Can "が" ever mark the direct object?


A sentence in my book:

> これは、漢字{かんじ} **が**
> 持{も}つ体系的{たいけいてき}なつながりを明{あき}らかにして文化勲章{ぶんかくんしょう}を受{う}けた漢字学{かんじがく}の第一人者{だいいちにんしゃ}、
> 白川{しらかわ}静{しずか}さんに、漢字の成{な}り立{た}ちを一つ{ひとつ}一つ{ひとつ}教{おし}えてもらった本{ほん}です。

The very start of the sentence reads: _"これは、漢字 **が** 持つ...."_

Why is the 助詞 "が" instead of " **を** "?  
Isn't "漢字" the direct object of "持つ"?




漢字が持つ is a relative clause. It has a gap in object position:

> 漢字-が ＿＿- ~~を~~ 持つ

The gap is filled semantically by the following noun phrase 体系的なつながり:

> ① ​ 漢字-が 体系的なつながり-を 持つ  
>  ② [ 漢字-が ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿- ~~を~~ 持つ ] 体系的なつながり

These can be translated into English:

> ① Kanji have a systematic relationship.  
>  ② the systematic relationship [ _which_ kanji have ＿＿ ]

The details are different in English because of articles and relative
pronouns, but hopefully you can see the parallel:

In example ① we have an independent clause (a complete sentence).

In example ② we come up with a noun phrase by **relativizing** the clause; we
pull out one of the arguments and turn it into the head noun that the clause
modifies.




漢字が持つ is a relative clause. It has a gap in object position:

> 漢字-が ＿＿- ~~を~~ 持つ

The gap is filled semantically by the following noun phrase 体系的なつながり:

> ① ​ 漢字-が 体系的なつながり-を 持つ  
>  ② [ 漢字-が ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿- ~~を~~ 持つ ] 体系的なつながり

These can be translated into English:

> ① Kanji have a systematic relationship.  
>  ② the systematic relationship [ _which_ kanji have ＿＿ ]

The details are different in English because of articles and relative
pronouns, but hopefully you can see the parallel:

In example ① we have an independent clause (a complete sentence).

In example ② we come up with a noun phrase by **relativizing** the clause; we
pull out one of the arguments and turn it into the head noun that the clause
modifies.

