Japanese gapless relativization: The syntax-prosody interface to semantics
Chihiro Taguchi (University of Notre Dame)
Keywords: Japanese, syntax, event semantics, syntax-prosody interface
This paper presents an analysis of Japanese gapless relativization (GR) in the framework of Lexical Functional
Grammar. To this end, this study involves three proposals: (1) in GR, the relative clause (RC) involves an argumentwith the thematic role rel(ative) which represents some underspecified semantic relationship of the relativizedargument with the event; (2) a gapless relative clause (and, possibly, gapped relative clauses in general) involves anon-subcategorizable grammatical function REL(ative) that shares the structure with the head noun; (3) in (Tokyo)
Japanese, which lacks a morphosyntactic marking for relativization, the REL argument is introduced at the syntaxprosody interface instead. The semantic notation in this study follows Neo-Davidsonian event semantics. Note that
we use the term “gapless” following the previous literature, though LFG does not postulate syntactic movement.
Overview of GR in Japanese. GR is a kind of relativization of NP where the gap for the head noun is not foundin the modifying RC. In languages like Japanese, in addition to relativizing a subject (1 b), an object (1 c), and anoblique (1 d) all derived from (1 a), it is possible to relativize a noun that is not subcategorized by the embedded
predicate as exemplified in (2). Nevertheless, GR is lexically restrictive and only selects a head noun related to theembedded event in some way; in (2), the expression implies that the sound was caused by the embedded event (i.e.,the cat’s catching of the mouse).
(1)

(2)

(a)neko=ga ie=denezumi=otukamaeta
cat=NOM house=LOC mouse=ACC caught‘The cat caught the mouse in the house’(b)[ie=denezumi=otukamaeta] nekoi
house=LOC mouse=ACC caughtcat‘The cat that caught the mouse in the house’(c)[neko=ga ie=de(d)[neko=gaii tukamaeta] nezumii

i nezumi=o tukamaeta] iei[neko=ga nezumi=otukamaeta] oto
cat=NOM mouse=ACC caught
sound‘The sound (that is caused by the event where) the cat caught the mouse’

Issues of GR in Semantics. In formal semantics, the semantic composition of a relativized NP with a gap canbe computed by assuming the Predicate Modification (PM) rule expressed in (3) (Heim and Kratzer, 1998, p. 65).
Therefore, in the Neo-Davidsonian representation, the semantics of (1 b) is derived as in (4), assuming that neko“cat” is of type ⟨e, t⟩. However, this generalization becomes problematic with GR like (2), because there is no freevariable in the RC, and the PM rule is not applicable.
(3)

If a branching node γ has only two nodes α and β as its daughters, α ⇝ α′ , β ⇝ β ′ , and α′ and β ′ are bothof type ⟨e, t⟩, then γ ⇝ λx.α′ (x) ∧ β ′ (x).

(4)

(a)
(b)
(c)

nezumi “mouse” ⇝ m, ie “house” ⇝ h, tukamaeta “caught” ⇝ λe.catch(e), neko “cat” ⇝ λx.cat(x)“x caught the mouse in the house” ⇝ λx∃e.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, x) ∧ theme(e, m) ∧ loc(e, h)
λx∃e.cat(x) ∧ catch(e) ∧ agent(e, x) ∧ theme(e, m) ∧ loc(e, h) (by the PM rule)

Analysis by Cha (1999) and its problems. Cha (1999) proposes a solution to this problem for Korean GR, which
has similar characteristics to Japanese GR. To represent the relationship between the embedded event and the headnoun, Cha assumes a “special predicate” P (e, x) that takes an event of type v and an entity of type e as its arguments. In this approach, the GR in (2) would look like (5), where P follows the other Neo-Davidsonian conjuncts.
1

P only specifies that the event and the entity share some relationship reasonably inferred from the context andsyntax, and it does not represent any specific relationship at the level of semantics. Cha further generalizes thisclaim and argues that canonical relativization with a gap also includes P , where P is interpreted to be semanticallyvacuous. However, Cha (1999) does not demonstrate the detailed semantic derivation of the desired expression,and in particular, does not explicitly explain at which point in LF P is introduced and what semantic operations areinvolved to compute P as vacuous with a gap and as contentful with GR. It also fails to explain what allows GR insome languages but not in others.
(5)λx∃e.sound(x) ∧ catch(e) ∧ agent(e, c) ∧ theme(e, m) ∧ loc(e, h) ∧ P (e, x)

Proposal 1: Thematic role rel(ative). Rather than depending on an underdefined predicate P , we seek our solution in the fact that the head noun is semantically related to the event in some way but is not overtly subcategorized
by the embedded predicate; to this end, we introduce the thematic role rel(ative). Suppose that the meaning constructors of each lexical entry are as defined in (6). We make an additional assumption that we have a thematic role
REL in the lexicon, which will be supported later by the evidence from the syntax-prosody interface. Also, we assume here that the conjuncts of thematic roles for tukamaeta “caught” are lexically defined, while it is the meaning
constructor of REL role θREL that specifies the conjunction of REL argument with the event predicate. Similarly tocanonical RCs, the relativized argument in the RC (i.e., REL) is first introduced by a conditional proof assumption,
which is to be abstracted before applying the PM rule with the head (relativized) noun. The process of derivation
to obtain the meaning of (2) is shown in Figure 1. See also Coppock and Champollion (2022, p. 443–449) for a
detailed discussion on the semantic representation of thematic roles.
(6)

Lexiconneko
nezumitukamaetaoto
θREL

Meaning constructorc :↑σm :↑σλyλxλe.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, x) ∧ theme(e, y) : (↑ OBJ)σ ⊸ (↑ SUBJ)σ ⊸ (↑ EV)σ ⊸↑σιx.sound(x) :↑σ
λxλV λf.V (λx.rel(e, x) ∧ f (e)) :(↑ ARG)σ ⊸ (((↑ EV)σ ⊸↑σ ) ⊸↑σ ) ⊸ (((↑ EV)σ ⊸↑σ ) ⊸↑σ )λyλxλe.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, x) ∧ theme(e, y)m

λxλe.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, x) ∧ theme(e, m)ECc

λe.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, c) ∧ theme(e, m)

λxλV λf.V (λe.rel(e, x) ∧ f (e))∃e.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, c) ∧ theme(e, m)

λV λf.V (λe.rel(e, x1 ) ∧ f (e))λf.∃e.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, c) ∧ theme(e, m) ∧ rel(e, x1 ) ∧ f (e)∃e.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, c) ∧ theme(e, m) ∧ rel(e, x1 )x1CPAQC

λx∃e.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, c) ∧ theme(e, m) ∧ rel(e, x)

ιx.sound(x)∃e.catch(e) ∧ agent(e, c) ∧ theme(e, m) ∧ rel(e, ιx.sound(x))

Figure 1: Proof tree for (4 c) from the premises in (6). EC is an abbreviation for existential closure, QC for quantifier
closure, and CPA for conditional proof assumption. Here oto is assumed to be an entity by the iota operator.

Proposal 2: Syntax of GR. This part discusses the REL argument in the c- and f-structures that are to be mapped
to the semantic structure. As done in Proposal 1, gapless RCs are treated similarly to gapped RCs in the sense thatthe relativized head noun shares the structure with its corresponding argument in the RC. This structure sharing
is expressed as the linking line in Figure 2b. Naturally, the information of the structure sharing is included in thelexical entry of oto “sound”, as described in Figure 2a.

2NPN’↑=↓S(↑ ADJ) =↓NP(↑ GF) =↓NP(↑ GF) =↓neko=ganezumi=o(↑ PRED) = ‘ CAT ’ (↑ PRED) = ‘ MOUSE ’N’↑=↓V↑=↓N↑=↓tukamaetaoto(↑ PRED) =(↑ PRED) = ‘ SOUND ’‘ CATCH⟨SUBJ , OBJ⟩’(↑ ADJ REL) =(↑ PRED)

PRED
ADJ
‘ SOUND ’
PRED ‘ CATCH⟨ SUBJ , OBJ ⟩’ hi

PRED ‘ CAT ’SUBJhi  
OBJPRED ‘ MOUSE ’
hi REL(a) c-structure(b) f-structure

Figure 2: c- and f-structures for (2). Other grammatical information such as tense is omitted for simplicity.

Proposal 3: Introducing REL at the syntax-prosody interface. Thus far our discussion has assumed that theREL argument exists in syntax, even though there is no syntactic word that directly expresses it.1 This proposal
argues that the REL argument is introduced at the level of syntax-prosody interface based on the evidence frompitch assimilation in Tokyo Japanese. Tokyo Japanese has a pitch accent system where either a high or low tone isassigned to each mora. As shown in (7), in a natural speech, the low pitch in the first mora of /ò.tó/ assimilates tothe high pitch of the preceding word when oto is relativized; the pitch without the assimilation sounds unnatural,
as noted with double question marks. This assimilation process has been reported in various studies (Uyeno et al.,
1980; Jun and Koike, 2003). Following Jun (2003), these prosodic words (PW) form a unit as an accentual phrase(AP). Thus, Japanese relativization is marked by prosody, and the syntax–prosody interface gives rise to the fdescription (↑ ADJ REL) = (↑ PRED) in the modified lexical entry. As for gapped RCs, since the relativizedargument with a core grammatical function (e.g., the subject in (1 b)) is retrievable from syntax, the value of REL
also shares the structure with the core grammatical function; in this case, REL can be ignored as it would be aredundant representation. Therefore, all the RCs (or possibly all the adnominal modifiers) in Japanese may involve
REL essentially. Lastly, this analysis also explains why GR is not language-universal because the introduction ofREL is constrained at the levels of prosody and syntax that show variability across languages. In sum, (Tokyo)
Japanese introduces REL at the syntax–prosody interface, and the mapping propagates from the c- and f-structures
to the semantic structure, where the semantic composition is well-formed with the proposed thematic role function
rel.
(7)

Form
tukamaetaototukamaeta oto

Hierarchy
PWPWAP

Pitch (split by mora)/tù.ká.má.é.tá//ò.tó//tù.ká.má.é.tá.ó.tó/??/tù.ká.má.é.tá.ò.tó/Translation“caught”“sound”“sound of (something’s) catching (of something)”

References
Y. Cha. Semantics of Korean gapless clause constructions. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 29(1), 1999.
E. Coppock and L. Champollion. Invitation to Formal Semantics. Draft of January 18, 2022.
I. Heim and A. Kratzer. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, 1998.
S.-A. Jun. Prosodic phrasing and attachment preferences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(2), 2003.
S.-A. Jun and C. Koike. Default prosody and relative clause attachment in Japanese. In 13th Japanese-Korean Linguistics Conference, 2003.
T. Uyeno, H. Hayashibe, K. Imai, H. Imagawa, and S. Kiritani. Comprehension of relative clause construction and pitch contours in Japanese. Annual
Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 14:225–236, 1980.
1

Modern Japanese verbs have lost the inflectional distinction between the adnominal and finite forms.

3