Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (19)
- Conference Proceeding (13)
- Working Paper (5)
- Article (3)
- Book (1)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (42)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (42)
Keywords
- Relativsatz (42) (remove)
Institute
This paper discusses relative clauses (RCs) in Marori, showing that this language unusually has almost all of relative clause types, from headed/headless, externally/internally headed, single-/double-headed, to pre-/post-head, to attached/detached RCs. Special attention is given to internally headed relative clauses (IHRC). It is argued that Marori IHRCs are of the restrictive or non-maximalising type, which accounts for certain intriguing properties, such as their indefiniteness constraints and the possibility for RC stacking.
The present study is concerned with the complex ways in which alternating relative complementisers in Coptic are employed as a morphological flagging device for unbounded dependencies in various types of relative clause constructions and wh questions. We shall argue in particular that the alternation in shape is locally conditioned by properties of the complement (TAME) and the antecedent noun (definiteness), which can be modelled via selectional features such as COMPS and MOD, plus the prosodic status of right-adjacent material (phrase vs. clitic). We shall show that all applicable conditions carry over from relatives to wh in-situ, suggesting to model the polyfunctionality of these complementisers in terms a systematic alternation between resumptive SLASH and in-situ QUE dependencies, modelled in terms of a lexical rule.
Furthermore, we shall discuss the status of unbounded dependencies and argue that the pervasiveness of resumption with relatives and ex-situ wh arguments can be attributed to the absence of gap-synsem on ARG-ST . We shall argue that apparent subject "gaps" in relative constructions are of a highly local nature, best to be understood in terms of subcategorisation for a finite VP complement. Finally, we shall show that the ban on argument gaps does not carry over to wh ex-situ adjuncts, providing additional motivation for maintaining a systematic distinction between these two types of extraction.
Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic have several relativization patterns, including relative clauses with and without relativizers and adjectival modification patterns. Previous generative work has targeted several phenomena, but there is no analysis which covers all relativization patterns in any generative framework. We present an HPSG analysis that covers these phenomena in a uniform manner. Based on Doron and Reintges (2005), we show that the crosslinguistically unusual syntax of adjectival modifiers is a language-internally expected variant of participial modifiers as found in English. We also present the first HPSG analysis of Arabic broad subjects and argue that they are selected as specifiers, accounting for the similarities between broad subjects and ordinary subjects.
In HPSG relative clauses have been analyzed in terms of phonologically empty heads in Pollard and Sag (1994) and in terms of a complex system of phrase types in Sag (1997). Modern Standard Arabic has a distinction between relative clauses with a definite antecedent, which are introduced by a special complementizer, and relative clauses with an indefinite antecedent, which are 'bare' clauses. Analyses eschewing empty heads and assuming a complex system of phrase types face a number of problems. An analysis in which relatives with an indefinite antecedent are headed by a phonologically empty complementizer is more satisfactory. Thus, in the case of Arabic, the approach of Pollard and Sag (1994) seems preferable to the approach of Sag (1997).
The present paper proposes an analysis of the asymmetrical distribution of der, 'there', in embedded interrogative and relative clauses, respectively, in standard Danish. The analysis sets itself apart from previous analyses in integrating information structural constraints. We will show that the discourse function of the extracted subject in the clauses in question determines whether der insertion takes place in standard Danish. The analysis will further be shown to support the position that der in interrogative and relative clauses is an expletive subject filler, and that from an information structural point of view, the der in existential, presentational, passives and relative clauses is indeed the same der.
Relative clauses (RCs) in Persian are head-modifying constituents, all typically introduced by the invariant complementizer ke. Persian RCs are Unbounded Dependency Constructions (UDCs), containing either a gap or a resumptive pronoun (RP). In some positions only gaps are allowed, and in other positions only RPs. There are also some positions where both gaps and RPs are alternatively allowed. Illustrating the striking similarities between Persian gaps and RPs, I will provide an HPSG unified approach to take care of the dependency between the licensing structure and the gap/RP with a single mechanism, using only the SLASH feature. Similar to Pollard and Sag s (1994) approach to the bottom of the dependency, I will assume a special sign at the bottom. However, my sign may have a nonempty PHON value. I will introduce a feature called GAPTYPE which is a NONLOCAL feature whose value can be either trace or rp. I will introduce two constraints to capture the pattern of distribution of RPs and traces. At the top of the dependency, I will bind the nonempty SLASH at the complementizer point. I will propose a lexical entry for the complementizer ke that will account for the binding of SLASH by the feature BIND, which has a nonempty set as value.
This paper discusses a special kind of syntax-semantics mismatch: a noun with a relative clause is interpreted as if it were a complement clause. An analysis in terms of Lexical Resource Semantics is developed which provides a uniform account for ''normal'' relative clauses and for the discussed type of relative clause.
In this article, the so-called wh-relative clause construction is investigated. The German wh-relative clauses are syntactically relevant as they show both, root clause and subordinate clause properties. They matter semantically because they are introduced by a wh-anaphor that has to be resolved by an appropriate abstract entity of the matrix clause. Additionally, the wh-relative clause construction is discourse-functionally peculiar since it evokes coherence. Besides these interesting empirical characteristics, whrelatives raise important theoretical questions. It is argued that the standard HPSG theory has to be extended to account for non-restrictive relative clauses in general, and to cope with the particular properties of the wh-relative construction.
Ever since Chomsky's "On Wh-Movement" (Chomsky 1977) it has been assumed that topicalization and wh-question formation can be analyzed as instances of the same operation. Leaving certain features aside, this proposal carries over to the analysis of unbounded dependency constructions in HPSG since structurally, topicalization does not differ from wh-question formation in the analysis suggested in Pollard & Sag (1994: 157-163). In the present paper, we challenge this assumption and suggest an alternative analysis of unbounded dependency constructions. Here, topicalization and wh-question formation are considered as structurally different at least in certain languages. They may, however, be structurally identical in other languages. This difference is empirically reflected in patterns of relative clause extraposition. As has been pointed out by Culicover & Rochemont (1990: 28), an extraposed relative clause must not take an antecedent contained in a VP if the VP is topicalized but the relative clause is not.
In terms of truth conditional meanings, there is no clear difference between (Korean) IHRCs (internally head relative) and EHRCs (externally headed relative). In the analysis of IHRCs, of central interest are thus (a) how we can analyze the constructions in syntax and (b) how we can associate the internal head of the IHRC clause with the matrix predicate so that the head can function as its semantic argument, and (c) what makes the differences between the two constructions. This paper is an attempt to provide answers to such recurring questions within the framework of HPSG.