Presented at the International Conference on East Asian Linguistics, University of Toronto.
November 10-12, 2006.

N’-Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese and Japanese*
Mamoru Saito, T.-H. Jonah Lin, and Keiko Murasugi
Nanzan University and National Tsing Hua University
It has been assumed since Kitagawa and Ross 1982 that noun phrases in Chinese and Japanese are quite
similar in structure. They are N-final in surface word order, they employ “modifying markers” (de in
Chinese and no in Japanese) extensively, and they require classifiers for numeral expressions. In this paper,
we argue that contrary to appearance, they have quite distinct structures. We examine N’-ellipsis in the two
languages, and present supporting evidence for the hypothesis argued for by Simpson (2003), among others,
that Chinese noun phrases are head-initial. According to this hypothesis, de is D and a classifier heads
another projection within DP. Japanese noun phrases, on the other hand, are head-final. No is a modifying
marker, as proposed by Kitagawa and Ross (1982), and classifier phrases are adjuncts modifying nominal
projections. Our discussion shows that Kayne’s (1994) analysis N-final relatives applies elegantly to
Chinese but not to Japanese. It thus suggests the Japanese relative clauses are head-final throughout thederivation.

1. Introduction
In this paper, we pursue a comparative syntax of noun phrases in Chinese andJapanese. It has been widely assumed that the structures of noun phrases in these two
languages are quite similar. For example, they are both N-final on the surface and theyboth employ “modifying markers” extensively as shown in (1)-(2).
(1)

Chinesea. Laowang de chede car‘Laowang’s car’b. yong shitou de gongji
with stine de attack‘attack with stones’(2)

Japanesea. Haruki no kuruma
no car‘Haruki’s car’b. isi -de no koogeki
stone-with no attack‘attack with stones’This paper was initially presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chinese
Linguistics (IACL), which was held in conjunction with the 13th Annual North American Conference on
Chinese Linguistic (NACCL) at the University of California, Irvine on June 22-24, 2001. We have decided
to present a revised version at the International Conference on East Asian Linguistics held at the Universityof Toronto on November 10-12, 2006 because the original paper was never published and we thought it isstill of current interest. This version was presented also in syntax seminars at MIT (2005 LSA Summer
Institute) and at the University of Connecticut, and in workshops at Nanzan University and at National
Tsing Hua University. We would like to thank the audience, especially I-Ta Chris Hsieh and James Huang,for helpful comments and suggestions.
*

2
Further, Chinese and Japanese are both classifier languages. This is illustrated in (3) and
(4).
(3)

Chinesesan -ben shu
three-CL book‘three books’(4)Japanesesan -satu no hon
three-CL no book‘three books’

In this paper, we argue that despite these appearant similarities, the noun phrase
structures in Chinese and Japanese are radically different. We compare the distributionsof the Chinese “modifying marker” de and its Japanese counterpart no, and also examine
the patterns of N’-ellipsis observed in these languages. Based on this, we present
evidence that Chinese is head-initial, where de is D and a classifier is also a head in thenominal projection. Japanese, on the other hand, is head-final and the modifying marker
no is a contexual Case marker. The analysis for Chinese that we arrive at is similar to theone proposed in Simpson 2003, and that for Japanese is more or less the traditional one.
The comparative study on Chinese and Japanese shows that Kayne’s (1994)
antisymmetry theory, which entertains the hypothesis that phrase structure is universally
head-initial, accounts elengantly for relative clauses in Chinese, but not for those inJapanese. This paper suggests then that Japanese relative clauses are generated head-final
from the very beginning of the derivation.
In the following section, we go over the similarities as well as the differences inthe distrubutions of de and no. In Section 3, we present and argue for the head-initial
analysis of Chinese and the head-final analysis of Japanese. We show there, based on theexamination of N’-ellipsis, that the constituent that precedes de is always in DP Spec
while no accompanies phrases in a variety of positions. In Section 4, we summarize our
proposals, comparing our analysis of Japanese noun phrases with Watanabe’s (2006).
2. The Distributions of de/no and Kitagawa and Ross’s (1982) Mod Insertion RuleAs noted above, de and no show similarities in their disctributions. More
examples are listed in (5) and (6) to illustrate this point.
(5)

Chinesea. Luoma de huimie
Rome de destruction‘Rome’s destruction’b. mingtian de tianqi
tomorrow de weather‘tomorrow’s weather’3c. yu Laowang de huimienwithde interview‘interview with Laowang’(6)Japanesea. Rooma no hakaiRome no destruction‘Rome’s destruction’b. asuno tenki
tomorrow no weather‘tomorrow’s weather’c. Haruki-to no intabyuu-with no interview‘interview with Haruki’(5c) and (6c), in particular, show that the distributions of de/no are wider than that of ’s inEnglish. Given this, Kitagawa and Ross (1982) hypothesized that de and no are generalmodifying markers and proposed the following insertion rule to account for theirdistributions:(7)

Mod-Insertion[NP … XP Na] ‡ [NP … XP Mod Na], where Mod = de/no.

This rule inserts de/no after any constituent that is a sister of a projection of N.
However, it is also known that there are differences in the contexts where de andno appear. One case, noted by Kitagawa and Ross (1982), is when the XP in (7) is arelative clause. De is obligatory after a relative clause while no is never premitted in thiscontext, as shown in (8)-(9).
(8)

Chinese[wo zuotian kanjian] *(de) ren
I yesterday seede person‘the person I saw yesterday’(9)

Japanese[watasi-ga
kinoomita] (*no) hito
I
-NOM yesterday saw
no person‘the person I saw yesterday’

As (7) has no specification on XP, it predicts the Chinese pattern. Kitagawa and Ross
(1982) postulates the following Japanese-particular Mod-deletion rule to account for nonoccurrance of no after relative clauses:1

1

One can parameterize the formulation of (7) as in (i) for Japanese and obtain the same effect.
(i)[NP … XP(-tense) Na] ‡ [NP … XP(-tense) Mod Na], where Mod = no.

4
(10)

Mod-Deletion (Japanese)[NP … XP(+tense) Mod Na] ‡ [NP … XP(+tense) Na], where Mod = no.

Another context where the distributions of de and no differ is when a noun isquantified by a numeral. As already shown in (3)-(4), no appears after numeral+classifier
but de does not. The examples are repeated in (11)-(12).2(11)

Chinesesan -ben (*de) shu
three-CL de book‘three books’(12)Japanesesan -satu *(no) hon
three-CL no book‘three books’

In addition, no follows nominal adjuncts and apparently licenses them as in (13), while denever appears in this context as (14) shows.
(13)Japanesea. ame no hi
rain no day‘rainy day’b. gakusei no hito
student no person‘a person who is a student’(14)

Chinesea. *yu de tianrain de day‘rainy day’b. *xuesheng de ren
student de person‘a person who is a student’2

The situation with Chinese is slightly more complex. Cheng and Sybesma (1998) make a distinction
between genuine classifiers and “massifiers,” which are measure words such as bei ‘cup’ and bang ‘pound’.
Notably, the latter can be followed by de as shown in (i).
(i)

a. san -bei (de) shui
three-cup de water‘three cups of water’b. san -bang (de) rou
three-pound de meat
‘three pounds of meat’

The examples discussed in the text all involve genuine classifiers.

5
Chinese would employ compounds or relative clauses to express (14), as shown in (15).
(15)

Chinesea. yu -tianrain-dayb. [shi xuesheng] de renbe student
de person

In the following section, we examine N’-ellipsis in Chinese and Japanese, andargue that no is a contextual Case marker, as in Kitagawa and Ross’s (1982) analysis,
while de is a D head, as proposed by Simpson (2003). We show that this explains thedifferences between de and no noted in this section.
3. The Grammatical Status of de and no
The argument based on N’-ellipsis that no is a contextual Case marker is alreadylaid out in Saito and Murasugi 1990. This is summarized in the following subsection.
Then, we present our argument for the analysis of de as D in Section 3.2. Finally, we
discuss the structure of Chinese relative clauses in Section 3.3.
3.1. No as a Contextual Case Marker
Let us briefly discuss the general properties of N’-ellipsis before we examine therelevant Japanese data. As noted in Jackendoff 1971, N’-ellipsis is possible only when it
strands a genitive phrase. Thus, the following contrast obtains:(16) a.
b.
c.

I have read Bill’s book, but I haven’t read [DP John’s [NP book]]*I have edited a book, but I haven’t written [DP a [NP book]]*I have seen the book, but I haven’t had a chance to read [DP the[NP book]]

Saito and Murasugi (1990), and Lobeck (1990) consider this an instance of a moregeneral phenomenon. That is, the major cases of ellipsis (N’-ellipsis, VP-ellipsis, andsluicing) all involve functional heads (D, T, C), and in each case, the deletion of thecomplement is allowed only when the Spec position is filled.3 This is illustrated in (17).
(17) a. N’-ellipsis
DP
XP

b. VP-ellipsis
TP

D’
D

XP
NP

c. Sluicing
CP

T’
T

XP
vP

C’
C

TP

Thus, the so called N’-ellipsis is NP-deletion within DP and it is licensed only when a3More precisely, the works cited propose that the deletion of the complement is allowed only when theSpec agrees with the head.

6
genitive phrase occupies the DP Spec position. Sluicing is TP-deletion within CP and it
takes place only when a Wh-phrase moves into CP Spec. Contrasts of the following kind,
noted by Ross (1969), illustrate this generalization:(18) a. John bought something, but I don’t know [CP what [TP he bought t]]b. *John insisted that he turned in his homework, but I wasn’t sure
[CP whether [TP he turned in his homework]]c. *John insisted that he turned in his homework, and Bill reported to Mary
[CP that [TP he turned in his homework]](18b) does not meet the condition illustrated in (17c) if whether, like that, is not in CP
Spec but is a C head. Similarly, VP-ellipsis is deletion of vP within TP, as shown in (17b).
This generalization can be extended to examples like (19), where a numeral appears in anargument position by itself.
(19)

John bought [QP three [NP books]], and Mary bought [QP five [NP books]]

If a numeral occupies the Spec position of the functional head Q, this case also falls
under the pattern in (17).
Saito and Murasugi (1990) examine the noun phrase structure in Japanese on thebasis of the generalization on N’-ellipsis illustrated in (17a). There is a complication inthis language because it is not obvious what phrase occupies the DP Spec position. In
English, we know that a genitive phrase is in DP Spec. But the distribution of no, whichcorresponds to ’s in many cases, is wider than the English genitive as noted above. For
example, a Japanese noun phrase can contain multiple no-phrases as shown in (20).
(20) a. yuubokumin no tosi no hakai
nomad
no city no destruction‘the nomad’s destruction of the city’b. Taroo no Yooroppa-e no ryokoo
no Europe -to no trip
‘Taroo’s trip to Europe’
Are the no-phrases all in DP Spec or just some of them? Saito and Murasugi argue thatN’-ellipsis provides an answer to this question.
It seems that Japanese allows N’-ellipsis sometimes but not always in similar
contexts. Thus, (21a-b) contrast sharply with (22a-b).4(21) a. [Taroo no taido] -wa yoi ga,[Hanako no taido] -wa yokunai
no attitude-TOP good though
no attitude-TOP good-not‘Though Taroo’s attitude is good, Hanako’s isn’t’

4

See Saito and Murasugi 1990 for detailed discussion of these and other relevant examples. As noted there,
there is a homonym no, which corresponds roughly in meaning to the pronoun one in English, and it isnecessary to construct examples that exclude this interpretation of no in order to pinpoint the possible
contexts for N’-ellipsis.

7b. [Rooma no hakai]-wa [Kyooto no hakai]-yorimo hisan
Rome no destruction-TOP
no destruction-than miserable
datta
was
‘Rome’s destruction was more miserable than Kyoto’s’(22) a. *[Hare no hi] -wa yoi ga,[ame no hi] -wa otikomu
clear no day-TOP good though rain no day-TOP feel-depressed‘Clear days are OK, but I feel depressed on rainy days’
b. *Taroo-wa iti -niti -ni [san -satu no hon] -oyomu ga,-TOP one-day-in three-CL no book-ACC read though
Hanako-wa [go -satu no hon] -oyomu-TOP five-CL no book-ACC read
‘Taroo reads three books in a day, but Hanako reads five’(21a-b) are fine with or without ellipsis, while ellipsis in (22a-b) makes the examples
ungrammatical.
If we compare (21a-b) and (22a), a clear generalization emerges. The stranded nophrase is a subject in (21a), and an object in (21b). That is, they are arguments. In (22a),on the other hand, ame ‘rain’ is an adjunct. The generalization, then, is that argument+nolicenses the ellipsis of the following material, but not adjunct+no. And there isindenpendent evidence that arguments can move to DP Spec but adjuncts cannot. Thus,(23b) contrasts with (23c).
(23) a. [DP the [NP destruction of the city then]]b. [DP the city’s [NP destruction t then]]c. *[DP then’s [NP destruction of the city t]](24) indicates that more generally, only arguments can undergo A-movement to a Spec
position, whether the position is DP Spec or TP Spec.
(24) a. [TP John seemed yesterday [TP t to be sick]]b. *[TP Yesterday seemed t [CP that John was sick]](cf. [TP It seemed yesterday [CP that John was sick]])
The contrast between (21a-b) and (22a), then, is exactly what we expect. In (21b),
for example, Kyooto, being the object, can move to DP Spec and license the deletion ofNP, as illustrated in (25a).

8(25) a.

DP
Kyooto no

b.
D’

NP
t

DP
ame no

D
N
hakai

D’
NP

t

D
NP
N
hi

Ame in (22a), on the other hand, cannot move to DP Spec because it is an adjunct. Hence,the example cannot satisfy the licensing configuration of N’-ellipsis in (17a). This is
illustrated in (25b). Thus, N’-ellipsis in Japanese follows the general pattern shown in(17).
The example in (26) appears to be problematic for the analysis just presented.
(26)[Kyoo no ondo ] -wa [kinoo
no ondo]-yorimo takai
today no temperature-TOP yesterday no temperature-than high‘Today’s temperature is higher than yesterday’s’If kinoo ‘yesterday’ in this example is an adjunct, it should not be able to move to DP
Spec and hence, the N’-ellipsis should be illicit. However, the following English
examples show that temporal and locative phrases can appear in DP Spec:(27) a.
b.

yesterday’s temperature
Taipei’s weather

Anderson (1983) argues that those phrases are possessors in the extended sense and canbe base-generated at the Spec position. We follow her analysis and assume that they, as
well as regular possessors, are merged directly at DP Spec.5 Then, we correctly predictthat (26) is grammatical.
The analysis of N’-ellipsis presented above has implications for the status of noand numerals within Japansese noun phrases. Let us first consider the distribution of no.
We proposed that ame ‘rain’ in (13a), repeated below as (28), cannot move to DP Spec
because it is an adjunct, and this is the reason why the N’-ellipsis in (22a) is illicit.
(28)

ame no hi
rain no day‘rainy day’But note that (28) is grammatical as it is. Then, ame must be able to appear within NP (asopposed to DP), accompanied by no. It follows that no-marked phrases are not5

A piece of evidence for this is presented in Section 3.2 below.

9necessarily in DP Spec and that no serves as a “modifying marker” within NP. That is,
Kitagawa and Ross’s (1982) Mod-insertion rule correctly accounts for the distribution ofno.6
Second, the ungrammaticality of (22b), repeated in (29), suggests that numerals
are adjuncts within Japanese noun phrases.
(29) *Taroo-wa iti -niti -ni [san -satu no hon] -oyomu ga,-TOP one-day-in three-CL no book-ACC read though
Hanako-wa [go -satu no hon] -oyomu-TOP five-CL no book-ACC read
‘Taroo reads three books in a day, but Hanako reads five’
Note that if go-satu ‘five-CL’ is in DP Spec or QP Spec, the N’-ellipsis should beallowed exactly as in the English (19), repeated in (30).
(30)

John bought [QP three [NP books]], and Mary bought [QP five [NP books]]Then, numeral+no is not in a Spec position in Japanese. On the other hand, if it is an
adjunct and is adjoined to a projection of N, (29) is correctly predicted to beungrammatical. Like ame ‘rain’ in (22a), it cannot move to a Spec position, and hence(29) fails to meet the licensing condition on ellipsis. Thus, the contrast between (29) and(30) indicates that numerals occupy different positions in Japanese and English.
We have argued in this section that Japanese follows the general conditions on Amovement and ellipsis. Its language specific properties include the no-insertion rule,
which determines the distribution of no as a contextual Case marker. Another related
peculiarity of the language is that numeral+classifier is licensed by no as an adjunct to a
projection of N. These properties of Japanese are responsible for the pattern of N’-ellipsis
it exhibits. In the following subsection, we turn to the Chinese de, and argue that it isquite unlike no and is a D.
3.2. De as the Head of DP
Simpson (2003) proposes that de is D in his pursuit of the antisymmetry analysis
of Chinese relative clauses. In this section, we present two pieces of direct evidence forthis proposal.
First, recall that de, unlike Japanese no, can never follow a nominal adjunct. The
relevant examples in (14) are repeated below in (31).

6

Or the revised formulation of the rule in Fn. 1. If a possessor as in (2a), repeated below in (i), is merged
directly at DP Spec as suggested in the text, no-insertion should apply in the projections of D as well as N,
as proposed in Saito and Murasugi 1990.
(i)

Haruki no kuruma
no car‘Haruki’s car’

10(31) a. *yu de tianrain de day‘rainy day’b. *xuesheng de ren
student de person‘a person who is a student’This fact follows directly if de is D and the phrases that precede de are in DP Spec. It was
shown in the discussion of Japanese N’-ellipsis that adjuncts, as opposed to arguments,
cannot move to the DP Spec position. Thus, (31a-b) are excluded by the illicit movementof yu ‘rain’ and xuesheng ‘student’ to DP Spec.
Secondly, both Chinese and Japanese allow multiple de/no phrases within a single
nominal projection as shown in (32) and (33), but the two languages exhibit a difference
here as well.
(32) Chinesea. Zhangsan de Chiaomusiji de shu
de Chomsky de book
‘Zhang’s book by Chomsky’
b. qu-nien liu-ue de xuesheng de kangyi
last-year June de student de protest‘last June’s protest by the students’(33) Japanesea. Taroo no Tyomusukii no honno Chomsky no book
‘Taroo’s book by Chomsky’
b. kyonen roku-gatu no gakusei no koogi
last-year Juneno student no protest‘last June’s protest by the students’
In Japanese, two arguments can appear with no. The subject and the object are both
followed by no in (34).
(34)

yabanzin no Rooma no hakaibarbarian no Rome no destruction‘the barbarians’ destruction of Rome’On the other hand, Chinese does not allow multiple arguments with de. (35a-b) are
grammatical, but the Chinese counterpart of (34) in (35c) as well as its variant in (35d)
are not.
(35) a. Luoma de huimie
Rome de destruction‘Rome’s destruction’11b. manzu de huimie
barbarian de destruction‘the barbarians’ destruction’c. *manzu de Luoma de huimie
barbarian de Rome de destruction‘the barbarians’ destruction of Rome’d. *Luoma de manzu de huimie
Rome de barbarian de destruction‘Rome’s destruction by the barbarians’
The Japanese pattern in (34) is expected given our discussion in the preceding
section. Since no is a contexual Case marker, it can be inserted after the subject and theobject as in (36).7(36)NP
yabanzin no
Rooma no

N’
N
hakai

Then, why are the Chinese (35c-d) ungrammatical? Again, the hypothesis that de is D
readily provides an explanation. Given this hypothesis, (33c-d) are derived as in (37).

7

The subject may then move to DP Spec because it is an argument. This is confirmed by the following
example of N’-ellipsis:(i)[Gakusei no seihu
no hihan] -wa [kyooin no seihu
no hihan] -yorimo
student no government no criticism-TOP faculty no government no criticism-thankibisii
severe‘The students’ criticism of the government is more severe than the professors’’

Note that the object seihu no is contained within the ellipsis site. This provides an additional piece ofevidence that no is inserted within NP. See Kimura 1994 as well as Saito and Murasugi 1990 for relevant
discussion.

12
(37)

DP
D’
D
de

DP
DP1

D’
D

NP

de
DP2

The movement of DP2 to the higher DP Spec necessarily takes place across the lower DP
Spec occupied by DP1. Thus, the movement violates minimality and (35c-d) fail to begenerated.
Note that (32a-b) are predicted to be grammatical as long as Chinese allows DP
recursion. We assumed above in the discussion of Japanese N’-ellipsis that possessors aswell as temporals and locatives (extended possessors in Anderson’s (1983) terms) can bedirectly merged at DP Spec. Then, qu-nien liu-ue ‘June, last year’ in (32b), for example,
can be merged at the higher DP Spec without violating any constraint on movement.
Thus, the contrast between (32a-b) and (35c-d) is correctly captured.
We have shown so far that the analysis of de as D enables us to explain two
differences between Chinese and Japanese; one concerns adjuncts and the other multiple
arguments. The analysis is also consistent with the data on N’-ellipsis in Chinese. If de is
D and the phrase preceding de is in DP Spec, we predict that the material following de
can always be elided. This is so because the configuration for N’-ellipsis in (17a) issatisfied. The prediction is borne out by the following examples:(38) a. [Zhangsan de che] bi[Lisi de che] geng guide car comparede car more expensive‘Zhangsan’s car is more expensive than Lisi’s’b. [Luoma de huimie]bi[Bali de huimie]
geng canlie
Rome de destruction compare Paris de destruction more disastrous‘Rome’s destruction was more disastrous than Paris’s’c. [Taipei de jiaotung] bi[Dongjing de jiaotung] geng luande traffic
compare Tokyo de traffic
more messy‘Taipei’s traffic is worse than Tokyo’s’
There are two more differences between de and no to be accounted for. One is that
only the former appears after relative clauses. This is taken up in the following subsection.
The other is that no is required but de is disallowed after numerals. The relevant
examples in (11) and (12) are repeated in (39) and (40).

13
(39)

Chinesesan -ben (*de) shu
three-CL de book‘three books’(40)Japanesesan -satu *(no) hon
three-CL no book‘three books’

We examine this difference in the remainder of this subsection
Again, the Japanese pattern is correctly predicted by Kitagawa and Ross’s (1982)
Mod-Insertion rule. Thus, the case to be accounted for is the absence of de in (39). Here,it is a standard assumption by now in the literature on Chinese noun phrases that theclassifier heads its own projection as in (41).
(41)

CLP
CL’
CL

NP

The hypothesis was proposed by Tang (1990), and supporting arguments are provided byCheng and Sybesma (1999) and Li (1999), among others. The absence of de in (39) infact constitutes a straightforward piece of evidence for this hypothesis. San-ben ‘threeCL’ cannot be in DP Spec since if it were, it should be followed by the D head de. On theother hand, if a classifier is an independent head within DP, we correctly predict theabsence of de.
There are two possibilities for the position of the numeral san ‘three’. The authors
mentioned above hypothesize that the numeral is also a head. Then the structure of (39) is
as in (42), where Num stands for Number.
(42)

NumP
Num’
Num

CLP

san

CL’
CL

NP

ben

shu

An alternative would be to place the numeral in the Spec position of CLP as in (43).

14
(43)

CLP
san

CL’
CL

NP

ben

shu

Under either analysis, the numeral and the classifier do not form a constituent. And there
is indirect evidence that this is correct. Note first that san-satu ‘three-CL’ in the Japanese(40) is an adjunct to the noun hon ‘book’, and hence is a constituent. It is then not
surprising that it can appear independently in a position not adjacent to the noun, as
shown in (44b).8(44) a. Taroo-wa san -satu no hon -okatta-TOP three-CL no book-ACC bought‘Taroo bought three books’
b. San -satu, Taroo-wa hon -okatta
three-CL-TOP book-ACC bought
Here, there is no parallel phenomenon in Chinese, as the total ungrammaticality of (45b)indicates.
(45) a. Zhangsan mai-lesan -ben shu
buy-PERF three-CL book
‘Zhangsan bought three books’
b. *San -ben, Zhangsan mai-leshu
three-CL
buy-PERF book
This is what we expect given the structures in (42) and (43). Since the numeral and theclassifier do not form a constituent, they cannot be “displaced.”
Ellipsis provides suggestive data that distinguish between (42) and (43). Recall
the account for the English (19), repeated below as (46).
(46)

John bought [QP three [NP books]], and Mary bought [QP five [NP books]]

We suggested above that this example satisfies the context for ellipsis as in (47).

8This is the widely discussed “quantifier float” phenomenon in Japanese. See, for example, Miyagawa
1989 and Kawashima 1998 for detailed discussion of the relevant facts. The former argues that “floating
quantifiers” are secondary predicates and are licensed by predication.

15
(47)

QP
five

Q’
Q

NP
Books

Q is a functional head, and its complement can be elided when its Spec position is filled.
And we argued in Section 3.1 that the Japanese counterpart of (46) is ungrammaticalbecause numeral+no in Japanese is an adjunct and consequently cannot occupy a Spec
position. The exact Japanese counterpart of (46) is shown in (48).
(48) *Taroo-wa [san -satu no hon] -okatta ga,
Hanako-wa-TOP three-CL no book-ACC bought though-TOP[go -satu no hon] -okatta
five-CL no book-ACC bought‘Taroo bought three books, but Hanako bought five’
Interestingly, Chinese patterns with English in this respect. Thus, the Chinesecounterpart of (46) is grammatical.
(49)

Suiran Zhangsan mai-le[san -ben shu], dan Lisi mai-lethoughbuy-PERF three-CL book but
buy-PERF[wu -ben shu]five-CL book
‘Zhangsan bought three books, but Lisi bought five’

This is straightforwardly explained with the structure in (43). CL is the relevant
functional category and its complement NP can be elided because the numeral occupies
the Spec position. We tentatively conclude then that the Chinese noun phrase structure is
as in (50).9
(50)

a.

Zhangsan de san -ben shu
de three-CL book
‘Zhangsan’s three books’

9

The conclusion is tentative because there are other possible structures that can accommodate the ellipsis
data. For example, we could maintain the number projection with a null head and place the numeral in its
Spec position as in (i).
(i)

[NumP san [Num’ [Num e] [CLP [CL ben] [NP shu]]]]Then, if CL adjoins to Num, the ellipsis can be analyzed as deletion of the CLP within the Num projection.
This, as far as we can tell, is consistent with the proposal in Cheng and Sybesma 1999 to account for the
distribution of indefinite noun phrases in terms of the licensing of null Num heads.

16

b.

DP
Zhangsan

D’
D
de

CLP
san

CL’
CL

NP

ben

shu

3.3. Remarks on the Structures of Relative Clauses
In this subsection, we discuss the last difference in the distrubutions of de and no:
the former appears after relative clauses while the latter does not. The relevant examples
in (8) and (9) are repeated below in (51) and (52).
(51)

Chinese[wo zuotian kanjian] *(de) ren
I yesterday seede person‘the person I saw yesterday’(52)

Japanese[watasi-ga
kinoomita] (*no) hito
I
-NOM yesterday saw
no person‘the person I saw yesterday’

We first argue that relative clauses in Chinese are in DP Spec and hence that theoccurrence of de in (51) is indeed expected. Then, we briefly go over Simpson’s (2003)
antisymmetry analysis of Chinese relatives, which yields the desired structure. Finally,
we note that there are some loose ends in the analysis that need to be tightened.
Let us briefly discuss the Japanese (52) before we start the examination ofChinese relative clauses. As discussed in detail in Section 2, no is inserted only after a [tense] constituent. This is reflected in the Mod-insertion rule for Japanese stated in Fn. 1.
Although this is a stipulation, it straightforwardly accounts for the absence of no after
relative clauses. Further, relative clauses are adjuncts according to the traditional analysis.
This works well for Japanese. Adjuncts cannot move to DP Spec as we have seen
repeatedly, and this indeed seems to be the case with Japanese relative clauses. Let us
consider the following illicit example of N’-ellipsis:

17(53) *[[Taroo-ga
kinooo atta] hito] -wa yasasii ga,-NOM yesterday saw person-TOP kind though[[Hanako-ga
kinooatta] hito] -wa kowai-NOM yesterday saw person-TOP scary‘The person Taroo saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw
yesterday is scary’
The relative clause Hanako-ga kinoo atta ‘Hanako saw yesterday’, being an adjunct,cannot move to DP Spec, and hence, this example fails to satisfy the condition for N’ellipsis.
The situation in Chinese is more complex and interesting. If Chinese relative
clauses are also adjuncts, they cannot move to DP Spec. But since they are followed byde, they must be in DP Spec if de is D as we argued. Here, we have an apparent
contradiction. Let us sort out this problem by first examining whether Chinese relative
clauses are in DP Spec or not.
If Chinese relative clauses are in DP Spec, then the Chinese counterpart of (53)should be grammatical. This is so since the example would satisfy the condition for N’ellipsis as illustrated in (54).
(54)

DP
Rel. Clause

D’
D

NP

de
And this prediction is indeed borne out by (55).
(55)[[Wo zuotian kanjian] de nanhai] bi [[ni zuotian kanjian]
I yesterday see
de boythan you yesterday see
de nanhai] geng youqian
de boymore rich‘The boy I saw yesterday is richer than the boy you saw yesterday’

Thus we have good evidence that Chinese relative clauses are in DP Spec. Relative
clauses after all do not pose a problem for our analysis of de as D.
Then, how do those relative clauses come to occupy the DP Spec position? Here,
Simpson’s (2003) antisymmetry analysis readily provides an answer. Kayne (1994)
proposes a uniform base for N-initial and N-final relative clauses. According to his theory,
the English (N-initial) example in (56a) is derived as in (56b).
(56)

a.
b.

the book that John bought yesterday[DP [D the] [CP booki [C’ [C that] [TP John bought ti yesterday]]]]A relative clause has a D-CP structure, and the head noun directly moves into CP Spec.

18
N-final relatives are derived with one more step. That is, the TP moves into DP Spec as
illustrated in (57).
(57)[DP [TP John bought ti yesterday]j [D the] [CP booki [C’ C tj]]]

Simpson (2003) argues that this is the correct way to analyze relative clauses in Chinese,
based on the assumption that de is D. The structure of (51) will then be as in (58).
(58)

DP
TPj

D’
D

CP

wo zuotian kanjian ti
de reniC’Ctj

As far as we can see, this analysis still needs some refinements. First, an issue
could arise with respect to the unbound trace ti in (58). Furthermore, the movement of TP
to DP Spec apparently violates minimality. However, we believe that there are ways toapproach these problems that are not implausible. For example, it is possible that therelative head is directly merged at CP Spec and binds pro in the relative clause.10 For theminimality problem, we suggested in Lin, Murasugi and Saito 2001 that de originates in
C and moves to D, making CP Spec and DP Spec “equidistant” for TP in the sense ofChomsky 1993. This suggestion was based on Hsieh’s (1998) proposal that there is a
homophone de which appears as C in cleft sentences and also in simple sentences such as(59).11(59)

Laowang yinggai qu Taipei deshould gode‘Laowang should go to Taipei’

In this example, de simply stands for mood that has the connotation of affirmation.
Although the role of “equidistance” in derivations is far from clear at this point as noted
in Chomsky 1995, it may still be possible to solve the problem by refining theformulation of minimality.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to pursue a precise analysis of Chinese relative
clauses. But we have argued that they are indeed in DP Spec, and we hope to have shownthat Simpson’s (2003) antisymmetry analysis is a promising possibility for the
explanation of this fact. On the other hand, the comparison of Chinese and Japanesesuggests that Kayne’s theory of N-final relatives cannot be maintained for the latter. The
10
11

See Murasugi 2000 for much relevant discussion on this.

If Chinese is consistently head-initial, the TP in (59) must have raised from the complement position of
de to a higher Spec position.

19
theory places TP in DP Spec as illustrated in (57) and this is exactly what we want for
Chinese. In this language, N’-ellipsis can strand a relative clause as in (55). If Japaneserelative clauses, being also N-final, are derived in the same way, we would expect thelanguage to exhibit the same pattern as Chinese with respect to N’-ellipsis. But (53)shows that this is not the case. Our discussion, thus, suggests that the traditional headfinal analysis should be maintained for Japanese.12
4. Concluding Remarks
We have argued that noun phrases in Chinese and Japanese are quite different intheir internal structures. Although de and no appear to have similar distributions, we haveshown that only the latter is a modifying marker in the sense of Kitagawa and Ross 1982,
presenting evidence that the former is D. Both Chinese and Japanese are known to beclassifier languages. But we have argued that a classifier in Chinese occupies a head
position in the nominal structure while numeral+classifier in Japanese is an adjunct.
Finally, relative clauses are in DP Spec in Chinese and are adjunts in Japanese. Most of
our arguments were based on the distribution of de and no, and the patterns of N’-ellipsis
the two languages exhibit.
Our proposal can be made clearer by contrasting it with an alternative proposed in
the literature. Before we conclude this paper, we would like to briefly consider
Watanabe’s (2006) analysis of Japanese. For this purpose, we first discuss Simpson’s(2005) analysis of Thai because it employs massive movements similar to the ones usedby Watanabe.
Simpson postulates the structure in (60b) for the Chinese (60a), assuming that ademonstrative is D.
(60)

Chinesea.
zhe san zuo da fangzi
this three CL big house‘these three big houses’
b.

DP
D
this

NumP
Num
three

CLP
CL

NP
big house

12

The straightforward conclusion that is drawn from this is that the head-parameter is an indispensable
part of UG. Another possibility, if we maintain Kayne’s theory, is that Japanese relative clauses are notrelative clauses. This is pursued in Murasugi 2000, where it is suggested that Japanese relative clauses are
pure complex NPs and hence, are adjoined to a projection of N instead of having the structure in (57).

20
Then, he argues that the Thai example in (61) has an identical base structure.
(61)

Thai
baan yai saam lang nii
house big three CL thisThe word order in (61) is different from the Chinese (60). As Thai noun phrases
are assumed to be head-final, it is tempting to assign the following structure to theexample:
(62)

DP
CLP
NumP
NP

D
CL

this

Num
three

house big
However, Simpson points out that the dominance relation between CLP and NumP in(62) is inappropriate. The classifier should classify not ‘three big houses’ but just ‘bighouses’. To put it differently, the NP should first be individuated by the classifier andthen be assigned a number. Hence, the NumP should dominate the CLP.
Given this, Simpson assigns the same base structure to Thai as Chinese, andproposes to derive the surface order by movement. That is, starting from (60b), the NP is
moved to NumP Spec and then the NumP moves into DP Spec. This yields the surface
word order in (61) as illustrated in (63).
(63)

DP
D’
D

NumP

this

Num’
Num
three

CLP
CL

NP
house big21

Simpson thus accounts for the word order variation based on a uniform base structure andextensive movement.
Watanabe (2006), on the other hand, is concerned mainly with word ordervariation internal to Japanese. As shown in (64), a numeral modifying an argument canappear in various positions within a sentence.
(64)

a.
b.
c.

Taroo-wa hon san -satu-o
katta-TOP book three-CL -ACC bought‘Taroo bought three books’
Taroo-wa san -satu no hon -okatta-TOP three-CL no book-ACC bought
Taroo-wa hon -osan -satu katta-TOP book-ACC three-CL bought(64b) is what we have been dealing with, and (64c) is an instance of “quantifier float”
alluded to in Fn. 8. (44b) is obtained from (64c) by scrambling san-satu ‘three-CL’ to thesentence-initial position. In addition, numeral+classifier can be preceded by the associatenoun and be followed by a Case marker as in (64a). Watanabe proposes to derive all threeword orders from a uniform base as in (65).
(65)

DP
D’
QP

D
Q’

CaseP

Q
Case’

#P
san

Case
#’

-o

NP

#

hon

satu

(64a) is derived when the NP moves to CaseP Spec. Then, (64b) obtains with the further

22
movement of #P to QP Spec. Finally, when the CaseP moves to DP Spec, we have theword order in (64c).
Watanabe’s analysis not only relates the three possible word orders in Japanese
but also raises the possibility that noun phrase structure is uniform across languages.
Although (65) is different from the structure Simpson posits for Chinese and Thai, thesimilarity is striking. However, the analysis, unfortunately, does not seem consistent withthe data discussed in this paper. Aside from the fact that it is unclear how the distributionof no is to be acounted for, we would predict that all sorts of ellipsis are possible with themassive movements to Spec positions in (65). For example, the dervation of (64b) places#P in the Spec position of Q, and this should license the deletion of the complement
CaseP, which contains only hon(-o) ‘book(-ACC)’. But we have seen that this kind of
ellipsis is impossible in Japanese, in contrast with English and Chinese. The relevant
example in (48) is repeated below in (66).
(66) *Taroo-wa [san -satu no hon] -okatta ga,
Hanako-wa-TOP three-CL no book-ACC bought though-TOP[go -satu no hon](-o)
kattafive-CL no book -ACC bought‘Taroo bought three books, but Hanako bought five’Our analysis implies that the universality in noun phrase structure is observed at amore abstract level.13 For example, numeral+classifier can be related to a noun as an
13

Unlike Watanabe 2006, we do not have a concrete proposal for the analysis of (64a). One complicationis that the relation between the noun and numeral+classifier seems to vary considerably in this construction.
Thus, we have examples such as (ia-c).
(i)

a.
b.
c.

gurando sanzyus-syuu (no tokkun)
fieldthirty -CL no special training‘(a special training of) thirty rounds of the field’azia san -kakoku (no sanka)
Asia three-CL
no participation‘(participation of) three Asian countries’
mainiti san -zikan (no undoo)
everyday three-CLno exercise‘three hours of exercise everyday’

These do not have counterparts of the form numeral+classifier no noun. The following are allungrammatical:(ii) a. *sanzyus-syuu no gurando
thirty -CL no field‘thirty rounds of the field’
b. *san -kakoku no azia
three-CL
no Asia‘three Asian countries’
c. *san -zikan no mainiti
three-CL no everyday‘three hours everyday’
We leave the investigation of this construction for future research.

23
adjunct, or in a configuration where a classifier takes the noun as its complement.
Japanese employs the former option. This is possible in part because the language has the
Mod-insertion rule that licenses nominal adjuncts with no. The latter option would be
impossible if the classifier has to cliticize to the numeral. Since the language is head-final,
the intervening NP would block the cliticization as illustrated in (67).14
(67)

CLP
numeral

CL’
NP

CL

This line of reasoning predicts that if a language is head-final and its classifiers are clitics
on numerals, then numeral+classifier must be employed as adjuncts. The situation in
Chinese is quite different. First, since Chinese is head-initial, the numeral and theclassifier are adjacent even if the latter is a head. Further, we have seen that the language
does not allow nominal adjuncts within the projection of N. We speculate that this isbecause those elements require licensers like no in Japanese. Since Chinese lacks Modinsertion, there is no way that nominal adjuncts can appear within NP, and this excludes
the employment of numeral+classifier as adjuncts. Consequently, classifiers must
assume head positions in Chinese.
References
Anderson, Mona. 1983. “Prenominal Genitive NPs.” The Linguistic Review 3, 1-25.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Rint Sybesma. 1998. “Yi-wan Tang, Yi-ge Tang: Classifiersand Massifiers.” Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 28, 385-412.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Rint Sybesma. 1999. “Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and theStructure of NP.” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 509-542.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In The View
from Building 20, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), pp.1-52.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 1998. Guoyu de Jujiao Jiegou: Fenlie yu Zhun-Fenlie Ju [Focusing
Construction in Mandarin Chinese: Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Sentences]. Master’s
thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1971. “Gapping and Related Rules.” Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21-35.
Kawashima, Ruriko. 1998. “The Structure of Extended Nominal Phrases: The
Scrambling of Numerals, Approximate Numerals, and Quantifiers in Japanese.”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 1-26.

14

Note that this problem does not arise if the NP is missing. This allows numeral+classifier to have thestructure in (i) when it occurs as an adjunct or as a “floating quantifier.”(i)[CLP numeral CL]

24
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press.
Kimura, Norimi. 1994. “Multiple Specifiers and Long Distance Anaphora.” MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 24 (Formal approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1),
159-178.
Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia Ross. 1982. “Prenominal Modification in Chinese andJapanese.” Linguistic Analysis 9, 19-53.
Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1999. “Plurality in a Classifier Language.” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8, 75-99.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah, Keiko Murasugi, and Mamoru Saito. 2001. “Modification andSpecification: An Investigation of No and De.” Presentation handout, The 10th
Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL),
University of California, Irvine.
Lobeck, Anne. 1990. “Functional Heads as Proper Governors.” Proceedings of the North
East Linguistic Society 20, 348-362.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. New York:
Academic Press.
Murasugi, Keiko. 2000. “An Antisymmetry Analysis of Japanese Relative Clauses.” In
The Syntax of Relative Clauses, Artemis Alexiandou, Paul Law, Andre
Meinunger, and Chris Wilder (eds.), pp.231-263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Ross, John R. 1969. “Guess Who?” Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society, 252-286.
Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi. 1990. “N’-deletion in Japanese: A Preliminary
Study.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1, 258-301.
Simpson, Andew. 2003. “On the Status of Modifying DE and the Syntax of the Chinese
DP. In On the formal way to Chinese languages, Sze-Wing Tang and Chen-Sheng
Kuther Liu (eds.), pp.74-101. Standford: CSLI Publications.
Simpson, Andrew. 2005. “Classifiers and DP Structure in Southeast Asia.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne(eds.), pp.806-838. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tang, C.-C. Jane. 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X’-theory. Doctoral
dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Watanabe, Akira. 2006. “Functional Projections of Nominals in Japanese: Syntax ofClassifiers.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24, 241-306.