Cover not available
Part of
Noun Valency
Edited by Olga Spevak
[Studies in Language Companion Series 158] 2014
► pp. 161–182

Chapter 7. Noun phrasal complements vs. adjuncts

| University of Verona
This paper draws a parallel between verbs selecting phrasal complements or adjuncts and nouns followed by Relative clauses (RCs), referring in particular to German. According to Meinunger (2000) a restrictive relative clause (RRC) attached to a noun and a sentential complement of a factive verb are both sister complement phrases (CPs) of lexical heads. This paper aims at providing evidence of the fact that a RRC and its head are linked by a head-complement-relationship while a non-restrictive relative clause (NRRC) can be seen as an adjunction to its head. NRRCs merge with maximal projection late in the derivation of the associated clause rather than being selected by a lexical head during the construction of the matrix clause. This paper presents evidence for this difference, such as the parallelism with Haegeman (2002–2008)’s dichotomy between central and peripheral clauses.
Published online: 19 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.158.07res
References (31)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Adjective syntax and noun raising: Word order asymmetries in the DP as the result of adjective distribution. Studia Linguistica 55: 217–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. Some issues in the syntax of relative determiners. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 32], Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds), 53–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2008. More on the indefinite character of the head of restrictive relatives. Rivista di grammatica generativa 33: 3–24.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen [Studia Grammatica 73]. Berlin: Akademie-Verl. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egg, Markus. 2007. The syntax and semantics of relative clause modification. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands , Khal’il Simanan, Maarten de Rijke, Remko Scha & Rob van Son (eds), 49–56. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1989. The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26: 57–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 2009. Überlegungen zur pränominalen Nicht-Restriktivität. In Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 16], Veronika Ehrich, Christian Fortmann, Ingo Reich & Marga Reis (eds), 89–112. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. Features, theta-roles, and free constituent order, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 405‒436.Google Scholar
Felix, Sascha. 1985. Parasitic gaps in German. In Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, Werner Abraham (ed.), 173–200. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2002. Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2: 117–180.Google Scholar
. 2004a. Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop vol. 1 [ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35], Benjamin Shaer, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 157–192. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
. 2004b. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalization. In Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics [Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 107], Martine Coene, Gretel De Cuyper, Yves D’Hulst (eds), 61–90. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120: 628-648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1997. Extraposition. In Rightward Movement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 17], Dorothee Beerman, David LeBlanc & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 115–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax [Linguistic inquiry Monographs 25]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2000. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment [Lingustik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 38]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2000. A complement of n° account of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives: The case of Swedish. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 32], Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds), 309–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1994. Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 25(1): 63–117.Google Scholar
Resi, Rossella. 2011. The position of relative clauses in German. Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 87–118.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. A Handbook of Generative Grammar [Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics 1], Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 2001. On the position Int(errogative) in the left periphery of the clause. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi [North-Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic Variations 59], Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3], Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223–251. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 1996. Asymmetries partial wh-movement. In Papers on Wh-Scope Marking [Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, 76], Uli Lutz & Gereon Müller (eds), 289–315. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln in ihre Kombination [Linguistische Arbeiten 223]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2006. Non-restrictive modification and backgrounding. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language , Beáta Gyuris László Kálmán, Chris Piñón & Károly Varasdi (eds), 152–159, Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–238.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2004. Discourse particles in the left periphery. In Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop , Vol. 2 [ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35], Benjamin Shaer, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 254–566, Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael & Cole, Paul. 1974. Relative extraposition and the scope of definite description in Hebrew and English. In Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , April 19-21, Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox & Anthony Bruck (eds), 772–786. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar