Cover not available
Part of
Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax: In honor of Janez Orešnik
Edited by Franc Lanko Marušič and Rok Žaucer
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 236] 2016
► pp. 129–144

The left periphery of Slovenian relative clauses

 | Utrecht University
This paper is concerned with the syntactic structure of relative clauses (RCs). It examines one particular facet of what Slovenian data can contribute to the discussion, and at the same time provides an analysis of the left periphery in Slovenian RCs. Section 2 outlines some key developments in the literature concerning the syntax of restrictive relative clauses, and traces a line of related approaches from Kayne (1994) and Bianchi (1999) to Aoun & Li (2003), arriving at an analysis that I adopt. In Section 3 I then first show that the approach is compatible with and supported by data from Slovenian before providing a more fine-grained analysis of the left periphery, namely ForceP>>IntP>>FocP, where ForceP is responsible for typing the clause and hosting the RC head in its specifier, the IntP layer is the target of whmovement establishing the relative dependency, while FocP is the locus of elements associated with focus.
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.06hla
References (43)
References
Åfarli, Tor A. 1994. A promotion analysis of restrictive relative clauses. The Linguistic Review 11: 81-100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: The Diversity of Wh‑constructions [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 40]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arnstein, Ron. 2002. A focus semantics for echo questions. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Structure in Context, Agnes Bende-Farkas & Arndt Riester (eds), 98-107. Stuttgart: ISM.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 43-90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 123-140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boef, Eefje. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses: Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 1997. Relative Clauses and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629-647.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1968. A New Analysis of the Relative Clause: Evidence for an Interpretive Theory. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Browning, Marguerite. 1987. Null Operator Constructions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1977. On Wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds), 71–132. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 1-52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2001. Deletion under identity in relative clauses. In Proceedings of NELS 31, Min-Joo Kim & Uri Strauss (eds), 131-145. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch Dialects. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Leiden. LOT Dissertation Series 96.Google Scholar
. 2010. Complex Wh-phrases don’t move: On the interaction between the split CP Hypothesis and the syntax of Wh movement. In The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and Operators, Phoevos Panagiotidis (ed.), 236-260. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golden, Marija & Milojević Sheppard, Milena. 2000. Slovene pronominal clitics. In Clitic Phenomena in European Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 30], Frits Beukema & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 191–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruet-Skrabalova, Hana. 2012. What kind of element is že in Czech? In Slavic Languages in Formal Grammar, Mojmir Dočekal & Marketa Ziková (eds), 33-47. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hladnik, Marko. 2015. Mind the Gap: Resumption in Slavic Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Hulsey, Sarah & Sauerland, Uli. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14: 111-137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1961. The constituent structure of noun phrases. American Speech 36: 159-168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Mišmaš, Petra, Plesničar, Vesna, Razboršek, Tina & Šuligoj, Tina. 2014. On a Potential Counter‑example to Merchant's Sluicing-COMP Generalization. Paper presented at SinFonIJA 7 , Graz, September 2014.
Munn, Alan. 1994. A minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries. In Proceedings of NELS 24, Mercè Gonzalez (ed.), 397-410. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Pankau, Andreas. 2015. The matching analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from Upper Sorbian. Paper presented at FASL 24 , New York, May.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering Trees [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 56]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the Left Periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281‑337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. On the position of int(errogative) in the Left Periphery of the clause. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 287-296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Salzmann, Martin. 2006. Resumptive Prolepsis: A Study in Indirect A’‑dependencies. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Leiden. LOT Dissertation Series 136.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The Meaning of Chains. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 61], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 205-226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49: 19-46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. Language 40: 37-52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smits, Rik. 1988. The Relative and Cleft Constructions of the Germanic and Romance Languages. PhD dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, Adam. 1999. ‘That-t effects’ cross-linguistically and successive cyclic movement. In Papers on Morphology and Syntax. Cycle One, Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause & Vivian Lin (ed.), 369-393. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Relativization and Ellipsis. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
. 2005. Relativization that You Did … [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 24]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2002. The Syntax of Relativization. PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. LOT Dissertation Series 53.Google Scholar
Vrzić, Zvjezdana. 1996. Categorial status of the Serbo-Croatian "modal" da . In Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, The College Park Meeting, Jindrich Toman (ed.), 291-312. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2000. A head raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 32], Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds), 349‑386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar