On the double-headed analysis of “Headless” relative clauses

Cinque, Guglielmo

doi:10.1515/9781501505201-011

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a series of recent publications, Guglielmo Cinque has proposed a unified analysis of all relativization structures available in Universal Grammar (Cinque 2003(Cinque , 2008a(Cinque , 2015(Cinque , 2016(Cinque , 2020. This analysis is rooted in the author's earlier work aimed at providing a syntactic account of a fundamental, and crosslinguistically robust, asymmetry concerning the relative order of nouns and their modifiers (demonstratives, numerals, adjectives): simply put, to the left of a noun, the order of modifiers is unique, while to the right more possibilities exist (Greenberg's Universal 20).…”

Section: Raising and Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Raising and matching in Pharasiot Greek relative clauses: A diachronic reconstruction

Bagriacik¹,

Danckaert²

2021

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Raising and Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…( 16)). 5 For illustrative [5] Cinque (2015Cinque ( , 2016Cinque ( , 2020 proposes a slightly different structure, in which the C-projections hosting relative complementizers and (optionally) the internal and/or external Head are not directly selected by D, but rather merged on top of the relative IP in SpecFP. See further…”

Section: Raising and Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Raising and matching in Pharasiot Greek relative clauses: A diachronic reconstruction

Bagriacik¹,

Danckaert²

2021

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A great variety of strategies is used to build a relative clause and several patterns common in Mesoamerica are rarely attested in better studied languages. For example, maximal free relative clauses are often introduced by complex whphrases without a special morpheme (see Cinque 2017;Caponigro 2019 on parallel examples in English and Italian, among others). Existential free relatives turn out to allow finite/completive/past tense-aspect-mood marking, challenging the generalization put forward by Grosu (2004Grosu ( , 2013 and Šimík (2011), whereby such clauses are universally non-finite/subjunctive/incompletive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ivano Caponigro, Harold Torrence & Roberto Zavala Maldonado (eds.), Headless relative clauses in Mesoamerican languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pp. 584.

Burukina

2022

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CIESAS-Sureste) have gathered 14 essays, written by leading specialists in linguistic fieldwork, syntax, and semantics, together with an editorial introduction, to provide a much-anticipated in-depth discussion of headless relative clauses and related constructions in languages of Mesoamerica. Each chapter outlines the general patterns found in a particular language of the region and identifies the cases of variation within each language family or group. The book is a brilliant compendium of reliable new data on relative clauses. It is also of great use as a methodology guide for future studies dedicated to examining a particular phenomenon in a group of geographically and genetically related understudied languages.Any review of such a lengthy volume must be selective. For reasons of space, I will not assess each of the chapters separately; instead, in what follows I will begin by briefly discussing the goal of the project, its main findings, and the general organization of the volume, then proceed by mentioning several questions raised by the presented empirical observations that could be addressed by follow-up research inspired by this book.The volume is the result of the collaboration between the participants of a seminar and two workshops on headless relative clauses organized by Zavala Maldonado, Caponigro, and Torrence in 2016-2018. The main goal of the project, as stated by the authors, was to fill in the gap in the study of headless relative clauses in Mesoamerican languages to achieve 'a better understanding of what is general and what is language-specific in the morphosyntactic and semantic behavior' of such constructions and related expressions (27). The book opens with a must-read Introduction by Ivano Caponigro, 'Introducing headless relative clauses and the findings from Mesoamerican languages', which sets the stage and acquaints the reader with the three types of relative constructions considered in the later chaptersnamely, free relative clauses (introduced by a wh-item only), light-headed relative clauses (introduced by a determiner or a demonstrative) and super-free relative clauses (lacking a wh-expression and a D-type element)and presents a single

show abstract

Recategorizing C

Manzini,

Roussou

2024

Rich Descriptions and Simple Explanations in Morphosyntax and Language Acquisition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research explicitly addresses the fact that C is a category defined on the basis of its function (“complementation”), encompassing a number of elements whose intrinsic categorial content varies greatly. We consider declarative complementizers, of the form attested in Indo-European languages, and argue that they are pronouns, unifying the complementizer function with the pronominal one. In this framework, complement clauses are projections of nominals and exhibit a structure similar to free relatives. The proposal is that the pronoun in its complementizer function heads the constituent merging with the selecting predicate. This approach has implications for the articulated CP structure, reducing the left periphery to positions that are related to V (e.g., modality), whilst allowing for dislocation of constituents for scope purposes.

show abstract

On the double-headed analysis of “Headless” relative clauses

Cited by 4 publications

References 27 publications

Raising and matching in Pharasiot Greek relative clauses: A diachronic reconstruction

Raising and matching in Pharasiot Greek relative clauses: A diachronic reconstruction

Ivano Caponigro, Harold Torrence & Roberto Zavala Maldonado (eds.), Headless relative clauses in Mesoamerican languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pp. 584.

Recategorizing C

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About