Caterina Donati & Carlo Cecchetto

1. LI 42-4: 519-560 Caterina Donati & Carlo Cecchetto Relabeling Heads: A Unified Account for Relativization Structures

2. (1) The boy that I will never forget has arrived(2) The boy who I will never forget has arrived • Raising approach (Vergnaud 1974, Kayne 1994, Bianchi 1999, Bhatt 2002) the ‘head’ is inserted directly in the relativization site and moves to a position external to the relative clause (ii) head-external approach (Chomsky 1981, Browning 1987) the relative clause ‘head’ is not transformationally related to the gap inside the relative clause. Instead, a relative pronoun moves to Spec, C by leaving a trace in the gap position (iii) matching analysis (Chomsky 1965, Kayne 1975, Cinque 1978, Sauerland 2002, Huley & Sauerland 2009) postulates that there is an internal head that is phonologically deleted under (near) identity with the external head; the internal head and the external head are not part of a movement chain, but are related by whatever mechanism links an elided constituent and its antecedent in ellipsis cases.

3. 2 The Framework: The Cecchetto & Donati 2010 Theory of Labeling • The Inclusiveness Condition(포함조건): narrow syntax merely operates on lexical items and cannot “add” interpretive material • Narrow syntax (좁은통사부): in thecomputational system of EST, if we consider the derivation relating D-Structure, S-Structure, and LF (3) Probing Algorithm (C&D 2010:245) The label of a syntactic object {α, β} is the feature(s) that act(s) as a probe of the merging operation creating {α, β}. A lexical item, being a probe by definition, always activates the Probing Algorithm (3), and its categorial feature can provide the label. For example, each time a head (= lexical item) is merged with its complement, the head is bound to project.

4. 3 Labeling Conflicts: Free Relatives - Labeling conflict can arise: i) Condition C can be dispensed with ii) labeling conflict in so-called free relatives (5) a. what you read (6) a. what book you read b. b. C what C what C C you read what what book C you read what book (5) is predicted to have two possible labels, and (6) only one. (7) I read what you read/a book. [V-DP] (8) I wonder what you read/if the sun will shine tomorrow. [clausal compl.; indirect interr.] (9) a. I wonder what book you read. (no ambiguity when phrasal mvnt is involved; interr.) b. *I read what book you read. DP Cf. (10) I shall visit whatever townyou will visit. [phrasal wh-movement: -everrelatives] ≠ interr. -ever rel. ≠ free relatives in other langes.

5. 4 Full Relatives: Advantages of the Raising Analysis • The gist of the raising analysis: the position of the gap inside the relative clause and the external “head” are transformationally related. Three other merits of the raising analysis: i) it accounts for the pattern found with idiomatic expressions: the idiomatic object can be relativized if the idiomatic verb is internal to the relative clause, but not if it is external. ii) accounts for the pattern of relativization of predicative DPs, which is impossible if the features of the matix and those of the embedded subject do not match. iii) accounts for the existence of internally headed relative clauses, which simply realize overtly what the raising analysis takes to be the underlying structure of externally headed relative clauses.

6. 4 Full Relatives: Advantages of the Raising Analysis The NP (the ‘head’) is merged with the determiner after the former has raised from inside the relative clause. (13) a. Y는 [[T가 접시의 위에 놓은] cake]을먹었다. b. Y는 [[T가 접시의 위에 cake을 놓은 것]을먹었다. (16) a. *There were the men in the garden b. The men that there were in the garden (17) a. *They made the fun of me (Fabb 1990:71) b. the fun that they made of me

7. Kayne 1994, Bianchi 1999 • Assume that the determiner preceding the relative NP is externally merged: • Only the noun raises, while the determiner is inserted after the relative construction has been created by the relevant transformation This type of raising approach is consistent with the fact that the external determiner must have wider scope than a quantifier inside the relative clause. • Definiteness effect: e.g., the relativized head can be introduced by a definite determiner (17) a. *The made the fun of me b. the fun that they made of me

8. 5 A HEAD-Raising Analysis for Relative Clauses • A severe critique of the raising analysis: Borsley (1997) Problems: i) One particularly serious and relevant for C&D’s purposes: Assuming that wh-elements such as which are determiners, the raising analysis directly predicts that in wh-relatives, after raising of the relative clause ‘head’, the structure should be (19), not (18). (18) the book which John saw (19) the [[which book] John saw which book] Ordinary relatives (20) The book which John saw (21) a. [DP the [CP [DP which book] John saw which book]] b. [DP the [NP [NPbook] [CP [DP which book] John saw which book]]]] Problems of (21a): (i) the word order is wrong (ii) the label of the structure with which the external determiner combines is wrong

9. Free vs. Wh-relatives (22) a. Free relative b. Wh-relative DP DP D CP D NP what C T the N CP you saw what book which book John saw (23) a. Y-는 [[T-가 접시 위에 놓은] cake]-을 먹었다. Y-wa [[T-ga sara-no ue-ni oita] keeki]-o tabeta. b. Y-는 [[T-가 cake-을 접시 위에 놓은] 것]-을 먹었다. Internally headed rel. Y-wa [[T-ga sara-no ue-ni keeki-o oita]-no]-o tabeta. In (23b), the nominalizer particle no sufaces in the right periphery of the rel. clause. In (23a), no no, with keeki undergoing mvnt; keeki moves to the position that is occupied by the nominalizer particle no in (23b). • In English and Italian, the projecting noun moves to the same slot in the CP area that is overtly visible in Japanese.  for future research

10. 6 Fixing two more problems for the (HEAD-) Raising Analysis 2nd problem: Borsley (1997) Assuming the raising analysis, a determiner appears to be missing in that-relatives: two determiners are predicted to be involved, the one internal to the rel. cl. and the external one, selecting the entire rel. NP. (24) a. *the the man that I saw b. [the [[the man] that I saw the man] C&D: assume that a null determiner D is stranded in the base position of the noun head, before the noun head raises and projects (25)[DP the [NP [NPman] [CP that I saw [DPD man]]]]] However, the stranded D is visible in many languages.

11. 6 wh-relatives vs. that-relatives (28) a. Wh-relative b. That-relative DP DP D NP D NP the N CP the N CP book book [which book] John saw [which book] that you saw [D book] - Non-wh-determiners, which in certain varieties are overtly realized as resumptive pronouns, are stranded inside the T area of the relative clause in that-relatives. (28b) However, wh-determiners are stranded in the CP area of the rel. cl. in wh-relatives. (28a) Why stranded in different positions? Locality: If the determiner is endowed with a wh-feature (28a), it is visible to the root C, and the entire DP is attracted to C. If not, then N can move alone since the D-label no longer acts as an intervener.

12. 3rd problem: Borsley (1997) the very same DP should get two cases as in (29); (29) I saw the man that D man left. (Acc-Nom) (30) The man that I saw D man left. (Nom-Acc) (33) a. *[DP the [DPwhich book about Obama] you bought [DP which book about Obama]]]]] b. *[DP the [CP [NPbook about Obama] [CP [DP which [NP book about Obama]] [NP you bought [DP which book about Obama]]]]] # C&D must assume that whatever material that modifies the head noun (about Obama in (33)) can (and must) be late-merged, after the head noun has moved and has ‘relabled’ the structure. 7.1 Arguments of Nouns may be Late-Merged: Nouns do not assign Ɵ-roles; in this respect, their ‘arguments’ behave like adjuncts. (34) the destruction of the citywhich you witnessed 7 Relative Clauses with a Phrasal ‘Head’

13. 7.1.1 Omissibility Transitive/intransitive alternation: omissibility of arguments (obeying the θ-Criterion) cf. adjuncts do not obey the θ-Criterion With ‘complements’ of the noun, the situation is sharply different. Complements of nouns are always optional (Adger 2009, 8) Cf. Chomsky (1970): nouns are able to assign θ-roles just like verbs do. Nouns cannot assign θ-roles: Davidsonian framework (Higginbotham 1985, Dowty 2003; Hale & Keyser 2002, Kayne 2009) - the modifier of the head noun of the relative clause is always an adjunt-like element. Complex-event nominals (Grimshaw 1990): nouns that do require ‘complement’ (38) a. The assignment is on one page. b. The assignment of the problem took a long time.

14. Complex-event reading of the noun: e.g., the addition of constant (39) a. The assignment is to be avoided. b. The constant assignment of unsolvable problems is to be avoided. (obl.) (40) *The constant assignment is to be avoided. (41) *We constantly assign. - This assumption would be problematic for C&D’s analysis of relative clauses, which assumes that nouns are not θ-role assigners. Grimshaw: nouns are always deficint θ-role assigners; however, in order to have an argument, a noun can take advantage of the presence of the preposition, which is the actual θ-roles assigner. (i) if a complex-event nominal could assign a θ-role, then passivization ought to be observed. (ii) complex-event nominals cannot take CP complements (42) a. the politician’s nomination (=> the politician got nominated) b. *the politician’s constant nomination (=> no passive counterpart) (i) (43) Their observation that the position had been filled surprised everyone. (content of the observation) (44) *Their constant announcement that they were the greatest eventually became tiresome.

15. 7.1.2 Constituency Tests (45) John will buy a house and Mary will buy a house too. (ellipsis) (46) John will buy a house and Mary will do that too. (proform) (17) *John will buy a house and Mary will buy a house too. Not a constituent (48) *John will buy a house and Mary do that a house too. • developed into the Verb-Object Constraint (Baker 2009) • However, counterexamples in Italian (Branchini pc.): Det-N fronting permitted, with while the complement is stranded • Cf. (53) I have already seen the picture of John, but I haven’t seen that of Mary? 7.1.3 Islandhood Argument/adjunct asymmetry(?) Of favors extractibility of the PP modifier(?) (57) Of whom did you see [a painting of whom]? (58) *??From where did you see [a painting from where]? (59) *??By whom did you see [a painting by whom]?

16. 7.2 Reconstruction Effects (RE 재구 효과) (69) The professor of Johni’s that hei always praises  (against the raising analysis) (70) *the professori that hei always praises  (support it) Cf. Condition C effect: e.g., *Hei always praises the professori. Traditional version of the raising analysis: What raises is the noun plus the material that modifies it cf. HEAD-raising analysis does predict the contrast: (69) The professor of Johni’s that hei always praises (71) The picture of himselfi [that Johni likes e most] (was never on display). (raising; Condition A RE) (72) [DPThe [NP PROi picture of himselfi] [that Johni likes picture most]] (was never on display) Rel.cl. are structurally ambiguous btw a raising and a nonraising analyses (Carlson 1977, Heim 1987) (76) The only book that John said that Tolstoy had written (Bhatt 2002, 57) (X is the only book that T wrote) (77) The first book that John said that Tolstoy had written (Bhatt 2002, 57) (X is the only book about which J said that T had written X) ‘low reading for only/first reconstruction’  show that it is not late-merged but has been raised  a great challenge against the HEAD-raising However, for a scenario in which Mary gave birth to twins: (78) a. The baby that John said that Mary has given birth to … (John is responsible for the baby(sg.), b. … must have been cloned. but not the speaker…?)