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.

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.

Formal and Functional Types of Indefinite Pronoun

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Haspelmath
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Negative Polarity ◽  
Ontological Category ◽  
Functional Types ◽  
Formal Element ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Existential Sentences ◽  
Universal Quantifiers ◽  
Indefinite Pronoun ◽  
Indefinite Pronouns

This chapter examines formal and functional types of indefinite pronoun. It first presents some examples of different indefinite pronoun series in a variety of languages, focusing on a formal element shared by all members of an indefinite pronoun series, such as some and any in English. This element is called indefiniteness marker, an affix or a particle which stands next to the pronoun stem. The chapter proceeds by discussing two main types of derivational bases from which indefinite pronouns are derived in the world's languages: interrogative pronouns and generic ontological category nouns like person, thing or place. It also looks at the main functional types of indefinite pronoun, namely: negative indefinite pronouns and negative polarity (or scale reversal). Finally, it analyses some alternatives to indefinite pronouns, including generic nouns, existential sentences, non-specific free relative clauses, and universal quantifiers.

scholarly journals Free Relative Clauses in Two Mixtec Languages

2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivano Caponigro ◽  
Harold Torrence ◽  
Carlos Cisneros
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Relative

Movement to C in German

1993 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Hoeing
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Head Position ◽  
Final Structure ◽  
Movement Theory ◽  
Structure Level

ABSTRACTStandard movement theory stipulates that any X"-phrase that is moved must move to the specifier position (SPEC) of C". In this paper, however, it is argued on the basis of coordination phenomena, verb-final structure, and diachronic evidence that, in relative clauses and indirect questions, the moved pronoun or w-element functions more as a true complementizer than as a fronted X"-phrase and thus should move to the head position C. Movement to C is thus determined not by the phrase-structure level of the moved category, but by feature compatibility.

scholarly journals The puzzling degraded status of who free relative clauses in English

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
GARY PATTERSON ◽  
IVANO CAPONIGRO
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Syntactic Features ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Theoretical Question ◽  
Interrogative Clauses ◽  
Linguistic Process

There is a puzzling asymmetry in English with respect to free relative clauses introduced by what and who, with the former (e.g. [What Glenn said] didn't make much sense) intuitively being much more acceptable than the latter (e.g. [Who Glenn married] didn't make much money). In this squib, we explore this degraded acceptability of who free relative clauses, and from the results of an experimental study we identify syntactic features of the sentence that influence the level of acceptability. We discuss the difficulty in finding an independently motivated solution to the puzzling asymmetry within current theories of syntax, semantic and processing. Finally, we touch on a broader theoretical question relating to the robust cross-linguistic process by which elements of the set of wh-words in a language are able to extend their function from introducing interrogative clauses to introducing other clausal constructions.

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.

Headless Relative Clauses in Sierra Popoluca

2021 ◽  
pp. 475-508
Author(s):  
Wendy López Márquez
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
The State ◽  
Productive System ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Demonstrative Pronouns ◽  
Interrogative Clauses ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Sierra Popoluca

This chapter presents the first investigation of headless relative clauses in Sierra Popoluca, a Mixe-Zoquean language spoken in the southern part of the state of Veracruz, Mexico. It shows that Sierra Popoluca exhibits a very productive system of headless relative clauses. The language has free relative clauses of all three major types attested crosslinguistically and, remarkably, all three types can be introduced by almost all the wh-words that can occur in wh- interrogative clauses. It also has two types of light-headed relative clauses, both with demonstrative pronouns as their “light heads”: those which are introduced by a relative subordinator and those that are introduced by wh-words—the same two strategies attested in headed relative clauses in Sierra Popoluca. Finally, the language has one more variety of headless relative clause that lacks both a light head and a wh-word.

Headless Relative Clauses in Southeastern Tepehuan (O'dam)

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-78
Author(s):  
Gabriela García Salido
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Innovative Strategy ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Embedded Clauses ◽  
Interrogative Clauses ◽  
Finite Clause ◽  
Ritual Speech

Varieties of headless relative clauses in the Uto-Aztecan language Southeastern Tepehuan (O’dam) are discussed, together with two related constructions: wh- interrogative clauses and headed relative clauses. O’dam encodes relative clauses using two strategies: nominalization and finite clause formation. Unlike most of the Uto-Aztecan family, O’dam uses the nominalization strategy only in ritual speech. Elsewhere, the language uses the general subordinator particle na to introduce all types of embedded clauses: adverbial, completive, and relative. This mode of subordination is typologically interesting for the Uto-Aztecan family because it results in an innovative strategy: finite clauses instead of nominalization. O’dam distinguishes between headed and headless relative clauses. Unlike headed relative clauses, headless relative clauses in O’dam lack a nominal head and require a wh-word. Two main varieties are attested: free relative clauses (maximal and existential, but not free choice) and light-headed relative clauses.

Headless Relative Clauses in K'iche'

2021 ◽  
pp. 260-289
Author(s):  
Telma Angelina Can Pixabaj
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Free Relative ◽  
Preliminary Description

This chapter offers a preliminary description of headless relative clauses in K’iche’. The language exhibits all three varieties of free relative clauses that are attested crosslinguistically: maximal, existential, and free-choice. It also has two other kinds of headless relative clauses: light-headed relative clauses introduced by determiners (without wh-expressions) and headless relative clauses with no marking of any kind (neither wh-expressions nor determiners). Overall, the picture that emerges is that all three varieties of free relative clauses exhibit clear morpho-syntactic and semantic differences that differentiate them both from each other as well as from headed relative clauses. One characteristic that helps to differentiate between them is the different subsets of wh-expressions they make use of. All of these wh- clausal constructions are related but, crucially, independent. Of the two kinds of headless relative clauses that do not make use of wh-expressions, one kind—light-headed relative clauses—is introduced by a determiner, while the other kind has no special marking. Both exhibit distributional and semantic restrictions that distinguish them from headed relative clauses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document