No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The relative clause resisting unification
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 May 2024
Abstract
Cinque (2020) presents a unified theory positing that various types of relative clauses (RCs) originate from a single, double-headed universal structure via raising or matching. The Frame Noun-Modifying Clause (FRC) as described and analyzed by Matsumoto et al. (2017a, 2017b) presents a significant challenge to Cinque's framework, as it does not conform to any of Cinque's identified RC types, which include amount RCs, kind(-defining) RCs, restrictive RCs and non-restrictive RCs. The FRC eludes derivation via the proposed matching or raising mechanisms. Determining the semantic link between the head noun and the FRC, as well as its external merger position, remains elusive. One might suggest that inserting additional material into the FRC, which incorporates a plausible internal head, could clarify their connection. This approach falls short of providing a systematic and coherent syntactic criterion, relying instead on semantic intuition that lacks operational reliability.
Résumé
Cinque (2020) présente une théorie unifiée postulant que divers types de propositions relatives (PRs) proviennent d'une structure universelle à double tête, par déplacement ou appariement. La proposition de cadre de modification du nom (PCMN), telle que décrite et analysée par Matsumoto et al. (2017a, 2017b), représente un défi important pour le cadre de Cinque. Elle ne se conforme à aucun des types de PR identifiés par Cinque, qui comprennent les PRs de quantité, les PRs de genre, les PRs restrictives et les PRs non-restrictives. La PCMN échappe à la dérivation par les mécanismes d'appariement ou de déplacement proposés. Il demeure impossible de déterminer le lien sémantique entre le nom déterminé et la PCMN, ainsi que sa position de fusion externe. On pourrait suggérer que l'insertion de matériel supplémentaire dans la PCMN, qui intègre une tête interne plausible, pourrait clarifier leur connexion. Cette approche échoue à fournir un critère syntaxique systématique et cohérent, s'appuyant plutôt sur l'intuition sémantique, qui manque de fiabilité opérationnelle.
Keywords
- Type
- Short/En bref
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2024
References
References
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2000. Approches de la langue parlée en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Cha, Jong-Yul. 1999. Semantics of Korean gapless relative clause constructions. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 25–41.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2020. The syntax of relative clauses: A unified analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale : une introduction typologique. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı, and Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Anglika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X’-syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Shin-Sook, and Sells, Peter. 2017. Noun-modifying constructions in Korean. In Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia, ed. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Comrie, Bernard, and Sells, Peter, 59–104. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Suo-Cheng, and Yin, Hong-Bo. 2022. Review of Guglielmo Cinque, The syntax of relative clauses: A unified analysis. Contemporary Linguistics 24(5): 781–790.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2003. On restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 33(1): 199–240.Google Scholar
Lovegren, Jesse, and Voll, Rebecca. 2017. Relative clause construction in two Yemne-Kimbi languages. In Relative clauses in Cameroonian languages, ed. Atindogbé, Gratien and Grollemund, Rebecca, 169–208. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Comrie, Bernard, and Sells, Peter. 2017a. Introduction. In Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia, ed. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Comrie, Bernard, and Sells, Peter, 3–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Comrie, Bernard, and Sells, Peter. 2017b. Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Stephen, and Yip, Virginia. 2017. Noun-modifying clauses in Cantonese. In Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia, ed. Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Comrie, Bernard, and Sells, Peter, 105–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2000. Syntactic aspects of topic and comment. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko Hirose. 2018. Internally headed relativization and related constructions. In The Cambridge handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Hasegawa, Yoko, 485–508. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oyharçabal, Bernard. 2003. Relatives. In A grammar of Basque, ed. Hualde, José and de Urbina, Jon Ortiz, 762–822. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar