Comparing Finite-Clause Complementizers & Relative Pronouns, Exams of German

Download Comparing Finite-Clause Complementizers & Relative Pronouns and more Exams German in PDF only on Docsity! "On Complementizers and Relative Pronouns in Germanic vs. Romance" Richard S. Kayne New York University October, 2019 Abstract: Many Germanic languages have a finite-clause complementizer that resembles a demonstrative, e.g. English that, Dutch dat, German dass. No Romance language does. The traditional view of complementizers as simplex projecting heads that take IP or some comparable category as complement has no way of accounting for this difference between Germanic and Romance. In this talk, I will attempt to make progress toward an account, in part by reinterpreting finite-clause complementizers as relative pronouns. 1. Introduction. It is not logically necessary that there be any parameter that neatly cuts between Romance and Germanic, in the sense of having one value in every Germanic language or dialect and the opposite value in every Romance language or dialect. On the other hand, we might expect there to be some such cases if syntactic change is (sufficiently) conservative.1 In the area of complementizers, there does seem to be a consistent difference between the two families (although not all the Germanic languages act the same), in the following sense. Various Germanic languages have complementizers that look like demonstratives, e.g. English that, Dutch dat, German dass. What is striking is that (1) holds, as far as I know: (1) Romance languages never have a complementizer that looks like a demonstrative. For example, French has: (2) Jean sait que Marie est intelligente. (‘J knows what M is intelligent’) with complementizer que, which is identical in form to interrogative que, a close counterpart of English what. French does not allow: (3) *Jean sait ce Marie est intelligente. in which que would have been replaced with demonstrative ce. Thus (3) contrasts sharply with English: (4) John knows that Mary is intelligent. As far as I know, no Romance language or dialect allows an exact counterpart of (3). In this paper, I will try to make progress toward understanding (1), i.e. toward understanding this contrast between Romance and Germanic. I will at the same time bring in the question of relative pronouns in Germanic vs. Romance, insofar as there is a similarity between (1) and (5): (5) Romance never allows a demonstrative as a relative pronoun. ------------------------------------ 1Cf. Crisma and Longobardi (2009). Some Germanic languages do have relative pronouns that look like demonstratives. This is particularly clear for German. A German example would be: (6) der Mann, mit dem wir gesprochen haben (‘the man with that we spoken have’) in which dem is the (dative Case-marked, masculine, singular, object of preposition) relative pronoun. This relative pronoun dem is in German clearly related to demonstrative dem, which can be seen, for example, in: (7) Mit dem Mann haben wir nicht gesprochen. (‘with that man have we not spoken’) No Romance language or dialect has an exact counterpart of (6), or of any other Germanic relative clause in which the relative pronoun has the form of a demonstrative, to the best of my knowledge. One question is to what extent (5) and (1) allow for a common account. My answer in what follows will be that (5) and (1) are essentially a single fact, given that (finite clause) complementizers are themselves relative pronouns. Relative pronouns in turn are to be thought of as stranded determiners, i.e. as determiners that, in the general case, have lost their associated NP, either by movement, as in the raising analysis of relative clauses, or by deletion, as in the matching analysis. (The choice between these two approaches to relative clauses may or may not be important for the present paper; I will develop my proposal in terms of the raising approach.) The specific proposal that I will make concerning (5) (and hence (1)) will be formulated in terms of the idea that stranding a determiner in relative clauses is subject to a restriction with the effect that stranding a demonstrative determiner in relatives in a Romance language is prohibited. In contrast, (some) Germanic languages do allow the stranding of a demonstrative. (Relative clauses in both Germanic and Romance often show the stranding of a wh-determiner such as English which.) A determiner-stranding interpretation of (5) will straightforwardly carry over to (1) if finite clause complementizers are relative pronouns, i.e. if all embedded finite clauses are relative clauses.2 On the other hand, if finite clause complementizers were, as usually assumed, simplex heads taking IP (or some comparable phrase) as a complement, it would be difficult to see how (1) could be accounted for. In effect, then, this paper argues that recourse to comparative syntax considerations provides us with an important clue to the true status of finite clause complementizers.3 2. English relative clause that The that that introduces some English relative clauses, as in: (8) the book that we were discussing differs sharply from German (6) insofar as English relative that shows no Case marking, no gender agreement, no number agreement, and cannot be the object of a preposition. Despite these properties, I take English that to be a relative pronoun.4 This claim was spelled out in Kayne (2010). Some of the main points discussed there are as follows. One is that the following contrast: (9) the person whose book we were talking about ------------------------------------ 2Embedded V-2 clauses in German may not fall under this statement. I will address below the question of say-like complementizers. 3Beyond the scope of this paper is the question whether the proposals made here do or do not carry over to complementizers introducing non-finite clauses, or to if. 4In agreement with Evans and Evans (1957, 505-506). (22) We’re planning to read that. (23) *We’re planning to invite that. On the other hand, when associated with an overt N, that is indifferent to human vs. non-human, as shown by that book and that linguist. Similarly, when associated with one:10 (24) This book is even more interesting than that one. (25) This linguist is even more intelligent than that one. The relative pronoun facts in (16)-(21) do not exactly match either (22)/(23) or (24)- (25), in the sense that relative pronoun that is, as shown, too, by (15), not consistently anti-human, contrary to (23). Nor is relative pronoun that consistently indifferent to human vs. non-human, contrary to (24)-(25), as shown by the facts of (16)-(21) themselves. I take that in (22) to be accompanied by a silent THING (silent elements will be written in capitals):11 (26) ...to read that THING The deviance of (23) then indicates both that THING is not possible there (due to the choice of verb) and that that cannot be accompanied by silent PERSON.12 The contrast found in non-restrictives between (16) and (17) can now be interpreted as follows. In (16), that is accompanied by THING: (27) ?Mary Smith’s last paper, that THING I’ve... (17) is now unavailable in part because THING would clash with the human antecedent and in part because ‘that PERSON’ is never unavailable: (28) *Mary Smith’s youngest son, that THING/PERSON I’ve... The obligatory presence, from this perspective, of THING in (27) may appear to clash with the proposal made in Kayne (1994, 112), in part on the basis of reconstruction facts such as: (29) These pictures of himself, which (Mary thinks that) John would be flattered to receive from us, are really quite awful. to the effect that the raising analysis of relatives should be taken to extend to non- restrictives. The solution may lie in taking a fuller representation of (27) to be: (30) ?Mary Smith’s last paper, that <PAPER> THING I’ve... which combines the raising idea with the presence of THING. Let me repeat the other instances of +/-human restrictions on relative that that hold in my English: (31) (Do you know Mary Smith?) *Yes, in fact it was Mary Smith that got me interested in linguistics in the first place. (32) *There’s someone that’s in the kitchen that will be of interest to you. ------------------------------------ 10On the non-nominal status of one, see Kayne (2017). 11The presence of THING is likely to be supported by Besnier’s (2000, 421) observation that Tuvaluan ‘bare’ that is excluded as the object of P, if that fact is reducible to a P- stranding violation. On THING, cf. also Cinque (2008a, 18) on ‘what THING’, etc. in headless relatives. 12With stress on that and a pejorative interpretation, ...to invite that seems possible with reference to a human, with THING then actually associated with that, parallel to the pejorative: i) We’re planning to invite that thing The unacceptability of these in my English can now be understood parallel to the unacceptability of (17)/(28) if we extend the proposal given in (27) vs. (28), namely by saying that (in my English) relatives of the sort exemplified in (31)-(32) require (independently of the raising vs. matching question) a silent noun of the THING/PERSON sort. However, since PERSON itself is, as seen above, not available with that, (31)-(32) are not possible. Put another way, we have the following contrast: (33) Yes, in fact it was Syntactic Structures that THING got me interested... (34) *Yes, in fact it was Mary Smith that THING/PERSON got me interested... (From the raising perspective, (33) would contain in addition a silent copy of Syntactic Structures, as in ‘...that <Syntactic Structures> THING...’.) In all the well-formed examples containg relative that in this section, from (27) through (33), relative that is a demonstrative determiner accompanied by a silent N(P) of one sort or another. I note in passing the fact that relative that cannot be accompanied by a pronounced N(P):13 (35) War and Peace, ?which/*that famous novel I’ve been meaning to reread for years now, is over 1000 pages long. In non-restrictives, which, in a certain register, is possible in (35), but that is not.14 The restrictions discussed in this section that hold in my English concerning relative that with a human antecedent do not hold in: (36) Someone that I talked to yesterday called us this morning. which is acceptable to me. Thus it must be that a silent noun of the THING/PERSON sort is not needed in (36), while it is needed in (31)-(32). In fact, that in restrictive relatives with a human antecedent is in general acceptable to me (as opposed to non- restrictive (17)15) if the gap is in (prepositional) object position, as it is in (36). In particular, the object gap counterparts of (31)-(32) themselves are acceptable to me: (37) (Do you know Mary Smith?) Yes, in fact it was Mary Smith that I got my first linguistics lesson from. (38) There’s someone that I saw in the kitchen that you should meet. The subject gap vs. object gap contrast illustrated by (31)-(32) vs. (37)-(38), and already noted, in effect, by both Quirk et al. (1972, 870) and Huddleston et al. (2002, 1054), is of a familiar (ECP) type. It does not, however, hold for me in the simplest case, i.e. although I don’t accept (31)-(32), with a human antecedent for that, I do pretty much accept: (39) Someone that wants to talk to you is waiting outside. and even more clearly: (40) The student that wants to talk to you is waiting outside. ------------------------------------ 13Possibly there is a link here to: i) I need a book *which/**that to read tonight. as well as to whichever vs. *thatever and (cf. Lin (1996)) to interrogatives. 14Of importance is the fact that this contrast seems to hold for relative pronouns in German, too. (Why exactly German relative der and Engish relative that would show this restriction remains to be elucidated.) 15On non-restrictives, one will ultimately need to take into account Cinque’s (2008b) arguments for there being two different subtypes. Possibly, the contrast that holds for me between (31)-(32) and (39)/(40) is to be thought of in terms of some notion of ‘extraposition’, as follows. If a subject gap in a relative clause is not maximally local to the head of the relative, then in my English relative pronoun that must (for reasons to be elucidated) be accompanied by THING, with the result that the head of relative cannot be +human. 4. Why does the learner of English choose the relative pronoun analysis? The key facts in (16)-(17) and (31)-(32) that support taking relative that to be a relative pronoun rather than a complementizer, whereby that is in certain cases, in some English, incompatible with a +human antecedent, are negative facts not found in the primary data to which the learner of English is exposed. How then does the learner choose the relative pronoun option for that, rather than the complementizer option? The simplest answer would be that the language faculty does not make the complementizer option available. As for why that might be, let me pursue the proposal made in Kayne (2008), to the effect that there are basically only two types of lexical category, the projecting type, which corresponds to the traditional notion of verb, and the non-projecting type, which corresponds to the traditional notion of noun. From that perspective, there cannot be any third type of lexical category that would be on the same plane as noun and verb. Other potential categories such as complementizer, adposition, determiner, numeral, adjective, etc. must have a different status. Only the followings three possibilities are available: (41) a. subtype of verb b. subtype of noun c. complex Most of what we call determiners are complex, as shown by Leu (2015). What we call adpositions are sometimes complex, as is almost certainly the case for English before, beyond, behind, below, between, analyzed as be-+fore/yond/hind/low/tween. On the other hand, prepositions like to, at, by will likely fall under either (41a) or (41b). Similarly, prepositional compementizers like French de and English for will likely fall under either (41a) or (41b).16 As for English that, the proposal in Kayne (2010) is that all instances of that reduce to demonstrative that,17 which, following Leu (2007; 2015), is complex. Hence relative clause that is complex, and cannot be a complementizer in the usual sense of the term, which takes complementizers to be simplex projecting heads whose complement is IP or some comparable category.18 ------------------------------------ 16This statement leaves open the question whether de and/or for are accompanied by silent material. For a suggestion that complementizer for is actually ‘WHAT for A NOUN’, see Kayne (2014, (108)). 17Cf. the anti-homophony principle/heuristic of Kayne (2019a); also Postma’s (1993) Naturalness Condition. 18Manzini (2014) also takes complementizers in the classic sense of the term not to exist, though in a different way. (Pesetsky and Torrego’s (2001, 371; 2004, 499) idea that that is T moved to C seems to be closer to the traditional view than Manzini’s is.) On the misleading appearance of what look like sentential complements, see also Caponigro and Polinsky (2008). On the absence of complements to nouns in (53) le livre que/*ce/*ça/*cela je lisais (‘the book what/that/that/that I read’) The next question, then, is what underlies (53). 7. A digression on German. German d-words in relatives (as in (6) above) look like demonstratives, but also look like definite articles. I have been taking them to be demonstratives, and not to be pure definite articles, for the following reasons. First, Thomas Leu (p.c.) tells me that in Swiss German there is a distinction in dative masc. and neuter contexts between: (54) uf em baerg (‘on the mountain’) with definite article em, and: (55) uf dem baerg (‘on that mountain’) with demonstrative dem; and that in relatives one gets the demonstrative: (56) dr ma bi dem wo du gschaffet hesch (‘the man by dem where you worked have’ = ‘the man at whose place you worked’) Second, German preposition+article contraction,27 which does not carry over to preposition+demonstrative,28 does not carry over to preposition+relative-d-word, either.29 Third, Günther Grewendorf (p.c.) tells me that definite article das in German can reduce to ‘s, but that that cannot happen with demonstrative das, nor with relative pronoun das. Fourth, Wiltschko (1998) noted the absence of relative the in English:30 (57) the book that/*the we were discussing to which can be added the fact that Romance languages, while having relative laquelle (French), la quale (Italian ‘the which’), etc., never have a bare definite article as a relative pronoun: (58) la fille à la*(quelle) je parlais (‘the girl to the (which) I spoke’) A generalization of Wiltschko’s point is: (59) A ‘bare’ definite article is never a possible relative pronoun. Greek pou (cf. Roberts and Roussou (2003, 120)) and for French le jour où... (‘the day where’). 27Cf. van Riemsdijk (1998), whose approach may extend to the comparable French phenomenon seen in: i) Elle achète des livres. (‘she buys of-the books’) ii) *Elle achète de les livres. (‘she buys of the books’) more adequately than Embick’s (2010, 88ff.), which overlooks: iii) Elle a promis de les relire. (‘she has promised de them reread’) iv) *Elle a promis des relire. which are relevant on the assumption that Postal (1966) was correct to assimilate (French third person accusative clitic) pronouns to definite articles. 28As discussed for Swiss German by Leu (2007, 148). 29As noted by Schwarz (2009, 22), whose distinction between weak and (closer-to- demonstrative) strong definite articles will need to be integrated. 30It remains to be understood why Romance languages have object clitics that look like definite articles, but apparently no object clitics that look like demonstratives. (This requires that the definite articles of the Hebrew participial relatives discussed by Siloni (1995) not be relative pronouns; they may be outside the relative clause entirely.) Wiltschko suggests that the is impossible in (57) for the same reason as in: (60) We were discussing that/*the. This may well be on the right track (though Romance accusative object clitics raise questions). 8. Back to Germanic vs. Romance. Let us now return to (53), i.e. to the question why Romance does not allow stand- alone relative pronouns of the demonstrative sort. Using English and French as exemplars of Germanic and Romance, we have the contrast: (61) the book that you like (62) *le livre ce vous aimez In the spirit of Wiltschko’s proposal for (57)/(60), it is plausible to think that the particular case of (62) is related to: (63) *Vous aimez ce. (‘you like that’) French ce, even though demonstrative, cannot (with one major, principled exception) occur alone in argument position.31 French has a second demonstrative, that contrasts in this respect with ce: (64) Vous aimez ça. (’you like that’) Yet ça cannot be a relative pronoun, either: (65) *le livre ça vous aimez (‘the book that you like’) The impossibility of (65) may be related to:32 (66) *Vous aimez ça livre. with ça unable to be fol lowed by an overt noun, much as with a third French demonstrative, cela, also translatable as that: (67) Vous aimez cela. (68) *Vous aimez cela livre. which is likewise impossible as a relative pronoun: (69) *le livre cela vous aimez Since cela is almost certainly to be analyzed as ce+là, where the second element is the one seen in: (70) ce livre-là (‘that book there’) the impossibility of (68) is almost certainly reducible to that of: (71) *ce là livre which Bernstein (1997) took to reflect the obligatorines of the movement of livre past là that produces (70) starting from an initial structure that looks more like (71).33 We can now plausibly reduce (69) to (68). Let us assume in particular that the obligatory NP-raising past là seen in French in (70) vs. (71) is incompatible (perhaps for reasons of the ‘improper movement’ sort, or of the ‘freezing’ sort) with subsequent NP- ------------------------------------ 31For details, see Kayne and Pollock (2010). 32English who needs to be brought into this picture. 33Why standard English rejects (*)that there book (possible in non-standard English) remains to be elucidated. raising of the sort that creates the ‘head’ of a relative.34 Put another way, to derive (69),35 we would have to have reached, at an earlier stage in the derivation: (72) [ce livre là] vous aimez <ce livre là> via movement of ce livre là from object position to a pre-subject position. Then, to reach (69), we would have to raise livre (just as book is raised in the derivation of (61), as indicated in (51)). Arguably, then, the prior raising of livre past là, the result of which is built into (72), blocks that further raising step of livre past ce. The question now is whether this discussion of French will extend to Romance languages in general. It will, if in all Romance languages demonstratives corresponding to French ce/ça/cela obligatorily cooccur with a (sometimes silent) counterpart of the French reinforcer -là that obligatorily induces NP-movement of the sort that is incompatible with further movement of the ‘relative head’-raising sort.36 The reason that English, German and Dutch do allow demonstrative-based relative pronouns must now be related to their not having obligatory DP-internal NP-movement past a reinforcer. 9. Some other languages. Slavic languages seem not to have an exact counterpart of English relative that or of the parallel German or Dutch relative pronouns. Therefore either Slavic has obligatory NP-movement in the presence of demonstrative reinforcers, as in Romance; or else Slavic demonstratives themselves must be blocking the ‘head’-raising type of movement, for reasons to be determined. Scandinavian languages are distinct from English/Dutch/German when it comes to relative pronouns. Norwegian locative der, as mentioned by Taraldsen (1978, 637), would seem to be an example of a demonstrative-related relative pronoun. But non- locative relative d-pronouns seem not to be found in Scandinavian. If so, the question is why.37 In the spirit of the earlier discussion of the relevance of reinforcer -là in Romance, a possibility that comes to mind is that this difference between Scandinavian ------------------------------------ 34The informal term NP here includes cases in which all that is moved is N. 35As far as I can see, the lack of accent in cela vs. in ce livre-là is purely orthographic. 36Since various Romance languages have relative pronouns of the (the+)which-sort, there must not be any comparable obligatory NP-movement in the presence of (the+)which. 37The usual Scandinavian relative clause ‘introducer’ is som/sem, which recalls English dialectal relative as (cf. Herrmann (2005, 25)). It may be that som/sem/as correspond to pieces of a larger DP (of the such as type) much of which is unpronounced. Scandinavian also lacks sentential complementizers of the d-pronoun sort found in English, Dutch and German. The Scandinavian complementizers at/att/adh may be related to demonstratives, but even if they are they lack the initial d- (in a way that perhaps has no counterpart in Slavic). Thus it might be that the obligatoriness of the post-N definite article, which is the source of the absence of d-type relative pronouns, does not affect d-less demonstratives, in which case such d-less demonstratives would be allowed to appear as complementizers (= relative pronouns) with sentential complements (as well as in some relative clauses). Ghomeshi, J. (1996) Projection and Inflection: A Study of Persian Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto (Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics). Herrmann, T. (2005) “Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles,” in B. Kortmann, T. Herrmann, L. Pietsch and S. Wagner (eds.) A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects. Agreement, Gender, Relative Clauses, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 21-123. Huddleston, R., G.K. Pullum and P. Peterson (2002) “Relative Constructions and Unbounded Dependencies,” in R. Huddleston and G.K. Pullum (eds.) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1031-1096. Jayaseelan, K.A. (1988) "Complex predicates and theta theory," in W. Wilkins (ed.) Thematic Relations (Syntax and Semantics 21), Academic Press, New York, 91- 111. Kayne, R.S. (1981) “ECP extensions,” Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 93-133. Kayne, R.S. (1982) “Predicates and Arguments, Verbs and Nouns,” paper presented at the GLOW Conference, GLOW Newsletter, 8, 24.. Kayne, R.S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Kayne, R.S. (2008) “Antisymmetry and the Lexicon,” Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 8, 1- 31 (also to appear in A.M. di Sciullo and C. Boeckx (eds.) The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Oxford University Press, London). Kayne, R.S. (2010) “Why Isn’t This a Complementizer?”, in R.S. Kayne, Comparisons and Contrasts, Oxford University Press, New York. Kayne, R.S. (2014) “Comparative Syntax and English Is To”, Linguistic Analysis, 39, 35- 82 (reprinted in Kayne (2019b)). Kayne, R.S. (2017) “English One and Ones as Complex Determiners” in G. Sengupta, S. Sircar, M.G. Raman and R. Balusu (eds.) Perspectives on the Architecture and Acquisition of Syntax. Essays in Honor of R. Amritavalli, Springer Nature, Singapore, 77-114 (reprinted in Kayne (2019b)). Kayne, R.S. (2018) “Toward an Understanding of Apparent Suppletion in Romance Pronominal Possessives”, Probus, 30, 251-276. Kayne, R.S. (2019a) “The Unicity of There and the Definiteness Effect”, in E. Gonçalves (ed.) Existential Constructions in Focus, Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brazil (reprinted in Kayne (2019b)). Kayne, R.S. (2019b) Questions of Syntax, Oxford University Press, New York. Kayne, R.S. and J.-Y. Pollock (2010) “Notes on French and English Demonstratives,” in J.-W. Zwart and M. de Vries (eds.) Structure Preserved: Studies in Syntax for Jan Koster, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 215-228. Keenan, E.L. (1985) “Relative Clauses,” in T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume II. Complex constructions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 141-170. Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky (1970) “Fact,” in M. Bierwisch and K.E. Heidolph (eds.) Progress in Linguistics, Mouton, The Hague, 143-173. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1989) “Pronouns, Logical Variables and Logophoricity in Abe,” Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 555-589. Larson, R.K. (1991) “The Projection of DP (and DegP)”, in Larson (2014). Larson, R.K. (2014) On Shell Structure, Routledge, New York. Larson, R. (2017) “Revisiting Article-S,” Revista Linguística, 13, 51-87. Leu, T. (2007) “These HERE demonstratives,” in T. Scheffler, J. Tauberer, A. Eilam and L. Mayol (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Penn Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 13.1, 141-154. Leu, T. (2015) The Architecture of Determiners, Oxford University Press, New York. Lin, J.-W. (1996) Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese, PhD dissertation, University of Massachussets, Amherst. Longobardi, G. (1994) “Reference and proper names,” Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609-665. Manzini, M.R. (2014) “The Romance k-Complementizers,” in P. Svenonius (ed.) Functional Structure from Top to Toe, Oxford University Press, 148-187. Moltmann, F. (to appear) “Situations, Alternatives, and the Semantics of ‘Cases’,” Linguistics and Philosophy. Munaro, N. (2000) “Free Relatives as Defective Wh-elements: Evidence from the North- Western Italian Dialects,” University of Venice WPL, 10, 89-120. Pearce, E. (2015) A Grammar of Unua, De Gruyter Mouton, Boston. Pesetsky, D. (2013) Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego (2001) “T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences,” in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale. A Life in Language, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 355-426. Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego (2004) “Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories,” in J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, The Syntax of Time, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 495-537. Poletto, C. and E. Sanfelici (2018) “On demonstratives as relative pronouns: New insight from Italian varieties,” Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main, University of Padua (ResearchGate 327141086). Postal, P.M. (1966) “On So-Called ‘Pronouns’ in English,” in F.P. Dineen, edl, Report of the Seventeenth Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 177-206 (reprinted in Reibel, D.A. and S.A. Schane, eds., Modern Studies in English (1969), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey). Postma, G. (1993) “The Syntax of the Morphological Defectivity of BE,” HIL Manuscripts, 3, 31-67. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English, Longman, London. Rizzi, L. (1997) “The fine structure of the left periphery,” in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 281-337. Roberts, I. and A. Roussou (2003) Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Rosenbaum, P.S. (1967) The Grammar o f Engl ish Predicate Complement Constructions, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Schwarz, F. (2009) Two Types of Definites in Natural Language, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Seppänen, J. (1999) “Dialectal variation in English relativisation”, Lingua, 109, 15-34. Siloni, T. (1995) “Participial Relatives and Complementizer D: a Case Study in Hebrew and French,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 445-487. Kayne 16 Taraldsen, K.T. (1978) “The Scope of Wh Movement in Norwegian,” Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 624-640. van Riemsdijk, H. (1998) “Head Movement and Adjacency,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 633-678. Wiltschko, M. (1998) “On the internal and external syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 143-181. Kayne 17