Cover not available

In:Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti
Edited by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann and Simona Matteini
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 223] 2015
► pp. 369–392

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Subject intervention in free relatives

Published online: 27 August 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.17cec
Subject intervention in wh-questions has been reported for several Romance varieties. The case we focus on here is free relatives. In Italian/French an object free relative introduced by chi/qui is degraded if a preverbal subject intervenes, much like the corresponding wh-question. However, pronominal relatives introduced by ciò che/ce que do not show a subject intervention effect. Moreover, in other languages, including English, free relatives display no subject intervention effect whatsoever. In this paper we address the following questions: (i) Why do subject intervention effects emerge in direct questions and in free relatives in Italian, French (and other Romance varieties)? (ii) Why don’t they arise in pronominal relatives? (iii) Why don’t they arise in languages like English?To answer these questions, we capitalize on the concept of Gross Minimality (Cecchetto & Donati, 2015) and on the observation that English free relatives are modeled after indirect questions.
References (34)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Âmbar, Manuela. 1988. Para uma sintaxe da inversão sujeito verbo en portugês. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lisbon.
Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null Subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
. 2001. On inversion in wh-questions in Romance. In Romance Inversion, Aafke Hulk & Jean Yves Pollock (eds), 20–59. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Contemori, Carla. 2010. Intervention and attraction. On the production of subject and object relatives by Italian (young) children and adults. In Proceedings of GALA 2009, João Costa, Ana Castro, Maria Lobo & Fernanda Pratas (eds), 39–52. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. Ways of avoiding intervention: Object relatives, passive and control. In Rich Grammar from a Poor Input, Robert Berwick & Massimo Piattelli Palmarini (eds), 115–126. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Chesi, Cristiano. 2011. Relative clauses from the input: Syntactic considerations on a corpus-based analysis of Italian. Studies in Linguistics. CISCL Working Papers 4: 5–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, Friedmann, Naama, Brunato, Dominique & Rizzi, Luigi. 2012. Does gender make a difference? Comparing the effect of gender on children’s comprehension of relative clauses in Hebrew and Italian. Lingua 122(10): 1053–1069. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 43–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2003. Free not to Ask: On the Semantics of Free Relatives and Wh-words Crosslinguistically. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Caponigro Ivano, Pearl Lisa, Brooks Neon & David Barner. 2012. Acquiring the meaning of free relative clauses and plural definite descriptions. Journal of Semantics 29(2): 262–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati Caterina. 2010. On labeling: Principle C and head movement. Syntax 13: 241–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati, Caterina. 2012. “Perché” Rizzi is right. In ENJOY LINGUISTICS! Papers Offered to Luigi Rizzi on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Valentina Bianchi & Cristiano Chesi (eds), 54–62. Siena: CISCL Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. (Re)labeling. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Contemori, Carla & Belletti, Adriana. 2014. Relatives and passive object relatives in Italian-speaking children and adults: Intervention in production and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics 35(6): 1021–1053. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Costa, João, Grillo, Nino & Lobo, Maria. 2012. Minimality beyond lexical restrictions: Processing and acquisition of free wh-dependencies in European Portuguese. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 57(2): 143–160.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina & Cecchetto, Carlo. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 519–560. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedmann, Naama, Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119: 67–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco, Ciro. 2013. Arguments and Subjects in A¢-syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Milan-Bicocca
Grillo, Nino. 2008. Generalized Minimality. Ph.D. dissertation. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, OTS.
Hirschbühler, Paul & Bouchard, Denis. 1985. French ‘quoi’ and its clitic allomorph ‘que’. In Studies in Romance Languages, Carol Neidle & Rafael Nunez Cedeno (eds), 39–60. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Why isn’t ‘this’ a complementizer? In Comparisons and Contrasts, Richard Kayne (ed.), 190–227. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Savoia, Leonardo. 2003. The nature of complementizers. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 28: 87–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans Georg. 1994. Aspects de la syntaxe A barre. Effects d’intervention et mouvements des quantifieurs. Thèse d’Etat, Université de Paris 8.
Patterson, Gary & Caponigro, Ivano 2014. The puzzling degraded status of who free relative clauses in English. Ms, UCSD.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Residual verb second and the Wh-criterion. In Parameters and Functional Heads, Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi (eds), 63–90. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. On some properties of Criterial Freezing. In The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and Operators, Phoevos Panagiotidis (ed.), 17–32. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. To appear. Cartography, criteria and labeling. In Beyond Functional Sequence, Ur Shlonsky (ed.). Oxford: OUP.
Van der Lely, Heather & Battell, Jackie. 2003. Wh-movement in children with grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language 79: 153–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French Relative Clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Rugna, Giuseppe
2023. The Case and Finiteness Restrictions of Italian Relativeche. Probus 35:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue