Journal of Japanese Linguistics 31 (2015) Relative tense in relative clauses ! Toshiyuki Ogihara University of Washington Japanese adnominal modifiers with no overt tense markings can produce “simultaneous readings” under matrix predicates in the past tense. This article argues for the position that these adnominal phrases are not necessarily tenseless and that they can be gapped relative clauses that contain a phonetically empty present tense morpheme. The findings of this article reinforce the view presented in Ogihara (1996) and others that Japanese tense morphemes (both present and past) are instances of relative tense in the sense of Comrie (1985) and that this behavior is visible in both verb complements and adnominal modifier positions. In addition, the contention of this article indirectly refutes an alternative position, which claims the Japanese adnominal modifiers in question are tenseless phrases and do not involve gapped relative clauses (Kusumoto, 1999). I also offer a tentative and informal account of the semantic properties of the Japanese adnominal modifiers in question at the end of the article, which involve covert attitudes on the part of a salient individual who may or may not be mentioned in the sentence. Areas of interest: tense and aspect, formal semantics, syntax-semantics interface 1. Introduction This article discusses the status of the so-called “present tense” in Japanese relative clauses in comparison with its counterpart in English. I will claim that at least some adnominal modifiers in Japanese are relative clauses in the present tense (rather than tenseless phrases) and can still be interpreted in relation to the higher predicate, which is a main clause predicate in the simplest case. If this is correct, both present and past tense morphemes in Japanese receive “relative tense” interpretations in both verb complements and relative clauses in the sense of Comrie (1985). The position defended in this article, which reinforces the claim presented in Ogihara (1996), indirectly counters the claim that those adnominal phrases that receive “simultaneous readings” are tenseless (Kusumoto, 1999), and is very significant from the cross-linguistic viewpoint. ! I am grateful to Barbara Citko, Karen Zagona, Eunhae Park, and three anonymous reviewers for JJL for their comments and suggestions. In particular, I thank Eunhae Park for her detailed written comments on an earlier draft. I also thank Nicole Chartier and Anna Moroz for proofreading and making editorial suggestions on the near-final version of the manuscript. All errors and inadequacies are mine.