Relabeling Heads: A Unified Account for Relativization Structures

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caterina Donati ◽  
Carlo Cecchetto
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Lexical Item ◽  
Structure Theory ◽  
Nominal Phrase ◽  
Free Relative

A tenet of any version of phrase structure theory is that a lexical item can transmit its label when merged with another category. We assume that if it is internally merged, a lexical item can turn a clause into a nominal phrase. If the relabeling lexical item is a wh-word, a free relative results; if it is an N, a full relative results; if it is a non-wh D, a pseudorelative results. It follows that the head of a relative construction cannot be more complex than a lexical item. We show massive evidence that when it is otherwise (e.g., the book about Obama that you bought), the modifier is late-merged after the noun has moved and relabeled the structure.

scholarly journals In Defense of What(ever) Free Relative Clauses They Dismiss: A Reply to Donati and Cecchetto (2011)

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 356-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivano Caponigro
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Structure Theory ◽  
Free Relative

I argue that the version of phrase structure theory proposed by Donati and Cecchetto (2011) falls short of accounting for the attested patterns of free relative clauses not only in English but crosslinguistically in general. In particular, I show that free relative clauses can be introduced not only by wh-words like what or where, which is what Donati and Cecchetto predict, but also by wh-phrases like what books or whatever books and their equivalents in other languages, which Donati and Cecchetto explicitly predict not to be possible.

scholarly journals Whatever His Arguments, Whatever Relatives Are Not Free Relatives: A Reply to Caponigro’s Reply

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-50
Author(s):  
Caterina Donati ◽  
Francesca Foppolo ◽  
Ingrid Konrad ◽  
Carlo Cecchetto
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Structure Theory ◽  
Controlled Experiments ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Free Relatives ◽  
Garden Variety ◽  
Free Relative

This is a reply to Caponigro 2019, which argues that the phrase structure theory proposed by Donati and Cecchetto (2011; 2015) falls short of accounting for the attested patterns of free relative clauses. Caponigro questions the reliability of the data supporting D&C’s hypothesis that ever-relatives introduced by a phrase ( ever+NP relatives) should not be assimilated to free relatives. This paper reports the results of 4 controlled experiments in English and Italian and discusses five properties that set apart free relatives from full relatives (occurrence with a complementizer, occurrence with a relative pronoun, infinitival use, absolute use, adverbial use). Crucially, ever+NP relatives do not pattern like free relatives in any of these five domains, either in Italian or in English. This clearly shows that ever-relatives are not a counterexample against D&C’s phrase structure theory. Another potential counterexample, Romanian free relatives, is also discussed. As for the analysis of ever+NP relatives, in Italian they are shown to be garden variety headed relatives, while in English they are headed relatives that involve a D to D movement which is responsible for the syntactic formation of the complex determiner what+ ever.

Danish non-specific free relatives

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-27
Author(s):  
Anne Bjerre
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Relative Pronoun ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Free Relatives ◽  
Free Relative

Within the Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) community, one part of the Base Hypothesis concerning free relatives proposed by Bresnan & Grimshaw (1978) has gained wide support, namely that free relatives are headed by the wh-phrase. The second part of the hypothesis is that the wh-phrase is base-generated, and this has not gained support. In this paper, we will consider a subset of free relative constructions, i.e. non-specific free relatives, and provide support for this second part, restated in HPSG terms as a claim that there is no filler–gap relation between a free relative pronoun filler and a gap in the sister clause of the free relative pronoun.

Features of Annexion Strings in Colloquial and Literary Arabic and Hebrew

Arabica ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-289
Author(s):  
Judith Rosenhouse
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Text Generation ◽  
Nominal Phrase ◽  
Semitic Language ◽  
Colloquial Arabic ◽  
Literary Arabic ◽  
Automatic Text

AbstractArabic annexion is a basic and frequent nominal (phrase) structure which can be important not only in itself but also for translation and automatic text generation applications. The structure is expanded by concatenating to it more nouns, thus forming annexion strings. We examine here whether in colloquial and Modern Literary Arabic similar limitations exist, whether there are differences between them. Limitations and constraints on the number of words that can be connected in an annexion string were investigated for another Semitic language, Hebrew (Rosenhouse, “On the use”, “Construct”, and here). This study compares also Hebrew and Arabic annexion strings from the point of view of their length limitations. The article is based on literary Arabic as used in newspapers and books and on transcribed texts of colloquial Arabic. Some Hebrew journalese and spoken texts have also been examined for comparison. Our findings suggest positive answers to our questions.

Partitive and pseudo-partitive revisited: Reflections on the status of ‘de’ in French

1991 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Battye
Keyword(s):  
Internal Structure ◽  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Functional Projection ◽  
Nominal Phrase ◽  
Indefinite Article ◽  
The Status

AbstractThe radical structural distinction often proposed between pseudo-partitive (i.e. beaucoup de problèmes) and partitive (i.e. beaucoup des problèmes épineux) is argued to be the by-product of too restrictive a view of the internal structure of the noun phrase in French. A more articulated nominal phrase structure is adopted here, one which makes. use of the idea of the determiner being itself the head of a functional projection (the so-called DP-panalysis). This DP approach to partitive and pseudo-partitive configurations, it is proposed, also allows for a reappraisal of what are traditionally termed the partitive and plural indefinite article (i.e. du, de la, de l' and des).

Regularity and idiosyncracy in the formation of nominals

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 823-858 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANK VAN EYNDE
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Alternative Treatments ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Proper Place ◽  
Nominal Phrase ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Higher Types

This paper explores the interaction of regularity and idiosyncracy in the formation of nominals. It treats both nominals whose formation is highly regular, such as red box, and nominals whose formation is rather idiosyncratic, such as the Big Mess Construction (bmc; so good a bargain) and the Binominal Noun Phrase Construction (bnpc; her nitwit of a husband). Both the bmc and the bnpc conform to productive patterns, but the proper place of those patterns in the grammar as a whole is not easy to identify. To rise to the challenge, we build on recent developments in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and the more formally inclined strands of Construction Grammar. Taking a cue from the treatment of clausal constructions in Ginzburg & Sag (2000), we develop a bi-dimensional hierarchy of nominal phrase types, in which the regular nominals inherit their properties from independently motivated higher types, while the idiosyncratic nominals are characterized by a mixture of inherited and inherent properties. The resulting treatment is sufficiently flexible to deal with the subtle interaction between the regular and the idiosyncratic, and sufficiently rigorous to be falsifiable. It is also compared with alternative treatments.

Phrase structure theory

Syntax ◽  
2012 ◽  
pp. 58-79
Author(s):  
Robert Freidin
Keyword(s):  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Structure Theory
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document