Relative Clauses
Dominique Sportiche
May 2017

While Kayne (1994) or de Vries (2002) for example propose that promotion is the only option, seemingly compelling evidence has surfaced, particularly in Sauerland (2000), Bhatt (2002), Fox (2002), Fox (2014), Sauerland and Hulsey (2006), Bhatt and Pancheva (2004), Takahashi and Hulsey (2009) that headed (restrictive) relative clauses (RRC) must allow both promotion – aka head raising - (Vergnaud, 1974, 1985, Kayne, 1994) and matching derivations. In this article, I defend the hypothesis that all headed relatives, be they restrictive or appositives, with gaps or with resumptive pronouns, are derived by promotion. This will mean in particular that there is no need in the grammar for a (phrasal) “matching” operation based on the properties of relative clauses. Nor is Late Merge needed.
Format: [ pdf ]
Reference: lingbuzz/003444
(please use that when you cite this article)
Published in:
keywords: relative clause, promotion, matching, late merge, syntax
Downloaded:480 times


[ edit this article | back to article list ]