Affiliation:
1. University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract
Grosu & Hoshi (2019:20), in their rejoinder to Kitagawa (2019), propose that apparent violations of island constraints in the so-called internally-headed relative clauses are accounted for by considering them as reduced doubly-headed relative clauses. This paper shows that this claim by Grosu and Hoshi is not empirically sustainable, and further that it misses the discourse function of doubly-headed relative clauses. A discussion of gapless light-headed externally-headed relative clauses is also presented so as to identify how this construction type interrelates with internally-headed relative clauses and doubly-headed relative clauses.
Publisher
Open Library of the Humanities
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference18 articles.
1. The status of the internally-headed relatives of Japanese/Korean within the typology of definite relatives;Grosu, Alexander;Journal of East Asian Linguistics,2010
2. Japanese internally headed relatives: their distinctness from potentially homophonous constructions;Grosu, AlexanderHoshi, Koji;Glossa,2016
3. On the unified analysis of three types of relative clause construction in Japanese, and on the “salient reading” of the internally headed type. A reply to Erlewine & Gould (2016);Grosu, AlexanderHoshi, Koji;Glossa,2018
4. Japanese internally-headed and doubly-headed relative constructions, and a comparison of two approaches;Grosu, AlexanderHoshi, Koji;Glossa,2019
5. Strange relatives of the third kind;Grosu, AlexanderLandman, Fred;Natural Language Semantics,1998