LONG-DISTANCE RELATIVIZATION IN VARIETIES OF DUTCH
Master Thesis by Eefje Boef, 0332704
Linguistics: The Study of the Language Faculty
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS
Utrecht University
Thesis Supervisor: Prof.dr. Sjef Barbiers
Second Reader: Prof.dr. Norbert Corver
July 2008
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General introduction .............................................................................................................................3
Chapter 1 Theoretical background ......................................................................................................5
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................5
1.2 The syntax of relativization ...........................................................................................................5
1.2.1 The Head External Analysis of relative clauses .....................................................................5
1.2.2 The Head Raising Analysis of relative clauses ......................................................................6
1.2.3 The Matching Analysis of relative clauses .............................................................................8
1.3 Relativization in Standard Dutch .................................................................................................10
1.3.1 The framework .....................................................................................................................10
1.3.2 Properties of Dutch restrictive relative clauses ....................................................................11
1.3.3 An analysis of Dutch relative clauses ...................................................................................12
1.3.3.1 De Vries (2002) .................................................................................................................13
1.3.3.2 Long-distance relativization in Dutch ...............................................................................14
1.3.4 The investigation of the variation in long-distance relativization in Dutch .........................16
1.4 Summary .....................................................................................................................................17
Chapter 2 Presentation of the SAND data on long-distance relativization ....................................18
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................18
2.2 Data collection – the SAND project ............................................................................................18
2.2.1 The Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (SAND) .............................................................18
2.2.2 Method of data collection ......................................................................................................18
2.3 The data .......................................................................................................................................19
2.3.1 Data on long-distance relativization – long A’-movement without resumptive pronoun .....23
2.3.2 Data on long-distance relativization – long A’-movement with resumptive pronoun ..........25
2.3.3 Data on long-distance relativization – PP-relatives...............................................................26
2.4 Summary .....................................................................................................................................27
Chapter 3 Long-distance relativization in Dutch dialects – subject/object asymmetries .............29
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................29
3.2 Presentation of the data ...............................................................................................................29
3.3 Theoretical background ...............................................................................................................32
3.3.1 The Empty Category Principle (ECP) ...................................................................................32
3.3.2 Mayr (to appear) ...................................................................................................................34
3.4 The analysis – subject/object asymmetries in varieties of Dutch ................................................38
3.4.1 Some notes on the status of die and dat ...............................................................................38
3.4.2 The analysis ...........................................................................................................................39
3.4.3 Predictions ............................................................................................................................41
3.4.4 Some problems – special properties of long subject relativization ......................................45
3.4.5 Intermediate summary ..........................................................................................................46
3.5 Alternative accounts ....................................................................................................................48
3.5.1 Pesetsky & Torrego (2001), Gallego (2004) ........................................................................48
3.5.2 Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007) ......................................................................................................52
3.5.3 Alternative accounts – summary ..........................................................................................54
3.6 Summary .....................................................................................................................................55
Chapter 4 Long-distance relativization in Dutch dialects – no subject/object asymmetries ........56
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................56
4.2 Presentation of the data ...............................................................................................................56
4.3 The analysis – no subject/object asymmetries in varieties of Dutch ...........................................57
4.3.1 Absence/presence of relative pronouns ................................................................................57
4.3.2 Syntactic doubling ................................................................................................................58
1
4.3.2.1 Phonetic realization of multiple copies – Nunes (2004) ...................................................59
4.3.2.2 Reduced copies – Van Koppen (2007) ..............................................................................60
4.3.2.3 Partial copying – Barbiers, Koeneman & Lekakou (2008) ...............................................64
4.3.2.4 Intermediate summary .......................................................................................................69
4.3.2.5 Predictions ..........................................................................................................................69
4.4 Summary .....................................................................................................................................72
Chapter 5 Conclusion and topics for future research ......................................................................73
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................73
5.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................73
5.3 Topics for future research ............................................................................................................74
5.3.1 PP-relatives ...........................................................................................................................74
5.3.2 Resumptive pronouns ............................................................................................................79
References ............................................................................................................................................82
Appendices ...........................................................................................................................................85
Appendix I The SAND data on relativization ...................................................................................85
Appendix II The SAND data on short relativization – geographic distribution ................................94
2
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
In this thesis I will discuss the syntax of long-distance relativization structures in varieties of Dutch.
The empirical basis for this study is formed by the SAND data on relativization, which show that there
exists a considerable amount of variation regarding long-distance relativization in the Dutch speaking
language area. The aim of this thesis is to provide a description and a (unified) analysis of this
microvariation.
Restrictive relative clauses
A restrictive relative clause is a subordinate clause that modifies a noun – the head of the relative
clause.1 The relativized constituent in the matrix clause is semantically and syntactically related to the
gap inside the relative clause, in other words, it has a pivot function (cf. De Vries 2002). In the
following English sentence, the relativized constituent the man is modified by the relative clause
who/that I saw yesterday, which is introduced by the relative pronoun who or the complementizer that.
Furthermore, the relative head noun (the) man functions as a pivot as it is syntactically the subject in
the matrix clause and the object in the relative clause. Notice that semantically, the man has two
different roles as well.
(1)
The man [RC who/that I saw __ yesterday] ran away.
In Dutch, the relative clause always follows the noun it modifies (head-initial/ postnominal relative
clauses), and, in contrast to English, the restrictive relative clause always needs to be introduced by a
relative pronoun. It thus follows that relative pronouns in Dutch are always sentence initial. Given this
observation and the observation that cross-linguistically relative pronouns are often homophonous to
interrogative pronouns (cf. De Vries 2002, Bhat 2004), since Chomsky (1977), it is assumed that the
syntax of wh-clauses and relative clauses is related. More in particular, relative pronouns are
traditionally taken to be wh-moved. We can formulate these properties of Dutch restrictive relative
clauses in a more abstract manner, as in (2). The co-indexing of the DP and the gap in the relative
clause merely functions to indicate that the two are syntactically and semantically related.
(2)
[MATRIX SENTENCE … DPi [RC relative pronoun … gapi …]]
The topic of this thesis
Similar to wh-phrases, relative constituents can be extracted from embedded clauses, giving rise to socalled long-distance relativization, as illustrated by (3), and abstractly exemplified in (4)
(3)
Dat is de man [die ik denk [dat __ het verhaal verteld heeft]]
that is the man die I think that the story told has
‘That is the man who I think told the story.’
(4)
[MATRIX SENTENCE … DPi [RC relative pronoun … [finite embedded clause complementizer … gapi …]]]
Inspection of the SAND data on long-distance relativization shows that there is a considerable amount
of variation regarding this construction.2 More specifically, the Dutch dialects show variation along
the following four parameters: (i) the form of the element that introduces the relative clause (die/dat),
(ii) the form of the element that introduces the most deeply embedded clause (die/dat), (iii) the
presence/absence of a complementizer, and (iv) the presence/absence of an overt subject/object –
resumptive pronoun – at the extraction site. In addition to this variation, as illustrated in (5), many
dialects make use of an alternative strategy in which the relative clause is introduced by a
1
With respect to the semantics of restrictive relative clauses, it is standardly assumed that their meaning is
acquired by set intersection of the meaning of the head noun and the RC (cf. Grosu & Landman 1998).
2
This thesis restricts its attention to Dutch headed restrictive relative clauses that require die in Standard Dutch:
in all (test) sentences the antecedent is 3rd person non-neuter (neuter singular antecedents require dat, which is
identical in form to the Dutch finite complementizer).
3
prepositional phrase – so-called PP-relatives (6). Such constructions differ from the ones in (5) in that
a prepositional phrase is relativized in the higher clause and the subject/object in the lower clause is
retained. These structures also show variation with respect to the presence of resumptive pronouns, i.e.
whereas in Standard Dutch the relativized constituent needs to be related to a resumptive pronoun
located at the extraction site, some dialects allow the head noun to be related to a gap.
(5)
… DP [RC die/dat (dat) … [finite embedded clause die/dat (dat) … gap/resumptive pronoun …]]
(6)
Dat is de man [waarvan
that is the man whereof
ik denk [dat hij/die het verhaal verteld heeft]]
I think that he/die the story
told
has
This wealth of variation immediately raises the question of how to account for the attested variation in
long-distance relativization. It seems natural to treat the data in a uniform way, and therefore, I will
pursue the default hypothesis that all the variants of long-distance relativization found in the Dutch
speaking language area – abstracting away from PP-relatives – have the same underlying structure.
More in particular, I will assume a raising analysis of relative clauses (cf. Kayne 1994, Zwart 2000,
De Vries 2002) according to which relative clauses are derived by successive cyclic wh-movement of
the relativized constituent consisting of the head noun and the relative pronoun. I will thus argue that
there is a common syntactic basis to all attested variants of long-distance relativization, and I will
show that four micro-parameters can account for the attested differences.
The framework
The discussion of the long-distance relativization structures should be situated in the syntactic
framework of Minimalism (cf. Chomsky 1995,2000,2001), and Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry
hypothesis. In addition to these assumptions about the derivational component, I will follow Van
Koppen (2005) and further assume that this view on Syntax should be combined with Distributed
Morphology (cf. Halle & Marantz 1993), according to which Syntax only operates on roots and feature
bundles. After the syntactic component finishes the derivation, at the level of Morphology, the abstract
feature bundles are replaced by Vocabulary Items.
Outline of the thesis
In the first chapter of this thesis, I will provide an overview of the literature on the syntax (and
semantics) of restrictive relative clauses. Moreover, in this chapter, I will lay out my assumptions
regarding the syntactic and morphological component that I will assume throughout this thesis, and I
will introduce the analysis of long-distance relative clauses that I take to be the common syntactic
basis to all the different variants of relativization structures that are attested in varieties of Dutch. In
chapter 2, I will present the SAND data on relativization that form the empirical basis for this thesis.
On the basis of three generalizations, I try to get some order in the wealth of variation shown by the
SAND data. This thesis primarily focuses on six patterns of long-distance relativization that are not
PP-relatives and in which no resumptive pronoun is present.
Chapter 3 provides an analysis for two patterns of long-distance relativization that show
subject/object asymmetries. I show that the two systems that are discussed in this chapter can be
derived by two micro-parameters: the presence/absence of relative pronouns (micro-parameter 1) and
the spell out/non-spell out of a φ-agreement relation between the most deeply embedded C0 and (the
copy of) the subject relative DP in its specifier position (micro-parameter 2). These two parameters
predict the existence of (at least) 4 different systems of long-distance relativization which are all
attested in Dutch. Chapter 4 basically deals with patterns of relativization in which no subject/object
asymmetries are displayed. Most prominently in this chapter are patterns that show doubling of the
relative marker. On the basis of the assumption that dialects differ with respect to whether they allow
multiple chain links to be spelled out (micro-parameter 3), and the assumption that dialects differ with
respect to which part of the constituent the mechanism copy targets – either the XP or a subpart of this
XP – (micro-parameter 4), the final two systems of long-distance relativization are derived. Finally,
chapter 5 summarizes the main conclusions of this thesis and suggests some points for further
research.
4
CHAPTER 1
Theoretical background
1.1
Introduction
This chapter consists of two parts. In the first part of this chapter, I will give a short state of the art
overview of the literature on the syntax (and semantics) of restrictive relative clauses. 3 As it is not
possible within the scope of this thesis to present a complete overview of the existing literature on the
syntax of relativization4, I will only focus on the three most influential analyses of restrictive relative
clauses: the head external analysis, the head raising analysis and the matching analysis. I will briefly
discuss their main properties and some of the problems they face. For a more in-depth study of the
fine-grained differences between the various proposals, see amongst others Bianchi (1999), Alexiadou
et al. (2000), De Vries (2002), and Salzmann (2006). The second part of this chapter consists of the
presentation of the theoretical framework I will adopt throughout this thesis, i.e. it will lay out my
assumptions regarding the computational system and its interaction with Phonology/Morphology.
Moreover, this part of the chapter provides a detailed description of the analysis I will assume for
restrictive long-distance relative clauses in Standard Dutch. I will pursue the default hypothesis that
this analysis forms the common syntactic basis for all the attested variants of long-distance
relativization in varieties of Dutch.5
1.2
The syntax of relativization
In this section the three main analyses of restrictive relative clauses (henceforth RCs) will be
discussed: the head external analysis, the head raising analysis and the matching analysis. It will be
shown that these different approaches to the syntax of relativization differ with respect to (i) the origin
of the head noun (internal or external to the RC), (ii) the relation between the relative head noun and
the RC (adjunction or complementation), and (iii) the way in which the external relative head noun is
related to the element in Spec,CP (by means of predication, ellipsis or movement).
1.2.1 The Head External Analysis of relative clauses
Within the Government and Binding framework (Chomsky 1981,1982,1986), the Head External
Analysis (HEA) of relative clauses is the most widely accepted analysis.6 This approach essentially
assumes that the head noun of a RC is base-generated outside that clause – the base-generated head
hypothesis – and that RCs are (right) adjoined to the relative head NP – the adjunction hypothesis.7
This NP is selected by an external determiner. Within the RC there is wh-movement of an empty
operator or a relative pronoun to Spec,CP. This operator or pronoun is in turn linked to the relative
head outside the CP, by means of predication. This is exemplified in (1).
(1)
… the picturei [CP [whichi/OPi]k he likes tk]
The HEA was taken to be the standard analysis of RCs until Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry hypothesis
was widely adopted: the HEA is at odds with the antisymmetry hypothesis because it relies on
3
As this thesis is only concerned with restrictive relative clauses, I will not discuss the syntax (and semantics) of
appositive relative clauses, free relatives, circumnominal relative clauses and correlatives; see De Vries (2002;
chapter 2) for a comprehensive typological overview.
4
There exists an extensive literature on the syntax of relativization, see e.g. the bibliography compiled by De
Vries (2002), and Alexiadou et al. (2000). For an overview and a treatment of the semantics of (different types
of) relative clauses, see Grosu & Landman (1998).
5
In this chapter I will not be concerned with (the syntax of) PP-relatives. For a detailed description and analysis
of these constructions in German, Dutch (and Zurich German) see Salzmann (2006). In chapter 5, I briefly
discuss this analysis of PP-relatives.
6
This analysis is very prominent in the literature and it is argued for by many scholars; see, amongst others,
Ross (1967), Chomsky (1977), Chomsky & Lasnik (1977), Maling & Zaenen (1978) and Borsley (1997). For a
head external analysis of relative clauses in (dialects of) Dutch, see Bennis (1983), Haegeman (1983), Bennis &
Haegeman (1984), Van der Auwera (1984).
7
It has also been argued that restrictive relative clauses are not adjuncts of the head noun, but are rather
complements of the head noun (e.g. Platzack 2000). The HEA together with this revision is called the ‘revised
standard theory’ of restrictive relativization by De Vries (2002:73).
5
rightward adjunction.8 Moreover, the presence of reconstruction effects is hard to account for under
the HEA as there is no direct movement relation between the element in Spec,CP and the external
relative head NP. To illustrate this, consider reconstruction for variable binding in a RC as given in
(2). The relative head containing the pronoun his needs to be interpreted in the scope of the universal
quantifier every man in order to be bound. In order words, the relative head needs to undergo
reconstruction into the RC to be c-commanded by the coindexed quantifier.
(2)
… the [picture of hisi girlfriend] that every mani likes __ best
[Salzmann 2006:22]
The HEA cannot easily capture such reconstruction effects, i.e. somehow the relative operator needs to
act as a mediator for reconstruction. Moreover, given that reconstruction should be seen as the
interpretation of a lower copy in a syntactic chain – according to the Copy Theory of Movement
(Chomsky 1993) – the reconstruction effects are impossible to account for under the HEA. As will
become clear in the following section, the head raising analysis can straightforwardly account for the
reconstruction data, as it assumes that the relative head NP is directly represented inside the RC.
1.2.2 The Head Raising Analysis of relative clauses
The core property of the Head Raising Analysis (HRA) of relative clauses is the assumption that the
relative NP is base-generated inside the RC and raises towards the matrix clause (i.e. to an operator
position within the RC) to become the relative head noun. Moreover, it is assumed that an external
determiner selects a CP as its complement – the D-complement hypothesis, as originally formulated by
Smith (1964) and more recently reinstated by Kayne (1994). The D-complement hypothesis together
with the raising analysis of RCs, is called the promotion theory (e.g. De Vries 2002), and is illustrated
in (3).
(3)
… the [CP [picturei which/OP ti]k he likes tk]
Although this is the most common implementation of the HRA (cf. Kayne 1994, De Vries 2002), there
are several alternatives. As noted by Citko (2001), analyses differ with respect to (i) the assumption
about the nature of the relation between the relative head noun and the RC (complementation or
adjunction), (ii) the categorical status of the relative element undergoing movement (NP or DP), and
(iii) the landing site of the moved relative element (CP internal or CP external). In the remainder of
this section, I will not discuss all the details of the different existing implementations of the HRA,
instead, in what follows, I will mention some of the most important arguments in favour of a HRA in
general.
Some of the main advantages of the HRA over the HEA are that the pivot function of the head
noun follows without stipulations, and that, as already mentioned in section 1.2.1, the HRA
straightforwardly accounts for reconstruction effects. Moreover, it is often mentioned in the literature
that collocations/idioms (fixed verb-object pairs) can be split across a RC (cf. De Vries 2002:78 and
references cited there), as illustrated by (4).
(4)
The headway [RC we made __ ], was great.
Given that the verb selects for the object, the grammaticality of sentences like (4) follows
straightforwardly under the HRA because at one point in the derivation the object and the verb were
adjacent, i.e. the object originated RC internally adjacent to the verb.
Another argument in favour of the HRA is mentioned by Bianchi (1999) and De Vries (2002).
They argue that ‘internally headed relative clauses’ as in (5), in which the relative head appears in the
argument position inside the RC, provide strong evidence for the HRA. That is to say, under the HRA
such RCs can receive a similar analysis as externally headed RCs – the only assumption that needs to
be made is that languages may differ with respect to the ‘level’ at which the relative head moves
Some main consequences of Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry hypothesis are that rightward movement, rightward
adjunction and multiple adjunction/specifiers are disallowed.
8
6
(overtly or covertly at LF) – whereas a HEA needs a completely different structure for these particular
RCs.
(5)
[[Mari [owiza wa]
kage] ki] he
ophewathu.
Mari quilt a
make the Dem I buy
‘I bought the quilt that Mari made.’
[Lakhota]9
Besides these arguments in favour of the HRA,10 there are also some unsatisfactory aspects of the
analysis. First, as argued by Borsley (1997), all versions of the HRA assume that the relative head
noun, that is base-generated as the complement of the relative pronoun, moves to either the specifier of
the relative pronoun (cf. De Vries 2002), or to the specifier of a higher head (cf. Bianchi 1999,2000,
Zwart 2000). The trigger for this particular movement operation is not entirely clear, however, and
different analyses have been proposed. Salzmann (2006) argues that although some of these proposals
solve the problem, such solutions all have an unwarranted construction-specific flavour; moreover,
this problem is not encountered with the matching analysis of relative clauses.
A second, rather famous argument against the HRA analysis (cf. Borsley 1997, Alexiadou et
al. 2000, Citko 2001, De Vries 2002) is formed by examples like the one in (6).
(6)
Widzialem
tego
pana
saw-1SG
this-ACC
man-ACC
‘I saw the man who broke your glass.’
który
which-NOM
zbil
ci
szybę.
broke you
glass
[Polish; Borsley 1997:638]
This example shows that there is a mismatch in Case between the relative head noun and the relative
wh-pronoun. Under a HRA in which the phrase który pana ‘which man’ moves from the subject
position to Spec,CP, and pana moves to the specifier position of który, this Case mismatch is
unexpected. Several attempts have been made to account for this Case problem, but, according to
Salzmann (2006), all these accounts are only descriptive, not explanatory (see section 1.3.3.1 for a
solution to the Case mitmatch problem as proposed by De Vries 2002).
9
This example is taken from Bianchi (1999:62), but it was originally documented by Williamson (1987:171).
Notice that most of the arguments in favour of the HRA have to do with evidence that shows the need for an
internal representation of the external head inside the relative clause (cf. also the argument of subcategorization
(cf. Larson 1985, Bhatt 2002), and evidence from amount relatives (cf. Grosu & Landman 1998)). Crucially,
these arguments are often unable to distinguish between the HRA and a matching analysis of relative clauses
(section 1.2.3). Bhatt (2002) provides an argument in favour of the HRA that is based on the observation that
adjectival modifiers on the RC head can be interpreted in RC internal positions, suggesting that the RC head
must have originated inside the RC. Consider sentence (i) and its two possible readings below
10
(i)
... the first book that John said that Tolstoy had written
High reading (interpreting the highest CP-internal copy)
In 1990, John said that Tolstoy had written Anna Karenina; in 1991, John said that Tolstoy had written
War and Peace. Hence the NP is Anna Karenina. (i.e. order of saying matters, order of writing is
irrelevant)
Low reading (interpreting the lowest CP-internal copy)
John said that the first book that Tolstoy had written was War and Peace. Hence the NP is War and
Peace. (i.e. order of writing matters, order of saying is irrelevant)
According to Bhatt, the low reading of the adjectival modifier first can only be derived under a HRA, not under a
matching analysis (or HEA). That is to say, Bhatt assumes a semantics for reconstructed phrases that is based on
Trace Conversion (Fox 1999), a mechanism that converts copies into definite descriptions. When this
mechanism of interpreting reconstructed phrases is applied to the LF provided by the HRA, the low reading is
generated. However, when Trace Conversion is applied to the LF provided by the matching analysis, Bhatt
shows that the low reading cannot be generated because – given that the external head and the RC internal
representation are not related by movement – the external head must always be interpreted in RC external
position, and therefore, the structure provided by the matching analysis in combination with Trace Conversion
does not give the intended interpretation (for the details of this analysis, see Bhatt 2002).
7
Another, very important argument against the HRA is formed by the ‘lack of Principle C effects’ (cf.
Citko 2001, Salzmann 2006). The HRA predicts that configurations like (7) are ungrammatical on a
coindexed reading, because the pronoun would c-command the name, yielding a Condition C
violation.11 However, this prediction is not borne out, as illustrated by the grammaticality of (8).
(7)
[DP … namei …]j [CP … pronoun … tj]
(8)
The [picture of Johni] which hei likes __ is on the front page.
[Citko 2001:139]
Such examples show that the relative head cannot always reconstruct. A possible solution for these
facts (under the HRA), is to assume that reconstruction in RCs is optional. Naturally, stating that
reconstruction is optional is not a solution but just a description. That is to say, we need an account of
the optionality of reconstruction. Safir (1999) assumes the workings of an additional mechanism called
Vehicle Change (cf. Fiengo & May 1994) – a mechanism by which an R-expression can be turned into
a pronoun in an ellipsis site – in order to account for the lack of Principle C effects.12 Alternatively, it
has been argued, on the basis of these reconstruction effects, that languages may exhibit multiple
analyses of RCs. Bhatt (2002) and Sauerland (2003), for example, argue for the HRA whenever there
is reconstruction, but when there is no reconstruction, they assume a matching analysis; as we shall see
in section 1.2.3. the lack of Principle C effects is easily captured under a matching analysis of RCs.
A fourth argument against the HRA that has been put forward by Salzmann (2006:18) is the
observation that the HRA violates a certain locality constraint on movement: the Condition on
Extraction Domains. This constraint states that once a phrase has moved, no element from this phrase
can be extracted. This is illustrated by the ill-formedness of (9).
(9)
*Whoj do you think [CP tj that [DP pictures of __j]k were painted __k]?
However, movement of a larger phrase and subsequent subextraction from this phrase is exactly what
is found under the HRA.13 Other arguments against the HRA have to do with Negative Polarity Item
Licensing (Citko 2001), and the selectional properties of relative pronouns (cf. Aoun & Li 2003,
Salzmann 2006).
1.2.3 The Matching Analysis of relative clauses
The Matching Analysis (MA) of relative clauses, or a Deletion Under Identity account (cf. Citko
2001), is a combination of the two other approaches to the syntax of RCs (HEA and HRA). It involves
base-generation of the relative head in a CP external position – the external head – and adjunction of
the RC to this head (similar to the HEA). In addition, it is assumed that there is also a representation of
the relative head inside the RC – the internal head. This internal head moves from the RC internal
position to Spec,CP (similar to the HRA). Under identity with the external head, PF deletion of the
noun in Spec,CP is triggered (cf. Citko 2001).
(10)
a.
b.
[DP the picture [CP [DP which picture]j [TP he likes tj]]]
[DP the picture [CP which picture [TP he likes tj]]]
wh-movement
PF-deletion under identity
As mentioned above, this analysis is attractive mostly because it is can straightforwardly account for
the lack of Principle C effects in (English) RCs (cf. Bhatt 2002, Sauerland 2003). To illustrate how
11
Notice that reconstruction is the default under the HRA. That is to say, according to the Preference Principle
(Chomsky 1995) the restriction is deleted in the higher position and retained in the lower position (cf. Salzmann
2006).
12
For some criticism on Safir’s (1999) account of the lack of Principle C effects, see Citko (2001).
13
As noted by Salzmann (2006), this argument holds for the implementations of the HRA by Bianchi
(1999,2000), Zwart (2000) and Bhatt (2002), and only to a lesser extent for the version of the HRA of De Vries
(2002). That is to say, the latter analysis assumes that movement of the relative head noun to the specifier of the
relative pronoun applies before movement to Spec,CP (cf. section 1.3.3.1). However, the subsequent movement
of the features of the head noun to the external determiner still violates the CED.
8
this works exactly, consider again sentence (8), here repeated as (11). The derivation of this sentence
is given in (12): (12a) illustrates wh-movement, and (12b) shows PF-deletion under identity.
(11)
The [picture of Johni] which hei likes __ is on the front page.
[Citko 2001:139]
(12)
a. [TP [DP the picture of Johni [CP [which picture of Johni]k [TP hei likes tk is on the front page]]]]
b. [TP [DP the picture of Johni [CP [which picture of Johni]k [TP hei likes tk is on the front page]]]]
The copy in Spec,CP reconstructs into the VP at LF, yielding a Condition C violation, as illustrated in
(13).
(13)
[TP [DP the picture of Johni [CP [which picture of Johni]k [TP hei likes picture of Johni is on the
front page]]]]
In order to account for the lack of Principle C effect in (11), Citko (2001) argues that the offending
copy (i.e. the reconstructed copy) in (13) can delete at LF as in (14) – under the assumption that
deletion under identity is not restricted to PF – because its content is recoverable from the external
head. More specifically, Citko assumes that an LF representation contains two copies of the nominal,
one in the external head position and one in the reconstructed position, and that in principle, one of
them can delete at LF, since its content is recoverable from the remaining copy. The decision of which
copy to delete is determined by independent principles (like scope).
(14)
[TP [DP the picture of Johni [CP [which picture of Johni]k [TP hei likes picture of Johni is on the
front page]]]]
An analysis as the one described above can also explain why Principle C effects re-emerge in case of
variable binding and the interpretation of collocations, as illustrated by (15).
(15)
*The headway on Maryi’s project which shei had made __ pleased the boss. [Citko 2001:140]
At LF, the reconstructed copy cannot be deleted because of the adjacency requirement on idiom
interpretation. LF deletion of the lowest copy is thus blocked for independent reasons and a Principle
C violation is attested.
As mentioned before, Bhatt (2002) and Sauerland (2003) assume a MA only in case there is no
reconstruction (as in example (11) above). In other cases, i.e. in case of reconstruction, they assume a
HRA. On the contrary, Citko (2001) and Salzmann (2006) argue in favour of a MA as being a
sufficient analysis of RCs, i.e. they argue that there is no need to assume a dichotomy between the
HRA and the MA within/between languages. We already saw that Citko shows that a MA can
straightforwardly account for the fact that Principle C effects re-emerge in certain contexts. More
specifically, in terms of Citko’s account of RCs, Principle C effects can be explained by assuming that
the reconstructed copy cannot be deleted at LF. Moreover, recall that a problem for the HRA is formed
by the observation that in some languages there is a Case mismatch between the relative head noun
and the relative pronoun, and note that the MA actually predicts a mismatch in Case as there is no
movement chain between the external head and the RC internal gap.
Besides Bhatt’s (2002) earlier mentioned argument against the MA stating that the structures
provided by the MA cannot generate the low reading of sentences involving adjectival modification
(cf. footnote 10), he mentions two other arguments against a MA of RCs. First, he notes that under a
MA it is not explained why the external head is pronounced and not the internal head, whereas this
follows naturally under a HRA as the external head is the highest copy of a movement chain and
normally, the highest copy is spelled-out. Moreover, given that deletion of the RC internal
representation is a kind of ellipsis, it is not explained why this ellipsis is obligatory whereas other
elliptical reductions are optional.14 Second, Bhatt notes that in ellipsis constructions one phrase is
14
Bhatt (2002:77) himself notes that this argument is not that strong as it can be argued that the kind of ellipsis
used in a MA analysis of relative clauses, is similar to ellipsis found in the domain of comparative deletion: an
9
pronounced, whereas both phrases are interpreted. In RCs, however, there are cases where the head NP
as a whole is interpreted RC internally (e.g. idiom interpretation).
1.3
Relativization in Standard Dutch
Having briefly discussed the different views on the syntax of RCs, in the remainder of this chapter, the
syntax of (long-distance) relativization in Dutch will be discussed. I will follow De Vries (2002) and
argue that Standard Dutch RCs should be analyzed by a HRA, more specifically, by a promotion
theory of RCs. Before I will give a detailed outline of the analysis of RCs in Dutch that I will assume,
it is necessary to lay out my assumptions regarding the computational system and its interaction with
Phonology/Morphology. Therefore, I will start out with a short introduction into the framework I
adopt throughout this thesis.
1.3.1 The framework
I will assume the syntactic framework of Minimalism (cf. Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work),
together with Kayne’s (1994) antisymmetry hypothesis. That is to say, I will assume a model of
grammar that takes Syntax to be a purely derivational system that builds a hierarchical representation
of terminal elements by means of the operations (external) merge and move (i.e. internal merge). The
operation merge takes two terminal elements out of the lexicon to combine them into a larger unit, and
the syntactic operation move takes a terminal element that is already present in the derivation and
remerges it in a higher position. The latter mechanism can only be applied when necessary to satisfy
some interface requirement,15 that is to say, movement is licensed iff it allows the elimination of
uninterpretable formal features (i.e. the Last Resort condition on movement).
In addition to these assumptions about the derivational component (i.e. Minimalism and
Antisymmetry), I will follow Van Koppen (2005) and further assume that this view on Syntax should
be combined with Distributed Morphology (cf. Halle & Marantz 1993, Halle 1997, Harley & Noyer
1999), according to which phonological/morphological information becomes available only after the
syntactic component finished the derivation. In other words, Syntax is assumed to be operating only
on roots and feature bundles, and not until Syntax is finished manipulating these elements, at the level
of Morphology the abstract feature bundles are replaced by Vocabulary Items. A representation of this
model of grammar is given in (16) (cf. Van Koppen 2005:12).
(16)
the computational system
Lexicon [roots, feature bundles]
Syntax [merge, move, feature checking]
PF
Vocabulary Items
LF
Morphology
A feature of Distributed Morphology that is important in the light of this thesis, is the Subset Principle
as formulated by Halle (1997:428), and given in (17). This principle ensures that in the case of
elliptical process called ‘movement deletion’, which is obligatory and can be non-local. Both properties are also
found in the domain of relative clauses: the clause internal chain in relative clauses is obligatorily deleted and
locality effects are also present in relative clauses. Thus, once one recognizes the reality of (the properties of)
‘movement deletion’, the argument raised against the MA does not hold.
15
The central assumptions of Minimalism (Chomsky 1995) are (i) the interface levels PF (the perceptual/
articulatory system) and LF (the conceptual/intensional system) are the only relevant linguistic levels, i.e. syntax
is purely derivational, (ii) all conditions are interface conditions, and (iii) a linguistic expression is the optimal
realization of the interface conditions (i.e. economy of representation).
10
competing Vocabulary Items – both items match (a subset of) the feature bundle – the item with the
largest number of features matching the feature bundle, will be inserted.
(17)
Subset Principle16
The phonological exponent of a Vocabulary item is inserted into a morpheme in the terminal
string if the item matches all or a subset of the grammatical features specified in the terminal
morpheme. Insertion does not take place if the Vocabulary item contains features not present
in the morpheme. Where several Vocabulary items meet the conditions for insertion, the item
matching the greatest number of features specified in the terminal morpheme must be chosen.
1.3.2 Properties of Dutch restrictive relative clauses17
Now that the framework I adopt throughout this thesis is clarified, we can move on to a description of
the properties of RCs in Dutch. First, RCs in Dutch are postnominal/head-initial, which means that the
RC always follows the head it modifies. Second, contrary to what is found in English, the Dutch RC is
always introduced by a relative pronoun.18 Third, the relativized constituent leaves a gap at the
extraction site (not a resumptive pronoun). And fourth, given that a RC is a subordinate clause, the
verbs cluster at the end of the sentence. Thus, Dutch restrictive RCs obey the format in (18).
(18)
… relative DPi [RC relative pronoun … gapi … V ]
Moreover, in Standard Dutch relative clauses a complementizer cannot be present in addition to the
relative pronoun, as illustrated by (19).
(19)
* … de man [RC die dat het gedaan heeft]
the man
die that it done has
As for the reconstruction properties in Dutch RCs, see (20). Dutch restrictive relatives show
reconstruction for Principle A, variable binding and idiom interpretation.
(20)
a.
b.
c.
… het [gerucht over zichzelfi] dat Jani niet __ verdragen kan
the rumour about SE-SELF that Jan not
bear can
‘… the rumour about himselfi that Jani cannot bear’
… de [foto van zijni geliefde] die iedere mani __ in zijn portefeuille heeft19
the picture of his beloved which every man in his wallet
has
‘… the picture of his beloved that every man keeps in his wallet’
De [streek]
die hij me leverde,
riep om wraak.
[De Vries 2002:78]
the nasty joke which he me delivered, cried for revenge
A famous illustration of the workings of the Subset Principle is provided by Sauerland’s (1996) example of
adjectival inflection (cf. Van Koppen 2005:16-17). The paradigm of Dutch strong adjectival inflection is given in
the following table, which shows that there are two Vocabulary Items competing for insertion, namely e and ø, a
zero morpheme. Only if the environment in which the Vocabulary Item needs to be inserted is [-plural, +neuter],
the zero-morpheme will be inserted. In all other cases (i.e. the elsewhere environment) –e will be inserted (as the
default). Moreover, –e cannot be inserted in the specific environment [-plural, +neuter], because the zeromorpheme is more specific, i.e. it matches the largest number of features.
16
- plural
+ plural
- neuter
-e
-e
+ neuter
ø
-e
17
This thesis restricts itself to restrictive relative clauses in which a subject or object is relativized (i.e. no
locative or possessive relative clauses). Moreover, in this chapter I will not discuss PP-relatives (see chapter 5).
18
The rules for the correct choice of relative pronouns in Standard Dutch relative clauses are rather complex.
Since I am only concerned with subject/object restrictive relative clauses that require die in Standard Dutch, I
will not discuss these rules, but see Smits (1988:367-386), and Haeseryn et al. (1997:327-345) for an overview.
19
(20a) and (20b) are translated from German examples in Salzmann (2006b:66).
11
In all three sentences above, the part of the relative head that is between brackets gets reconstructed
into the underlined position in the RC. However, reconstruction is not always possible in Dutch RCs.
There are constructions in which the external head cannot be reconstructed into the RC because of
independent principles, e.g. the adjacency requirement on idiom interpretation in (21a) and Principle C
in (21b) (cf. Salzmann 2006,2006c for German restrictive relatives).
(21)
a.
b.
Hij leverde [een streek]
he delivered a nasty joke
… het [verhaal over Jani]
the story about Jan
die om wraak
which for revenge
dat
hiji mij __
that
he me
riep.
cried
liever niet verteld had
rather not told has
Sentences like these seem to force the conclusion that reconstruction is not obligatory. This conclusion
is corroborated by the ambiguity of the following sentence (De Vries 2002:82).
(22)
De kunstenaari vervaardigde de buste van zichzelfi/k die de koningk had besteld.20
the artist made the bust of SE-SELF which the king has ordered
While there is a vast literature on (the properties of) RC formation (in Dutch), little is known about
long-distance relativization constructions in which the relativized constituent is extracted from a
deeply embedded sentence. In the Standard Dutch long-distance relativization structure, the RC is
introduced by a relative pronoun (identical to the Dutch short relativization structure) and the finite
embedded clause containing the extraction site (a gap) is introduced by the finite subordinate
complementizer dat ‘that’ (cf. Haeseryn et al. 1997).21 This is exemplified in (23).
(23)
… relative DP [RC relative pronoun … V [finite embedded clause dat … gap … V ]]
1.3.3 An analysis of Dutch relative clauses
I will follow Bhatt (2002) and Salzmann (2006) amongst others and assume that reconstruction effects
as in (20) imply that the external head has its origin within the RC. This means that the HEA of RCs
(section 1.2.1) is ruled out as a possible analysis. The reconstruction facts in (20) however, do not
make it possible to distinguish between the HRA and the MA. Although Salzmann (2006) argues for a
MA of RCs on the basis of reconstruction data in German that are similar to the Dutch data in (21), I
will follow Kayne (1994), Zwart (2000), and De Vries (2002) amongst others and argue for a HRA of
RCs in Dutch.22 More specifically, I will adopt De Vries’ analysis and extent it to long-distance
relativization, i.e. I will assume that local and long-distance relativization require the same analysis.23
20
As noted by De Vries (2002:82), grammaticality judgements regarding sentences as the one in (22) are not
very clear, i.e. they vary with the particular example, context, intonation and speaker.
21
According to ANS (Haeseryn et al. 1997:1304), the construction in (23) is not used very easily, and it is
mainly found in written language. A similar conclusion has also been reached by Brachin (1973,1974) regarding
long subject relatives in Dutch.
22
Assuming a HRA for Dutch relative clauses means that we need a solution for the problems raised in section
1.2.2 and the reconstruction data in (20)-(21). In the main text I will discuss some of the solutions to the
problems, but see De Vries (2002) for a more comprehensive overview. It is important to note that essentially,
the choice for a MA or a HRA of relative clauses is not really relevant in light of this thesis, as I am concerned
with the attested variation in Dutch long-distance relativization, and not with the reconstruction effects found in
the construction. The most important assumption that I make is that I assume there to be successive-cyclic whmovement in long-distance relativization, and that this holds for all the attested variants. Whether the final step
of the derivation consists of PF-deletion of the restriction in the operator position, or whether it concerns
subextraction to a higher position, is not really relevant for the discussion of the variation.
23
For alternative analyses, see Salzmann (2006) for German relativization, and Sportiche (2008), and Koopman
& Sportiche (2008) for French relativization. The latter theory will be briefly discussed in chapter 3 (footnote
81).
12
1.3.3.1 De Vries (2002)
The analysis of RCs put forward by De Vries (2002) is a mixture between Kayne’s (1994) proposal
and Bianchi’s (1999,2000) analysis.24 More specifically, De Vries assumes a promotion theory of RCs
(i.e. the D-complement hypothesis in combination with the raising analysis25). The complete
derivation of the Dutch postnominal restrictive RC in (24) is given in (25) (cf. De Vries 2002:123).
(24)
Dat is de man die
het verhaal
that is the man die
the story
‘That is the man who told the story.’
verteld heeft.
told has
(25)26,27 a. [DP-rel die [NP man]]
b. [DP-rel [NP man]i die ti]
c. [VP [DP-rel [NP man]i die ti] [V’ het verhaal verteld heeft]]
d. [TP [DP-rel [NP man]i die ti]k [T’ T [VP tk het verhaal verteld heeft]]]
e. [CP1 [DP-rel [NP man]i die ti]k [C’ C [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld heeft]]]]
f. [DP de [CP [DP-rel [NP man]i die ti]k [C’ C [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld heeft]]]]]
g. [DP FFi + de [CP [DP-rel [NP man]i die ti]k [C’ C [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld heeft]]]]]
h. [CP2 dat is [DP FFi + de [CP [DP-rel [NP man]i die ti]k [C’ C [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld
heeft]]]]]]
First, the NP man is merged as the complement of the relative pronoun die (25a), and subsequently the
NP moves to the specifier position of DP (25b). This movement operation is triggered by the need to
check φ-feature agreement with D0.28 Next, the entire relative DP is selected as the subject for the
predicate het verhaal verteld heeft (25c). After merging the VP with the functional inflection/tense
head, the relative subject DP moves to Spec,TP to check/value (amongst others) its Case feature (25d).
Then the TP is merged with C0 and, given that the relative pronoun has a wh-feature29, the relative DP
moves to Spec,CP to check the wh-feature of C0 (25e). In line with the D-complement hypothesis, the
whole CP is then selected as the complement of the external determiner (25f). In (25g) the formal
Similar to the framework I adopt, De Vries (2002:6) is working in a framework that is ‘inclined to the
Minimalist Program, with a flavour of Antisymmetry’.
25
For the precise argumentation in favour of both analyses, I refer the reader to De Vries (2002:74-83).
26
I have used t in (25) – and in (29) and (30) – only as a notational convention. That is to say, in line with basic
assumptions of Minimalism, I assume that movement leaves a copy at its extraction site (the Copy Theory of
Movement; Chomsky 1993), not a trace.
27
For now, as nothing hangs on this, I will simply follow De Vries (2002) and assume that (relative) pronouns
are D-heads. However, it will turn out that this assumption cannot account for some of the SAND data on
relativization in varieties of Dutch (i.e. partial doubling of pronouns), and therefore, in chapter 4, I will introduce
a phrasal analysis of (relative) pronouns, as is argued for extensively in the literature (cf. amongst others
Cardinaletti 1994, Cardinaletti & Starke 1999, Déchaine & Wiltschko 2002, Van Koppen 2005, Barbiers,
Koeneman & Lekakou 2008). Naturally, the question arises whether a phrasal analysis of (relative) pronouns is
compatible with De Vries’ (2002) promotion theory of relative clauses. I will briefly return to this issue in
chapter 4 (footnote 112).
28
De Vries (2002) assumes that feature checking can take place (i) in a spec-head configuration, or (ii) in a headincorporation structure. Normally, the φ-features on D0 can be checked by overt N-to-D movement, movement
of the formal features of N to D (i.e. covert movement), or movement of NP to Spec,DP. It is assumed that in
languages like English and Dutch feature movement applies (by default) – it is the most economical option – to
establish the agreement relation in φ-features between NP and D0. In relative clauses, however, N-to-D
movement is ruled out independently (i.e. it requires identity of features, but there is a Case mismatch), and
movement of NP to Spec,DP – (25b) – is the only possibility. Notice that this way of accounting for the fact that
the relative head noun moves to Spec,DP invokes a construction-specific statement (cf. Salzmann 2006:16).
29
I will simply assume that relative pronouns have a wh-feature by which movement to Spec,CP is triggered.
Note that it could have been argued as well that relative pronouns bear some sort of [+relative] feature that is in
nature similar to a ‘typical’ wh-feature (as proposed by Gallego 2004), but the exact nature of the feature is not
relevant for the present discussion.
24
13
features of the relative head noun man incorporate into the external determiner in order to check D0’s
φ- and Case-features.30,31 Finally, the whole DP is inserted into the matrix clause (25h).
Although not immediately touching upon Standard Dutch relativization, in light of the
upcoming discussion of the attested variation in (long-distance) relativization in Dutch, I briefly want
to discuss the issue of different types of RCs. As mentioned earlier, Standard Dutch RCs always need
to be introduced by a relative pronoun. However, a subset of languages allows zero-relativization, or
relatives introduced by a (relative) complementizer32 (sometimes in addition to the relative pronoun).
De Vries (2002:126) assumes that the difference between English wh-relatives and that-relatives as in
(26) is just a surface effect, in the sense that such structures are not structurally different, and should
be treated uniformly (cf. Chomsky 1977).
(26)
a.
b.
That is the man who told the story.
That is the man that told the story.
It is often argued that in addition to the complementizer in (26b), there is an empty operator that is
equivalent to the relative pronoun. However, one would then expect the following sentence to be
grammatical, contrary to fact.
(27)
*That is the man who that told the story.
Traditionally, such sentences are ruled out by making appeal to the Doubly Filled COMP filter (cf.
Chomsky & Lasnik 1977). This filter puts a ban on the simultaneous occurrence of a wh-phrase or
relative pronoun and a complementizer in the COMP-domain.33 Now, let us return to the difference
between the sentences in (26). Under the promotion theory of De Vries (2002), the empty operator (i.e.
the empty relative pronoun) in (26b) is taken to be the determiner DREL that is phonetically empty but
has all the formal features that a relative pronoun has (i.e. a wh-feature, φ- and Case-features). Under
this analysis, (26b) is thus analyzed identically to (26a).
1.3.3.2 Long-distance relativization in Dutch
It seems easy to extent De Vries’ (2002) promotion analysis of RCs to long-distance relativization.
The only difference is the presence of an additional subordinate clause that is introduced by the finite
complementizer dat and from which the relativized constituent is extracted. An important question that
needs to be answered is whether the relativized constituent moves in one fell swoop to the relative
COMP, or whether it makes an intermediate landing in the Spec,CP of the most deeply embedded
clause. It has always been the standard assumption in generative linguistics that wh-movement
proceeds step-by-step, i.e. in a successive-cyclic fashion, and there exists a large amount of data
supporting this assumption (e.g. wh-copying; cf. Felser 2004). Let us therefore assume that the
30
The external D0 and the relative head noun thus eventually end up together and bear the same Case feature.
Crucially, their Case may differ from the Case on the relative pronoun, providing a solution to the Case-problem
introduced in section 1.2.2, cf. example (6).
31
Movement of (the features of) N from Spec,CP to the higher D-head, is allowed because there is no barrier
between D0 and N0 (cf. Bianchi 1999,2000).
32
For a comprehensive overview of the syntax and typology of relative elements, see De Vries (2002, chapter 5).
33
It is a well-known fact that the Doubly Filled COMP Filter is not a universal, but it is not entirely clear whether
this filter also holds for Standard Dutch, as sentences like (i) are often attested in (informal) speech. However, as
we saw in section 1.3.2, in Standard Dutch relative clauses, the filter holds, i.e. a complementizer cannot be
present in addition to the relative pronoun. As we shall see, various Dutch dialects do allow doubly filled COMP
in relative clauses.
(i)
Ik vraag je wie of/dat het gedaan heeft.
I ask you who if/that it done has
However, in contrast to English (zero-relativization), in Dutch relative clauses, there needs to be (at least) one
overt element in the COMP-domain (cf. Dekkers 1999). As we will see later on, this requirement holds for all
varieties of Dutch, i.e. zero-relativization is impossible.
14
relativized constituent indeed moves through the most deeply embedded Spec,CP. In a framework that
assumes movement is only triggered by the need to check some formal features (cf. section 1.3.1), the
question that immediately arises is what triggers the intermediate movement step of the relativized
constituent to a [-Q] C0-head.34 I will simply follow Chomsky (2000) and assume that features that
trigger movement (‘periphery features’: P-features) may optionally be added to C0 (or v0) – the head of
a phase35. The presence of P-features on C0 thus triggers movement of the relative DP to the edge of
every intermediate phase, accounting for successive-cyclicity of wh-movement.36
Given the above assumptions and the promotion theory of RCs as proposed by De Vries
(2002), the derivation of the long-distance RC in (28) is given in (29). For convenience, the treestructure of (28) is given in (30).
(28)
Dat is de man die
ik denk dat
het verhaal heeft verteld.
that is the man die
I think that the story has told
‘That is the man who I think told the story.’
(29)
a. [DP-rel die [NP man]]
b. [DP-rel [NP man]i die ti]
c. [VP [DP-rel mani die ti] [V’ het verhaal verteld heeft]]
d. [TP [DP-rel mani die ti]k [T’ T [VP tk het verhaal verteld heeft]]]
e. [CP1 [DP-rel mani die ti]k [C’ C [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld heeft]]]]
f. [CP2 ik denk [CP1 [DP-rel mani die ti]k [C’ dat [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld heeft]]]]]
g. [CP2 [DP-rel mani die ti]k [CP2 ik denk [CP1 tk [C’ dat [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld heeft]]]]]]
h. [DP de [CP2 [DP-rel mani die ti]k [CP2 ik denk [CP1 tk [C’ dat [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld
heeft]]]]]]]
i. [DP FFi + de [CP2 [DP-rel mani die ti]k [CP2 ik denk [CP1 tk [C’ dat [TP tk T [VP tk het verhaal verteld
heeft]]]]]]]
j. [CP3 dat is [DP FFi + de [CP2 mani die ik denk [CP1 dat het verhaal verteld heeft]]]]
34
For an overview of the different theories that have been proposed to account for wh-movement to a noninterrogative head, see Felser (2004) and references cited there.
35
The theory of phases, introduced by Chomsky (2000,2001), basically states that the derivation of a sentence
proceeds step-wise, i.e. syntactic operations (merge and move) take place phase by phase. The functional
projections vP and CP – defined as “complete propositions” – are taken to constitute phases. Each phase is
spelled out separately, and after spell out it is no longer accessible for further computational purposes. More
specifically, syntactic operations are incapable of looking into a phase below its head, i.e. only heads and
specifiers are visible for further computation (Phase Impenetrability Condition, see Chomsky 2000).
36
As noted by Felser (2004), this is a rather ad hoc solution to the problem at hand: P-features are present only
when needed to trigger intermediate movement steps (but their presence does not provide an explanation for
successive-cyclic movement). In other words, there is no independent evidence that supports the presence of Pfeatures on intermediate heads in long-distance wh-movement. Moreover, such features do not contribute to
interpretation. However, on the basis of the overwhelming empirical evidence – among which doubling
phenomena in relative clauses (cf. chapter 4; also see Barbiers, Koeneman & Lekakou 2008) – I assume there is
successive-cyclic movement of the relative DP in long-distance relativization, and I am less concerned with the
trigger for the intermediate movement step to Spec,CP. Therefore, I leave this issue as a topic for further
research.
15
(30)
CP3
dat is
DP
FFi + de
CP2
DPk
C’
D’
mani
C0
die
TP
ti
ik denk
CP1
C’
DPk
D’
mani
die
dat
TP
ti
DPk het verhaal verteld heeft
Up to movement of the relative DP to the specifier position of the most deeply embedded clause (29e),
the derivation of long-distance relativization proceeds along the same lines as the derivation of short
RCs, with the difference being that movement of the relative DP to Spec,CP1 is triggered by the
presence of P-features on the C1-head. Next, CP1 is merged with the verb denk, after which CP2 is
further built; I have not presented every step of the derivation of CP2 in (29), but see (29f). The whfeature on the C2-head triggers movement of the relative DP to Spec,CP2 (29g), after which the
external determiner is merged with CP2 (29h) and the formal features of N0 incorporate into D0 (29i) in
order to check D0’s φ- and Case-features. Finally, the whole DP is inserted into the matrix clause (29j),
giving rise to the structure in (30).
1.3.4 The investigation of the variation in long-distance relativization in Dutch
Now that the analysis of Standard Dutch (long-distance) RCs is discussed, we can proceed to the next
chapters of this thesis. The SAND data on long-distance relativization will be presented in chapter 2,
and an analysis of these data is presented in the subsequent chapters. The analysis of (long-distance)
relativization discussed in this chapter will give direction to my investigation of long-distance
relativization in varieties of Dutch. More specifically, I will pursue the default hypothesis and assume
that all the variants to long-distance relativization in Standard Dutch – abstracting away from PPrelatives – have a common syntactic basis: the structure in (30).
16
1.4 Summary
In this chapter I have focused on the theoretical background that is necessary for the analysis of the
microvariation attested in long-distance relativization in Dutch. First, I introduced three competing
analyses of RCs and discussed their strong points and some of the problems they face. Next, I
presented the theoretical framework in which the discussion of (the variation regarding) the longdistance relativization structures should be situated. Finally, I presented the analysis of the syntax of
Standard Dutch RCs that I will assume throughout this thesis and of which it is assumed that it is the
common syntactic basis of all attested variants of long-distance relativization.
17
CHAPTER 2
Presentation of the SAND data on long-distance relativization
2.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the data on (long-distance) relativization that are the subject of this thesis. The
source of data that I make use of is the SAND-database37 – an online corpus of elicited speech and text
regarding syntactic microvariation in the Dutch speaking language area. The database consists of data
from 267 dialects collected through oral and telephonic interviews. As we shall see, the data on (longdistance) relativization as found in the SAND-corpus show a considerable amount of variation, e.g. for
both long subject and object relatives, eight different variants are found. I am not in the first place
concerned with the amount of possible variants. Rather I will focus on the pattern dialects exhibit
regarding the combination of long subject and long object relatives. I show that we can basically
distinguish six main patterns, and four somewhat more marginal patterns. Of these ten patterns in total,
which are presented in section 2.3, I have made the following subcategorization: (i) patterns that show
long A’-movement without resumptive pronoun, (ii) patterns that show long A’-movement with
resumptive pronoun, and (iii) patterns that make use of a PP-relative (for subject relativization, or for
both subject and object relativization) with or without a resumptive pronoun in the extraction site.
Before the data are presented, some notes on the structure, objectives and methodology of the SANDproject are in order. Therefore, the following paragraph will briefly outline the design and
methodology of the project. As the outline presented here only gives the highlights, for a
comprehensive description of these issues, I refer the reader to Cornips & Jongenburger (2001) and
Barbiers et al. (2005).
2.2
Data collection – the SAND project
2.2.1 The Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (SAND)
The SAND-project (Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects) aims at providing an inventory of syntactic
variation found in varieties of Dutch spoken in the Netherlands, Flanders and a small part of France.
An important motivation for this project is the ever increasing loss of dialects: under pressure of the
standard language, many dialects are losing their original structures; it is thus important to describe the
currently existing variation. Moreover, the SAND-project provides such a quantity of data such that
current syntactic theories can be extensively empirically tested. In addition, the project makes it
possible to study (potential) correlatives of given linguistic variables. The empirical domain of
research in the SAND-project is restricted to the following four domains: (i) the left periphery of the
clause, (ii) pronominal reference, (iii) negation and quantification, and (iv) the right periphery of the
sentence.
2.2.2 Method of data collection
In this paragraph I will briefly touch upon the following methodological issues: (i) the choice of
measuring points, (ii) the choice of informants, (iii) the phasing of the research/fieldwork and (iv) the
nature of the elicitation techniques. As regards the first issue, when determining the (amount of)
measuring points, several factors played a role: an evenly spread of the measuring points over the
language area, the expected amount of variation in a given area, the origin and history of a given
location/area, and the relative isolation of the Dutch Wadden islands. On the basis of these criteria, the
measuring points were chosen, yielding a total amount of 267 locations: 102 in Belgium, 158 in the
Netherlands, and 7 in France.
The informants were selected on the basis of several social variables like age, education and
proficiency in their dialect, to make sure their profile was as invariable as possible in order to ensure
the reliability of the data. Most important in the selection of informants, was the criterion that the
informant still had to speak his or her dialect frequently in various social contexts.
The phasing of the research/fieldwork consisted of four different phases. First of all, an
inventory of syntactic variation was made, mainly on the basis of literature research. The second stage
of the research consisted of a written questionnaire that was sent to all the informants. The goal of this
stage was to get an insight into the geographic distribution of the different syntactic phenomena in
37
The SAND-database is available at http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/zoeken/.
18
order to make a motivated and efficient choice for the questions that were to be asked in the oral
interviews. These oral interviews comprised the third stage of research, and were conducted in 267
locations in the Dutch speaking language area. In this interview round, the informants were presented
with a test sentence in their dialect and they were asked to indicate whether such a sentence occurs in
their dialect and how it should be translated. To ensure that informants were not influenced by (the
lexical and phonological properties of) the standard language spoken by the interviewer, at least two
informants were present when the interview took place. This design led to two scenarios. In the first,
the two informants could discuss the sentences between them (Belgium); in the other scenario, one of
the informants was trained to be the interviewer (the Netherlands). The final stage of research
consisted of telephonic interviews that were held in order to complete missing or unreliable data.
In the presentation and discussion of the data on (long-distance) relativization, I will only
make use of the material that was gathered in the oral and, when available, telephonic interviews. It is
obvious that the data coming from these interview rounds are the most reliable. It should also be noted
that since I reanalyzed the original data as published in Barbiers et al. (2005), the maps presented in
this thesis may sometimes differ from those published.
2.3
The data
This section presents the SAND data on (long-distance) relativization that form the empirical basis for
this thesis. More specifically, it concerns the data on subject and object restrictive relative clauses with
a 3rd person masculine relativized constituent.
In addition to translating short subject (1) and short object (2) relatives – of which the results
of the oral and telephonic interviews are given in Appendix II – informants were presented with the
long subject relative in (3), and the long object relative in (5) which they were asked to translate. In (3)
and (5), we are dealing with the Standard Dutch variant of long-distance relativization (cf. section
1.3.2) in which a finite clause introduced by the subordinate complementizer dat is embedded in a
relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun die. The relativized constituent – de man ‘the man’:
3rd person singular masculine – is extracted from the most deeply embedded clause, giving rise to socalled long-distance relativization. For expository reasons, the attested variation regarding longdistance relativization in varieties of Dutch that was gathered in the oral interviews is given in (4)-(6);
in addition, the geographic distribution of these structures can be found on maps 1 and 2. It should be
noted that I have abstracted away from any phonological variation, e.g. forms like dee, dei or der are
taken to be form variants of die. The total amount of dialects for which there are reliable data is 218
for the long subject relatives and 216 for the long object relatives; in a given location more than one
variant can be attested. I have included the complete list of the SAND data regarding relativization in
Appendix I.
(1)
Dat is de man die
het verhaal
that is the man die
the story
‘That is the man who told the story.’
heeft verteld.
has told
(2)
Dat is de man die
ze
geroepen hebben.
that is the man die
they called have
‘That is the man who they have called.’
(3)
Dat
is de man
die
ik denk
that
is the man
die
I think
‘That is the man who I think told the story.’
dat
that
__
__
(4)
a. dat is de man die
b. dat is de man die
c. dat is de man dat
d. dat is de man die
e. dat is de man dat
f. dat is de man dat
Ø
hij/die
Ø
Ø
Ø
hij/die
het verhaal heeft verteld
het verhaal heeft verteld
het verhaal heeft verteld
het verhaal heeft verteld
het verhaal heeft verteld
het verhaal heeft verteld
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
ik denk die
ik denk die
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
19
het verhaal
the story
heeft verteld.
has told
g. dat is de man waarvan
h. dat is de man waarvan
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
hij/die het verhaal heeft verteld
Ø
het verhaal heeft verteld
Map 1; long subject relative
(5)
Dat
is de man
die
ik denk
dat
that
is the man
die
I think
that
‘That is the man who I think they have called.’
ze
they
__
__
(6)
a. dat is de man die
b. dat is de man die
c. dat is de man dat
d. dat is de man die
e. dat is de man dat
f. dat is de man dat
g. dat is de man waarvan
h. dat is de man waarvan
Ø
die/’m
Ø
Ø
Ø
die/’m
die/’m
Ø
geroepen hebben
geroepen hebben
geroepen hebben
geroepen hebben
geroepen hebben
geroepen hebben
geroepen hebben
geroepen hebben
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
ik denk die
ik denk die
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
20
ze
ze
ze
ze
ze
ze
ze
ze
geroepen hebben.
called
have
Map 2; long object relative38
Abstracting away from PP-relatives (4g,h) and (6g,h) – to which I will return in section 2.3.3 – these
data show that the long-distance relatives vary along the following parameters.




the form of the element that introduces the relative clause (die/dat)
the form of the element that introduces the most deeply embedded clause (die/dat)
the presence or absence of an overt subject/object in the most deeply embedded clause (i.e.
whether or not a resumptive pronoun39 is present)
the presence or absence of an (additional) complementizer
For the sake of simplicity, I have not included the latter parameter in the examples in (4) and (6). The
sentences in (7a) and (7b) illustrate that a complementizer can be present in the higher clause (7a), as
well as in the lower clause (7b). The presence of a complementizer in short as well as in long relatives
is mainly found in Friesland and the north-eastern and western part of Antwerp (cf. Barbiers 2005 et
al.).40
(7)
a.
b.
Da s de vent die ak denk die asse
dat is de man die ik denk die dat ze
‘That is the man who I think they have called.’
Da s
de man dieë
dak
denk dasse
dat is de man die
dat ik denk dat ze
geroepen emme. [Nieuwmoer Dutch]
geroepen hebben
geroepen emme. [Zandhoven Dutch]
geroepen hebben
In sum, the variation that is found in long-distance relativization structures (both subject and object)41
– again abstracting away from PP-relatives – is summarized in a more abstract manner in (8).
38
This map differs from the map on long object relativization presented in Barbiers et al. (2005) in that this map
also includes the constructions waarvan-dat-Ø and dat-dat-die/’m.
39
In the literature, the term resumptive pronoun is not used uniformly. However, I will use it without theoretical
presupposition, but just to indicate that instead of a gap in the lower clause, a personal or demonstrative pronoun
appears (see chapter 5 for some notes on resumptive pronouns in long-distance relativization structures).
40
Dialects that obligatorily use a complementizer in addition to the relative pronoun are mostly found in
Friesland, and are not included on the maps (cf. Appendix II).
41
Notice that the difference between long subject and long object relatives is quantitative, not qualitative.
21
(8)
… DP [RC die/dat (dat) … [finite embedded clause die/dat (dat) … gap/resumptive pronoun …]]
In this thesis, I am not in the first place concerned with all the different possibilities regarding long
subject or object relatives dialects makes use of, but rather, I will investigate the patterns that dialects
exhibit. That is to say, I am concerned with the ‘system’ – the combination of a subject and object
relative – a given dialect has with respect to (long-distance) relativization. In order to get an overview
of the main systems Dutch varieties make use, the following table shows the amounts of occurrences
of the combination of a long object relative with a long subject relative. This table thus shows whether
and how often particular long subject and object relatives occur together.
Table 1; combinations of long subject and object relatives 42
die-dat-Ø (99)
die-dat-die/’m (9)
die-die-Ø (24)
dat-die-Ø (11)
dat-dat-Ø (50)
dat-dat-die/’m (5)
waarvan-dat-die/’m (48)
waarvan-dat-Ø (8)
object →
47
13
19
1
4
20
2
2
2
4
1
2
1
3
1
9
2
1
4
-
2
2
1
7
3
2
-
5
3
4
20
16
2
3
-
1
1
3
1
-
2
4
2
3
1
34
5
1
1
3
2
subject ↓
die-dat-Ø (63)
die-dat-hij/die (24)
die-die-Ø (32)
dat-die-Ø (36)
dat-dat-Ø (20)
dat-dat-hij/die (10)
waarvan-dat-hij/die (69)
waarvan-dat-Ø (10)
As the table shows, some long subject and object relatives often occur together, whereas a
combination of others is (almost) never attested. These results forces one to conclude that there must
be some sort of system in the possible combinations of subject and object relative constructions.
On the basis of table 1, I distinguish the following 6 main systems of long-distance
relativization (I-VI) and 4 somewhat more marginal systems of long-distance relativization (VII-X).
Map 3 shows the geographical distribution of the six main systems.
(9)
Systems of long-distance relativization in Dutch dialects
long subject relative long object relative
system I
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
system II
waar van-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat-die/’m
system III
waar van-dat-hij/die
die-dat-Ø
system IV
dat-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
system V
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
system I
dat-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
system VII
die-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
system VIII dat-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
42
amount of dialects
47
34
20
20
19
16
9
7
This table shows the amount of dialects that make use of a combination of a particular long subject and object
relative, after a thorough inspection of the dialects at stake. That is to say, given that dialects often make use of
more than one variant of long-distance relativization, sometimes it is not clear whether a dialect really makes use
of a combination of two relatives, or whether these relatives are actually never used ‘together’ and the dialect in
fact makes use of two different systems. Therefore, I took all the numbers in the table higher than 4 and checked
whether the given dialects make use of a particular system or not. When I was not entirely sure, I have taken the
lowest number, i.e. the number that indicates which dialects make use of the system for sure.
22
system IX
system X
die-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die/’m
13
5
Map 3; 6 systems of long-distance relativization
2.3.1 Data on long-distance relativization – long A’-movement without resumptive pronoun
In this subparagraph, I will briefly investigate the system behind the long-distance relatives that do not
have a resumptive pronoun in the most deeply embedded clause and that are not PP-relatives. This
omission of several structures leaves us with the six systems in (10), which I will call the long A’movement configurations without resumptive pronoun.43 Table 2 indicates for each system of longdistance relativization, the corresponding ‘system’ of short relativization it makes use of. Map 4 shows
the geographic distribution of the long A’-movement configurations.
(10)
system I
system IV
system V
system VI
system VII
system VIII
die-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
Table 2; relation between short and long relativization
I
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
short subject
die
die
die
dat
die
die
short object
die
dat
die
dat
die
die
44
20
19
10
9
6
long subject
die-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
43
long object
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
47
20
19
16
9
7
The fact that I choose to make use of this term for these particular long relatives, by no means indicates that
the other long relativization structures do not make use of long A’-movement.
23
Map 4; 6 systems – long A’-movement without resumptive pronoun
These six systems differ with respect to the following three parameters.



the absence/presence of a subject/object asymmetry
die/dat variation in the higher clause
die/dat variation in the lower clause
An important question that needs to be answered now is why, of all the imaginable combinations of
long-distance subject and object relatives without resumptive pronoun, only these six combinations are
(often) attested. Table 3 shows all the possible combinations of these subject and object relatives and
their value for each of the three parameters mentioned above. Table 4 shows which combinations of
values for the different parameters leads to grammaticality.
Table 3; three parameters for the combination of long-distance A’-movement constructions
long subject
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
long object
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
(47)
(3)
(5)
(2)
(-)
(2)
(20)
(7)
(19)
(9)
(4)
(1)
(1)
(-)
(16)
(3)
s/o-asymmetry
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
24
variation in
higher clause
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
variation in
lower clause
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Table 4; three parameters for the combination of long-distance A’-movement constructions
subject/objectasymmetry
+
+
+
variation in
higher clause
+
+
variation in
lower clause
+
+
grammaticality
√
*
%
*
On the basis of table 4, the following three generalizations can be formulated.
(11)
Generalizations - long A’-movement without resumptive pronoun
I
long-distance relativization without a subject/object asymmetry shows all the possible
variants – die-dat-Ø – die-dat-Ø, dat-die-Ø – dat-die-Ø, die-die-Ø – die-die-Ø, dat-datØ – dat-dat-Ø
II
a subject/object asymmetry can appear only in the CP containing the extraction site,
(i.e. a subject/object asymmetry in the higher clause is (almost) never attested)
III
in case of a subject/object asymmetry, dat occurs in the most deeply embedded clause
when the object is extracted, whereas die occurs in the most deeply embedded clause
in case of subject extraction
The following two chapters of this thesis discuss these three generalizations, and an analysis of the
long-distance relativization structures in (10) will be proposed. More specifically, chapter 3 deals with
long-distance relativization structures with a subject/object asymmetry (systems IV and V) and tries to
explain generalizations II and III. Chapter 4 discusses long-distance relativization configurations
without subject/object asymmetries, and proposes an explanation for generalization I.
2.3.2 Data on long-distance relativization – long A’-movement with resumptive pronoun
Whereas resumptive pronouns are found both with long subject and long object relatives, as illustrated
in (12), they are found more often with subject relatives (34 vs. 14). This tendency is reflected in
system IX, in which the subject relative clause has a resumptive pronoun at the extraction site,
whereas the object relative clause has a gap (13).
(12)
a. Dat is de man die
b. Dat is de man dat
c. Dat is de man die
d. Dat is de man dat
(13)
system IX
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
ik denk dat
hij/die het verhaal heeft verteld.
hij/die het verhaal heeft verteld.
ze die/’m geroepen hebben.
ze die/’m geroepen hebben.
(24)
(10)
(9)
(5)
die-dat-hij/die – die-dat-Ø
Resumptive pronouns are only found in relative constructions where the most deeply embedded clause
is introduced by the complementizer dat. The absence of resumptive pronouns in clauses introduced
by die is probably due to the general tendency of languages to disallow repetition of adjacent identical
morphemes (cf. Neeleman & Van de Koot 2006). In chapter 5, I will briefly discuss possible analyses
of resumptive pronouns in relative clauses in Dutch.
25
Map 5; resumptive pronouns – system IX
2.3.3 Data on long-distance relativization – PP-relatives
As mentioned above, the informants were presented with the Standard Dutch long-distance
relativization structures, and were asked to translate such structures/sentences in their local dialects.
Interestingly, many informants spontaneously translated the test sentences with a construction in
which the relative clause is introduced by a prepositional phrase (14a). In fact, sentence (14a) is not
really a subject relative, as it is the relativized variant of (14b), i.e. the prepositional phrase van die
man ‘of that man’ is relativized in the higher clause and the subject in the lower clause is retained. (15)
shows that preposition stranding is also possible with this construction. Note that the sentences in (14)
and (15) are perfectly fine in Standard Dutch.
(14)
a.
b.
(15)
Dat is de man waarvan
ik denk dat hij/die het verhaal verteld heeft
that is the man whereof I think that he/die the story
told
has
Ik denk van
die man dat
hij het verhaal verteld heeft
I think of
that man that he the story
told has
Dat is de man waar ik van denk dat hij/die het verhaal
that is the man where I of think that he/die the story
verteld heeft.
told has
As (14a) shows, the preposition van ‘of’ follows its object waar ‘where’, giving rise to the complex
element waarvan ‘whereof’. However, it is also possible for the preposition to appear in front of its
object, resulting in the structure van wie ‘of whom’, as indicated in (16).44 In this thesis I will not go
into these different manifestations of the PP-relative, and I will refer to (14a) as the standard PPrelative.
(16)
Dat is de man van wie
that is the man of whom
ik denk
I think
dat hij/die het verhaal verteld heeft.
that he/die the story told has
Sentences like (16) are almost never attested in the SAND-material. To distinguish between (14a) and (15) –
involving waarvan ‘whereof’ – on the one hand, and (16) – involving van wie ‘of whom’ – on the other hand,
sentences like (16) are not presented on the maps.
44
26
In order to explain the spontaneous translation of the Standard Dutch long-distance relativization
structure with a PP-relative, Barbiers et al. (2005) suggest that long relativization – especially long
relativization of subjects (see also system III) – is impossible in many dialects, and that these dialects
therefore make use of an alternative construction that is semantically very similar to long-distance
relativization: the PP-relative. Interestingly, these PP-relatives show variation with respect to the
presence of a resumptive pronoun. That is to say, contrary to Standard Dutch, some dialects allow the
resumptive pronoun to be absent, giving rise to sentences like (17) – the grammaticality of which,
according to Salzmann (2006:159), is highly unexpected, i.e. the relativized object should be related to
a resumptive pronoun instead of a gap. The geographic distribution of PP-relatives without a
resumptive pronoun is limited to the north-eastern area of the Netherlands (cf. maps 1-2).
(17)
a.
b.
Dat is de man weervan
that is the man whereof
Dat is de man weervan
that is the man of where-of
ik tink dat __ het verhaal vertoald het.
I think that __ the story told has
ik tink dat ja __
ruppen hewwe.
I think that they __
called have
[Schiermonnikoog Dutch]
The PP-relative construction appears in three out of the ten systems of long-distance relativization; the
three systems are given in (18). System II is very common and occurs mostly in the Netherlands (cf.
map 3). The same holds more or less for system III, with the difference being that it occurs more often
in the south of the Netherlands. System X, finally, is only attested 5 times in the north-eastern part of
the Netherlands (i.e. provinces Drenthe and Overijssel).
(18)
system II
system III
system X
waarvan-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die/’m
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die/’m
As the main focus of this thesis is not on PP-relatives, I will only briefly discuss a potential analysis
(proposed by Salzmann 2006) of this construction in chapter 5.
2.4
Summary
This chapter presented the SAND data on (long-distance) relativization. It was shown that although at
first sight, the attested variation seemed overwhelming and unstructured, six main systems and four
somewhat more marginal systems of long-distance relativization can be found, which are presented in
the following table; for convenience, the corresponding ‘systems’ of short relativization are also given.
Table 5; relativization in varieties of Dutch – 10 systems
I
II 45
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
short subject
die
die
die
die
die
dat
die
die
die
die
short object
die
die
die
dat
die
dat
die
die
die
die
46
26
20
20
19
10
9
7
13
5
long subject
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat-hij/die
dat-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat- Ø
45
long object
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die/’m
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die/’m
47
34
20
20
19
16
9
7
13
5
The fact that the amount of dialects that make use of PP-relatives for both long subject and long object
relativization is significantly larger than the amount of dialects that use die for short relativization (34 vs. 26) is
mostly due to the fact that dialects that obligatory have a complementizer in addition to a relative pronoun, are
not included (cf. footnote 40 and Appendix II). In these dialects, mainly found in Friesland, the relative pronoun
die only occurs together with the (enclitic) complementizer t, giving rise to diet (cf. Appendix I). The different
amounts in table 5 thus not indicate that something special is going on.
27
Now that the framework and the analysis of Standard Dutch relative clauses that I adopt throughout
this thesis (chapter 1) is discussed, and the data on long-distance relativization in varieties of Dutch
(this chapter) are presented, we can proceed to the following chapters: the data analysis. My main
focus will be on the six systems involving long A’-movement without resumptive pronoun.
28
CHAPTER 3
Long-distance relativization in Dutch dialects – subject/object asymmetries
3.1
Introduction
In the previous chapter, it was shown that some varieties of Dutch show subject/object asymmetries
(henceforth s/o-asymmetries) in (long-distance) relativization, whereas others do not. This chapter will
investigate the system underlying these subject/object asymmetries. In other words, this chapter
proposes an explanation for the following two generalizations.
(1)
II
III
a subject/object asymmetry can appear only in the CP containing the extraction site
(i.e. a subject/object asymmetry in the higher clause is (almost) never attested)
in case of a subject/object asymmetry, dat occurs in the most deeply embedded clause
when the object is extracted, whereas die occurs in the most deeply embedded clause
in case of subject extraction
The organization of this chapter is as follows. In paragraph 3.2 I will introduce the relevant data
regarding s/o-asymmetries in relativization structures. In section 3.3 I will present a brief overview of
the scholarly literature on s/o-asymmetries in general, and in relative clauses in particular. This
overview starts with the early work on s/o-asymmetries by Kayne (1976), Pesetsky (1982) and Rizzi
(1990) amongst others, and ends with a very recent proposal by Mayr (to appear). It should be noted
that this section does not attempt to give a comprehensive overview of the existing literature; rather, it
just highlights some important issues at which I will come back in later paragraphs. Section 3.4
proposes an analysis for the data on s/o-asymmetries in (long-distance) relativization structures in
Dutch, and discusses some predictions the analysis makes and some problems it faces. It will be
argued that the element die, found in the most deeply embedded COMP-domain of structures involving
(long-distance) subject extraction in dialects that show the s/o-asymmetry, is an instance of the finite
subordinate complementizer. In other words, I will follow traditional analyses, like Kayne (1976) and
Rizzi (1990), and propose that die is an agreeing form of the complementizer. The proposal is highly
influenced by recent work of Mayr (to appear), who argues that subject extraction must be licensed by
complementizer agreement. As we shall see, this analysis is capable of deriving the attested patterns of
s/o-asymmetries and it explains the main generalizations in (1). However, a number of problematic
cases remain, which this analysis is unable to account for. Therefore, section 3.5 discusses two
alternative analyses of the s/o-asymmetry, and shows that each has its own shortcomings. Finally, in
section 3.6, I will summarize my findings.
3.2
Presentation of the data
In the six main systems of long-distance relativization, we found two systems that exhibit a s/oasymmetry. In the first system (IV) the relative clause is introduced by the complementizer dat, and
the embedded finite clause is introduced by die in case of subject extraction and by dat in case of
object extraction, as illustrated by (2). This system of long-distance relativization is attested in 20
locations and it is found almost exclusively in West-Vlaanderen, as can be seen on map 1. The second
system that shows a s/o-asymmetry is illustrated by (3). The relative clause is introduced by die, and
the lower clause is introduced by die in case of subject extraction and by dat in case of object
extraction. This system is found 19 times and its geographic distribution is somewhat less clear than
that of system IV. It is attested in the main part of Oost-Vlaanderen and several times in the
Netherlands; there are some isolated occurrences and a small cluster of attestations in the east of the
Netherlands near the city Nijmegen.
(2)
a.
b.
(3)
a.
Da s de vent
that is the man
Da s de vent
that is the man
da k peizen
that I think
da k peizen
that I think
Da s de man die k peize
that is the man die I think
die da graptje verteld eet.
die that joke told has
da-n
ze geroepen en.
that-3P.PL they called have
subject extraction
die t verhaal verteld ee.
die the story told has
subject extraction
29
object extraction
[Brugge Dutch]
b.
Da s de man die k peize
that is the man die I think
da-n
ze geropen en.
that-3P.PL they called have
object extraction
[Gent Dutch]
Map 1; two systems involving subject/object asymmetries
Until now, I mainly focussed on long-distance relativization structures and paid little attention to short
(one clause) relatives. In the present case, however, the data on short relativization are of great
importance. The West-Flemish data (system IV) are pretty straightforward: all the dialects that show
the s/o-asymmetry also show an asymmetry in short relativization structures, i.e. die shows up with
subjects and dat appears with objects. The data of system V, however, are less clear and somewhat
puzzling at first sight.46 Table 1 shows that an asymmetry is only attested with system V in case of
long-distance relativization. In short relativization configurations, on the other hand, die is used with
both subject and object extraction.47
Table 1; two systems involving subject/object-asymmetries48
system IV (20)
system V (19)
short subject
die
die
short object
dat
die
46
long subject
dat-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
long object
dat-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
As we shall see in section 3.5, the derivation of the relativization pattern of system V is problematic for some
theories of subject/object asymmetries. That is to say, it is hard to simultaneously account for the presence of an
asymmetry in long-distance relativization and the lack of an asymmetry in short relatives within a particular
language.
47
Actually, the data are less clear than given in table 1 (for the complete overview of the data, see Appendix I).
Of the 19 dialects that make use of system V, all 19 dialects make use of die in short subject and object relatives.
But of these 19 dialects there are also 10 dialects that, in addition to die, can also use dat in short object relatives
(and sometimes there are even more alternatives possible for both object and subject relatives). However, in
what follows, I will assume that the pattern given in table 1 is in fact the core pattern of system V – that is, a
system that shows a s/o-asymmetry with long-distance relativization, but no asymmetry with short relativization.
The correctness of this assumption is corroborated by the observation that of the few dialects that only make use
of system V, the majority shows the pattern in table 1 (based on the data from the oral interviews).
48
In the dialects under discussion the complementizer can be dat or da. In the main text, I will simply use dat for
both form variants.
30
When dealing with (micro)variation, it is always important to investigate whether the variable studied
– in this case the presence of a s/o-asymmetry in the CP containing the extraction site – covaries with
another variable (cf. Kayne 2000). In the present case, a potential correlating property is
complementizer agreement (see also Bennis & Haegeman 1984, Mayr to appear). Complementizer
agreement is the phenomenon illustrated in sentences (2b) and (3b), i.e. a complementizer agrees with
the subject of the clause it introduces.49 Map 2 shows the geographic distribution of complementizer
agreement; more specifically, the map shows for each dialect which members of the paradigm show
complementizer agreement.50
Map 2; complementizer agreement
Comparing this map with map 1, we see that the geographic distribution of dialects that show s/oasymmetries in long-distance relativization roughly corresponds to the geographic distribution of
complementizer agreement. That is to say, the core area that shows complementizer agreement – i.e.
the area in which complementizer agreement manifests itself overtly on more than one person –
matches the area that shows s/o-asymmetries in long-distance relativization configurations. Therefore,
in addition to the two generalizations in (1), a third generalization is formulated. This chapter will
propose an account of these three generalizations.
(4)
IV
dialects that show a subject/object asymmetry in (long-distance) relativization
structures, often also show complementizer agreement 51,52
49
I will assume an analysis of complementizer agreement as proposed by Van Craenenbroeck & Van Koppen
(2002), Carstens (2003) and Van Koppen (2005). C0 is assumed to have uninterpretable/unvalued φ-features that
need to be linked to interpretable/valued φ-featured by means of the syntactic operation Agree. C0 is thus a probe
for φ-features and Agree searches its c-command domain in order to find a suitable goal; this is found in the
embedded subject: the interpretable/valued φ-features of the subject erase/value the unvalued/uninterpretable φfeatures on C0. As a result of this agreement relation, the complementizer overtly agrees with the subject.
50
The data on this map are taken from Barbiers et al. (2005).
51
Of the 39 dialects that show the asymmetry, 32 also exhibit complementizer agreement. The dialects that do
not show complementizer agreement are generally the ones that are found outside Flanders.
52
It should be clear that this generalization is a one-way implication, i.e. it is by no means true that dialects that
exhibit complementizer agreement, also exhibit s/o-asymmetries in long-distance relativization.
31
3.3
Theoretical background
This section provides the theoretical background necessary for an understanding of the more recent
proposals that try to account for the s/o-asymmetry – e.g. Taraldsen (2001), Pesetsky & Torrego
(2001,2004), Gallego (2004), Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007), Mayr (to appear). In order to understand these
particular accounts, we need to know something about (the history of) accounting for the s/oasymmetry in general. Traditionally, subject/non-subject asymmetries are explained by appealing to
the Empty Category Principle (e.g. Chomsky 1986, Bennis & Haegeman 1984, Rizzi 1990), and
therefore, in the first subparagraph, I will give an outline of the first attempts to account for the
asymmetry that is attested in many languages.
3.3.1 The Empty Category Principle (ECP)
Perlmutter (1971) was one of the first to study subject/non-subject asymmetries like the that-trace
effect – i.e. the obligatory absence of a complementizer in the COMP-domain of the clause from which
the subject is extracted – as illustrated in (5)-(6)
(5)
a.
b.
… the woman that he said (*that) bought the book
… the book that he said (that) she bought
subject extraction
object extraction
(6)
a.
b.
Who did he say (*that) bought the book?
What did he say (that) she bought?
subject extraction
object extraction
As noted by Mayr (to appear), the crucial question that needs to be answered when dealing with such
s/o-asymmetries is the following: what is the difference between extraction from Spec,TP and the
complement position of the verb? Provided that moved constituents leave a coindexed trace at their
extraction site, in the Government and Binding framework (Chomsky 1981,1982,1986) an answer to
this question was given by making appeal to the Empty Category Principle (henceforth the ECP),
which basically states that subject traces need to be locally bound, see (7)-(10).
(7)
Empty Category Principle
traces must be properly governed
(8)
Proper Government
α properly governs β iff
(i)
α governs β and α theta-marks β (theta government), or
(ii)
α antecedent-governs β
(9)
Government
α governs β iff
(i)
α c-commands β, and
(ii)
no maximal projection (except TP) intervenes between α and β, and
(iii)
minimality is respected
(10)
Antecedent Government
α antecedent-governs β iff
(ii)
α governs β, and
(iii)
α binds β (i.e. α c-commands β and α is coindexed with β)
From these definitions it follows that object traces will always be properly governed by the governing
verb (theta government), whereas subject traces will only be properly governed (i.e. antecedent
governed) if they can be locally bound by the moved constituent or its trace in the COMP-domain. In
sentences (5a) and (6a) above, the ECP is violated by the subject trace in Spec,TP when
complementizer that is present. The presence of that blocks the necessary government relation
between the trace of the subject in Spec,TP and the intermediate trace in Spec,CP because minimality
is violated, i.e. that is an intervening potential governor. Moreover, that – being the closest potential
governer for the trace in Spec,TP – cannot bind this trace (it is not coindexed with the trace) and
32
therefore, cannot antecedent-govern it. Thus, the subject trace in Spec,TP cannot be properly governed
– in violation of the ECP – and sentences (5a) and (6a) with complementizer that in the embedded
clause are out. Only when that is absent, the necessary antecedent government relation between the
trace in Spec,CP and the trace in Spec,TP can be established and the ECP will be satisfied. Since
object traces are always governed by the verb, complementizer that may (optionally) surface in the
COMP-domain of clauses from which the object is extracted.
In light of the data on s/o-asymmetries in (long-distance) relativization in varieties of Dutch
(cf. section 3.2), it is interesting to take a look at the que/qui alternation in French (in relative clauses),
which is exemplified in (11)-(12).
(11)
a.
b.
(12)
a.
b.
… l’homme
the man
… l’homme
the man
*que/qui t viendra
that/who t will come
que/*qui j’aime t
that/whom I love t
subject extraction
… l’homme
the man
… l’homme
the man
que tu pense
that you think
que tu pense
that you think
subject extraction
*que/qui t viendra
that/who t will come
que/*qui j’aime t
that/whom I love t
object extraction
object extraction
In case of subject extraction, instead of the tensed complementizer que, we find the element qui.53
Given the generalization that no DP is allowed in the COMP-position of restrictive relative clauses in
French, Kayne (1976) assumes that the instances of the element qui in the examples above, are not
relative pronouns/wh-elements, but rather, they are special instances of the French complementizer
que. A special rule changes que into qui when the adjacent subject in Spec,TP is relativized.
Rizzi (1990) – basically a reformulation of Pesetsky (1982) – argues that the que/qui
alternation in French is the result of agreement. Given the ECP as formulated in (7), he assumes that
subject traces are properly governed when there is Spec-head agreement in the COMP-domain – this
amounts to saying that agreement in COMP licenses subject extraction (cf. Mayr to appear). In other
words, C0 can be turned into a governor by agreement in COMP. Rizzi argues that the surfacing of qui
instead of que is a manifestation of Spec-head agreement between the intermediate subject trace in
Spec,CP and the complementizer que in C0, in short, qui = que + agreement. Similarly, he proposes
that West-Flemish die is the reflex of Spec-head agreement between the trace in Spec,CP and the
complementizer dat. For both French and West-Flemish it is the case that the occurrence of the
particular morphological change is very limited. It is only attested in the COMP-domain of clauses
from which the subject is extracted, i.e. qui cannot occur in the higher clause of long-distance subject
extraction (13)-(14), nor can it be found in case of object extraction (12b). The latter fact is explained
by assuming that Spec-head agreement turns the specifier position into an A-position – i.e. the most
deeply embedded Spec,CP becomes an A-position. The chain formed by object extraction will then
cross another A-position – Spec,TP – which violates Relativized Minimality.
(13)
… l’homme que tu pense
the man that you think
(14)
… de vent
the man
t que/*qui Jean croit t *que/qui t viendra
French
t that/who Jean believes t that/who t will come
*die/da k peizen
die/that I think
die/*da da graptje verteld eet
die/that that joke told has
West-Flemish
Within the Government and Binding framework, “traces are grammar-internal constructs with very
special requirements that regulate their distribution” (Hornstein et al. 2005:12). In GB, movement was
taken to be free – move α – and a large part of linguistic theory consisted of rules and constraints to
restrict this movement operation. The main reason for why traces came into existence was exactly to
53
Notice that the French data on (long-distance) relativization are reminiscent of the West-Flemish data (system
IV), i.e. die has the same distribution as qui: it appears only in the left periphery of clauses from which the
subject is extracted.
33
restrain overgeneration. However, with the introduction of Minimalism, a framework in which
movement is no longer taken to be free, but rather, is assumed only to occur when it needs to satisfy
some interface requirement, the existence of traces as grammatical formatives is no longer postulated. 54
More specifically, traces are replaced by copies. With the abandonment of traces, and more generally,
the abandonment of a theory which main objective is to constrain movement, the conceptual reality of
principles like the ECP – which was designed to regulate the distribution of traces – was seriously
questioned. Moreover, in a framework that wants to give an answer to the question why language is the
way it is, there is no longer place for (principles like) the ECP which stipulates the difference between
subjects and non-subjects, but does not explain why subjects, but not objects, are subject to a special
binding requirement (cf. Pesetsky & Torrego 2001:358). Thus, the ECP was largely abandoned as an
explanation of subject/non-subject asymmetries, and several alternative theories were formulated to
capture the contrast. In the following section, I will discuss the approach that functions as the basis for
my analysis of the s/o-asymmetries that are attested in Dutch.
3.3.2 Mayr (to appear)
Recently, Mayr (to appear) has argued for a treatment of long-distance subject extraction in Bavarian
in terms of the relation with complementizer agreement (cf. Rizzi 1990). More specifically, Mayr
argues that complementizer agreement licenses extraction of subjects. In contrast to English, that-trace
phenomena are absent in Bavarian, i.e. both subjects and objects are free to extract independent of the
presence of a complementizer (the same holds for long-distance topicalization); this contrast is
illustrated in (15)-(16).
(15)
a.
b.
Whoi does Mary believe [ti that John left ti]?
Whoi does Mary believe [ti (*that) ti left Anna]?
(16)
a.
Weai hot da Michl gsogt [ti dass ti gestan a Biachl kafft hot]? subject extraction
who has the Michael said that
yesterday a book bought has
‘Who did Michael say that bought a book yesterday?’
Wosi hot da Michl gsogt
[ti dass d’Maria ti kafft hot]? object extraction
what has the Michael said
that the Mary bought has
‘What did Michael say that Mary bought?’
b.
subject extraction
object extraction
Mayr further observes that Bavarian exhibits complementizer agreement, as exemplified in (17).
Complementizer agreement in Bavarian does not appear overtly on all persons: only second person
singular and plural show overt agreement morphology on C0.
(17)
Da Franz fragt [ob-st du
morgen
in d’Schui geh-st]
the Frank askes if-2P.SG you-2P.SG tomorrow
in the school go-2P.SG
‘Frank askes if you (sg) will go to school tomorrow.’
As the following sentences suggest, complementizer agreement seems to correlate with extraction of
subjects in Bavarian. That is to say, the sentences in (18) show that long-distance extraction of the
subject is only possible if this subject agrees with the complementizer, whereas complementizer
agreement is not fully obligatory when no subject extraction occurs (19).
(18)
a.
b.
[Es Kinda]
hot da Hans gfrogt [t ob-s t
you children has the Hans asked
if-2P.PL
‘Hans asked if you childrem will come home.’
*[Es Kinda]
hot da Hans gfrogt [t ob-Ø t
you children has the Hand asked
if-Ø
54
hamkummts]
home come
hamkummts]
home come
Besides this particular conceptual argument, there are other arguments, both theoretical and empirical, that
favour the Copy Theory of Movement over a movement theory that assumes movement leaves a trace. See for
example Hornstein et al. (2005).
34
(19)
? Da Hans hot gfroht [ob-Ø
es Kinda
ham kummts]
the Hans has asked if
you children home come
‘Hans asked if you children will come home.’
Another argument for the claim that complementizer agreement is a prerequisite for extraction of
subjects in Bavarian is given in (20)-(21). When two subjects with a different specification for person
– 2 singular and 3 singular – are coordinated, two agreement patterns may surface (20a)-(20b), one of
which shows overt agreement (20b). When long-distance topicalization applies to the coordinated
subjects in (20), only the pattern with overt complementizer agreement can surface (21b), suggesting
that complementizer agreement licenses subject extraction.55
55
Actually, the data on Bavarian (coordinated) subject extraction and complementizer agreement are somewhat
more complex than Mayr presents in his article. The sentences in (i) show that in Bavarian, in case of a
coordinated subject, the complementizer can agree either with the first conjunct of the coordinated object (ia), or
with the coordinated subject as a whole (ib); the examples are taken from Van Koppen (2005:105). As we saw,
Mayr argues that extraction of the coordinated subject is only possible when there is complementizer agreement.
However, sentence (iia) seems to show the opposite, i.e. there is complementizer agreement, namely with the
first conjunct of the coordinated subject, but subject extraction is impossible. Van Koppen (2005) focuses on
complementizer agreement with coordinated subjects and argues that when there are two agreement relations
that can be spelled out on C0 (as an affix), the relation that will result in the most specific agreement affix, will
be the one chosen (by Morphology). In Bavarian, two options are possible, as illustrated in (i), because,
according to Van Koppen (2005), both agreement affixes are equally specific. Moreover, she argues that in case
of extraction of the coordinated subject, the complementizer can never agree with the first conjunct, but must
always agree with the coordinated subject as a whole (because the internal structure of a copy is not available for
entering agreement relations, cf. section 4.3.2.2). Similarly, Van Koppen (2005:101) shows that in Tegelen
Dutch, a dialect spoken in the north of Dutch Limburg, complementizer agreement is impossible when the
subject is extracted (iiia) – because the complementizer in (iiia) agrees with the first conjunct of the extracted
subject – whereas it is obligatory in case the coordinated subject is not extracted (iv). These examples thus show
that the data on Bavarian subject extraction in relation to complementizer agreement are somewhat more
complex. Moreover, given that Van Koppen’s (2005) claims are on the right track, these data show that the
observation that the coordinated subject in (20) can only be extracted when the complementizer shows overt
agreement, is actually a coincidence, i.e. if Bavarian were a language with no overt agreement on the
complementizer in case of 2 person plural subjects, it would not show complementizer agreement, but it would
still allow the subject to be extracted (this is corroborated by the examples in (iii)-(iv)). In sum, the data in (20)(21) do not provide direct evidence for the claim that subject extraction is licensed by complementizer
agreement.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
… das-sd
du und d’Maria
an Hauptpreis gwunna
hab-ds
that-2P.SG
[you SG and the Maria]2P.PL the first.prize won
have-2P.PL
b.
… das-ds
du und d’Maria
an Hauptpreis gwunna
hab-ds
that-2P.PL
[you SG and the Maria]2P.PL the first.prize won
have-2P.PL
‘… that Maria and you won the first prize’
Du
und d’Maria
glaub’e
[you SG and the Maria]2P.PL
believe.I
a.
*
das-sd
an Hauptpreis
gwunna hab-ds
that-2P.SG
the first.prize
won
have-2P.PL
b.
das-ds an Hauptpreis gwunna
hab-ds
that-2P.PL
the first.prize
won
have-2P.PL
ʻYou and Maria I think that have won the first price.ʼ
Doow en Marie denk ik,
[you SG and Maria]2P.PL
think I,
a.
*
… de-s het spel zull-e winnen.
that-2P.SG
the game
will-PL win
b.
?
… det het spel zull-e winnen.
that the game
will-PL win
… de-s /
*det
doow en ich
ôs
treff-e
that-2P.SG
that
[you SG and I]1P.PL
each.other
meet-PL
‘… that you and I will meet each other.’
a.
35
(20)
a.
b.
(21)
a.
b.
Da Hans hot gfrogt
the Hans has asked
Da Hans hot gfrogt
the Hans has asked
[ob du
und da Franz weggengan]
if you-2P.SG and the Frank leave-3P.PL
[ob-s du
und da Franz weggeh-ts]
if-2P.PL you-2P.SG and the Frank leave-2P.PL
*[Du und da Franz]
you2P.SG and the Frank
[Du und da Franz]
you-2P.SG and the Frank
hot da Hans gfrogt [t
has the Hans asked
hot da Hans gfrogt [t
has the Hans asked
ob t
weggengan]
if
leave-3P.PL
ob-s t weggeh-ts]
if-2P.PL leave-2P.PL
In contrast to subjects, objects can freely extract, independent of complementizer agreement (22a).
(22b) shows that objects cannot agree with the complementizer.
(22)
a.
b.
[Die Bauan] hot da Hans gfrogt [t
ob-s/ob-Ø es Kölna endlich t bedients]
the farmers has the Hans asked
if-2P.PL /if-Ø you waiters finally serve
‘John asked if you waiters will finally serve the farmers.’
*[Eich Bauan] hot da Hans gfrogt [t ob-s
die Kölna
endlich t bedienan]
You farmers has the Hans askes
if-2P.PL the waiters
finally serve
‘John asked if the waiters will finally serve you farmers.’
Another property of Bavarian that has to do with the COMP-domain is the observation that Bavarian
does not respect the Doubly Filled COMP filter (cf. section 1.3.3.1), as illustrated by (23).
(23)
Da Michael hot gefrogt [wer dass die Biancha kafft hot]
the Michael has asked who that the books
bought has
‘Michael asked who bought the books.’
Now consider the following sentences. The contrast in (24a) shows that a subject can only be extracted
when there is a φ-agreement relation with the wh-adverb (similar to complementizer agreement).
Interestingly, (24b) shows that subject extraction is also possible in case of doubly filled COMP.
(24)
a.
b.
[Es Lehrer]
frogn d’Leit [t *warum-Ø /warum-s t nigs orbeits]
you teachers ask the people why-Ø/ why-2P.PL
nothing work
‘The people ask why you teachers do not work.’
[Es Lehrer]
frogn d’Leit [t warum-Ø /*warum-s dass t nigs orbeits]
you teachers ask the people why-Ø/ why-2P.PL
that nothing work
These data led Mayr to conclude that doubly filled COMP should be analyzed as an instance of
complementizer agreement.56 Given that this assumption is on the right track, the ungrammaticality of
sentences with subject extraction, doubly filled COMP and φ-agreement on the wh-adverb (24b)
follows, because in those cases we are dealing with doubly marked agreement with C0.
56
Note that this argument is rather weak, as it is unclear whether subject extraction in (24b) above is licensed by
doubly filled COMP or by agreement on the complementizer. This becomes even more clear when we look at the
following sentences (taken from Mayr, pg. 9) in which a second person singular subject is extracted, which, in
contrast to a second person plural subject (as in (24)), triggers overt agreement on the complementizer dass.
Interestingly, sentence (ia) is possible, even though we are dealing with double agreement marking on C0 (i.e.
doubly filled COMP and overt agreement on C0). It is thus unclear whether doubly filled COMP should be
analyzed on a par with complementizer agreement, i.e. whether it should be treated as a licensing principle of
subject extraction.
(i)
a.
b.
?Du
frogn d’Leit
[wem dass-st t a Buach kafft host]
you.2P.SG ask the people
whoDAT that2P.SG a book bought have
‘The people ask, whom you bought a book.’
*Du
frogn d’Leit
[wem-st
dass-st t a Buach kafft host]
you.2P.SG ask the people
whoDAT-2P.SG
that2P.SG a book bought have
36
In sum, subjects in Bavarian can be extracted from embedded CPs only if they overtly agree in φfeatures with the local complementizer or with a wh-element. The extraction of objects does not
require these licensing requirements. Moreover, it is assumed that when a subject is extracted, φfeatures are always realized on C0.
Having established that complementizer agreement licenses subject extraction – giving rise to
s/o-asymmetries – the next question that needs to be answered is what is the difference between
extraction from Spec,TP and extraction from the complement position of V. Mayr argues that s/oasymmetries are a consequence of the manner in which Merge proceeds, that is to say, subjects are
simply merged later in the derivation than objects, which gives rise to the contrast. He introduces the
following definition of Internal Merge, i.e. attraction of a goal by a probe.
(25)
Internal merge
IM at derivational stage Σi applies to nodes on the same projection line as the head H probing
under c-command, thus a node formed at stage Σi-1, Σi-2, … Σ1, where i > 1
(26)
Projection Line
X and Y are on the same projection line, iff the head X selects for YP. If the head Y selects for
ZP, then by transitivity X and Z are on the same projection line
Given these definitions, it should be clear that objects can always undergo movement because they are
on the same projection line as a higher probing head. However, when an object has moved to the
specifier position of a designated head, the question is how it can move any further, since a specifier is
not on the projection line of a higher probing head (i.e. it is not selected for by that particular head).
Mayr assumes that objects can always undergo movement, because they are on the projection line in
their external merge position. That is to say, since objects, when they are merged into the derivation,
they are merged onto the projection line, they can always undergo movement. Subjects, on the other
hand, are never on the same projection line as a given head because they are not selected for by any
head (they are specifiers). Therefore, given the definitions in (25)-(26), subjects cannot act as goals,
i.e. they can never be probed. In order for subjects to be probed, Mayr proposes (27). Given (27),
subjects in Spec,TP can be extracted by virtue of agreeing in φ-features with T0. However, we need to
derive that it is agreement with C0 that licenses long-distance subject extraction. Therefore, Mayr
proposes (28).
(27)
The role of φ-features:
Agreement in φ-features connects an element to the projection line, of which the agreeing
head H is a part of.
(28)
Checking conditions at Spell-Out for long-distance extractions:
a.
At Spell-Out, which is induced by a phase head, e.g. C, it is checked, whether the
dislocated element is on the relevant projection line due to its external merge position
or not. If not,
b.
then a φ-relation with the phase head reconnects the dislocated element to the relevant
projection line.
c.
Any previous φ-relation is deleted after Spell-Out.
The conditions in (28) ensure that only local φ-agreement with C0 influences subject extraction. More
specifically, when a subject has moved to the COMP-domain, its φ-agreement with T0 is no longer
visible and as a consequence, another φ-agreement relation with C0 is established. Once the subject
has entered into a φ-agreement relation with C0 – which equals being selected for by the higher V
(which selects for C0) – it is on the relevant projection line and therefore, need not undergo any further
φ-relations with higher phase heads.57 For objects, problems like the ones described do not arise,
The following principle (Mayr, pg. 18) ensures that once the subject has entered into a φ-agreement relation
with the local C0, it need not enter into further agreement relations, i.e. this principle – in interaction with
57
37
because they are always selected for, and selectional requirements need to be visible at all stages of the
derivation.
For structures in English from which subjects are not able to extract, it needs to be assumed
that the C0 in those structures does not bear any φ-features. Moreover, for English structures in which
the subject is able to extract, Mayr needs to assume that no C (-projection) is merged (cf. Rizzi &
Shlonsky 2007). In those cases, the subject gets extracted from Spec,TP where it is in a φ-agreement
relation with T0. The latter option is not available in Bavarian.
Mayr’s account of s/o-asymmetries is particularly interesting in light of the Dutch data on s/oasymmetries in (long-distance) relativization, because in varieties that exhibit the asymmetry, a
correlation (established on the basis of the geographic distribution of both phenomena) with the
presence of complementizer agreement is found (generalization IV).
3.4
The analysis - subject/object asymmetries in varieties of Dutch
3.4.1 Some notes on the status of die and dat
In the previous section, I discussed a very recent account of s/o-asymmetries that will form the basis
for my analysis of the Dutch asymmetries. Before this analysis of s/o-asymmetries in long-distance
relativization in Dutch will be presented, it is important to lay out my assumptions regarding the
nature of the elements die and da(t) in the dialects under discussion. In the literature there is no
agreement with respect to the status of these elements in languages like French and West-Flemish. In
Standard Dutch, on the other hand, there seems to be a consensus, i.e. in restrictive relative clauses in
which the head noun is non-neuter, die is taken to be a relative pronoun, and dat is the complementizer
(cf. Zwart 2000, De Vries 2002). However, the status of the die/qui-elements (and to a lesser extent
this holds also for the dat/que-elements) in the dialects that show s/o-asymmetries – henceforth
‘special die/qui’ – is not clear. In principle, special die/qui can be analyzed either as (i) a (weak)
relative pronoun – as is assumed by traditional grammars, by Bennis & Haegeman (1984), and
recently argued for by Sportiche (2008) – (ii) an agreeing form of the complementizer dat/que (Kayne
1976, Rizzi 1990), or (iii) as a contracted form (e.g. que+i=qui; Taraldsen 2001, Rizzi & Shlonsky
2007).
For the dialects under discussion, I will assume that special die, found in the embedded clause
of long-distance subject relativization structures (and in short subject relativization structures in WestFlemish), is not a (weak) relative pronoun as assumed by Sportiche (2008), but rather, I will follow
Rizzi (1990) and hypothesize that, given the observation that special die in long-distance relativization
checking condition (28c) – accounts for the fact that s/o-asymmetries in long-distance relativization structures,
are always found in the clause that contains the extraction site (generalization II).
(i)
Secondary selection
If V selects for a CP with DP in Spec,CP which agrees with the head of this CP in φ-features, then the
DP behaves as if it were directly selected by V
Mayr argues that if secondary selection is the case, condition (28c) cannot be applied because the subject is
selected for by the higher verb, and consequently, the subject is on the projection line (permanently). Therefore,
there is no need to license further extraction of the subject, i.e. no other φ-agreement relation with higher C’s is
established. An alternative way to account for the fact that s/o-asymmetries are only found in the clause
containing the extraction site, is by means of a feature checking/valuing approach to (complementizer)
agreement (cf. note 49). C0 has uninterpretable φ-features that need to be valued, and this happens by means of
agreement with the subject in Spec,TP (dialects differ with respect to the spell out of this agreement relation).
Given that agreement always relates the probe to the most local goal with features that match the features of the
probe, we account for the fact that only the C0 in the CP containing the extraction site shows overt φ-agreement
with the relative subject DP – which is manifested as die – as the higher C’s will always agree in φ-features with
the local subject in Spec,TP. This way of explaining generalization II is superior to Mayr’s account because it
does not need any additional assumptions or conditions to capture the observation that s/o-asymmetries are only
found in the most deeply embedded CP.
38
only appears in the most deeply embedded COMP,58 and given the observation that dialects that make
use of special die also exhibit complementizer agreement (generalization IV), special die is a variant
of the complementizer dat;59 more specifically, die = dat + the spell out of φ-feature agreement (cf.
Mayr to appear)60. As mentioned in chapter 1, the framework I adopt assumes that Syntax only
operates on feature bundles, and that feature bundles are replaced by Vocabulary Items in the
Morphological component (i.e. the framework of Distributed Morphology; cf. Halle & Marantz 1993,
Harley & Noyer 1999). Halle’s (1997) Subset Principle guarantees that in dialects that exhibit the
distinction between complementizers die and dat – more general, in dialects that show overt agreement
morphology on C0 (generalization IV) – dat will be inserted in C0, unless there is φ-agreement (die). I
will come back at this particular issue in more detail in paragraph 3.4.3.
3.4.2 The analysis
Let us start with system IV, the system predominantly found in West-Vlaanderen. For convenience,
the West-Flemish data on relativization are repeated in (29).
(29)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Da s de vent
that is the man
Da s de vent
that is the man
Da s de vent
that is the man
Da s de vent
that is the man
die da graptjen ee verteld.
die that joke has told
da se geroepen en.
that they called have
da k peizen
die da graptje verteld eet.
that I think
die that joke told has
da k peizen
da-n
ze geroepen en.
that I think
that-3P.PL they called have
[Brugge Dutch]
Given the claim that die is a complementizer, and the observation that the s/o-asymmetry is found in
both short relativization structures and in the embedded clause of long relativization configurations,
we are forced to conclude that West-Flemish does not make use of relative pronouns. In other words,
58
In light of the analysis of long-distance relative clauses in Dutch, as discussed in chapter 1 (i.e. a promotion
theory of relative clauses with successive-cyclic movement of the relative DP), assuming that special die in the
most deeply embedded COMP of long-distance relative clauses is a (weak) relative pronoun, forces one to assume
that either, for some reason, the relative pronoun is stranded in the lower COMP, or that we are dealing with
scattered deletion, i.e. only parts of the highest and intermediate copy are spelled out. Both scenarios need the
formulation of a specific PF-deletion theory, whereas when we assume that special die is an agreeing variant of
the finite subordinate complementizer dat, we can maintain the standard assumption that (normally) only the
highest copy of a chain gets spelled out (cf. Nunes 2004). In other words, given the promotion theory of relative
clauses with successive-cyclic movement of the relative DP, and given the observation that die appears in the
most deeply embedded clause, we are almost forced to assume that die is a complementizer instead of a relative
pronoun.
59
An issue that, at least at first sight, is hard to account for when we assume die and dat are complementizers, is
formed by data on relative die and dat in West-Flemish, as provided by Vandekerckhove (2003). She found that
in case an object is relativized (in one clause relativization), West-Flemish dialects always make use of dat.
When a subject is relativized, dialects make use of die, except when the relativized constituent is 3 neuter
singular; then dat is used (in +/- 70% of the cases) – this is comparable to Standard Dutch subject and object
relativization. These results indicate that not only the function of the relativized constituent is important for the
choice of die/dat, but that its feature specification is also of great importance, i.e. it seems to be the case that
being a neuter singular antecedent ‘overrules’ having the grammatical function of subject. Given the assumption
that die and dat in West-Flemish are not relative pronouns, the question thus arises why dat is used only in case
the relativized subject is 3 neuter singular. Given the analysis as presented in section 3.4.2, the element dat, as
used with subjects that are neuter singular, is – similar to the element die – also an instance of complementizer
agreement. The difference in form (dat vs. die) can be accounted for by the assumption that the subject needs to
enter into a φ-feature agreement relation with C0, but that a different φ-feature specification yields a different
output, i.e. only in case the feature specification of the relativized subject is [3 P.SG.N], the agreement relation
between the (copy of the) subject and C0 is spelled out as dat instead of die.
60
Clearly, this assumption is not sufficient as the dialects under discussion exhibit complementizer agreement
that does not manifest itself overtly as die. I will come back at the issue of the morphological plausibility of die
as an instance of dat in section 3.4.2.
39
West-Flemish can, just like English, merge an empty DPREL61 (cf. chapter 1, section 1.3.3.1). That is to
say, if West-Flemish did make use of relative pronouns – die for extracted subjects, and dat for
extracted objects (based on the data on short relativization) – we would predict, given a promotion
theory of long-distance relativization (cf. chapter 1, section 1.3.3.2), that the s/o-asymmetry is (also)
visible in the highest clause. For subject extraction, the pattern would be die-die, in which the highest
die is a manifestation of the relative pronoun and the lower die an instance of the agreeing
complementizer, whereas the pattern of object extraction would be dat-dat, in which the highest dat is
a relative pronoun and the lower dat the complementizer.62 This is not the pattern we find, and
therefore, we need to assume that in West-Flemish the relative DP is headed by a null D. Following
Mayr (to appear), the relative subject DP in Spec,TP moves to Spec,CP and enters into a φ-agreement
relation with C0, which is spelled-out as die.63 By virtue of this agreement relation, the relative DP is
on the projection line, and it can move further to the next Spec,CP (to check some feature on C 0, say
[uWh/uRel, +EPP]) without having to enter into a φ-agreement relation with that higher C0 (see
footnote 57). The higher C0 is thus spelled out as dat, and we obtain the pattern dat-die. The derivation
of the West-Flemish long object relativization structure proceeds along the same line, with the
difference being that since objects are on the projection line from the start, the relative object DP does
not have to enter into an agreement relation with the complementizer (in fact, this is impossible), and
no instances of die surface. We thus derive the pattern dat-dat.
Given this analysis of the West-Flemish data on relativization, we make the following
predictions: (i) special die appears only in the CP from which the subject is extracted, and (ii) since
special die is an instance of dat + overt φ-agreement with the subject (copy) in Spec,CP, and since
complementizers can only agree with the subject, special die is only found in case of subject
extraction, never in case of object extraction. These predictions are borne out, that is to say, these
claims parallel the two generalizations I started this chapter out with. The following paragraph will
discuss these (and other) predictions of the analysis in more detail.
Interestingly, as I claimed, West-Flemish dialects show the pattern in (29) because they spell
out the φ-agreement relation with C0 and do not make use of relative pronouns. We now predict that if
there is a variety that also spells out the φ-agreement relation and that makes use of relative pronouns,
it should show the following pattern: no asymmetry in short relativization structures (given that the
form of the relative pronoun is identical for subject and object relativization64)65, and a s/o-asymmetry
in the most deeply embedded clause of long-distance relativization. This is exactly the pattern of
61
It is hard to find evidence that independently motivates this assumption because Dutch does not allow an
empty CP in relative clauses (in contrast to zero-relativization in English), i.e. in Dutch, the complementizer will
always be spelled out when there is no overt element in Spec,CP.
62
Although it does not occur very often, this pattern (die-die, dat-dat) is indeed attested in three locations
(Strijpen, Moerzeke, Didam). A possible explanation for the small amount of dialects that show this pattern
might be found in the fact that there are not many dialects that in addition to showing overt complementizer
agreement, make use of only die for subjects and only dat for objects – in fact, this is only found in WestVlaanderen. The remaining dialects that show overt complementizer agreement thus often make use of both die
and dat for both subject and object relatives. Such dialects thus have a ‘choice’ as to which system to use, and
they more often use other systems.
63
Notice that I assume – given the observation that there is also an asymmetry in short relativization – that the
relative DP enters into a φ-agreement relation with C0 independent of whether the relative DP as a whole needs
to be further extracted, i.e. the φ-agreement relation with C0 is established in both short and long relativization.
64
We predict there to be dialects that do not spell out the φ-agreement relation with C0 and that make use of the
relative pronouns die for subject extraction and dat for object extraction. These dialects should show the
following pattern of long-distance relativization: die-dat for long subjects and dat-dat for long objects (and die
for short subject relativization and dat for short object relativization). This pattern is indeed attested 3 times (in
Gistel, Torhout, and Deinze).
65
Notice that in dialects that make use of the relative pronoun die (for both subject and object extraction), in
short subject relativization structures, the COMP-domain is filled with the agreeing form of the complementizer
die and the relative pronoun die. In none of these dialects both elements are spelled out, i.e. no strings die-die are
attested, and so it is not entirely clear whether die in short subject relatives in system V is an instance of the
complementizer or whether it is the relative pronoun. I will assume that it is the relative pronoun, and that some
sort of haplology rule (cf. Neeleman & Van de Koot 2006) has ‘deleted’ the complementizer die.
40
system V: die-die for long subject relativization, and die-dat for long object relativization. The data
that thus seemed puzzling at first sight, follow straightforwardly from this analysis.
In sum, the patterns of (long-distance) relativization of the two types of dialects under
discussion, are accounted for by assuming (i) that all these dialects spell out the φ-agreement relation
between C0 and (the copy of) the subject in Spec,CP as die, and (ii) that some dialects make use of the
relative pronoun die for both subject and object relativization (system V), whereas other dialects do
not make use of relative pronouns at all (system IV). This is summarized in the following table.
Table 2; properties of systems IV and V
+ relative pronouns (die,die)
- relative pronouns
+ spell out agreement
die-die, die-dat (V)
dat-die, dat-dat (IV)
An important question that is in desperate need of an answer is of course: why is φ-agreement on the
complementizer spelled-out as die in dialects with complementizer-agreement, i.e. why is the ‘normal’
pattern of complementizer agreement not sufficient to license subject extraction, as it is in Bavarian?
That is to say, the analysis outlined above faces the problem of morphological plausibility (cf.
Taraldsen 2001): given the morphological expression of φ-features found in the dialects under
discussion, and given the observation that these dialects show an agreeing form of C 0 that gives rise to
a different alternation than dat-die, it is not very plausible to think of die as an agreeing form variant
of the complementizer (cf. Rizzi & Shlonksy 2007). I am well aware of the fact that we need an
explanation for the observation that die is an instance of complementizer agreement in the dialects
under discussion.66 Such an explanation would probably have to invoke a construction (and language)
specific statement – namely, one that only deals with the relative COMP-system in (varieties of) Dutch.
One could for example state that φ-agreement with C0 is manifested as die only if the element in
Spec,CP is (the copy of) a relative DP, i.e. the presence of complementizer die is only triggered in case
of a relative clause COMP.67 Naturally, this is not a very attractive solution as it is just a description of
the phenomenon, not an explanation. However, some of the predictions of the theory that will be
discussed in the following paragraph suggest that this conclusion might be somewhat relaxed.
3.4.3 Predictions
The analysis above makes several predictions. First, we predict the analysis of die as an agreeing
variant of dat in long-distance relativization structures, to be extended to other constructions involving
long wh-dependencies. More specifically, languages that make use of special die in (long) relative
clauses are predicted to make use of the construction in (30a) when forming long-distance whquestions. In (30a) the question is introduced by the wh-word wie ‘who’, and the embedded clause is
introduced by die, which, given the analysis above, is taken to be a complementizer spelled-out as die
by virtue of φ-agreement with the copy of the wh-subject wie.
66
Moreover, we need to account for the observation that the relative pronoun is homophonous to (the agreeing
form of) the complementizer. It is often noted that there is a striking parallelism between the DP and the clausal
structure. Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) therefore argue that the most straightforward way to capture this
parallelism is to assume that both DPs as well as CPs realize the same structure. More specifically, they argue
that the DP consists of a CP-like layer and an IP-like layer (i.e. they assume the following projections for strong
pronouns: CLP – ΣLP – ILP – LP, with L any lexical category and Σ0 a nominal support morpheme). Given this
assumption, the fact that the relative pronoun die is homophonous to the (agreeing form of the) complementizer
is not so strange, as the head of the DP-projection is – similar to the head of the clausal structure – taken to be
C0. In other words, according to Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) pronouns bear C-features.
67
An important problem we face when assuming that the presence of die is triggered in case there is a relative
COMP, is that in fact the most deeply embedded COMP, selected by the verb denken ‘to think’ is [-Q] and we thus
predict there to be no agreement relation possible between the [+Q] relative DP and the [-Q] C0. It should be
clear that we need some additional mechanism that ensures the embedded CP becomes [+Q]. I will not discuss
the various possibilities.
41
(30)
a.
b.
Wie denk je
die het verhaal verteld heeft?
who think you die the story told has
‘Who do you think told the story?’
Wie denk je
dat het verhaal verteld heeft?
who think you that the story told has
Unfortunately, in the SAND-project sentences like (30a) were only questioned with a wh-object, and
not with wh-subjects. Regarding construction (30a) with a wh-object, the SAND data show that its
distribution is very limited: it is only attested 8 times (cf. Barbiers et al. 2005).68 As my analysis would
predict the construction to be impossible, we could state that the 8 occurrences of the construction are
a counterargument to my claim. However, I think it is striking that the construction is only found
incidentally in the Netherlands, and never in Belgium, and this becomes even more remarkable when
we take into consideration the observation that the construction with a wh-subject as in (30a) actually
does occur in Flanders. That is to say, at first sight, the prediction that the construction in (30a) should
be used by dialects that exhibit special die in (long-distance) relativization, seems correct given the
data on long-distance A’-dependencies in Dutch reported by Schippers (2006). The construction in
(30a) is indeed attested in West-Vlaanderen, and several times in Oost-Vlaanderen.69,70 Importantly,
however, this construction is certainly not the only possible one found in this area; the construction in
(30b) – the Standard Dutch variant with a complementizer introducing the subordinate clause – is also
attested several times in Flanders. The latter result might lead one to suggest that long-distance whquestions and long-distance relativization structures cannot be analyzed on a par.71
In short, the observation that dialects that show the asymmetry, use both (30a) and (30b), is
not a decisive counterargument to my claim. Rather, it suggests that, without additional machinery, the
analysis of die as a form variant of the complementizer cannot be extended to structures involving
long-distance wh-movement. The precise distribution of the different long-distance wh-movement
structures in relation to long-distance relativization should be the subject of future research.
Second, given that die is (an agreeing) instance of the complementizer, we predict that
languages that show the s/o-asymmetry – and thus make use of special die – never allow doubly filled
COMP in special die contexts. That is to say, we predict the dialects that show the asymmetry to never
allow strings of die-dat in the most deeply embedded clause of long subject relativization,72 and in
short subject relativization structures. The SAND data show that of the 39 dialects that make use of
68
The test sentence with a wh-object is: Wie denk je die ik in de stad heb gezien? This test sentence was almost
exclusively presented to the informants in Belgium. In the Netherlands, there are some attestations of the
construction because some informants spontaneously produced this sentence when they were presented with
another test sentence (cf. Barbiers et al. 2005). Since the construction is not questioned in the Netherlands, and
as it might very well be the case that the construction occurs (more often) in this language area, future research
seems necessary to see whether this is indeed the case, i.e. whether the amount of occurrences of the long whobject construction with die in the most deeply embedded Spec,CP is actually larger than 8.
69
Schippers (2006) carried out a small postal survey in which, amongst others, test sentence (30a) was presented
to informants in Groningen (7), Drenthe (5), West-Vlaanderen (8), Oost-Vlaanderen (6) and Vlaams-Brabant (7).
Construction (30a) was attested in none of the locations in Groningen and Vlaams-Brabant, but is was found in 2
out of 4 locations in Drenthe, in 4 out of 5 locations in West-Vlaanderen (5 out of 8 informants indicated that the
sentence occurs in their local dialect), and in 2 out of 4 locations in Oost-Vlaanderen.
70
Moreover, as noted by Sportiche (2008:12), sentences like (30a) are acceptable in Nijmegen Dutch. This is
exactly the area in which several attestations of subject/object asymmetries were attested (cf. map 1).
71
A similar conclusion is also suggested by other SAND data on long-distance wh-dependencies, and the data
gathered by Schippers (2006). Moreover, structures involving (long-distance) wh-movement and (long-distance)
relativization structures have different semantic properties (e.g. reconstruction effects), suggesting that they
should receive a different analysis (cf. Salzmann 2006, Koopman & Sportiche 2008).
72
Of course, we also predict that strings like dat-dat never occur in the most deeply embedded clause of longdistance relativization structures. However, this prediction is hard to test as the absence of such strings is
probably independently motivated by a mechanism that disallows (accidental) repetition of identical morphemes
(cf. Neeleman & Van de Koot 2006).
42
special die in (long-distance) relativization, there is only one dialect that uses a complementizer in
addition to die: the dialect spoken in Moerzeke, in Oost-Vlaanderen.73 This is illustrated in (31).
(31)
a.
b.
… die at tat verteld eet
die that that told has
… da k peis
die dat ta verteld eet
that I think die that that told has
[Moerzeke Dutch]
Although one should come up with an explanation for the grammaticality of the string die-dat in this
particular dialect, it should be clear that the prediction is largely borne out (but see footnote 73).
Interestingly, according to Haegeman (1992:57), in West-Flemish argument clauses, the
complementizer da is always overt, independent of the presence of an additional constituent in
Spec,CP. This is exemplified in (32)-(33).
(32)
a.
b.
(33)
a.
b.
Kpeinzen da Valère a weg is.
I think that Valère already away is
‘I think that Valère is already gone.’
*Kpeizen Ø Valère a weg is.
Kweten niet wannièr da Valère goa werekommen.
I know not when that Valère goes return
‘I do not know when Valère is going to return.’
*Kweten niet wannièr Valère goa werekommen.
[Haegeman 1992:57]
Given this observation, it is particularly telling that in West-Flemish (long-distance) subject relative
clauses the complementizer da is not present in the embedded clause. My analysis that die is in fact an
agreeing form of the complementizer, fits in nicely with the generalization that in West-Flemish the
complementizer cannot be deleted. Note that if we were to assume that die is a (weak) relative
pronoun (cf. Sportiche 2008), we would have to come up with an explanation for the observation that
in relative clauses the complementizer does not need to be overt.74,75
A third prediction we make involves the extension of the above analysis to other language
varieties. Given the claim that in case of subject extraction the complementizer always needs to enter
into an agreement relation with the (copy of) the element in its specifier position, we predict languages
that do not show an overt s/o-asymmetry, but do allow subjects to be extracted, either have no C0
merged in such structures (as Mayr proposes for English), or the agreement relation is always
established in case subjects are extracted, but this relation is only visible in dialects that show
complementizer agreement (generalization IV). I will assume the latter, and propose that
73
It is important to note that not all informants were explicitly asked about the potential presence of an
additional complementizer (only in Hooglede (West-Vlaanderen), the interviewer explicitly asked whether die
da instead of die could be used, and the informant gave a negative response). Therefore, the prediction that a
complementizer cannot be present in special die contexts cannot be adequately tested on the basis of the SANDcorpus. Moreover, the data are less clear than presented in the main text. That is to say, it is not entirely clear
whether the dialect spoken in Moerzeke is the only dialect that makes use of doubly filled COMP, i.e. at least at
first sight, the dialects spoken in Koewacht and Lokeren also seem to allow doubly filled COMP. Needless to say
that further research into the issue of doubly filled COMP in relative clauses seems necessary.
74
Haegeman (1983) observes for the West-Flemish dialect of Lapscheure that relatives do not allow doubly
filled COMP, whereas interrogatives do. She argues that the absence of doubly filled COMP in relatives is due to
Complementizer Contraction (cf. Pesetsky 1982), which results in deletion of the complementizer in long subject
relatives and deletion of the relative pronoun in long object relatives.
75
The validity of this argument regarding short relativization is dependent on the analysis of relative clauses one
assumes, i.e. the assumptions about the relationship between the moved head and the relative clause
(complementation or adjunction) are of great importance (cf. chapter 1). If one takes the relative clause to be an
adjunct of the relative head noun (as is assumed in the ‘traditional adjunction analysis’), the above argument
does not hold. However, when one assumes, as I do, that the relative clause is a complement, i.e. the so-called Dcomplement hypothesis (cf. Kayne 1994 and De Vries 2002 amongst others), the above argument holds.
43
complementizers in (varieties of) Dutch (that appear without overt agreement) are always specified for
φ-features (cf. Haegeman 1992:53). This explains the fact that there are no (overt) s/o-asymmetries in
other varieties of Dutch, but raises the question of why the complementizer is realized as dat, and not
as die in these varieties, since the agreement relation is still established. The most straightforward way
to account for this is to assume that in dialects without the overt s/o-asymmetry, no complementizer
die is listed in the lexicon, and dat (as default) will always be inserted. To illustrate this, suppose that
the embedded C0 in the relative clauses under discussion has the following feature specification:
[3P.SG.M, +Q/rel]76, i.e. the uninterpretable φ-features on C0 are valued by the relative DP in Spec,CP,
giving rise to the specification [3P.SG.M], and C0 also has a Q/rel-feature due to agreement with the
relative DP in its specifier position. Once the syntactic structure is built and the level of Morphology
has been reached, this feature bundle needs to be replaced by a Vocabulary Item. Given that the
features of die and dat are as given in (34)77, in dialects that have die specified in the lexicon as a
complementizer (i.e. we could assume that die also has some sort of C-feature), both Vocabulary Items
meet the conditions for insertion as both items match (a subset of) the features of the grammatical
features specified in C0. However, as die has more features that match the features in the terminal
morpheme C0, according to the Subset Principle (cf. Halle 1997:428), die instead of dat should be
inserted.
(34)
a.
b.
die
da(t)
[3P.SG.M, +Q/rel]78
[3P.SG.M]
Notice that from this way of accounting for the difference between dialects that show overt φ-feature
agreement between C0 and (the copy of) the DP in Spec,CP and dialects that do not, it follows that this
difference is rather superficial, in the sense that in some dialects die is specified as a ʻspecial relative
clause complementizerʼ whereas in other dialects it is not and dat – as the default complementizer –
will always be inserted. In other words, the microvariation regarding s/o-asymmetries between dialects
can be reduced to variation in the lexicon (i.e. the Vocabulary Item lexicon).
Finally, given that the presence or absence of relative pronouns is a micro-parameter, and
given that the spell out of φ-agreement with C0 is another micro-parameter, we predict the existence of
the following six systems of long-distance relativization. This prediction is borne out: all six systems
are attested (see also footnotes 62 and 64). Notice that with these two rather simple parameters, we
generate, in addition to the patterns of systems IV and V, two other systems (of the six main systems
of long-distance relativization) that were presented in chapter 2, namely system I (Standard Dutch) and
system VI. The following chapter will focus in more detail on these two patterns of relativization.
Table 3; two micro-parameters
- relative pronouns
+ relative pronouns (die, die)
+ relative pronouns (die, dat)
+ spell out agreement
dat-die, dat-dat (IV)
die-die, die-dat (V)
die-die, dat-dat (3)
76
- spell out agreement
dat-dat, dat-dat (VI)
die-dat, die-dat (I)
die-dat, dat-dat (3)
For the present discussion, the exact nature of the feature +Q/rel is not important. Relevant for the present
discussion is the assumption that the embedded C0 has – in addition to φ-features – a specific feature related to
(at least) relative clauses (and perhaps also to wh-clauses; see the discussion regarding the first prediction of my
analysis in section 3.4.3).
77
For convenience, I have specified the φ-features of die and dat to show that they match the φ-features of the
embedded C0. However, it should be clear that in the lexicon, the item dat (and also die) does not have the
specific feature specification of (34a); rather, it will be underspecified as it can also be used with other φ-feature
combinations, e.g. de mannen3P.PL.M die ik denk dat het gedaan hebben ʻthe men that I think have done itʼ.
78
Due to the presence of the +Q/rel-feature on die, this item will never be used in case of object relativization
(generalization III) because the relative object DP will never agree with C0. Rather, the local subject that is not
endowed with a +Q/rel feature will agree with C0. Moreover, the assumption of the presence of the +Q/relfeature on die, allows us to account for the fact that ʻnormalʼ complementizer agreement in dialects such as
Lapscheure Dutch (cf. Haegeman 1992) is never manifested as die.
44
In addition to making predictions regarding the existence of systems of long-distance relativization,
the two formulated micro-parameters – and more generally, the analysis that was made explicit in the
previous section – also predict the non-existence of several patterns of long-distance relativization. To
see which patterns these are, recall the generalizations I started this chapter out with; for convenience
these are repeated as (35).
(35)
II
III
a subject/object asymmetry can appear only in the CP containing the extraction site
(i.e. a subject/object asymmetry in the higher clause is (almost) never attested)
in case of a subject/object asymmetry, dat occurs in the most deeply embedded clause
when the object is extracted, whereas die occurs in the most deeply embedded clause
in case of subject extraction
The analysis and micro-parameters proposed in the previous paragraph account for both
generalizations. That is to say, generalization II is explained as follows: once the subject has entered
into an φ-agreement relation with C0, it is on the relevant projection line and therefore, need not
undergo any further φ-agreement relations with higher heads. Generalization III is accounted for by
the assumption that only subjects need to agree with C0 in order to be on the projection line and get
extracted; objects, on the other hand, are on the projection line from the start. So, patterns that violate
one or two of the generalizations in (35) are excluded by the proposed analysis and micro-parameters.
The following table shows whether or not the patterns that are predicted to be excluded/non-existent
are attested in the SAND data on long-distance relativization. Notice that although patterns die-dat–
dat-dat and die-die–dat-dat violate generalization II (and obey generalization III), they are correctly
predicted to exist under my analysis (cf. table 3), and therefore, they are not included in the table.
Table 4; patterns of long relativization that are excluded by the proposed analysis
long subject
long object
gen. II
gen. III
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
+
+
-
+
-
# attestations in
SAND corpus79
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
As the table shows, the patterns that are predicted to be non-existent are not or only very marginally
attested in the SAND data. It can thus be concluded that the predictions regarding the existence and
non-existence of particular patterns of long-distance relativization are borne out.
3.4.4 Some problems – special properties of long subject relativization
Koopman & Sportiche (2008) argue – on the basis of the observation that the properties of French
contexts that allow special qui (‘special contexts’) are different from the properties of (French)
structures that traditionally are analyzed as involving successive cyclic wh-movement (‘bridge
contexts’) – that French special contexts need to be analyzed on a par with pseudo relative small
79
Notice that the amounts in this column are different from those in the comparable tables 1 and 3 in chapter 2,
which present all the possible combinations of long subject and long object relativization and the amount of
dialects in which these combinations are attested. Whereas in the tables in chapter 2 the amounts – that were
originally lower than 5 (cf. footnote 42) – reflect whether or not a given dialect uses a particular long subject
relative and a particular long object relative, the amounts in the table in this chapter show how many dialects
make use of a particular pattern. That is to say, this column shows how many dialects make use of a particular
pattern for sure; thus, only dialects that do not make use of other subject and object relatives are taken up in this
table. The reason for this is that it is often uncertain whether a particular dialect makes use of a given pattern or
not, as dialects often use more than one construction for subject and/or object relativization.
45
clauses.80 For French, they present a comprehensive list of the properties of special contexts, among
which the following: (i) the predicate of the matrix clause must belong to a particular subset of
predicates, and (ii) quantifiers, negative quantifiers and sentential negation intervening between the
wh-operator and the instance of special qui in the most deeply embedded clause, causes a severe
degradation in acceptability. Interestingly, Koopman & Sportiche show that both properties also seem
to hold for West-Flemish (i.e. the dialect of Lapscheure, cf. Haegeman 1992). This is illustrated in the
following sentences; the West-Flemish sentences in (36) show that intervention of the negative
quantifier niemand ‘nobody’ degrades the acceptability of long subject relatives (36a), but is perfectly
fine with long object relatives (36b).
(36)
a.
b.
??* … de studenten dat er niemand zeid
die-n do geweest oan
the students that there nobody said
die-PL there been was
‘… the students, noone said had been there’
… de studenten dat er niemand zeid
da-j
moet contacteren
the students that there nobody said
that-2nd must contact
‘… the students that nobody said you must contact’
With respect to the sensitivity to the type of predicate in the matrix clause, (37) shows that WestFlemish excludes special die in the context of a desiderative verb.
(37)
a.
b.
??* … de studenten daj
zou willen dien
de secretaresse ipbellen
the students that.you
would want die.PL
the secretary upcall.PL
‘… the students that you would want to call the secretary’
… the studenten daj
zou willen da de secretaresse ipbelt
the students da.you
would want that the secretary up-calls
The question that arises is how to account for these special properties of the long-distance
relativization structure. It should be noted that Koopman & Sportiche (2008) themselves do not have
an explanation for most of the properties of special contexts. In fact, they only offer an explanation for
the predicate restriction on special contexts (cf. note 81). As regards this property, we could invoke the
selection requirements of the verb (that selects for C) in explaining the properties of special contexts,
and assume that some verbs simply cannot select a CP introduced by the agreeing complementizer die.
That is to say, at some point in the derivation, the matrix predicate needs to be merged with its CPcomplement, but is unable to do so, causing the derivation to crash. Since objects never agree with the
complementizer, the predicate restriction does not hold for object relativization. Naturally, this account
of the facts is just a description, not an explanation, and the properties of special contexts still need to
be adequately accounted for. Whether these are best explained by the analysis proposed by Koopman
& Sportiche (2008), or by an analysis such as the one proposed in this thesis, needs to be the subject of
future research.
3.4.5 Intermediate summary
In the foregoing, I have, following Mayr (to appear), proposed an analysis of the s/o-asymmetries in
long-distance relativization structures in varieties Dutch. One of the starting points for this analysis
was the observation that Dutch dialects that show the asymmetry, often also show complementizer
agreement, i.e. overt agreement morphology on C0 (the two phenomena have more or less the same
geographic distribution; generalization IV). The analysis is fairly simple and basically states that
subject extraction is licensed by complementizer agreement. The analysis predicts the existence of the
two attested patterns of s/o-asymmetries in Dutch, it is capable of accounting for the observation that
special die is only found with subject relativization (generalization III), and it can account for the fact
that asymmetries are never found in the higher clause, but always in the clause that contains the
extraction site (generalization II). Although the analysis is able to account for these main
For the details of their analysis, I refer the reader to Koopman & Sportiche’s (2008) paper (and see footnote
81). Relevant for the present discussion is that an alternative to the successive cyclic wh-movement analysis of
long-distance relativization has been proposed.
80
46
generalizations regarding the s/o-asymmetries, it also has its shortcomings, most prominently the
problem of the morphological plausibility of die as an agreeing variant of the complementizer.
Moreover, the analysis is in need of some modifications in order to account for some special
properties of long-distance subject relativization structures. Therefore, in the following paragraph, I
will discuss some alternative proposals of s/o-asymmetries to the analysis outlined above, and I will
show that each of them also has its own shortcomings. The theories I will discuss are the T-to-C
movement approach developed by Pesetsky & Torrego (2001), and a theory recently formulated by
Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007).81
81
Although the theory proposed by Koopman & Sportiche (2008) is appealing in many respects, I have chosen
not to outline their approach in this chapter because it is primarily based on French relative clauses and pseudo
relative small clauses (PRSC). Given that it is unclear whether Dutch/Flemish has PRSCs (i.e. PRSCs in
Dutch/Flemish are of different types than those in French), it is hard to argue – without some research into the
properties of PRSCs in Dutch/Flemish – that special die contexts in Dutch/Flemish should be analyzed as
involving PRSCs. In addition, Koopman & Sportiche’s theory makes some wrong predictions with respect to the
possible patterns of subject/object asymmetries in Dutch. To illustrate this, I will briefly discuss their proposal in
this footnote. Koopman & Sportiche show that long-distance ‘special contexts’ share properties with pseudo
relative small clauses (cf. section 3.4.4), of which an example is given in (i) – the pseudo relative is italicized.
(i)
Julie a rencontré [PRSC Hélène qui se promenait]
Julie met Helen who was taking a walk
Koopman & Sportiche furthermore argue that extraction of wh-subjects out of tensed CPs is impossible in
French. Therefore, ‘special contexts’ cannot be analyzed as involving extraction of the subject from the
embedded tensed CP (i.e. the ‘standard’ analysis of the structure); rather, it is assumed that ‘special contexts’ are
derived from PRSCs. More specifically, ‘special contexts’ are analyzed as introduced by EECM verbs that take
tensed PRSCs, as indicated in (ii) – EECM verbs are ECM verbs of which the exceptional case marking option is
limited to contexts in which the ECM-marked DP is wh-moved.
(ii)
WHK
PRED/EECM-verb
[PRSC
SUBK
[CP-REL qui/die … ]]
As (ii) shows, the wh-subject, instead of moving out of the embedded CP by wh-movement, has wh-moved from
the subject position of the PRSC. Case on WHK comes from the EECM verb, and therefore, it is accusative
instead of nominative. Since, according to Koopman & Sportiche, in Dutch – in contrast to French – special die
is also found in long object relatives, they argue that all instances of special die in Dutch should be analyzed as a
kind of pseudo relative structure, as exemplified in an abstract manner in the following table.
subject
object
de NP
de NP
Highest COMP
[dACC [
[dACC [
Special context
…V
…V
SUB
[<dACC>[
[<dACC>[
Predicate
[<dNOM>
[<dACC>
<dNOM>
… <dACC>
This table shows that the higher d-form is always accusative, independent of the function of the extracted
element. While this explains my generalization II, it cannot account for the observation that there are some
dialects that make use of special die in the most deeply embedded clause of long subject relatives and that use
dat as the accusative d-form (short relativization), while showing the pattern die-die for long subject
relativization (see table 3). Koopman & Sportiche would (incorrectly) predict the pattern dat-die. Moreover, the
analysis predicts that only languages that make use of the relative pronoun die for both nominative and
accusative elements, can show the double die pattern (die-die). Languages that only make use of die with
nominative elements, should show the pattern dat-die. However, recall the pattern of system VIII in which die is
used for short subject and object relativization, whereas long relativization has the form dat-die. Thus, contrary
to what is found, a system like our system VIII is predicted to be impossible by Koopman & Sportiche’s account
of special qui/die contexts. It should be noted however, that further research (into the exact patterns that different
Dutch dialects display) is needed to check whether the account of Koopman & Sportiche really makes the wrong
predictions. That is to say, not all dialects that make use of system VIII for long relativization, only use die for
short object relativization. Sometimes, also dat is used, in which case Koopman & Sportiche’s account makes
the correct predictions. Similarly, dialects with pattern die-die - dat-dat, not always use only die for short subject
relativization and dat for short object relativization. In short, although the proposal by Koopman & Sportiche
seems to make the wrong predictions, further research is necessary to check whether this is indeed the case.
47
3.5
Alternative accounts
In this section I will discuss two alternative accounts of s/o-asymmetries. The first account I will
discuss is the T-to-C movement approach, introduced by Pesetsky & Torrego (2001). This approach
focuses on s/o-asymmetries in general, and basically states that such asymmetries are the result of
different feature specifications on subjects and objects, namely [±uTense]. Besides Pesetsky &
Torrego’s general approach, I will outline a proposal by Gallego (2004) that extends this approach to
relative clauses. The second analysis of s/o-asymmetries I will discuss is a rather recent analysis
proposed by Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007). They assume that subject extraction is prohibited by ‘criterial’
requirements, and that, following Taraldsen (2001), the French element qui found in the que/qui
alternation is a contracted form of the complementizer que and a numberless expletive element i.
3.5.1 Pesetsky & Torrego (2001), Gallego (2004)
Pesetsky & Torrego (2001) explain the that-trace effect and other subject/non-subject asymmetries in
English as the result of T-to-C movement. Their main claims are given in (38)-(40).
(38)
motivation for T-to-C movement
C bears an uninterpretable T feature (henceforth uT) with the EPP property82
(39)
the nature of nominative Case
nominative Case is uT on D
(40)
the nature of that
that is not C, but a particular realization of T moved to C
Pesetsky & Torrego thus argue that C0 has an [uT, +EPP] feature, which has to be deleted by overt
movement. There are three scenarios in which this feature can be deleted: (i) by movement of an
auxiliary, (ii) by movement of that, and (iii) by movement of the nominative subject.83 The latter
possibility follows from the empirical observation that no T-to-C movement is observed when a
nominative subject moves. Consider the sentences in (41).
(41)
a.
b.
Who do you think (that) Sue met t?
Who do you think (*that) t met Sue?
In this framework, the that-trace effect in (41) is explained as follows. In these sentences C not only
bears [uT,+EPP], but also [uWh, +EPP]. Through movement of the nominative subject bearing uT and
iWh, C’s [uT, +EPP] feature as well as its [uWh, +EPP] feature are deleted, and no further movement
is required. The obligatory absence of the complementizer that is thus explained by economy: a head
triggers the minimum number of operations necessary to erase its uninterpretable features. In contrast,
an object, given that it does not bear uT, is incapable of deleting C’s [uT, +EPP] feature when in
moves to the COMP-domain, and therefore, T-to-C movement is required to satisfy the interface
requirement stating that uninterpretable features need to be erased by the end of the derivation. The
apparent optionality of that in (41a) reflects the choice between T-to-C movement (that surfaces in the
COMP-position) and subject movement to Spec,CP (no that).84
82
When a head bears a feature with an EPP property, overt movement is triggered. When a feature on a head
does not have the EPP property, overt movement does not have to apply and by economy, it must not. In that
case the uninterpretable feature of a probe and a corresponding feature of a goal enter into an Agree relation by
which the uninterpretable feature gets erased. The effect of the [±EPP] property on features is thus identical to
the strong/weak feature distinction, i.e. strong features trigger overt movement, and weak features do not.
83
Note that Pesetky & Torrego (2001) assume that uninterpretable features are capable of deleting other
uninterpretable features, e.g. uT on the nominative subject can delete C’s uT feature. It should be noted that this
is not an entirely uncontroversial assumption, i.e. it is commonly assumed that uninterpretable features can only
be deleted by interpretable features (uFeatures attract iFeatures).
84
In a more recent article, Pesetsky & Torrego (2004) try to expand and improve their T-to-C movement
account, and assume that instead of only nominative Case being an instance of uT on D, all instances of
structural Case are actually instances of uT on D. They furthermore argue that uT on a complement of the verb
48
Gallego (2004) puts forward an analysis of relative clauses in Romance languages (and English) based
on (i) the raising analysis of relative clauses (cf. chapter 1) and (ii) Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2001)
proposal, as briefly outlined above. The main data he wants to account for are presented in (42). They
involve the absence of that-deletion (42a) and the absence of relative pronouns in Romance languages
(42b), i.e. whereas English allows wh-relatives, Romance must introduce overt relative Ds by a
preposition.
(42)
a.
b.
El hombre
*(que) vi.
the man
that
see-PST.1SG
‘The man (that) I saw.’
El hombre
*(con) quien habló.
the man
(with) who talk- PST.3SG
‘The man who talked.’/ ‘The man to whom (s)he talked.’
[Spanish]
Basically, Gallego (2004) explains the data in (42) by making appeal to the notion of phases (cf.
Chomsky 2000,2001; see also footnote 35). He assumes, following Pesetsky & Torrego (2004:516),
the following ‘principle of cyclic derivational dynamics’.
(43)
Timing of Deletion of Uninterpretable Features
An uninterpretable feature [uF] marked for deletion, (i.e. [uF]) within a completed phase P, is
deleted the moment a new head H is merged to P.
Moreover, he assumes that C0 is endowed with an uninterpretable relative feature [uRel, +EPP], in
addition to the [uT, +EPP] feature. This [uRel] feature is similar in nature to the ‘standard’ [uWh]
feature. In order to account for the fact that the relative head appears in front of the relative pronoun,
the presence of an additional head between CP and the external D is assumed. 85 This head, c –
analogous to v in the VP-system – is endowed with uninterpretable φ-features with the EPP property,
and thus attracts the closest constituent bearing [iφ], the head noun. English wh-relatives are then
derived as follows.
(44)
a.
b.
… (the) man who left
[cP mank [c’ c [uφ, EPP] [CP [who tk]i [iRel] [uT] [C’ [uT, EPP][uRel, EPP] [TP ti left ti ]]]]]
Consider now the English that/zero-relative clauses in (45). Interestingly, contrary to what one would
expect, when English subjects are relativized, they do not show a that-trace effect, i.e. in subject
relativization structures that is obligatory.
(45)
a.
b.
… the boy *(that) called Mary
… the boy (that) Mary called
Gallego accounts for this pattern by assuming that (i) that/zero-relatives are analyzed as involving a
null relative D (cf. Bianchi 1999), (ii) non-overt operators cannot pied-pipe lexical material (cf.
Chomsky 2001) and (iii) relative DPs, when headed by a null D, obligatorily remain in their first
merge-position. Given these assumptions, sentence (45a) will be derived as follows. The relative head
moves to Spec,c to delete c’s uninterpretable φ-features. C’s uninterpretable features are deleted by T-
enters an Agree relation with a second occurrence of T that is structurally lower than the main Tense of the
sentence. Apparent distinctions between V, N and A reflect distinctions on this lower T. In short, Pesetsky &
Torrego (2004) offer a general theory of complementation patterns, based on the theory of Case and the
distribution of clausal complements. Since the main claims of the two papers are identical, for the present
discussion, it is sufficient to outline Pesetsky & Torrego (2001).
85
This assumption is comparable to Zwart (2000), who argues that the left periphery of Dutch relative clauses
consists of more than one CP. The highest C0 triggers movement of the head noun out of the relative DP to its
specifier position (cf. also Bianchi 1999).
49
to-C movement ([uT] is erased), and by Agree between [uRel] and the null relative D.86 This
derivation is schematically illustrated in (46).
(46)
[cP boyk [c’ c [uφ, EPP] [CP thati C[uT, EPP] [uRel] [TP Ti [vP [DP Drel tk][iRel] called Mary]]]]]
English object relatives are derived in the same manner, as shown in (47)-(48).
(47)
a.
b.
c.
... the car [CP which John sold]
... the car [CP that John sold]
... the car [CP Ø John sold]
wh-relative
that-relative
zero-relative
(48)
a.
b.
c.
[DP the [cP carj c[uφ, EPP] [CP [which tj]i [iRel] John C[uRel, EPP][uT, EPP] [TP tz sold ti]]]
[DP the [cP carj c[uφ, EPP] [CP thati C[uRel] [uT, EPP] [TP John Ti sold [DP Drel tj] [iRel] ]]]]87
[DP the [cP carj c[uφ, EPP] [CP Johni C[uRel][uT, EPP] [TP ti sold [DP Drel tj] [iRel] ]]]]
As the derivations in (48b-c) show, the available candidates to delete C’s [uT, +EPP] feature are T
itself – giving rise to an instance of that (47b) – and the subject DP (48c). However, in English whrelatives, only the latter possibility, i.e. movement of the nominative subject, yields a correct
outcome.88
(49)
a.
b.
*... the car which that John sold
... the car which John sold
Given this analysis of English relative clauses in terms of Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2001) T-to-C
movement account, the question that now needs to be answered is how to account for the Romance
pattern in (42) we started out with: the absence of that-deletion and the absence of relative pronouns
without prepositions. Gallego argues that in Romance languages, subject DPs cannot check C’s [uT,
+EPP] feature because their own [uT] feature has already been deleted. That is to say, it is assumed
that English differs from Romance in that in the latter TP instead of vP is a strong phase. Given the
principle in (43), we now see why the subject DP in Romance languages cannot check C’s [uT]
feature: its [uT] feature is deleted and has become inert for further computation by the time it reaches
the COMP-domain. When it is impossible to attract a subject DP, the second most economical option is
to attract a PP, i.e. prepositions are assumed to be species of T (cf. Pesetsky & Torrego 2004). When
C0 attracts a PP, all its uninterpretable features can be deleted at once: P deletes C’s [uT] and the
relative D deletes C’s [uRel]. So, the locus of variation in relative clause formation in English and
Note that claiming that C’s [uRel] is deleted by Agree with the null operator, implies that C’s [uRel] feature is
not endowed with the EPP property (cf. footnote 82). What this means is that the [uRel] feature on C0 of
that/zero-relatives does not have the EPP property, whereas the [uRel] feature on C0 of wh-relatives does have
the EPP property (cf. (44b)). The same seems to hold for object relatives (cf. (48)). This raises the question of
why this is the case: why is the EPP property of [uRel] only licensed in case there is a wh-element present? I will
not try to attempt to answer this question here.
87
Given that c (only) bears an [uφ, +EPP] feature, and given the Attract Closest Principle (Chomsky 1995) – if a
head K attracts X, no constituent Y is closer to K than X – the derivations in (48a) and (48b) actually violate this
principle and we predict these sentences to be out. That is to say, given that the subject also bears an [iφ] feature,
the subject instead of the object is the closest goal for c’s φ-probe and c therefore, should attract the subject,
quod non. To circumvent this unwarranted conclusion, we could assume, following Zwart (2000), that c attracts
the head noun for semantic reasons (i.e. it needs an element in its specifier position to function as restrictor).
88
Some varieties of Dutch seem to allow (49a), in which we have both an instance of the relative pronoun die
and an instance of the complementizer dat (i.e. doubly filled COMP) as illustrated by (i).
86
(i)
Da s
de man die dan
ze geroepen en.
that is the man who that-3P.PL
they called have
‘That is the man who they have called.’
50
[Lokeren Dutch; Oost-Vlaanderen]
Romance languages is found in the notion of phase, i.e. phases do not seem to behave alike crosslinguistically.
With Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2001,2004) alternative theory to account for s/o-asymmetries (in
English) and Gallego’s (2004) expansion of this theory to the domain of relativization, we have
arrived at the question whether this theory can be used in explaining the s/o-asymmetries in varieties
of Dutch. The theory gives us a tool to attribute the attested variation in (long-distance) relativization
structures to differences in the feature composition (of C-heads) in different dialects. Let us assume (i)
a raising analysis of relative clauses (see chapter 1) and (ii) Dutch dat is, analogously to the English
that, an instance of T-to-C movement, and (iii) vP is a phase in the dialects under discussion.89
Consider again the West-Flemish data on relativization in (50).
(50)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Dat is de man [die __ het verhaal verteld heeft]
Dat is de man [dat ze __ geroepen hebben]
Dat is de man [dat ik denk [die __ het verhaal verteld heeft]]
Dat is de man [dat ik denk [dat ze __ geroepen hebben]]
At first sight, it seems to be the case that the West-Flemish data on short relativization (50a)-(50b) can
be easily accounted for with the T-to-C movement approach. If we assume that C has the following
features: [uT, +EPP], [uRel, +EPP], the pattern in (50a) can be explained by movement of the relative
subject DP to delete C’s [uRel] feature; this subject movement at the same time deletes C’s [uT]
feature. Since the relative object in (50b) is incapable of deleting C’s [uT] feature, in addition to
movement of the relative object DP to delete C’s [uRel], T-to-C movement takes place, yielding an
instance of dat. For convenience, this derivation of (50a)-(50b) is schematically illustrated in (51)
(51)90
Features of C0
subj. rel. (50a): Deletion of [uT]
Deletion of [uRel]
obj. rel. (50b): Deletion of [uT]
Deletion of [uRel]
[uT, +EPP], [uRel, +EPP]
by subject movement
by movement of the relative DP
by T-to-C movement (dat)
by movement of the relative DP
It needs to be noted that in order for the derivation of (50b) to work, we need to stipulate that in object
relatives there is no relative pronoun present, otherwise, we would predict object relatives to surface
with both a relative pronoun die as well as an instance of dat in the COMP-domain.
What about long-distance relativization in West-Flemish? Let us start with the long object
relative and assume that in such relatives no relative pronoun is present. As we discussed, Gallego
assumes that in case of relative DPs headed by a null D, the relative head moves up on its own,
stranding the null D in its base-generated position. Given that objects can never delete C’s [uT]
feature, in long-distance object relativization, T-to-C movement is triggered and we find an instance of
dat in the most deeply embedded sentence. The object relative head now moves further to the specifier
position of the higher COMP-domain. Again, additional T-to-C movement is triggered in order to
delete C’s [uT] feature, yielding another instance of dat. Finally, the relative head moves to Spec,cP to
check c’s φ-probe. So, except for the assumption that object relatives do not involve relative pronouns,
without additional stipulations, the West-Flemish long-distance object relativization structure can be
accounted for under the present theory. How about long-distance subject relativization? The first step
of the derivation is as indicated in (51). Given that there is a relative pronoun present, the question is
whether for some reason this pronoun is stranded in the most deeply embedded CP, or whether the
relative DP as a whole moves to the next Spec,CP. In the latter case we need an additional PF-deletion
theory to account for the fact that the relative DP in the lower Spec,CP (and the DP in the higher
Spec,CP) get ‘partially deleted’. I will not attempt to give an answer to the question which of these
two possibilities would be the best.
89
For now, I will be as naive as possible (i.e. just move past the major differences between languages like
English and Dutch), and copy the assumptions that hold for English to the Dutch dialects under discussion.
90
Notice that it is implicitly assumed that die in West-Flemish is a relative pronoun, contrary to what is assumed
in my proposal.
51
Consider now the data in (52); there is no asymmetry in short relativization, but there is an asymmetry
in long relativization structures (system V).
(52)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Dat is de man [die __ het verhaal verteld heeft]
Dat is de man [die ze __ geroepen hebben]
Dat is de man [die ik denk [die __ het verhaal verteld heeft]]
Dat is de man [die ik denk [dat ze __ geroepen hebben]]
The short subject relative is identical to the short object relative in West-Flemish and can be easily
derived (cf. (51)), the short object relative, however, raises some questions. Given that object relatives
never can delete C’s [uT] feature, in object relatives T-to-C movement is always predicted to occur.
This means that we would expect the presence of dat in (52b). The only way to circumvent this, is by
assuming that [uT] on C is not endowed with the EPP-feature. This is of course a rather unwarranted
conclusion, since it does not explain anything. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that C
in object relatives bears [uT, -EPP]; the pattern in (52a,b) is then derived. Given this assumption, we
predict that the most deeply embedded C in long object relatives also bears [uT, -EPP]. However, as
(52d) shows, this prediction is not borne out, i.e. there is an instance of dat in the embedded clause.
Another way of accounting for the lack of a s/o-asymmetry in (52a,b) is by assuming that instead of vP
being a phase, TP is a phase. That way, neither the subject nor the object can delete C’s [uT] feature. If
we furthermore assume that this [uT] feature does not have an EPP property, this feature can be erased
by mere Agree. Although it might be argued that the difference between dialects is due to differences
in what counts as a phase (cf. Gallego 2004), it is extremely unlikely that the question of what
constitutes a phase can be answered differently within a particular language dependent on the
construction. This is, however, exactly what we would need in order to account for the pattern in (52):
no asymmetry with short relativization, but the presence of an asymmetry with long relativization.
Although it still might be possible to assume that variation found in the domain of
relativization can be explained by appealing to the T-to-C movement approach and the assumption that
there is variation regarding the (strength of) the features on C, i.e. the feature specification of C is not
the same in every dialect, we need to make some unwarranted stipulations in order to account for s/oasymmetries in different dialects. Therefore, I will not further pursue this line of thinking about s/oasymmetries in varieties of Dutch, and conclude that, at least at first sight, the T-to-C movement
approach without additional assumptions is unable to account for the observed variation regarding s/oasymmetries in long-distance relative clauses.91
3.5.2 Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007)
A recently formulated alternative account to the ECP is provided by Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007). Their
account is based on the following two ideas, presented in (53).
(53)
a.
b.
Criterial Freezing
An element moved to a position dedicated to some scope-discourse interpretive
property, a criterial position, is frozen in place.
The Classical EPP – clauses need subjects – is restated as the Subject Criterion.
These formulations ensure that when a subject moves to the criterial subject position – the highest
head within TP: Subj92 – it is frozen in place. The difficulty of moving subjects is thus explained by
appealing to Criterial Freezing. Since there is no object criterion that is equivalent to the Subject
Criterion, the distribution of objects is not similarly constrained. The (English) examples in which the
91
It is important to note that this conclusion is dependent on the analysis that is chosen for relative clauses in
general (cf. chapter 1) and for s/o-asymmetries is particular. It could very well turn out that with another analysis
of relativization and s/o-asymmetries, the T-to-C movement approach makes the right predictions.
92
Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007) assume that there exists a head Subj that attracts a nominal to its specifier. This gives
rise to the following configuration: [DP [Subj XP]]. The feature that triggers this movement operation is
interpreted as aboutness: “about DP, I am reporting event XP”.
52
subject cannot be extracted, follow now straightforwardly: the subject moves to Spec,Subj and by
Criterial Freezing, it is frozen in place and not allowed to move any further.
In order to account for the French que/qui alternation, Rizzi & Shlonsky adopt the main
insights of Taraldsen’s (2001) analysis. He assumes that qui is a contracted form, composed of que
and i; the latter being an expletive-like element (similar to the Standard French expletive il). The basic
idea is that in subject relative clauses in French, the expletive element i – merged as the finiteness head
(Fin0), just below F0 which hosts que, and just above SubjP, i.e. [FP que [FinP i [SubjP]]] – satisfies the
Subject Criterion. Due to its nominal nature (i.e. i is merged with a set of φ-features), the expletive i in
Fin0 is assumed to satisfy the nominal requirement of Subj 0, as it is in a head-head relation with Subj0.
Therefore, the thematic subject is now free to move to the COMP-domain, i.e. the criterial position
Spec,Subj can be skipped. The subject first moves to Spec,Fin – which is not criterial – to value i’s φfeatures, after which it can move further to the COMP-domain. Thus, simply put, when the element i is
present – giving rise to the appearance of qui – the subject can freely extract from TP. The
impossibility of qui appearing in object relative clauses is explained by the fact that there is simply not
enough room for the expletive i and the subject DP to occur in the same structure. For the precise
implementation of this analysis, I refer the reader to Rizzi & Shlonsky’s (2007) paper; for the present
discussion, the above short outline will suffice. In the remainder of this section, I will show, based on
arguments by Koopman & Sportiche (2008) and Mayr (to appear), that Rizzi & Shlonksy’s analysis of
s/o-asymmetries is empirically and theoretically inadequate.
According to Koopman & Sportiche (2008), Rizzi & Shlonksy’s proposal faces two serious
problems. First, given that qui is a contraction of the two heads que (F0) and i (Fin0), and given the
observation that the existence of these heads is justified on the basis of the possibility of material
intervening between the two, we predict the existence of sentences with the string que X i. However,
such sentences are never attested. Second, in line with the criticism above, we predict the following
sentence (54b) to be well-formed, contrary to fact.93
(54)
a.
b.
Quel enfant est parti?
‘Which child left?’
[Quel enfant]j [F e] tj [Fin i] [Subj tj …
[Koopman & Sportiche 2008:76]
To account for the ill-formedness of (54b), Rizzi & Shlonsky assume that in French main clauses, a
silent version of [Fin i] is allowed. Naturally, such an assumption faces the problem of overgeneration.
A third point of criticism regarding the account of Rizzi & Shlonsky as noted by Mayr (to appear) has
to do with the observation that it makes the wrong predictions regarding complementizer agreement
constructions. This is due to fact that Rizzi & Shlonsky assume that the position that deals with the
subject criterion (Subj0) is different from the position that deals with agreement (Agr 0); Agr0 is below
Subj0 in the clausal structure. Mayr’s argument is as follows. He notes that Rizzi & Shlonsky assume
that in expletive constructions, the subject moves to Spec,Agr, and the expletive moves to Spec,Subj
to satisfy the subject criterion. The English construction in (55), however, shows that this assumption
cannot be right, i.e. the construction seems to lack subject movement because the subject follows the
low adverb often (which marks the edge of vP).
(55)
There is often a room available.
[Mayr to appear:22]
On the basis of the grammaticality of (55), Mayr concludes that the agreement relation between the
subject and Agr0 in expletive constructions can be a long-distance relation. This conclusion makes a
prediction with respect to complementizer agreement constructions. In Rizzi & Shlonsky’s account,
complementizer agreement is analyzed on a par with expletive constructions. That is to say, it is
assumed that in case of complementizer agreement, the φ-features on the complementizer satisfy the
nominal requirement of Subj0 and – just like in expletive constructions, e.g. (55) – subjects should stay
in-situ (and not move to Spec,Agr). German shows VP-fronting, and given the above assumptions, we
predict that in cases of complementizer agreement, the VP containing the subject should be able to be
Note that these points of criticism regarding Rizzi & Shlonsky’s (2007) approach also hold for Taraldsen’s
(2001) analysis of the que/qui-alternation.
93
53
fronted, as the subject may stay in-situ. This prediction is not borne out, as illustrated in (56). This
observation leads to the conclusion that φ-features on the complementizer cannot satisfy the subject
criterion. That is to say, the subject does not skip Spec,Subj in (56), and Mayr concludes that any
account that assumes the φ-features of C0/Fin0 satisfy the subject criterion, is not attainable.
(56)
a.
b.
[VP a Buach kafft]i hot da Hauns gfrogt [CP ti
ob-s
es ti
hobts]
a book bought has the Hans asked
if-2PL you-2PL have
‘John asked whether you(pl) bought a book.’
* [VP es a Buach kafft]i hot da Hauns gfrogt [CP ti ob-s ti hobts]
From the above, it should be clear that the theory of Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007) faces some serious
conceptual/ theoretical and empirical shortcomings. It should be noted, however, that their analysis
does make the right predictions regarding the Dutch systems of relativization that show a s/oasymmetry. It follows from Rizzi & Shlonskyʼs proposal that special die is only attested in the most
deeply embedded clause because the relativized constituent does not have to move through the
Spec,Subj in the higher clause, but only in the lower clause, i.e. only in the lower clause we need an
expletive-like element that satisfies the subject criterion, whereas in the higher clause the local subject
satisfies the subject criterion. Moreover, given that special die is assumed to be a contracted form –
composed of the complementizer and another element in Spec,Subj94 – instead of a (weak) relative
pronoun (cf. Koopman & Sportiche 2008), Rizzi & Shlonsky make more or less the same predictions
that my theory does. More specifically, it can account for pattern V by assuming that one of the
instances of die – the relative pronoun or contracted die – is not spelled out (by some sort of haplology
mechanism, cf. footnote 65).
3.5.3 Alternative accounts - summary
The preceding subsections have shown several alternative theories to my analysis of the variation
attested in long-distance relativization structures in the Dutch speaking language area. First, it was
shown that a feature approach to the attested variation, as proposed by Pesetsky & Torrego (2001) and
extended by Gallego (2004), is rather arbitrary, i.e. the presence or absence of a certain feature is often
not independently motivated. Besides this theoretical/conceptual shortcoming, this theory was also
incapable of accounting for the pattern of system V without making ad hoc stipulations. Second, the
theory of s/o-asymmetries introduced by Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007) was discussed. Although this theory
makes the right predictions regarding the different Dutch relativization structures, it has been shown
that this theory is theoretically and empirically inadequate. The following table gives an overview of
the predictions the several theories make with respect to the grammaticality of relativization structures
involving s/o-asymmetries; “+” means that a particular approach can account for the grammaticality of
a given system of relativization, and “-” means that a given approach cannot account for the
grammaticality of a given system of relativization. In the table, I also included the predictions made by
the recent approach of Koopman & Sportiche (2008), as briefly discussed in footnote 81.
Table 5; predictions regarding the grammaticality of relativization structures involving s/o-asymmetries
system of relativization
die,dat - dat-die, dat-dat (IV)
die,die - die-die, die-dat (V)
die,dat - die-die, dat-dat (3)
this
thesis
+
+
+
Pesetsky &
Torrego (2001)
+
+?
94
Rizzi &
Shlonksy (2007)
+
+
+
Koopman &
Sportiche (2008)
+
+
-
I will not go into the issue whether it could be plausibly argued that special die is a contracted form consisting
of the complementizer together with some element in Spec,Subj.
54
3.6
Summary
In this chapter, I have provided an analysis for a set of data consisting of two systems of (longdistance) relativization in Dutch dialects that show a s/o-asymmetry. The first system (IV),
predominantly found in West-Vlaanderen, shows an asymmetry in both short and long relativization
structures. The second system (V), mainly found in Oost-Vlaanderen, only shows a s/o-asymmetry in
long-distance relativization configurations. The two attested patterns of s/o-asymmetries seem to be
subject to the following generalizations. First, s/o-asymmetries are only found in the COMP-domain of
the clause that contains the extraction site (generalization II). Second, when there is an asymmetry, die
is always found in case of subject extraction and dat is found in case of object extraction
(generalization III). Third, dialects that show the asymmetry often also show complementizer
agreement (generalization IV). These observations are accounted for by appealing to a very recent
theory of s/o-asymmetries in Bavarian, proposed by Mayr (to appear). He basically argues that (overt)
complementizer agreement licenses subject extraction. The subject (or a copy of the subject) needs to
enter into a φ-agreement relation with the complementizer in order to be on the projection line and to
be able to be further extracted. Extending Mayr’s analysis to the Dutch data yields the correct
predictions. Given that the φ-agreement relation between (a copy of) the subject and C0 is
morphologically realized as die (instead of dat) in the dialects under discussion, the existence of two
patterns of s/o-asymmetries in relative clauses is derived: a pattern that is found in dialects that make
use of the relative pronoun die for both subject and object extraction (system V – in which there is
only an asymmetry in the most deeply embedded COMP of long-distance relativization structures), and
another pattern that is found in dialects that do not make use of relative pronouns (system IV – which
shows asymmetries in both short relative clauses and in the most deeply embedded COMP of longdistance relativization configurations). In other words, the two attested patterns of relativization are
accounted for by appealing to two micro-parameters: (i) +/- spell-out of φ-agreement with C0 (in case
of subject relativization), and (ii) the presence/absence of relative pronouns.
Although my theory faces some problems – most prominently, the problem of morphological
plausibility – it also makes some right predictions. Moreover, the evaluation of some other (recent)
theories of the s/o-asymmetry – Pesetsky & Torrego (2001), Gallego (2004), Rizzi & Shlonksy (2007),
Koopman & Sportiche (2008) – shows that each theory has its own shortcomings, i.e. some theories
make the wrong predictions and cannot account for the attested variation in Dutch, whereas others are
less appealing from a conceptually/theoretically point of view.
55
CHAPTER 4
Long-distance relativization in Dutch dialects – no subject/object asymmetries
4.1
Introduction
In the previous chapter, I discussed two systems of relativization that display subject/object
asymmetries. It was argued that the presence of a s/o-asymmetry is related to the presence of overt
complementizer agreement in these dialects. In this chapter, I will investigate the system(s) underlying
the patterns of (long-distance) relativization without subject/object asymmetries, as given in (1).
Although at first sight, it seems to be the case that ‘anything goes’ (chapter 2, generalization I), it turns
out that there is a system underlying these four patterns.
(1)
system I
system VI
system VII
system VIII
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
Given the hypothesis that all variants to long-distance relativization have the same underlying
structure (cf. chapter 1), I will argue that the difference between system I – the Standard Dutch pattern
of relativization – and system VI, can be derived by assuming that the latter does not make use of
relative pronouns, whereas the dialects that display system I, do make use of relative pronouns (die for
both subjects and objects). For the derivation of systems VII and VIII, some additional assumptions
need to be made. I will assume, following Van Koppen (2007), that movement of XPs does not leave
an identical copy at the extraction site, but rather only leaves the φ-features of the moved element, i.e.
copies do not have internal structure. Under the assumption that some dialects can spell out more than
one chain link (micro-parameter 3), the pattern of system VII can be easily derived. In order to account
for system VIII, I will assume that movement/copying can target a subset of the complete feature
bundle/structure of an element (cf. Barbiers, Koemenan, Lekakou 2008). Thus, dialects differ with
respect to the size of the structure that movement/copying targets (full/partial): micro-parameter 4.
Before I will turn to the specifics of the analysis of systems I, VI, VII and VIII in section 4.3, the
following section presents the data that are the subject of this chapter.
4.2
Presentation of the data
The patterns of short and long relativization of the systems that will be the subject of this chapter are
given in table 1. Regarding short relativization, each system makes use of die as a relative marker,
with the exception of system VI, which makes use of dat. This difference is reflected in the long
relativization structures: only system VI does not show an instance of die, whereas the other three
systems either have die in the lower clause (VIII), die in the higher clause (I), or die in both the lower
and the higher clause (VII). The data in table 1 thus show that each possible combination of die and
dat is attested; this observation is captured by the generalization in (2) (cf. chapter 2).
Table 1; four systems of relativization without subject/object asymmetry
system I (47)
system VI (16)
system VII (9)
system VIII (7)
(2)
I
short subject
die
dat
die
die
short object
die
dat
die
die
long subject
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
long object
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
long-distance relativization without a subject/object asymmetry shows all the possible
variants – die-dat-Ø – die-dat-Ø, dat-die-Ø – dat-die-Ø, die-die-Ø – die-die-Ø,
dat-dat-Ø – dat-dat-Ø
Whereas the distribution of the dialects that show a subject/object asymmetry was rather clear – and
therefore, based on geographic distribution, a correlation with complementizer agreement was found –
the distribution of dialects that do not show such an asymmetry is less clear, as indicated on map 1.
56
Map 1; 4 systems without subject/object asymmetry
As map 1 shows, system I is found mainly in the Netherlands and in the Belgian provinces Antwerp
and Oost-Vlaanderen. The geographic distribution of the other three systems is more or less restricted
to Belgium. That is to say, system VI is predominantly found in the south of Oost-Vlaanderen and
Vlaams-Brabant, and system VII is mainly found in Oost-Vlaanderen and shows some isolated
occurrences in the Netherlands. The majority of occurrences of system VIII is also found in (the south
of) Oost-Vlaanderen, and three isolated occurrences of this system are attested in the Netherlands.
4.3
The analysis – no subject/object asymmetries in varieties of Dutch
As mentioned in chapter 1, I will pursue the default hypothesis and argue that these four variants to
long-distance relativization are just structural variants in the sense that the variation should be
(partially) attributed to differences in spell out. That is to say, I will assume that all structures should
be analyzed by a raising account of relative clauses (e.g. Kayne 1994, Zwart 2000, De Vries 2002) in
which the relative DP successive-cyclically moves to its final landing site in the matrix clause. In this
section I will propose an analysis that straightforwardly captures the four patterns of relativization
presented in the previous section.
4.3.1 Absence/presence of relative pronouns
In chapter 3, an analysis was proposed for two systems of (long-distance) relativization that show
subject/object-asymmetries. To account for the attested variation, the following two micro-parameters
were distinguished.
(3)
a.
b.
+/- presence of relative pronouns
+/- spell-out of φ-agreement with C0 (in case of subject relativization)
Given these parameters, the analysis of systems I and VI – for convenience repeated in table 2 – is
pretty straightforward. That is to say, the systems seem to differ with respect to parameter (3a), i.e.
whether or not a given dialect makes use of relative pronouns.
57
Table 2; systems I and VI
system I (47)
system VI (16)
short subject
die
dat
short object
die
dat
long subject
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
long object
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
System I is the Standard Dutch variant. I will assume that the dialects exhibiting this pattern make use
of the relative pronoun die – this is corroborated by the use of this pronoun in short relativization. In
long relativization structures this means that the relative pronoun introduces the higher clause, whereas
the lower clause is introduced by a complementizer. This is the exact analysis as proposed by De Vries
(2002); see also chapter 1, section 1.3.3.2. In order to account for the pattern of system VI, I assume
that dat is a complementizer and dialects that exhibit system VI do not make use of relative pronouns.
Recall that in order to explain the pattern of system IV in West-Vlaanderen – in which there is a
subject/object asymmetry in short relatives and in the lower clause of long relatives – I analyzed
special die as an instance of the complementizer and I furthermore assumed that the dialects that
exhibit this system do not make use of relative pronouns. More specifically, I assumed that dialects
differ with respect to the lexical specification of die as a complementizer. Given this analysis, it
follows that system VI – that also does not make use of relative pronouns – is found in this language
area (cf. map 1), i.e. the two systems only differ with respect to one micro-parameter: the specification
of die in the lexicon, or, in other words, the spell-out of φ-agreement with C0 (3b).
In sum, given that the dialects under discussion do not spell out the φ-agreement relation
between C0 and (the copy of) the relative subject DP in Spec,CP, the relevant micro-parameter when
accounting for the patterns of systems I and VI is the absence or presence of relative pronouns in a
given dialect. This is illustrated in the following table.
Table 3; two micro-parameters95
+ relative pronouns
- relative pronouns
+ spell out agreement
die-die, die-dat (V)
dat-die, dat-dat (IV)
- spell out agreement
die-dat, die-dat (I)
dat-dat, dat-dat (VI)
Notice that the formulation of this simple parameter – absence/presence of relative pronouns in a given
dialect – is in fact insufficient to account for the patterns of the two systems in the sense that we still
need some sort of rule that states that COMP can never be empty, because otherwise, we would predict
the following sentence to be grammatical, quod non. In other words, we need to make the additional
assumption that Dutch dialects do not allow zero-relativization (cf. footnote 33).
(4)
*Dat is de man __
that is the man
ik denk __
I think
het gedaan heeft
it done has
4.3.2 Syntactic doubling
Whereas an account of systems I and VI in terms of the presence or absence of relative pronouns in a
given dialect, very easily captures the difference between the two patterns, something more complex
seems to be going on in the patterns of systems VII and VIII, here repeated in table 4.
Table 4; system VII and VIII
system VII (9)
system VIII (7)
short subject
die
die
short object
die
die
long subject
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
95
long object
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
The parameter +/- relative pronouns in this table indicates whether or not a dialect makes use of die for both
subject and object relativization. If we would further specify this parameter with respect to the form of the
relative pronouns that are used for (short) subject and object relativization, we predict the existence of two more
systems when the relative pronoun die is used with subject relatives and the relative pronoun dat is used to mark
object relatives: (i) die-die, dat-dat, and (ii) die-dat, dat-dat. Both systems are indeed attested (see table 3,
chapter 3).
58
In short relativization structures, both systems make use of the relative pronoun die, similar to system
I. In long relativization structures on the other hand, system VII shows doubling of the relative
pronoun (die-die) and system VIII shows stranding of the relative pronoun in the most deeply
embedded COMP (dat-die).96 At least at first sight, these data seem to force the formulation of a
specific PF-deletion theory. That is to say, given that the lower instance of die in long-distance
relativization in system VII is the spell out of (part of) a lower copy, we need a PF-deletion theory that
accounts for the fact that, in addition to the highest copy, a lower copy can be (partially) spelled out.
Similarly, when we assume that the instance of die in long-distance relativization in system VIII is the
spell out of a lower copy instead of the highest copy, we need to account for the fact that (part of) the
higher copy (and part of the lower copy) is not spelled out (i.e. scattered deletion, cf. Nunes 2004). In
short, we need to account for the fact that these copies are partially spelled out, i.e. we never attested
instances of copy spell out in which the lower copy is identical to the higher copy (5).
(5)
a.
b.
*… de [mani die ti] ik denk [mani die ti] (dat) [mani die ti] het verhaal verteld heeft
*… de [mani die ti] ik denk [mani die ti] (dat) [mani die ti] het verhaal verteld heeft
In other words, the analysis of long-distance relative clauses (cf. chapter 1, section 1.3.3.2) that I
assume for (varieties of) Dutch, forces one to assume a specific PF-deletion theory because of the
presence of the intermediate copy of the relative DP in the embedded Spec,CP. In the following
sections, I will pursue the line of reasoning that the difference between the two systems under
discussion is due to the interaction between Syntax and Phonology/Morphology. I will first discuss
Nunes’ (2004) influential proposal regarding the realization of multiple chain links, and I will show
that, as it turns out, this proposal (without additional mechanisms) is unable to account for the data
under discussion, mainly because it makes use of the ‘standard’ copy theory of movement (Chomsky
1993). Therefore, I will adopt the reduced copy theory of movement as proposed by Van Koppen
(2007) in order to elegantly account for the observation that generally lower copies are reduced
variants of the higher copy. Together, the reduced copy theory of movement and the assumption that
multiple chain links can be spelled out, can account for the doubling pattern of system VII. To provide
an analysis for system VIII, I will follow Barbiers, Koeneman & Lekakou (2008) and argue that
Syntax has the operation partial copying by which only part of a constituent gets copied and remerged
higher into the structure.
4.3.2.1 Phonetic realization of multiple copies – Nunes (2004)
Nunes (2004) adopts Chomsky’s (1993) notion of movement as consisting of the two operations copy
and merge – the Copy Theory of Movement – and argues that heads as well as lower copies of chains
are subject to the same principles and mechanisms. More precisely, he claims that every chain link is
computed for linearization in accordance with Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA)
according to which linear order is determined by asymmetric c-command.97 Under the assumption that
two copies of one and the same element count as ‘identical’, it follows that it is impossible to linearize
structures containing identical copies because an element intervening between two copies should
simultaneously go before and after one and the same element. Simply put, deletion of copies follows
from the requirement to linearize a structure. To account for the observation that in most languages the
highest copy of a chain gets pronounced, Nunes argues that in the standard case, the copy with the
most formal features erased gets deleted, i.e. the copy that has entered into the most checking relations
will be spelled out. However, this option can be overruled by morphophonological considerations (see
Nunes 2004 for details). Interestingly, sometimes it seems possible that more than one chain link gets
phonetically realized, as illustrated by the examples in (6)-(8). The obvious question arises why such
structures do not cause any problems for linearization.
96
Notice that as there is no asymmetry between the long subject relative and the long object relative, we cannot
assume that die is an instance of the complementizer (see the analysis of subject/object-asymmetries as proposed
in chapter 3). Rather, we need to assume it is a relative pronoun.
97
Simply put, the LCA states that a terminal node α precedes a terminal node β iff α asymmetrically ccommands β, in which asymmetric c-command is defined as follows: X asymmetrically c-commands Y iff X ccommands Y and Y does not c-command X (for the details of this approach to linearization see Kayne 1994).
59
(6)
(7)
(8)
Wêr tinke jo
wêr’t
where think you
where-that
‘Where do you think that Jan lives?’
Jan wennet?
Jan lives
[Frisian]
Wen glaubst Hans wen
Jakob gesehen hat?
who thinks
Hans whom
Jakob seen
has
‘Who does Hans think Jakob saw?’
[German]
Met wie het jy nou weer gesê met wie het Sarie gedog
met wie gaan Jan trou.
with who did you now again said with who did Sarie thought with who gaan Jan marry
‘Whom did you say (again) that Sarie thought Jan is going to marry?’ [Afrikaans]98
In attempting to answer that question, Nunes assumes that under specific circumstances, heads can
undergo morphological reanalysis. Morphological reanalysis takes two terminal nodes and fuses them
together into a single terminal node, by which the number of independent morphemes is reduced.
Given that the LCA does not apply word internally and given the assumption that successive cyclic
wh-movement (in languages that allow spell out of lower copies) proceeds by adjunction to an
intermediate C0, we can now give an explanation for the well-formedness of (6) and (7). The wh-copy
in the lower COMP is adjoined to C0 and together they undergo morphological reanalysis by which
both heads become a single morpheme, and as a result, the wh-copy is invisible for the LCA. With
respect to sentence (8), in which we are dealing with a maximal projection (i.e. a PP) instead of a head,
Nunes (2004:169) notes that we need to assume that first the preposition and the wh-word undergo
fusion, after which this element fuses with the intermediate C0.
Given this analysis of the phonetic realization of multiple copies, dialectal variation can now
be stated in terms of “the degree of permissiveness of a given dialect or idiolect with respect to
morphological reanalysis” (Nunes 2004:43). However, it is hard to see how morphological reanalysis
could account for the patterns of systems VII and VIII, because it targets only heads. Given the basic
structure we assumed for Standard Dutch relative clauses, as given somewhat simplified in (9), in
terms of Nunes’ account, the only thing we can claim is that somehow die (in the intermediate copy)
incorporates into C0, by which it becomes invisible to the LCA and is spelled out, yielding the correct
outcome (die-die).
(9)
… de [mani die ti] ik denk [mani die ti] dat [mani die ti] het verhaal verteld heeft
This scenario is not very plausible, however. Even if we were to assume that only the pronoun moves,
i.e. if we would adopt a head external analysis of relative clauses (cf. chapter 1, section 1.2.1),
morphological reanalysis would still not be able to account for the attested variation if we assume that
pronouns are not heads, but actually project a full phrasal structure, as is argued for extensively in the
literature (cf. amongst others Cardinaletti 1994, Cardinaletti & Starke 1999, Déchaine & Wiltschko
2002, Van Koppen 2005). Besides this particular problem to Nunes’ (2004) theory, it faces some other
problems, both theoretically and empirically. Theoretically, it should be impossible for a headadjoined copy to move further to the higher Spec,CP (cf. Felser 2004:556). Empirically, the analysis –
taking the copy theory of movement as a starting point – is hard to reconcile with non-identical spell
out of copies, i.e. the spell out of copies that are reduced with respect to the higher copy. Therefore, I
will follow Van Koppen (2007) and assume an alternative copy theory of movement. The following
subsection briefly outlines her approach.
4.3.2.2 Reduced copies – Van Koppen (2007)
An alternative to the ‘standard’ copy theory of movement (Chomsky 1993) is provided by Van
Koppen (2007). She argues that the head of a movement chain differs from the lower copies in the
sense that these are reduced: they contain only the φ-feature set of the maximal projection of the
98
Examples (6)-(8) are taken from Nunes (2004:38-39).
60
moved item and thus have no internal structure.99 Copies are taken to be place holders of the moved
item. More specifically, she argues that the operation copy is more restricted than previously assumed:
it targets only heads, which means that when an XP moves, only the feature bundle on the maximal
projection gets copied (as this is the only information necessary to link the head of the chain to its
lower copies), instead of the whole XP. Thus, reduced copies are the result of XP-movement. This is
illustrated in (10)-(11).
(10) Standard Copy Theory (Chomsky 1993)
(11) Reduced Copy Theory (Van Koppen 2007)
XP
XP
X’
ZP [F]
Z’
Z0
X’
ZP [F]
YP
Z’
Z0
ZP [F]
YP
[F]
Z’
Z0
Arguments in favour of this theory of copying come from structures in which an XP moves and more
than one copy is spelled-out. The reduced copy theory predicts that in such cases, the lower copy is
reduced, whereas the standard copy theory predicts that the lower copy should be identical to the
higher copy. The examples in (12) show that when a complex phrase moves, the spelled out copy
cannot be identical to the highest copy, which confirms the prediction made by the reduced copy
theory.100,101,102
(12)
a.
b.
* Wessen Student glaubst du wessen Student wir kennen?
which student
think you which student we know
‘Which student do you think we know?’
Welchen Mann glaubst du wem sie das Buch gegeben hat?
which
man think you who she the book given has
‘Which man do you think that she has given the book to?’
[German]
[dialectal German]103
Let us assume that the reduced copy theory of movement is on the right track, and copies left behind
by movement have no internal structure. Rather, these reduced copies only contain the φ-feature set
present on the maximal projection of the moved item. We then predict that the movement chain of the
element man die in the relative clauses under discussion, looks like (13b) instead of (13a). That is to
say, the lower copies of this element are not identical to the head of the chain as in (13a) but contain
only the φ-feature set of this higher copy as in (13b).
99
Note that with the reduced copy theory of movement, we need an alternative theory about reconstruction, i.e.
it is no longer sufficient to assume that reconstruction is the interpretation of a lower copy in the chain.
100
For other arguments in favour of the reduced copy theory of movement, see Van Koppen (2007).
101
Notice that example (8) from section 4.3.2.1 actually forms a problem to Van Koppen’s (2007) theory since
the lower copy of the chain is identical to the higher copy, i.e. the lower copy is a complex phrase (i.e. a PP).
102
As noted by Van Koppen (2007:345), another analysis of (12b) is also possible, in which the wh-phrase in the
embedded clause is taken to be wh-agreement instead of the spell out of an intermediate chain link (cf. footnote
111 for a discussion of this possibility).
103
Examples are taken from Van Koppen (2007:345).
61
(13)
a.
b.
[man die] … [man die] … [man die]
[man die] … [3P.SG.M] … [3P.SG.M]
Consider now the possibility that multiple chain links get spelled out. More in particular, let us assume
that in addition to the highest copy, the intermediate copy is spelled out. At the level of Morphology,
an element that matches the features [3P.SG.M] is then inserted into the structure. In the present case,
this could very well be the demonstrative pronoun die as illustrated in (14), giving rise to the pattern of
system VII.104
(14)
Dat is de [man die] ik denk [die] het verhaal verteld heeft.
(system VII)
In sum, with the assumption of a reduced copy theory of movement together with the assumption that
multiple copies can be spelled out, we easily derive the presence of system VII. However, we still
need a theory that accounts for the fact that some varieties allow intermediate copies to be spelled out.
In addition, we need to derive that in the dialects under discussion only intermediate copies can be
spelled out, but not the lowest copies.105 In the remainder of this section, I will focus on the question of
what such a theory should look like.
Recall from chapter 1 the important observation that (varieties of) Dutch do not allow zero
relativization, which means that there always needs to be an element in the COMP-domain: a
complementizer or a relative pronoun; this is illustrated in (15).
(15)
Dat is de man *(dat/die) ik denk *(dat/die) het gedaan heeft.
This particular requirement/observation can be restated as follows.
(16)
In the absence of an overt complementizer, a (copy of a) pronoun must appear at the left
periphery of the embedded clause.
When a sentence does not obey (16), it is ungrammatical, as (15) shows. Therefore, we could simply
state that when there is no (feature bundle of a) complementizer present in the numeration106
underlying the derivation, (16) forces the spell out of the intermediate copy in the embedded Spec,CP.
If this assumption is on the right track, we immediately derive the observation that the lowest copy
cannot be spelled out, as this particular spell out is not necessary, and by economy, it is not allowed. In
sum, we basically state that an intermediate copy should be spelled out only when there is no
complementizer present in the COMP-domain. However, it should be clear that this very simple
assumption will not work, as there are dialects that allow doubly filled COMP. With the above line of
reasoning we would predict doubly filled COMP to be ruled out by economy.
Another option to account for the spell out of intermediate copies is to follow Nunes (2004)
and assume that the intermediate copy has undergone morphological reanalysis. As mentioned in
section 4.3.2.1, one major argument against this analysis is the assumption that pronouns are not heads
and are thus unable to undergo morphological reanalysis. However, we followed Van Koppen (2007)
and assumed that lower copies have no internal structure – similar to heads – and as a consequence,
this argument no longer holds. Let us therefore follow Nunes (2004) and assume that dialects differ in
permitting morphological reanalysis, and that, as a consequence, some dialects allow multiple chain
links to be spelled out, whereas others do not. To illustrate how Nunes’ analysis exactly works,
104
Given the feature specification [3P.SG.M], the lower copy in (13b) might as well have been spelled out as the
personal pronoun hij ‘he’, instead of the demonstrative pronoun die. However, sentences like dat is de man die ik
denk hij het verhaal verteld heeft are not attested in the SAND corpus. It should be clear that the question of
what determines how the lower copy gets spelled out needs to be further investigated (Van Koppen 2007:346).
105
Spell out of the lowest copy might provide an account of resumptive pronouns (cf. Pesetsky 1998). I will
briefly touch upon the issue of resumptive pronouns in chapter 5, section 5.2.2.
106
Within the Minimalist Program, it is assumed that the computational system does not have direct access to the
lexicon, rather it has access only to a collection of lexical items that together form the starting point for the
derivation: the numeration (cf. Hornstein et al. 2005:69).
62
consider again sentence (14), here repeated as (17). The ‘problematic’ copy – i.e. the copy that (at least
at first sight) offends the LCA107 – is given in bold.
(17)
Dat is de man die ik denk die het verhaal verteld heeft.
Recall that according to the LCA a lexical item α precedes a lexical item β iff α asymmetrically ccommands β (cf. footnote 97). This means that a structure with two heads which are in a mutual ccommand relation, as given in (18), cannot be linearized since neither α nor β asymmetrically ccommands the other.
(18)
α
β
(19)
β
α
#β#
β
We could overcome this problem by assuming that α and β get morphologically fused, as represented
in (19), i.e. two heads that are sisters can be fused together to form a single terminal node. As a result,
the structure no longer constitutes a problem for linearization. Given Nunes’ proposal that successivecyclic wh-movement proceeds by adjunction to the intermediate C0,108 and if we further assume that in
example (17) the intermediate copy of the relative DP and the most deeply embedded C0 undergo
morphological fusion, the intermediate copy die becomes invisible to the LCA, as illustrated in the
structure in (20). The highest copy of the relative DP (in Spec,CP2) gets pronounced (and the lowest
copy – die in TP1 – gets deleted) because this copy has the most formal features checked, and is
therefore more optimal in terms of the interfaces.
Notice that in order for Nunes’ analysis to work, we need to assume that reduced copies – just like ‘normal’
copies – are also subject to the LCA, and therefore, also undergo deletion.
108
As already mentioned in section 4.3.2.1, this assumption is problematic as it should not be possible for an
adjoined copy to move any further (cf. Felser 2004). Although it should be clear that we need a solution to this
problem, I will not go into the matter here.
107
63
(20)
CP3
dat is
DP
FFi + de
CP2
DPk
C’
D’
mani
C0
die
TP2
ti
ik denk
CP1
# C0 #
TP1
diek
0
C
diek het verhaal verteld heeft
With Van Koppen’s (2007) proposal of reduced copies and Nunes’ (2004) proposal of morphological
reanalysis we derive the grammaticality of system VII, in which multiple copies are spelled out.
Furthermore, we could follow Nunes in claiming that dialects differ with respect to whether they allow
morphological reanalysis or not. We thus have an additional micro-parameter, as indicated in (21).
(21)
+/- spell out of multiple chain links (+/- morphological reanalysis)
The question now arises how to deal with the pattern of system VIII. I will argue that this pattern is the
result of partial copying – a syntactic operation that copies a proper subset of the structure/feature
bundle of the maximal projection. In order to understand this analysis of system VIII, in the following
paragraph, I will briefly discuss the possibility of partial copying, and the predictions that such an
assumption makes.
4.3.2.3 Partial copying – Barbiers, Koemenan & Lekakou (2008)
Based on dialectal variation on syntactic doubling as given in (22), Barbiers, Koeneman & Lekakou
(2008) (henceforth BKL) put forward the generalization that in a syntactic movement chain,109 the
higher chain link can never be more specified than a lower chain link.110,111
109
The two pronouns in the sentences in (22) are assumed to be part of the same movement chain.
Notice that, essentially, this claim is the opposite of the claim made by Van Koppen (2007). Whereas she
argues that the highest chain link is always more specified than lower chain links (since lower chain links only
contain the φ-features of the moved maximal projection), Barbiers, Koeneman & Lekakou (2008) on the
contrary, claim that the highest chain link is always less specified than lower chain links. The question
immediately arises whether and how these two analyses can be reconciled. Unfortunately, I do not have an
answer to this question. However, for present purposes, it is sufficient to state – as a description – that only in
case of full/identical copying, the lower copy is reduced (but see footnote 111).
110
64
(22)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Wie denk je dat ik gezien heb?
who think you that I seen have
‘Who do you think that I have seen?’
Wie denk je wie ik gezien heb?
who think you who I seen have
Wat denk je wie ik gezien heb?
what think you who I seen have
*Wie denk je wat ik gezien heb?
who think you what I seen have
non-doubling
identical doubling
non-identical doubling
adding structure/features
This generalization follows from (i) the copy theory of movement, (ii) a phrasal analysis of
pronouns112, and (iii) partial copying, a syntactic operation that copies a subconstituent and (re)merges
it in a higher position. Given that wie is not a subconstituent of wat, the ungrammaticality of (22d) is
111
A problematic issue for this claim is formed by sentences like (12b) in which we are dealing with moved XPs
that leave a non-identical/reduced copy. In other words, such sentences seem to show evidence for the opposite
claim: higher chain links are more specified than lower chain links (Van Koppen 2007). A potential solution to
this problem is to assume that in cases like (12b) the wh-phrase in the embedded CP is not a spelled out copy of
the moved wh-phrase, but rather an instance of wh-agreement (cf. footnote 102). For instance, Felser (2004:565566) suggests that the possibility of wh-copying (which implies successive-cyclic wh-movement) might be
restricted to non-D-linked wh-phrases. That is to say, it has often been mentioned in the literature that D-linked
wh-phrases behave differently from non-D-linked wh-phrases with respect to locality, in that the former but not
the latter may undergo non-local movement. Given that Felser’s suggestion is on the right track, and given the
fact that the moved wh-phrase in (12b) is in fact a D-linked wh-phrase, we could assume that the wh-expression
in (12b) escaped successive cyclic wh-movement, and that the overt wh-phrase in the embedded clause is an
instance of wh-agreement instead of a spelled out copy. Sentences like (12b) then no longer constitute
counterexamples to the generalization put forward by Barbiers, Koeneman & Lekakou (2008), as there is no
chain formation between the two (bold-faced) elements in the first place.
Notice, however, that if we take Felser’s suggestion (2004) seriously, this has consequences for Van
Koppen’s (2007) reduced copy theory of movement, in the sense that the wh-element in the embedded clause in
sentences like (12b) is no longer taken to be a reduced copy of the moved wh-phrase. Naturally, the question
then arises whether we can take the lower instance of die in the relative clause in (14) to be a reduced copy of the
moved relative DP (which in turn is dependent on the question whether we are dealing with a D-linked or a nonD-linked element). I will not go into this issue, but just want to have mentioned that if it is assumed that with
Felser’s (2004) assumption we can give an adequate analysis of the sentences under discussion, it might turn out
that it is necessary to abandon Van Koppen’s (2007) reduced copy theory of movement, in which case we need
an alternative explanation of the presence of the element die in (14).
112
As mentioned briefly in chapter 1, it is not directly evident how a promotion theory of relative clauses along
the lines of De Vries (2002) can be reconciled with a phrasal analysis of pronouns. That is to say, in De Vries’
(2002) analysis, the relative DP consists of the relative pronoun die (D0) which takes the NP man as its
complement, see (ia), and in the course of the derivation this NP moves to Spec,DP to check φ-feature agreement
with D0 (cf. section 1.3.3.1). This movement operation yields the correct word order in which the relative
pronoun follows the relative head noun, see (ib). With a phrasal analysis of pronouns on the other hand, the
relative DP is more complex, as the pronoun is assumed to have internal structure. Given the phrasal analysis of
pronouns as provided by BKL (2008), the relative DP should look something like (ii), cf. (25). The question
arises how this complex will be spelled out, because whereas the noun man is the spell out of a terminal node,
the pronoun die is taken to be the spell out of the whole DP-phrase. Suppose (ii) is the correct structure of the
relative DP die man. We run into problems when we extend the analysis of De Vries (2002) to the complex in
(ii). That is to say, we would predict the NP man to move to the specifier position of DP before the DP as a
whole moves up higher in the structure. However, when partial copying then targets a subpart of the DP, the NP
man will never end up in front of the relative pronoun. A potential solution to this problem is to assume that the
NP man does not move to Spec,DP, but rather, it moves out of the relative DP to the specifier position of a
higher C; see also footnote 119 (but see section 1.2.2 for a point of criticism to this proposal). Needless to say
that future research is necessary to see whether and how De Vriesʼ (2002) promotion theory of relative clauses
can be reconciled with a phrasal analysis of pronouns. In the main text I will not further discuss this issue and I
will simply assume that the structure in (ii) is the correct representation of the relative DP die man.
(i)
a.
b.
[DP die [NP man]]
[DP [NP man]i die ti]
(ii)
65
[DP = die [PhiP [QP [NP man]]]]
explained. If we assume, in addition to the possibility of partial copying, that Phonology/Morphology
can spell out more than one chain link, we derive the following options that are available to the
grammar (and the possible outputs).
Table 5; interaction between Syntax and Phonology/Morphology
Phonology →
Spell out one chain link
Spell out multiple chain links
non-doubling
-113
identical doubling
non-identical doubling
Syntax ↓
Full copying
Partial copying
Note that the data on wh-chains in (22) are reminiscent of the data on relativization. In particular, they
seem to match the data on long-distance relativization of systems I, VII and VIII, here repeated as
(23).
(23)
a. … de man die ik denk dat het verhaal verteld heeft
b. … de man die ik denk die het verhaal verteld heeft
c. … de man dat ik denk die het verhaal verteld heeft
non-doubling (SD, system I)
identical doubling (system VII)
non-identical doubling (system VIII)
If we follow the line of reasoning summarized above, the important question that now needs to be
answered is what are the feature specifications of dat and die? That is to say, the analysis of (23c) as a
manifestation of non-identical doubling will only work if we can show that dat is the spell out of a part
of die. BKL assume the following feature specifications, related to the hierarchical structures in
(25)114 – for the arguments in favour of these feature specifications and structures, see BKL (2008).
(24)
a.
b.
(25) a.
die = wie + definiteness
dat = wat + definiteness
DP
D0
b.
= die
PhiP
Phi0
DP
D0
= wie
QP
Q0
[+Q, +φ, +def]
[+Q, +def]
QP
Q0
= wat
= dat
= wat
NP
NP
Let us assume that the morphosyntactic feature specifications of die and dat in (24) are on the right
track. We then see that the features of dat are a proper subset of the features of die. However, given
the syntactic structures in (25) – and given the assumption that φ-features are situated in the PhiP layer
– the question arises whether the relative pronoun can move, while ‘stranding’ its PhiP layer. As such
an operation is generally taken to be impossible, we are now faced with a problem, because the
structure of dat is not a subpart of the structure of die and we predict (23c) to be out. Although it
113
As noted by BKL, the option of partial copying and spelling out more than one chain link is in principle
possible. However, whereas partial copying and spelling out the higher chain link faces the problem of
recoverability, nothing prohibits partial copying while spelling out the lower chain link. Regarding the latter,
BKL (2008:79) note that “whether or not this option can be used depends on the parameter setting regulating
whether or not a language has obligatorily “overt” wh-movement.”
114
This analysis of the D-pronoun die is very similar to the one proposed by Wiltschko (1998), and Déchaine &
Wiltschko (2002) for German d-pronouns, e.g. der Mann is analyzed as [DP d- [AgrDP er [NP Mann]]]. However,
whereas their analysis assumes that der consists of different morphemes which each occupy different heads in
the structure, BKL (2008) assume that die is the spell out of a phrase (DP).
66
seems tempting to abandon the analysis of system VIII as an instance of partial doubling and instead
argue that dat in (23c) is a complementizer, rather than a subpart of the relative pronoun die, I will
nevertheless argue that the pattern of system VIII is the result of the syntactic operation partial
doubling.115 This assumption is primarily based on the observation that partial copying (in
combination with the feature specifications and structures in (24)-(25)) actually makes the right
predictions regarding possible patterns of long-distance relativization in varieties of Dutch that involve
the pronouns wie, wat and die, as indicated in table 6, i.e. we predict the presence/absence of the
following chains of relative markers in varieties of Dutch.116
Table 6; predictions of (partial) doubling and structures in (25)
Chain
wie – wie
wie – die
*die – wie
wat – wat
wat – wie
wat – die
*wie – wat
*die – wat
wat – dat
*dat – wat
Occurrence in SAND data
+ (Groesbeek)
+ (Hooghalen)
+ (Rijckholt, Vaals)
+ (Meterik, Nieuwehagen)
+ (Didam)
-
Prediction borne out
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Except for the chain wat-wie, all (and only) logical possibilities are attested. The fact that this chain is
never attested is not very strange because there are only a few dialects that make use of wat or wie as a
relative marker in the first place (cf. Appendix I). The results in table 6 thus seem to suggest that the
assumption that movement can target a subpart of an XP is on the right track. However, we are still
faced with the problem that dat is not a subpart of die. A possible solution to this problem is to assume
that there is an additional layer of structure between PhiP and QP that is similar to the DP layer, and in
115
A different explanation/analysis for the pattern of system VIII might be found in sociolinguistic factors,
instead of in syntactic (and phonological/morphological) factors. Recall from section 4.2 that the majority of
instances of system VIII is found in the south(west) of Oost-Vlaanderen. Close to this area several other systems
of (long-distance) relativization are attested. That is to say, this area is adjacent to both the area in which the φagreement relation between C0 and the (copy of the) relative subject DP in Spec,CP is spelled out – resulting in a
subject/object asymmetry (cf. chapter 3) – and to the area in which this subject/object asymmetry is not attested.
We could therefore argue that the area in Oost-Vlaanderen in which (amongst others) system VIII occurs, is a
transition area, in the sense that the system it displays shows features/properties of surrounding systems (OostVlaanderen is in fact a well-known transition area). In that sense the pattern dat-die, dat-die might be argued to
be the result of the influences from dialects that have no relative pronouns and do not spell out the φ-agreement
relation (dat-dat, dat-dat) and dialects that do spell out the φ-agreement relation (die/dat-die, die/dat-dat). In
sum, it should be clear that the existence of system VIII might also be explained by making appeal to extralinguistic factors. A possible way to distinguish between this analysis and the analysis presented in the main text
is to investigate whether there is a correlation between the pattern of system VIII and partial doubling in long
wh-questions, i.e. we should look at the geographic distribution of the chain wat-die in long-distance whformation. When the distribution of this structure is on a par with the distribution of system VIII, we might have
an indication that we are really dealing with partial doubling. Unfortunately, in the SAND-project sentences like
Wat denk je die ik in de stad heb gezien ‘Who think you die I in the city seen have’ were not tested (however, in
four locations in (the north-eastern part of) the Netherlands this sentence was spontaneously given as a
translation of another sentence). Further research seems necessary to distinguish between the two alternative
analyses.
116
The observant reader might have seen that the doubling patterns in table 6 (i.e. wie-wie, and wat-wat) cannot
be accounted for by the analysis that was proposed for doubling pattern die-die (system VII) in section 4.3.2.2.
That is to say, given the assumption that lower copies of moved XPs only contain the φ-features of these XPs,
we predict that in all cases in which multiple chain links are spelled out, the lower copy has the form die.
However, this problem is easy to overcome by relaxing the requirement that lower copies only contain the φfeature set of the moved XP. Rather, we could assume that lower copies contain for example the entire feature
bundle of the moved XP.
67
which dat is spelled out. This is illustrated in (26), in which the additional layer is labelled XP. Note
that the structure in (26) can also account for the presence/absence of certain chains of pronouns as
given in table 6. However, structure (26) makes an additional prediction, that is to say, it predicts the
grammaticality of the chain dat-wie. In the SAND corpus, this chain is never attested. Moreover, with
the structure in (26) we no longer derive the grammaticality of the chain wat-wie (cf. SAND data on
long wh-questions) because there is always an intervening head. Both problems will be solved if we
can relate the presence of XP to the presence of DP, i.e. XP is licensed iff DP is present.
(26)
DP
D0
= die
PhiP
Phi0
= wie
XP
X0
= dat
QP
Q0
= wat
NP
It should be clear that assuming that pattern VIII should be analyzed as involving partial copying
raises many issues. Many of these issues remain unsolved and have to await further research.117
However, let us for the sake of argument suppose that structure (26) is on the right track. Then we can
account for the existence of pattern VIII by the simple assumption that partial copying targets a
subconstituent of die, namely XP, and remerges it higher in the structure.118 The relevant part of the
derivation of (23c) is (somewhat simplified) given in (27).119
117
The idea that the internal structure of pronouns is more elaborated than given in the structures in (25) is not
uncommon. As noted by Cardinaletti & Starke (1999:183), there is probably a large number of functional heads
associated with DP (based on the study of adjective placement and pronominal modifiers). Moreover, given the
parallelism between the DP and the clausal structure (cf. footnote 66), it is not strange to assume an elaborated
internal structure of DPs/pronouns. Note, however, that we still need to answer the question about the nature of
the XP-layer in (26). I will not go into this matter here, but leave this issue open for future research.
118
Notice that the partial movement account of BKL (2008) is similar in nature to the so-called peeling approach
by which an element moves up in the tree, and in each movement step it may strand the highest layers, i.e.
projections can be missing higher in the structure, by peeling off from the top (cf. Cardinaletti & Starke 1999).
119
As already mentioned in footnote 112, in order for the analysis to work, we need to reconcile De Vries’
(2002) promotion theory of relative clauses with a phrasal analysis of pronouns. It becomes even more apparent
from the structure in (27) that we need to make additional assumptions to do so. That is to say, as the analysis of
system VIII involves partial copying, we cannot simply follow De Vries (2002) and assume that the NP moves
to Spec,DP because in that case, the NP will never end up in front of the relative pronoun, i.e. if the NP man
moved to Spec,DP, the higher XP in (27) cannot be spelled out as man dat. This problem can be solved by
assuming that the NP ends up in front of the pronoun by means of movement to a higher C-head, i.e. the NP does
not move DP internally (to Spec,DP).
68
(27)
CP2
XPk
CP1
X
0
QP
man dat
DP
Q
NP
D0
die
PhiP
Phi0
XPk
X0
QP
Q0
NP
4.3.2.4 Intermediate summary
In the foregoing, I have argued that the pattern of system VII is the result of the spell out of more than
one chain link. In order to account for the fact that the intermediate copy in Spec,CP is not an identical
spell-out of the highest copy, i.e. the NP man is never spelled out in the intermediate copy, I have
followed Van Koppen (2007) and argued that lower copies are reduced in the sense that they have no
internal structure, but only contain the features of the moved XP. Some dialects allow the intermediate
copy to undergo morphological reanalysis (Nunes 2004) and as a consequence, this copy can be
spelled out. The option of morphological reanalysis, or more general, the option of the spell out of
multiple chain links, is micro-parameter 3.
The account of system VIII I have proposed in section 4.3.2.3 raised many questions that need
to be the subject of further research. In this section, I basically followed Barbiers, Koeneman &
Lekakou (2008) and assumed that Syntax has, in addition to the operation copy, an operation called
partial copying that targets a subpart of the structure/features of an XP; the option of partial
movement/copying in a given dialect is taken to be micro-parameter 4. Although with this simple
assumption I was able to derive several systems of relativization (cf. table 6) that are otherwise
difficult to account for – indicating that this assumption is on the right track – it is not clear whether
we can plausibly argue that dat is a subpart of die. Needless to say that further research into the matter
should reveal whether this is the case. In the following section, I will discuss some of the predictions
that the analysis of systems VII and VIII makes.
4.3.2.5 Predictions
In the previous sections, I argued that languages/dialects differ with respect to the possibility of
spelling out more than one chain link and with respect to the presence/absence of the syntactic
operation partial copying that targets a subpart of the moved element. These two assumptions were
able to capture the existing doubling patterns in long-distance relativization structures. Given that
these structures are analyzed as involving successive cyclic wh-movement, we predict that dialects that
have the option of spelling out more than one chain link in relativization structures, also have this
option with other long wh-movement structures like the ones in (28).
69
(28)
a.
b.
Wie denk je
wie ik in de stad heb gezien?
who think you who I in the city seen have
‘Who do you think I have seen in the city?’
Wat denk je wie ik in de stad heb gezien?
what think you who I in the city seen have
Given the SAND data and the data of Schippers (2006), it needs to be concluded that this prediction is
not borne out. Dialects that show the (partial) doubling configuration in relative clauses, often do not
exhibit the structures in (28). This seems to force the unwarranted conclusion that allowing (partial)
doubling is dependent on the construction. Moreover, the (partial) doubling structure with whquestions is attested very frequently – 113 attestations of (28a) and 151 attestations of (28b) (Barbiers
et al. 2005) – whereas this is not the case for the relativization structures. In short, there are a lot of
dialects that exhibit the structure(s) in (28), but do not have similar constructions for long-distance
relativization. In chapter 3, section 3.4.3, I already concluded that long wh-movement and longdistance relativization should probably not be analyzed on a par. This conclusion is thus corroborated
by the facts presented here.
Another prediction we make when we assume that systems VII and VIII are the result of
(partial) doubling, reduced copies and the spell out of multiple chain links, is that since both die and
dat in these systems are not complementizers (as opposed to systems IV and V, cf. chapter 3), an
additional complementizer in C0 is not excluded (as it is in systems IV and V). We thus predict that
dialects that allow spell out of multiple copies may make use of an additional overt complementizer in
the COMP-domain, as illustrated in (29).
(29)
a.
b.
Dat is de man die (dat) ik denk die (dat) het verhaal verteld heeft.
Dat is de man dat (dat) ik denk die (dat) het verhaal verteld heeft.
(system VII)
(system VIII)
It would be particular telling when we find a dialect that, in addition to the d-pronoun dat makes use of
the complementizer dat. This prediction is hard to test, as the use of a complementizer in addition to a
relative pronoun is predominantly found in Friesland and the north-eastern and western part of
Antwerp (cf. Barbiers 2005 et al.), whereas system VII (and VIII) is not found in these areas.
Moreover, natural languages seem to disallow the occurrence of two adjacent identical morphemes (cf.
Neeleman & Van de Koot 2006). It is not surprising then, that we did not find the occurrence of (29b)
with dat dat in the highest COMP-domain. Nevertheless, we found two dialects that show the presence
of a complementizer in addition to the pronoun die, as illustrated in (30). This result strengthens the
conclusion that we are dealing with the relative pronoun die instead of complementizer die.
(30)
a.
b.
c.
Da is de man die an ik denkn die at dat verhaal verteld eit.
Dat is de man die ank denke die asse geroepen ei.
Da s de man die ak denk die asse geroepen emme.
[Hoek Dutch]
[Hoek Dutch]
[Lier Dutch]
When we take the analyses of chapter 3 and 4 together, in total, we now have the following four
micro-parameters.
(31)
a.
b.
c.
d.
+/- presence of relative pronouns120
+/- spell-out of φ-agreement with C0 (in case of subject relativization)
+/- spell-out of multiple chain links (+/- morphological reanalysis)
+/- full/identical copying/movement
120
For the sake of simplicity, I take this parameter to state that a dialect/language either makes use of the relative
pronoun die for subject and objects or it does not. That is to say, although there are also dialects that make use of
the relative pronoun die for subject relativization and the pronoun dat for object relativization (and there are even
more possibilities, like the relative pronoun wie for both subjects and objects), for the present discussion on the
interaction between the different micro-parameters, this is not relevant.
70
With four parameters, we predict 24 (=16) possible patterns. However, given the assumption that when
there is partial copying/movement part of the intermediate copy will be spelled out, the value of the
parameter +/- spell out multiple chain links is irrelevant. This reduces the number of possible patterns
to 12, as indicated in the following table.
Table 7; predicted patterns of the interaction from the four micro-parameters in (31)
relative
pronouns
+ (die,die)
+ (die,die)
+ (die,die)
+ (die,die)
+ (die,die)
+ (die,die)
-
spell out
agreement
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
spell out
multiple copies
+
xx
+
xx
+
xx
+
xx
-
full/identical
copying
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
die-die(-die), die-die(-dat)
dat-die(-die), dat-die(-dat)
die-die, die-dat
die-die(-dat), die-die(-dat)
dat-die(-dat), dat-die(-dat)
die-dat, die-dat
dat-die, dat-dat
dat-die, dat-dat
dat-die, dat-dat
dat-dat, dat-dat
dat-dat, dat-dat
dat-dat, dat-dat
√
√
V
VII
VIII
I
√
√
IV
√
√
VI
When abstracting away from the potential presence of a complementizer, the most right row of table 7
shows that all the predicted patterns of relativization are attested. However, it seems impossible to see
what the exact parameter setting of a given dialect is, i.e. it is impossible to distinguish the different
analyses in the sense that sometimes the same output follows from different parameter settings.121 A
way to circumvent this problem is to assume a particular hierarchy of parameters. It was already noted
that the +/- spell out multiple chain links parameter is a subparameter of the +/- full/identical
copying/movement parameter, and it might be possible to extent such an analysis of dependency
relations between parameters. I think it is plausible to assume the hierarchy of parameters as given in
(32), which basically states that in dialects/languages the syntactic operation copy can either target the
full structure of an XP or a subpart of it. In the latter case, we derive system VIII (and the other
patterns involving partial copying/movement as presented in table 6). In case dialects have
full/identical copying/movement, there needs to be made a distinction between dialects that allow the
spell out of more than one chain link (system VII and the two patterns involving full/identical
doubling in table 6), and dialects that do not allow the spell out of multiple chain links. In the latter
case the difference between dialects/languages boils down to (i) whether dialects/languages make use
of relative pronouns, and (ii) whether dialects/languages have overt spell out of the φ-agreement
relation between the most deeply embedded C0 and the (copy of the) relative subject DP in its
specifier. It should be noted that the +/- relative pronoun parameter and the +/- spell out agreement
parameter are interchangeable, i.e. there is no hierarchy between those two parameters.
121
As table 7 shows, some patterns can only be distinguished on the basis of the form of the complementizer (die
or dat), i.e. some patterns would only differ from each other when the complementizer would be spelled out.
Further research into the possible patterns of doubly filled COMP might thus shed more light on the question
whether the hierarchy in (32) is correct, or whether we need less dependency relations to account for the
differences between the patterns of doubly filled COMP.
71
(32)
full copying
-
+
system VIII &
patterns table 6
(partial doubling)
spell out more than one chain link
+
-
system VII &
patterns table 6
(full doubling)
relative pronouns (die,die)
+
-
spell out agreement
+
-
system V
system I
spell out agreement
+
system IV
system VI
4.4
Summary
In this chapter, I have discussed the 4 patterns of relativization in table 8. I have shown that patterns I
and VI can be simply accounted for by appealing to the two micro-parameters that I formulated in
chapter 3 to account for dialects that show subject/object asymmetries in relativization: (i) +/- presence
of relative pronouns, and (ii) +/- spell-out of φ-agreement with C0 (in case of subject relativization).
Whereas the systems of relativization discussed in chapter 3 both spell out the φ-agreement with C0,
systems I and VI do not spell out the φ-agreement relation with C0; they differ with respect to the first
parameter: system I makes use of relative pronouns (die for both subjects and object), whereas dialects
that display system VI do not make use of relative pronouns.
In order to account for pattern VII, I assumed that some dialects allow multiple chain links to
be spelled out, whereas others do not. To capture the observation that the intermediate copy in
Spec,CP never gets fully spelled out, I followed Van Koppen (2007) and assumed that lower copies
are reduced in the sense that they only contain the features of the moved XP, but do not have internal
structure. With this assumption and the micro-parameter +/- spell out of more than one chain link, I
was able to account for pattern VII.
Based on SAND data – different from those presented in table 8 – that indicated that partial
copying/movement seems to be an option in some dialects (micro-parameter 4), I assumed that system
VIII is also a manifestation of partial copying. In order for system VIII to be the result of partial
copying, we need to assume that dat is a subpart of die. Whether this is indeed the case still needs to
be investigated. Finally, I took all four micro-parameters and showed that we could argue that there
are dependencies between them, i.e. there is a parameter hierarchy.
Table 8; four systems of relativization without subject/object asymmetry
system I (47)
system VI (16)
system VII (9)
system VIII (7)
short subject
die
dat
die
die
short object
die
dat
die
die
long subject
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
72
long object
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
CHAPTER 5
Conclusion and topics for future research
5.1
Introduction
This final chapter summarizes the most important findings of this thesis. In addition, it briefly
discusses some remaining topics and suggests a few avenues for future research. The organization of
the chapter is as follows. First, in section 5.2, I will summarize the major results of this thesis. In
section 5.3, I will touch upon a construction that has been mentioned in chapter 2, but has not yet been
discussed in this thesis: the PP-relative. Finally, section 5.4 deals with resumptive pronouns in
constructions other than PP-relatives and suggests some questions that will guide further investigation
into the issue of resumption.
5.2
Conclusion
The main goal of this thesis was to provide a description and a unified analysis of the attested variation
in long-distance relativization in varieties of Dutch. I primarily focussed on the following six systems
of relativization – that each involve long A’-movement without a resumptive pronoun at the extraction
site – and I showed that these systems can be accounted for by the four (micro-) parameters in (1).
Table 1; six systems of long-distance relativization - long A’-movement without resumptive pronoun
short subject
die
die
die
dat
die
die
I
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
(1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
short object
die
dat
die
dat
die
die
long subject
die-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
long object
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
+/- presence of relative pronouns
+/- spell-out of φ-agreement with C0 (in case of subject relativization)
+/- spell-out of multiple chain links (+/- morphological reanalysis)
+/- full/identical copying/movement
Whereas the latter parameter (1d) is clearly a syntactic parameter – indicating that partial or full
copying is true syntactic microvariation – the locus of (micro-) variation induced by the first three
parameters (1a)-(1c) is the lexicon. More specifically, the locus of variation – caused by these three
parameters – is the level of Morphology (i.e. insertion of Vocabulary Items). This is in line with
Chomsky (1995) who argues that the level of microvariation is the lexicon. In this thesis, I have shown
that the interaction between these four parameters can account for (at least) the six patterns of
relativization as given in table 1. In the remainder of this section, I will briefly summarize the most
important assumptions and findings of this thesis.
I assumed that Standard Dutch long-distance relative clauses should be analyzed with a head
raising analysis of relative clauses as proposed by De Vries (2002), by which it is assumed that the
relative DP – consisting of the relative head noun and the relative pronoun (if present) – undergoes
successive-cyclic wh-movement to the specifier of the highest CP, thus leaving an intermediate copy.
To account for subject/object asymmetries (systems IV and V), I followed Mayr (to appear) and
assumed that subjects always need to enter into a φ-agreement relation with the local C0 in order to be
extracted. Dialects differ with respect to whether they spell out this agreement-relation, giving rise to
subject/object asymmetries, or whether they do not spell out this agreement relation, resulting in
identical subject and object relative clauses. Moreover, to account for the difference between system
IV and V, I assumed that the latter makes use of relative pronouns whereas the former does not. With
this particular micro-parameter (1a), the grammaticality of systems I and VI followed
straightforwardly. Importantly, this analysis of the subject/object asymmetries and the two microparameters make the right predictions regarding the existence and non-existence of particular patterns
of long-distance relativization, i.e. the predictions are borne out by the SAND data on relativization.
In order to account for systems VII and VIII, I needed to makes some additional assumptions.
First, I assumed that system VII is the result of the spell out of more than one chain link. Moreover, to
73
account for the fact that the spell out of the intermediate copy is never identical to the highest copy,
i.e. the relative NP that is overt in the highest copy is never spelled out in the intermediate copy, I
followed Van Koppen (2007) and assumed that lower copies are reduced in the sense that they only
contain the feature bundle of the moved XP. With these assumptions, I was able to account for the
doubling pattern of system VII. Finally, I assumed system VIII to be the result of the syntactic
operation partial copying (Barbiers, Koeneman & Lekakou 2008) that targets only a subconstituent of
the relative DP and (re)merges it in a higher position. With this assumption, I was able to give an
analysis of system VIII, and, in addition, several other (rather marginal) systems of relativization as
found in the SAND corpus on relativization (cf. table 6, chapter 4), were immediately accounted for.
However, the exact internal structure of the pronominal expressions discussed in this thesis, needs to
be the subject of further research. In other words, not until a well argumented structure of (relative)
pronouns is proposed, we are able to see whether the analysis of partial movement can adequately
account for the empirical data.
This thesis has contributed to a better understanding of the formation of relative clauses in
general and the microvariation regarding long-distance relativization in particular. I showed that (a
hierarchy of) four micro-parameters can account for the attested variation in varieties of Dutch.
Hopefully, this analysis can be extended to microvariation in other empirical domains.
5.3
Topics for future research
Recall from chapter 2 that the SAND data show the existence of (at least) ten patterns of relativization
in Dutch. The previous section showed that the analysis of six of these patterns – long A’-movement
without resumptive pronouns – was the major topic of this thesis. Based on the four remaining systems
of relativization as given in table 2, in this final section, I will discuss two topics – PP-relatives and
resumption – and discuss some interesting points for future research. Section 5.3.1 deals with PPrelatives, a construction that differs from the long A’-movement construction without resumptive
pronoun in that in PP-relatives the relative clause is introduced by a prepositional phrase and a
coreferring pronoun appears at the extraction site. Section 5.3.2 briefly touches upon the syntax (and
semantics) of resumptive pronouns in constructions different from PP-relatives. Both sections will
mention some important issues that need to be the subject of further research.
Table 2; four remaining systems of relativization in varieties of Dutch
II
III
IX
X
short subject
die
die
die
die
short object
die
die
die
die
long subject
waarvan-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat-hij/die
die-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat- Ø
long object
waarvan-dat-die/’m
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die/’m
5.3.1 PP-relatives
As presented in chapter 2, many informants spontaneously translated the test sentences with the
Standard Dutch long-distance relativization pattern (die-dat-Ø) as constructions in which the relative
clause is introduced by a prepositional phrase and the subject/object in the lower clause is retained, i.e.
a personal or demonstrative pronoun appears at the extraction site. This is illustrated in (2a). (2b)
shows that preposition stranding is also possible with this construction.
(2)
a.
b.
Dat is de man
that is the man
Dat is de man
that is the man
waarvan
whereof
waar ik van
where I of
ik denk
dat hij/die het verhaal
I think
that he/die the story
denk dat hij/die het verhaal
verteld
think that he/die the story
told
verteld heeft.
told
has
heeft.
has
In addition to (2a), in which the preposition follows its object (waarvan ‘whereof’), it is also possible
for the preposition to appear in front of its object, giving rise to the structure van wie ‘of whom’ in (3).
(3)
Dat is de man van wie
that is the man of whom
ik denk
I think
dat hij/die het verhaal verteld heeft.
that he/die the story told
has
74
The question that needs to be answered is of course what is the status and structure of PP-relatives and
how do these configurations relate to other types of long-distance relativization? Salzmann (2005,
2006) addresses this issue, and in this section, I will briefly present and discuss his 2006 analysis.122
As Salzmann (2005,2006) notes, there are two possible analyses of the PP-relative
construction: (i) a base-generation + binding approach in which it is assumed that the PP is basegenerated as a complement of the matrix verb, and the coreferential pronoun in the embedded clause is
bound, and (ii) a movement approach in which it is assumed that there is long A’-movement (i.e. it is
assumed that the proleptic object – the relativized constituent/dislocated phrase – originated in the
position of the coreferring pronoun in the embedded clause), the preposition is taken to be inserted as a
Case-marker and the coreferential pronoun in the embedded clause is a resumptive pronoun. It is
difficult to argue for one of the two approaches as the proleptic construction has paradoxical
properties, i.e. some properties (like reconstruction effects) point towards a movement analysis,
whereas other properties (like the fact that the proleptic object has matrix clause properties) point
towards a base-generation + binding approach. I will only present some of the main arguments in
favour of each approach; for a comprehensive overview of the (reconstruction) properties of the
proleptic construction, I refer the reader to Salzmann (2006; chapter 3).
The main argument in favour of the movement analysis of the proleptic construction comes
from reconstruction effects.123 (4a) shows reconstruction for variable binding, and (4b) shows
reconstruction for Principle A. In both sentences the antecedent needs to undergo reconstruction into
the position of the italicized pronoun in the embedded clause, suggesting that we are dealing with
movement.124
(4)125
a.
b.
… de [periode van
zijni leven]
waarvan ik denk dat niemandi er
graag
the period of
his life
whereof I think that no.one
there likes.to
aan
terug denkt is de puberteit
to
back thinks is the puberty
‘… the period of hisi life I think no.onei likes to remember is puberty’
... het [gerucht over zichzelfi] waarvan ik denk dat Pieti het niet wil horen
the rumor
about SE-SELF whereof I think that Piet it
not wants to hear
‘… the rumor about himselfi that I think that Pieti does not want to hear’
Evidence in favour of a base-generation + binding approach, or in other words, evidence that the
proleptic object is base-generated in the matrix clause, comes from the observation that there is a
construction in which the proleptic object is in a non-derived position, as indicated in (5). Salzmann
refers to this variant of the proleptic construction as the in-situ variant.
(5)
Ik hoop van
I hope of
[dit boek] dat het
this book that it
een succes wordt.
a success becomes
[Salzmann 2006:193]
Based on the Dutch examples in (6), Salzmann argues that the ex-situ variant of the proleptic
construction is based on the in-situ variant, as the complex PP waarvan ‘whereof’ can be separated,
stranding the preposition van ‘of’ in the verbal domain. This means that at a given point, in the ex-situ
proleptic construction, the proleptic object must have been in a middle-field position.
122
Salzmann (2006) refers to this particular construction with the terms resumptive prolepsis or proleptic
construction. In the remainder of this section I will use both terms PP-relative and proleptic construction to refer
to constructions like (2a).
123
The validity of this argument is of course dependent on the analysis of reconstruction, i.e. whether
reconstruction correlates with movement. Salzmann (2006) models reconstruction by means of the Copy Theory
of Movement (Chomsky 1993), i.e. reconstruction is taken to be the interpretation of a lower copy of the chain.
124
Arguments against the movement approach of PP-relatives are the following (cf. Salzmann 2005:110): (i)
there is a category mismatch between the head of the chain (PP) and the tail of the chain (DP), (ii) the status of
the preposition is unclear, (iii) as the preposition projects a PP, movement would take place into a non ccommanding position, and (iv) the obligatoriness of the coreferring pronoun is unexpected.
125
Examples are taken from Salzmann (2006:163), and Salzmann (2006:166) respectively.
75
(6)
a.
b.
… het [boek] waarvani ik __i denk dat Piet het leuk vindt
the book
whereof I
think that Piet it cool finds
‘… the book that I think Peter likes’
… het [boek] waari ik __i van denk dat Piet het leuk vindt
[Salzmann 2006:193]
Moreover, there are some strong semantic arguments in favour of a base-generation approach (cf.
Salzmann 2005), e.g. if long A’-movement were involved, we would predict that the proleptic object
is sensitive to lexical restrictions, quod non.
Based on these (and other) paradoxical properties, Salzmann (2006) proposes the following
analysis of the proleptic construction.126 He assumes that the proleptic object is licensed by means of
operator movement in the embedded clause, in the sense that the embedded CP merges with the matrix
verb yielding a complex predicate, which in turn is saturated by the (DP in the) proleptic object PP.
The operator is linked to the proleptic object by means of ellipsis. That is to say, Salzmann extends the
matching analysis of relative clauses (cf. section 1.2.3) to the proleptic construction, and the operator
in the embedded clause is in fact a full copy of the proleptic object. This is illustrated in (7).
ellipsis
(7)
operator
movement
[CP P [DPi] V [CP [DPi]j
subject
[DPi]j V ]]
predicate
predication
(7) shows the structure of sentence (5) – the in-situ variant. To derive the ex-situ variant, the proleptic
object moves further, and is deleted under identity with the external head. The derivation of sentence
(8) is given in (9).127
(8)
… de man van wie
the man of whom
ik denk
I think
dat hij/die intelligent is.
that he/die intelligent is
126
For the details of this analysis, see Salzmann (2006:232-276).
The proleptic object is assumed to be generated higher than the verb, either in a higher projection of V or
adjoined to VP, as indicated in structure (9) (Salzmann 2006:194).
127
76
DP
(9)
de man
linked
through
ellipsis
CP2
C’
PPk
van wie man
C0
TP
ik
T’
T0
VP
PPk
VP
van wie man
V0
denk
linked
through
ellipsis
CP
C’
[OP man]
C0
dat
TP
[OP man] intelligent is
coreferring pronoun
hij/die
This analysis of the proleptic construction explains all its syntactic and semantic properties, e.g. the
assumption that the proleptic object is merged within the matrix clause explains its matrix clause
properties. Moreover, reconstruction effects like reconstruction into the complement clause as in (4)
can be straightforwardly accounted for given the Preference Principle: only the operator in Spec,CP is
retained whereas the restriction is interpreted in the base position.
The question arises how Salzmann’s (2006) analysis of the proleptic construction relates to
the analysis of long-distance relativization without resumptive pronouns that is the subject of this
thesis. It should be clear that the basic assumptions of both analyses are different, i.e. whereas I
assume a promotion theory of relative clauses (in line with De Vries 2002), Salzmann (2006) argues
for a matching analysis of relative clauses. Suppose that Salzmann’s analysis of PP-relatives is on the
right track, we still might argue that whereas PP-relatives receive a matching analysis, other relatives
should be analyzed with a promotion theory. Naturally, this issue should be subject to future research.
Moreover, the properties of PP-relatives in varieties of Dutch should be further investigated, as they
probably can shed more light on the question about the analysis of the proleptic construction. For
example, as already noted in chapter 2, the SAND data show that in the north-eastern part of the
77
Netherlands, we find dialects that allow PP-relatives without resumptive pronoun, as illustrated for the
dialect of Schiermonnikoog in (10).
(10)
a.
b.
Dat is de man weervan
that is the man whereof
Dat is de man weervan
that is the man of whereof
ik tink dat __ het verhaal
vertoald het.
I think that __ the story
told has
ik tink dat ja __
ruppen hewwe.
I think that they __
called have
According to Salzmann (2006:159) constructions like these are unexpected, and he argues that these
data should be further investigated. To illustrate why this is the case, it is necessary to lay out the basic
assumptions of the theory of resumption Salzmann assumes. In the literature, it is often argued that
resumption is related to base-generation (cf. Shlonsky 1992). However, Salzmann follows Pesetsky
(1998) and Boeckx (2003) amongst others, and argues that resumption is not incompatible with a
movement approach. On the basis of sentences like those in (11), which involve reconstruction into
wh-islands, Salzmann argues that movement is always involved and that the presence of a resumptive
pronoun makes movement from islands possible, i.e. resumption voids locality constraints.128
(11)129 a.
b.
… de [foto van zichzelfi]
waarvan ik weet waarom Pieti er zo trots op is
the picture of SE-SELF
whereof I know why
Piet there so proud on is
‘… the picture of himselfi that I know why Peteri is so proud of’
… de [periode van z’ni leven] waarvan ik weet waarom
niemandi er
the period of his life
whereof I know why
no.one there
graag aan
terugdenkt
likes.to at
remember
‘… the period of hisi life that I know why no onei likes to remember’
The distribution of resumptive pronouns in Dutch and German is accounted for by assuming a
constraint that states that only one chain link can be overt. Given that wh-movement and relativization
involve overt operators, resumption is correctly predicted not to be possible according to this
constraint.130 However, in the proleptic construction there is no overt operator, and resumption is
predicted to be possible. With respect to the motivation of resumption,131 Salzmann simply assumes
that there is a resumptive strategy because nothing rules it out. In other words, he assumes that for
German and Dutch, resumption is an option, but its distribution is very limited for independent
reasons. Returning to the issue of Dutch varieties that allow PP-relatives without resumptive pronouns,
it would be particularly interesting to look at these varieties and investigate whether they allow
movement from islands without a resumptive pronoun, as this can shed more light on the question
whether we need to distinguish resumptive pronouns that occur inside islands and resumptive
pronouns that occur in transparent structures.132
128
Interestingly, wh-extractions corresponding to the structures in (11) are ungrammatical, irrespective of the
presence of a resumptive pronoun. Instead of taking this as evidence that resumption does not void locality,
Salzmann argues that those sentences are ungrammatical due to independent factors, i.e. resumption is not
available in such contexts.
129
Example is taken from Salzmann (2006:279).
130
But recall from chapter 2, section 2.3.2, that some dialects allow resumptive pronouns with the long A’movement construction of relativization (cf. section 5.3.2).
131
Although sentences like those in (11) seem to force the conclusion that the motivation for resumption is to
repair locality violations, Salzmann (2006:284-285) takes that conclusion to be incorrect, as the presence of
resumptives in the proleptic construction is not dependent on whether there is an island, i.e. resumptive pronouns
are obligatory in the proleptic construction, whether there is an island or not. Moreover, given that resumptive
pronouns inside islands and resumptive pronouns outside islands behave the same, Salzmann assumes that they
should receive the same analysis. Thus, the motivation for resumption is not to void locality. In other words,
although it can be shown that resumption voids locality, we still need to explain why there is resumption.
132
Aoun et al. (2001) make such a proposal. They make a distinction between true resumptives, which are
resumptives that repair locality violations (i.e. resumptives that occur inside islands), and apparent resumptives.
Sentences involving the latter type of resumptive pronoun are analyzed as involving movement, whereas
78
Finally, it is worth noting that it would be interesting to investigate the difference in the amount of
occurrences of subject PP-relatives on the one hand and object PP-relatives on the other, i.e. PPrelatives occur more often with subject relativization than with object relativization (cf. maps 1 and 2,
chapter 2), and the question arises how we should interpret this observation. As far as I can see, there
are two logical possibilities: either it is the case that somehow subject PP-relatives are ‘easier’ than
object PP-relatives, or the observation should be explained from the perspective of the relation
between PP-relatives and the other types of relativization. That is to say, one could imagine that PPrelatives are used more often as an alternative strategy of relativization because other types of subject
relativization are ‘more difficult’ than object relativization. In short, an explanation for the difference
might be found in the construction itself or in the relation of the construction with other constructions.
5.3.2 Resumptive pronouns
Abstracting away from resumptive pronouns in PP-relatives – which were briefly discussed in the
previous section – this section discusses the presence of resumptive pronouns in restrictive relative
clauses without PPs, as illustrated in (12). (12a) and (12b) illustrate subject relativization with a
resumptive pronoun, and (12c) illustrates object relativization with a resumptive pronoun.
(12)
a.
b.
c.
Dat is de man die ik denke dat die het verhaal
that is the man die I think that die the story
Dat is de man dei ik denk dat hij het verhaal
that is the man die I think that he the story
Da s de man diek
denk dasem
that is the man die-I
think that-they-him
het verteld.
[Oldemarkt Dutch]
has told
verteld het.
[Roswinkel Dutch]
told has
geroepen emme.
[Lier Dutch]
called have
The question arises how to account for these patterns of relativization, i.e. what is the status of these
relative clauses involving resumptive pronouns? In this section, I will briefly focus on some analyses
of resumption and provide some potential research questions for future research.
As already mentioned in the previous section, within the literature on resumptive pronouns,
there is little consensus on the syntax and semantics of these elements. That is to say, there is some
debate as to whether resumption involves base-generation or movement (cf. section 5.3.1). Based on
data like the following,133 which show that resumption is insensitive to locality constraints (i.e.
resumption is not subject to constraints on extraction)134, it has often been argued that resumption
involves base-generation (cf. Shlonsky 1992).
(13)135 a.
b.
c.
d.
… de man waarvan ik denk dat Marie < elk boek leest dat hij schrijft >
the man whereof I think that Marie every book reads that he writes
… de man waarvan ik denk dat niemand weet < hoe hij heet >
the man whereof I think that no.one knows how he is.called
… de man waarvan ik denk dat < zijn moeder > gezond is
the man whereof I think that his mother
healthy is
… de man waarvan ik denk dat niemand < met hem > wil praten
the man whereof I think that no.one with him
wants talk
sentences with resumptive pronouns that seem to void locality (true resumptives) are assumed to involve basegeneration (and binding).
133
As resumptive pronouns do not occur in long-distance relativization without PPs in Standard Dutch, I have
taken Dutch PP-relatives to illustrate the insensitivity to islands. The question whether resumptive pronouns in
PP-relatives and resumptive pronouns in long-distance relative clauses different from PP-relatives should be
analyzed on a par, remains to be answered.
134
As noted by Sharvitt (1999:589), most discussions on resumption are primarily concerned with syntactic
constraints that regulate the distribution of resumptive pronouns, instead of semantic/pragmatic constraints that
govern them. For some observations regarding the semantics and interpretation of sentences involving
resumptive pronouns (in Hebrew), see Sharvitt (1999).
135
The examples are taken from Salzmann (2006:207). The sentences in (13) show that a resumptive pronoun
can occur in a strong island (13a), in a weak island (13b), in a possessor (13c), and inside a PP (13d)-(13e).
79
e.
… de man waarvan ik denk dat ik < met een zuster van hem > op school heb gezeten
the man whereof I think that I with a sister of him
at school have been
On the other hand, primarily based on reconstruction effects, it has also been argued that resumption is
compatible with movement (cf. Pesetsky 1998, Aoun et al. 2001, Salzmann 2006). Given my
assumption that all variants of long-distance relativization attested in the Dutch speaking language
area (excluding PP-relatives) involve successive cyclic movement of the relative DP, the most
straightforward option regarding the analysis of resumption in Dutch restrictive relative clauses would
be the assumption that resumptive pronouns are simply the spell outs of traces/lower copies. Dialects
would then differ with respect to whether they allow multiple spell out of chain links and if so, which
lower copy they spell out.136 Interestingly, Pesetsky (1998:367) argues that “resumptive pronouns are
partial pronunciations of traces”, more specifically, he assumes that only the φ-features of the trace get
pronounced.137,138 Notice that this is very reminiscent of Van Koppen’s (2007) approach to the spell
out of lower copies (cf. section 4.3.2.2).
Suppose that this line of reasoning is on the right track, then we run into problems when faced
with the empirical observation that resumptive pronouns often block the violation of some locality
constraint, as illustrated for Hebrew in (14) and for English in (15).
(14)139 a.
b.
(15)140 a.
b.
*ha-iSa
Se
dibarnu
the-woman
Op
we-talked
‘The woman we talked about arrived.’
ha-iSa
Se
dibarnu
the-woman
Op
we-talked
al
__ higia
about
arrived
ale-ha
about her
__ higia
arrived
[Hebrew]
*There is one worker who the company fired the employee [that had treated __ badly]
There is one worker who the company fired the employee [that had treated him badly]
That is to say, given the assumption that resumptive pronouns only appear to avoid a violation of some
syntactic constraint, the variation in the presence/absence of resumptive pronouns in restrictive relative
clauses in varieties of Dutch (and sometimes even within a single dialect) is unexpected. In other
words, if the assumption that resumptive pronouns are only inserted if the structure crashes otherwise
is correct, then we either expect no variation in the distribution of resumptive pronouns, or we expect
an interpretation difference between structures involving resumptives and structures without
resumptives. It is thus very important to investigate the following issues in Dutch dialects: (i) the
136
The implementation of this idea is not without problems. Recall that I followed Nunes (2004) and assumed
that dialects differ with respect to the degree in which they allow morphological reanalysis. However, as the
lowest (reduced) copy cannot undergo morphological reanalysis, given this approach, it cannot be spelled out.
Thus, additional machinery is needed to account for the spell out of the lowest copy in the chain.
137
Recall that Van Koppen (2007) also assumed that reduced copies only contain the φ-feature set of the moved
XP (but see footnote 116), and recall that this assumption was not sufficient to account for the fact that the
intermediate copy could only be ‘spelled out’ as a d-pronoun, not as a personal pronoun (cf. footnote 104). In
case of resumption, however, the lower copy can be spelled out either as a d-pronoun or as a personal pronoun.
138
Pesetsky’s (1998) proposal is stated within the framework of Optimality Theory. He argues that the
constraints that govern movement interact with the constraints that determine pronunciation. More specifically,
based on the observation that resumptive pronouns are a ‘repair strategy’ to avoid a violation of an island
constraint, Pesetsky assumes the following two interacting constraints to account for the distribution of
resumptive pronouns.
(i)
(ii)
Island Constrants: *α ... [island ... β ... ], where β is the trace of α and unpronounced
Silent Trace (SILENT-t): do not pronounce traces
The first constraint ensures that the lower copy is spelled out in movement-out-of-island-contexts, and the
second constraint makes sure that this spell out is as minimal as possible (partial pronunciation of the phrase (i.e.
only φ-features) leads to a lesser violation of SILENT-t than full pronunciation of the phrase).
139
Example is taken from Sharvit (1999:590).
140
Example is taken from Pesetsky (1998: 364).
80
interpretation of (structures involving) resumptive pronouns (and those without) and (ii) the syntactic
constraints that restrict their distribution. Moreover, it might be interesting to investigate whether there
is a difference in semantics/syntax between resumptive pronouns in PP-relatives and resumptive
pronouns in restrictive relative clauses without PPs (cf. note 133), i.e. resumptive pronouns in PPrelatives are obligatory in the majority of dialects that allow this construction (and in Standard Dutch),
whereas resumptive pronouns are mostly absent in other structures of long-distance relativization.
81
REFERENCES
ALEXIADOU, A. et al., eds, (2000). The Syntax of Relative Clauses. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
AOUN, J., L. CHOUEIRI & N. HORNSTEIN (2001). ‘Resumption, Movement, and Derivational
Economy’. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 371-403.
AOUN,J. & A. LI (2003). Essays in the representational and derivational Nature of Grammar: the
Diversity of wh-constructions. MIT: MIT Press (= Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 40).
AUWERA, J. van der (1984). ‘Subject vs. non-subject asymmetries in the relativization of embedded
NP’s’. In: W. de Geest & Y. Putseys (eds.), Sentential complementation. Dordrecht/
Cinnaminson: Foris Publications. 257-269.
BARBIERS, S. et al. (2005). Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Volume I. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
BARBIERS, S. et al (2006). Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten
(DynaSAND). Amsterdam, Meertens Instituut. URL: http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/.
BARBIERS, S. & O. KOENEMAN & M. LEKAKOU (2008). ‘Syntactic Doubling and the Structure of
Chains.’ In: C.B. Chang & H.J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference
on Formal Linguistics, 77-86. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
BENNIS, H. (1983). ‘De PRO-drop-parameter en subjektloze zinnen in het Nederlands’. Spektator 126, 409-427.
BENNIS, H. & L. HAEGEMAN (1984). ‘On the status of agreement and relative clauses in WestFlemish’. In: W. de Geest & Y. Putseys (eds.), Sentential complementation. Dordrecht/
Cinnaminson: Foris Publications. 33-53.
BHAT, D.N.S. (2004). Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BHATT, R. (2002). ‘The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: Evidence from Adjectival
Modification’. Natural Language Semantics 10, 43-90.
BIANCHI, V. (1999). Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
BIANCHI, V. (2000). ‘The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: A Reply to Borsley’. Linguistic
Inquiry 31, 123-140.
BOECKX, C. (2003). Islands and Chains. Resumption as Stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (=
Linguistik Aktuell/ Linguistics Today 63).
BORSLEY, R. (1997). ‘Relative Clauses and the Theory of Phrase Structure’. Linguistic Inquiry 28,
629-647.
BRACHIN, P. (1973). ‘Een in dubbel opzicht “vreemde” constructie?’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 66, 59-60.
BRACHIN, P. (1974). ‘Een in dubbel opzicht “vreemde” constructie?’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 67, 228234.
CARDINALETTI, A. (1994). ‘On the internal structure of pronominal DPs’. The Linguistic Review 11:
195-219.
CARDINALETTI, A. & M. STARKE (1999). ‘The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the
three classes of pronouns’. In: H. van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe,
145-233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
CARSTENS, V. (2003). ‘Rethinking Complementizer Agreement: Agree with a Case-checked Goal.’
Linguistic Inquiry 34:4, 393-412.
CHOMSKY, N. (1977). ‘On Wh-movement’. In: P. Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal Syntax. Academic
Press, New York, 71-132.
CHOMSKY, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
CHOMSKY, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CHOMSKY, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CHOMSKY, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CHOMSKY, N. (2000). ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels & J.
Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 89-155.
CHOMSKY, N. (2001). ‘Derivation by phase’. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1-52.
CHOMSKY, N. & H. LASNIK (1977). ‘Filters and Control’. Linguistic Inquiry 8:3, 425-504.
82
CITKO, B. (2001). ‘Deletion Under Identity in Relative Clauses’. NELS 31, 131-145.
CORNIPS, L. & W. JONGENBURGER (2001). ‘Het design en de methodologie van het SAND-project.’
Nederlandse Taalkunde 6, 215-232.
CRAENENBROECK, J. VAN & M. VAN KOPPEN (2002). The locality of agreement and the CP domain.
Handout Glow 2002, Amsterdam.
DÉCHAINE, R.M. & M. WILTSCHKO (2002). ‘Decomposing Pronouns’. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 409-442.
DEKKERS, J. (1999). Derivations & Evaluations. On the Syntax of Subjects and Complementizers.
Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.
FELSER, C. (2004). ‘Wh-copying, phases and successive cyclicity’. Lingua 114, 543-574.
FIENGO, R. & R. MAY (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
FOX, D. (1999). ‘Reconstruction, Binding Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains’. Linguistic
Inquiry 30:2, 157-196.
GALLEGO, Á.J. (2004). ‘T-to-C Movement in Relative Clauses’. In: J. Doetjes & P. González (eds.),
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004. John Benjamins, 143-170.
GROSU, A. & LANDMAN, F. (1998). ‘Strange Relatives of the Third Kind’. Natural Language
Semantics 6, 125-170.
HAEGEMAN, L. (1983). ‘Die en dat in West-Flemish relative clauses’. In: H. Bennis & W. van Lessen
Kloeke (red.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983, 83-91.
HAEGEMAN, L. (1992). Theory and description in generative syntax; A case study in West Flemish.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HAESERYN, W. et al. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. 2e
druk.
HALLE, M. & A. MARANTZ (1993). ‘Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection’. In: K. Hale
& S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge, 111-176.
HALLE, M. (1997). ‘Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission’. In: B. Bruening, Y. Kang,
M. McGinnis (eds.), MITWPL 30: Papers at the Interface. 425-449.
HARLEY, H. & R. NOYER (1999). ‘Distributed Morphology’. Glot International 4:4, 3-9.
HORNSTEIN, N., J. NUNES, & K.K. GROHMAN (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge
University Press.
KAYNE, R. (1976). ‘French relative “que”’. In: F. Hensey & M. Lújan (eds.), Current Studies in
Romance Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. 255-299.
KAYNE, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
KAYNE, R. (2000). ‘Microparametric Syntax: Some Introductory Remarks’. In: R. Kayne, Parameters
and Universals. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press,
3-9.’
KOOPMAN, H. & D. SPORTICHE (2008). ‘The que/qui Alternation: New Analytical Directions’.
Available at: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000638.
KOPPEN, M. VAN (2005). One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Doctoral
Dissertation, Leiden University.
KOPPEN, M. VAN (2007). ‘Agreement with (the internal structure of) copies of movement’. In: N.
Corver & J. Nunes (eds.), The Copy Theory of Movement. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/
Philadelphia.
LARSON, R. K. (1985). ‘Bare-NP adverbs’. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 595-621.
MALING, J. & A. ZAENEN (1978). ‘On the non-universality of a surface filter’. Linguistic Inquiry 9,
475-497.
MAYR, C. (to appear). ‘On the Necessity of φ-features: The Case of Bavarian Subject Extraction’. In:
P. Panagiotidis (ed.), The Complementizer Domain: Subjects and wh-dependencies. Oxford
University Press.
NEELEMAN, A. & H. VAN DE KOOT (2006). ‘Syntactic Haplology’. In: M. Everaert, H. Van Riemsdijk
(eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol IV. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 684-710.
NUNES, J. (2004). Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
PERLMUTTER, D. M. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
PESETSKY, D. (1982). ‘Complementizer-trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition.’
Linguistic Review 1, 297-343.
83
PESETSKY, D. (1998). ‘Some Optimality Principles of Sentence Pronunciation’. In: P. Barbosa, D.
Fox, M. McGinnis & D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and Competition
in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 337-383.
PESETSKY, D. & E. TORREGO (2001). ‘T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences’. In: M.
Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 355-426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
PESETSKY, D. & E. TORREGO (2004). ‘Tense, Case and the Nature of Syntactic Categories’. In: J.
Guéron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
PLATZACK, C. (2000). ‘A Complement-of-N0 Account of Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Relatives:
The Case of Swedish’. In: A. Alexiadou et al. (eds.). The Syntax of Relative Clauses. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, 265-308.
RIZZI, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
RIZZI, L. & U. SHLONSKY (2007). ‘Strategies of subject extraction’. In: U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner
(eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from
Syntax-Semantics. Walter de Gruyter, 115-160.
ROSS, J.R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Reprinted as Infinite
Syntax! (1986). ABLEX Publishing Corporation.
SAFIR, K. (1999). ‘Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in Ā-Chains’. Linguistic Inquiry 30:4, 587620.
SALZMANN, M. (2005). ‘On an alternative to long A’-movement in German and Dutch’. In: M.
Salzmann & L. Vicente (eds.) Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2.3, 107-128.
SALZMANN, M. (2006). Resumptive Prolepsis; A study in indirect A’-dependencies. Utrecht: LOT
(LOT Dissertation Series 136).
SALZMANN, M. (2006b). ‘Reconstruction for Principle C in German relatives. In favour of the
Matching Analysis’. Proceedings of SAM2, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics Working Papers,
65-79.
SALZMANN, M. (2006c). ‘Reconstruction in German restrictive relative clauses’. In: J. van der
Weijer & B. Los (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006. John Benjamins, Amsterdam,
186-196.
SAUERLAND, U. (1996). ‘The late insertion of Germanic inflection’. Manuscript, MIT.
SAUERLAND, U. (2003). ‘Unpronounced Heads in Relative Clauses’. In: B. Schwabe & S. Winkler
(eds.), The Interfaces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 205-226.
SCHIPPERS, A. (2006). ‘Variation in the CP-domain: Long-distance dependencies in the Dutch
dialects’. Unpublished manuscript, Meertens Instituut – Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
SHARVIT, Y. (1999). ‘Resumptive Pronouns in Relative Clauses’. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 17, 587-612.
SHLONSKY, U. (1992). ‘Resumptive Pronouns as a Last Resort’. Linguistic Inquiry 23:3, 443-468.
SMITH, C (1964). ‘Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Grammar of English’. Language
40, 37-52.
SMITS, R. (1988). The relative and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance languages.
Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
SPORTICHE, D. (2008). ‘Inward Bound: Splitting the wh-paradigm and French Relative qui’. Available
at: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000623.
TARALDSEN, K. T. (2001). ‘Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives and Stylistic Inversion’.
In: A. Hulk & J.Y. Pollock (eds.), Inversion in romance and the theory of Universal
Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
VANDEKERCKHOVE, R. (2003). ‘De relativa die en dat in het dialect en de standaardtaal van WestVlamingen’. Nederlandse Taalkunde 8, 115-129.
VRIES, M. de (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
LOT Dissertations 53.
WILTSCHKO, M. (1998). ‘On the internal and external syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns’.
Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 143-181.
ZWART, J.-W. (2000). ‘A head raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch’. In: A. Alexiadou et al.
(eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 349-385.
84
The SAND data on relativization
Kloeke Location
nr.
short
subject
(oral+
tel)
short
object
(oral+
tel)
long subject
relative
(372: oral data)
long object
relative
(373: oral data)
System(s)
APPENDIX I
A001p
A001q
Midsland/Midslân
Lies
die
die
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
VII
I
A002p
West Terschelling/
West Skylge
Oosterend
die
die
die
wie
die
weervan-dat-ie
weervan-dat-die
II
die
wie
die
die
wie
- (diet)
die
-
weer van-dat-hem
weervan-dat-die
weervan-dat-Ø
weer van-dat-m
weervan-dat-Ø
- (diet)
dat
(diet)
- (diet)
die
wie
die
die(t)
wert van-dat-er
diet-dat-m
dat-dat-Ø
-
diet-dat-die
die-dat-die
waart van-dat-die
diet-dat-Ø
-
daart van-dat-m
diet-dat-Ø
-
die-dat-Ø
-
diet-dat-Ø
-
A006p
B001a
B004p
II
B007p
Hollum
Schiermonnikoog/
Skiermûntseach
Ferwerd/ Ferwert
B013b
B035p
Anjum/Eanjum
Kollum
- (diet)
- (diet)
B041p
B046b
Visvliet
Oosterbierum/
Easterbierrum
Beetgum/ Bitgum
die(t)
die(t)
- (diet)
- (diet)
- (diet)
- (diet)
- (diet)
- (diet)
wervant-dat-hij
- (wervan-diet-Ø)
wervan-dat-Ø
- (diet)
- (diet)
wervan-dat-hij
wervan-dat-m
II
C023p
C029p
C041a
C108p
Bergum/Burgum
Kimswerd/
Kimswert
Jorwerd/Jorwert
Bakkeveen/
Bakkefean
Waskemeer/
De Waskemar
Kloosterburen
Warffum
Leermens
Groningen
wie
(diet)
- (diet)
- (diet)
dee
dee
dee
die
dei-dat-Ø
dat-dee-Ø
dei-dat-ij
woar van-dad-ie
dei-da-Ø
dei-da-dei
woar van-da-Ø
I
C123p
C146t
C148p
Nieuw Scheemda
Langelo
Paterswolde
dee
dee
dee
die
wie
dein
die
die
wie
dei
die
dat
dei-dat-Ø
wovan-dat-Ø
die-dat-hij
wovan-dat-hij
die-dat-tie
die-die-Ø
waarvan-dat-die
wovan-dat-Ø
dei-dat-Ø
wovan-dat-hum
I
X
wovan-dat-hom
wovan-da-die
die-dat-die
II
waarvan-dat-die
wovan-dat-em
II
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-da-die
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
B052a
B062p
B076a
B085c
B127p
B128a
die
C181p
Spijkerboor
dei
die
die
wie
dei
die
dat
wie
die
C192p
D003p
E004p
Onstwedde
Monster
Hippolytushoef
dee
die
die
C165p
C175p
Bellingwolde
Een
die
wie
die
die
die
wie
85
II
I
I
X
I
I
E008p
E014a
E016p
Schagerbrug
Opperdoes
Warmenhuizen
E017p
E031a
E038a
E051p
E067q
E079p
E091p
E092p
E109p
Schoorl
Oostwoud
Lutjebroek
Schermerhorn
Oost Knollendam/
West Knollendam
Beverwijk
Monnickendam
Marken
Amsterdam
E121p
E127p
Weesp
Huizen
E130p
E134p
E147a
Eemnes Buiten
Katwijk aan den Rijn
De Kwakel
E170p
Zoeterwoude
E183p
E192p
E206p
Kamerik
Utrecht
Boskoop
F002p
Hindeloopen/
Hylpen
Heerenveen
Makkinga/
Makkingea
Rijs/ Riis
F013p
F022p
F036q
F038p
die
die
die
wie
die
die
die
die
die
die-dat-hij
-
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
weervan-dat-ie
dat-dat-die
die-die-Ø
die-dat- Ø
weervan-dat-um
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
die
die
die
die
wie
die
die
wie
die
die
die
wie
die
dat
die
die
die
wie
- (diet)
die
die
die
die
wie
die
die
wie
die
die
die
wie
die
wie
die
die
die
wie
- (diet)
- (van wie-dat-hij)
-
die-die-Ø
- (van wie-dat-die)
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-tie
-
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-hij
-
waarvan-dat-hij
waarvan-dat-ie
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-hem
die-da-Ø
II
I
wurt van-dat-tie
wurt van-dat-die
II
- (diet)
die
- (diet)
die
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
I
- (diet)
die(t)
wie
die(t)
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
wer van-dat-er
dert van-dat-him
II
die
die
dat
wie
die
wie
die
die
wie
die
die-dat-die
waarvan-dat-hij
waarvan-dat-die
waar van-dat-die
II
die-dat-die
die-dat-Ø
IX
waarvan-dat-die
waarvan-da-um
waarvan-dat-die
II
die-dat-ie
woarvan-dat-ie
die-die-Ø
dat-da-die
- (van wie-dat-Ø)
woarvan-dat-um
die-da-Ø
dat-da-die
waarvan-dat-hem
- (diet)
F042p
F051p
Lemmer/ De
Lemmer
Wolvega
Diever
F056p
Oldemarkt
die
F060p
F070p
Steenwijk
Giethoorn
die
die
F077p
Urk
die
wie
die (as)
die
die
die
die
F087p
F102a
F107a
F112p
F121p
Staphorst
Wezep
Wechterholt
Epe
Spakenburg
IX
die
die
die
wie
die
die
die
die
die
die
die
die (as)
die
die
die
dee
86
II
V
I
VII
I
IX
II
V
Nijkerk
Hoog Soeren
Gorssel
die
die
die
die
die
die
F171p
Lunteren
die
die
F174p
F178p
F204p
Beekbergen
Brummen
Doesburg
die
die
die
wie
wovank-dat-tie
waarvan-dat-tie
G001b
Appelscha/
Appelskea
Bovensmilde
die
die
die
wie
dat
die
die-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-dat-die
die-die-Ø
die
-
-
die
die
G001p
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
wovan-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
(van wie-dat-hem)
die-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
F142p
F149p
F161p
G007p
Hooghalen
Rolde
die
wie
die
wie
die
die
G009p
Gasselte
die
wie
dei
G039p
Roswinkel
G055p
Zuid Sleen
G058p
Emmen
G062a
die
G080p
Emmer
Compascuum
Erica
die
die
wie
die
G081a
Klazienaveen
die
wie
die
wie
G081c
Zwartemeer
G094p
Gramsbergen
die
wie
den
G095p
Coevorden
die
wie
die
den
die
G140b
Sibculo
G171p
Vriezenveen
G173p
G177p
Almelo
Ootmarsum
G180p
G181q
G198p
G211p
G255p
Rossum
Noord Deurningen
Enter
Losser
Eibergen
die
wie
die
die
wie
die
der
den
die
der
den
die
die
dei
dee
die
die
die
der
den
die
die
den
die
die
die
dee
die
87
I
III
wovan-dat-die
wovan-dat-Ø
dei-dat-hij
die-dat-Ø
-
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-hij
wovan-dat-hij
die-dat-Ø
III
dat-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
waarvan-dat-em
VIII
wor van-dat-Ø
(wie-dat-Ø)
die
wie
die
wie
die
I
die-die-Ø
waarvan-dat-die
die-dat-Ø
worvan-dat-Ø
(wie-die-Ø)
die-dat-Ø
wovan-dat-die
-
waarvan-dat-tie
G006p
I
II
II
III
II
IX
III
IX
I
wovan-dat-hij
die-dat-tie
die-dat- Ø
-
die-dat-Ø
-
wovan-dat-Ø
wovan-dat-hem
X
die-dat-die
die-dat-Ø
IX
die-die-Ø
die-dat-die
woos-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-em
V
IX
X
wovan-dat-er
die-dat-Ø
wovan-dat-em
II
waar van-dat-ie
wor von-dat-tie
waarvan-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-dee
waarvan-dat-e
worvan-dat-Ø
waarvan-da-m
waarvan-dat-den
-
X
II
G257p
Haaksbergen
G280p
Groenlo
H013p
Oostkerke
H016p
Oostende
der
die
wie
den
wie
die
dat
die
H036p
H046p
H054p
Brugge
Nieuwpoort
Gistel
die
die
die
H071p
H081a
die
die
H084p
H108p
H116p
Hertsberge
Bray Dunes/
Bray Duinen
Veurne
Diksmuide
Torhout
da
dan
die
dan
da(n)
dan
die
die
die
H123p
Tielt
I002p
I019p
I023p
I049p
die
wie
die(t)
wie(t)
dan
waarvan-dat-hij/die
die-dat-Ø
III
waarvan-dat-e
(van wie-dat-Ø)
da-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
III
da-da-Ø
IV
dan
da-da-Ø
da-die-Ø
da-die-Ø
da-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
da-dan-Ø
VI
IV
IV
IV
da-die-Ø
da-diet-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-dan-Ø
IV
IV
dan
dan
da
da-die-Ø
da-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-dan-Ø
IV
IV
die
dan
waarvan-dan-em
II
Oostvoorne
Ouddorp
Dirksland
Zierikzee
die
die
die
die
Stavenisse
Steenbergen
I061p
I069p
I074p
Oostkapelle
Goes
Scherpenisse
die
die
wie
die
die
die
die-da-Ø
wervan-da-em
dat-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
da-da-die
die-as-Ø
die-da-Ø
III
II
I054p
I057p
die
die
die
die
wie
die (as)
die(t)
waarvan-da-die
da-die-Ø
waarvan-dat-ie
wervank-da-die
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die
I118p
I123p
I137p
I142p
Ossendrecht
Oostburg
Hoek
Hulst
die
die
die
die
I148p
Doel
I156p
Sint Laureins
I158p
Eeklo
die
dat
wie
die
dat
die
I163p
Oosteeklo
die
I168c
I175p
Koewacht Be
Sint Niklaas
die
dat
wie
die (an)
die
die
die
wie
die
die
die (as)
die (an)
wie
die (as)
dat
wie
dien
dan
dien
dan
dien
dien
dat
wie
die
(an/as)
88
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-tie
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-die
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
waar van-dat-tie
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-dan-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-dat-Ø
daar van-da-em
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
III
I
III
I
IX
I
I
VII
I
die-dat-die
die-die-Ø
da-da-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-dan-Ø
I
die-die-Ø
die-dan-Ø
V
die-die-Ø
da-dan-Ø
die-dan-Ø
die-dan-Ø
V
I
die-da-Ø
da-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
V
die-die-Ø
I178p
Beveren
die(t)
dat
I183a
Oostveld
I187p
Aalter
die(t)
dat
die
dat
I193p
Lovendegem
die
I202p
I204p
I208p
Oostakker
Zaffelare
Lokeren
die
die
die (da)
I241p
Gent
I251p
I257p
I
VI
die
(an/as)
dat
die
da(n)
die
dan
die-dat-Ø
da-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
waarvan-da-die
-
da-die-Ø
da-dat-Ø
da-die-Ø
da-dan-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-dan-Ø
die-die-Ø
waarvan-dat-ij
die-da-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-dien-Ø
die-dan-Ø
die-dan-Ø
VII
III
I
V
die
dien
dat
dien
dien
die (da)
da(n)
wie
die
die-die-Ø
Laarne
die
dien
VII
V
I
Berlare
die
dat
die (at)
dat
die (da)
dat
die
da
die
dat
die(ën)
(da/as)
dat
die
da
die
die
die-dat-Ø
da-dat-ij
da-die-Ø
da-die-Ø
die-dien-Ø
die-dan-Ø
die-dan-Ø
die-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
IV
IV
da-da-Ø
VI
I260p
Moerzeke
I264p
Sint Gillis Bij
Dendermonde
I274p
Malderen
K005p
K023p
Rotterdam
Lopik
die
dat
die
die
K039p
Culemborg
die
K080p
K096p
Geldermalsen
Sliedrecht
K124a
K124p
die-die-Ø
da-die- Ø
da-dat-Ø
waar van-dat-em
da-da-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-ie
dat-da-die
woarvan-dat-die
dat-die-Ø
die
die
die
wie
die
die
die-dat-ie
dat-die-Ø
dat-dat-ie
die-die-Ø
Moerdijk
Strijen
die
die
die
die
K131p
K147p
K152p
K182p
Waspik
Vlijmen
Fijnaart
Gilze
die
die
die
die
die
die
die
die
K183p
Tilburg
K189b
K190p
Nieuwmoer
Zundert
die
wie
die
die
die
wie
die (as)
die
die-dat-ie
die-dat-hij
waarvan-dat-hij
die-dat-tie
die-die-Ø
wovan-dat-tie
dat-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-tie
K192p
K209p
Meer
Sint Lenaarts
K211p
Weelde
die (da)
die
wie
die
die (as)
die (as)
wie
die (da)
89
waaroank-dat-tie
die-da-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-da-Ø
da-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-dat-Ø
-
die-die-Ø
waar van-da-m
der-da-Ø
-
waar van-dat-hij
waarvan-da-m
VIII
VI,
IV
V
VIII
VII
V
IX
III
IX
IX
VII
III
III
II
III
II
Kapellen
die
die
K229p
’s Gravenwezel
dien
dat
K235p
Beerse
die
wie
K240p
Arendonk
K244p
Antwerpen
dien
(da)
dat
die (at)
dieën
(as)
dat
die
wie
dat
dien
(da)
dat
die (as)
K258p
Zandhoven
die(ën)
(as/dat)
dieë
(as)
dieë-da-Ø
K274a
Sint Jozef Olen
dien
die-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
K276p
Mol
die
-
da-da-Ø
K278p
Lommel
die-dat-Ø
diene-da-Ø
K291p
Lier
diene
(da)
dat
die (da)
die
dat
die
dat
diene
(da)
dat
dieën
(as)
die-da-Ø
die(ën)-die(ë)-Ø
-
da-die-Ø
die-da-em
die-die-Ø
das-da-em
-
die(ë)
dat
da-dat-Ø
da-da-Ø
die-da-Ø
die
dieë
dat
die
die (da)
wie
die
dat
da-dat-hij
wovan-dat-n
da-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
da-die-Ø
dien-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dien-da-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die
dan
den-dat-Ø
die-den-Ø
die-da-dem
dat-da-Ø
(wat-da-Ø)
die-da-Ø
die
die
dat
die
wie
die
woarvan-da-ij
die-die-Ø
woarvan-da-m
die-da-Ø
- (wie-wie-Ø)
- (wie-wie-Ø)
die-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
I
die
waar van-dat-tie
da-dat-tie
die-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
III
K309p
Tongerlo
K320p
Willebroek
K330p
K339p
Mechelen
Heist op den Berg
K349a
K353p
Wolfsdonk
Tessenderlo
L034p
Didam
L038p
Kilder
L054p
L071p
Druten
Nijmegen
L119p
Groesbeek
L153p
Reek
L159p
Cuijk
dieen
(da)
dieë
(da)
dat
die
die
dat
die
die (da)
die
dat
wie
die
den
dat
wie
die
die
dat
die
wie
die
wie
die
90
die-da-Ø
die-die-Ø
dien-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
-
-
da-dat-ie
dat-da-Ø
-
die-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
dieë-da-Ø
dieën-dieë-Ø
I
V
I
K221p
die-da-Ø
I
I
I
VII
VI
I
I
V
II
V
I
L180b
Vorstenbosch
die
die
L199p
Liempde
die
die
die-die-Ø
waar van-dat-ie
die-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
L207p
L245p
L250p
L255p
L263p
L267p
Gemert
Meterik
Arcen
Veldhoven
Asten
Maasbree
die
die
den
die
die
der
wie
die
der
die
die
die
der
wie
die-die-Ø
dat-dien-Ø
den-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-die-Ø
woevan-dat-der
L270p
L286p
L290p
Tegelen
Hamont
Panningen
der
die
der
der
die
der
L300p
L318b
Beesel
Tungelroy
L353p
L360p
L372p
L377p
L414p
L416p
L423p
M009p
Eksel
Bree
Maaseik
Maasbracht
Houthalen
Opglabbeek
Stokkem
Aalten
M013p
Winterswijk
M043p
Gendringen
der
dee
der
die
die
die
die
die
die
die
die
wie
die
wie
die
N015p
Izenberge
der
dee
den
die
die
die
die
die
die
die
den
wie
dee
wie
den
wie
die
N031p
N034p
Poelkapelle
Hooglede
die
die
N038p
N054p
N067p
N072p
N087p
Roeselare
Rubrouck/ Rubroek
Poperinge
Ieper
Moorsele
N102p
hoe van-dat-er
da-dat-ie
oe van-dat-tee
dee-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-der
doa van-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
waarvan-dat-Ø
die-da-Ø
- (wat-der-Ø)
den-der-Ø
die-da-Ø
dat-der-Ø
der-der-Ø
woevan-dat-der
woe van-dat-Ø
da-da-m
oe van-dat-um
waarvan-dat-em
-
V
III
I
I
V
I
VIII
II
II
II
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
de-det-Ø
dien-dat-Ø
wovan-dat-e
waarvan-da-m
- (van wie-dat-m)
die-dat-Ø
de-det-Ø
wovan-dat-um
-
-
-
- (wie-da-Ø)
dan
dat-die-Ø
IV
da-die-Ø
da-die-Ø
die
die
die
die
die
dan
die
da (da)
da
dan
dan
da
da-dan-Ø
waarvan-dan-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-da-Ø
IV
die
an
dat
an
-
an-an-Ø
N125p
N130p
Sainte Marie Cappel/
Sint Maria Kappel
Steenvoorde/
Steenvoorde
Wulvergem
Wervik
da-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
waarvan-dat-n
waarvan-dat-n
da-die-Ø
-
die
die
da-die-Ø
da-da-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-dan-Ø
IV
VI
N132p
Menen
die
dan
die
dan
dien
dan
da-da-Ø
(van wien-dat-n)
da-dan-Ø
VI
N104p
91
I
I
II
IV
IV
IV
-
N141p
N149p
O014p
Kortrijk
Wallon Cappel/
Waals Kappel
Morbecque/
Moerbeke
Deinze
O022p
Merelbeke
N154p
O056p
Mere
O061p
Aalst
O080p
O097p
Waregem
Bevere
die
die
dan
die
da-die-Ø
-
da-dan-Ø
-
die
die
die-die-Ø
-
die
dat
die
dat
die
dat
die
dat
wie
die
wie
dien
dan
dien
dan
die
da
die
da
wie
die
da(n)
wie
dien
dan
die-da-Ø
da-dan-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
da-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
da-dat-Ø
die-dien- Ø
die-dat-tie
da-da-Ø
da-die-Ø
die-dat-ie
da-die-Ø
da-dan-Ø
dien
dan
dien
dan
-
die
O104p
Meilegem
die
O116p
Strijpen
die
dat
O152p
Ninove
O177p
O228p
Dilbeek
Geraardsbergen
die
dat
dat
die
O257p
Kooigem
die
O265p
Ronse
die
O275p
Herne
O286p
P002p
P018p
Halle
Humbeek
Kamperhout
P022p
P051p
Tremelo
Lummen
P065p
Brussel
P088p
Leuven
die
dat
dat
dat
diene
(dat)
die
diene
(da)
die
dat
die
P102p
P112p
P124p
Boutersem
Zoutleeuw
Bosvoorde
P133p
P145p
P176p
Overijse
Tienen
Sint Truiden
daa(ne)
die
die
dat
da
die
die
die-die-Ø
da-dat-Ø
die
dat
da
die(n)
dan
dan
die-dat-Ø
da-die-Ø
da-dat-ij
da-die-Ø
die-da-Ø
IV
VII
V
da-da-Ø
VI
VI
IV
da-dan-Ø
da-dien-Ø
die-dan-Ø
da-dan-Ø
da-dien-Ø
die-dan-Ø
die-da-Ø
da-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
da-die-Ø
VIII
IX
VI
V
I
VIII
VIII
die-da-Ø
IV
VI
I
V
III
da-da-Ø
da-dat-Ø
da-dat-Ø
da-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
VI
VI
VI
die-dat-ie
die-dat-Ø
dien-da-Ø
I
die
da
die
dat
da
die
da
da-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
- (van wie-da-Ø)
da
die
die
da-die-Ø
da-da-Ø
die-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
woevan-dat-en
dien
dan
die
dat
da
da
die
da
die
die
92
da-dan-Ø
die-dan-Ø
V
da-da-Ø
die-da-Ø
waarvan-dat-em
die-da-Ø
woevan-da-m
da-da-Ø
die-da-Ø
waarvan-da-m
da-da-Ø
die-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
da-da-Ø
die-da-Ø
die-da-Ø
VI
I
VI
I
II
P212p
Walshoutem
da(t)
woevan-dat-er
woevan-da-er
die
da
die
-
-
Hasselt
die
dat
die
da
die
P219p
Jeuk
Q002p
moevan-dat-em
Q003p
Q036p
Q086p
Genk
Nuth
Eigenbilzen
die
der
die
die
der
die
Q096a
Borgharen
der
Q096b
Itteren
Q112b
Q113p
Ubachsberg
Heerlen
die
wie
der
der
der
dat
die
wie
der
der
boevan-dat-er
die-dat-er
boevan-dat-er
woevan-dat-er
moevan-da-m
dien-da-Ø
da-der-Ø
die-dat-Ø
Q117p
Q121p
Q156p
Nieuwenhagen
Kerkrade
Borgloon
Q162p
Tongeren
Q170p
Grote Spouwen
Q193p
Q194p
Gronsveld
Rijckholt
dee
dei
Q222p
Vaals
die
Q240p
Lauw
die
S014a
Merckeghem/
Merkegem
die
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
der
dee
die
dat
wie
(wa(t))
wie
(wat)
die-dat-Ø
waar van-dat-hij/die
waar van-dat-hij/die
dat-die-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-hij/die
waarvan-dat-Ø
der-dat-Ø
IX
III
III
da-dat-Ø
der-dat-Ø
woevan-dat-der
I
II
die
dem
die
waar van-dat-hij
woavan-dat-er
moevan-dat-er
wie
(wa)
die
die
dat
(woe)
dee
die
wie
(wat)
dem
waarvan-dat-hij
waarvan-dat-hem
boechvan-dat-er
-
dee-dat-Ø
dei-dat-Ø
(wat-wat-Ø)
dee-dat-Ø
dei-dat-Ø
waarva-dat-ten
(wat-wat-Ø)
-
dem-dem-Ø
-
-
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die/’m
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-dat-Ø
dat-dat-Ø
die-die-Ø
dat-die-Ø
die-dat-Ø
waarvan-dat-die/’m
93
II
III
die-dat-Ø
der-dat-Ø
da-da-Ø
woevan-dat-em
- (wat-dat-Ø)
woa van-dat-m
moevan-da-m
die
(boe)
dan
II
-
II
II
II
I
I
APPENDIX II
The SAND data on short relativization – geographic distribution
Map A; short subject relative
Map B; short object relative
94