Internally Headed Relative Clauses

Abstract

Languages show a restricted number of relativization strategies. Depending on the linear position in which a relativized head noun appears, relative clauses ( RC s) are classified into prenominal/right‐headed , postnominal/left‐headed , and in‐situ RCs. This classification is further refined depending on the structural position of a relativized head noun: whether it is syntactically external to the relative clause CP or internal to it. The latter type are called internally headed RCs (IHRCs). Thus, there can be logically three types of IHRCs: in‐situ IHRCs, left‐headed IHRCs, and right‐headed IHRCs. IHRCs are observed in a relatively small number of languages of the world, but are by no means typologically rare. They are indeed found in geographically diverse areas, across genetically unrelated languages. An important goal from the perspective of generative grammar is to investigate the structures of IHRCs and to reveal universals and parameters that make IHRCs available in some languages but not in others. In search of them, various linguists have proposed typological generalizations that are claimed to hold of IHRCs universally, such as a word‐order generalization and a wh‐in‐situ generalization. However, each generalization faces limits and exceptions. This chapter examines what the studies on IHRCs have discovered so far over the years and carefully considers what universals should be extracted from them and what should be taken as parameterized. It will focus on two sides of syntax of IHRCs: the internal syntax and the external syntax. A language with an IHRC must have a syntactic mechanism available that allows a relativized head to remain internal to a relative clause but to be linked as an argument of an element external to the relative clause. The chapter will also discuss syntactic subtypes of IHRCs from a cross‐linguistic perspective.

On finite embedded clauses in Tuparí: their synchrony, diachrony, and typology

“…Many languages with internally headed relative clauses use subordinators that are homophonous with light nouns ('thing', 'stuff', 'one') or third person pronouns (Hiraiwa 2017). Hanink (2021) shows that this is the case for the North American isolate Washo, in which the morpheme responsible for subordinating clauses is simply an unstressed version of the third person pronoun.…”

“…Finite embedded clauses in Tuparí are frequently employed as internally headed relative clauses, a construction attested in various languages of the Americas (Platero 1974;Gorbet 1976;Cole 1987;Williamson 1987;Basilico 1996;Salanova 2011;Boyle 2016;Gordon & Munro 2017;Hanink 2021), as well as Japanese and Korean (Hiraiwa 2017;Ohara 2018) and several languages of South Asia (see Subbārāo 2012: chapter six and references therein). ( 17) shows internally headed relatives where the subject of an intransitive verb or an auxiliary serves as the head.…”

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

“…[7] This is only one possible derivation of internally-Headed RCs, which do not form a homogeneous class (Hiraiwa 2017: 7, Cinque 2020 the unified approach to RCs initiated in Cinque (2003), we propose that overtly spelling out the external Head turned out to be the prevalent option to form HRCs with tu (the only alternative being internally-Headed RCs, which as we will see only constitute a minority pattern). Our account thus captures not only the lack of reconstruction effects and island sensitivity in prenominal RCs, but it also explains the emergence of tu, which does not have an analogue in other Modern Greek dialects.…”

Internally-Headed Relative Clauses in Hakha Chin

“…(1) Externally and Internally-Headed RCs in Japanese a. Naomi (Hiraiwa 2017(Hiraiwa :2041 One issue that is cross-linguistically common to IHRCs is that they are potentially ambiguous with respect to which noun phrase in the RC is to be interpreted as its head (i.e. which is the RNP), and many languages that have IHRCs utilize one or more strategies for disambiguation (Basilico 1996, Hiraiwa 2017).…”

“…Naomi (Hiraiwa 2017(Hiraiwa :2041 One issue that is cross-linguistically common to IHRCs is that they are potentially ambiguous with respect to which noun phrase in the RC is to be interpreted as its head (i.e. which is the RNP), and many languages that have IHRCs utilize one or more strategies for disambiguation (Basilico 1996, Hiraiwa 2017). The sentences from Diegueño given in (2) serve to illustrate: because multiple NPs (here 'rock' and 'dog') occur inside the embedded clause in (2a), it is not clear which is to be interpreted as the RNP (i.e.…”