Content uploaded by Guglielmo Cinque
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Guglielmo Cinque on Apr 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Two Types of Nonrestrictive Relatives
... This study explores the post-nominal appositives formed with the so called complementizer ki in Turkish. It makes two sets of arguments: (i) Post-nominal appositives do not form a constituent with their antecedents in syntax, instead they are formed as separate clauses, having their own illocutionary act and being opaque to syntactic operations of their host clauses, hence non-integrated in the sense of Cinque (2008), (ii) Appositive ki clauses involve neither subordination, nor coordination, rather they are ForcePs adjoining to the root clause, the position where the appositive ki clauses adjoin is the root level and this adjunction is concatenation without labels in the sense of Horstein (2009) and Citko (2016). ...
... The idea that there is no prerelative appositive in Turkish actually follows from del Gobbo (2010), who says that the non-existence of relative pronouns in a language indicates the non-existence of appositive relatives altogether. According to del Gobbo, Chinese prenominal appositives are actually not appositives but integrated non-restrictives in Cinque's (2008) terminology: The Universal Grammar allows two types of non-restrictive modification: (i) integrated relatives (restrictive or appositive), and (ii) non-integrated relatives (only appositive). specifying conjuncts but they involve a special type of coordination. ...
... One of the diagnostics offered in Cinque's (2008) for the non-integrated appositives is the possibility of having an internal head inside the appositive relative clause. This means that the appositive shows behavior similar to independent root clauses. ...
This study explores the post-nominal appositives formed with the so called complementizer ki in Turkish. It makes two sets of arguments: (i) Post-nominal appositives formed with ki do not form a constituent with their antecedents in syntax, instead they are formed as separate clauses, having their own illocutionary act and being opaque to syntactic operations of their host clauses, hence non-integrated in the sense of Cinque (2008), (ii) Appositive ki clauses involve neither subordination, nor coordination, rather they are ForcePs adjoining to the root clause, and this root level adjunction is characterized as concatenation without labels in the sense of Horstein (2009) and Citko (2016). Eşlemeli ki Tümcecikleri ÖZ: Bu çalışma Türkçede ki ile kurulan eşlemeli yan tümceleri araştırmaktadır. Çalışmada iki küme sav geliştirilmiştir: (i) ki ile kurulan ad sonrası eşlemeli yan tümceler ilişkili oldukları öğelerle sözdizim modülünde bir öbek oluşturmak yerine bağımsız tümcecikler olarak üretilir. Kendi edimsel eylemlerine sahip olan bu tümcecikler ana tümce kaynaklı sözdizimsel işlemlere kapalıdır ve Cinque (2008) sistemine göre bütünleşmemiş tümceciklerdir. (ii) Eşlemeli ki tümcecikleri ne yantümceleme ne de sıralama içerirler. Eşlemeli ki tümcecikleri yapı olarak Güç Öbekleridir ve ana tümceye eklenirler. Bu ekleme kök tümce düzeyinde bir eklemedir ve Hornstein (2009), Citko (2016)'dan hareketle etiketsiz eklenme olarak gerçekleşir. Anahtar sözcükler: eşleme, ki tümcecikleri, ortaç I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and critical remarks. Usual disclaimers apply.
... In general, in order to be able to establish which features count for intervention and how featural Relativized Minimality is computed in Cantonese, it is indispensable to understand how relative clauses derive in Cantonese. We are going to address this question in the next chapter reviewing on the basis of Cantonese data the three main approaches to relativization that have been proposed in the literature: the matching analysis, the head raising analysis and the double-headed analysis proposed by Cinque (2003Cinque ( , 2006Cinque ( , 2008Cinque ( , 2015. ...
... Among various proposals, some argue that the derivation of relative clauses is one and unique: there is only one way to derive a relative clause, either by head raising or by matching (Carlson 1977;Grosu and Landman 1998;Sportiche 2017;a.o.); others argue that the derivation depends, and that different types of relative constructions derive in different ways according to their 'behaviour' across languages or even within the same language (Afarli 1994;Del Gobbo 2003;Aoun & Li 2003;Cinque 2003Cinque , 2006Cinque , 2008a.o.). In the latter proposals, nevertheless, the head reconstruction effect is still a crucial criterion to determine the derivation strategy of relative clauses. ...
... In the latter proposals, nevertheless, the head reconstruction effect is still a crucial criterion to determine the derivation strategy of relative clauses. Cinque (2003Cinque ( , 2006Cinque ( , 2008Cinque ( , 2015 proposes a double-headed analysis of relative clauses, which involve both a raising and a matching strategy and is claimed to apply to all types of relative clauses What about the derivation of relative clauses in Cantonese? As presented in the previous chapter, relative clauses in Cantonese can exhibit up to six different constructions. ...
This thesis explores the processing mechanisms underlying relative clauses in Cantonese Chinese, which involves an atypical combination of head-initial VP and head-final NP. The starting point of this study is to investigate whether there is a subject-object asymmetry in the processing of relative clauses in this language. Two elicited production experiments and two corpus studies were run. Their results show, on one hand, a structural bias during the processing of relative clauses and a related subject advantage and on the other hand, an impact of the featural (dis)similarity between arguments in object relatives, which aligns with the featural intervention hypothesis (featural Relativized Minimality): subject relatives are easier due to the local structural relation holding between the subject head and the gap; object relatives are more difficult due to an intervention of the subject but only insofar as the intervening subject shares the same features as the head; if the subject and the object mismatch in features, the intervention effect of the subject is reduced or absent.In order to explain the details of intervention effects in Cantonese Chinese, the structure of nominal expressions (e.g., bare noun, Cl-N phrases, Num-Cl-N phrases and Dem-Cl-N phrases) and the derivation of relative clauses were then investigated. The structure of nominal expressions is closelyrelated to their interpretation: different functional projections beyond the NP (i.e., classifier, numeral and demonstrative) assign different interpretations. Relativizer ge3, being a classifier, functions as a ι operator, which change type and interpretation of the head noun. The results of an acceptability judgment test show that relative clauses in Cantonese (with and without relativizer) are derived through head raising. Moreover, in the relative constructions with a demonstrative and a classifier preceding the NP, both are part of the head and contain a functional feature that is taken into account for the intervention effect.To sum up, featural intervention in Cantonese involves a multi-featural calculation system. The processing load of an object relative (due to the intervention effect of the subject) increases with the degree of featural similarity between the arguments.
... Massive pied-piping and predicative which that I carefully examined in this thesis are only the two of the curious behaviors that NRCs exhibit, and to elucidate their syntax more, I believe that their semantics, pragmatics, and discourse function should be also considered, as is by Sells (1985a), Potts (2005), Del Gobbo (2007), Cinque (2008). ...
... (i) a. ... certain steps against his treacherous brother, [[AdvP as to the precise nature of which] they could not be further enlightened]. (Cinque 2008:111 taken from Jespersen 1949 b. Egbert, [[PP to whom] i you were talking t i only yesterday], . . . ...
This document is the final draft of my M.A. thesis. The main point is basically the same as the conference paper uploaded earlier and entitled "On the Extraction of Predicative Phrases in English Non-restrictive Relative Clauses." If you want to peruse the research in a short time, I recommend that material rather than this one.
... Massive pied-piping and predicative which that I carefully examined in this thesis are only the two of the curious behaviors that NRCs exhibit, and to elucidate their syntax more, I believe that their semantics, pragmatics, and discourse function should be also considered, as is by Sells (1985a), Potts (2005), Del Gobbo (2007), Cinque (2008). ...
... (i) a. ... certain steps against his treacherous brother, [[AdvP as to the precise nature of which] they could not be further enlightened]. (Cinque 2008:111 taken from Jespersen 1949 b. Egbert, [[PP to whom] i you were talking t i only yesterday], . . . ...
... For oblique gaps in RCs, Italian makes use of two elements specialized for headed relatives: cui 'what.OBL' and Det + qual-'the which'. See Cinque (1978Cinque ( , 1982Cinque ( , 2008 for further details on the distribution of relativizers in Italian. Finally, (3) shows use of che as a finite sentential complementizer. ...
This paper addresses the restrictions of Italian relative che ‘what’ to finite environments
and direct case gaps. While the standard analysis takes these restrictions to follow from
the C status of che, this paper argues for an alternative approach, according to which
che is a DP, on a par with other interrogative and relative elements. Specifically, it is
argued that relative che is identical to interrogative che and relative cui ‘what.OBL in
the narrow syntactic derivation, up to the point of TRANSFER. Realization of relative che
is then blocked at EXT with oblique case gaps by the more specific cui, along the lines
of the Elsewhere Principle. The status of cui as a specialized relative element is also
discussed. The restriction to finiteness for relative che is treated as an instance of a more
general phenomenon that precludes bare DPs from occurring at the edge of infinitival
relatives. Here I adopt and extend Richards’ (2010) Distinctness Theory to account for
the facts of Italian.
... Their conclusion ties in with views on non-restrictive relative clauses. While ) assumes that all non-restrictive relatives are non-integrated orphans, Cinque (2008Cinque ( , 2019 shows that there are two types, one of which is syntactically integrated, the other non-integrated. What will from now on be labelled PAC would parallel Cinque's integrated non-restrictive relative clauses and non-integrated adverbial clauses parallel his non-integrated relative clauses. ...
This paper explores the relation between the interpretations of while in English and mentre in Italian introducing adverbial clauses. Central while/mentre clauses express a temporal/aspectual modification of the proposition in the host clause. Peripheral while/mentre clauses make accessible a proposition from the discourse context enhancing the relevance of the host proposition. In one approach, clauses introduced by adversative while/mentre are analyzed as ‘less integrated’ with the associated clause than those introduced by temporal while/mentre. In another approach, adverbial clauses introduced by adversative while/mentre are considered not syntactically integrated with the host clause. This paper re-examines the nature of the syntactic integration of the adverbial clauses with the host clause, revealing a parallelism between the adversative peripheral while/mentre clauses and speaker-related sentential adverbs, leading to the conclusion that the non-integration analysis is not appropriate for this type of peripheral clauses and that any analysis must be aligned with that of the relevant non-clausal adverbials, supporting Frey (2018, 2020a, b). We also argue that central adverbial clauses recycled as speech event modifiers must be considered non-integrated. Concretely, we propose that they are integrated in discourse, through a specialized layer FrameP (Haegeman & Greco 2018).
This paper studies the structure and origin of prenominal and postnominal restrictive relative clauses in Pharasiot Greek. Though both patterns are finite and introduced by the invariant complementizer tu , they differ in two important respects. First, corpus data reveal that prenominal relatives are older than their postnominal counterparts. Second, in the present-day language only prenominal relatives involve a matching derivation, whereas postnominal ones behave like Head-raising structures. Turning to diachrony, we suggest that prenominal relatives came into being through morphological fusion of a determiner t - with an invariant complementizer u. This process entailed a reduction of functional structure in the left periphery of the relative clause, to the effect that the landing site for a raising Head was suppressed, leaving a matching derivation as the only option. Postnominal relatives are analyzed as borrowed from Standard Modern Greek. Our analysis corroborates the idea that both raising and matching derivations for relatives must be acknowledged, sometimes even within a single language.
This paper investigates the immobility of predicative phrases in English nonrestrictive relative clauses (NRCs). It has been acknowledged since Ross’s (1967)
dissertation that relative pronouns can pied-pipe a variety of constituents in NRCs,
unlike in restrictive relative clauses and wh-questions, where a wh-word must not
be c-commanded by any lexical heads within a displaced phrase. Predicative
phrases such as APs, VPs, and predicate NPs, however, cannot be fronted even in
NRCs. In this paper, I ascribe this constraint on predicate pied-piping in NRCs to
a general property of NR extraction. I adopt Postal’s (1998) idea that NR extraction always leaves behind null resumptive pronominals at its extraction sites, and
this property prevents constituents from being extracted if they have no substitutable pronominal in the lexicon. I show that there is no predicate pronominal in
English, making the extraction of predicative phrases unavailable in NRCs. Furthermore, I discuss a construction that seems to run counter the implication of my
proposal that gaps in NRCs must not be predicative. I analyze this construction
in line with a raising analysis for comparatives that Lechner (2004) proposes.
The paper reexamines the interpretations that quantifiers in "than"-clauses give rise to. It develops an analysis that combines an interval semantics for the "than"-clause with a standard semantics for the comparative operator. In order to mediate between the two, interpretive mechanisms like maximality and maximal informativity determine selection of a point from an interval. The interval semantics allows local interpretation of the quantifier. Selection predicts which interpretation this leads to. Cases in which the prediction appears not to be met are explained via recourse to independently attested external factors (e.g. the interpretive possibilities of indefinites). The goal of the paper is to achieve coverage of the relevant data while maintaining a simple semantics for the comparative. A secondary objective is to reexamine, restructure and extend the set of data considered in connection with the problem of quantifiers in "than"-clauses.
doi:10.3765/sp.3.1
BibTeX info
It is a familiar lesson from physical theory that interactions yield an important probe into structure. In the experiments of Rutherford almost 90 years ago, bits of matter were projected together; the physical properties of their interactions yielded evidence for a nucleus, hidden in the heart of atom. In semantics, the results of Donald Davidson in a famous 1967 paper might be viewed in a similar (although perhaps less dramatic) light. Davidson proposed that when we combine verbs and adverbs together, the logical properties of that interaction yield evidence for a semantic nucleus in the heart of the clause -an event argument. In recent years, the consequences of Davidson's "discovery" have been elaborated by a number of diffe rent researchers across a variety of linguistic domains. In this paper I want suggest to suggest a further area of elaboration. Specifically, I will propose that the interactions between nouns and adjectives yield evidence for an event argument inside the nominal as well. Furthermore, this position seems to exist in both of the nominal projections countenanced by current linguistic theory: DP and NP. Postulating this element sheds light, I believe, on some well-known facts of adjectival modification. But as we will see, it also raises a large number of interesting new problems concerning event modification inside the nominal and its relation to event quantification outside in the clause. I'll begin by sketching the basic data that motivate the account.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.