論 文

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses

Yasuyuki Kitao

要旨

本論文では，英語と日本語の関係節における照応詞認可および島の効
果に焦点を当て分析する。日本語関係節では関係節の主語位置に照応詞の生起が許されるが，英語関係節においては許されない。本論文では，
Takahashi（2002）の空演算子はA移動できないという議論をもとに，日本語の関係節に空範疇が生起するという従来の分析を用いると，この日
本語関係節における照応詞の事実が説明できないと主張する。本論文では，関係節の空所位置に関係節主要部が顕在的に生起し，顕在的要素であるため，Aスクランブリングが可能となり，その結果，関係節主語位
置の照応詞が認可されると分析する。また，英語関係節についてもこの顕在的要素の生起モデルを用いて分析し，照応詞認可について日本語関係節と差が見られるのは，日本語にはV移動があるが，英語にはV移動がないためであると結論づける。この顕在的要素の生起モデルに加え，関係節内に生起したこの顕在的要素の削除（deletion）のモデルを仮定することにより，日本語関係節の特徴の一つである島の効果の欠如も説明できることを示す。
Keywords: head-raising（関係節主要部移動），EPP（EPP素性），
A-scrambling（Aスクランブリング），V-Movement（動詞移動），
phase（フェイズ）― 23 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

1. Introduction
In English relative clauses, anaphors cannot occur within the subject NP. This isdue to Condition A of binding theory: the anaphor cannot be bound by its antecedent
within TP. Interestingly, however, Japanese relative clauses allow the occurrence ofanaphors in the subject NP, though the anaphor otagai ‘each other’ appears not to bebound by the antecedent.1 This diﬀerence is shown in (1) and (2).
ei hometa
hutari-no seitoi(1) ? Otagai-no
tan’nin-no sensei-ga
each other-GEN homeroom teachers-NOM
praisedtwo students‘Lit. The two students who(m) each other’s homeroom teachers praised’(2) * the two studentsi who(m) each other’s teachers like ei
In this paper, I will explain this uncharacteristic anaphor licensing fact in Japaneserelative clauses by proposing a movement and deletion theory, which is based on theovert A-movement of the head NP and the deletion of NPs in the relative clause. In
addition, I will explain the diﬀerence in anaphor licensing between Japanese andEnglish relative clauses in terms of V-movement. I will furthermore argue that the
movement and deletion theory can explain the diﬀerence in island eﬀects between
English and Japanese relative clauses.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 deals with the impossibility of Ascrambling of null operators. Section 3 considers the categorization and the proanalysis of Japanese relative clauses. Section 4 examines an alternative analysis ofJapanese relative clauses, which is based on overt A-movement of NPs. Section 5
considers English relative clauses on the basis of this alternative analysis. Section 6
1

The degraded grammatical status is not due to violation of Condition A of binding theory. (1)is much more acceptable than (ib), in which Condition A is violated.
(i) a. Hutari-no seito-ga
otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ohometa (koto).
two students-NOM each other’s homeroom teachers-ACC praised (fact)‘The two students praised each other’s teachers.’
b. ? * Otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga
hutari-no seito-ohometa (koto).
each other’s homeroom teachers-NOM two students-ACC praised (fact)‘Each other’s homeroom teachers praised the two students.’(cf. Saito 1992: 74)― 24 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses

proposes a copy and deletion theory of NP-movement for the analysis of NP movement
in relative clauses. Section 7 investigates the lack of island eﬀects shown in relativizationin Japanese. A summary of the analysis and its implications conclude the paper.

2. Null Operators
Ishii (1991) argues that Japanese relative clauses contain null operator movement.
Under this view, a null operator occurs in the gap position in relative clauses, and it
undergoes movement to Spec-CP. Based on this analysis, let us consider (1). A null
operator occurs in the VP-complement position in the relative clause and moves toSpec-CP, as represented in (3):(3) [NP [CP OPi [TP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga ti hometa]] hutari-no seitoi]
In (3), there are no derivational points where the null operator can bind the anaphor
otagai. In the gap position, it occurs in a structurally lower position than the anaphor,and hence cannot bind the anaphor. In the derived position, the null operator cannot
bind otagai either, because it is located in an A’-position. However, we can consider
another derivation. Suppose that the null operator is A-scrambled to Spec-TP before
moving to Spec-CP. Then, it can A-bind the anaphor otagai, and hence no violationof Condition A arises. However, this derivation is not available. Takahashi (2002)
argues that null operators cannot undergo A-scrambling by examining cleft
constructions. Consider (4):gakusei-ga
aitagatteiru no-wa [Taroo to Hanako]i-ni da.
(4) * Otagaii-no
each other-GEN student-NOM want-to-see that-TOP Taroo and Hanako-DAT is‘*It is Taroo and Hanako that each other’s students want to see.’(5) [CP OPi [C’ [TP otagaii-no gakusei-ga ti aitagatteiru ] no ]]-wa Taroo to
Hanakoi-ni da.
(Takahashi 2002: 49)

In Japanese cleft constructions, anaphors cannot occur in the subject NP, as shown in(4). Takahashi (2002) concludes that this is because null operators cannot A-scramble.
― 25 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16Since the null operator in the gap position moves to Spec-CP directly, the anaphor
otagai is not bound by its antecedent. Hence, anaphors cannot occur in the subject
NP in Japanese cleft sentences. To summarize, Takahashi (2002) proposes thefollowing:(6) Null operators, unlike their lexical counterparts, are unable to undergo Ascrambling.
(op. cit., p. 51)
Assuming Takahashi’s proposal, null operators move to Spec-CP without landing inSpec-TP. Hence, there are no derivational points where Condition A is satisﬁed in (1).
The grammaticality of (1) therefore needs to be explained.

3. Categorization of Japanese Relative Clauses and pro
3.1. Categorization
Let us now consider the uncharacteristic anaphor licensing eﬀect of (1) under
Takahashi’s (2002) mechanism. Before exploring further, let us examine thecategorization of Japanese relative clauses, which will be crucial in my analysis.
Murasugi (1991) suggests that Japanese relative clauses are IP (TP in the Minimalist
Program) on the basis of an ECP-based explanation. Consider (7) and (8).
(7) a. the reason [ (whyi) [ Mary thinks [ that John left ei ]]]b. * Mary-ga[ John-ga ei kaetta to ] omotte iru ] riyuui
NOM
NOM
left
C
thinking
reason‘the reason Mary thinks that John left’ei kaetta] riyuui](8) [John-ga
NOM
left
reason(Murasugi 1991: 140)
‘the reason John left’(7a) shows that relativization from a pure adjunction position is unbounded in English.
On the other hand, as the contrast between (7b) and (8) shows, relativization from apure adjunct is clause-bound in Japanese. Murasugi (1991) claims that the diﬀerence
between (7a) and (7b) can be explained in terms of the empty category principle― 26 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses(ECP), if we assume that Japanese relative clauses are TPs, while English relative clauses
are CPs, and that only X-zero categories can be proper governors of antecedents. Since
the initial trace receives the same index as the intermediate trace through Spec-headagreement, the lower C can antecedent-govern the initial trace in (7a). The intermediate
trace is antecedent-governed by the higher C, which receives the same index as why or
the empty operator through Spec-head agreement, as represented in (9):(9) [NP the reasoni [CP why (OP) [C’ Ci [TP T [VP V [CP t’i [C’ Ci [IP ... ti ... ]]]]]]]]
Hence, movement why from the most deeply embedded position is possible in (7a).
On the other hand, in (7b), given that Japanese relative clauses are TPs, the relative
operator must adjoin to TP, because the clause is not projected to CP. Since therelative operator does not stay in an X-zero position, it cannot govern the intermediate
trace, as shown in (10):(10)[NP [TP OPi [TP [VP [CP t’i [C’ [TP ... ti ...] C ]] V ] T ]] riyuui]

In addition to deriving the contrast between (7a) and (7b) straightforwardly from the
ECP, the fact that Japanese relative clauses do not have relative pronouns supports
Murasugi’s claim. Following Murasugi’s arguments, I assume that Japanese relative
clauses are TPs throughout this paper.
3.2. pro
Murasugi (1991, 2000) suggests that pro occurs in the gap position in Japaneserelative clauses by examining the island insensitivity of relativization in Japanese, ﬁrst
pointed out by Kuno (1973). On the other hand, English relativization is islandsensitive.
[NP [TP [NP [TP ei ej kiteiru] yoohukuj-ga] yogoreteiru] sinsii]
wearing suit-NOM
dirty
gentleman‘Lit. a gentleman who the suit that (he) is wearing is dirty’ (Kuno 1973: 239)(12) * the girl who I heard the rumor that John loves(11)― 27 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

If we were to suppose that the head NP sinsi is extracted from the relative clause in(11), the extraction crosses the island and causes a subjacency violation. However,(11) does not exhibit any such violation. In addition, an overt resumptive pronoun
can occur in the position of a gap. In (13), the resumptive pronoun kare/soitu ‘he/thatguy’ occurs in the position of the gap.2(13) ? [NP [TP [NP [TP karei/soitui-ga
ej kiteiru] yoohukuj-ga] yogoreteiru]
he/that guy-NOM
wearing suit-NOM dirty
sinsii]gentleman(op. cit., p. 239)
‘Lit. a gentleman who the suit that (he) is wearing is dirty’
From this island insensitivity and the existence of resumptive pronouns, Kuno (1973)
and Murasugi (1991, 2000) suggest that extraction of the head NP does not occur inJapanese relative clauses. Murasugi (1991, 2000) proposes that pro occurs in the gap
position, and hence there is no extraction of the head NP or a null operator in relative
clauses. (14) represents this:(14)[NP [TP [NP [TP proi proj kiteiru] yoohukuj-ga] yogoreteiru] sinsii]

Taking this non-movement analysis into consideration, it seems plausible to supposethat pro, like null operators, do not undergo A-scrambling. Miyagawa (2001) reaches
2

Kuno (1973) originally provides examples with the pronoun kare ‘he.’ Hoji (1991) proposesthat kare in Japanese cannot be construed as a bound variable. In (ia, b), kare ‘he’ cannot havedaremo ‘every’ as its antecedent:(i) a. Daremoi -ga [NP [TP zibuni -ga/*karei -ga/eci tukutta] omotya]-o kowasita.
everyone-NOM self-NOM he-NOM made toy-ACC broke‘Everyonei broke the toy that hei had made.’b. Daremoi [NP [TP zibuni -ga/*karei -ga/eci tukutta] omotya]-o mottekonakatta.
no oneself-NOM he-NOM made toy-ACC did not bring along‘No onei brought along the toy that hei had made.’(Hoji 1991: 287)
Yoshimura (1992) argues that soitu ‘that guy’ works as a pure bound variable. I then provide
data with the pronoun soitu.

― 28 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses

the same conclusion under his mechanism of EPP-driven scrambling. To be concrete,
he argues that phonologically null elements cannot occupy Spec-TP. Adding thisperspective on pro to Takahashi’s (2002) proposal, let us assume as follows:(15)

Null elements (null operators, pro, etc.), unlike their lexical counterparts, areunable to undergo A-scrambling.

Based on (15), let us consider (1) again by using pro. Since pro is a null element, it
stays in the VP-complement position of the relative clause throughout the derivation.
Then, the anaphor otagai is not bound by its antecedent at any stage of the derivation,and this yields a violation of Condition A.
hometa hutari-no seitoi(1) ? Otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga ei(16) [NP [TP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga proi hometa] hutari-no seitoi]
The pro analysis cannot explain the uncharacteristic anaphor licensing eﬀect in (1),either. The grammaticality of (1) still needs to be explained.

4. Japanese Relative Clauses: V-movement and A-movement of Overt NPs
In the previous section, we saw that null elements (null operators, pro) cannot
occur in the relative clause, when an anaphor occurs within the subject NP in therelative clause. This shows that we cannot use null elements in analyzing relative
clauses, at least not when an anaphor occurs in the subject NP. I thus suggest analternative analysis and argue that the analysis can be applied to other cases of relative
clauses, for example anaphors occurring in the object NP, etc.
I propose that an overt NP, which corresponds to a relativized NP, occurs in the
gap position of the relativized NP and this NP binds the anaphor in the subject NP.
For ease of explanation, I refer to a relativized NP as “a head NP” and an NP occurringin a relative clause as “an inside NP.” In (1), an inside NP hutari-no seito ‘two students’occurs in the VP-complement position, as represented in (17).
(1) ? Otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga ei

hometa hutari-no seitoi― 29 ―

愛知大学

(17)

言語と文化

No. 16[NP [TP [vP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga [VP hutari-no seito tV] t’V] hometaV]
hutari-no seito](inside NP)(head NP)In its base-generated position, the inside NP hutari-no seito cannot bind the anaphor
otagai, since it occurs in a structurally lower position than the anaphor.
Now, let us adopt Miyagawa’s (2001) hypothesis regarding the EPP-feature of T.
Miyagawa (2001) suggests, on the basis of the scope data of (18a, b), that A-scramblingis triggered by the EPP-feature of T.
(18) a. Zen’in-ga sono tesuto-o
ukenakatta (yo / to omou).
all-NOM that test-ACC take-NEG-PAST‘All did not take that test.’*not > all, all > notzen’in-ga ti ukenakatta (yo / to omou).
b. Sono tesuto-oi
that
test-ACC all-NOM ti take-NEG-PAST‘That test, all didn’t take.’(Miyagawa 2001: 299)
not > all, (all > not)In (18a), zen’in ‘all’ can take scope over the negation but not vice versa. However,when an object is scrambled, the negation can take scope over zen’in as in (18b).
Miyagawa (2001) argues that this diﬀerence is rooted in the EPP-feature of T. He
suggests that scrambling is triggered by the EPP-feature of T. The movement of theverbal complex (V-v) to T enables both a subject and an object to be equidistant fromT, and hence either a subject or an object can check the EPP-feature of T. In (18a), in
which scrambling does not take place, the subject zen’in-ga checks the EPP-feature ofT. On the other hand, in (18b) the scrambled object satisﬁes the EPP-feature of T.
These are shown in (19a, b), respectively:(19) a. [TP Zen’in-gai [vP ti [VP tesuto-o tV] t’V] ukenakatta]
b. [TP Tesuto-oj [vP zen’in-ga [VP tj tV] t’V] ukenakatta]
Miyagawa (2001) argues that the quantiﬁer zen’in is not c-commanded by the negation― 30 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clausesin (19a), and hence zen’in takes scope over the negation. On the other hand, in (19b),
zen’in is c-commanded by the negation, and hence the negation can take scope overthe quantiﬁer zen’in. Given that scrambling is triggered by EPP, we can predict thecorrect correlations.
I adopt this mechanism and suggest that an inside NP, which occurs in the gap
position in a relative clause, is attracted to Spec-TP by the EPP-feature of T in Japanese.
Let us now consider (1) again. The inside NP hutari-no seito occurs in the gap position,
as represented in (17). This inside NP is attracted to Spec-TP by the EPP-feature ofT. This is schematized as (20):(1) ? Otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga ei hometa hutari-no seitoi(20) [NP [TP hutari-no seito [vP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga [VP hutari-no seito tV]t’V]
hometaV] hutari-no seito]
In the derived position, namely Spec-TP, the inside NP hutari-no seito can c-command
the anaphor otagai. Based on the derivational model of Condition A, which is proposedby Belletti and Rizzi (1988), Lebeaux (1988, 1991) and Epstein et al. (1998), Condition
A can apply at any point of the cyclic derivation. Condition A is therefore satisﬁed at
the point where the inside NP is scrambled to Spec-TP. Thus, the presence of inside
NPs and the fact that they can undergo scrambling driven by the EPP-feature of T can
explain the uncharacteristic anaphor licensing eﬀect in Japanese relative clauses.
Next, let us consider the case where the anaphor occurs in the object NP in
Japanese relative clauses.
(21)

eihometa otagai-no seitoi
Hutari-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga
two
homeroom teachers-NOM
praised each other’s students‘Each other’s students who(m) the two homeroom teachers praised’

The inside NP otagai-no seito occurs in the gap position. In this base-generated
position, the anaphor otagai is bound by its antecedent hutari-no tan’nin-no sensei.
Condition A is therefore satisﬁed at this point. Then, the inside NP is attracted toSpec-TP by the EPP-feature of T. This is represented in (22):― 31 ―

愛知大学

(22)

言語と文化

No. 16[NP [TP otagai-no seito [vP hutari-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga [VP otagai-no seito tV]t’V] hometaV] otagai-no seito]

The EPP-based theory yields correct predictions in the case where an anaphor occurs
in the object NP.

5. English Relative Clauses: Lack of V-movement
5.1. V-movement
Next, let us consider English relative clauses. As we have seen in (2), an anaphor
occurring within the subject NP in the relative clause cannot be licensed by the head
NP in English relative clauses.
(2) * the two studentsi who(m) each other’s teachers like ei
Let us examine (2) in light of the analysis of Japanese relative clauses adopted here. The
inside NP the two students occurs in the gap position as in (23):(23)[CP [TP T [vP each other’s teachers [VP like the two students]]]](inside NP)

In Japanese relative clauses, the inside NP undergoes scrambling to Spec-TP to check
the EPP-feature of T. However, I suggest that the same operation does not take placein English relative clauses. I propose that a subject always checks the EPP-feature of
T in English relative clauses because of the lack of V-movement. Fukui (1986), Kuroda(1988) and Kitagawa (1986) argue that a subject occurring in Spec-vP must be raised
to Spec-TP in English, whereas it need not be raised in Japanese. Fukui (1986) suggeststhat this diﬀerence is related to whether there is V-movement to T or not. He proposesthat verbs in English do not undergo V-movement to T, whereas verbs in Japanese do.3
3

Otani and Whitman (1991) advance the same view by analyzing null object constructions inJapanese.

― 32 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses

Miyagawa (2001) argues that V-movement to T makes a subject and an object
equidistant from T. Based on this idea, due to lack of V-movement, the subject NP is
closer to Spec-TP than the object NP in English. As a consequence, the EPP-featureof T must be satisﬁed by the subject NP in English. Thus, there are no derivational
points where the anaphor is bound by the antecedent NP. As a result, Condition A isnot satisﬁed. This is schematized as in (24).
(24)[CP [TP each other’s teachersi T [vP ti [VP like the two students]]]]5.2. Movement of Inside NPs
I have argued that an inside NP undergoes scrambling to Spec-TP to check the
EPP-feature of T because of V-movement in Japanese relative clauses, while English
lacks such movement because of lack of V-movement. However, following Fox (2002),
I assume that the inside NP moves to Spec-CP to check oﬀ the wh-feature of C. Fox
argues that a CP-internal NP, which corresponds to an inside NP in our terms, moves
to Spec-CP and is deleted under identity with a CP-external NP, which corresponds
to a head NP in our term.4(25)

Every boy [CP boy Mary likes boy ].

(Fox 2002: 75)

Using Fox’s (2002) intuition, let us assume that an inside NP undergoes movement toSpec-CP to check oﬀ the wh-feature of C. Based on this, let us examine (2) again. The
inside NP the two students occurs in the gap position, namely the VP-complement
position. Due to lack of V-movement, the subject each other’s teachers is attracted toSpec-TP by the EPP-feature of T. Next, the inside NP the two students moves to SpecCP to check oﬀ the wh-feature of C. These movements are represented as follows:

4

Fox (2002) assumes that the NP in Spec-CP is not interpreted but that movement turns therelative clause into a predicate that combines with the CP-external NP by predicate modiﬁcation.
He suggests that Trace Conversion yields the following structure:(i) every [boy λx. Mary likes the boy x]
meaning: λP. ∀x ((boy(x) & Mary likes the boy x)  P(x))(Fox 2002: 75)― 33 ―

愛知大学

(26)

言語と文化

No. 16[CP the two students C [TP each other’s teachersi T [vP ti [VP like the two students]]]]EPP
WH

Thus I suggest that English relative clauses include the movement of an inside
NP to Spec-CP to check oﬀ the wh-feature of C.

6. Deletion of Inside NPs
6.1. Equi-NP Deletion
I have suggested that an inside NP occurs in a relative clause and undergoes
movement to Spec-TP in Japanese and Spec-CP in English. However, the multiple
occurrence of the same NP may cause a problem in the PF component. For this PFrelated reason, I will propose that the inside NP is deleted under identity with a headNP.
As discussed in the last section, Fox (2002) suggests the deletion of inside NPs
under identity with a head NP. Basically I adopt his analysis. However, Fox (2002)
does not comment on the deletion of the NP in the base position. I therefore propose
the following:(27)

When an inside NP undergoes movement in a relative clause, it moves and its
copy is deleted if and only if a moved inside NP c-commands its copy.

I thus argue that an inside NP undergoes movement its copy deleting. This idea issimilar to Harada’s (1973) idea of Equi-NP deletion in the analysis of comparative
deletion and sentence pronominalization.
(28)

Equi-NP Deletion
When a deletion transformation operates on a pair of identical elements,
one asymmetrically commanding the other, it is the commanded, rather thanthe commanding, element that is deleted by that transformation.
(Harada 1973)― 34 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses

I adopt Harada’s intuition and apply it to deletion of copies of inside NPs in relative
clauses.
6.2. The Mechanism of Deletion and the PIC
In 6.1, I have proposed the deletion of inside NPs in relative clauses in the casewhere movement of inside NPs is included. Let us now consider the deletion of an
inside NP which is deleted under identity with a head NP. To determine the scope ofidentiﬁcation between an inside NP and a head NP, let us consider an English relative
clause.
(29)

He is a man who(m) Mary likes.

The inside NP a man occurs in the VP-complement position. The subject Mary moves
to Spec-TP to check the EPP-feature of T, because of lack of V-movement. The inside
NP a man then moves to Spec-CP to check the wh-feature of C. These are representedin (30):(30)[NP a man [CP a manj [C’ who(m) C [TP Maryi T [vP ti likesV [VP a man tV]]]]]](head NP)
EPP
WH

The inside NP in the base-generated position is deleted, because the moved inside NP
a man in Spec-CP c-commands this inside NP. This moved inside NP is deleted underidentity with the head NP. I propose that Chomsky’s (2000) Phase Impenetrability
Condition (PIC) is closely related to deletion of inside NPs. The PIC is deﬁned asfollows:(31)

The Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)
In phase α with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations
outside α, only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.
(Chomsky 2000: 108)

The PIC thus dictates that the head and the edge of a phase are accessible to the― 35 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

succeeding phase. Following Takahashi (2001), I make the assumption that CPs forma phase but vPs do not. Consequently, an inside NP which will be deleted underidentity with a head NP must occur in the same phase as the head NP or it must occur
in Spec-CP.
Assuming (31), let us examine (30) again. The head NP and the moved inside
NP do not occur in the same phase, but this inside NP occurs at the edge of a CPphase. The element at the edge of a CP-phase is accessible to the next phase, andhence the inside NP can be deleted under identity with the head NP.
To summarize, I have proposed the following deletion theory:(32)

Deletion Theory
An inside NP must be deleted under identity with a head NP. The
mechanism of deletion obeys the phase impenetrability condition (PIC).
When an inside NP undergoes movement within a relative clause, it moves
and its copy is deleted if and only if the moved inside NP c-commands its
copy.

6.3. Deletion in Japanese Relative Clauses
Let us now examine (1) again under the deletion mechanism proposed in (32).
(1) ? Otagai-no

tan’nin-no sensei-ga ei

hometahutari-no seitoi

As we considered in Section 4, the inside NP occurs in the VP-complement position
and it is attracted to Spec-TP to check the EPP-feature of T. The attracted inside NP
located in Spec-TP c-commands the copy in the base position, and hence the copy isdeleted.
(33)[NP [TP hutari-no seitoi [vP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga [VP hutari-no seitoi(inside NP)(inside NP)
tV] t’V] hometaV] hutari-no seito](head NP)― 36 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses

Next, let us consider the deletion of the inside NP in Spec-TP. Based on the deletion
theory of (32), this inside NP must be deleted under identity with the head NP. There
are no CPs between this inside NP and the head NP, and hence this inside NP can bedeleted in accordance with the Phase Impenetrability Condition.
The deletion mechanism proposed in this paper is thus able to explain why there
are no multiple occurrences of the same NP in the PF component.
6.4. Summary of Movement and Deletion Theory
In Section 6, I have argued that there is a categorial diﬀerence between English
and Japanese relative clauses. English relative clauses form CPs, while Japanese ones
form TPs. In addition, following Takahashi (2002), I have assumed that null elements
cannot undergo A-scrambling. Instead of null elements, I have proposed that an
inside NP, which corresponds to a head NP, must occur in the gap position of the head
NP. An inside NP undergoes movement to Spec-TP in Japanese, while it moves toSpec-CP in English. In Japanese, V-movement to T guarantees that either a subject oran object can check the EPP-feature of T, and hence even when an inside NP occurs
in the object position, it can move to Spec-TP. An anaphor in the subject NP in therelative clause can therefore be bound by this inside NP. On the other hand, there is
no V-movement to T in English, and hence a subject must check the EPP-feature of
T. When an inside NP occurs in the object position, it is unable to move to Spec-TP
before moving to Spec-CP. Hence, the anaphor in the subject NP is not bound by theinside NP in this case. I have also suggested that the inside NPs must be deleted underidentity with the head NP and that the deletion obeys the PIC. I call the analysis
presented in this paper the “movement and deletion” theory. To summarize, themovement and deletion theory is deﬁned as follows:(34)

Movement and Deletion Theory• In relative clauses, an inside NP, which corresponds to a head NP, occurs in the
gap position.
• The EPP-feature of T must be checked by an overt element (Miyagawa 2001,
Takahashi 2002). In Japanese relative clauses, either a subject NP or an object
NP can check the EPP-feature of T because of V-movement. In English
relative clauses, only a subject NP can check the EPP-feature of T, because― 37 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16English lacks V-movement.
• An inside NP must be deleted under identity with a head NP. The mechanismof deletion obeys the phase impenetrability condition. When an inside NP
undergoes movement within a relative clause, it moves and its copy is deleted
if and only if the moved inside NP c-commands its copy.

7. The Lack of Island Eﬀects in Japanese Relatives
As we brieﬂy discussed in 3.2, Japanese relative clauses do not show island eﬀects,
as argued in Kuno (1973), Murasugi (1991, 2000), while English relative clauses doshow them. Movement and Deletion Theory can accommodate this diﬀerence. Let
us examine (35), which contains an island.
ei ej hometa
heyaj-de(35) ? Otagai-no
tan’nin-no sensei-ga
each other’s
homeroom teachers-NOM
praisedin the roomnakidasita
hutari-no seitoi
started crying two students‘Lit. the two studentsi who started crying in the room where each otheri’s
teachers praised’First, inside NPs occur in the gap positions. The inside NP hutari-no seito undergoes
movement to Spec-TP with deletion of its copy in the base position. After raising theinside NP, the structure is as follows:(36)[TP hutari-no seitoi [vP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga heya(-de) hutari-no seitoi(inside NP)(inside NP) (inside NP)tV] hometaV]

The anaphor otagai is bound by hutari-no seito, and hence Condition A is satisﬁed at
this derivational point. Let us consider the succeeding derivation. After this TP isformed, the head NP heya merges with this TP. The inside NP heya must be deleted
under identity with the head NP. Since there are no CP boundaries between the head
NP and the inside NP, deletion of the inside NP is successfully accomplished.
― 38 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses(37)[PP [TP hutari-no seitoi [vP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga heya(-de)(inside NP(PP))
hutari-no seitoi tV] hometaV ] heya-de ](head NP(PP))

Next, the higher TP is formed. Let us assume here that pro, which refers to the NP
hutari-no seito, occurs in Spec-vP. Since null elements cannot undergo movement toSpec-TP by the assumption (15), let us suppose that the PP [Otagai-no tan’nin-nosensei-ga hometa heya-de] moves to Spec-TP and checks the EPP-feature of T instead.
(38)[TP [PP [NP [TP hutari-no seito [vP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga heya(-de)
hutari-no seitoi tV ] hometaV ] heya ] de ] [vP proi tV ] nakidasita ]After this formation of TP, the head NP hutari-no seito merges with this TP. The inside
NP hutari-no seito within PP must be deleted under identity with the head NP. Since
there are no CP boundaries between the head NP and the inside NP, the inside NP
undergoes deletion. Consequently, only one occurrence of hutari-no seito is spelled
out at PF.
(39)[NP [TP [PP [NP [TP hutari-no seitoi [vP otagai-no tan’nin-no sensei-ga heya(-de)(inside NP)
hutari-no seitoi tV ] hometaV ] heya] de] [vP proi tV ] nakidasitaV] hutari-no seitoi(head NP)

There is no movement which violates the subjacency condition, and hence no island
eﬀects arise.
Next let us consider English relative clauses, which show island sensitivity, as
represented in (40):(40) * the girl who I heard the rumor that John loves
An inside NP the girl occurs in the gap position, namely in the VP-complement
position in the most deeply embedded clause. This inside NP is attracted to Spec-CP― 39 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

to check the wh-feature of C with deleting its copy.
(41)[CP the girlj that

[TP Johni [vP ti loves the girlj]]]

This inside NP in Spec-CP is attracted to Spec-CP in the next phase to check the whfeature of C. However, this movement crosses the NP and TP boundaries. Therefore,
a subjacency violation arises.
(42)[CP the girlj [ TP I [vP heard [ NP the rumor [CP the girlj that [TP Johni [vP ti loves
the girlj ]]]]]]]

Thus, Movement and Deletion Theory can explain the diﬀerence in island
sensitivity between Japanese and English relative clauses.

8. Conclusion
In this paper, I have discussed the diﬀerence in anaphor licensing between
Japanese and English relative clauses. In Japanese an anaphor can occur within thesubject NP in a relative clause and be bound by the head NP, but this is not the casein English. I have assumed that an inside NP, which corresponds to the head NP,
occurs in the relative clause and undergoes movement within the relative clause. In
Japanese, either a subject or an object is able to check the EPP-feature of T because of
the presence of V-movement. On the other hand, in English, only a subject can checkit because of the lack of V-movement. I have argued that the diﬀerence in anaphor
licensing between Japanese and English relative clauses is due to the presence orabsence of V-movement. I have also shown that the analysis presented in this paper
can explain the diﬀerence in island eﬀects between Japanese and English relative
clauses. The study presented in this paper supports Takahashi’s (2002) analysis of null
operators and Miyagawa’s (2001) analysis of the EPP. The treatment of relative clausesin this paper also bears out the head-raising/promotion analysis of relative clauses
presented by Brame (1968), Schachter (1973), Vergnaud (1974), Kayne (1994), Åfarli(1994), Bhatt (2002), Hoshi (2004a, b), etc.

― 40 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses

ReferencesÅfarli, T. (1994) “A Promotion Analysis of Restrictive Relative Clauses,” The Linguistic Review 11,
pp. 81–100.
Belletti, A. and Rizzi L. (1988), “Psych-verbs and θ-theory,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
6, pp. 291–352.
Bhatt, R. (2002) “The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: Evidence from Adjectival Modiﬁcation,”
Natural Language Semantics 10, pp. 43–90.
Brame, M. (1968) “A New Analysis of the Relative Clause: Evidence for an Interpretive Theory,”
ms. MIT.
Chomsky, N. (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, Holland: Foris.
[Reprinted in 1993 by Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter]
Chomsky, N. (1995), The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000), “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.
Epstein, S. et al. (1998), A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Fox, D. (2002), “Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement,” Linguistic
Inquiry 33, pp. 63–96.
Fukui, N. (1986), A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Harada, S. (1973), “Counter Equi NP Deletion,” Annual Bulletin, No. 7, pp. 113–147, ResearchInstitute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo. [Reprinted in Harada, S. I.
(2000). Sintakkusu to Imi: Harada Shin’ichi Gengogaku Ronbun Sensyuu (Syntax andMeaning: S. I. Harada Collected Works in Linguistics), Tokyo: Taishukan.]Hoji, H. (1991) “Kare,” in C. Georgopoulos and R. Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches toLanguage: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, pp. 287–304.
Hoshi, K. (2004a) “Japanese Relativization and Its Puzzling Hybrid Nature,” Humanities 19,
Yokohama: Keio University, pp. 51–78, [Available] http://review.keio-up.co.jp/PaperFolder/
pdf/04/2004/0401903.pdf
Hoshi, K. (2004b) “Remarks on N-Final Relativization in Japanese,” English Language and Literature
44, Yokohama: Keio University, pp. 113–147. [Available] http://review.keio-up.co.jp/
PaperFolder/pdf/01/2004/0104407.pdf
Ishii, Y. (1991), Operators and Empty Categories in Japanese, Doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut.
Kayne, R. (1994), The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Kitagawa, Y. (1986), Subjects in Japanese and English, Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kuno, S. (1973), The Structure of the Japanese Language, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

― 41 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 16

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988), “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”
in W. Poster (ed.), Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax.
Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. [Reprinted in S.-Y. Kuroda(1992) Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Press]
Lebeaux, D. (1988), Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lebeaux, D. (1991), “Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation,” in S. Rothstein(ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, San
Diego, California: Academic Press, pp. 209–239.
Miyagawa, S. (2001), “The EPP, Scrambling, and Wh-in-situ,” in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale:A Life in Language, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 293–338.
Murasugi, K. (1991), Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and
Acquisition, Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. (2000), “An Antisymmetry Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses,” in A. Alexiadou etal. (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins,
pp. 231–263.
Otani, K. and Whitman, J. (1991), “V-Raising and VP-Ellipsis,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, pp. 345–
358.
Saito, M. (1992), “Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1,
pp. 69–118.
Schachter, P. (1973) “Focus and Relativization,” Language 49, pp. 19–46.
Takahashi, D. (2001), “On the Nature of the EPP,” ms., Tohoku University.
Takahashi, D. (2002), “Scrambling and Empty Categories,” in M. C. Cuervo et al. (eds.), MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 41: Proceedings of the Third Formal Approaches to Japanese
Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass: MITWPL, pp. 47–58.
Vernaud. J.-R. (1974) French Relative Clauses, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Yoshimura, N. (1992) Scrambling and Anaphora in Japanese, Doctoral dissertation, University ofSouthern California.

Acknowledgments
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 6th meeting of the JapaneseSociety for Language Sciences, which was held at Aichi Shukutoku University on July
17 and 18, 2004. I would like to thank members of the audience at the meeting. I
am also much indebted to Stephen Boyd, Tomohiro Fujii, Koji Fujita, Tim Gould,
Campbell Hore, Nathan Klinedinst, Kazumi Matsuoka, Hiroshi Mito, Yoichi― 42 ―

Anaphor Licensing and Island Eﬀects in Relative Clauses

Miyamoto, Masao Ochi, Norihiro Ogata, Takahiro Ono, Sayaka Suzuki, Ken’ya
Tanaka, Koichi Tateishi, Akira Watanabe, Jumpei Yamamoto and Yoko Yumoto for
their comments on previous versions of this paper. All remaining errors are of course
my own.

― 43 ―