CLfix motorcycle DE method‘Lisi knows the two ways Zhangsan fixes cars. Xiaohua also knows the two ways
Xiaobao fixes motorcycles.’However, when deletion takes place, (49a) becomes ungrammatical regardless of whether or
not liang-ge is elided with fangfa. Consider (50):(50) * Lisi zhidao [Zhangsan xiu che de] [liang-ge] fangfa, Xiaohua ye zhidao
know
fix car DE [two-CL method
also know[Xiaobao xiu motuoche de] ([liang-ge]) [e].
fix motorcycle DE ([two-CL‘Lisi knows the two ways Zhangsan fixes cars. Xiaohua also knows the two ways
Xiaobao fixes motorcycles.’This example sharply contrasts with (39), repeated here as (51):(51) Lisi diu-le[Zhangsan mai de] [liang-ben] shu, Huazi ye diu-ledump-PERF
buy DE [two-CL
bookalso dump-PERF[Tailang mai de] ([liang-ben]) [e].
buy DE ([two-CL‘Lisi threw away the two books Zhangsan bought. Huazi also threw away the twobooks Tailang bought.’(49b), in which the relative clause follows the numeral-classifier sequence, also becomes
ungrammatical when fangfa is elided, as shown in (52):(52) * Lisi zhidao [liang-ge] [Zhangsan xiu che de] fangfa, Xiaohua ye zhidao
know [two-CL
fix car DE method
also know[liang-ge] [Xiaobao xiu motuoche de] [e].
[two-CLfix motorcycle DE‘Lisi knows the two ways Zhangsan fixes cars. Xiaohua also knows the two ways
Xiaobao fixes motorcycles.’The (un)grammaticality of (49a, b), (50) and (52) therefore follows under either A&L’s
or the present proposal. When it comes to (49a, b), no ellipsis has taken place, and therefore,
these examples are predicted to be grammatical. Under the hybrid hypothesis, the relative
clause is adjoined to NP in (49b) whereas it is located in a DP-adjoined position in (49a). It is,however, worth reiterating here that we account for the unavailability of NP-ellipsis in (50)
and (52) on purely structural grounds without referring to the auxiliary condition on theidentification requirement on the relative Op, whose existence is yet to be motivated. I believe-36-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)that the fact that such a condition is not necessitated therefore favors the present proposal over
A&L’s.
5.3.

SummaryThis section discussed two contexts where the head-raising option is unavailable. The
section observed that NP-ellipsis cannot be triggered by a relative clause if it follows anumeral quantifier accompanied by a classifier. I showed that this fact is expected under the
hybrid hypothesis, but it requires additional stipulations to be accommodated under A&L’s
proposal. In addition, I proposed that the contrast between NP relatives and non-NP relatives
naturally follows under the hybrid hypothesis without any auxiliary assumption.
Simpson (2002) suggests that relative clauses are always derived through Kaynean
head-raising. However, to the extent that the present hybrid hypothesis is correct, we are led
to conclude that Simpson’s suggestion is weakened. Section 5 presented two contexts where
Kaynean head-raising is not an available option. Precisely in this case, relative clauses areleft-adjoined and therefore head-final.
6.

Relative Clauses with Resumption in Chinese

As A&L observe, NP-ellipsis cannot be triggered by a relative clause with resumption
either. Thus, (53) is ungrammatical in Chinese:(53) wo xiang kan [[ni shuo Zhang hui dai
ta1 huilai de] *(ren1)].
I
want see [[you say
will bring him back DE *(person‘I want to see the one that you said that Zhang would bring back.’(Aoun and Li 2003: 183)
If (53) made use of the head-raising option, then the derivation should proceed as in (54):(54) a.

[DP [CP [NP ren]1 [C’ [TP ni shuo Zhang hui dai ta1 huilai] de]]]b.

[DP [D’ de2 [CP [NP ren]1 [C’ [TP ni shuo Zhang hui dai ta1 huilai] t2 ]]]]c.

[DP [TP ni huo Zhang hui dai ta1 huilai]3 [D’ de2 [CP [NP ren]1 [C’ t3 t2 ]]]]

If this derivation were permitted, we would expect (53) to allow NP-ellipsis. The fact that
NP-ellipsis is impossible in (53) therefore indicates that the derivation illustrated in (54) is not
an available option in Chinese relative clauses with resumption, which needs exploring.
I suggest that an identification requirement on resumptive pronouns provides an answer
to this question. Safir’s (1986) R(elative head)-binding is one such requirement. According to
the R-binding requirement, resumptive pronouns must be R-bound. This R-binding-37-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

requirement comes with an auxiliary locality condition that states that resumptive pronouns
must be R-bound via an operator in CP SPEC. This locality condition then requires thepresence of the Op in CP SPEC.
A&L (2003) independently provide evidence that a relative clause with resumption must
contain a relative Op. Consider the paradigm in (55):(55) a.

shei kandao-le [[shei shuo e1 mingtian yao biaoyan de] yanyuan1].
who see-PERF [[who say
tomorrow will perform DE actor‘Who saw the actor that who said would perform tomorrow?’b. *shei kandao-le [[shei shuo ta1 mingtian yao biaoyan de] yanyuan1].
who see-PERF [[who say he tomorrow will perform DE actor‘Who saw the actor that who said he would perform tomorrow?’c.

shei kandao-le [[Zhangsan shuo ta1 mingtian yao biaoyan de] yanyuan1].
who see-PERF
say he tomorrow will perform DE actor‘Who saw the actor that Zhangsan said he would perform tomorrow?’(Aoun and Li 2003: 171-172)

Schematically, the structure of (55a, b) is as follows:(56) [WH1 … [NP [RC Op … e1 / ta1 … de] NP1]]
According to A&L, the contrast between (55a) and (55b) follows. This is because in the latterexample, the relative clause projects a CP with its SPEC occupied by the relative Op, and thisrelative Op creates an island for extraction of WH1, whereas in the former example, thehead-raising option is taken and therefore, no Op-movement is involved. Consequently, no
island is created, and as a result, WH2 can take matrix scope. As shown in (55c), if WH1 isreplaced by Zhangsan, (55b) becomes grammatical with the resumptive pronoun.
Aoun and Li also observe that in parallel to (55a, b), adjunct relativization, which
necessarily involves Op-movement, also yields island effects, as shown in the contrast
between (57a) and (57b):-38-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)(57) a. ??shei tingdao-le [[ni jiao shei xiu che] de yuanyin].
who hear-PERF [[you ask whom fix car DE reason‘Who heard the reason you asked whom to fix the car?’b.

shei kandao-le [[ni jiao shei xiu] de che].
who see-PERF [[you ask whom fix DE car‘Who saw the car you asked whom to fix?’(Aoun and Li 2003: 180)

The parallelism between (55b) and (57a) then confirms that Op-movement takes place in theformer example.
In order to license the resumptive pronoun in (53), the relative clause must therefore
project a CP and accommodate the relative Op. However, under the Kaynean head-raising
option, what is raised to DP SPEC is a TP. Thus, (53) cannot make use of the head-raising
option, which in turn means that the Op-movement option must be chosen. The structure of(53) must be as shown in (58):
(58)

DP
D’
D

NP
CP

Op1

NP
C’

TP

C

… [resumption pronoun1] … deIn (58), the relative clause with resumption cannot satisfy the SPEC-R and therefore, should
not allow NP-ellipsis. Accordingly, (53) is ungrammatical if ren is deleted.
It should be emphasized before closing this section that under the hybrid hypothesis,
again, we account for the unavailability of NP-ellipsis in (53) without relying on A&L’s
auxiliary condition on the identification requirement of the relative Op.
7.

Relative Clauses in Japanese: CP-Relatives vs. TP-Relatives

The discussion related to Chinese relative clauses so far is based on the assumption that
Chinese relative clauses are headed by C. That is, Chinese relative clauses are CPs the head of-39-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

which is occupied by de, which makes the Kaynean head-raising option available.
Yet, once we turn our attention to other East Asian languages, we find that Saito (1985),
and then Murasugi (1991) show that Japanese relative clauses are TPs. This means thatJapanese relative clauses cannot make use of Op-movement since there is no CP SPECavailable for the Op to be raised to. The most straightforward evidence for this is based on thefact that long-distance dependency is not possible in Japanese adjunct relative clauses. In(59), riyuu ‘reason’ cannot refer to the reason why Taroo swam:(59) * [NP [RC Hanako-ga [[Taroo-ga
oyoida]-to] omotteiru] riyuu]
Hanako-Nom [[Taroo-Nom swam-that thinkreason‘the reason Hanako thinks that Taroo swam’
This contrasts with the Chinese example in (60) in which fangfa ‘reason’ can refer to thereason why you should leave:(60) [NP [RC [ta renwei [nimen yinggai likai]] de] fangfa][he think [youshould leave DE reason‘the reason why he thinks you should leave’(Aoun and Li 2003: 177)
This asymmetry between Japanese and Chinese naturally follows if Chinese relative clauses,
but not Japanese relative clauses, involve Op-movement. Under the hypothesis that Japaneserelative clauses are TPs, this is exactly what we predict since there is no CP SPEC to which
the Op can be raised in Japanese.
Maki (1995) also provides the same type of argument as the one by A&L discussed in
Section 6, and shows that the relative Op is not present in Japanese relative clauses. Consider(61):(61) kimi-wa [[RC Taroo-ga
nani-okatta] riyuu]-okiita-no.
you-Top
Taroo-Nom what-Acc bought reason-Acc ask-Q‘Lit. You asked for the reason why Taroo bought what.’(Maki 1995: 86)
If the relative-Op-movement had taken place in (61), island effects would be predicted toarise in this example, in parallel to (55b). The absence of island effects in (61) therefore
indicates that no relative Op needs to be present in Japanese relative clauses. This naturally
follows from the hypothesis that Japanese relative clauses are TPs.
We then need to ask what the hypothesis that Japanese relative clauses are TPs can say
about the Kaynean approach to Japanese relative clauses.6 If we directly substantiated the6

See also Murasugi (2000a, b) for relevant discussion on this issue.

-40-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)

hypothesis that Japanese relative clauses are TPs under the Kaynean approach, the structure of
the nominal with a relative clause would be as in (62):7
(62)

DP
SPEC

D’
D

TP
… NP …

However, given the assumption that the D necessarily takes CP as its complement to make theintended relative-head-raising available, the structure in (62) cannot be maintained.
Consequently, under the hybrid hypothesis, Japanese relative clauses must be adjoined to NP,
as shown in (63):
(63)

DP
SPEC

D’
NP

TP

D
NP

Since an adjunct cannot move to DP SPEC, a relative clause never comes to occupy DP
SPEC. This correctly predicts the unavailability of NP-ellipsis, exemplified in (6), repeatedhere as (64):(64) [[Taroo-ga
kinooatta] hito]-wa
yasashii ga,[[Hanako-ga[[Taroo-Nom yesterday saw person-Top kindthough [[Hanako-Nomkinooatta] *(hito)]-wa kowai.
yesterday saw *(person-Top scary‘The person Taroo saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw yesterday isscary.’(Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 263)
However, the entire picture is not as simple as this. We independently know thatJapanese has the complementizer no. A representative case in point can be found in cleft
sentences in Japanese, as exemplified in (65):7

I leave aside the question of whether DP is head-initial or head-final.

-41-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010(65) [[Taroo-ga
kinoo
hon-o
uketotta]-no]-wa Hanako-kara da.
[[Taroo-Nom yesterday book-Acc received-NO-Top Hanako-from is‘It is from Hanako that Taroo received a book yesterday.’
Hoji (1990) argues that the structure of (65) is as in (66):(66) [CP OP1 [TP Taroo-ga kinoo t1 hon-o uketotta]-no]-wa Hanako-kara da.
Notice that this Op-based hypothesis of Japanese cleft sentences provides a natural accountfor the availability of long-distance dependency in (67):(67) ?[CP Op1 [TP Hanako-ga [CP [TP Taroo-ga
oyoida]-to] omotteiru]-no]-wa
Hanako-Nom
Taroo-Nom swam-that think-NO-Top[PP sono riyuu-de] da.
[PP that reason-for is‘It is for that reason that Hanako thinks that Taroo swam.’
Cleft sentences are CPs, which allow Op-movement to take place. Consequently, thedependency in point should be available in cleft sentences. This results in the contrast
between (59) and (67), as pointed out by Murasugi (1991).
We are now left needing to explain why the complementizer no, which is available incleft sentences, cannot occupy the C position in relative clauses, in the way illustrated in (68):
(68)

DP
SPEC

D’
D

CP
SPEC

C’

TP

C

… NP …

noIf the derivation in (68) were available for Japanese relative clauses, we would again predictthat NP-ellipsis can be triggered by a relative clause, contrary to fact.
At this point it is important to notice that in Japanese relative clauses, but not in cleft
sentences, the predicate is in the noun-modifying form, or the rentai form under traditional-42-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)Japanese grammar.8 One way to identify the rentai form is to attach the adverbial particle
dake ‘only’ to the predicate under consideration. The point is that dake cannot attach to a
predicate in the non-rentai-form (see Kishimoto 2005). As we predict, dake can attach to therelative clause TP, but not to the TP in the presuppositional part of a cleft sentence, as shownin the contrast between (69a) and (69b):9(69) a.

[[Taroo-ga
tegami-o uketotta](*-dake)-no]-wa tomodachi-kara da.
[[Taroo-Nom letter-Acc received only-NO-Top friend-fromis‘It is from Hanako that Taroo (only) received a letter.’b.

[[Taroo-ga
tegami-o uketotta]-dake-no] tomodachi[[Taroo-Nom letter-Acc received -only-NO friend‘the friend from whom Taroo only received a letter’c.

[[Taroo-ga
tegami-o uketotta](*-no)] tomodachi[[Taroo-Nom letter-Acc received -NO friend‘the friend from whom Taroo received a letter’

I then speculate that the complementizer no cannot select TP with a predicate in therentai-form, which means that Japanese does not allow CP relatives or CPPCNP’s altogether(see Murasugi 1991). Consequently, the derivational steps given in (68) should not be
available.10 In (69b), no is not a complementizer but the genitive marker. The genitive marker

8

I thank M. Saito (p.c.) for bringing my attention to the significance of the form of the predicate here.
See Kikuta (2002) and Saito (2004) for discussion on the form of a predicate in a Japanese relative
clause, with special attention to the nominative/genitive conversion phenomenon.
9

I am indebted to H. Kishimoto (p.c.) for pointing out the importance of adverbial particles inJapanese relative clauses.
10

This makes a further prediction. Although no appears in relative clauses, NP-ellipsis should not be
permitted since the head-raising option is unavailable in Japanese altogether. This prediction seems to
be borne out. Consider (i):(i)[[gakubusei-ga
shidookyooin-ni
miseru] amae]-wa[[undergraduates-Nom academic advisor-to show emotional dependency-Top
taiteiyuruseru-ga,[[Taroo-ga
gakushironbun-teishutsu-mae-ni ichijiteki-ni
most of the time can allow-though [[Taroo-Nom B.A.thesis-submission-before
temporarily
miseta] *(amae)]-wa
yurusenai.
showed *(emotional dependency-Top cannot allow‘The emotional dependency that undergraduates show to their academic advisors is usually OK,
but the emotional dependency that Taroo showed to his academic advisor temporarily cannot betolerated.’-43-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010is inserted due to the genitive-insertion rule (Kitagawa and Ross 1982). The contrast between(69b) and (69c) then shows that genitive-insertion becomes available if no is not adjacent to a
predicate in the rentai-form (see Kishimoto 2005).
Under this stipulation, in contrast to relative clauses, the complementizer no is naturally
expected to appear in cleft sentences. This in turn makes Op-movement available in thesentences in question. Thus, the above-mentioned contrast between cleft sentences andrelative clauses with respect to long-distance dependency still follows.
To summarize this section, the difference between Chinese and Japanese relative clauses,or the one between CP-relatives and TP-relatives, boils down to the presence or absence of an
appropriate C head in the Kaynean relative clause formation. The Japanese complementizer
no cannot appear in relative clauses because the predicate in a relative clause is in the
noun-modifying form. This forces Japanese to have the traditional adjunction structure forrelative clauses.
8.

Concluding Remarks

Based on the fact that Chinese relative clauses can trigger NP-ellipsis, this paper
examined the context where the ellipsis in point can take place. The paper showed that
NP-ellipsis is not always possible with Chinese relative clauses. Examining the contexts for
NP-ellipsis triggered by a relative clause, this paper proposed that in principle, Chinese
relative clauses make use of both head-raising and Op-movement. The paper then compared
our proposal with Aoun and Li’s (2003) similar proposal. I showed that the two proposals
make different predictions and that my proposal provides a wider coverage of data. In
addition, under my proposal, when accounting for the unavailability of the NP-ellipsis
expected to be triggered by non-NP relatives and NP-relatives with resumption, A&L’s
auxiliary condition on the identification requirement on relative Op can be dispensed with.

Even when the relative clause is accompanied by dake-no, amae ‘emotional dependency’ cannot be
elided, as shown in (ii):(ii) [[gakubusei-ga
shidookyooin-ni
miseru] amae]-wa[[undergraduates-Nom academic advisor-to show emotional dependency-Top
taiteiyuruseru-ga,[[Taroo-ga
gakushironbun-teishutsu-mae-ni ichijiteki-ni
most of the time can allow-though [[Taroo-Nom B.A.thesis-submission-before
temporarily
miseta]-dake-no ???(amae)]-wa
yurusenai.
showed-only-NO ???(emotional dependency-Top cannot allow‘The emotional dependency that undergraduates show to their academic advisors is usually OK,
but the emotional dependency that Taroo only showed to his academic advisor temporarily cannot
be tolerated.’
Given the hypothesis that Japanese relative clauses always make use of an adjunction structure, this isexactly what we predict.

-44-

On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-Ellipsis (Y. Miyamoto)

Cross-linguistically, I suggest that the (un)availability of NP-ellipsis in Chinese andJapanese relative clauses is ultimately accounted for by the presence or absence of an
appropriate C head in these two languages.

References
Aoun, J. and Y.-H. A. Li (2003) Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature ofGrammar: the Diversity of Wh-Constructions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Brame, M. (1968) “A New Analysis of the Relative Clause: Evidence for an Interpretive Theory,” ms.,MIT.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cheng, L. L.-S. and R. Sybesma (1999) “Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and the Structure of NP,”
Linguistic Inquiry 30, 509-542.
Chomsky, N. (1977) “On Wh-movement,” in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal
Syntax, Academic Press, New York, 71-132.
Del Gobbo, F. (2003) Appositives at the Interface, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Geis, M. (1970) Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in English, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Hsieh, M.-L. (2005) “Two Types of Modifiers and Parallelisms between DPs and TPs in Chinese,”
Language and Linguistics 6, 397-429.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Huang, C.T. J., Y.-H. A. Li, and Y. Li (2009) The Syntax of Chinese, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hulsey, S. and U. Sauerland (2006) “Sorting Out Relative Clauses,” Natural Language Semantics 14,
111-137.
Kayne, R. (1993) “Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection,” Studia Linguistica 47, 3-31.
Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kikuta, C. (2002) “Ga/No Conversion in the New Light: A Non-Derivational, Mixed Category
Analysis,” Doshisha Studies in English 74, 93-136.
Kishimoto, H. (2005) Toogo Koozoo-to-Bunpoo Kankei, Kuroshio, Tokyo.
Kitagawa, C. and C. Ross (1982) “Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese,” Linguistic
Analysis 9, 19-53.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Larson, R. (1990) “Extraction and Multiple Selection in PP,” Linguistic Review 7, 169-182.
Li, Y.-H. A. (1999) “Plurality in a Classifier Language,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 75-99.
Lin, T.-H. J, K. Murasugi, and M. Saito. (2001) “Modification and Specification: An Investigation of
No and De,” Paper presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the International Association ofChinese Linguistics, June 22-24, The University of California, Irvine.
Lobeck, A. (1990) “Functional Heads as Proper Governors,” Proceedings of the North East LinguisticSociety 20, 348-362.
Lu, B. (1998) Left-Right Asymmetries of Word Order Variation: A Functional Explanation, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Southern California.
Maki, H. (1995) The Syntax of Particles, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability, andAcquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

-45-

Nanzan Linguistics 6: Research Results and Activities 2009 ~ 2010

Murasugi, K. (2000a) “An Antisymmetry Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses,” in A. Alexiadou, P.
Law, A. Meinunger, and C. Wilder, eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam, 231-264.
Murasugi, K. (2000b) “Japanese Complex Noun Phrases and the Antisymmetry Theory,” in R. Martin,
D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor ofHoward Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 211-234.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (2004) “Genitive Subjects in Japanese: Implications for the Theory of Null Objects,” in P.
Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao, eds., Non-nominative Subjects 2, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam, 103-118.
Saito, M., T.-H. J. Lin, and K. Murasugi (2008) “N’-Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in
Chinese and Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247-271.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi (1990) “N’-Deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,” in H. Hoji, ed.,Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 1, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 258-286.
Schachter, P. (1973) “Focus and Relativization,” Language 49, 19-46.
Simpson, A. (2002) “On the Status of Modifying De and the Syntax of the Chinese DP,” in S.-W.
Tang and C.-S. L. Liu, eds., On the Formal Way to Chinese Languages, CSLI Publications,
Stanford, 74-101.
Tsai, H.-C. J. (2008) “On Gapless Relative Clauses in Chinese,” Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 5,
109-124.
Zhang, J. (2004) “Contour Tone Licensing and Contour Tone Representation,” Language andLinguistics 5, 925-968.

-46-