<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W04-0907">
  <Title>Making Sense of Japanese Relative Clause Constructions</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Definitions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We define relative clause modification as falling into three major semantic categories, indistinguishable orthographically: case-slot gapping, attributive and idiomatic.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Case-slot gapping RCCs (aka &amp;quot;internal&amp;quot;/&amp;quot;inner relation&amp;quot; (Teramura, 1975-78) or &amp;quot;clause host&amp;quot; RCCs (Matsumoto, 1997)), are characterised by the head NP having been gapped (or extraposed) from a case slot subcategorised by the main verb of the relative clause (see (1)). For our purposes, case-slot gapping is considered to occur in 19 sub-categories, which can be partitioned into 8 argument case slot types (e.g. SUBJECT, DIRECT OBJECT, INDI-RECT OBJECT) and 11 modifier case slot types (e.g. INSTRUMENT, TEMPORAL, SOURCE LOCA-TIVE: Baldwin (1998)). Note that the case marking on the slot from which gapping has occurred is not preserved either within the relative clause or on the head NP.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Attributive RCCs (aka &amp;quot;external&amp;quot;/&amp;quot;outer relation&amp;quot; (Teramura, 1975-78) or &amp;quot;noun host&amp;quot; RCCs (Matsumoto, 1997)) occur when the relative clause modifies or restricts the denotatum of the head NP (see (2)). They come in 7 varieties according to the nature of modification (e.g. CONTENT, RESULTA-TIVE, EXCLUSIVE).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Idiomatic RCCs are produced when the overall RCC produces a constructionally idiomatic reading,  &amp;quot;looking the other way&amp;quot; One feature of idiomatic RCCs is that they can be described by a largely lexicalised construction template, and are incompatible with conjugational alternation and modifier case slots. Due to the non-compositional nature of idiomatic RCCs, we make no attempt to analyse them by way of the case-slot gapping/attributive RCC dichotomy, or sub-classify them further.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Japanese RCC interpretation as defined in this paper is according to the 27 interpretation types subsumed by these 3 basic categories of RCC construal. It is important to realise that these interpretation types are lexically indistinguishable. The semantic type of the RCC is therefore not readily accessible from a simple structural analysis of the RCC as contained within a standard treebank.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>