Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T17:31:15.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supplemental relative clauses: Internal and external syntax1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2012

RUSSELL LEE-GOLDMAN
RUSSELL LEE-GOLDMAN*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, 1203 Dwinelle Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USArleegold@berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The internal syntactic structures of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses are largely identical. This paper argues that despite a uniform internal structure, the external distributions – specifically, linearization with respect to the head – of non-restrictive relative clauses are subject to several conditions. In particular, sentential non-restrictive relative clauses with which and what can appear to the left of their heads in limited (and distinct) syntactic contexts. These lexical and syntactic constraints are represented within the framework of Sign-based Construction Grammar. In light of these observations, the paper revisits claims about the internal structure of parenthetical as-clauses. Prior claims that as cannot be a relativizer are shown to be unfounded, and new data are presented in favor of treating them as relative clauses with the external distribution of sentential adverbials. This is possible given the ability to state separately specifications of construction-internal syntactic structure and construction-external linear-order constraints.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 573 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

[1]

Thanks to audiences at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the LSA in Anaheim, GURT 2007, and the 34th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society for helpful comments and criticisms on earlier versions of this material. I also benefited greatly from discussions with Michael Ellsworth, Chuck Fillmore, Paul Kay, Line Mikkelsen, Chris Potts, Russell Rhodes, Josef Ruppenhofer, Eve Sweetser, and from the comments of the two Journal of Linguistics referees. Any remaining errors are my responsibility.

References

REFERENCES

Arnold, Doug. 2004a. Non-restrictive Relative Clauses in Construction Based HPSG. In Müller, (ed.), 27–47.Google Scholar
Arnold, Doug. 2004b. Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Presented at the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Roehampton, University of Surrey, September 2004.Google Scholar
Arnold, Doug. 2007. Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Journal of Linguistics 43, 271–309.Google Scholar
Arnold, Doug & Borsley, Robert D.. 2010. Auxiliary-stranding relative clauses. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), The 17th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG '10), 47–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Sag, Ivan A.. 2004. Coordinate ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. In Müller, (ed.), 48–69.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2007. Coordinate structures: Constraint-based syntax–semantics processing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, Frencesca. 2003. Appositives at the interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67, 726–762.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2010. A linearization account of either … or constructions. Natural Langauge & Linguistic Theory 28, 275–314.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Comparative constructions. In Huddleston, & Pullum, et al. , 1097–1170.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Payne, John & Peterson, Peter. 2002. Coordination and supplementation. In Huddleston, & Pullum, et al. , 1273–1362.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Peterson, Peter. 2002. Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies. In Huddleston, & Pullum, et al. , 1031–1096.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2007. Language networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1992. At least. In Lehrer, Adrienne & Kittay, Eva Feder (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 309–331. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Reprinted in Paul Kay, Words and the grammar of context, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1977.]Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1983. The syntax of some English adverbs. The 19th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 19), 263–282.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line, Hardt, Daniel & Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2011. Orphans hosted by VP anaphora. Presented at the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. [To appear in WCCFL 29. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.]Google Scholar
Stefan, Müller (ed.). 2004. The 11th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG '04). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1994. Parasitic and pseudo-parasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 63–117.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2002a. The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax 5, 55–88.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2002b. The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 623–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Rodney, Huddleston. 2002. Adjectives and adverbs. In Huddleston, & Pullum, et al. , 525–595.Google Scholar
Reape, Michael. 1996. Getting things in order. In Bunt, Harry & Horck, Arthur van (eds.), Discontinuous dependencies, 209–257. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank & Sailer, Manfred. 2009. Phraseological clauses in constructional HPSG. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), The 16th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG '09), 297–317. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1984. Inner islands. In Brugman, Claudia & Macaulay, M. (eds.), The Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 10), 258–265.Google Scholar
Ruangjaroon, Sugunya. 2005. The syntax of WH-expressions as variables in Thai. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–483.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010a. English filler–gap constructions. Language 86, 486–545.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010b. Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. Ms., Stanford University. [To appear in Sag, Ivan A. & Boas, Hans C. (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.]Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1987. As so, not so as. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1995. Exceptional degree markers: A puzzle in internal and external syntax. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 47, 111–123.Google Scholar