Booku x john empty3/25/2023 ![]() ![]() In this endeavor I especially focus on Grosu & Hoshi ( 2016) (henceforth “G&H”), as G&H profess that a principal goal of their endeavor is to put this particular null operator movement thesis “on a firmer basis” ( Grosu & Hoshi 2016: 2). The second objective of this paper is thus to show that there are some empirical data which are consonant with the pro-head analysis but in fact disprove their null operator movement hypothesis. This core claim concerning the properties of IHRCs is expressed earlier in terms of the “maximalizing relative” thesis ( Grosu 2012: 7) and has not been challenged in any critical manner since. These works essentially share a claim that Japanese IHRCs involve a null operator movement cum lambda abstraction over the operator’s trace. More importantly, in proposing the pro-head analysis, this paper presents the first substantial challenge against a claim recently put forward by a series of papers, including Grosu and Landman ( 1998), Grosu ( 2010), Grosu & Landman ( 2012), Grosu & Hoshi ( 2016), Landman ( 2016), and Grosu & Hoshi ( 2018). 2 I intend to show that the pro-head analysis model provides a natural framework in terms of which a number of empirical phenomena, including the IHRCs’ distinct behaviors vis-à-vis those of the corresponding change relatives ( Tonosaki 1998) and the doubly-headed relatives ( Erlewine & Gould 2016), can be naturally accounted for. I refer to the view represented by (1) as “the pro-head analysis” of Japanese IHRCs. ![]() (The construction marked by slanted brackets consisting of both IHR and the external head will be referred to as IHRC.) Where the Q-Assigner is either a syncategorematic noun ( Kuroda 1999: 421–423, e.g., an inalienably possessed noun such as sippo ‘tail’, kekkan ‘defect’) 1 or a verbal predicate. The other objective of this paper, therefore, is to present this long overdue challenge by arguing that their claims (i) ~ (iii) are not empirically sustainable, although their claim (iii) presents some difficult issues that defy clear-cut treatment as yet. The pro-head analysis contradicts a currently popular claim propagated by a series of papers that rely on null operator movement leading to the thesis that: (i) Japanese IHRCs may exhibit a “change sub-variety” (i.e., “Change IHRC”) that is not reducible to gapless externally light-headed relatives (ii) Japanese IHRCs are strictly island-sensitive and (iii) they disallow definite referential semantic heads. One is to advance the view (call it the pro-head analysis) that the so-called internally-headed relative clause (IHRC) in Japanese is a nonrestrictive relative clause whose external head position is occupied by pro functioning as an E-type pronoun. It demonstrates that this view provides a natural framework in terms of which sundry and significant phenomena associated with Japanese IHRCs can be accounted for, including their characteristic properties contrasting with the corresponding change relatives and the doubly-headed relatives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |