Pragmatics-Grammar Interface and Relational Noun Modifying Clause Constructions:
Where and How Japanese, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, and Armenian Differ
Kaoru Horie (Nagoya University/Kansai Gaidai University)
This study aims to investigate a noun-modifying clausal construction which hasn’t received muchtypological attention, i.e. a “relational” Noun Modifying Clause Construction (NMCC).
“Relative clauses (RCs)” (e.g. (1)) have been a topic of intense scrutiny in linguistic typology since the1970s, originally inspired by the seminal work (Keenan and Comrie 1977) on the NP accessibility hierarchy.
More recently, however, the notion of “General Noun Modifying Clause Constructions (GNMCCs)” wasintroduced into the field (e.g. Matsumoto 1997, Matsumoto, Comrie, and Sells 2017). A GNMCC is a single
noun-modifying construction covering a wide range of interpretations including, but not limited to a “relativeclause” interpretation. GNMCCs are known to be prevalent in the languages of East and Southeast Asia, but
are also attested in other regions including Europe. The notion of GNMCCs enabled typologists to identify
varying types of NMCCs wherein the interpretive relationship between its head noun and the modifying clauseis more “oblique” than those traditionally identified as RCs.
Of particular interest are the subtype of NMCCs referred to as “Relational NMCCs” by Matsumoto (1997)
such as (2) in Japanese. Relational NMCCs, which are abundant in Japanese, are characterized by the cooccurring head noun signaling a relational concept of varying semantic subtypes, e.g. “causal relation” (e.g.
gen’in (the cause of X), as in (2), “temporal relation” (e.g. asa (the morning of day X), as in (3), and “spatialrelation” (e.g. mae (the front side of X) ), as in (4).
The current study thus compares four languages that have been identified to possess relational NMCCs, i.e.
Japanese (isolate), Korean (isolate), Mandarin Chinese (Tibeto-Burman, Sinitic), and Armenian (IndoEuropean), to explore the range and the nature of possible crosslinguistic variation.
Our investigation finds that the four languages differ in terms of their native speakers’ acceptability ofrelational NMCCs. As previously observed, relational NMCCs of various semantic subtypes were judged tobe acceptable in Japanese (see (2)-(4)), while the other three languages show the lesser degrees of native
speaker acceptability toward relational NMCCs.
Among the three semantic subtypes, i.e. “causal” (e.g. (2)), “temporal” (e.g. (3)), and “spatial” (e.g. (4)),“causal” NMCCs tend to be accepted by the native speakers in all four languages, as shown in (2’).
“Temporal” NMCCs such as (3), to be interpreted in the intended sense, need additional linguistic
specification (e.g. the next day, one night) in some but not all languages, as shown in the contrast between
Japanese/Armenian ((3), (3’)) and Mandarin Chinese/Korean ((3’’), (3’’’)).
Finally, “spatial” NMCCs seem to present a most complex cross-linguistic picture. In Mandarin Chinese,
spatial NMCCs tend to be not judged acceptable (4’), while in Korean such NMCCs seem to require additional
linguistic coding like the reference point locational noun (cali ‘seat’) (4’’). In Armenian, some “spatial”
NMCCs like (4’’’) are not deemed acceptable, but there seem to exist acceptable spatial NMCCs like (5).
This preliminary study argues that relational NMCCs, particularly of “spatial” and “temporal” subtypes,
serve to highlight the differing manifestations of grammar-pragmatics interface between languages. In
languages like Japanese, a wide range of spatial and temporal NMCCs are possible arguably owing to theextensive role of pragmatic inference helping to interpret semantically underspecified MCs. The role ofpragmatic inference is more limited in other languages wherein semantically underspecified MCs receivecross-linguistically differential acceptability judgements. This preliminary study thus calls for further
investigations into relational NMCCs, which promise to shed light on the typology of grammar-pragmatics
interface.
Examples (as they appear on page 1)(1) (a) the dog [that bit me](b) the TV program [she loves to watch every day](2) (Japanese) [kazi-gahirogat-ta] gen’infire-NOM spread-PST cause ‘the reason that/why a fire spread’(3) (Japanese) [Kansai-nitomat-ta] asa
Kansai area-LOC stay-PST morning(lit.) ‘the (next) morning that I stayed overnight in Kansai’(4) (Japanese) [Ooku-noyakuin-ga
tyakusekis-ite iru]
mae-de…
large quantity-GEN board member-NOM sit-PROG:NONPAST front side-LOC‘in front of (the location) where many board members were seated…’(2’) (Chinese) [huǒzāi mànyán de]
yuányīn
firespread
ATTR reason‘the reason why/that a fire spread’(3’) (Armenian) [Kansay-um
gišer-el-u-s](haǰord)
Kansai-LOC overnight-INF-GEN-my next(3’’) (Chinese) [zàiGuānxī zhù le *(yìwǎn) hòuLOCKansai stay PRF
one night after(3’’’) (Korean) [Kansai-ey memu-n] *(ithutnal) achim
Kansai-LOC stay-PST the next day morning(lit.) ‘the (next) morning that I stayed overnight in Kansai’aṙavotəmorning.DEFde] zǎoshangATTR morning(4’) (Chinese)*[zài duō wèilǐngdǎo
jiùzuò de]miànqián
LOC many CLF
board member sit
ATTR in front of(4’’) (Korean) [manhun imwen-i
chaksekha-ko iss-nun] *(cali) aph-eyse
manyboard member-NOM be seated-PROG-ATTR seat front-LOC(lit.) ‘in front of (the seats) where many board members were seated’(4’’’) (Armenian) * [bazmatʻiv hyureri
nst-ac-i]
dimacʻ…
manyguest.PL.GEN sit-PTCP.RES-GEN in front of(5) (Armenian) [Fumikoyi nst-a-ci]
hetewum
gtnv-ołpatuhanə…
Fumiko-GEN sit-PTCP.RES-GEN behind.LOC locate-PTCP.SUBJ window.DEF‘the window behind (the location) where Fumiko was seated’Abbreviations: PTCP.RES: Resultative Participle, PTCP SUBJ: Subjective Participle (Armenian)
References
Keenan, Edward and Bernard Comrie (1977) “Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy and Universal Grammar,”
Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63-99.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko (1997) Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Approach, JohnBenjamins, Amsterdam.

Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Bernard Comrie and Peter Sells (eds.) (2017) Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions inLanguages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

In the Treetops: From Proposition to Illocutionary Force
Shigeru Miyagawa, MIT/U of São Paulo/Seikei U.

What is language designed for? Although we use it for communication, it has been argued thatits core role is as a tool for representing thought (Hinzen 2006, Chomsky 2013). While thought isinternal to the cognitive system, communication takes place, for the most part, external to it. Thequestion is, is there anything in language that supports its use as a tool for communication? In
this talk, I will argue, based on the work of many scholars, that beyond the CP, which contains
the core proposition that embodies thought, syntax has extended its structure to include therepresentation of the speaker and the addressee, and a structure that connects this SpeakerAddressee projection to the proposition, in order to support the use of language forcommunication. I will draw from the recent LI monograph, Syntax in the treetops (Miyagawa2022) and Miyagawa and Hill (in press, LI), which in turn draw from important research by such
scholars as Krifka (2020), Portner, Pak & Zanuttini (2019), Speas & Tenny (2003), Wiltschko(2020), and Yamada (2019).
To develop the idea for the Speaker-Addressee projection, I will draw on two early works in thedevelopment of generative grammar, Ross (1970) and Emonds (1970), who put forth separate
but equally bold proposals. Ross argued that there is a layer of superstructure that contains
representations of the speaker and the addressee as well as the predicate representing the speech
act of the utterance. Emonds proposed that there is a layer of representation he called the Root
created by non-structure preserving transformations. Both came under heavy criticism, which led
to these proposals largely disappearing from core discussion in syntax. I will argue that, once weaccount for the problems, the two proposals turn out to be about the same phenomenon. They
point to the existence of a projection at the highest point in the structure that is the locus ofillocutionary force of the utterance (Ross 1970) and the precise distribution of this projection insyntax (Emonds 1970). Using a recent proposal by Krifka (e.g., 2020) as a starting point, I willargue, following earlier works (e.g., Miyagawa 2012, Portner, Pak, and Zanuttini 2019, Speasand Tenny 2003, Wiltschko 2017) for the existence of what I call the Speaker-Addressee
Projection (SAP) at the top of the tree. Evidence will be drawn from a wide range of languages
including Basque, Japanese, Magahi, and Romanian. As Ross noted, SAP by itself is not
sufficient; some layer must connect it to the proposition in the CP. Unlike Ross, who posited aperformative predicate for this purpose, I will follow Krifka in positing the Commitment Phrase(CommitP), similar to Wiltschko’s “grounding phrase.” I will give evidence for the existence ofthe CommitP from Japanese and Romanian sentence particles (Miyagawa and Hill, in press, LI).
Finally, I will speculate on how the treetop structure could account for the unusual distribution ofsentence-final particles in young Japanese speakers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Japanese Noun Classes and Numerals
Akira Watanabe
University of Tokyo

In this talk, I would like to point out that there are a sizable number of cases where anumeral can be directly combined with a noun in Japanese and that the distribution ofsuch cases prompts us to take noun classification in terms of syntactic and semantic
considerations quite seriously. The idea of noun classification usually leads to the topic
of numeral classifiers, but the cases that concern us are characterized by the absence ofclassifiers.
A detailed proposal about verb classes was made by Levin (1993), who bases herclassification on the English data concerning argument structure alternation, namely,patterns of syntactic realization of arguments. Verb classes are organized by semantic
considerations, but syntactic patterns of argument structure alternation play a key role indeciding class membership.
No comparable proposal exists for nouns. Allan (1980) identified eight classes ofnouns in relation to countability. Grimm and Wahlang (2021) have picked up thisclassification and expanded it into 13. These results, however, are far smaller than Levin’s
49 major classes, many of which are further subdivided. It is time to start thinking about
the project of noun classification on a scale that takes into account the size of verb
classification.
The project will ultimately contribute to elucidating the nature of the atoms ofcomputation, a basic task formulated by Chomsky (2010). He has been arguing thatcurious concepts encoded in these “word-like” objects cannot be captured by the notionof reference to mind-independent entities and that they are derived from innate
cognoscitive powers (Chomsky 2000, for example). Interestingly, the examples taken up
are mostly nouns like house, London, and water. It is a bit too challenging to take on theentire category of nouns. The strategy must be divide and conquer.
My data set comes from the list of “auxiliary numerals” or josuushi in NHK (2016),
which includes nouns in addition to genuine numeral classifiers. Inspection of the list
reveals that particular noun classes are prominent in allowing direct combination with anumeral. Among them are containers and textual units, which are not mentioned byDowning (1996). Another noteworthy fact is the presence of Sino-Japanese boundmorphemes such as shoo ‘win’, teki ‘drop of liquid’, and wa ‘episode’, which cannot be
used without being combined with a numeral or some other Sino-Japanese morpheme but
are nothing other than nouns. In the talk, I will highlight the syntactic properties of someof these classes.