scholarly journals An HPSG analysis of the non-integrated wh-relative clauses in German

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anke Holler
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Subordinate Clause ◽  
Abstract Entity ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses

In this article, the so-called wh-relative clause construction is investigated. The German wh-relative clauses are syntactically relevant as they show both, root clause and subordinate clause properties. They matter semantically because they are introduced by a wh-anaphor that has to be resolved by an appropriate abstract entity of the matrix clause. Additionally, the wh-relative clause construction is discourse-functionally peculiar since it evokes coherence. Besides these interesting empirical characteristics, whrelatives raise important theoretical questions. It is argued that the standard HPSG theory has to be extended to account for non-restrictive relative clauses in general, and to cope with the particular properties of the wh-relative construction.

Infinitival relative clauses in spoken discourse

1998 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christer Geisler
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Grammatical Function ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
British English ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Spoken English ◽  
The Matrix

ABSTRACTThis article concerns infinitival relative clauses, such as Mary is the person to ask, and their distribution in spoken English. It analyzes the correlation between the function of the antecedent in the relative clause and the function of the whole postmodified NP (the relative complex) in the matrix clause. On the basis of a quantitative analysis of a corpus of spoken British English, I show that the grammatical function of the antecedent in the infinitival relative clause depends on the function of the antecedent in the matrix clause. I argue that the distribution of antecedent functions in the matrix clause can be explained in terms of thematic properties and information structure of the clauses in which the infinitival relatives occur. A key notion is that speakers center their discourse around information that they assume to be important for the communicative event.

scholarly journals Relative Clauses in Syntax

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark de Vries
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Internal Variable ◽  
Subordinate Clause ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Structural Level ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
English Sentence ◽  
Resumptive Pronouns ◽  
Additional Information

A relative clause is a clausal modifier that relates to a constituent of the sentence, typically a noun phrase. This is the antecedent or “head” of the relative construction. What makes the configuration special is that the subordinate clause contains a variable that is bound by the head. For instance, in the English sentence Peter recited a poem that Anne liked, the object of the embedded verb liked is relativized. In this example, the relative clause is a restrictive property, and the possible reference of a poem is narrowed to poems that Anne likes. However, it is also possible to construct a relative clause non-restrictively. If the example is changed to Peter recited this poem by Keats, which Anne likes, the relative clause provides additional information about the antecedent, and the internal variable, here spelled out by the relative pronoun which, is necessarily coreferential with the antecedent. Almost all languages make use of (restrictive) relative constructions in one way or another. Various strategies of building relative clauses have been distinguished, which correlate at least partially with particular properties of languages, including word order patterns and the availability of certain pronouns. Relative clauses can follow or precede the head, or even include the head. Some languages make use of relative pronouns, while others use resumptive pronouns, or simply leave the relativized argument unpronounced in the subordinate clause. Furthermore, there is cross-linguistic variation in the range of syntactic functions that can be relativized. Notably, more than one type of relative clause can be present in one language. Special types of relative constructions include free relatives (with an implied pronominal antecedent), cleft constructions, and correlatives. There is an extensive literature on the structural analysis of relative constructions. Questions that are debated include: How can different subtypes be distinguished? How does the internal variable relate to the antecedent? How can reconstruction and anti-reconstruction effects be explained? At what structural level is the relative clause attached to the antecedent or the matrix clause?

scholarly journals How the left-periphery of a wh-relative clause determines its syntactic and semantic relationships

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 243-260
Author(s):  
Anke Holler
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Left Periphery ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Semantic Relationships ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Theoretical Issues

This paper discusses a certain class of German relative clauses which are characterized by a wh-expression overtly realized at the left periphery of the clause. While investigating empirical and theoretical issues regarding this class of relatives, it argues that a wh-relative clause relates syntactically to a functionally complete sentential projection and semantically to entities of various kinds that are abstracted from the matrix clause. What is shown is that this grammatical behaviour clearly can be attributed to the properties of the elements positioned at the left of a wh-relative clause. Finally, a lexically-based analysis couched in the framework of HPSG is given that accounts for the data presented.  

Da eine oder mehrere betroffen …

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-100
Author(s):  
Melitta Gillmann
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Formal Language ◽  
Subordinate Clause ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Very High Frequency ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Causal Relations ◽  
Legal Texts ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Very High

AbstractBased on a corpus study conducted using the GerManC corpus (1650–1800), the paper sketches the functional and sociosymbolic development of subordinate clause constructions introduced by the subjunctor da ‘since’ in different text genres. In the second half of the 17th and the first half of the 18th century, the da clauses were characterized by semantic vagueness: Besides temporal, spatial and causal relations, the subjunctor established conditional, concessive, and adversative links between clauses. The corpus study reveals that different genres are crucial to the readings of da clauses. Spatial and temporal usages, for example, occur more often in sermons than in other genres. The conditional reading, in contrast, strongly tends to occur in legal texts, where it displays very high frequency. This could be the reason why da clauses carry indexical meaning in contemporary German and are associated with formal language. Over the course of the 18th century, the causal usages increase in all genres. Surprisingly, these causal da clauses tend to be placed in front of the matrix clause despite the overall tendency of causal clauses to follow the matrix clause.

Subordinate clauses

2019 ◽  
pp. 237-288
Author(s):  
Jan Terje Faarlund
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Clauses ◽  
Finite Verb ◽  
Nominal Clauses

In subordinate clauses, the C position is occupied by a complementizer word, which may be null. The finite verb stays in V. SpecCP is either empty or occupied by a wh-word, or by some other element indicating its semantic function. Nominal clauses are finite or non-finite. Finite nominal clauses are declarative or interrogative. Declarative nominal clauses may under specific circumstances have main clause word order (‘embedded V2’). Infinitival clauses are marked by an infinitive marker, which is either in C (Swedish), or immediately above V (Danish). Norwegian has both options. Relative clauses comprise several different types; clauses with a relativized nominal argument are mostly introduced by a complementizer; adverbial relative clauses relativize a locative or temporal phrase, with or without a complementizer; comparative clauses relativize a degree or identity. Under hard-to-define circumstances depending on language and region, subordinate clauses allow extraction of phrases up into the matrix clause.

scholarly journals Non-restrictive relative clauses in Arabic

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Abdulrahman A Alqurashi
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Preliminary Analysis ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
Restrictive Relatives ◽  
Modern Standard ◽  
Minimalist Syntax

This paper discusses the syntax of non-restrictive relative clauses in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). It provides a thorough description of their structures and attempts to offer a preliminary analysis within the transformation framework: Minimalist syntax. Two relativization strategies are available for Arabic non-restrictive relative clauses. The first strategy is similar to that of definite restrictive relatives in which the relative clause is initiated by ʔallaðiwhich is a relative complementizer, whereas the second strategy is a unique one in which the relative clause is initiated by the special particle wa, appears to be a specifying coordinator, along with the complementizer ʔallaði. The paper also argues that De-Vries’s (2006) coordinate approach to appositive relatives can provide a straightforward account for some the facts of non-restrictive relative clauses in Arabic.

scholarly journals Relative clause comprehension revisited: commentary on Eisenberg (2002)

2003 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 671-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVAN KIDD
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Real Time Processing ◽  
Time Processing ◽  
The Real ◽  
Syntactic Development ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
Requirements Acquisition

Eisenberg (2002) presents data from an experiment investigating three- and four-year-old children's comprehension of restrictive relative clauses (RC). From the results she argues, contrary to Hamburger & Crain (1982), that children do not have discourse knowledge of the felicity conditions of RCs before acquiring the syntax of relativization. This note evaluates this conclusion on the basis of the methodology used, and proposes that an account of syntactic development needs to be sensitive to the real-time processing requirements acquisition places on the learner.

English Speakers’ Comprehension of Embedded Relative Clauses in L2 Japanese

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 841
Author(s):  
Shinichi Shoji
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Sentence Type ◽  
Type A ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Type B ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Embedded Clauses ◽  
Accuracy Rates

This study investigated native English speakers’ comprehension of Japanese sentences in which relative clauses are embedded. Specifically, this study contrasted between (a) short-before-long sentences with center-embedded relative clauses and (b) long-before-short sentences with non-center-embedded relative clauses. Sentence-type (a) indicates a sentence that includes a short phrase before a long phrase and includes a relative clause that is embedded in the middle of the sentence, e.g., Onna-ga Ken-ga kiratteiru giin-o hometa ‘The woman praised the senator who Ken hated’. Sentence-type (b) indicates a sentence with a long phrase before a short phrase and includes a relative clause that is embedded peripherally, e.g., Ken-ga kiratteiru onna-ga giin-o hometa ‘The woman who Ken hated praised the senator’. Experiment 1 revealed that native English speakers, who are learners of Japanese, comprehended the type (b) sentences with long-before-short phrases and with non-center-embedded relative clauses more accurately than the type (a) sentences with short-before-long phrases with center-embedded relative clauses. The results indicate that the preference for the non-center-embedded clauses to center-embedded clauses is universal across languages, while the preference for short-before-long phrases is language-specific. However, Experiment 2 indicated that the different accuracy rates in comprehensions of (a) and (b) disappeared when the matrix subjects are marked by the topic-morpheme wa. The outcome indicated that the topic phrases are immediately interpreted as a part of main clauses.

scholarly journals Some kind of relative clause

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. 163-180
Author(s):  
Jon Ander Mendia
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses ◽  
Special Case

Amount Relatives (ARs) differ from restrictive relative clauses in that they do notrefer to a particular object denoted by the head of the relative clause, but to an amount of suchobjects (Carlson, 1977a; Heim, 1987). Traditionally, ARs have been regarded as degree expressions.In this paper I argue against this view and propose instead that amount interpretations ofrelative clauses are in fact a special case of kind interpretation.Keywords: kind reference, amounts, relative clauses.

scholarly journals Raising and matching in Pharasiot Greek relative clauses: A diachronic reconstruction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-39
Author(s):  
METIN BAGRIACIK ◽  
LIEVEN DANCKAERT
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clause ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Landing Site ◽  
Functional Structure ◽  
Left Periphery ◽  
Modern Greek ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Restrictive Relative Clauses

This paper studies the structure and origin of prenominal and postnominal restrictive relative clauses in Pharasiot Greek. Though both patterns are finite and introduced by the invariant complementizer tu, they differ in two important respects. First, corpus data reveal that prenominal relatives are older than their postnominal counterparts. Second, in the present-day language only prenominal relatives involve a matching derivation, whereas postnominal ones behave like Head-raising structures. Turning to diachrony, we suggest that prenominal relatives came into being through morphological fusion of a determiner t- with an invariant complementizer u. This process entailed a reduction of functional structure in the left periphery of the relative clause, to the effect that the landing site for a raising Head was suppressed, leaving a matching derivation as the only option. Postnominal relatives are analyzed as borrowed from Standard Modern Greek. Our analysis corroborates the idea that both raising and matching derivations for relatives must be acknowledged, sometimes even within a single language.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document