We adopt a theory of relativisation based on the idea that relatives, like wh-constructions in the analysis of Chomsky (1998), require two sorts of features to construct their LF-interpretation. We argue that it is the variable interpretability of these features that gives rise to different syntactic patterns. We use this theory to provide an explanation for some curious syntactic facts found in Celtic relative constructions, arguing that such a theory provides a unified explanation for a broad range of phenomena. The two features which we claim are relevant to Relativisation are and Var: is interpreted at LF as something which creates a predicate from a proposition, so that a CP containing a feature will be interpreted as a predicate which abstracts over some variable. The function of the Var feature is to identify this variable. This is the syntactic correlate of ‘lambda abstraction’. Var is one of a set of identifiability features, which appear on syntactic objects so that they can be semantically identified. The other prime case of identifiability features are features. In a sense, Var and are two complementary ways of identifying pronouns as variables at LF. We adopt an approach to relativisation which eschews (necessary) movement of a relative operator. Within a system like that of Chomsky (1999), Chomsky (1998), the mechanisms which establish syntactic dependency (Agree) and give rise to syntactic dislocations (Move) are dissociated. We will assume that English relative clauses involve the establishment of an Agree relation between a higher C and a lower operator, possibly followed by movement of that operator 1. For us, this operator is just a pro with a Var feature in place of -features. We can now contrast the classical view of Relative clauses with that adopted here. Standardly (Chomsky (1977)) relative clauses are assumed to involve movement of a null operator to the specifier of CP. The interpretation
[1]
Noam Chomsky.
Derivation by phase
,
1999
.
[2]
James Mccloskey,et al.
On the syntax of person-number inflection in modern Irish
,
1984,
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.
[3]
Irene Heim,et al.
Semantics in generative grammar
,
1998
.
[4]
David Pesetsky,et al.
T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences
,
2000
.
[5]
David Adger,et al.
VSO Order and Weak Pronouns in Goidelic Celtic
,
1997,
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique.
[6]
James McCloskey,et al.
On the Right Edge in Irish
,
1999
.
[7]
Joan Bresnan.
Comparative deletion and constraints on transforma-tions
,
1975
.
[8]
Noam Chomsky.
A minimalist program for linguistic theory
,
1992
.
[9]
James McCloskey,et al.
Resumptive Pronouns, Ā-Binding, and Levels of Representation in Irish
,
1990
.
[10]
Noam Chomsky,et al.
On Wh-Movement
,
1977
.
[11]
James McCloskey,et al.
Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics
,
1979
.