Free choice free relative clauses in Italian and Romanian


This paper aims to bring back to the linguistic scene a largely neglected character that is encountered in Italian and Romanian. This character exhibits a novel combination of morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features that, separately, are already attested across languages. It looks like an embedded non-interrogative wh-clause introduced by a wh-phrase that is either made of or contains a wh-root with an affix: the suffix -unque in Italian or the prefix ori- in Romanian. We show that this construction exhibits the same morpho-syntactic properties as -ever free relative clauses in English and the same semantic and pragmatic properties as headed relative clauses introduced by the free choice determiner any in English. Therefore, we label our character a free choice free relative clause. We argue for a syntactic analysis of free choice free relative clauses as true free relatives rather than headed relatives and for a semantic analysis along the lines of some recent proposals about related free choice constructions. We also discuss the meaning of wh-words occurring in free choice free relatives and in related constructions and emphasize the importance of not taking for granted that morpho-syntactic identity necessarily coincides with semantic and pragmatic identity across languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Morpheme boundaries within wh-words are shown in examples (1)–(15) and omitted in subsequent examples, as in standard Italian and Romanian orthography. Tense, mood, person, and number were not glossed, if they could be conveyed with the English gloss. The following abbreviations were used in the glosses: 1: first person; 2: second person; 3: third person; acc: accusative; cl: clitic; cnd: conditional; dat: dative; fc: free choice; fem: feminine; gen: genitive; impf: imperfect; imp: imperative; ind: indicative; pl: plural; refl: reflexive; rel: relative marker; sbj: subjunctive; sg: singular. sbj followed by no tense marking means ‘present subjunctive’.

  2. 2.

    For instance, the examples of free choice free relatives in (41e), (49a), (65), and (66) in Giannakidou and Cheng (2006) illustrate their core semantic properties and are given as fully acceptable. The morpho-syntactic equivalent FC-FRs in Italian and Romanian are completely unacceptable.

  3. 3.

    Historically, ori comes from the Latin form uelis > veri/ori (‘ want’). It was used as a (correlative) disjunction of the type ‘either…or’ in Old Romanian. Diachronic studies show that the disjunctive use preceded the FC use, with the latter originating in correlative constructions where the complex disjunction connected two (definite) free relatives (see Dinică 2012 and Gheorghe 2014 and references therein).

  4. 4.

    Comunque, which is morphologically made of come ‘how’ and -unque, can only be used as an adverbial meaning ‘in any case’/‘anyhow’ or a clausal subordinator meaning ‘no matter how’ or ‘nevertheless’. Quandunque, which is morphologically made of quando ‘when’ and -unque, was used to introduce FC-FRs in Old Italian but is no longer part of the active lexicon. Qualsiasi is used with the same distribution and interpretation as qualunque; the suffix -siasi is not used in any other FC expression.

  5. 5.

    FC-FRs in Italian always allow for subjunctive (and strongly favor it in the variety spoken by one of the authors). In Romanian, subjunctive is not allowed in FC-FRs (cf. Farkas 1985 for subjunctive in Romanian and Italian with special focus on its use in headed relative clauses and Farkas 1992 for the distribution of subjunctive in complement clauses in Romanian). Instead, another non-indicative mood—the conditional—is possible in FC-FRs in Romanian, with no clear preference for either the indicative and conditional mood (e.g. the sentences in (18)–(20) below).

  6. 6.

    English exhibits a similar tripartite pattern with ever-wh-clauses, as shown in (i)–(iii). The literature on ever-FRs (cf. Jacobson 1995; Dayal 1997; von Fintel 2000; Condoravdi 2015, a.o.) has focused on (i). The few investigations of the construction in (iii) have treated it as substantially different from ever-FRs, more like a clausal adjunct with a conditional import (cf. Izvorski 2000; Rawlins 2013). The construction in (ii) has been virtually ignored. See Sect. 4.4 and Sect. 5 for further remarks on ever-FRs.

    1. (i)

      They reject [whatever proposals Julie comes up with].

    2. (ii)

      [Whatever proposal Julie comes up with], they reject it.

    3. (iii)

      [Whatever proposal Julie comes up with], I won’t change my mind.

    This similarity between ever-FRs and FC-FRs may be taken as further evidence of their syntactic resemblance.

  7. 7.

    Complex wh-phrases—phrases containing a wh-word and other lexical material—cannot introduce plain free relatives in Italian. The equivalent of what is the complex wh-phrase che cosa (lit. ‘what thing’), which, cannot introduce plain free relatives. There is no -unque from che cosa, but qualunque cosa is used, instead.

  8. 8.

    Romanian allows for the wh-word cât/câtă/câţi/câte ‘how much/many’ (inflected for gender and number) to introduce headed relative clauses whose nominal head is preceded by a numeral or certain quantifiers (Grosu 2013). Cât/câtă/câţi/câte in headed relative clauses does not select for any other lexical material, while it selects for an NP, an AdjP, or an AdvP in FC-FRs, plain free relative clauses, and wh-interrogative clauses. As an anonymous reviewer reminded us, Italian can use the wh-word quale/quali ‘which’ (inflected for number) preceded by the definite determiner to introduce appositive relative clauses (if the subject or the object are relativized) or restrictive relative clauses (if any other constituent is relativized). Either use is marked as high-register. The form definite determiner + quale/quali is not allowed in any other construction.

  9. 9.

    Plain free relatives introduced by who in English exhibit various degrees of acceptability (cf. Patterson and Caponigro 2016), while the corresponding chi FRs in Italian are fully productive.

  10. 10.

    Thanks to the anonymous reviewer that first pointed out these diachronic facts for a related construction in Dutch (e.g. wie dan ook ‘who then also’); cf. Aguilar et al. (2010) for further details. For Italian, our search was conducted on Tommaseo Online ( and Lessicografia della Crusca in Rete ( on November 15, 2016. For Romanian, we rely on Dinică (2012); Gheorghe (2014) and Giurgea (2016). For English, we conducted a search on the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary ( on November 21, 2016 and searched the Penn Corpus of Historical English ( (many thanks to Gary Patterson for helping us with the latter).

  11. 11.

    The restriction observed for chiunque and oricine is attested with non-wh expressions as well. For instance, ognuno ‘every/each one’ and ciascuno ‘each one’ in Italian are single words with the same distribution as DPs. They cannot be modified by a headed relative clause, as shown in (i).

    1. (i)
  12. 12.

    The distribution of any (and FC-FRs) with necessity modals is more complex than this example suggests. See Dayal (2013a, 2013b) for an overview of FC any and FC-any HRs with different modals.

  13. 13.

    The Italian FC-FR in (50b) triggers an ‘at least one’ interpretation. By uttering it, the speaker is inviting the hearer to pick up one book or more. On the other hand, the Romanian (50c) and the English (50d) counterparts typically convey the meaning of “one and no more than one”. This latter meaning can be rendered in Italian with the existential FC un qualunque + NP (cf. the detailed discussion in Chierchia 2013:Chap. 5). Notice that, unlike qualunque in FC-FRs, un qualunque does not behave like a wh-element, e.g. it does not move, and cannot introduce FC-FRs, but just headed relatives. This difference may be due to the fact that the wh-word qualunque introducing FC-FRs only selects for a singular NP as its complement, unlike English and Romanian. In Italian, qualunque libri ‘any books’ is completely unacceptable, while any books and orice cărţi are fully well formed strings in English and Romanian, respectively, and can easily convey the “at least one” interpretation.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Dayal (2013a: ex. 50) and related discussion for a case in which the epistemic agent (‘attitude holder’ in her terminology) differs from the speaker.

  15. 15.

    To our knowledge, there are few papers investigating the relation between free choice items and free relative clauses with some form of free choice meaning. Horn (2000), Aloni (2007b), Dayal (2013b) and Condoravdi (2015) discuss the connection between ever-FRs and free choice items. Giannakidou and Cheng (2006) develop an account of Greek and Mandarin Chinese free choice items and their connection with ever-FRs. In this paper, we limit ourselves to data in Italian and Romanian, leaving a detailed cross-linguistic comparison for the future.

  16. 16.

    For ways to derive the final meaning of FRs as definite descriptions from a set denotation via type-shifting, see Jacobson (1995), Caponigro (2003, 2004), and (Aloni 2007b).

  17. 17.

    It is well-known that there are languages in which bare wh-words can easily occur without a wh-clause (e.g. Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, among many others). Interestingly, these are all wh-in-situ languages lacking FRs. There seems to be a very strong tendency for FRs introduced by wh-words to be allowed only in languages with wh-movement. So far, the only possible exception we are familiar with is Tsez (Polinsky 2015), though more work needs to be done on those constructions to fully access their productivity and nature.


  1. Aguilar Guevara, Ana, Maria Aloni, Angelika Port, Radek Simik, Machteld de Vos, and Hedde Zeijlstra. 2010. Semantics and pragmatics of indefinites: Methodology for a synchronic and diachronic corpus study. In Beyond semantics: Corpus-based investigations of pragmatic and discourse phenomena, eds. Stefanie Dipper and Heike Zinsmeister, 1–16. Bochum: BLA.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aloni, Maria. 2007a. Free choice, modals and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15: 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aloni, Maria. 2007b. Free choice and exhaustification: An account of subtrigging effects. In Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. Estela Puig-Waldmueller, 16–30. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aloni, Maria, and Angelika Port. 2015. Epistemic indefinites and methods of identification. In Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, eds. Luis Alonso-Ovalle and Paula Menéndez-Benito, 117–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, and Paula Menéndez-Benito. 2013. Epistemic indefinites: Are we ignorant about ignorance? In 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, eds. Maria Aloni, Michael Franke, and Floris Roelofsen, 35–42. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, ILLC.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Battye, Adrian. 1989. Free relatives, pseudo-free relatives, and the syntax of CP in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 1: 219–250.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caponigro, Ivano. 2003. Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.

  8. Caponigro, Ivano. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives cross-linguistically. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, ed. Robert B. Young, 38–55. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Caponigro, Ivano, and Lisa Pearl. 2008. Silent prepositions: Evidence from free relatives. In The syntax and semantics of spatial P, eds. Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit Gehrke, and Rick Nouwen, 365–385. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Caponigro, Ivano, and Lisa Pearl. 2009. The nominal nature of where, when, and how: Evidence from free relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 155–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the spontaneous logicality of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Condoravdi, Cleo. 2015. Ignorance, indifference, and individuation with wh-ever. In Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, eds. Luis Alonso-Ovalle and Paula Menéndez-Benito, 213–243. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cornilescu, Alexandra, and Ion Giurgea. 2013. The adjective. In A reference grammar of Romanian, eds. Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin and Ion Giurgea, 355–529. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dayal, Veneeta. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 7, ed. Aaron Lawson, 99–116. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dayal, Veneeta. 1998. Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 433–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. The universal force of free choice any. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4(1): 5–40.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dayal, Veneeta. 2013a. A viability constraint on alternatives for free choice. In Alternatives in semantics, ed. Anamaria Fălăuş, 88–122. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dayal, Veneeta. 2013b. Number and (in)definiteness in FCI/free relatives. Talk presented at the workshop ‘From grammar to meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language’. University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz.

  20. Dinică, Andreea. 2012. Pronumele şi adverbele nehotărâte în limba română [Indefinite pronouns and adverbials in Romanian]. PhD diss., University of Bucharest.

  21. Donati, Caterina, and Carlo Cecchetto. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account of relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 519–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Farkas, Donka. 1985. Intensional descriptions and the Romance subjunctive mood. New York: Garland Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Farkas, Donka. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, eds. Paul Hirschbühler and E. F. K. Koerner, 69–104. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Farkas, Donka. 2002. Extreme non-specificity in Romanian. In Romance languages and linguistic theory, eds. Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paula Monachesi, 127–153. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Farkas, Donka. 2006. Free choice in Romanian. In Drawing the boundaries of meaning, eds. Betty Birner and Gregory Ward, 71–94. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Farkas, Donka. 2013. The semantics of determiners. In A reference grammar of Romanian, eds. Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin and Ion Giurgea, 175–230. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fălăuş, Anamaria. 2015. Romanian epistemic indefinites. In Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, eds. Luis Alonso-Ovalle and Paula Menéndez-Benito, 60–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. von Fintel, Kai. 2000. Whatever. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 10, eds. Brendan Jackson and Tanya Matthews. 27–39. Ithaca: CLC Publications, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gheorghe, Mihaela. 2014. Free relative clauses with quantificational reading in old Romanian. In International Conference Globalization, Intercultural Dialogue and National Identity: Language and Discourse, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng. 2006. (In)definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics 23: 135–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Giurgea, Ion. 2016. The Romanian interrogative particle oare, in a comparative and historical perspective. Ms., Iorgu Iordan–Al. Rosetti Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest.

  33. Givón, Talmy. 2011. Ute reference grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Grosu, Alexander. 2013. Relative Clause Constructions and unbounded dependencies. In A reference grammar of Romanian, eds. Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin and Ion Giurgea, 597–662. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Heller, Daphna, and Lynsey Wolter. 2011. On identification and transworld identity in natural language: The case of -ever free relatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(2): 169–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Horn, Laurence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted 2001; Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Horn, Laurence. 2000. Any and (-)ever: Free choice and free relatives. In 15th annual conference of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics, ed. Adam Wyner, 71–111.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Horn, Laurence. 2005. Airport ’86 revisited: Toward a unified indefinite any. In The Partee effect, eds. Gregory Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 179–205. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Izvorski, Roumyana. 2000. Free adjunct free relatives. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 19, 232–245. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in natural languages, eds. Elke Bach, Elfriede Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee, 451–486. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jayez, Jacques, and Lucia Tovena. 2005. Free-choiceness and non individuation. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 1–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jayez, Jacques, and Lucia Tovena. 2006. Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics 23: 217–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Legrand, Jean. 1975. Or and any: The semantics and syntax of two logical operators. PhD diss., University of Chicago.

  45. Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis, and Hotze Rullmann. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 201–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2005. The grammar of choice. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  47. Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. On universal free choice items. Natural Language Semantics 18: 33–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language, eds. Jaakko Hintikka, Julius Moravcsik, and Patrick Suppes, 221–242. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Patterson, Gary, and Ivano Caponigro. 2016. The puzzling degraded status of who free relative clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 20(2): 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Polinsky, Maria. 2015. Tsez syntax: A description. Ms., Harvard University.

  51. Rawlins, Kyle. 2013. (Un)conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 21(2): 111–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2006. Free relatives. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, Vol. 2, 338–382. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rizzi, Luigi. 1984. Spiegazione e teoria grammaticale, Padova: C.L.E.S.P.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2001. The semantics of Scandinavian free choice items. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(6): 737–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zamparelli, Roberto. 2007. On singular existential quantifiers in Italian. In Existence: Semantics and syntax, eds. Ileana Comorovski and Klaus von Heusinger, 293–328. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We are extremely grateful to Gennaro Chierchia, Veneeta Dayal, and Donka Farkas for their invaluable suggestions, comments, and criticism, in addition to the inspiration they provided with their own work. We would like to thank Emanuela Arosio, Andrea Beltrama, Luciano Caponigro, Gennaro Chierchia, Flavio Feniello, Onelia Rivolta, Jacopo Romoli, and Ubaldo Talarico for sharing their native intuitions and judgments about Italian, as well as Oana Draga, Donka Farkas, Ion Giurgea, Oana Lungu, and Andreea Nicolae for sharing their native intuitions and judgments about Romanian. We are also grateful to Guglielmo Cinque, Cleo Condoravdi, Daniel Kane, Gary Patterson, Carson Schütze, Harold Torrence, three anonymous reviewers, and the audiences at the Linguistics Department at Rutgers University and the Linguistics Department at the University of California Santa Cruz. Anamaria Fălăuş gratefully acknowledges funding from the Basque Government (IT769-13). We, the authors, are solely responsible for any remaining mistakes.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivano Caponigro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caponigro, I., Fălăuş, A. Free choice free relative clauses in Italian and Romanian. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 36, 323–363 (2018).

Download citation


  • Free choice
  • Free relative clauses
  • Free choice “any”
  • Wh-words