Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 57–111 | Cite as

Resumption in Relative Clauses*

  • Theodora Alexopoulou
Article

Abstract

The paper focuses on resumption in Greek relative clauses. It is argued that resumption arises on two occasions (i) as a last resort strategy when identification of φ-features of non-arguments fails; (ii) in the absence of a syntactic feature on C trigerring Agree/Move. In the first case obligatory resumption is restricted to non-argument positions and is sensitive to islands. This is the case of Greek null operator restrictive relatives. In particular, it is argued that identification requirements are grammaticised on Greek C (pu), which is endowed with φ-features. Failure of Agree of the φ-features of pu leads to resumption in non-argument positions. In questions and operator restrictive relatives identification requirements are straightforwardly satisfied by the presence of an overt operator; resumption therefore is never obligatory in these structures. In the second case, where resumption is the consequence of absence of a syntactic relation (agree/move) between C and the relativised site, resumption is obligatory in argument and non-argument positions (modulo the highest subject restriction) and insensitive to islands. Greek non-restrictive relatives and Semitic restrictive relatives exemplify this case

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Relative Clause Identification Requirement Syntactic Feature Relativised Site 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis., Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2000‘Asymmetries in the Distribution of Clitics: The Case of Greek Restrictive Relatives’Beukema, F.Dikken, M. eds. Clitic Phenomena in European LanguagesJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam4770Google Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis and Spiridoula Varlokosta. 1996. ‘The Syntactic and Semantic Properties of free Relatives in Modern Greek’, in A. Alexiadou, N. Fuhrhop, P. Law, and S. Löhken (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 5, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
  3. Alexopoulou, Theodora. 1999. The Syntax of Discourse Functions in Greek; a Non-configurational Approach, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  4. Alexopoulou, Theodora., Doron, Edit., Heycock, Caroline. 2004‘Broad Subjects and Clitic Left Dislocation’Adger, D.Cat, C.Tsoulas, G. eds. Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their EffectsKluwerDordrecht329358Google Scholar
  5. Alexopoulou, Theodora., Heycock, Caroline. 2003‘Quantifier Scope in Relative Clauses and Definiteness effects’Beyssade, C.Bonami, O.Hofherr, P.C.Corblin, F. eds. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and SemanticsPresses de l’Université de Paris-SorbonneParis8196Google Scholar
  6. Alexopoulou, Theodora., Keller, Frank. 2002‘Resumption and Locality: A Crosslinguistic Experimental Study’Andronis, M.Debenport, E.Pycha, A.Yoshimura, K. eds. Papers from the 38th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic SocietyUniversity of Chicago PressChicago114The Main SessionGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexopoulou, Theodora., Keller, Frank. 2003‘Linguistic Complexity, Locality and Resumption’Mikkelsen, L.Potts, C. eds. Proceedings of WCCFL 21Cascadilla PressSomerville, MA1528Google Scholar
  8. Alexopoulou, Theodora., Kolliakou, Dimitra. 2002‘On Linkhood and Clitic Left Dislocation‘Journal of Linguistics.38193245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1994. Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek, Ph.D. thesis, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
  10. Aoun, Joseph., Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1998‘Minimality, Reconstruction, and PF Movement’Linguistic Inquiry.29569597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Aoun, Joseph and Lina Choueiri. 1997. ‘Resumption and Last Resort’, ms, University of Southern California, available at the Semitic Archive: Linguistics Research Papers, http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/linguistics/semitic/.
  12. Aoun, Joseph., Choueiri, Lina., Horstein, Norbert. 2001‘Resumption, Movement and Derivational Economy’Linguistic Inquiry.32371403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bard, Ellen Gurman., Robertson, Daniel., Sorace, Antonella. 1996‘Magnitude estimation of Linguistic Acceptability’Language.723268Google Scholar
  14. Boeckx, Cedric. 2003Islands and Chains: Resumption as Derivational ResidueLinguistik Aktuell, John BenjaminsAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Borer, Hagit. 1981. Parametric Variation in Clitic Constructions, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Borer, Hagit. 1984‘Restrictive Relatives in Modern Hebrew’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.2219260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cann, Ronnie, Tami Kaplan and Ruth Kempson. 2003. ‘Data at the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: The Case of Resumptive Pronouns in English’, Lingua, to appear.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. ‘Beyond Explanatory Adequacy’, ms, MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 2001b‘Derivation by Phase’Kenstowicz, M. eds. Ken Hale: A Life in LanguageMITCambridge, MA152Google Scholar
  20. Christidis, Anastasios Pheobos. 1986. ‘The Morpheme pu as a Definite Clause Nominaliser’, in Studies in Greek Linguistics, Vol. 7, Kiriakidhes, pp. 135–148.Google Scholar
  21. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990Types of A-bar Dependencies, Linguistic Inquiry MonographsMIT PressCambridge MAVol. 17Google Scholar
  22. Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives and Dislocation Structures, Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Doron, Edit. 1982‘On the Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns’Texas Linguistic Forum.19148Google Scholar
  24. Fabb, Nigel. 1990‘The Difference between English Restrictive and Non-restrictive Relative Clauses’Journal of Linguistics.265778Google Scholar
  25. Horrocks, Goeffrey. 1994‘Subjects and Configurationality: Modern Greek Clause Structure’Journal of Linguistics.3081109Google Scholar
  26. Horrocks, Goeffrey., Stavrou, Melita. 1987‘Bounding Theory and Greek Syntax: evidence for wh-movement in NP’Journal of Linguistics.2379108Google Scholar
  27. Iatridou, Sabine. 1995‘Clitics and Island Effects’Penn Working Papers in Linguistics.21131Google Scholar
  28. Jacobson, Pauline. 1995‘On the Quantificational Force of English Free Relatives’Bach, E.Jelinek, E.Kratzer, A.Partee, B. eds. Quantification in Natural LanguagesKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht451486Google Scholar
  29. Kayne, Richard. 1994The Antisymmetry of SyntaxMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Lasnik, Howard., Stowell, Tim. 1991‘Weakest Crossover’Linguistic Inquiry.22687720Google Scholar
  31. Löbner, Sebastian. 1985‘Definites’, Journal of Semantics.4279326Google Scholar
  32. Manzini, Maria Rita., Roussou, Anna. 2000‘A Minimalist Theory of A-movement and Control’Lingua.110409417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCloskey, James. 1990‘Resumptive Pronouns, Ā-binding and Levels of Representation in Irish’Hendrick, R. eds. Syntax of the Modern Celtic LanguagesAcademic PressNew York and San Diego199248Google Scholar
  34. McCloskey, James. 2002‘Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations’Epstein, S.D.Seely, D.T. eds. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist ProgramBlackwell PublishersOxford184226Google Scholar
  35. Parodi, Teresa and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli. 2003. “Real” and Apparent Optionality in L2 Grammars: Finiteness and Pronouns in Null Operator structures’, to appear in Second Language Research.Google Scholar
  36. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1985‘Word Order in Modern Greek’Transactions of the Philological Society.83113143Google Scholar
  37. Reinhart, Tanya., Reuland, Eric. 1993‘Reflexivity’Linguistic Inquiry.24122138Google Scholar
  38. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of proLinguistic Inquiry.17501557Google Scholar
  39. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997‘The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’Haegeman, L. eds. Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative SyntaxKluwerDordrecht281337Google Scholar
  40. Roussou, Anna. 1994. The Syntax of Complementisers, Ph.D. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
  41. Roussou, Anna., Roberts, Ian. 2001Pou-complements and Acc -ing Constructions: A Comparative Analysis’Agouraki, Y.Arvaniti, A.Davy, J.Goutsos, D.Akryolemou, M.Panayotou-Triantaphyllopoulou, A.Papapavlou, A.Pavlou, P.Roussou, A. eds. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Nicosia, 1999University Studio PressThessaloniki201208Google Scholar
  42. Rouveret, Alain. 2002‘How are Resumptive Pronouns Linked to the Periphery?’Linguistic Variation YearbookJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam123184Google Scholar
  43. Ruys, G. Eddy. 2000‘Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon’Linguistic Inquiry.31513539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Safir, Ken. 1996‘Derivation, Representation, and Resumption: The Domain of Weak Crossover’Linguistic Inquiry.27313339Google Scholar
  45. Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  46. Sharvit, Yael. 1997. The Syntax and Semantics of Functional Relative Clauses, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  47. Sharvit, Yael. 1999‘Resumptive pronouns in Relative Clauses’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.17587612Google Scholar
  48. Shlonsky, Ur. 1992‘Resumptive Pronouns as a Last Resort’Linguistic Inquiry.23443448Google Scholar
  49. Shlonsky, Ur. 2002‘Consituent Questions in Palestinian Arabic’Ouhalla, J.Shlonsky, U. eds. Themes in Arabic and Hebrew SyntaxKluwerDordrecht137160Google Scholar
  50. Suñer, Margarita. 1998‘Resumptive Restrictive Relatives: A Crosslinguistic Perspective’Language.74335364Google Scholar
  51. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria. 1995. ‘Focusing in Modern Greek’, in K. Kiss (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press, pp. 176–206.Google Scholar
  52. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria. 1999‘Null Operators, Clitics and Identification: A Comparison between Greek and English’Alexiadou, A.Horrocks, G.Stavrou, M. eds. Studies in Greek syntaxKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht241262Google Scholar
  53. Tsiplakou, Stavroula. 1998. Focus in Greek: its Structure and Interpretation, Ph.D. thesis, University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  54. Willis, David. 1998‘On the Distribution of Resumptive Pronouns and wh-trace in Welsh’Journal of Linguistics.36531573Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations