The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses Author(s): Peter Cole
Source: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 5, No. 2 (May, 1987), pp. 277-302 Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047634 . Accessed: 01/09/2011 17:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
THE STRUCTURE OF INTERNALLY HEADED
RELATIVE CLAUSES*
1. INTRODUCTION
In a considerable number of genetically unrelated languages there exists a relative clause construction like that illustrated in (1)-(2):
(1) Internally headed Relative Clause in Ancash Quechua [nuna bestya-ta ranti-shqa-n] alli
man horse-ACC buy-PERFECT-3 good
bestya-m ka-rqo-n.
horse- VALIDATOR be-PAST-3
The horse that the man bought was a good horse.
(2) Internally Headed Relative Clause in Lakhota (from William- son 1984)
[[Mary ow"a wtkage] ki] he ophewathu.
Mary quilt a make the DEM I-buy I bought the quilt that Mary made.
* I would like to thank Guy Carden, Sandy Chung, John Goldsmith, Jeanne Gibson, Gaby Hermon, James Huang, Osvaldo Jaeggli, Jerry Morgan, Paul Neubauer, Eduardo Raposo, Herb Stahlke, Janice Williamson, and a number of anonymous reviewers -for their com- ments on the ideas put forward in this paper. I would also like to thank the members of the UCSD Linguistics Department for their hospitality during the time the first draft of this paper was being written. The present version was written while I was a visitor at Tamkang University and Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, the Republic of China. I would like to express my appreciation for the assistance given to me by both universities. Thanks are also due to Steve Helmreich for invaluable editorial assistance.
This paper builds upon earlier work of mine which appeared in prepublication form in a different theoretical context in the working papers of the Department of Linguistics of the University of Texas. I would like to reiterate my thanks to Emmon Bach, Polly Jacobson, Wayne Harbert, Paul Hirschbuhler and Sue Schmerling for their comments on that work.
An idea similar 1o that which forms the core of section III was previously proposed by Emmon Bach (1974) with respect to the adjoined relative clauses in South Asian languages.
The research reported on in this paper was supported in part by the National Science Council of the Republic of China, the National Science Fdundation (grant *BNS7904784), the SSRC and the ACLS Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, the Center for Latin American Studies of the University of Illinois and the Research Board of the University of Illinois. This support is acknowledged with gratitude.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5 (1987) 277-302.
? 1987 by D. Reidel Publishing Company
278 PETER COLE
In (1) and (2) the nominal which is understood as the head occurs, on the surface, in a position internal to the modifying clause.
Following common practice, I shall refer to relative clauses of this type as INTERNALLY HEADED relative clauses (IHRCs). However, it will be argued in this paper that IHRCs are not in fact internally headed, but rather that, in S-structure (and in D-structure as well) they have phonologically null heads which, being some kind of pronominal, are coindexed with an NP in the modifying clause. Furthermore, as was proposed in Williamson (1984), I argue that IHRCs have lexical heads at LF. The structures which I propose for IHRCs are illustrated in (3) and (4).1
(3) Proposed S-Structure of IHRCs NP
NP
NPi ei
(lexical)
(4) Proposed LF Structure of IHRCs NP
S NPi
. . . ti . .. (lexical)
The paper assumes the general theoretical orientation of the Govern- ment and Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1977, 1980, 1981a, 1981b inter
I The structure proposed by Williamson as the output of head raising in sentences like (2) is somewhat different from (4). This is discussed further in footnote 8.
For additional examples of languages with IHRCs and related constructions, see Bird (1966), Cole et al. (1977), Cole, Harbert and Hermon (1982), Gorbet (1976, 1977), Keenan (1978), Kuroda (1976), Li and Thompson (1978), and Platero (1974).
alia). Specific departures from the generally accepted analyses are dis- cussed in the body of the paper.
Most of the arguments which follow are based on two Quechua languages, Imbabura and Ancash. Ancash and Imbabura are rather distantly related. Ancash is a member of the Quechua B family, and is spoken in the Department of Ancash in Peru, while Imbabura is a member of the Highland Ecuadorian branch of the Quechua A family, and is spoken in the Province of Imbabura in northern Ecuador. The two languages differ considerably in phonology, morphology and syntax. See Cole (1982a) for extensive discussion of how these two languages differ.
Where differences are relevant to the points discussed here, they are mentioned below.
2. EVIDENCE THAT IHRCs ARE NOT INTERNALLY HEADED
I shall first consider whether IHRCs can be considered internally headed in any structural sense. My argument will be based on a comparison of the properties of IHRCs and headed relative clauses in Ancash Quechua.
The nominal interpreted as the head in IHRCs does not have the syntactic properties associated with the head in headed relative clauses.
Headed and headless relative clauses in Ancash are illustrated in (5) and (1) (repeated):
(5) Headed Relative Clause
[Np [s nuna 0i ranti-shqa-n] bestya,] alli
man buy-PERFECT-3 horse(NOM) good
bestya-m ka-rqo-n
horse-EVIDENTIAL be-PAST-3
The horse the man bought was a good horse.
(1) Internally Headed Relative Clause
[NP nuna bestya-ta ranti-shqa-n] alli
man horse-ACC buy-PERFECT-3 good
bestya-m ka-rqo-n.
horse-EVIDENTIAL be-PAST-3
The horse the man bought was a good horse.
A comparison of (5) and (1) makes clear the properties of IHRCs. In (5) it is apparent that the head NP bestya 'horse' occurs outside the modify- ing clause. This is shown both by word order and case. In terms of word
280 PETER COLE
order, bestya in (5) cannot be a constituent of the subordinate clause because subordinate clauses in Ancash are strictly verb final.2 Compare (6) and (7).
(6) Main Clause (a) Verb final
Jose hatun wayi-ta rura-rqo-n Jose big house-ACC make-PAST-3 Jose made a big house.
(b) Non-verb final
Jose rura-rqo-n hatun wayi-ta Jose make-PAST-3 big house-ACC Jos6 made a big house.
(7) Subordinate Clause (a) Verb final
Maria [s Jose hatun wayi-ta rura-nampaq] munan Maria Jose big house-ACC make-PURPOSE wants Maria wants Jose to make a big house.
But not:
(b) Non-verb final
*Maria [s Jose rura-nampaq hatun wayi-ta]
Maria Jose' make-PURPOSE big house-ACC munan
wants
Maria wants Jose to make a big house.
Thus, the appearance of bestya in (5) to the right of the subordinate verb rantishqan shows that bestya is not a constituent of the subordinate clause.
The same conclusion can be reached on the basis of case marking.
Bestya in (5) bears nominative (phonologically null) case, the case appropriate if this nominal is the (matrix) subject. If bestya were a constituent of the subordinate clause, the accusative form bestya-ta
2 The only exception is clausal constituents, which occasionally occur postverbally.
would be expected. Hence, I conclude that bestya in (5) is the head of the relative clause and not a constituent of the modifying clause.
In contrast, bestya-ta in (1) is clearly not the syntactic head of the relative clause, but rather, a constituent of the subordinate clause. First of all, in terms of linear order, bestya-ta occurs between the subject and the verb of the modifying clause. Secondly, the appearance of the accusative case marker -ta is appropriate if bestya is the subordinate direct object, but not if it were the head. Hence I conclude that bestya-ta in (1) is not the (S-structure) head, but, rather a constituent of the modifying clause.
3. DISTRIBUTIONAL EVIDENCE FOR A PHONOLOGICALLY
NULL ANAPHORIC HEAD
I shall now turn to the question of whether the relative clause in (1) is, in fact, literally headless, or whether a phonologically null head node is found. My central claim is that there is, in fact, a head NP node, and that the null head, presumably a phonologically null pronoun, is coindexed with a non-null NP antecedent inside the modifying clause, as in (8). In (8) bestya is the antecedent of the coindexed null NP2.
(8) The Anaphoric Head Hypothesis NP1
S NPi
nuna bestya-tai rantishqan man horse-ACC bought
I argue against analyses like (9a) and (9b), where (9a) claims that IHRCs lack a (surface) head altogether, and in (9b), although a head node is present, it is not anaphoric - i.e. it has no coindexed antecedent inside the modifying clause.
(9)a. The No Head Hypothesis NP
S
nuna bestya-ta rantishqan man horse-ACC bought
282 PETER COLE b. The Non-Anaphoric Head Hypothesis
NP
S NP
nuna bestya-ta rantishqan man horse-ACC bought
My argument is based on the fact that there are significant restrictions on the distribution of IHRCs cross-linguistically. It has been widely obser- ved (e.g., Keenan, 1978; Gorbet, 1977, 1978) that IHRCs are found only in OV languages. In addition, IHRCs occur only in languages manifes- ting null anaphora3 (that is, the use of null NPs in place of lexical pronouns etc. in most argument positions), as in (10), from Imbabura Quechua:
(10) (fiuka) mishki-ta randi-rka-ni. (fiuka) (chay-ta)
(I) candy-ACC buy-PAST- 1 I that-ACC
m iku-rka-ni.
eat-PAST- I
I bought candy. I ate it.
In (10) not only can the subject pronoun be omitted, but so can the pronominal object of miku- 'eat' (as well as the pronominal objects of all other transitive verbs), under discourse conditions similar to those in which pronouns are needed in English.
The restriction of IHRCs -to languages displaying OV structure and null anaphora is predicted if IHRCs have a structure like (8) rather than (9a) or (9b). More specifically, the restriction of IHRCs to OV languages implies that these relative clauses are found in languages having left- branching rather than (or in addition to) right-branching NP structure.
In terms of their relative clause structure, OV languages are typically left-branching.
I As used in this paper, the terms ANAPHOR and ANAPHORA are not restricted to bound anaphora (reflexives, reciprocals, PRO, etc.) but applies to any NPs with coindexed antecedents.
(1 )a. Left-Branching Relative Clause (head on right) NP
S P
b. Right-Branching Relative Clause (head on left) NP
NP S
I interpret the observation that IHRCs occur only in OV languages as resulting indirectly from the fact that they occur only in languages manifesting left-branching syntactic structure in NPs. This limitation on IHRCs is predicted if (a) IHRCs have structure (8) (and not (9a) or (9b)), and (b) anaphors are restricted in their distribution by principle (12), based on Langacker (1969) and Ross (1969).
(12) An anaphor cannot both precede and command its ante- cedent.4
According to (12), both (13a) and (13b) are well formed.
The Langacker-Ross condition is formulated in terms of S-command rather than c- command. With regard to IHRCs, a formulation in terms of c-command and precedence would seem to make the same predictions as one in terms of S-command and precedence. I shall, therefore, use the term 'command' without specifying whether c-command or S-command is intended. This does not in any way affect the discussion and the difference between S-command and c-command is in particular irrelevant to the comparison below of principles (12) and (15). It should be noted that the Langacker-Ross condition was originally formulated as a condition on pronouns (and, hence, A-binding). I have extended the condition to anaphor-antecedent relations in general and thereby to both A-binding and A-binding. Obviously (12) has been challenged by Reinhart (1976, 1981) and is not widely accepted today. Its acceptance would require significant changes in the Binding Theory.
Below, I shall consider the implications of my analysis for Reinhart's proposals and for the Binding Theory.
284 PETER COLE (13) Left-Branching (head on right)
(a) Null Anaphor Head
NP
S sNP
... NPVl. e
(lexical)
(b) Null Anaphor in Modifying Clause
NP
S Np2
... NP .V.. (lexical)
e
In the headed structure (13b) the null anaphor precedes but does not command its antecedent. In (13a) the null anaphor commands but does not precede its antecedent. Thus, in left-branching structures like those of (13), principle (12) predicts that the null anaphor can occur either in the head position or in the modifying clause.
In contrast, in the right-branching structures like (14), principle (12) predicts that the null anaphor should be well-formed in the modifying clause but not in the head position.
(14) Right-Branching (head on left) (a) Null Anaphor Head
NP
NP' S
e . . . ~~~~~~~~~~NP . ...
(lexical) (b) Null Anaphor in Relative Clause
NP
NP1 S
L' A
(lexical) ... NP
e
In (14a) the null anaphor head both precedes and commands its ante- cedent in violation of (12). In (14b), the null anaphor neither precedes nor commands its antecedent. Thus (14b) is predicted to be well formed.5
I have shown that if the null NP in relative clause structures is assumed to be an anaphor of some kind, with a lexical antecedent, principle (12) predicts that IHRCs will be possible only in left-branching relative clause structures, those typically found in OV languages. They will, in addition, obviously be restricted to languages generally permitting null anaphors.
If, in contrast, the No Head Hypothesis (9a) or the Non-anaphoric Head Hypothesis (9b) were adopted, no such prediction would be made, since principle (12) would not rule out a genuinely headless structure like (9a)
I Note that the predictions of principle (12) do not extend to free relatives. Free relatives are predicted to exist in both right-branching and left-branching languages.
286 PETER COLE
or a non-anaphoric null head, as in (9b). Thus, (8) is to be preferred over either (9a) or (9b).
4. IMPLICATIONS FOR REINHART'S ANALYSIS
I showed in the previous section that principle (12) (in conjunction with structure (8)) correctly predicts the cross-linguistic distribution of IHRCs. I will now turn to Reinhart's proposals, and will show that her analysis fails to make the correct predictions. This constitutes evidence for (12) over Reinhart's (15), at least for those languages manifesting IHRCs.
(15) Reinhart's Condition (slightly simplified) An anaphor cannot command its antecedent.
According to (15), an anaphor cannot command its antecedent regard- less of whether the anaphor precedes or follows it. This condition not only rules out (14a), which is ruled out by (12), but also predicts that (13a) is ill-formed. Note that in both (13a) and (14a), the anaphor commands its antecedent. Thus, even assuming the correctness of the structures in (13) and (14), principle (15) fails to predict the distribution of IHRCs cross-linguistically.
5. EVIDENCE FROM SUBJACENCY FOR A PHONOLOGICALLY
NULL ANAPHORIC HEAD
I would like to turn now to an argument for the Anaphoric Head Hypothesis based on subjacency in the Quechua languages. In these languages IHRCs constitute islands for Wh-extraction. This is illustrated in (16):6
(16) Ungrammaticality of Extraction from IHRCs (a) Imbabura Quechua
*[NP [S Juan [Np [s 0i sisa-kuna-ta, japi-shka] 0J]
Juan flower-PL-ACC pick-NOMINAL(izer) gushta-j] warmi,] juyaylla-mari.
like-NOMINAL woman beautiful- VAL
(The woman that Juan likes the flowers that picked is beautiful.)
6 Without thereby prejudging the argument, I use structures like those in (8), with null anaphoric heads, to represent IHRCs in (16). The precise structure of such clauses is not significant at this point since what is relevant is the grammaticality judgements.
(b) Ancash Quechua
*pi- ta- taqi[Np [S qanyan wamraj 0i rika-nqa-n]0j who-ACC- WH yesterday child see-NOMINAL-3 -ta] kuya-nki ?
ACC love-2
(Who do you love the child that saw yesterday?)
The ungrammaticality of extraction from IHRCs can be explained if the Anaphoric Head Hypothesis (8) is adopted and if certain modifications are made in the definition of subjacency. The alternatives to the Anaphoric Head Hypothesis (9) provide no explanation for the ill- formedness of (16). Furthermore, the modifications to subjacency are largely necessary for reasons unrelated to the ungrammaticality of (16).
The structure of the argument is as follows. I shall first show that the two languages manifest island phenomena of a sort generally considered to motivate the applicability of the subjacency condition to a language. I shall then show that subjacency must, on grounds entirely unrelated to IHRCs, be modified by a condition similar to L-Containment (Chomsky, 1973). Finally, I shall show that a slight extension of L-Containment (defined below) correctly predicts the ill-formedness of the two examples of (16) if (8) is adopted.
In the Quechua languages Wh-movement is subject to a subjacency condition similar to that found in English and other languages. For example, extraction from a headed relative clause like that in (5) is ill-formed, as is illustrated in (17). The ungrammaticality of the two examples in (17) is to be expected on the basis of the subjacency condition if the extraction crosses two bounding nodes, S and NP.
(17) tUngrammaticality of Extraction from Lexically Headed Rela- tive Clauses
(a) Imbabura Quecha
*[NASJuan [NP[S0,0; japi-shka] sisa-kunaj]
Juan pick-NOMINAL flower-PL
gushta-j] warmi,] juyaylla-mari.
like-NOMINAL woman beautiful- VAL
(The woman who Juan likes the flowers that picked is beautiful.)
288 PETER COLE (b) Ancash Quechua
*ima-ta-taqi rika-rqo-nki[NPIIg0,0i suwa-q]
what-ACC- WH see-PAST-2 steal-NOMINAL nuna-taj]
man-ACC
(What did you see the man that stole?)
For additional examples of the ungrammaticality of extraction from subjacency islands, see Cole (1982a, 1982b).
There is, however, reason to believe that subjacency in the Quechua languages is subject to an L-Containment condition similar to that proposed in Chomsky (1973). Arguments in favor of L-Containment in Quechua are discussed in detail in Cole (1982b), so I will only review them briefly here. There are several reasons to believe that complement clauses in Quechua have the structure [NP[S]]. They are case marked, as are nominal arguments, and agreement in complement clauses is drawn from the nominal rather than the verbal paradigm. This is illustrated in (18)-(20), from Ancash.7
(18) Main Clause, Present Tense (Verbal Paradigm) qam shamu-nki.
you come-2 You come.
(19) Second Person Nominal peqa-yki
head- your your head
(20) Object Complement Clause, Present Tense (Nominal Paradigm)
noqa [qam rikaa-ma-nqa-yki]-ta pensa-rqo-o.
I you see-i -NOMINAL-2-ACC think-PAST-1 I thought that you saw me.
' In Ecuadorian Quechua including Imbabura, subject agreement has been lost in subor- dinate clauses. See Cole (1982a) for details. This does not affect the argument since the same point can be made on the basis of case marking.
The examples of (18)-(20) show that complement clauses follow the nominal rather than the verbal paradigm with respect to agreement (cf.
the -yki second person nominal suffix in (19) and (20) with the -nki second person verbal suffix in (18)). In addition, (20) shows that comple- ment clauses receive overt case marking (accusative -ta in this sentence).
Thus, complement clauses seem to be NPs, as in (21), rather than bare clauses as in (22):
(21) VP
NP V
(22) VP
_ \
.QI ~V
On the assumption that complement clauses have the structure [NP[S]],
and that subjacency blocks extraction over any two bounding nodes NP and S, it would be predicted that extraction from object complements would be ill-formed. But this is not so, as is shown by (23):
(23) pi-ta-taqi [qam 0i rikaa-nqa-yki]-ta
who- A CC- WH you see-NOMINAL-2-ACC
pensa-rqo-nki?
think-PAST-2
Whom did you think you saw?
The contrast between the grammaticality of extraction from a comple- ment clause like (23) and the ungrammaticality of extraction from headed relative clauses like those of (17) is predicted if subjacency is defined in such a way that the NP and S of (21) (i.e. (23)) are not sufficient to block extraction, but that those of (17) are. The crucial difference between (23) and (17) is that only in the former does the NP contain lexical material - its head: in (23) the NP immediately dominates the S. Chomsky's (1973) definition of subjacency allows for precisely this distinction, making use of a notion of L-Containment for this purpose.
290 PETER COLE
The definition is given in essence in (24):
(24)a. Category A L-contains category B if and only if A properly contains B and for all C
#
A, if A contains C and C contains B, then A= ... C. . ., where ... contains a lexical item.b. B is subiacent to A if and only if A is superior to B and there is at most one cyclic category C such that C L-contains the Minimal Maximal Category of B and C does not contain A.
The intuitive idea of L-Containment is that a node which would other- wise count for subjacency will not do so if it does not branch lexically.
Thus, a structure of the form (25) would potentially block movement but one of the form (26) would not:
(25) NP
NP S
lexical items ... t ...
(26) NP
Thus, the L-Containment hypothesis predicts that extraction from a complement clause like (23) will be well-formed, but extraction from headed relative clauses like (17) will not.
If L-Containment is interpreted as the containment of an actual phonologically realized, lexical item, subjacency defined as incorporating L-Containment obviously cannot account for the fact that extraction from IHRCs is not well-formed. This is because the phonologically null head does not dominate an actual lexical item under any analysis.
However, there is a very natural extension of the notion 'lexical' which, if incorporated into the definition of L-Containment, gives just the desired results. For purposes of L-Containment I will say that a node is lexical
if it dominates a lexical item or if it is anaphoric, in the sense employed here. (Recall how the null anaphors of Quechua in (10) are entirely parallel to English lexical pronouns.) Assuming this definition of L- Containment, (8) predicts correctly that extraction from IHRCs will not be possible, since in (8) NP' branches lexically. In contrast, (9a) and (9b) predict that extraction will be well-formed, since in those structures NP' does not branch lexically.
6. THE STATUS OF PRECEDENCE
It was shown in the previous sections that IHRCs are neither headless nor internally headed. Rather, they have phonologically null heads which are anaphorically related to, and hence coindexed with a lexical ante- cedent in the modifying clause. It was also argued that IHRCs present evidence in favor of principle (12) over (15) (repeated).
(12) An anaphor cannot both precede and command its ante- cedent.
(15) An anaphor cannot command its antecedent.
Blocked forward intraclausal coreference in sentences like (27) has been claimed by Reinhart to constitute a decisive argument against (12) and for (15).
(27) *Next to Johni hei saw a snake.
The ungrammaticality of (27) is predicted by the application of (15) (but not (12)) at the level of-surface structure. This argument has been widely accepted. However, Carden (1981a, 1981b and 1986 (which appeared while my paper was in proof)) and Carden and Dieterich (1980) argue that blocked forward coreference facts do not, pace Reinhart, constitute an argument for (15) over (12). An examination of a fuller range of facts that considered by Reinhart suggests that blocked forward coreference is in fact neutral with respect to (15) and (12). Reinhart claims that the ungrammaticality of (27) is due to the fact that in this example the pronoun he commands its antecedent John. But note that forward coreference is also blocked in sentences like (28), in which the pronoun
he does not command its antecedent:
(28) *Near Fenwicki the investigators believe hei noticed a snake.
Similar facts are noted in clefts etc. This suggests that the principle restricting coreference possibilities in intraclausal coreference must be stated prior to movement, as was proposed by Kuno (1975). At the
292 PETER COLE
pre-movement level (12) and (15) make the same prediction. If the PP in (27) and (28) originates in the relevant VP then at that stage the anaphor uncontroversially precedes and commands its antecedent. In that case, blocked forward intraclausal coreference facts are neutral between (12) and (15).
In addition, however, the authors cited present evidence in favor of (12). In sentences involving interclausal forward coreference like (29), (15) predicts incorrectly that coreference will be ill-formed.
(29) Next to where Johni was sitting, hei noticed a snake.
In (29) the pronoun he commands its antecedent John, but pace (15) coreference is possible. In contrast to (15), (12) predicts that (29) will be well-formed since the pronoun does not both precede and command its antecedent.
Note that Carden and Dieterich's analysis (1980) presents considerable problems within the context of Government and Binding theory. Inter- clausal coreference as in (29) must satisfy the conditions on coreference (presumably derived form Binding Theory) subsequent to movement, while conditions on intraclausal coreference ((27) and (28)) must apply prior to movement. A solution to these problems involving recon- struction suggests itself, but I will not discuss this possibility here, since it is not my purpose to consider in detail how (12) should be integrated into the Theory of Government and Binding. However, I would like to make a few tentative suggestions in this regard. First, it should be noted that if Carden and Carden and Dieterich's proposals with respect to English are correct, (12) applies to both A and A-binding. The examples dealt with in this paper involve the relationship between one element in an A- position (the head of the relative clause) and another in an A-position (the element in the modifying clause). I take this to be A-binding regardless of whether the antecedent is the element in an A-position or the one in an A-position. In contrast, Carden's examples involve pronoun-antecedent relations, and, therefore, the relationship between two elements in argument positions. This would suggest that (12) states a necessary condition on binding per se, rather than on A-binding or A-binding.
Second, it is not at present clear whether the choice of (12) over (15) should be viewed as universal, or whether languages can vary with regard to the choice of (12) or (15). There is some evidence suggesting that the choice of (12) or (15) is a parameter in regard to which languages can differ. In section 3 an account was presented of why
IHRCs occur only in languages which (a) have left-branching NP struc- tures, and (b) allow phonologically null anaphora. The Quechua lan- guages, Dieguenio, Lakhota and Navajo are languages which meet these criteria and which manifest IHRCs. It should, however, be noted that not all such languages have IHRCs. They are not, for instance, found in Mandarin despite the fact that in Mandarin the head is on the right in headed relative clauses (30) and null anaphora occurs (31) (see Huang, 1982, 1984), as evidenced by (32):
(30) [[wo zuo-tian kan-jian 0i de] ne-ge reni]
yesterday see COMP that man the man I saw yesterday
Null anaphora are allowed (see Huang, 1982, 1984):
(31)a. ni kan-jian Lisii-le-ma?
you see Lisi-PAST-INTERROGATIVE Have you seen Lisi?
b. wo kan-jian 0i-le I see-PAST PAST I have seen him.
(32) *[[wo zuo-tian kan-jian ne-ge reni de] 0il I yesterday see that man COMP the man I saw yesterday
Similar facts could be adduced from many other languages.
The absence of IHRCs in many languages with null anaphora and left-branching relative clauses is mysterious if it is assumed that (12) is true for all languages. Presumably, the non-occurrence of IHRCs would have to be attributed to language specific restrictions on the environment in which phonologically null NPs can be found. While such restrictions could be formulated, an analysis explaining the absence of IHRCs in certain languages on the basis of general principles would clearly be preferable.
In contrast, if the choice of (12) or (15) constitutes a parameter in universal grammar, the absence of IHRCs in many languages would be explained. Principle (15) predicts that relative clauses like (32) are
294 PETER COLE
ill-formed, since in (32) (and in relative clauses with the structure of (8) in general) the fact that the (phonologically null) anaphor commands its lexical antecedent is sufficient, under this principle, to exclude these sentences. Thus, if languages could differ with regard to whether they contain (12) or (15), it would be predicted that IHRCs would not be possible in those languages containing (15). I shall, thus, assume ten- tatively that the choice of (12) or (15) is a parameter in universal grammar.
7. THE STRUCTURE OF IHRCS AT LF
I have argued that only languages with (a) left-branching NPs, (b) null anaphors, (c) condition (12) rather than (15) can have IHRCs, and that the S-structure of IHRCs is that shown in (8). I shall now turn to the question of the structure of IHRCs at LF, arguing, following Williamson (1984), that a rule of head raising converts the S-structures of IHRCs into forms at LF which resemble (4), in which-the lexical material has been raised into the head:8
8 Williamson assumes that Lakhota IHRCs have no head at all at S-structure. Thus she adopts (9a) not (8). In fact she takes this position because she knows of no Lakhota internal evidence for a headed structure like (3). Head raising is posited as adjunction to the right of S. The output of head raising is (i):
(i)
NP,
Det
S NPi
ti
One of Williamson's major concerns is to explain a troubling asymmetry in the distribution of determiners in Lakhota IHRCs. It would take us too far afield to consider the relevance of Williamson's observations on Lakhota to the present suggestion that (8) is universally the S-structure of IHRCs. I do not believe that her observations force us to abandon (8) for (9a) with a consequent loss of explanatory power.
(33) Proposed LF Structure of IHRCs NP
S NPi
... ti ... (lexical)
I shall first consider the implications of ECP effects in IHRCs in Imbabura Quechua for LF structure (4). The Quechua languages exhibit clear ECP effects although there is no lexical complementizer present and null anaphora are possible. Compare the ungrammaticality of extrac- ting a complement subject and the grammaticality of extracting a com- plement direct object:
(34) Direct Object
[chay [Marya [Juzi 0, riku-shka]-ta
that Maria Jose see-NOMINAL-ACC kri-j] wawai] fia-mi ri-rka.
believe-NOMINAL child already go-PAST
The child who Maria believes that Jose saw already left.
(35) Complement Subject
*[Marya Juzi-man ni-shka [0i Juan-ta Maria Jose-to say-NOMINAL Juan-ACC riku-shka]]-ta warmi, llughshi-rka.
see-NOMINAL-ACC woman left-PAST
The woman who Maria told Jose that saw Juan left.
Similar examples could be given involving Wh-question movement (obligatory, and to the left in Imbabura), topicalization etc. I assume that the ECP applies at LF and that the ungrammaticality of (35) is due to the fact that (35) violates it. See Cole (1982a), and Hermon (1981, 1985) for extensive discussion.
If no movement occurred between S-structure and LF, and if the structure of IHRCs is essentially (8) at S-structure, then the LF representation of an IHRC relativizing on a complement subject (like
296 PETER COLE (35)) would be:
(36) NP
S NP5
NP VP e
NP V
NP, VP
(lexical)
Under such an analysis no ECP violation is predicted for IHRCs, since there is no empty category in the subject of the complement clause. In contrast, (4) yields an LF structure like (37) for IHRCs comparable to (35).
(37) NP
S NPi
NP VP
NP V (lexical)
NPj VP
e
According to (4), the LF structure of an IHRC is the same as that of a headed relative clause. The complement subject of the relative is now empty. Thus, if relativization of complement subjects is blocked by the ECP in the case of headed relative clauses (as in (35)), it should also be blocked in the case of IHRCs.
Sentence (38) shows that the relativization of a complement subject by an IHRC (in contrast to the relativization of a complement object in (39)) is indeed ill-formed.
(38) Complement Subject (IHRC)
*[Marya [warmi Juan-ta riku-shka]-ta
Maria woman Juan-ACC see-NOMINAL-ACC
ni-shka llugshi-rka say- NOMINAL leave- PAST
(The woman that Maria said that saw Juan left.) (39) Complement Object (IHRC)
[Marya [Juan wawa-ta riku-shka]-ta
Maria Juan child-ACC see-NOMINAL-ACC
ni-skha] llugshi-rka say-NOMINAL leave-PAST
The child that Maria said that Juan saw left.
Thus, I conclude that head raising occurs in IHRCs in Imbabura Que- chua.
8. EVIDENCE FROM SUBJACENCY IN IMBABURA QUECHUA FOR HEAD RAISING
The second argument for head raising in Imbabura Quechua has to do with the predictions made by (3) and (4) as putative LF structures with regard to internally headed relativization into (subjacency) islands. On the assumption that subjacency applies at LF in Imbabura, sentences like (40) provide an additional argument that IHRCs have a structure like (4) rather than a structure like (3) at LF.
(40) *[[Juan [[warmi 0i japi-shka] sisa-kunai]
Juan woman pick-NOMINAL flower-PL gushta-j]] juyaylla-mari
like-NOMINAL beautiful- VAL
The woman who Juan likes the flowers that picked is beautiful.
298 PETER COLE
If the LF structure of (40) were like (3) its ungrammaticality would be unexplained. This is because, according to (3), no movement has occur- red, in either the syntactic or LF components. But if the structure of (40) is like (4) at LF, there is a violation of subjacency. Thus, the ungram- maticality of this and similar sentences constitutes further evidence for head raising in the LF component.
Note that the assumption that subjacency applies at LF in Imbabura Quechua is crucial to the present argument. If subjacency constrained rules of the syntactic component only, not LF, the structures (3) and (4) make the same predictions since, in the syntactic component, IHRCs have no internal empty category.
I claim therefore that subjacency applies at LF in Imbabura Quechua.
This has been argued by other authors for several languages. See, for example, Bergvall (1984) for Kikuyu; Nishigauchi (1983) for Japanese;
and Wahba (1984) for Egyptian Arabic.
9. EVIDENCE FOR HEAD RAISING FROM THE SEMANTICS OF RELATIVE CLAUSES
It will be remembered that Imbabura Quechua, and many (though not all) other languages exhibiting IHRCs, also exhibit headed relative clauses. The question arises whether such languages can be analyzed as having a single set of rules interpreting all relative clauses, or whether separate interpretive rules are needed for headed relative clauses and IHRCs. Clearly, a single set of interpretive rules is to be preferred. I assume that headed relative clauses have the same structure at LF as at S-structure (more specifically, that no rule of head lowering maps an S-structure like (4) onto an LF structure like (3)). Then, if IHRCs have a structure like (3) at LF, the LF structures of headed relative clauses and IHRCs would differ so radically that it would seem necessary to posit two sets of interpretive rules for relative clauses.
In contrast, if (4) is the correct structure at LF for IHRCs, all relative clauses in Imbabura Quechua will have the same structure. Thus, a single set of interpretive rules would be possible.
10. EVIDENCE FOR HEAD RAISING FROM LAKHOTA
I shall next review the evidence from Lakhota. These arguments are drawn from Williamson (1987). Lakhota, like the Quechua lan- guages, manifests'IHRCs in which the nominal understood as the head is clearly not the surface structure head. When the nominal understood as
the head is a negative or irrealis polarity item, its distribution is that expected if it were in head position rather than in the modifying clause. I shall deal only with negative polarity items, though Williamson presents a similar argument based on the irrealis indefinite determiners.
In Lakhota certain indefinite forms, among them tuweni 'no one' and w1rzini 'not a', are negative polarity items: They must be c-commanded by and in the same clause with a negative:
(41)a. tuweni u pi sni no one come PL NEG No one came.
b. *tuweni u pi no one come PL No one came.
c. *f[[ska wazini ophethy]] wakrze sni dog not-a buy I-pretend NEG I didn't pretend to buy a dog.
But, although the presence of sni in a clause generally licenses the appearance of a negative indefinite in that clause, in IHRCs this is not the case. Rather, in order for the nominal interpreted as the head to have a negative indefinite determiner, sni must appear in the matrix rather than in the modifying clause.
(42)a. *[[tuweni u pi sni]' ki/cha] hena iyokipi.
no one come PL NEG DETS those happy b. *[[tuwa u pi sni] ki/cha] hena iyopiki.
someone come PL NEG DETS those happy Those who didn't come are happy.
c. Well-formed Negative Indefinite with Sni in Matrix Clause [[syka w 'ini ophewathy] cha] sape sni.
dog not-a I-buy IND black not No dog that I bought is black.
If it is assumed that the S-structure and LF structure of IHRCs are identical, the distribution of negative indefinites in IHRCs would con- stitute an unexplained irregularity, since they do not appear in the same
300 PETER COLE
licensing environment as elsewhere in the language. But if IHRCs undergo a process of head raising, as Williamson proposes, the dis- tribution of negative indefinites in IHRCs is predicted. Negative indefinites must appear within the scope of sni at LF. At that level, the negative indefinite is in the scope of sni in (42c) but not in (42a). Thus, the head raising analysis predicts the distribution of negative indefinites found in the sentences of (42).
1 1. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper I have argued for two main points: (1) that IHRCs have at S-structure phonologically null heads which are coindexed with a nominal inside the modifying clause that is interpreted as the head; and (2) that at LF the nominal interpreted as the head has been raised from the modifying clause into head position. Evidence for the proposed S-structure is based on anomalies in the distribution of IHRCs cross- linguistically, and on the implications of the proposed structure for subjacency in the Quechua languages. IHRCs also provide the basis for an argument that in at least some languages both precedence and command are relevant to binding.
Evidence for the proposed LF structure is drawn from Imbabura Quechua and from Williamson's (1987) study of IHRCs in Lak- hota, in which a head raising analysis is proposed. It is shown that in Imbabura IHRCs interact with the ECP and subjacency in a fashion which is predicted if head raising has applied. In addition, the semantic interpretation of relative clauses in Imbabura Quechua and similar lan- guages having both IHRCs and headed relative clauses is simplified if IHRCs are headed at LF. The arguments from Lakhota show that the distribution of negative indefinite and irrealis indefinite determiners is predicted if IHRCs have lexical heads at LF.
REFERENCES
Bach, Emmon: 1974, Syntactic Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Bergvall, Victoria L.: 1984, 'Problems for Subjacency and the ECP from Kikuyu In Situ WH Questions', paper presented at the 1984 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.
Bird, Charles: 1966, 'Determination in Bambara', The Joumal of West African Languages lII, 5-12.
Carden, Guy: 1981a, 'Blocked Forward Coreference with Clefts', (unpublished).
__: 1981b, 'Blocked Forward Coreference: Evidence for a Movement Analysis with Clausemate Coreference', paper presented at the 1981 meeting of the Canadian Lin- guistic Association.
1986, 'Blocked Forward Coreference: Theoretical Implications of the Acquisition Data', in B. Lust (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora: Volume I, Defining the Constraints, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 319-357.
