Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:32:46.058Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English relative clause constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 1997

IVAN A. SAG
IVAN A. SAG
Affiliation:
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2050, U.S.A. E-mail: sag@csli.stanford.edu Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper sketches a grammar of English relative clause constructions (including infinitival and reduced relatives) based on the notions of construction type and type constraints. Generalizations about dependency relations and clausal functions are factored into distinct dimensions contributing constraints to specific construction types in a multiple inheritance type hierarchy. The grammar presented here provides an account of extraction, pied piping and relative clause ‘stacking’ without appeal to transformational operations, transderivational competition, or invisible (‘empty’) categories of any kind.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , September 1997 , pp. 431 - 483
Copyright
1997 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I have presented subsets of the material in this paper in a number of places, including Stanford and Essex (1992), Columbus (1993), Copenhagen, Edinburgh and Utrecht (1994), Texas, San Diego, Tübingen, Groningen and Seoul (1995), and Saarbrücken and Marseille (1996). Its appearance is (alas) long overdue. I want to acknowledge a special debt to Carl Pollard for detailed discussions and critical comments on more than one version of the ideas presented here. Thanks also to Anne Abeillé, Bob Borsley, Gosse Bouma, Ann Copestake, Elisabet Engdahl, Dan Flickinger, Jonathan Ginzburg, Danièle Godard, Adele Goldberg, Tom Hukari, Bob Kasper, Andreas Kathol, Jongbok Kim, Tibor Kiss, Shalom Lappin, Bob Levine, Rob Malouf, Philip Miller, Tsuneko Nakazawa, John Nerbonne, Susanne Riehemann, and Tom Wasow for reactions to earlier presentations or drafts. Finally, I am particularly grateful to Bob Carpenter, Dick Hudson, Georgia Green, members of the 1996 Ohio State HPSG seminar, and two anonymous referees for providing detailed comments on an earlier version. The usual exculpations apply to all of these people.