Near final draft of a paper in Fuji English Review 1, Dept. of English Language andCulture, Fuji Women's University, pp.37-52.

ON SOME ASYMMETRIES BETWEEN HEAD-EXTERNALRELATIVES AND CLEFTS IN JAPANESE*
Tomohiro Fujii and Yu Masuda
Yokohama National University

1.

Introduction

It has always been a central issue in relative clause syntax literature what syntactic
representations/derivations head-external relative clauses could have. Even when we limit ourattention to the most typical type of head-external relative clause where a relative clause has a
gap corresponding to the external head NP, distinct types of derivation have been proposed
and/or attested on the one hand and it has still been unsettled which languages allow whichtypes of representation/derivation and why, on the other. The present paper examines
Japanese, for which it is still controversial exactly which types of derivation/representation
are possible for its simple head-external relative clauses (Perlmutter 1972; Kuno 1973; Inoue
1978; Hoji 1985; Saito 1985; Murasugi 1991, 2000; Ishii 1991; Kaplan and Whitman 1995;
Comrie 1996, 1998; Matsumoto 1997; Fukui and Takano 1999; Aoun and Li 2003; Hoshi
2004; Whitman 2012; Miyamoto, to appear, to name a few).
Let us first try to have in perspective the various derivations proposed for head-external
relative clauses in the literature. We classify those derivations in terms of the following threefactors: (i) whether or not some (lexical or pronominal/null) material coindexed with thesurface external relative head NP undergoes movement; (ii) whether or not there is abase-generated external head; and (iii) whether or not there is a relative head inside therelative clause at any stage of its derivation. Then, at least five different derivations, !-" in(1) below, emerge, and they seem to cover the proposals that have actually been made in theliterature. (The options labeled "N/A" in (1) appear to never yield a surface "head external"
structure. So we ignore them. We also ignore other factors such as whether a relative clause is
a complement or adjunct to the relative head; see Alexiadou et al. (2000), Bianchi (2002), andBhatt (2002) for more detailed classifications of derivations and references.)*

The present paper is based on a talk given at One-day Workshop 2012 at Fuji Women's University,
September 2012. We are grateful for the useful comments and criticisms from the audience members
at the workshop including Yasuaki Abe, Yoshio Endo, Ken Hiraiwa, Richard Larson, Nobu Miyoshi,
Kaori Miura, Etsuko Oishi and Satoshi Oku and for the helpful written comments on our work fromKen Hiraiwa and Hideaki Yamashita. Our special thanks go to Hiroko Yamakido, other faculty
members and students at the English Language and Culture Department of Fuji Women's University
for their hard work for running this great workshop.

(1)Analyses of head-external relatives

Movement
No movement∃ base-generated external head
No int. head∃ internal head!: Matching#: Operator+Movement
Movement%: Matching w/o": Pro in-situ
Movement

No base-gen. external head
No int. head∃ internal head$: Head Raising
N/A
N/A

N/A

Each of the strategies !-" is presented in (2) below with a sample derivation. Arrows
indicate movement, indexes indicate identity among elements (whether established via
movement or otherwise), and strikethroughs indicate deletion.
(2)

Movement derivations! Matching derivation[the [NP book]i [booki Peter bought ti]]

# Operator movement
derivation[the [NP book]i [{Opi/whichi} Peter bought ti]]

$ Head raising derivation[the [NP book]i [Peter bought ti]]Non-movement derivations% 'Matching w/o movement'
derivation[the [NP book]i [Peter bought booki]]" Pro in-situ derivation[the [NP book]i [Peter bought proi] ]The major goal of the present paper is to submit an empirical argument that Japanese
head-external relatives do not involve head raising. The argument goes as follows: We firstestablish a difference that Japanese head-external relatives and clefts exhibit with respect totheir compatibility with a certain construction. Then we show that the difference immediately
follows if Japanese does not allow derivation type $, given a certain existing analysis ofJapanese clefts. We then show that the Op movement derivation and pro in-situ derivation arecompatible with the fact. (For reasons of space, we have to leave the matching analyses
untouched.)
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the "Argument Doubling (AD)"construction the compatibility of which with relatives and clefts will be an issue. Section 3
uses the properties of AD to show that relatives involve different syntax than clefts: Headexternal relativization is not compatible with AD while clefting is. Section 4 shows that therelativization/clefting asymmetry follows if Japanese does not have the head raising strategy
available. Section 5 adds one other relativization/clefting asymmetry that agues for the
proposed view. Section 6 gives a preliminary discussion on relativization of idiom chunks inJapanese. Section 7 concludes the paper.

2.

Argument Doubling

The target contrast that we are interested in has to do with the construction that we call
"Argument Doubling (AD)". Examples (3)-(5) illustrate the construction in question.1 The
construction always has a "genitive" analogue, where the possessor NP is a genitive-marked
subconstituent of the NP headed by the body-part N. The genitive analogues of (3), (4) and(5) are shown in (6), (7) and (8) respectively.
(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Accusative AD?Mari-ga
Ichiro-oMari-NOM Ichiro-ACC

ude-obutta.
arm-ACC hit'Mari hit Ichiro's arm.'

Nominative AD
Koma-gaziku-gakirei
spinning top-NOM shaft-NOM beautifulda.
isDative AD
Mari-wa
Mari-TOPkisusita.
kissedIchiro-ni
Ichiro-DAT

hoho-nicheek-DAT

Genitive counterpart of accusative AD
Mari-ga[Ichiro-noude]-oMari-NOM Ichiro-GEN
arm-ACC

butta.
hit

Genitive counterpart of nominative AD[Koma-noziku]-ga
kirei
top-GEN
shaft-NOM
beautifulda.
isGenitive counterpart of dative AD
Mari-wa[Ichiro-nohoho]-niMari-TOP
Ichiro-GEN
cheek]-DAT'The spinning top's shaft is
beautiful.''Mari kissed Ichiro's cheek.'

kisusita.
kissedDescriptive speaking, AD is the process by which a genitive possessor undergoes "particle
conversion" to obtain the case particle/postposition that its body-part NP has.
AD in Japanese has been closely examined by Kuroda (1978, 1988, 1999), 2 who
observes that in AD, the two identically case-marked NPs share one argument role, so to
speak. The observation made in Kuroda (1988) can be summarized as the following
generalization:
1

The less than perfect status of (3) (and perhaps that of (5) as well) is due to the so-called Double-oConstraint, which bars those two identically case-marked elements from appearing in a certain surface
syntactic domain. Here it suffices to note that this "syntactic OCP" effect can be removed by, forexample, moving one of the two NPs out of the domain; see Hiraiwa (2010) for various strategies toavoid a violation of this constraint.
2

A similar construction in Korean has been discussed in Yoon (1990), Maling and Kim (1992),
Kitahara (1993), Tomioka and Sim (2005), and Vermeulen (2009), among many others. We, though,remain agnostic about how those Korean constructions are to be analyzed.

(9)AD successfully applies only if the possessor is able to satisfy the selection restrictionof the predicate by itself. Schematically:… [X-GEN Y]-Ci V can successfully be converted to [X]-Ci [Y]-Ci V only if theselection restriction of V is respected in … [X]-Ci V, where X = the possessor of Y; Ci∈ {Nom, Acc, Dat, Ablative, Comitative, …}As an illustration of (9), consider the difference between (10) and (11). The phenomenon was
first discussed by Kuroda (1988).3(10) a. Mari-ga
Mari-NOM[Ichiro-no
Ichiro-GENyubi]-ofinger-ACC

otta.
broke

'Mari broke Ichiro's finger.'b. *Mari-ga__i
Mari-NOM

yubi-ofinger-ACC

otta-no-wa
Ichiro-obroke-C-TOP Ichiro-ACC

da.
COP

(intended) 'It is Ichiro that Mari broke (his) finger.'c. *Mari-ga
Mari-NOM

Ichiro-oIchiro-ACC

otta.
broke

'Mari broke Ichiro.'(11) a. Mari-ga
Mari-NOM[Ichiro-no
Ichiro-GENhoho]-ocheek-ACC

butta.
hit'Mari hit Ichiro's cheek.'b. Mari-ga
Mari-NOM__ihoho-ocheek-ACC

butta-no-wa
hit-C-TOP

Ichiro-oIchiro-ACC

da.
COP

'It is Ichiro that Mari hit (his) cheek.'c. Mari-ga
Mari-NOM

Ichiro-oIchiro-ACC

butta.
hit'Mari hit Ichiro.'
Whereas AD is barred with the verb oru 'break' as shown in (10b), it successfully applies withthe verb butu 'hit' as shown in (11b). This contrast, as Kuroda shows, is correlated with thefollowing fact: while oru 'break' cannot take an animate NP as its internal argument andinstead requires a stick-shaped object like a finger (as suggested by the grammaticality of(10a) and the ungrammaticality of (10c)), butu 'hit' has no such selectional requirement on its
object (as suggested by the grammaticality of (11a) and (11c). The generalization in (9) thus
can be taken to suggest that the accusative possessor NP in (10b)/(11b) is generated as theinternal argument of the verb. Otherwise, the parallel of the b-examples with the c-examples
is hard to capture.

3

The cleft construction is used in (10b) and (11b) just to avoid the examples violating the Double-oConstraint.

3.

The Target Contrast

Now that we know what AD is at a descriptive level, let us introduce the target contrastof the present study. Namely, body-part NPs in the AD construction undergo clefting easily,
but strongly resist relativization (see Yoon (1990) for data from Korean and other languages
that are apparently related to the latter effect). Consider the example involving relativization
given in (12) and the one involving clefting given in (13).
Ichiro-o__i(12) *Isya-wa[NP [Mari-ga
doctor-TOP
Mari-NOM Ichiro-ACC

butta] hohoi]-osinsatusita.
hit]cheek-ACC examined'The doctor examined the cheek on which Mari had hit Ichiro.'(13) [Mari-ga
Ichiro-o[Mari-NOM Ichiro-ACC__ibutta-no]-wa hoho-oida.
hit-C]-TOP cheek-ACC COP'It is on the cheek that Mari hit Ichiro.'
These examples share in common the property of the body-part NP 'cheek' being displacedout of the clause it originates in. Such displacement of the body-part NP, however, is allowedin the cleft construction but disallowed in the relative construction. We thus state as follows:4(14) AD blocks relativization of body-part NPs, but not clefting of them.
Further examples are added below.
(15) a. *Akira-wa [Mari-ga
Ichiro-ni__iAkira-TOP Mari-NOM Ichiro-DAT

kisusita] hohoi-okissed] cheek-ACC

mitumeta.
stared'Akira stared at Ichiro's cheek on which Mari kissed him.'b. [Mari-ga
Ichiro-ni
Mari-NOM Ichiro-DAT__ikisusita-no]-wa hoho-nii
kissed-C]-TOP cheek-DAT

da.
COP

'It is on the cheek that Mari kissed Ichiro.'(16) a. *Eri-wa
Eri-TOP[koma-ga __i
top-NOM

kirei na]beautiful is]zikui-omitumeta.
shaft-ACC stared'Eri stared at the shaft such that the spinning top of that shaft was beautiful.'4

Ken Hiraiwa (p.c.) observes that passive might improve the status of (12) (cf. Ichiro-ga Mari-ni
butareta hoho 'the cheek on which Ichiro was hit by Mari'). It could be the case that the example isderived in the same way as Ichiro-ga Mari-ni nusumareta baggu 'the bag that Ichiro has stolen by
Mari' is. Then it is possible for the passive version to have a non-AD source.

b. (*)[Koma-ga
top-NOM__ikirei na-no]-wa
beautiful is-C-TOP

ziku-gaishaft-NOM

da.5
COP

'The top's shaft (not, e.g., its body) is beautiful.'(15) involves dative AD and (16) nominative AD.
(14) can be given further justifications. It is actually AD that blocks relativization. First,
when the possessor is marked with genitive (i.e., AD doses not apply) and the whole object
undergoes relativization, the outcome is grammatical. (17) and (18) are clearly better than(12) and (15a), respectively.
(17) Isya-wa[[Mari-ga__idoctor-TOP Mari-NOM

butta]
hit[Ichiro-no
Ichiro-GENhoho]i]-osinsatusita.
cheek]i]-ACC examined'The doctor examined Ichiro's cheek that Mari had hit.'(18) Akira-wa[[Mari-ga__iAkira-TOP Mari-NOM

kisusita] [Ichiro-nohoho]i]-omitumeta.
kissedIchiro-GEN cheek]i]-ACC stared'Akira stared at Ichiro's cheek that Mari had kissed.'
Second, when a body-part NP appears as an independent, "non-doubled" argument (i.e., AD
does not apply), relativization becomes possible again. Given that kegasuru 'hurt' and itameru'hurt' are both (inherently reflexive) transitive predicates (19a-c), the grammaticality of (20)tells us that relativization of body-part nouns per se is possible.
(19) a. Ichiro-ga
Ichiro-NOM

yubi-ofinger-ACC

kegasita/itameta.
hurt.PST'Ichiro hurt his finger.'b. *[Ichiro-noyubi]-ga/oIchiro-GEN finger]-NOM/ACC
c. *Ichiro-ga
Ichiro-NOM

Mari-noMari-GENkegasita/itameta.
hurt.PST

yubi-ofinger-ACC

kegasita/itameta.
hurt.PST(20) Isya-wa[[Ichiro-ga
siai-de __i kegasita/itameta] yubii]-osinsatsusita.
doctor-TOP Ichiro-NOM game-inhurt]finger]-A examined'The doctor examined the finger that Ichiro had hurt in the game.'
Hence the ungrammaticality of (12)/(15a)/(16a) should be attributed to the impossibility ofrelativizing ADed body-part NPs.

5

The example is unacceptable for a reason having nothing to do with AD. Japanese clefting generally
does not allow a nominative focus to immediately be followed by the copula. The symbol "(*)"
indicates this. To our ear, though, (16b) sounds much better than (16a).

4.

Explaining the Asymmetry between Relatives and Clefts

This section attempts to explain the asymmetry between relativization and clefting withrespect to their applicability to body-part NPs in AD.
4.1. Analysis of Argument Doubling
Let us first propose an analysis of AD. We follow Kuroda (1999) in assuming that in AD,
the possessor NP and the body-part NP independently satisfy the selection restriction imposedby the verb. We assume an analysis of its genitive counterpart like the following (withEnglish vocabulary).
(21)[S Mari-NOM

VP

NP1 θ

T]
PAST
V
hit <human> OR <non-human>[NP2 Ichiro]-GEN N'θcheek-ACC

Here the body-part N 'cheek' assigns a θ-role to the possessor NP and that the V assigns a
Theme role to the NP headed by the body-part N. Crucially, we assume with Kuroda that theverb butu has a selectional feature of the sort that is represented as in (22a), which reads "theverb butu s-selects a human Obj or a non-human (including body-part) Obj." This is tocapture the fact that butu allows as its Theme object either Ichiro or Ichiro's cheek. The same
applies to kisu-suru, as in (22b). In this notation, the selectional properties of oru can becharacterized as in (22), which is intended to capture the fact that oru allows as its Themeobject Ichiro's finger (10a), but not Ichiro *(10c). Kega-suru 'hurt' can be notated with (22d)[(19a)]. (See Kuroda (1999) for a further discussion of s-selection and examples.)
(22)

Verb
a. butu 'hit':b. kisu-suru 'kiss':c. oru 'break':d. kega-suru 'hurt':

S-selection restriction on Obj<human> OR <non-human (including human body-part)><human> OR <non-human (including human body-part)><non-human (including human body-part)><human body-part>Given this, take a look at (21) again. The notation "<human> OR <non-human>" stands for the fact that
hit successfully s-selects a non-human NP. The crucial assumptions about Merge ands-selection that we are making are:(23) i. Merge applies for a reason, e.g. for θ-role assignment, s-selection, etc.
ii. V s-selects XP through Merge.
iii. V successfully s-selects XP only if the lexical semantics of XP is compatible with
V's s-selection restriction.
In these terms, we say that in (24) (=(10c)), otta 'break' can be merged with Ichiro for θ-role
assignment but its s-selection requirement fails to be satisfied.

(24) *Mari-ga
Mari-NOM

Ichiro-oIchiro-ACC

otta.
broke

'Mari broke Ichiro.'
Now let us propose the derivation of AD. If we adopt the proposal that Move is an"internal" kind of Merge (Chomsky 2008), we are led to propose that movement can betriggered by s-selection. The analysis goes as follows.
(25)[S Mari-NOM

VP

T]
PAST
V'

NP1
[NP2 Ichiro]θV
hit <human> OR <non-human>N'θcheek-ACC

Internal merger of NP2 with V' is perfectly legitimate under the current theory since hit
s-selects NP2. It then immediately follows from the lexical entry in (22c) and (23iii) that oru'break' resists AD, as shown in (26) (=(10b)).
(26)*Mari-ga__iMari-NOM

yubi-ofinger-ACC

otta-no-wa
Ichiro-oi
broke-C-TOP Ichiro-ACC

da.
COP

(intended) 'It is Ichiro that Mari broke (his) finger.'
Suppose that 'break' replaces 'hit' in (25). Then the alleged merger of NP2 with a projection of'break' would violate condition (23i) (i.e., that Merge must apply for a reason). The internal
θ-role of the verb is already assigned to NP1, and 'break' never s-selects [NP2 Ichiro]. Hence
there is no reason for Ichiro to move to Spec,VP in (26).
Summarizing, this subsection has proposed an account of why AD is possible when it is
and why it is not when it is not. In the next subjection, we propose an account of the fact that
AD and relativization of the body-part NP are not compatible.
4.2. Explaining Away the Target Contrast
Our account of the target contrast has the three major components listed below.
(27) i. The analysis of AD proposed in section 4.1.
ii. A Hiraiwa-Ishihara-style focus movement analysis of Japanese clefts (Hiraiwa andIshihara 2012)
iii. The assumption that the head raising strategy (strategy 3 in (1)/(2)) is not available
for Japanese head-external relatives.
Let us begin with a brief review of the Hiraiwa-Ishihara-style analysis of Japanese clefts.
Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2012) (henceforth, H&I) propose that Japanese clefts are derived
through Focus movement of the pivot followed by remnant topicalization.

(28) [Akira-ga
Akira-NOM

atta-no]-wa
met-COMP-TOP

Eri-ni
Eri-DATda.
COP'It is Eri that Akira met.'
(29)

TopP
FinP-TOP
FocP
#

Top°

Eri-DATi
FinP

!

Foc°
COP

Akira-NOM ti met-COMPIn this analysis, as shown in (29) (=the derivation of (28)), the pivot Eri-DAT first undergoes
A-bar movement to Spec,FocP and then the remnant FinP is topicalized to Spec,TopP. One
initial virtue of this analysis is to make it possible for us to capture two sets of facts at one
time: (i) the properties of A-bar movement that the construction exhibits (e.g., long distancemovement is possible but not when an island is involved; see Hoji (1990), Murasugi (1991),
and (ii) various connectivity effects such as case connectivity found with the pivot (e.g., in(28), the dative on the object NP is determined by the verb au 'meet').
Given this analysis, and the analysis of AD proposed in 4.1, the derivation for (13)(=(30)) proceeds as diagramed in (31).
(30) [Mari-ga
Ichiro-o__i[Mari-NOM Ichiro-ACC

butta-no]-wa
hit-C]-TOP

hoho-oicheek-ACCda.
COP'It is on the cheek that Mari hit Ichiro.'(31)[TopP ____ [FocP ____ [Fin Mari-NOM VP#!

[NP2 Ichiro]-ACC

TFin] Foc] Top]
PAST no da
V'

NP1
tNP2

V
hit
N'

cheek-ACC

After the operation yielding AD (i.e., the possessor's movement to Spec,VP to get s-selectedby V), NP1, which contains tNP2, undergoes focus movement. The surface word order inexample (30) then is derived after the no-clause, [FinP Mari-NOM Ichiro-ACC tNP1 hit-T-Fin],moves to Spec,TopP. This derivation looks legitimate under the standard assumptions insyntax. Notice that given that the possessor's movement is A-movement in our analysis, it is
not clear that focus A-bar movement of the NP1 containing tNP2 should cause a PBC violation(cf. Kitahara 1993). If it doesn't, we can make it follow that body-part NPs can undergoclefting in AD constructions.
Now turn to the ungrammaticality of the relative clause counterpart of (30), namely (12)(=(32)).
(32) *Isya-wa[NP [Mari-ga
doctor-TOP
Mari-NOM

Ichiro-o__iIchiro-ACC

butta] hohoi]-osinsatusita.
hit]cheek-ACC examined'The doctor examined the cheek on which Mari had hit Ichiro.'
The impossibility of relativization of body-part NPs, put together with the H&I-style analysisof clefts and our analysis of AD, leads us to conclude, following Murasugi (2000) and contra
Hoshi (2004), that Japanese does not have a head raising strategy for relativization. The logic
is clear: If head raising were available in Japanese, it should not be a problem to A-bar movethe body-part NP containing an A-trace to the CP domain, as it is not in clefting. The relevant
derivation would be something like the one in (33) (see Kayne 1994, Murasugi 2000).
(33) Putative head raising derivation[DP [TP Mari-NOM [NP2 Ichiro]-ACCitj

hit-T]kD [CP[NP1 ti cheek]j C tk]

Thus sentences like (32) would be overgenerated under the head raising analysis.
It should be noted here that the available data do not exclude other strategies than headraising. It is clear enough that the operator movement analysis (# in (1)/(2)) and the pro
in-situ analysis (" in (1)/(2)) straightforwardly capture the relative/cleft asymmetry. Consider(34). (We omit movement of the operator from the diagram.)(34) [NP [Relative clause Mari-NOM[NP Ichiro]-ACC

Opi/proihit-T][NP cheek]i]

Our analysis of AD makes an immediate prediction that (34) is barred. Given the standard
assumption that Op/pro cannot assign a θ-role, the possessor cannot be merged with it. The
possessor can be merged with V' since V s-selects the possessor. Then the derivation would
involve two base-generated objects at the VP level, as shown in (35).
(35)[S Mari-NOM

VP[NP Ichiro]

T]
PAST
V'

Op/pro θVhit

Notice now that in (35), Ichiro clearly fails to receive a θ-role, violating the θ-Criterion. Butu
'hit' assigns one and only one internal θ-role to Op/pro. The status of (32) is explained.
In sum, the head raising analysis wrongly predicts that relativization of the body-part NP
in AD is possible. Hence the analysis should not be available in Japanese.

5.

Another Asymmetry

This section quickly adds a further asymmetry between relatives and clefts that enhances
the conclusion reached above, i.e., that Japanese does not have head raising relatives.
Hoshi (2004) observes that Japanese head external relatives, unlike ones in otherlanguages like English, do not show a quantifier-scope reconstruction effect of the sortillustrated by (36); see also Bianchi (1999), Aoun and Li (2003).
(36) I phoned the two patients that every doctor will examine tomorrow. (&∀>2)(36) can be accepted in a "∀>2" scenario where different doctors are paired with different setsof two patients. The surface external head two patients can interact with therelative-clause-internal element every doctor, as is readily expected under the head raising
analysis proposed for these languages. In contrast, the Japanese analogue cannot be accepted
under the same scenario (37), as Hoshi discovered.
(37)

Watasi-wa
1SG-TOP[[asu
tomorrowdono isya-moevery doctor

hutari-no
twodansei kanzya]-ni
male patients-DAT

sinsatsusuru
examinekoto-ni natteiru]
is sheduled todenwasita.
phoned'I phoned the two male patients that every doctor is scheduled to examine tomorrow.'(*∀>2)
cf. Asu
tomorrowdono isya-moevery doctor

hutari-no
twodansei kanzya-osinsatsusuru.
male patients-ACC examine

koto-ni natteiru.
is scheduled to'Every doctor is scheduled to examine two male patients tomorrow.' (&∀>2)
The lack of the "∀>2" reading in Japanese is readily accounted for if our conclusion about
Japanese relativization is correct. Furthermore, let us note that clefts allow reconstruction ofthis sort, as shown in (38).
(38) Asu
tomorrowdono isya-moevery doctor

hutari-no dansei kanzya-o
two male patients-ACC

sinsatsusuru
examinekoto-ni natteiru-no-wa
is scheduled to-C-TOP

da.
COP

'It is two male patients that every doctor is scheduled to examine tomorrow.'(&distributive)
The contrast between (37) and (38) is exactly what we expect from the way in which we ague
the derivations of relatives and of clefts differ.

6.

Notes on Relativization with Idioms

There are still many diagnostic tests for a head raising analysis that can be conducted or
has already been conducted for Japanese. They include those based on: idiom reconstruction(Inoue 1978, Hoshi 2004; cf. Schacter 1973), binding reconstruction (Hoji 1985, Ishii 1991;
cf. Safir 1999, among others), first-NP reconstruction (Davis 2006; cf. Bhatt 2002), theavailability of amount readings (cf. Carlson 1977), and so on. This section examines theargument based on idioms, trying to determine whether the data argue for or against the headraising analysis of Japanese head external relatives.
The English examples given in (39) are presented in Schachter (1973). The b-example
shows that the lexical item headway needs to appear as the object of make. The acceptabilityof the c-example therefore suggests that headway occupies the complement position of madeat a stage of derivation. Such a derivation is made available by the head raising analysis.
(39) a. We made headway.
b. *(The) headway was satisfactory.
c. The headway that we made was satisfactory.
Furthermore, as Vergnaud (1974: 181) and Kayne (1994: 115) note, the fact that
nonrestrictive relativization is never allowed with idioms (e.g. *the headway, which we made)is also instructive, since there is ample evidence that nonrestrictive relative heads are notbase-generated relative-clause internally. As for Japanese, little study seems to have been
done. Inoue (1978: 214) and Hoshi (2004) are the few exceptions that we have found,although the number of idioms examined there is quite small.
As a next step towards a more comprehensive study of idiom relativization in Japanese,
we looked at 25 Obj-Verb "common phrases" and examined the acceptability judgments of
the relativized versions of them. 6 As shown below, 16 out of 25 are categorized as"non-idioms" even though they allow relativization (called Class I), 4 as idioms that
potentially allow relativization (called Class II), and 3 as idioms that resist relativization(called Class III). Each class is exemplified below. (There are two expressions where the twonative speakers' judgments vary, which are kao-o tubusu 'to bring shame on s.o.' and ageasi-otoru 'to find faults with s.o.'.)Class I: "Non-idioms" that allow relativization(40) a. Taro-wa
Taro-TOP

mitikusa-o
weed-ACC

kutta.
ateb. [(Taro-no)
Taro-GENmitikusa]-wa
weed-TOPtanosisoo datta.
looked.like.func. [[Taro-ga
Taro-NOM

kutta]
ate

mitikusa]-wa
weed-TOP'Taro loitered on his way.'tanosisoo datta.
looked.like.fun'Taro loitered on his way. He appeared to have had fun.'6

The judgments are the two authors'. When collecting these 25 expressions, we consulted Syôgakusei
no Manga Kanyôku Ziten (Grade School Students' Manga Dictionary of Common Phrases), supervised
by Hideho Kindaichi, Gakken, Tokyo, 2005.

(41) 15 other phrases of Class I
a. sewa-o yaku 'to take a great careb.

of s.o.'sente-o utu 'to make apreemptive move'c.

tyatya-o irerud.
e.

zibara-o kiru 'to pay out of one's
pocket'nirami-o kikaseru 'to cast a glare'f.

aizuti-o utu

g.

mune-o nadeorosu
relieved'h.

ooburusiki-o hirogeru
one's own horn'i.

(X-toyuu) rakuin-o osu 'to labels.o. or s.t. X (negatively)'j.

yokoguruma-o osu
brute force'k.

nureginu-o kiseru 'to make afalse charge against s.o.'l.

aori-o kuu'to suffer from s.t.'m.

goma-o suru

'to flatter s.o.'n.

saba-o yomu

'to fudge the count'o.

(oya-no) sune-o kaziru
off one's parents''to interrupt s.t.''to give s.o. a nod'

'to feel'to blow'to do s.t. by'to live{Taro-ga yaita, sono} sewa-ga yakunitatta'The care (that Taro took) helped me a lot.'{Taro-ga utta, sono} sente-ga tiimu-o sukutta'The preemptive move (Taro made) saved theteam.'{Taro-ga ireta, Taro-no} tyatya-de minna-ga
meiwakusita 'Taro interrupting the conversation
annoyed everyone.'{Taro-ga kitta, Taro-no} zibara-ga koogaku sugita'Taro paid too much out of his pocket.'{Tora-ga kikaseta, tora-no} nirami-ni raion-ga
hirunda 'The lion got scared to death with theglare the tiger cast to him.'{Taro-ga utta, Taro-no} aizuti-de Hanako-wa
ansinsita 'His agreement with Hanako that Taroexpressed relieved her.'{Taro-ga nadeorosita, Taro-no} mune-ni hutatabi
huanga yogitta yooda 'He once felt relieved, but
he got anxious again.'{Taro-ga hirogeta, Taro-no} ooburosiki-ni
minna-ga odoroigta 'Everyone got shocked at
Taro blowing his own horn.'{Tamada-san-ga Taro-ni osita, sono} rakuin-ga
hito-o odorokaseta 'The negative label that Mr.
Yamada gave Taro shocked people.'{Taro-no osita, Taro-no} yokoguruma-ni minna-ga
meiwakusita 'Everyone was annoyed by Tarodoing things by brute force.'{Taro-ga Hanako-ni kiseta, sono} nureginu-ni
minna-ga kizuiteiru 'People has noticed the false
charge (that Taro made against Hanako).'{Waga sya-ga kutta, sono} aori-wa ookii 'Our
company suffered a lot from that.'{Taro-no suru, Taro-no} goma-wa zyoosi-ni yoku
kiku 'The flattery that Taro used works well forhis boss.'{Taro-ga yonda, Taro-no} saba-ga minna-ni bareta'Taro's fudging the count has been out of the closet.'Taro-wa (kazitta) oya-no sune-o mudanisiteiru'Taro is wasting the money that his parents helped
him with.'Class II: Idioms that potentially allow relativization(42) a. Taro-ga
debana-okuziita.
Taro-NOM edge.of.nose-ACC broke'Taro intercepted (a project) at its outset.'b. *Debana-dec.

minna-ga??Taro-ga

kuziita
Taro-NOM brokekomatteita.
debana-denose-withminna-gae.o.-NOM

komatteita.
was.annoyed'Everyone was annoyed with Taro intercepting (the project) at its outset.'(43) 3 other phrases of Class II
a. hanasi-no kosi-o oru 'tointerrupt a conversation'b.
c.

sippo-o dasu 'to show one's
true colors'(cf. Hoshi 2004, footnote 10 )taka-o kukuru 'to
underestimate s.t.'{?Taro-ga otta, *sono} hanasi-no kosi-ni minna-ga
meiwakusita 'Everyone was annoyed by Tarointerrupting the conversation.'
Taro-wa {?dasita, *sono} sippo-ga medatanai yoo
hurumatta 'Taro behaved in a way that hides thetrue colors that he showed.'{?Taro-ga kukutta, *sono} taka-ga purojekuto-oikizumaraseteiru 'The underestimation (Taromade) caused trouble for our project.'

Class III: Idioms that resist relativization(44) a. Taro-wa
ware-oTaro-TOP self-ACC

wasureta.
forgotb. *Taro-wa
c. *Taroi-wa[[ei wasureta]'Taro panicked'

ware-no tame-ni

ziko-nikizukanakatta.

ware]-no tame-ni-because.of

ziko-nikizukanakatta.
accident-DAT didn't notice'Taro didn't notice the accident happen because he panicked.'(45) 2 other phrases of Class III
a. otya-o nigosu 'to fudge one's
answer'b.

asi-o hipparu
trouble''to cause{*?Taro-ga nigosita, *sono} otya-ga minna-o
iradataseta 'Everyone was annoyed with Tarofudging his answer.'{*Taro-ga hippatta, *sono} asi-ga mondaini natta'The trouble Taro caused became an issue.'We interpret the data as follows: Phrases of Class I are irrelevant to the present test,
because Obj, to begin with, does not need to be combined with Verb to have the relevantinterpretation. They are not idioms but more like collocations in the terms discussed in Larson(2012). The behavior of phrases of Class III is one we expect from the conclusion thatJapanese has no head raising, whereas the behavior of the phrases of Class II potentiallycounter-argues it. All the relative clause examples in (42) and (43), however, seem to both of
us not to be perfect. So we cannot draw a definitive conclusion from these data.
7.

Conclusions

In summary, the present study has shown: (i) that the body-part NP of AD constructions
cannot be relativized but can be focalized in clefting; (ii) that this asymmetry requires, underthe "possessor movement" analysis of AD, that head raising not be possible for Japanesehead-external relatives; (iii) that the same conclusion follows from a scope reconstruction
asymmetry; and (iv) that the available idiom data do not provide clear evidence for or against
the head raising analysis of Japanese relatives.
Many questions remain and, in our view, the following two are particularly important.
First, !, #, % and " in (1)/(2) might all be compatible with the two asymmetries we haveestablished. Is each of these needed in Japanese grammar? Second, why does the language notallow for head raising (as well as whatever other strategies that the language does not
employ)? We have to leave these intriguing questions for future investigations.

References
Alexiadou, A., P. Law, A. Meinunger and C. Wilder (2000) “Introduction.” In A. Alexiadou, P. Law,
A. Meinunger and C. Wilder, eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1-51.
Aoun, J. and Y.-H. A. Li (2003) Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bhatt, R. (2002) “The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: Evidence from Adjectival Modification,”
Natural Language Semantics 10, 43-90.
Bianchi, V. (1999) Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Bianchi, V. (2002) “Headed Relative Clauses in Generative Syntax – Part I,” Glot International 6,
197-204.
Carlson, G. (1977) “Amount Relatives,” Language 53, 520-542.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phrases.” In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds.,
Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, 133-166.
Comrie, B. (1996) “The Unity of Noun Modifying Clauses in Asian Languages,” Pan-Asiatic
Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and
Linguistics, vol. 3, Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development,
Mahidol University at Salaya, 1077-1088.
Comrie, B. (1998) “Rethinking the Typology of Relative Clauses,” Language Design 1, 29-45.
Davis, C. (2006) “Evidence against Movement in Japanese Rlative Clauses,” paper presented at the
ECO5 Conference, MIT, April 2006.
Fukui, N. and Y. Takano (1999) “Nominal Structure: An Extension of the Symmetry Principle.” In P.
Svenonious, ed., The Derivation of VO and OV, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia,219-254.
Hiraiwa, K. (2010) “Spelling Out the Double-o Constraint,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
28, 723-770.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2012) “Syntactic Metamorphosis: Clefts, Sluicing, and in-situ Focus in
Japanese,” Syntax 15, 142-180.
Hoji, H. (1985) Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington.
Hoji, H. (1990) “Theories of Anaphora and Japanese Syntax,” unpublished ms., University ofSouthern California.
Hoshi, K. (2004) “Parameterization of the External D-system in Relativization,” Language, Culture
and Communication 33, 1-50.
Inoue, K. (1978) Henkei Bunpo to Nihongo [Transformational Grammar and Japanese], Taishukan,
Tokyo.
Ishii, Y. (1991) Operators and Empty Categories in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut.
Kaplan, T. I. and J. Whitman (1995) “The Categor of Relative Clauses in Japanese, with Reference toKorean,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 29-58.
Kayne, R. S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kitahara, H. (1993) “Inalienable Possession Constructions in Korean: Scrambling, the Proper Binding
Condition, and Case Percolation.” In P. M. Clancy, ed., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2, CSLI,
Stanford, CA, 394-408.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1978) “Case Marking, Canonical Sentence Pattern, and Counter Equi in Japanese.” In J.
Hinds and I. Howard, eds., Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kaitakusha, Tokyo,
30-51.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-47.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1999) “Tokoro Setsu [Tokoro Clauses].” In S.-Y. Kuroda and M. Nakamura, eds.,
Kotoba no Kaku to Shuhen - Nihongo to Eigo no Aida, Kuroshio, Tokyo, 105-162.
Larson, R. (2012) “On "Dative Idioms" in English,” paper presented at One-day Workshop on Syntax
and Semantics 2012, Fuji Women's University, Sapporo, Septermber 2012.
Maling, J. and S. Kim (1992) “Case Assignment in the Inalienable Possession Construction in Korean,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 37-68.
Matsumoto, Y. (1997) Noun-modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame Semantic Approach, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Miyamoto, Y. (to appear) “On Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-ellipsis.” In M. Saito,ed., Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and
Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. (2000) “Japanese Complex Noun Phrases and the Antisymmetry Theory.” In R. Martin,
D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 261-295.
Perlmutter, D. M. (1972) “Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French Relativization.” In P. M.
Peranteau, J. N. Levi and G. C. Phares, eds., The Chicago Which Hunt, Papers from theRelative Clause Festival, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, 73-105.
Safir, K. (1999) “Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in A%-chains,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 587-620.
Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Schacter, P. (1973) “Focus and Relativization,” Language 49, 19-46.
Tomioka, S. and C.-Y. Sim (2005) “Event Structure of Inalienable Possession in Korean.” In S.
Arunachalam, T. Scheffler, S. Sundaresan and J. Tauberer, eds., Proceedings of the 28th
Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Philadelphia,279-292.
Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974) French Relative Clauses, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Vermeulen, R. (2009) “On the Syntax of External Possession in Korean.” In Y. Takubo, T. Kinuhata,
S. Grzelak and K. Nagai, eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16, CSLI, Stanford, CA, 422-436.
Whitman, J. (2012) “The Relative Clause Problem,” paper presented at Workshop on Altaic Formal
Linguistics 8, University of Stuttgart, May 2012.
Yoon, J. H.-S. (1990) “Theta-theory and the Grammar of Inalienable Possession Constructions.” In J.
Carter, R.-M. Déchaine, W. Philip, T. D. Sherer, eds., Proceedings of NELS 20, GSLA,
Amherst, MA, 502-516.