AGAINST THE NULL COMPLEMENTIZER ANALYSIS OF JAPANESE*RELATIVE CLAUSES
Shigeki Taguchi
University of Connecticut

1.

Introduction

In this paper, I argue against the claim that relative clauses in Japanese are CPs headed
by a null complementizer (cf. Watanabe 1994, 1996, Hiraiwa 2000, 2002), and argue in favorof Murasugi’s (1991) claim that they are IPs. First, I discuss embedded topicalization.
Specifically, I give an overview of Maki et al. (1999), who argue that embedded
topicalization in Japanese is licensed by the LF I-to-C adjunction, and its inability to apply
inside relative clauses is due to the lack of C. I provide further data showing that theapplicability of embedded topicalization crucially hinges on the presence of C, and conclude
that whenever a relative clause has a complementizer, it must be overt in Japanese. Then, I
discuss the PF-adjacency requirement for licensing null complementizers; namely, they mustbe licensed by an adjacent verb or noun (cf. Bošković and Lasnik 2003). I conclude that
relative clauses in Japanese do not have a null complementizer, based on the observation thatthey need not be adjacent to the head noun (i.e., their “null complementizer”, if any, does nothave to be licensed by the adjacent noun). Given the conclusion above, I suggest that the Cbased analysis of Nominative Genitive Conversion be reconsidered (cf. Watanabe 1994, 1996,
Hiraiwa 2000, 2002). Specifically, I claim that a nominal element D is responsible for NGC(cf. Harada 1971, 1976, Miyagawa 1993, among others), and that NGC is a result of Agreebetween the embedded subject and D, which is blocked by the CP projection.
2.

Embedded Topicalization

It has been noted that embedded topicalization is possible only when the complementizer
is overtly realized as that in English (cf. Authier 1992, Kayne 1994, etc.), as shown in (1):(1)

John believes *(that) this book, Mary read.

Bošković (1997) assumes that embedded topicalization is adjunction to IP. According to him,
embedded topicalization is inapplicable in the that-less counterpart in (1) because the*I am indebted to Duk-Ho An, Jonathan Bobaljik, Željko Bošković, Jean Crawford, Hiroshi
Funamoto, Takako Iseda, Yasuyuki Kitao, Hideki Maki, Satoru Nakai, Fumikazu Niinuma, Mamoru
Saito, Tsuyoshi Sawada, Keun-Won Sohn, Shoko Taguchi, Susi Wurmbrand, and the audience at theConnecticut-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Minimalist Syntax and the 9th Seoul International
Conference on Generative Grammar for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Allerrors are my own responsibility.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 185–198© 2008 Shigeki Taguchi

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

embedded clause is an IP and the complement of the matrix verb. The inapplicability ofembedded topicalization in this case follows from the ban on adjunction to a complement
clause (cf. Chomsky 1986).
Maki et al. (1999), pointing out some similarities between English and Japanese withrespect to embedded topicalization, claim that embedded topicalization in Japanese, which
derives (2)b from (2)a, is also licensed by LF I-to-C adjunction. Based on Murasugi’s (1991)
claim that relative clauses in Japanese are IPs, Maki et al. (1999) claim that the inapplicabilityof topicalization in (3)b is due to the absence of the CP projection.1(2)

a. Taroo-wa Hanako-ga
yuusyuuda
Taroo-top Hanako-nom excellent

to
C

omou.
think

‘Taroo believes that Hanako is excellent.’b. Taroo-wa Hanako-wa
Taroo-top Hanako-top

yuusyuuda
excellent

to
C

omou.
think

(lit.) ‘Taroo believes that Hanako, is excellent.’(3)

a. Taroo-wa [Taroo-top

kono
this

hon-o
yonda ] hito-ni
book-acc read
person-dat

atta.
met

‘Taroo met the person [ read this book ].’1

Tomohiro Fujii (p.c.) pointed out to me that embedded topicalization might be blocked by theadnominal form of a predicate, given that the embedded clause in (i) contains a complementizer koto
but disallows embedded topicalization (note that I have slightly modified his example, and that theadnominal and the ending forms are identical in the case of verbs):(i)* Taroo-wa [ asu-wa
tookyoo-e iku koto ] -okessinsita.
Taroo-top
tomorrow-top Tokyo-to go C
-acc decided(lit.) ‘Taroo decided [ that tomorrow, he would go to Tokyo ].’However, (ii) below shows that embedded topicalization is allowed even though a predicate appears in
the adnominal form (note that the ending form of yuusyuuna is yuusyuuda, and that no is glossed as
NO because I have not made clear which syntactic category it belongs to at this point):(ii)

Taroo-wa [ Hanako-wa
Taroo-top Hanako-top

hontooni yuusyuuna noreallyexcellent NO

ka ] tazuneta.
C
asked(lit.) ‘Taroo asked [ whether Hanako, is excellent ].’Thus, I continue to assume with Maki et al. (1999) that embedded topicalization is not allowed in (3)bbecause the CP projection is missing. See Taguchi (in press) for the data showing that somecomplementizers in Japanese allow embedded topicalization but others do not.

-186-Against the Null Complementizer Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses (S. Taguchi)

b.*Taroo-wa
Taroo-top

[

kono
this

hon-wa yonda ] hito-ni
atta.
book-top read
person-dat met(lit.) ‘Taroo met the person [ this book, read ].’I provide (4) and (5), examples of prenominal gapless clause, to support their claim; namely,(4)b does not allow embedded topicalization because there is no C that licenses the embedded
topicalization. (5)b does, however, because toiu, the head of an optional CP projection,
licenses it.2
(4)

a. [

kono
this

hon-gabook-nomomosiroiinteresting∅] kanoosee/syooko
possibility/evidence(lit.) ‘the possibility/evidence [ this book is interesting ]’
b.*[

kono
this

hon-wa omosiroi
book-top interesting∅] kanoosee/syooko
possibility/evidence(lit.) ‘the possibility/evidence [ this book, is interesting ]’
(5)

a. [

kono
this

hon-gabook-nomomosiroiinteresting

toiu
C

]

kanoosee/syooko
possibility/evidence‘the possibility/evidence [ that this book is interesting ]’
b. [

kono
this

hon-wabook-top

omosiroiinteresting

toiu
C

]

kanoosee/syooko
possibility/evidence(lit.) ‘the possibility/evidence [ that this book, is interesting ]’In sum, relative clauses in Japanese are basically IPs, as Murasugi (1991) claims, andwhenever they have an optional CP, the complementizer must be overt.
3.

PF-Adjacency Requirement

In Section 2, on the basis of the observation that relative clauses in Japanese do notallow embedded topicalization, I argued in favor of the claim that they lack a nullcomplementizer; namely, they are IPs. However, there are at least two more possibilities that
account for the observation: one is that null complementizers in Japanese simply do notlicense embedded topicalization, and the other is that relative clauses in Japanese are in fact
headed by a null complementizer, and an topic NP and an empty operator compete for the2

Unfortunately, I do not find an example of relative clauses that shows the same effect. See Ochi
(2001), however, for an independent argument that relative clauses and prenominal gapless clauses
have the same categorial status. See also Hooper and Thompson (1973) for the argument that
topicalization inside relative clauses is restricted by semantic factors (I thank Željko Bošković fordrawing this work to my attention).

-187-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

SpecCP position (Duk-Ho Ann p.c.; cf. Kuroda 1987, Tonoike 1989, Rizzi 1997, Taguchi inpress, etc.).3 In this section, I first introduce Bošković and Lasnik’s (2003) claim thatembedded clauses headed by a null complementizer in English are subject to the PFadjacency requirement. Then, I demonstrate that complement clauses in Kansai dialects ofJapanese must also satisfy the PF-adjacency requirement, but this is not the case for relative
clause in Japanese. Hence, I conclude that relative clause in Japanese are bare IPs that are notheaded by a null complementizer.
Saito (1987) reports that some of Kansai (i.e. western) dialects of Japanese allow thedeletion of the complementizer to (te in Saito’s original examples), as shown in (6).
(6)

Taroo-wa [ Hanako-ga
aho
Taroo-top
Hanako-nom foolya (to) ]isComooteru.
is thinking(lit.) ‘Taroo is thinking that Hanako is a fool.’
Maki et al. (1999) claim that (6) involves a null complementizer. Specifically, given their
proposal that embedded topicalization is licensed by the LF I-to-C adjunction, the fact that toless counterpart in (6) allows embedded topicalization, as shown in (7), follows if it involves
a null complementizer.
(7)

Taroo-wa [Taroo-top

Hanako-wa aho
Hanako-top foolya (to) ]isComooteru.
is thinking(lit.) ‘Taroo is thinking that Hanako is a fool.’
I would like to discuss whether relative clauses in Japanese pattern in the same way as
the to-less complement clauses. Before doing this, let us consider a similar case in English.
Bošković and Lasnik (2003), modifying Pesetsky’s (1992) proposal, claim that the nullcomplementizer of complement clauses in English is a PF affix which must be hosted by thematrix verb adjacent to it in PF. Thus, (8) is well-formed only when the null complementizer
and the matrix verb are adjacent.
(8)

John believed (*at that time) [CP C Mary read this book ].

Crucially, this holds for complement clauses headed by a null complementizer in Kansai
dialect. The examples in (9) show that null complementizers in Kansai dialects cannot appear
unless they are adjacent to the matrix verb which licenses them in PF. For instance, the null3

See Mihara (1994) for an ECP-based account against the claim that relative clauses in Japanese
involve an empty operator. I assume that Mihara is correct for an independent reason. I have shown by(4) and (5) that prenominal gapless clauses allow embedded topicalization only when they are headedby an overt complementizer. If prenominal gapless clauses and relative clauses have the same
categorial status, as claimed by Ochi (2001), and if they are CPs that can be headed by a nullcomplementizer, then it is hard to account for the contrast between (4) and (5); namely, it is expectedthat embedded topicalization should always be impossible, because an empty operator should occupy
SpecCP regardless of whether the complementizer is null or not.

-188-Against the Null Complementizer Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses (S. Taguchi)

complementizer and the verb are not adjacent because of CP-scrambling in (9)a, anintervening adverb in (9)b, CP-topicalization in (9)c, and inversion in (9)d, respectively.
(9)a. [ Hanako-ga
aho
Hanako-nom foolya *(to)isC]

Taroo-gaomooteru.
Taroo-nom is thinking(lit.) ‘Taroo is thinking that Hanako is a fool.’b. Taroo-wa [ Hanako-ga
aho ya *(to)Taroo-top
Hanako-nom fool isC] hakkiri omooteru.
clearly is thinking(lit.) ‘Taroo is clearly thinking that Hanako is a fool.’c. [ Hanako-ga aho
Hanako-nom foolya *(to)isC]-wa Taroo-wa omootehen.
-top Taroo-top is not thinking(lit.) ‘That Hanako is a fool, Taroo is not thinking.’
d. Taroo-wa omooteru, [ Hanako-ga
aho
Taroo-top is thinking
Hanako-nom foolya *(to)isC].

(lit.) ‘That Hanako is a fool ... Taroo is thinking.’
The question is how to account for (10), an example of Right-Node Raising (cf. Saito 1987).
Namely, it is unclear why the second complementizer must be realized overtly even though it
appears to be adjacent to the matrix verb.
(10) Taroo-wa
Taroo-top
Ziroo-wa
Ziroo-top

Hanako-ga
aho ya *(to), honde
Hanako-nom fool isCandNaoko-ga
aho ya *(to), omooteru.
Naoko-nom fool isCis thinking(lit.) ‘Taroo is thinking that Hanako is a fool, and Ziroo is thinking that Naoko is afool.’
However, a closer examination of the example reveals that the null complementizer is notstrictly adjacent to the matrix verb in (10), either. More precisely, the pause left behind after
the null complementizer shows that the matrix verb has been raised from this position, whichis adjacent to the null complementizer. Thus, (10) is ruled out as a violation of the PFadjacency requirement, just like (8) and (9) are.
Now, let us turn to the case of relative clauses in Japanese. If Japanese relative clauses
are indeed headed by a null complementizer just like (6), it is predicted that they also must be
licensed by an adjacent matrix verb. (3)a (repeated as (11)) shows that the prediction isincorrect; namely, the head noun intervenes between the relative clause and the matrix verb,
but the example is still well-formed without an overt complementizer.

-189-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(11) Taroo-wa
Taroo-top

[

kono
this

hon-o
book-acc

yonda
read

]

hito-niperson-dat

atta.
met

‘Taroo met the person [ read this book ].’One may argue, however, that the null complementizer in Japanese relative clauses must be
licensed by an adjacent head noun rather than by an adjacent matrix verb. In fact, Bošković
and Lasnik (2003) argue that the null complementizer in English relative clauses must be
adjacent to the head noun in PF, as exemplified by the contrast between (12)a and (12)b.
(12) a.

The child [CP C Alexis was waiting for ] was lost.

b. * The child was lost [CP C Alexis was waiting for ].
However, this argument does not extend to the case in Japanese. (13) shows that relative
clauses and the head noun can be separated by an adjunct in Japanese.
(13) Taroo-wa [Taroo-top

kono
this

hon-o
yonda
book-acc read] eraigreat

hito-niperson-dat

atta.
met

(lit.) ‘Taroo met the great person [ read this book ].’In short, the “null complementizer” in Japanese relative clauses, if any, do not have to belicensed by anything. If Bošković and Lasnik’s (2003) argument extends to nullcomplementizers in Japanese (cf. (9) and (10)), the data given above support the claim that
relative clauses in Japanese are not CPs but IPs.
4.

Nominative Genitive Conversion in JapaneseIn this section, I discuss one of the consequences of my claim that relative clauses inJapanese are IPs. More specifically, I argue that the C-based analysis of Nominative Genitive
Conversion (NGC) needs to be reconsidered (cf. Watanabe 1994, 1996, Hiraiwa 2000, 2002).
First I introduce the basic data and characteristics of NGC, and briefly summarize thetraditional treatment of it. Then, I summarize the C-based analysis of NGC, and point out
some problems. Finally, I propose my own analysis of NGC, maintaining that relative clauses
in Japanese are IPs.
4.1. Preliminaries
NGC is an alternation between nominative and genitive case particles on NPs inside aclausal prenominal modifier, as shown in (14):(14) a. boku-ga yonda hon
I-nom
read
book
‘the book I read’-190-

Against the Null Complementizer Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses (S. Taguchi)

b. boku-no yonda hon
I-gen
read
book
‘the book I read’
It has been traditionally assumed that NGC is only licensed by a noun or D (e.g. Harada 1971,
1976, Saito 1982, Miyagawa 1993, Ochi 2001, and Maki, Kobayashi, and Dunton 2003,
among others), as summarized by Hiraiwa (2002: 547) as (15):(15) NGC is restricted to only relative clauses and nominal complements (i.e. structure withan external D-head).
Let us call (15) the D-based analysis. Miyagawa (1993) and Ochi (2001), among others,
further assume that NGC involves the raising of the genitive NP in order to license its Case.
Specifically, Miyagawa (1993) suggests that the genitive NP undergoes LF movement to
SpecDP (for Ochi 2001, the relevant movement is Move F). One reason for this assumption isthat (16)b is ambiguous with respect to the scope interpretation; namely, the genitive subject
may take scope over and under the head noun, but (16)a with the nominative subject only
takes scope under the head noun. Consider the following examples:(16) a. [ Taroo-ka Hanako-ga
kita ]
Taroo-or Hanako-nom cameriyuu
reasonreason >> Taroo or Hanako; *Taroo or Hanako >> reason(lit.) ‘the reason [ Taroo or Hanako came yesterday ]’b. [ Taroo-ka Hanako-no
Taroo-or Hanako-gen

kita ]
came

riyuu
reasonreason >> Taroo or Hanako; Taroo or Hanako >> reason(lit.) ‘the reason [ Taroo or Hanako came yesterday ]’On the basis of the difference in the scope interaction between the nominative and thegenitive NPs, Miyagawa concludes that SpecDP is either A- or A′-position. More specifically,
if the subject undergoes A-movement, it is interpreted only in SpecDP (i.e. Taroo or Hanako>> reason), while if the subject undergoes A′-movement to SpecDP followed byreconstruction (cf. Chomsky 1995, Lasnik 1999), it is interpreted only in the position lower
than the head noun (i.e. reason >> Taroo or Hanako).4
The other reason for assuming that the genitive NP undergoes movement to SpecDP isthat sentential modifiers like kinoo ‘yesterday’ can precede the genitive NP (cf. Nakai 1980),
4

I do not go into the issue of the scope interpretation in this paper, and simply follow Hiraiwa (2000)
in assuming that the genitive NP taking scope over the head noun is directly merged in SpecDP and iscoindexed with pro inside the embedded TP. See Ochi (2001) for further discussion and restrictions
on this configuration.

-191-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

preventing it from overtly raising to SpecDP, as in (17). According to Miyagawa, (17) isunambiguous with respect to the scope interpretation, and allows only the reading where thehead noun takes higher scope than the genitive subject. Miyagawa attributes the lack ofambiguity in (17) to blocking of A-movement by the sentential modifier kinoo ‘yesterday’.
(17) [ kinoo
yesterday

Taroo-ka Hanako-no
Taroo-ka Hanako-gen

kita ]
came

riyuu
reason‘the reason [ Taroo or Hanako came yesterday ]’The mechanism of the genitive licensing under the D-based analysis is schematized as (18):
Genitive Licensing(18) [DPDP-geni [TP

ti

]

D

]

LF Movement/Move F
4.2. The C-based Analysis: Hiraiwa (2000, 2002)
Hiraiwa (2000, 2002), on the other hand, argues against the D-based analysis, providing
counterexamples like (19) below:(19) Taroo-wa [ ame-ga/no
yamu (toki) made ] kyoositu-ni ita.
Taroo-toprain-nom/gen stop (time) until
classroom-at was‘Taroo was at the classroom [ until (the time) the rain stopped ].’According to Hiraiwa, the embedded clause in (19) does not have to contain any head noun; it
can be headed by the postposition made ‘until’ alone, but still NGC is possible.5 Hiraiwa
argues that a head noun is irrelevant for NGC, based on a great number of data analogous to(19). Given counterexamples like (19), Hiraiwa (2000: 82-84) proposes the descriptive
generalization (20) and the hypothesis (21) for NGC in Japanese:(20) NGC in Japanese is only licensed by the special verbal inflection predicate adnominal
form (the P-A form).6(21) The syntactic C-T-V head amalgamate formed via AGREE corresponds to the special
verbal inflection predicate adnominal form (the P-A form).

5

Hiroshi Aoyagi (p.c.) pointed out to me that made ‘until’ itself has properties of a noun. Given this,the applicability of NGC in (19) is also explained by the D-based analysis.
6

For expository reasons, I adopt the term “adnominal form” and “ending form” instead of “PA/attributive form” and “conclusive form”, respectively. It does not seem to affect the main discussion
in this paper.

-192-

Against the Null Complementizer Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses (S. Taguchi)

Simply put, according to (20) and (21), (19) has Caffix (i.e. an empty complementizer) as well
as T and V. These heads form an amalgamation, which is phonologically spelled out as theadnominal form of the predicate and licenses either nominative or genitive.7 Crucially, (20)and (21) entail that the genitive licensing does not depend on a noun or D, as illustrated in thesimplified structure (22) below.8 Let us call (22) the C-based analysis.
Agree & Genitive Licensing(22) [CP[TP[VP DP-gen V ] T ] Caffix ]Moreover, Hiraiwa classifies complementizers in Japanese into three types: a nullcomplementizer Caffix which does not have any phonological realization (cf. (14) and (19)), an
overt complementizer toiu (cf. (23)b), and a null complementizer Caffix which isphonologically spelled out as no as a result of Agree (cf. (24)).9(23) a. [syooraidaizisin-ga/nookiru
in the future great earthquake-nom/gen occur∅] kanoosee
possibility(lit.) ‘the possibility [ a great earthquake will occur in the future ]’b. [syooraidaizisin-ga/*nookiru toiu
in the future great earthquake-nom/gen occur C] kanoosee
possibility‘the possibility [ that a great earthquake will occur in the future ]’(24) Taroo-wa [Taroo-topkinooyesterday

Hanako-ga/nokita no ]-oHanako-nom/gen came NO-acc

siranakatta.
didn’t know

‘Taroo didn’t know that Hanako came yesterday.’
Hiraiwa claims that only Caffix licenses NGC, and explains the distribution of NGC as
follows: the overt complementizer toiu in (23)b is free from the Agree relation illustrated in(22), and thus NGC is not applicable. In (23)a, however, C is realized as Caffix rather than toiu.
Thus, the Agree relation (22) is established and NGC is applicable. Likewise, in (14) and (24),7

See Kikuta (2002) for the proposal that the adnominal form itself functions as a noun.

8

Hiraiwa’s analysis is an extension of Watanabe’s (1994, 1996). Watanabe argues that the adnominal
form of a predicate optionally functions as the indicator of the special inflectional system that makes
SpecTP and SpecAgrSP unavailable. He further claims that the genitive NP is Case-marked as such inovert syntax independently of DP. The genitive NP stays in VP in overt syntax because SpecTP and
SpecAgrSP are unavailable. However, it raises to SpecAgrSP in LF in order to have its Case checked.
The Case-checking of the genitive NP is carried out through what Watanabe calls wh-agreement,
which is made possible by raising T and AgrS to C.
9

I claim below that there are at least two types of no, but simply gloss both types of no as NO until I
make clear which syntactic category each belongs to.

-193-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

C is realized as Caffix, which induces Agree relevant for the NGC licensing, and thus nothing
prevents NGC from applying in these examples.
4.3. Problems
While the C-based analysis is intriguing in itself, it is faced with some problems. First,
Maki et al. (2003) and Maki and Uchibori (2005) claim that NGC does require a noun, on the
grounds that each of Hiraiwa’s examples has the counterpart where a noun is overtly
expressed. In other words, they claim that the noun required for NGC is merely omitted in(19).
Second, there are examples whose clausal prenominal modifier contains the adnominal
form of a predicate, while the genitive NP fails to be licensed. Consider (25):(25) Anata-ga/*no hutyuuina
you-nom/gen carelessdake da.
only is‘It’s just that you’re careless.’
If the presence of the adnominal form of a predicate is a sufficient condition for NGC, it ispredicted that the genitive NP should be successfully licensed in (25), contrary to fact.
However, the failure of NGC in (25) is straightforwardly accounted for by the D-based
analysis, which assume that a noun or D is necessary for licensing NGC.
Third, the argument-adjunct asymmetry regarding NGC pointed out by Fujita (1988)
cannot be accounted for (cf. Miyagawa 1989, Takahashi 1994, and Maki et al. 1999, etc.). As
exemplified in (26)a, NGC is possible when toki heading a clause is an argument, but is
impossible when it is an adjunct, as shown in (26)b.10(26) a. [Oogoe-deloudlyHanako-ga/no
Hanako-nom/gen

warattalaughedtoki ]-o
TOKI-acc

oboeteiru.
remember‘I remember the time when Hanako laughed loudly.’b. [Oogoe-deloudlyHanako-ga/*noHanako-nom/gen

warattalaughedtoki ] Taroo-ga
TOKI
Taroo-nom

naiteita.
was crying‘Taroo was crying when Hanako laughed loudly’
Since the C-based analysis assumes that genitive is licensed independently of an element
outside the clause, whether or not toki is an argument should not matter, and it predicts that
NGC should be well-formed in both (26)a and (26)b, contrary to fact.

10

As in the case of no, I claim below that there are at least two types of toki, but simply gloss bothtypes of toki as TOKI until I make clear which syntactic category each belongs to. Note, however, thattoki should be taken as ‘time’ in (26)a and ‘when’ in (26)b, as the translations show.

-194-

Against the Null Complementizer Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses (S. Taguchi)

Fourth, it is hard to explain why the complementizer of a relative clause cannot always
be realized as no, as shown in (27):(27) boku-no yonda (*no) hon
I-gen
read
(*NO) book‘the book which I read’
Given Hiraiwa’s classification of complementizers in Japanese, it is predicted that the spellout of Caffix as no should be possible whenever NGC is applicable. (27) shows that thisprediction is incorrect. Thus, it seems plausible that no, the NGC licenser in (24), issomething other than a complementizer, which competes for the nominal head position ofrelative clauses, as shown by (27).
4.4. Proposals
Now, I would like to propose my own analysis of NGC that overcomes the problems forthe D-based and the C-based analyses. First, I propose that NGC is licensed by Agreebetween the subject and a nominal element D, which may not be overtly expressed as a noun,
as in (19), repeated below as (28) (cf. Maki et al. 2003, Maki and Uchibori 2005):(28) Taroo-wa [ ame-ga/no
yamu (toki) made ] kyoositu-ni ita.
Taroo-toprain-nom/gen stop (time) until
classroom-at was‘Taroo was at the classroom [ until (the time) the rain stopped ].’Moreover, I claim that the CP projection in Japanese generally blocks the Agree relation
required for the NGC licensing (cf. Inoue 1976, Ochi 2001), in contrast to Hiraiwa’s andWatanabe’s assumption that the CP projection is necessary for licensing NGC. The
mechanism I am proposing is schematically summarized as (29):
Genitive Licensing OK(29) a. [DP [TP DP-gen T ] D ]Genitive Licensing Blockedb. * [DP [CP [TP DP-gen T ] C ] D ]There are two questions that arise regarding the proposed analysis. One is why the CP
projection blocks Agree between the subject and a nominal element. More specifically, why
the Agree relation is blocked, if Agree is free from Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) Phase
Impenetrability Condition (PIC), which states that only the edge of a phase (Spec and head) is
accessible from outside of the phase, as Bošković (in press) claims. The other is why NGC is
optional. More precisely, why NGC is even possible, given that T is the closest functional
head that licenses Case in (29)a, in accordance with Agree Closest. In order to answer thesetwo questions, I proposed in Taguchi (2007) that NGC is a result of the optional head

-195-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

movement of T to D, which is blocked by C intervening between them. More specifically, inorder for T to move to D, it must move to C first. However, once T moves to C, the C + T
complex is frozen in place, as shown in (30)b. As a result, T is still closer to the subject thanD, and Agree between the subject and D is blocked in accordance with Agree Closest.
Genitive Licensing OK(30) a. [DP[TP NP-genti] D + Ti ]Genitive Licensing Blocked

b.* [DP[CP[TP NP-genti] C + Ti ]D]

FROZEN

Furthermore, I proposed in Taguchi (2007) that the contrast between (26)a and (26)b is
straightforwardly accounted for by assuming that there are at least two types of toki inJapanese; namely, nominal toki and complementizer toki. According to my analysis
summarized in (30), toki in (26)a is a noun translated as ‘time’, and hence it is D that licenses
NGC, while toki in (26)b is a complementizer translated as ‘when’, and thus it is C thatblocks NGC. In the same fashion, the contrast between (31)/(32) and (33) is explained byassuming that there are at least two types of no in Japanese; namely, nominal no andcomplementizer no. In (31) and (32), no is a nominal element that can be replaced by anothernoun, and thus it is D that licenses NGC, while in (33), no is a complementizer that cannot be,
and thus it is C that blocks NGC.
(31) Taroo-wa [Taroo-topkinooyesterday

Hanako-ga/nokita no/koto ]-oHanako-nom/gen came D/fact-acc

siranakatta.
didn’t know

‘Taroo didn’t know that Hanako came yesterday.’(32) Taroo-ga/no
katta
no/hon-wa
Taroo-nom/gen bought D/book-top

minimarisuto puroguramu
The Minimalist Programda.
is‘It is The Minimalist Program that Taroo bought.’(33) Tenki-ga/*noweather-nom/gen

warui
bad

no/*koto-de, …
D/fact-because‘Because the weather is bad, …’
5.

Summary

In this paper, I argued that relative clauses in Japanese are IPs, contrary to the proposalthat they are CPs headed by a null complementizer. I assumed that the lack of CP is
responsible for the inapplicability of embedded topicalization in relative clauses and clausal
adnominal modifiers in Japanese, and concluded that whenever they have a complementizer,-196-

Against the Null Complementizer Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses (S. Taguchi)

it must be overt. I also showed that null complementizers must be licensed by an adjacentverb or noun, and demonstrated that relative clauses in Japanese do not have a nullcomplementizer, based on the observation that they need not be adjacent to the head noun.
Hence, I proposed that NGC is a result of Agree between a nominal element D and theembedded subject. Also, in order to answer the question why NGC is possible under Agree
Closest and why it is blocked when a complementizer appears overtly, I referred to an
analysis where the optional T-to-D head movement plays an important role. Under thisanalysis, the head movement feeds the Agree relation, but it is blocked when C is intervening
between T and D.

References
Authier, Marc. 1992. Iterated CPs and Embedded Topicalization. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 329-336.
Bošković, Željko. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Bošković, Željko. in press. On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More
Minimal Theory. Linguistic Inquiry.
Bošković, Željko. and Howard Lasnik. 2003. On the Distribution of Null Complementizers. Linguistic
Inquiry 34. 527-546.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in
Honor of Howard Lasnik. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds.).
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. 89-155.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation By Phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Michael Kenstowicz.
(ed.). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Fujita, Naoya. 1988. Genitive Subject in Japanese and Universal Grammar. M.A. Thesis, Ohio State
University.
Harada, Shin-Ichi. 1971. Ga-No Conversion and Idiolectal Variations in Japanese. Gengokenkyu 60.
25-38.
Harada, Shin-Ichi 1976. Ga-No Conversion Revisited. Gengokenkyu 70. 23-38.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2000. On Nominative-Genitive Conversion. A Few From Building E-39. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 39. Ora Matushansky and Elena Guerzoni (eds.). Cambridge, MA.:
MITWPL. 66-123.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2002. Nominative-Genitive Conversion Revisited. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10.
Stanford: CSLI/The University of Chicago Press. 546-559.
Hooper, Joan. and Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the Applicability of Root Transformation. Linguistic
Inquiry 4. 465-497.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkeibunpoo to Nihongo (Transformational Grammar and Japanese). Tokyo:
Taishukan.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Kikuta, Chiharu. 2002. Ga-No Kootaigenshoo-no Hi-Haseetekibunseki: Zytugorentaikee-no Meisisee(Ga-No Conversion in the New Light: A Non-Derivational, Mixed Category Analysis).
Doshisha Studies in English 74. 93-136.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1987. Movement of Noun Phrases in Japanese. Issues in Japanese Linguistics.
Takashi Imai and Mamoru Saito (eds.). Dortrecht: Foris. 229-271.

-197-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of Arguments. Working Minimalism. Samuel David Epstein andNorbert Hornstein. (eds.). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. 189-215.
Maki, Hideki., Lizanne Kaiser., and Masao Ochi. 1999. Embedded Topicalization in English andJapanese. Lingua. 107. 1-14.
Maki, Hideki., Keiichiro Kobayashi, and Jessica Dunton. 2003. A Genitive NP in the
Nominative/Genitive Alternation Does Need a Noun. Bulletin of the Faculty of Regional
Studies 13. 63-68.
Maki, Hideki. and Asako Uchibori. 2005. Ga/No Conversion. Ms., Gifu University and Nihon
University.
Mihara, Ken-Ichi. 1994. Nihongo no Toogokoozoo (Syntactic Structures of Japanese). Tokyo:
Shohakusha.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Syntax and Semantics 22: Structure and Case-Marking in Japanese. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. Case-Checking and Minimal Link Condition. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 19: Papers on Case and Agreement II. Collin Phillips (ed.). Cambridge, MA.:
MITWPL. 213-254.
Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and
Acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nakai, Satoru. 1980. A Reconsideration of Ga-No Conversion in Japanese. Papers in Linguistics 13.
279-320.
Ochi, Masao. 2001. Move F and Ga/No Conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10.
247-286.
Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. Elements of Grammar. Liliane
Haegeman (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281-337.
Saito, Mamoru. 1982. Case Marking in Japanese. Ms., MIT.
Saito, Mamoru. 1987. Three Notes on Syntactic Movement in Japanese. Issues in Japanese
Linguistics. Takashi Imai and Mamoru Saito (eds.). Dortrecht: Foris. 301-350.
Taguchi, Shigeki. 2007. On the Role of Complementizers in Japanese. Proceedings of the 9th Seoul
International Conference on Generative Grammar. Doo-Won Lee (ed.). Seoul: The Korean
Generative Grammar Circle. 181-193.
Taguchi, Shigeki. in press. On the Nature of Japanese Complementizers. Proceedings of 2007
International Conference on Linguistics in Korea. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of Movement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Tonoike, Shigeo. 1989. Wa, Mo, Ga-no Ronrikeesiki: Bunbunpoo to Danwabunpoo-no Intaafeisu(The LF Representation of Wa, Mo, and Ga: The Interface between Sentential Grammar andDiscourse Grammar). Meezi Gakuin Ronsoo Eego Eebeebungaku 446. 51-75.
Watanabe, Akira. 1994. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Japanese Nominative-Genitive Conversion
and Its Implications for Japanese Syntax. Current topics in English and Japanese. Masaru
Nakamura (ed.). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. 341-369.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-Genitive Conversion and Agreement in Japanese: A CrossLinguistic Perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5. 373-410.

-198-