Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 485–541 | Cite as

Locality in Correlatives

  • Rajesh Bhatt
Article

Abstract

Correlativization seems to be an intrinsicallynon-local strategy, where the Correlative clause can appeardiscontinuous from the noun phrase it modifies. I show that correlative constructions in the Modern Indo-Aryan languages neverthelessdisplay locality effects.The nature of these locality effects depends upon whether the correlativeclause involves a single relativization ('Simple') or mutiplerelativizations ('Multi-Head'). The generalization that emerges is thata Correlative clause must be merged as locally as possible to the phrasethat it modifies. Simple correlatives modify DPs and so they startadjoined to the DP that they modify and then are fronted to an IP-adjoinedposition. Such an approach is able to explain the hitherto unexplainedsensitivity of the correlative-modified phrase relationship to islands.Multi-Head Correlatives modify IPs and therefore they start adjoined to the smallestIP that contains the variables bound by the Multi-Head Correlative, followedby optional movement to the clause-initial position. My proposal argues that Simple Correlatives and Multi-Head Correlatives involve different derivational histories. This difference in derivationalhistory is then used to account for the many differences in their syntactic behavior. Finally, the 'Condition on Local Merge' from which this analysis follows is shown to have cross-linguistic support.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Locality Effect Noun Phrase Simple Correlative Optional Movement 
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. Adger, David. 1995. ‘Meaning, Movement, and Economy’ in R. Aranovich, W. Byrne, S. Preuss, and M. Senturia (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI, Palo Alto, California, pp. 451–466.Google Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1994. ‘Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Salzburg, Salzburg.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, Avery. 1985. Studies in the Syntax of Relative and Comparative Clauses, Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Asher, R. E. 1982. Tamil, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  5. Asher, R. E. and T. C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  6. Bagchi, Tista. 1994. ‘Bangla Correlative Pronouns, Relative Clause Order and D-Linking’ in M. Butt, T. H. King, and G. Ramchand (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages, CSLI Lecture Notes, No. 50, CSLI, Stanford, California, pp. 13–30.Google Scholar
  7. Barss, Andrew. 1986. ‘Chains and Anaphoric Dependence: On Reconstruction and Its Implications’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  8. Berman, Howard. 1972. ‘Relative Clauses in Hittite’ in P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi, and G. C. Phares (eds.), The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  9. Berntsen, Maxine and Jai Nimbkar. 1975. A Marathi Reference Grammar, South Asia Regional Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  10. Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi: A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  11. Bhatt, Rajesh. 1997. ‘Matching Effects and the Syntax-Morphology Interface: Evidence from Hindi Correlatives’ in B. Bruening (ed.), Proceedings of SCIL 8, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 31, MITWPL, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 53–68.Google Scholar
  12. Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. ‘Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Available at http: //uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bhatt/diss.pdfGoogle Scholar
  13. Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Bresnan, Joan and Jane B. Grimshaw. 1978. ‘The Syntax of Free Relatives in English’ Linguistic Inquiry 9(3), 331–391.Google Scholar
  15. Cardona, George. 1965. A Gujarati Reference Grammar, The University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’ in K. Hale and S. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program, Studies in Linguistics, No. 28, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  18. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A'-Dependencies, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, No. 17, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  19. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Curme, George O. 1912. ‘A History of the English Relative Construction’ The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 11, 10–29, 180–204, 355–380.Google Scholar
  21. Dasgupta, Probal. 1980. ‘Questions and Relative and Complement Clauses in a Bangla Grammar’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
  22. Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in Wh-Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, No. 62, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  23. Downing, Bruce. 1973. ‘Correlative Relative Clauses in Universal Grammar’ in Minnesota Working Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, Minnesota Working Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, No. 2, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  24. Dwivedi, Veena D. 1995. ‘Syntactic Dependencies and Relative Phrases in Hindi’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Distributed by GLSA.Google Scholar
  25. Fox, Danny. 1995. ‘Economy and Scope’ Natural Language Semantics 3(3), 283–341.Google Scholar
  26. Fox, Danny. 1999. ‘Reconstruction, Binding Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains’ Linguistic Inquiry 30(2), 157–196.Google Scholar
  27. Fox, Danny, 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, No. 35, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  28. Gambhir, Vijay. 1981. ‘Syntactic Restrictions and Discourse Functions of Word Order in Standard Hindi’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  29. Grierson, George A. 1883. Seven Grammars of the Dialects and Subdialects of the Bihari Language, Bharatiya Publishing House, Delhi.Google Scholar
  30. Groos, Anneke and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1979. ‘Matching effects in Free Relatives: A Parameter of Core Grammar’ in A. Belleti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar: Proceedings of the IVth GLOW Conference, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa, pp. 171–216.Google Scholar
  31. Grosu, Alexander. 1987. ‘Pied Piping and theMatching Parameter’ Linguistic Review 6(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
  32. Hale, Kenneth L. 1976. ‘The Adjoined Relative Clause in Australian’ in R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Australian Institute of Aboriginial Studies, Canberra, pp. 78–105.Google Scholar
  33. Harbert, Wayne. 1983. ‘On the Nature of the Matching Parameter’ Linguistic Review 2(3), 237–284.Google Scholar
  34. Heim, Irene. 1985. ‘Notes on Comparatives and Related Matters’ unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  35. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1997. Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  36. Heycock, Caroline and Anthony Kroch. 1999. ‘Pseudocleft Connectivity: Implications for the LF Interface Level’ Linguistic Inquiry 30(3), 365–397.Google Scholar
  37. Hoeksema, Jan. 1984. ‘To Be Continue: The Story of the Comparative’ Linguistic Review 3, 93–107.Google Scholar
  38. Hook, Peter E. 1979. Hindi Structures: Intermediate Level, Michigan Papers on South and South-East Asia, No. 16, Center for South and South-East Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  39. Iatridou, Sabine. 1994. ‘Clitics and Island Effects’ in R. Izvorski and V. Tredinnick (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 2, University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Club, Philadelphia, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
  40. Izvorski, Roumyana. 1996. ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Correlative Proforms’ in K. Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 26, GLSA Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 133–147.Google Scholar
  41. Jacobson, Pauline. 1983. ‘On the Syntax and Semantics of Multiple Relative in English’ Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  42. Junghare, Indira. 1973. ‘Restrictive Relative Clauses in Marathi’ Indian Linguistics 34(4), 251–262.Google Scholar
  43. Kachru, Yamuna. 1973. ‘Some Aspects of Pronominalization and Relative Clause Construction in Hindi-Urdu’ in B. B. Kachru (ed.), Papers on South Asian Linguistics, Vol. 3.2, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana, pp. 87–103.Google Scholar
  44. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, No. 25, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  45. Keenan, Edward. 1985. ‘Relative Clauses’ in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 141–170.Google Scholar
  46. Kelkar, Ashok. 1973. ‘Relative Clauses in Marathi: A Plea for a Less Constricted View’ Indian Linguistics 34(4), 274–300.Google Scholar
  47. Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. ‘Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz; published in 1999 by Garland.Google Scholar
  48. Lambert, H. M. 1971. A Gujarati Language Course, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  49. Lasnik, Howard. 1998. ‘Some Reconstruction Riddles’ in A. Dimitriadis, H. Lee, C. Moisset, and A. Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 5.1, University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Club, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  50. Lebeaux, David. 1990. ‘Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation’ in Proceedings of NELS 20, GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 318–332.Google Scholar
  51. Lebeaux, David. 1998. ‘Where Does Binding Theory Apply?’ Technical Report, NEC Research Institute, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  52. Mahajan, Anoop K. 1990. ‘The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MITWorking Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  53. Mahajan, Anoop K. 2000. ‘Relative Asymmetries and Hindi Correlatives’ in A. Alexiadou, A. Meinunger, C. Wilder, and P. Law (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses, Linguistik Aktuell, No. 32, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  54. Masica, Colin. 1972. ‘Relative Clauses in South Asia’ in P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi, and G. C. Phares (eds.), The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 198–204.Google Scholar
  55. Masica, Colin. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages, Cambridge Language Surveys, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  56. McCawley, James D. 1992. ‘Remarks on Adsentential, Adnominal, and Extraposed Relative Clauses in Hindi’ paper presented at the SALA at Stanford.Google Scholar
  57. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. ‘Against Optional Scrambling’ Linguistic Inquiry 28(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  58. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997. Marathi: A Descriptive Grammar, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  59. Pesetsky, David. 1989. ‘Language-Particular Processes and the Earliness Principle’ unpublished manuscript of paper presented at GLOW1989, MIT, available fromwebsite.Google Scholar
  60. Postal, Paul. 1974. On Raising, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  61. Raman, C. 1973. ‘The Old Hittite Relative Construction’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  62. Romero, Maria-Isabel. 1997. ‘The Correlation between Scope Reconstruction and Connectivity Effects’ in E. Curtis, J. Lyle, and G. Webster (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
  63. Ross, John R. 1967. ‘Constraints on Variables in Syntax’ Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts; published in 1986 as Infinite Syntax, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  64. Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. ‘Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Distributed by GLSA.Google Scholar
  65. Safir, Kenneth. 1999. ‘Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in A'-Chains’ Linguistic Inquiry 30(4), 587–620.Google Scholar
  66. Sahoo, Kalyanamalini and Lars Hellan. 1998. ‘Multiple Correlativization in Oriya’ talk given at ConSole98, University of Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  67. Sauerland, Uli. 1998. ‘The Meaning of Chains’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  68. Schmidt, Ruth L. 1981. Dakkhini Urdu, Bahri, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  69. Shukla, Shaligram. 1981. Bhojpuri Grammar, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  70. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. ‘A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure’ Linguistic Inquiry 19(4), 425–449.Google Scholar
  71. Sridhar, S. N. 1990. Kannada, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  72. Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 637–686.Google Scholar
  73. Suñer, Margarita. 1984. ‘Free Relatives and the Matching Parameter’ Linguistic Review 3(4), 363–387.Google Scholar
  74. Trumpp, Ernest: 1872. Grammar of the Sindhi Language Compared with the Sankrit-Prakrit and the Cognate Indian Vernaculars, Biblio Verlag, Osnabrück. Reprinted in 1970.Google Scholar
  75. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. ‘French Relative Clauses’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  76. Wali, Kashi. 1982. ‘Marathi Correlatives: A Conspectus’ in P. J. Mistry (ed.), South Asian Review: Studies in South Asian Languages and Linguistics, SALA Journal, No. 6.1, South Asian Literary Association, Jacksonville, Florida, pp. 78–88.Google Scholar
  77. Wali, Kashi and Omkar N. Koul. 1997. Kashmiri: A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  78. Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. ‘On the Syntax and Semantics of (Relative) Pronouns and Determiners’ Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2(2), 143–181.Google Scholar
  79. Yadav, Ramawatar. 1996. A Reference Grammar of Maithili, Trends in Linguistics: Documentation, No. 11, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajesh Bhatt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics Calhoun 501The University of TexasAustinUSA E-mail

Personalised recommendations