A Unified Theory of `Standard' and `Transparent' Free Relatives

This paper puts forward a unified theory of `standard' and `transparent' free relatives, and thus departs from earlier analyses of the latter, which have consistently viewed them as radically different `constructions.' It is argued, partly on the basis of strengthened and refined old arguments and partly on the basis of novel ones, that the two kinds of free relatives are unified by the following core of properties: (i) they are complex XPs, consisting of an overt CP and a null head (with internal structure), (ii) they are multi-categorial, and (iii) their semantic interpretation involves the application of a uniqueness operator to a set obtained by abstraction.The special effects associated with transparent freerelatives result from the following combination of factors (which may be encountered separately, in which case they do not induce transparency effects): (a) the wh-element in [Spec, CP] binds the subject of a small clause, (b) the small clause is of the equative-specificational type, (c) abstraction at the CP level applies to an unrestricted property variable, and (d) the wh-element is syntactically and semantically underspecified. The cumulative effect of these factors is that the small-clause predicate is perceived as, and in certain ways also functions as, a syntactic and semantic `nucleus' of the complex XP and thus exhibits head-like properties.

[1]  Robin Cooper,et al.  The NP-S analysis of relative clauses and compositional semantics , 1978 .

[2]  Christopher Kennedy,et al.  Comparative Deletion And Optimality In Syntax , 2002 .

[3]  H. V. Riemsdijk,et al.  A far from simple matter : syntactic reflexes of syntax-pragmatics misalignments , 2001 .

[4]  Alexander Grosu,et al.  The proper analysis od "Missing-P" free relative constructions , 1996 .

[5]  Yael Sharvit,et al.  Connectivity in Specificational Sentences , 1999 .

[6]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Coordination and how to distinguish categories , 1985 .

[7]  Susan Rothstein Predicates and Their Subjects , 2000 .

[8]  Nelleke Oostdijk,et al.  Transparent Free Relatives , 2004 .

[9]  Alexander Grosu,et al.  The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions , 2004 .

[10]  ALEXANDER GROSU,et al.  PIED PIPING AND THE MATCHING PARAMETER , 1987 .

[11]  R. May Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation , 1985 .

[12]  Pauline Jacobson On the Quantificational Force of English Free Relatives , 1995 .

[13]  Pauline Jacobson,et al.  Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences , 1994 .

[14]  Hotze Rullmann,et al.  Maximality in the semantics of wh -constructions , 1995 .

[15]  Ralf Vogel Towards An Optimal Typology Of The Free Relative Construction , 2001 .

[16]  J. Bayer,et al.  COMP IN BAVARIAN SYNTAX , 1984 .

[17]  A. Grosu,et al.  Strange Relatives of the Third Kind , 1998 .

[18]  G. Cinque A null theory of phrase and compound stress , 1993 .

[19]  Richard K. Larson,et al.  'Missing prepositions' and the analysis of English free relative clauses , 1987 .

[20]  J. Shimoyama Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Japanese and E-Type Anaphora , 1999 .

[21]  M. Suñer,et al.  FREE RELATIVES AND THE MATCHING PARAMETER , 1984 .

[22]  Koji Hoshi Structural and Interpretive Aspects of Head-Internal and Head-External Relative Clauses , 1998 .

[23]  Stefan Müller,et al.  An HPSG-Analysis for Free Relative Clauses in German , 1999, Grammars.

[24]  Alexander Grosu,et al.  Strange relatives at the interface of two millennia , 2002 .

[25]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  The Polysynthesis Parameter , 1995 .

[26]  W. Harbert,et al.  On the Nature of the Matching Parameter , 1983, The Linguistic Review.

[27]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Conditions on transformations , 1971 .

[28]  Daphna Heller The Syntax and Semantics of Specificational Pseudoclefts in Hebrew , 1999 .