JAPANESE INTERNALLY-HEADED RELATIVE CLAUSESAND RELABELING
SANDIWAY FONG*
JASON GINSBURG**
HIROSHI TERADA**
University of Arizona*, Osaka Kyoiku University**

1 Introduction
Generally, when two syntactic objects (SOs) of the same type, α and β, are set-Merged(Chomsky 2008), either α or β may supply the label for {α,β}. In principle, Set Merge permits(1a) to be either analyzed as a free relative (DP), as in (1b), or an embedded interrogative (CP),as in (1c):(1) a. what you wrote (Chomsky 2008:145)b. read [DP[D what][you wrote what]]c. wonder [CP[D what][you wrote what]]
Relabeling describes the situation that obtains when a single head, e.g. what in (1b),nominalizes a clause by raising from within to label the aggregate SO. Cecchetto & Donati(2015), hereafter C&D, develop a comprehensive theory of relativization based on relabeling.
For example, the wh-relative construction in (2a) is derived using the head man to relabel theunderlying clause John saw which man as shown in (2b):(2) a. the man which John saw
b. [DP the [NP [N man] [CP [DP which man] [John saw [DP which man]]]]]

1

2

Sandiway Fong, Jason Ginsburg, Hiroshi Terada

In this theory, relabeling is necessary for relativization, e.g. (3a) cannot be interpreted as an (insitu) free relative, and only heads are permitted to relabel, e.g. (3b), in which the XP what bookhas raised, permitting only a clausal reading (cf. (1a)):1(3) a. you read whatb. [CP [what book] you read what book]
The relabeling analysis, at first glance, fails to account for Japanese relative clauses, because
Japanese permits relativization without English-style relative head raising. In particular, Japanesepermits both internally headed relative clauses and externally headed relative clauses. (4a) is aninternally-headed relative (IHR) clause with a nominalizing morpheme (NM) -no (cf. Kuroda
1992). The NM -no is co-referential with the object keeki-o ‘cake’, which appears in a positioninternal to the relative clause. (4b) is an externally-headed relative (EHR) clause with theexternal head keeki ‘cake’, which appears to have been displaced from the relative clauseinternal object position.2(4) a. Yoko-wa [[Taro-ga sara-no ue-ni keeki-o oita]-no]-o tabeta
Yoko-Top Taro-Nom plate-Gen on-Loc cake-Acc put-NM-Acc ate
b. Yoko-wa [[Taro-ga sara-no ue-ni oita] keeki]-o tabeta
Yoko-Top Taro-Nom plate-Gen on-Loc put cake-Acc ate‘Yoko ate the cake that Taro put on the plate’ (Shimoyama 1999:147)
One possible solution is to permit invisible (to Spellout) raising of the relative clause head.
However, Shimoyama argues against an invisible LF-raising account of IHRs based on scopefacts. (5a-b) exhibit a scope contrast with respect to hotondo ‘most’. In (5a) most of the cookies
were in the fridge and, according to Shimoyama, hotondo ‘most’ cannot obtain matrix scope. Ifkukkii ‘cookie’ were to undergo LF raising to the position of the NM -no together with hotondo‘most’, then hotondo should be able to get high scope, even with kukkii-o hotondo in the relative
clause head position (cf. Shimoyama 1999). In (5b) most of the cookies were brought to the party,and thus hotondo ‘most’ has scope outside of the relative clause.
(5) a. Taro-wa [[Yoko-ga reezooko-ni kukkii-o hotondo irete-oita]-no]-o paatii-ni motteTaro-Top Yoko-Nom fridge-Loc cookie-Acc most put-Aux-NM-Acc party-Dat
ittabrought‘Yoko put most cookies in the fridge and Taro brought them to the party.’b. Taro-wa [[Yoko-ga reezooko-ni irete-oita] kukkii-o hotondo] paatii-ni motte-itta
Taro-Top Yoko-Nom fridge-Loc put-Aux cookie-Acc mostparty-Dat brought‘Taro brought most cookies that Yoko put in the fridge to the party.’ (Shimoyama
1999:149-150)
1

C&D must simultaneously reinterpret apparent cases of phrasal free relatives as externally-headed relatives (e.g.,“I will buy whichever book you will buy” (C&D:51)), and non-relabeling wh-words (such as which) as phrases (e.g.,“what happened is terrible” vs. “*which happened is terrible” (C&D:49)).
2
Although there is no overt relative pronoun in Japanese, assuming the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky2008), in (4b) we posit that keeki moves through the edge of the clause, a strong phase, in order to be visible forrelabeling.

Japanese Internally-Headed Relative Clauses and RelabelingIf relabeling is necessary for relative clause formation, then the question arises of how
relabeling works in Japanese relative clauses, if there is no raising in IHRs. In this paper, weattempt to answer this question.

2 Proposals
We argue that no relabeling obtains in IHRs, but there is relabeling in EHRs instead, as in thecase of English.
We propose that the nominalizer -no is the relabeler that precipitates relativization. When -nois present, it appears to block extraction of the head noun. Any adequate theory will need toexplain why. Consider the following (unattested) situation: suppose -no occurs in the numeration,
and also kukkii (freely) raises. The categorizer n for the entire nP may only license a single root;i.e. either -no or kukkii. (Moreover, all roots must be categorized.) So kukkii cannot raise because
there is no second categorizer available. Note we cannot simply introduce a second categorizer
as a relative clause cannot have two heads at the same time.3 Hence kukkii and -no must be incomplementary distribution, and thus there is no raising and relabeling in an IHR such as (5a),shown in Fig. 1. Note that we assume that the relative clause is pair-Merged with the nominalizer,
where pair-Merge is indicated in the diagram with an arc. Also, we assume that hotondo ‘most’is pair-Merged with the nominal kukkii. In (5a), note that the phrase kukkii-o hotondo ‘mostcookies’ is formed in-situ and does not raise. The nominalizer -no selects for a CP, and since theCP functions as an adjunct, the nominalizer labels. We assume -no will be parsimoniously
identified with the salient argument kukkii via some search procedure that takes into accountcontext and other factors: this is a matter we leave to semantic interpretation. Finally, the ncategorizer is Merged and labels the entire phrase.4
Contrast (5a) with the EHR (5b), shown in Fig. 2. For EHRs, relabeling must obtain. In thisexample, kukkii ‘cookie’ raises and Merges (via pair-Merge) with the CP. As a result kukkii
relabels, and the CP functions as an adjunct. The categorizer n is Merged, and it categorizes theroot kukkii ‘cookie’ as a nominal. Finally, hotondo ‘most’ adjoins (via pair-Merge) to the phrase
headed by the categorizer n.
In both (5a-b), we assume that the accusative case particle -o which appears on the relativeclause head is the result of a Spell-Out rule. Specifically, checked case on the n categorizer
appears as an affix on the NM -no in (5a) and on the relative clause had kukkii in (5b).

3More generally, given binary Merge, a double-headed structure cannot be built for any construction.
We assume that -no is a nominalizer that is distinct from the categorizer n. (In other words, -no can be considered
to be root-like under our account.) In all nominal expressions, we use n as the functional element that undergoes ɸfeature agreement and receives case. In (5b), {n, kukkii} receives case and participates in ɸ-feature agreement twice;once within the CP, and once as the head of the entire nP. This is unproblematic if we have two distinct n’s, asshown (cf. C&D:62). (5a) parallels (5b) in the sense that two distinct n’s are also present; one associated with -no,and one with kukkii inside the CP. Both n’s are required since all roots must be categorized.
43

4Sandiway Fong, Jason Ginsburg, Hiroshi TeradaFigure 1: Structure of internally-headed Figure 2: Structure of externally headed relativeclause (5b)relative clause (5a)3 Evidence
In this section, we give evidence with scope facts for these proposals that in an IHR, but not anEHR, there is no raising of the relative clause head.
The scope facts of (6) below indicate that the relative clause head moves in (5b). In (5b),kukkii raises to become the head of the relative clause, which then merges with hotondo at thematrix clause level, thereby deriving the attested scope facts. The IHR (6) has the same truth
conditions as (5b), indicating that hotondo merges with the relative clause headed by no:(6) Taro-wa [[Yoko-ga reezooko-ni kukkii-o irete-oita]-no]-o hotondo paatii-ni motte-itta
Taro-Top Yoko-Nom fridge-Loc cookie-Acc put-Aux-NM-Acc most party-Dat brought‘Taro brought most cookies that Yoko put in the fridge to the party.’
Shimoyama (1999) observes that, under scrambling, an expected scope difference with aquantificational IHR fails to materialize. For example, (7a-b) have the same interpretation. The
expected scope difference is observed when EHRs are substituted for the IHRs in (7a-b). The
fact that the scope difference is not observed can be straightforwardly accounted for by the lackof relative clause head displacement.
(7) a. Hotondo-no gakusei-ga [[Taro-ga dono syukudai-mo sikenmae-ni dasita] -no] -omost-Gen student-Nom Taro-Nom every homework before-exam-at assigned-NM-Accteisyutusita
turned inb. [[Taro-ga dono syukudai-mo sikenmae-ni dasita]-no]-oi hotondo-no gakusei-ga
Taro-Nom every homework before-exam-at assigned-NM-Acc most-Gen student- Nomti teisyutusita
turned inJapanese Internally-Headed Relative Clauses and Relabeling‘Most students turned in every homework that Taro assigned before the exam.’(Shimoyama 1999:153)4 Conclusions
To summarize, in a Japanese EHR, the root of the relative head freely re-Merges and relabels theCP, followed by obligatory Merge of an external n (as all roots must be categorized) (cf. Fig. 2).
In a Japanese IHR, since Merge is free, the available option of no re-Merge by the internal
relative root is taken; a nominalizer -no is externally Merged to nominalize the CP (cf. Fig. 1).
The fact that relabeling and the nominalizer -no are in complementary distribution falls out from
our assumption that -no is root-like.
In an IHR, we have attempted to show that the relative clause head does not move, whichraises the question of how it obtains its interpretation. Following Shimoyama (1999) and Hoshi(1995), we could assume a covert N (encoding an E-type pronominal) be externally merged tosatisfy the head relabeling requirement, perhaps spelled-out as the NM -no. There is no raising,and the nominalizer -no identifies with a salient argument in the RC. The identification of therelevant internal head is extra-syntactic and subject to semantic/pragmatic factors, as in (8).
(8) Sono omawari-wa gakuseitati-ga CIA-no supai-o kumihuseta-no-o utikorosita
that cop-Top students-Nom CIA-Gen spy-Acc held-down-NM-Acc shot-and-killed‘That cop shot and killed the students who held down the CIA spy’‘That cop shot and killed the CIA spy who(m) the students held down.’ (Tsujimura
2007:306, per Kuroda 1992:153)
Note that extra-syntactic head identification is also required in gapless relatives, as in (9).
(9) [meizin-ga ryoori-sita] azi
expert-Nom cooked flavor‘the flavor that results when an expert cooks’ (Tsujimura 2007:305, per Kitagawa 1982:201).
Questions also arise regarding which arguments no can identify with (bind). In the IHR(10a/4a) the object keeki ‘cake’ can be relativized. In (10b), the subject Taro cannot berelativized. Why it is that a subject cannot be relativized in this type of IHR is an issue for further
examination.
(10) a. Yoko-wa [[Taro-ga sara-no ue-ni keeki-o oita]-no]-o tabeta
Yoko-Top Taro-Nom plate-Gen on-Loc cake-Acc put-NM-Acc ate‘Yoko ate the cake that Taro put on the plate.’ (Shimoyama 1999:147)
b. *Yoko-wa [[Taro-ga yuka-no ue-ni keeki-o otoshita]-no]-o nagusameta
Yoko-Top Taro-Nom floor-Gen on-Loc cake-Acc dropped-NM-Acc comforted
Yoko comforted Taro who dropped his cake on the floor.

References
Cecchetto, Carlo & Caterina Donati. 2015. (Re)labeling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

56

Sandiway Fong, Jason Ginsburg, Hiroshi TeradaChomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos. P. & Maria Luisa
Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud, 133-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hoshi, Koji. 1995. Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external
relative clauses. PhD Dissertation, University of Rochester.
Kitagawa, Chisato. 1982. Topic constructions in Japanese. Lingua 57: 175-214.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Shimoyama, Junko. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 147-182.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2007. An introduction to Japanese linguistics: Second edition. Malden,MA: Blackwell.