Article published in:
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: 08 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.06hla
References
Åfarli, Tor A
1994 A promotion analysis of restrictive relative clauses. The Linguistic Review 11: 81-100. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina
1999 Consequences of Antisymmetry. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 123-140. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1973 Focus and relativization. Language 49: 19-46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S
1964 Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. Language 40: 37-52. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar