The Syntax of Relative Clauses

Cinque, Guglielmo

doi:10.1017/9781108856195

Cited by 48 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 376 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the EHRCC resembles restrictive relative clauses in English, such as Sabrina saw the puppy that was running away , the IHRCC and the DRCC exhibit typologically rare patterns, not often observed in other languages. Cinque (2020) discusses the IHRCC in Lakhota, Japanese, Korean, Quechua, Chamorro, Hidatsa, Navajo, and Gur, but the behaviors of Japanese and Korean do not seem to be identical to those of the other languages. The noticeable characteristic of the IHRCC is the mismatch between the syntactic object and the semantic head.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Korean Relative Clauses: Metonymy, Zone Activation, and Reference Point*

Park

2021

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops an analysis of three types of Korean Relative Clauses (RCs) from a Cognitive Grammar perspective. The three types under examination are the Internally Headed RC Construction (IHRCC), the Externally Headed RC Construction (EHRCC), and the Double RC Construction (DRCC) which is a subtype of the EHRCC. It is demonstrated that the notion of metonymy helps us properly tease out the nature and provide a uniform account of the hitherto neglected Korean RC constructions. The “mismatch” observed between the syntactic object and the semantic head in the IHRCC is nothing but a case of the active‐zone/profile discrepancy. The putative island constraint or subjacency violations in the EHRC and the DRCC are not an issue because the head nominals in those examples are associated with reference points that are exocentrically‐created and thus exist outside of the inner RCs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Korean Relative Clauses: Metonymy, Zone Activation, and Reference Point*

Park

2021

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of postnominal RCs, a raising derivation obtains when only the internal Head moves to SpecCP 2 (see the solid arrow in (3)),with subsequent PF-deletion of the external Head (perhaps by virtue of the latter being c-commanded by the internal head, see Cinque 2020: §1.5). If, however, raising of the internal Head is followed by movement of the external Head to SpecCP 1 (see the dashed arrow in (3)), it is the latter that deletes the former and ends up being pronounced, yielding a postnominal RC of the matching type.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… [5] Cinque (2015, 2016, 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 (Cinque 2020: §3.5) for different merge positions of finite non-infinitival, participial and non-restrictive RCs. …”

mentioning

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

“…We do not take a stand on whether such further movement is required or not. We assume a raising analysis for concreteness, but do not take a stand on the debate between matching and raising (seeCinque, 2020, for a thorough analysis of relative clauses combining matching and raising).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Growing trees: The acquisition of the left periphery

Friedmann

Belletti

Rizzi

2021

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We suggest here a Growing Trees approach for the description of the acquisition of various syntactic structures in Hebrew, based on the main results reported in Friedmann and Reznick (this volume) and on our own research on a corpus of natural productions. The heart of our account is that stages of acquisition follow the geometry of the syntactic tree, along the lines of the cartographic analysis of the clause, with early stages of acquisition corresponding to small portions of the adult syntactic tree, which keeps growing with the growth of the child. The lower parts of the tree are acquired first, and higher parts are acquired later. We propose three stages of acquisition connected to the development of functional layers of the syntactic tree. In the first stage, the IP is acquired, including the lexical and inflectional layers. This allows for the appearance of A-movement structures, including SV/VS alternations with unaccusative verbs, alongside SV sentences with unergative/transitive verbs. The second stage involves the acquisition of the lower part of the left periphery, up to QP, which allows for the acquisition of subject and object Wh questions, some adjunct questions, yes/no questions, and sentence-initial adverbs. In the third stage, the rich structure of the left periphery is completely acquired, including the higher CP field. This is the stage in which sentential embedding (of finite declarative and interrogative clauses), subject and object relative clauses, why questions, and topicalization appear. A further, different type of stage, which occurs on the already-grown tree and which is independent of structure building, is the acquisition of intervention configurations, allowing for the mastery of structures involving movement of a lexically-restricted object across an intervening lexically-restricted subject. The paper illustrates the fruitful dialogue between the science of syntax acquisition and the cartography of syntactic structures.

show abstract

The Syntax of Relative Clauses

Cited by 48 publications

References 376 publications

Korean Relative Clauses: Metonymy, Zone Activation, and Reference Point*

Korean Relative Clauses: Metonymy, Zone Activation, and Reference Point*

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

Growing trees: The acquisition of the left periphery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About