Possessive Relatives and (Heavy) Pied-Piping

Article

Abstract

This article discusses the phenomenon of pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses in the Germanic languages Dutch, German, and English. Since it concerns possessive relatives primarily, an integrated approach to the syntax of relativization and attributive possession is sought for. Possessive relatives directly reflect the three basic types of attributive possession, namely, the prepositional, the genitive, and the possessive pronoun construction. It is claimed that the promotion theory of relative clauses can be successfully combined with an analysis of possession in which the prepositional construction is taken to be the basis for the other types. Furthermore, it is shown that heavy pied-piping is normally dependent on the presence of a prepositional phrase. In general, pied-piping is claimed to be a possible consequence of overt or covert head movement. Finally, the effect of the so-called R-transformation on pied-piping and preposition stranding in relative clauses is discussed. The different possibilities shown by English, Dutch, and German are argued to be consequences of the theoretical possibilities of creating a syntactic relation, namely, by XP movement, overt head movement, or covert movement.

Keywords

(attributive) possession genitive pied-piping preposition stranding raising/promotion relative clauses relative pronouns 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney P. (1987) The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Akmajian, A., Lehrer, A. 1976‘NP-Like Quantifiers and the Problem of Determining the Head of an NP‘Linguistic Analysis.2395413Google Scholar
  3. Barker, C. 1995Possessive DescriptionsCSLIStanford, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, C. 1998‘Partitives, Double Genitives, and Anti-Uniqueness’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.16679717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayer, J., Bader, M., Meng, M. 2001‘Morphological Underspecification Meets Oblique Case: Syntactic and Processing Effects in German’Lingua.111465514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bianchi, V. 1995Consequences of Antisymmetry for the Syntax of Headed Relative ClausesScuola Normale SuperiorePisa(PhD dissertation)Google Scholar
  7. Bianchi, V. 1999Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative ClausesMouton de GruyterBerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Bianchi, V. 2000‘The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: A Reply to Borsley’Linguistic Inquiry31123140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bittner, M., Hale, K. 1996‘The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement’Linguistic Inquiry.27168Google Scholar
  10. Bobaljik, J. 2002‘A-Chains at the PF-Interface: Copies and ‘Covert’ Movement’Natural Language and Linguistic Theor20197267Google Scholar
  11. Borsley, R. 1997‘Relative Clauses and the Theory of Phrase Structure’Linguistic Inquiry28629647Google Scholar
  12. Brody, M. 1995Lexico-Logical Form: A Radically Minimalist TheoryMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  13. Broekhuis, H. 1992, Chain Government: Issues in Dutch Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Broekhuis, H., Dekkers, J. 2000‘The Minimalist Program and Optimality Theory: Derivations and Evaluations’Dekkers, J.Leeuw, F.Weijer, J. eds. Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and AcquisitionOxford University PressOxford386422Google Scholar
  15. Broekhuis H., Keizer E., den Dikken M. (2003). Modern Grammar of Dutch, Vol. 4: Nouns and Noun Phrases, distr. by University of Tilburg, Models of Grammar Dept.Google Scholar
  16. Choe, J. 1987‘LF-Movement and Pied-Piping’Linguistic Inquiry.18348353Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N. 1970‘Remarks on Nominalization’Jacobs, R.Rosenbaum, P. eds. Readings in English Transformational GrammarGinnWaltham, Mass184221Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, N. 1995The Minimalist ProgramMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  19. Corver N. (1990). The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions, PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
  20. Cowper, E. 1987‘Pied-Piping, Feature Percolation, and the Structure of the Noun Phrase’Canadian Journal of Linguistics.32321338Google Scholar
  21. Delsing, L.-O. 1993, The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages. A Comparative Study, PhD dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
  22. Delsing, L.-O. 1998‘Possession in Germanic’Alexiadou, A.Wilder, C. eds. Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner PhraseJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam87108Google Scholar
  23. Emonds, J. 1979‘Appositive Relatives Have No Properties’Linguistic Inquiry.10211243Google Scholar
  24. Fabb, N. 1990‘The Difference between English Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses’Journal of Linguistics.265778Google Scholar
  25. Grimshaw, J. 2000‘Locality and Extended Projection’Coopmans, P.Everaert, M.Grimshaw, J. eds. Lexical Specification and InsertionJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam115133Google Scholar
  26. Groat, E., O’Neil, J.,  et al. 1996‘Spell-Out at the LF-Interface’Abraham, W. eds. Minimal IdeasJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam113139Google Scholar
  27. Grosu, A., Landman, F. 1998‘Strange Relatives of the Third Kind’Natural Language Semantics.6125170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haegeman, L. 2003‘The External Possessor Construction in West Flemish’Coene, M.D’hulst, Y eds. From NP to DP, Vol. II: The Expression of Possession in Noun PhrasesJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam221256Google Scholar
  29. Heck, F. to appear, A Theory of Pied-Piping, PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  30. Heine, B. 1997Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and GrammaticalizationCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Ishihara, R. 1984‘Clausal Pied-Piping: A Problem for GB’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory2397418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Janda, R.,  et al. 1980‘On the Decline of Declensional Systems: The Overall Loss of OE Nominal Case Inflections and the ME Reanalysis of–es .as his’Traugott, E.C. eds. Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical LinguisticsJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam243252Google Scholar
  33. Kayne, R. 1976‘French Relative que’Luján, M.Hensey, F eds. Current Studies in Romance LinguisticsGeorgetown University PressWashington, DC255299Google Scholar
  34. Kayne, R. 1994The Antisymmetry of SyntaxMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  35. Klein, M. and M. van den Toorn: 1980, ‘Vooropplaatsing van PP’s’, in M. Klein (ed.), Taal kundig beschouwd, Martinus Nijhoff, Den Haag.Google Scholar
  36. Koster, J. 2000a, ‘Variable-Free Grammar’, ms., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  37. Koster, J. 2000b, ‘Extraposition as Parallel Construal’, ms, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  38. Lehmann, C. 1984, Der Relativsatz, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  39. Lieber, R. 1981, On the Organization of the Lexicon, PhD dissertation, University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  40. Lindauer, T. 1998‘Attributive Genitive Constructions in German’Alexiadou, A.Wilder, C eds. Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner PhraseJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam109140Google Scholar
  41. Longobardi, G. 1994‘Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form’Linguistic Inquiry25609665Google Scholar
  42. Lutz, U. and S. Trissler: 1992: ‘Einige Überlegungen zu syntaktischen +w.-Merkmalen, Interrogativsätzen, und w-Phrasen im Deutschen’, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Nr. 7, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  43. Moritz, L., Valois, D. 1994‘Pied-Piping and Specifier-Head Agreement’Linguistic Inquiry25667707Google Scholar
  44. Murphy, P. 1995, Pied-Piping, Proper Government, and the Grammars of English, MA thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Nanni, D., Stillings, J. 1978‘Three Remarks on Pied-Piping’Linguistic Inquiry9310318Google Scholar
  46. Nikiforidou, K. 1991‘The Meanings of the Genitive: A Case Study in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change’Cognitive Linguistics2149205Google Scholar
  47. Pesetsky, D.,  et al. 1998‘Some Optimality Principles of Sentence Pronunciation’Barbosa, P eds. Is the Best Good Enough?MIT PressCambridge, Mass337383Google Scholar
  48. Postma, G. 1997‘On the Configurational Nature of Possession’Lingua101271294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Riemsdijk, H. van: 1978, A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness, Peter de Ridder Press, Lisse.Google Scholar
  50. Ritter, E. 1991‘Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew’Rothstein, S eds. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 25: Perspectives on Phrase StructureAcademic PressSan Diego, Calif3762Google Scholar
  51. Rizzi, L. 1990Relativized MinimalityMIT PressCambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  52. Ross, J. 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT, published as Infinite Syntax!, 1986, ABLEX, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  53. Safir, K. 1986‘Relative Clauses in a Theory of Binding and Levels’Linguistic Inquiry17663689Google Scholar
  54. Safir, K. 1999‘Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in A’-Chains’Linguistic Inquiry30587620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sauerland, U. and F. Heck: 2003, ‘LF-Intervention Effects in Pied-Piping’, in M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara (eds.), Proceedings of NELS. 33, GLSA Publications, Amherst, Mass.Google Scholar
  56. Schachter, P. 1973‘Focus and Relativization’Language491946Google Scholar
  57. Simpson, A. and T. Bhattacharya: 1999, ‘Feature-Percolation, Pied-Piping, and Transparency’, SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 9.Google Scholar
  58. Smits, R. 1988, The Relative and Cleft Constructions of the Germanic and Romance Languages, PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg, published by Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  59. Szabolcsi, A. 1984‘The Possessor that Ran Away from Home’The Linguistic Review389102Google Scholar
  60. Szabolcsi, A. 1994‘The Noun Phrase’Kiefer, F.Kiss, K. eds. Syntax and Semantics, Vol 27: The Syntactic Structure of HungarianAcademic PressSan Diego179274Google Scholar
  61. Taylor, J. 1996Possessives in EnglishClarendonOxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Travis L. 1984, Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  63. Vergnaud, J.-R. 1974, French Relative Clauses, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  64. Vergnaud, J.-R. 1985Dépendances et niveaux de répresentation en syntaxeJohn BenjaminsAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  65. Vries, M. de: 1999, ‘Extraposition of Relative Clauses as Specifying Coordination’, in T. Cambier-Langeveld et al. (eds.), Proceedings of ConSole VII, 293–309.Google Scholar
  66. Vries, M. de: 2002, The Syntax of Relativization, PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, published by LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  67. Webelhuth, G. 1992Principles and Parameters of Syntactic SaturationOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  68. Weerman, F., Wit, P. 1998‘De Ondergang van de Genitief ’Nederlandse Taalkunde31846Google Scholar
  69. Wilder, C. 1995‘Rightward Movement as Leftward Lelation’Lutz, U.Pafel, J. eds. Extraction and Extraposition in GermanJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam273309Google Scholar
  70. Wit P. de. 1997, Genitive Case and Genitive Constructions, PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  71. Woisetschlaeger, E. 1983‘On the Question of Definiteness in “An Old Man’s Book”’Linguistic Inquiry14137154Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics (ATW), Faculty of ArtsUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations