Resumption in Slavic relative clauses
Marko Hladnik
Utrecht University
m.hladnik@uu.nl
1 Introduction
When we consider the four possible relative clause configurations varying in the choice of the
relative element (either a pronoun or a complementizer) and the presence or absence of
resumption, we see that all of them are in fact attested in Slavic languages. Such a situation
may give an initial impression of arbitrariness in the use of resumption and contribute to
certain inaccurate characterizations of the constructions in the literature. I tease apart the
properties of the different constructions, establish under what conditions they are available,
and provide a derivation analysis for each of them.
I argue that i) the two (well-known) superficially different relativizing strategies in Slavic
(see (1) and (2)) should receive the same underlying syntactic analysis, ii) that an apparent
optionality in the use of resumption is not due to processing differences but rather due to
differences in the underlying syntax, and iii) that another (hitherto unidentified) type of
resumption that arises as a result of processing, non-syntactic constraints should be
distinguished.
2 Two common strategies
Two common ways of constructing RCs in Slavic are here illustrated by Slovene examples:
RCs can be either introduced by a pronoun (1), or by a complementizer (2), in which case a
resumptive clitic pronoun is present as well.
(1)
(2)
Poznam
človeka, katerega
so
iskali.
know.1SG man.ACC which.ACC AUX.3PL searched
Poznam
človeka, ki
so
*(ga)
iskali.
know.1SG man.ACC C
AUX.3PL he.ACC.CL searched
Both: ‘I know the man they were looking for.’
[Slovene]
I argue that resumption in Slovene relative clauses cannot be explained by stipulating the
presence of a syntactic island, and that a different mechanism is at work (see below). This
follows from the observations that i) resumption in RCs functions as a primary strategy, not
associated with any reduced grammaticality, and ii) resumption in Slovene in general cannot
be used as a last resort to repair illicit extractions. This argument is strengthened by the fact
that both types of relative clauses become ungrammatical when we try to relativize out of
known island configurations; the presence of resumption in (3) cannot obviate the movement
restriction. The same sensitivity is demonstrated for Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (B/C/S) and
Polish as well (cf. Bošković 2009, LaTerza 2013).
(3)
*človek, ki je Janez jezen, ker
ga
je
Peter odpustil
man
C is J.
angry because he.ACC.CL AUX.3SG P.
fired
Intended: ‘the man that John is angry because Peter fired’
This sensitivity to islands is taken as an indication that both (1) and (2) involve
wh-movement. I argue that in fact the two strategies of relativization share one and the same
underlying syntax, and are formed by the relative pronoun moving to Spec,CP. The
configuration can, however, be spelled out in two different ways, depending on the
(essentially free) choice between either the pronoun or the complementizer being overt.
Resumption arises at spell-out to ensure the recoverability of the case information pertaining
to the relativized position. Case morphology is spelled out on the relative pronoun when
overt, giving rise to (1). However, when the complementizer is overt, the pronunciation of the
relative pronoun is suppressed (since only one of the two elements can be overt at the same
time). In that situation, case is expressed by the resumptive pronoun as a partial spell-out of a
lower copy of the relative pronoun instead, resulting in (2).
3 Apparent optionality of resumption
I adopt a syntactic structure where relative clauses are complements to an external D head,
with the RC head located within the relative clause in the highest specifier of a split CP (cf.
Kayne 1994, Bianchi 1999, Aoun & Li 2003, Boef 2013, a.o.). The derivation itself can
proceed in one of two ways. The first one involves base-generating the RC head in its
specifier position, while the dependency is created by moving a relative pronoun to a lower
Spec,CP. This derivation underlies the examples in (1-2) discussed above. The alternative
derivation employs RC head raising from the relativized position to the highest Spec,CP. The
availability of two different derivations explains the variation in complementizer RCs
exemplified by (4a-b), where resumption seems to be optional. I argue that while they appear
superficially similar, the two examples are derived each in its own way.
(4) a. Ovo je auto
što sam
ga
kupio.
this is car.NOM C AUX.1SG he.ACC.CL bought
b. Ovo je auto
što sam
kupio.
this is car.NOM C AUX.1SG bought
Both: ‘This is the car that I bought.’
[B/C/S]
The derivation of (4a) involves pronoun movement. The pronoun remains silent, which
triggers resumption, as above. Example (4b), on the other hand, is derived by RC head
raising. Since no relative pronoun is part of the derivation, the RC in (4b) contains no
resumption. Another difference between the two derivations is that only the raising derivation
features a representation of the RC head at the relativization site, predicting the presence of
reconstruction effects in examples such as (4b) but not in examples such as (4a) or in pronoun
RCs, which is borne out.
The type of construction in (4b) is only available under two necessary conditions (cf.
Gračanin-Yuksek 2010). Firstly, the case morphology of the RC head must match both the
case assigned by the matrix predicate as well as the case assigned at the relativization site.
Secondly, the case assigned at the relativization site must not be inherent. I show how these
conditions follow from the details of the adopted raising analysis, which involves the
incorporation of an internal determiner (as part of the RC head) into the external D (cf.
Bianchi 2000). The analysis, interacting with the specific morphosyntactic properties of the
language, extends to explain RC data from Bulgarian (cf. Krapova 2010) as well.
4 Processing-driven resumption
Thus far we have only discussed uses of resumption in relative clauses that are a result of
morphosyntactic requirements, and as such absolute in nature. However, resumption driven
by processing considerations can be identified as well, its properties contrasting starkly with
syntax-driven resumption. It is attested in long distance relative clauses introduced by a
pronoun, as exemplified in (5).
(5)
Poznam človeka, katerega mislim,
da (ga)
iščejo.
know.1SG man.ACC which.ACC think.1SG that he.ACC.CL search.3PL
‘I know a man who I think they are looking for.’
Based on i) the non-obligatory nature of such resumption, ii) the fact that it more readily
appears in spoken varieties, and iii) the fact that is sensitive to the complexity and length of
the dependency, I conclude that this type of resumption (involving a partial spell-out of a
lower copy) is driven by processing considerations and facilitates the formation of the
long-distance relative dependency by marking the relativization site explicitly by overt
material. The prediction that the acceptability of such resumption should therefore increase
with the number of embedded clauses intervening between the relative pronoun and the
relativization site (and differ from the acceptability patterns of the morphosyntactic
resumption type, which is obligatory and not sensitive to dependency length) has been
confirmed by a survey involving speakers of Slovene, Polish, and B/C/S.
5 Conclusion
This paper connects the dots of disparate and partial empirical observations in the literature,
and together with original findings ties them into a coherent account of the rather complex
situation concerning resumption patterns in Slavic relative clauses. It teases apart the
syntax-driven use of resumption from the processing-driven one, and demonstrates the
necessity of maintaining a distinction between the different types.
Selected References
Aoun, J., and Y.A. Li. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar. The
Diversity of Wh-constructions. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bianchi, V. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bianchi, V. 2000. The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: A Reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 123-140.
Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses: Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Doctoral
Dissertation, Utrecht University.
Bošković, Ž. 2009. On relativization strategies and resumptive pronouns. FDSL 7 Proceedings, 1-13.
Gračanin-Yuksek, M. 2010. On a Matching Effect in Headed Relative Clauses. In Wayles, B., Cooper, A.,
Fisher, A., Kesici, E., Predolac, N., and Zec, D. (eds.) Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18,
193-209. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor.
Kayne, R.S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Krapova, I. 2010. Bulgarian Relative and Factive Clauses with an Invariant Complementizer. Lingua 120:
1240-1272.
LaTerza, I. 2013. The Case of Resumption in Serbian Relative Clauses. Ms., Stony Brook University.