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. 221–252

A relative syntax and semantics for Slovenian

| University of Graz & Bled Institute
This paper entertains a novel, or rather transplanted, morhosyntactic and morphosemantic analysis of Slovenian Free Relative (FR) wh-markers with the signature enclitic -r morpheme. The syntax and semantics of -r marked FRs in Slovenian is set against an empirical observation of seeming morphosyntactic identity of interrogative and relative expressions (qua Caponigro’s generalisation) and is derived from the theoretical model of Chierchia & Caponigro (2013), who derive the syntax and semantics of FRs from interrogatives. In this spirit, we identify the sole derivational difference between questions and FRs in the temporal ordering, derivational procedure and the choice of two excorporation options within the fine-grained clausal spine (Rizzi, 1997) combined with particular assumptions concerning the narrow syntactic status of head movement (Shimada, 2007). Evidence from Slovenian thus serves to substantiate empirically Chierchia & Caponigro’s (2013) model as the -r morpheme is analysed as an overt realisation of an otherwise stipulated operator. Attention is also given to the post-syntactic processes triggered by the presence of the relativising morpheme, substantiating the proposal, specifically, and also, more generally, lending support to an anti-lexicalist view of non-atomicity of relative pronouns in Slovenian.
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.10mit
References (55)
References
Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Law, Paul, Meinunger, André & Wilder, Chris. 2000. Introduction. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 32], Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds), 1–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2003. Free Not to Ask: On the Semantics of Free Relatives and Wh-Words Cross-linguistically. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives crosslinguistically. In Proceedings of SALT 14, Robert B. Young (ed.), 38–55. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati, Caterina. 2010. On labeling: Principle C and head movement. Syntax 13(3): 241–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatzopoulou, Katerina. 2013. The history of the Greek NEG2: Two parameter resets linked to a syntactic status shift. Journal of Historical Syntax 2(5): 1–48.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennari & Caponigro, Ivano. 2013. Questions on questions and free relatives. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 18 . <[URL]>
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honour of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Friedin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–165. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cvetko Orešnik, Varja. 1988. Zum Rhotazismus im Südslawischen. Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 14: 433–446.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in Wh-Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon [Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Vol. 4]. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina & Cecchetto, Carlo. 2011. Relabeling Heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42(4): 519–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. Locality in post-syntactic operations. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34: 265–317.Google Scholar
. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grafenauer, Ivan. 1958. Celovški rokopis iz Rateč. Razprave SAZU 2(3): 5–63.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Marc. 1999. Multiple causation in the spread and reversal of a sound change: Rhotacism in South Slavic. Slovenski Jezik/Slovene Linguistic Studies 2: 63–76.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1983. Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. On stress and accent in Indo-European. Language 73: 275–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Idsardi, William J. 1995. General properties of stress and metrical structure. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John Goldsmith (ed.), 402–443. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MITWPL 21: 275–288.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. 1992. The Computation of Prosody. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Jagić, Vatroslav (ed.). 1883. Quattuor evangeliorum versionis palaeoslovenicae codex Marianus glagoliticus. Sanktpeterburg: Berolini.Google Scholar
Jøhndal, Marius L., Haug, Dag & Nøklestad, Anders. 2014. PROIEL: Pragmatic Resources in Old Indo-European Languages. University of Oslo. <[URL]>
Johns, Alana. 2007. Restricting noun incorporation: Root movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(3): 535–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 2006. An interpretive effect of head movement. In Phases of Interpretation [Studies in Generative Grammar 91], Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 45–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Majer, Marek. 2015. Russian kotóryj, Czech který, Slovene katéri: Vowel variation in the reflexes of Proto-Slavic *koter’(j’) ‘which (of the two)’. Scando-Slavica 61(2): 154–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words. PhD disseration, MIT.Google Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno. 2014. Morphosyntactic Atoms of Propositional Logic: A Philo-logical Programme. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
. 2016. Inquisitivity & rhetoricity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain . 6–9 September, University of York.
Myler, Neil. 2014. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
. 2015a. Exceptions to the mirror principle and morphophonological “action at a distance”: The role of “word”-internal phrasal movement and spell out. In The Structure of Words at the Interfaces, Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott & Lisa Travis (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Stem storage? Not proven: A reply to Bermúdez-Otero 2013. Linguistic Inquiry 46(1): 173–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogrin, Matija. 2007. Monumenta Frisingensia. Ljubljana: Slovenian Academy of Arts and Sciences. <[URL]>Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Williams, Edwin. 1986. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax [Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 1994. Generalized transformations and the Wh-cycle: Free relatives as bare Wh-CPs. In Minimalism and Kayne’s Antisymmetry Hypothesis, C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (ed.), 195–208. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The Meaning of Chains. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Shimada, Junri. 2007. Head Movement, Binding Theory, and Phrase Structure. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Silva, David J. 1997. The variable deletion of unstressed vowels in Faialense Portuguese. Language Variation and Change 9(3): 295–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šimík, Radek. 2009. The syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of the focus particle to in Czech. In Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7, Leipzig 2007, Gerhild Zybatow, Denisa Lenertová, Uwe Junghanns & Petr Biskup (eds), 327–340. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Snoj, Marko. 1997. Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana: Mladinska Knjiga.Google Scholar
Šuligoj, Tina. 2013. Syntactic Structure of Slovene Relative Clauses. Undergraduate thesis, University of Nova Gorica.Google Scholar
Veselinović, Dunja. 2013. Might li be more than a question particle? Ms, New York University.Google Scholar
Zagórska Brooks, Maria. 1975. Polish Reference Grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Mitrović, Moreno
2021. Construction. In Superparticles [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 98], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Mitrović, Moreno
2023. Bauwesen. In Superpartikeln, ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
S̆imík, Radek
2020. Free Relatives. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.