Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 147–182 | Cite as

Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Japanese and E-Type Anaphora

  • Junko Shimoyama


This paper examines the so-called internally headed relative clause construction in Japanese, with particular focus on new data that involve quantificational NPs and wh-phrases. The data provide arguments for representations in which the internal head remains internal at LF. Furthermore, it is shown that the interpretation of this construction involves E-type anaphora, providing evidence for Hoshi's (1995) suggestion. An explicit mechanism for compositional interpretation is proposed, which also derives a restriction on possible internal heads. This study has the cross-linguistic implication that the constructions called "internally headed relative clauses" in various languages do not form a homogeneous class.


Relative Clause Homogeneous Class Theoretical Language Explicit Mechanism Clause Construction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barss, Andrew, Ken Hale, Ellavina T. Perkins and Margaret Speas (1991) “Logical Form and Barriers in Navajo,” in C.-T. James Huang and Robert May (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 25–47.Google Scholar
  2. Basilico, David (1996) “Head Position and Internally Headed Relative Clauses,” Language 72, 498–532.Google Scholar
  3. Bäuerle, Rainer and Thomas Ede Zimmermann (1991) “Fragesätze,” in Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 333–348.Google Scholar
  4. Berman, Stephen (1991) On the Semantics and Logical Form of WH-clauses, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  5. Bonneau, José (1992) The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses: Implications for Configurationality, Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
  6. Brame, Michael (1967) “A New Analysis of the Relative Clause: Evidence for an Interpretive Theory,” ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Broadwell, George A. (1986) “A-bar Anaphora and Relative Clauses,” NELS 16, Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the Northeast Linguistic Society, McGill University, 1985, pp. 47–56.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, Peter (1987) “The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 277–302.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, Robin (1979) “The Interpretation of Pronouns,” in Frank Heny and Helmut S. Schnelle (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 10, Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, Academic Press, New York, pp. 61–92.Google Scholar
  10. Demirdache, Hamida (1991) Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives and Dislocation Structures, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Diesing, Molly and Eloise Jelinek (1995) “Distributing Arguments,” Natural Language Semantics 3, 123–176.Google Scholar
  12. Emonds, Joseph (1979) “Appositive Relatives Have No Properties,” Linguistic Inquiry 10, 211–243.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, Gareth (1980) “Pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337–362.Google Scholar
  14. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof (1982) “Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements,” Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 175–233.Google Scholar
  15. Grosu, Alexander and Fred Landman (1998) “Strange Relatives of the Third Kind,” Natural Language Semantics 6, 125–170.Google Scholar
  16. Hale, Ken and Chisato Kitagawa (1976–77) “A Counter to Counter Equi,” Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5, 41–61.Google Scholar
  17. Harada, Shin-Ichi (1973) “Counter Equi NP Deletion,” Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo, 7, 113–147.Google Scholar
  18. Heim, Irene (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  19. Heim, Irene (1990) “E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora,” Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–177.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, Irene (1994) “Interrogative Semantics and Karttunen' Semantics for know,” in Rhonna Buchalla and Anita Mittwoch (eds.), IATL 1, Akademon, Jerusalem, pp. 128–144.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Hoji, Hajime (1985) Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  23. Hoshi, Koji (1995) Structural and Interpretive Aspects of Head-lnternal and Head-External Relative Clauses, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  24. Hoshi, Koji (1996) “On the Necessity of a 'Cooperian' Treatment of E-type Pronouns: Evidence from the Head-Internal Relative Clause in Japanese,” ESCOL' 95, Proceedings of the 12th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Dartmouth College, 1995, pp. 77–88.Google Scholar
  25. Ito, Junko (1986) “Head-Movement at LF and PF,” University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11, 109–138.Google Scholar
  26. Karttunen, Lauri (1977) “Syntax and Semantics of Questions,” Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44.Google Scholar
  27. Kayne, Richard (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  28. Kitagawa, Chisato (1996) “Pivot Independent Relatives in Japanese and the Pronominal Head,” ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  29. Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia N. G. Ross (1982) “Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese,” Linguistic Analysis 9, 19–53.Google Scholar
  30. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1970) “Remarks on the Notion of Subject with Reference to Words Like also, even or only, Part II,” Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo, 4, 127–152. Reprinted in Papers in Japanese Linguistics 11, 121–157. Reprinted in Kuroda (1992).Google Scholar
  31. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1974) “Pivot-Independent Relativization in Japanese I,” Papers in Japanese Linguistics 3, 59–93. Reprinted in Kuroda (1992).Google Scholar
  32. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1975–76) “Pivot-Independent Relativization in Japanese II,” Papers in Japanese Linguistics 4, 85–96. Reprinted in Kuroda (1992).Google Scholar
  33. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1976–77) “Pivot-Independent Relativization in Japanese III: Types of Japanese Relatives,” Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5, 157–179. Reprinted in Kuroda (1992).Google Scholar
  34. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1978) “Case Marking, Canonical Sentence Patterns and Counter Equi in Japanese,” in John Hinds and Irwin Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kaitakusha, Tokyo, pp. 30–51. Reprinted in Kuroda (1992).Google Scholar
  35. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1992) Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  36. Lakoff, George (1986) “Frame Semantic Control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint,” in CLS 22, Part 2, Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the 22nd Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 1986, pp. 152–167.Google Scholar
  37. Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muysken (1988) Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Link, Godehard (1983) “The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach,” in Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze and Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 302–323.Google Scholar
  39. Mihara, Ken-ichi (1994a) “Iwayuru syuyoobu naizaigata kankeisetu-ni tuite [On the So-Called Head-Internal Relative Clauses],” Nihongogaku 13, 80–92.Google Scholar
  40. Mihara, Ken-ichi (1994b) “On the Proper Treatment of Postpositions in Japanese,” in Masaru Nakamura (ed.), Current Topics in English and Japanese, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo, pp. 131–150.Google Scholar
  41. Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  42. Murasugi, Keiko (1994) “Head-Internal Relative Clauses as Adjunct Pure Complex NPs,” in S. Chiba et al. (eds.), Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Language: A Festschrift for Toshio Nakao on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Liber Press, Tokyo, pp. 425–437.Google Scholar
  43. Quine, Willard Van Orman (1960) Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  44. Ross, John Robert (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  45. Russell, Bertrand (1905) “On Denoting,” Mind 14, 479–493.Google Scholar
  46. Sells, Peter (1986) “Coreference and Bound Anaphora: A Restatement of the Facts,” NELS 16, Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the Northeast Linguistic Society, McGill University, 1985, pp. 434–446.Google Scholar
  47. Srivastav, Veneeta (1991) “The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 637–686.Google Scholar
  48. Stump, Gregory T. (1985) The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  49. Vergnaud, Jean Roger (1974) French Relative Clauses, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  50. Watanabe, Akira (1992) “Wh-in-situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation,” MIT occasional papers in Linguistics #2.Google Scholar
  51. Williamson, Janis S. (1987) “An Indefiniteness Restriction for Relative Clauses in Lakhota,” in Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 168–190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junko Shimoyama
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations