Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 281–334 | Cite as

Semantic Constraints on Relative Clause Extraposition

  • Tibor Kiss


Extraposed relative clauses pose certain problems for movement-based analyses. They seem to be insensitive to island constraints, and show intricate interactions with variable binding. Starting from the assumption that complement and modifier extraposition should not be treated alike, I present an analysis of relative clause extraposition that does not rely on movement. Instead, I assume that the same syntactic and semantic constraints interact to determine the grammaticality of both extraposed and non-extraposed relative clauses. Syntactically, the proposed constraints lead to the configurational superiority of the relative clause. This superiority has its origin in the semantics of the relative clause: the relative pronoun is referentially defective and remedies this deficiency by selecting an appropriate antecedent. The present analysis draws on data from German.


Artificial Intelligence Relative Clause Semantic Constraint Variable Binding Intricate Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoun, Joseph., Yen-hui., , Audrey, Li. 1993The Syntax of ScopeMIT PressCambridge/LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Boeckx, Cedric. 2001‘Scope Reconstruction and A-Movement’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.19503548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Büring, Daniel, Katarina, Hartmann 1996‘All Right!’Lutz, U.Pafel, J. eds. On Extraction and Extraposition in GermanJohn Benjamins Publishing CompanyAmsterdam179211Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, Noam. 1981Lectures on Government and BindingForis PublicationsDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky., Noam. 1986BarriersMIT PressCambridge/LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Copestake, Ann A., Daniel Flickinger, Ivan A. Sag, and Carl Pollard. 1999. Minimal Recursion Semantics: an introduction, ms., <∼aac/papers/ newmrs.pdf>, CSLI StanfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Culicover Peter, W., Michael S., Rochemont. 1990‘Extraposition and the Complement Principle’Linguistic Inquiry.212347Google Scholar
  8. Frey, Werner. 1993Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische InterpretationAkademie VerlagBerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Fukui, Naoki. 1986/1995. A Theory of Projection in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1995, CSLI Publications, Stanford.]Google Scholar
  10. Gazdar, Gerald., Ewan, Klein., Geoffrey K., Pullum., Ivan A., Sag. 1985Generalized Phrase Structure GrammarBasil BlackwellLondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Haider, Hubert. 1993Deutsche Syntax - generativeG. Narr VerlagTübingenGoogle Scholar
  12. Haider, Hubert 1996‘Downright down to the Right’Lutz, U.Pafel, J. eds. On Extraction and Extraposition in GermanJohn Benjamins Publishing CompanyAmsterdam245271Google Scholar
  13. Haider, Hubert 1997‘Extraposition’Beerman, D.LeBlanc, D.Riemsdijk, H. eds. Rightward MovementJohn Benjamins Publishing CompanyAmsterdam115151Google Scholar
  14. Kamp, Hans., Uwe, Reyle. 1993From Discourse to LogicKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Kathol Andreas., Carl Pollard. (1995). ‘Extraposition via Complex Domain Formation’ . Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. Keller Frank. (1995). ‘Towards an Account of Extraposition in HPSG’ , in Proceedings of EACL, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 301–306Google Scholar
  17. Kiss, Tibor 2001‘Configurational and Relational Properties of Scope Determination’Meurers, W.D.Kiss, T. eds. Constraint-based Approaches to Germanic SyntaxCSLI PublicationsStanford141175Google Scholar
  18. Kiss, Tibor. 2003. ‘Phrasal Typology and the Interaction of Topicalization, Wh-movement and Extraposition’, in J.-B. Kim and S. Wechsler (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 109–128Google Scholar
  19. Krifka, Manfred 1998‘Scope Inversion Under the Rise-Fall Contour in German’Linguistic Inquiry.2975112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landman, Fred eds. 2000Events and Plurality, The Jerusalem LecturesKluwer Academic PublishersDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. Lasnik, Howard 1999‘Chains of Arguments’Epstein, S.Hornstein, N. eds. Working MinimalismMIT PressCambridge/London189215Google Scholar
  22. Lechner, Winfried eds. 1997Two Kinds of Reconstruction, msUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstGoogle Scholar
  23. Link, Godehard 1984‘Hydras. On the Logic of Relative Constructions with Multiple Heads’Landman, F.Veltman, F. eds. Varieties of Formal SemanticForis PublicationsDordrecht245257Google Scholar
  24. May, Robert. 1985Logical FormIts Structure and Derivation. MIT PressCambridge/LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller, Gereon 1996‘On Extraposition and Successive Cyclicity’Lutz, U.Pafel, J. eds. On Extraction and Extraposition in GermanJohn Benjamins Publishing CompanyAmsterdam213243Google Scholar
  26. Müller, Stefan. 1999Deutsche Syntax - deklarativMax Niemeyer VerlagTübingenGoogle Scholar
  27. Parsons, Terence. 1990Events in the Semantics of EnglishMIT PressCambridge/LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Pollard, Carl., Ivan A., Sag. 1992‘Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding’Theory’Linguistic Inquiry.23261305Google Scholar
  29. Pollard, Carl., Ivan A., Sag. 1994Head-driven Phrase Structure GrammarUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Reape, Mike 1994‘Domain Union and Word Order Variation in German’Nerbonne, J.Netter, K.Pollard, C. eds. German in Head-driven Phrase Structure GrammarCSLI PublicationsStanford151198Google Scholar
  31. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983Anaphora and Semantic InterpretationUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross, John R. 1967/1986. Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published as Infinite Syntax!, Ablex, Norwood.]Google Scholar
  33. Ross, John R., David, Perlmutter. 1970‘Relative clauses with split antecedents’Linguistic Inquiry.1350Google Scholar
  34. Sag, Ivan. 1997‘English Relative Clause Constructions’Journal of Linguistics.33431484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sailer, Manfred. 2000. Combinatorial Semantics and Idiomatic Expressions in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, version of 29/06/2000Google Scholar
  36. Schachtl, Stephanie. 1992‘Zur Distribution des attributiven Relativsatzes im Deutschen’Linguistische Berichte.142437450Google Scholar
  37. Stucky, Susan 1987‘Configurational Variation in English: A Study of Extraposition and Related Matters’Huck, G.Ojeda, A.E. eds. Syntax and Semantics 20 – Discontinuous ConstituencyAcademic PressNew York377404Google Scholar
  38. Williams, Edwin. 1988‘Is LF Distinct from S-Structure? A Reply to May’Linguistic Inquiry.19135146Google Scholar
  39. Wiltschko, Maria. 1994Extraposition in GermanWiener Linguistische GazetteWien4850Google Scholar
  40. Wittenburg, Kent 1987‘Extraposition from NP as Anaphora’Huck, G.Ojeda, A.E. eds. Syntax and Semantics 20 – Discontinuous ConstituencyAcademic PressNew York428445Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ruhr-UniversitätBochum Sprachwissenschaftliches InstitutBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations