Locality in Correlatives - Web Hosting at UMass Amherst - University

58 Pages·2003·0.26 MB·English

RAJESHBHATT
LOCALITYINCORRELATIVES(cid:1)
ABSTRACT. Correlativizationseemstobeanintrinsicallynon-localstrategy,wherethe
Correlative clause can appear discontinuous from the noun phrase it modifies. I show
that correlative constructions in the Modern Indo-Aryan languages nevertheless display
localityeffects.Thenatureoftheselocalityeffectsdependsuponwhetherthecorrelative
clauseinvolvesasinglerelativization(‘Simple’)ormutiplerelativizations(‘Multi-Head’).
The generalization that emerges is that a Correlative clause must be merged as locally
aspossibletothephrasethatitmodifies.SimplecorrelativesmodifyDPsandsotheystart
adjoinedtotheDPthattheymodifyandthenarefrontedtoanIP-adjoinedposition.Suchan
approachisabletoexplainthehithertounexplainedsensitivityofthecorrelative-modified
phraserelationshiptoislands.Multi-HeadCorrelativesmodifyIPsandthereforetheystart
adjoinedtothesmallestIPthatcontainsthevariablesboundbytheMulti-HeadCorrelative,
followed by optional movement to the clause-initial position. My proposal argues that
SimpleCorrelativesand Multi-HeadCorrelativesinvolvedifferent derivational histories.
Thisdifferenceinderivationalhistoryisthenusedtoaccountforthemanydifferencesin
theirsyntacticbehavior.Finally,the‘ConditiononLocalMerge’fromwhichthisanalysis
followsisshowntohavecross-linguisticsupport.
1. GOALS
The goal of this paper is to provide the proper analysis of Correlat-
ive constructions in the Modern Indo-Aryan languages. Correlativization,
exemplified in (1), is a relativization strategy that is characteristic of
the Modern Indo-Aryan languages.1 The basic features of a Correlative
(cid:1) FirstofallIthanktheanonymousreviewersfortheirdetailedandhelpfulcomments.
EarlydiscussionswithSabineIatridouwerecrucialinbringingthispaperintoexistence.
I also thank George Cardona, David Embick, Alex Grosu, Irene Heim, Richard Larson,
Howard Lasnik, Roumyana Pancheva, David Pesetsky, Rashmi Prasad, and Bernhard
Schwarzforhelpfulcommentsanddiscussion.ThanksarealsoduetoSmitaJoshi,Rashmi
Prasad,andBabuSutharforhelpingmewiththeMarathi,Hindi,andGujaratidata,respect-
ively.Versionsofthematerialdiscussedherehavebeenpresentedinfrontofaudiencesat
MITandtheUniversityofTexas.Iamthankfultotheseaudiencesandinparticulartothe
studentsofmyIndo-AryanSyntaxclassintheSpringof2001(BehradAghaei,Shannon
Finch, Er-XinLee, ChristinaWillis,and Henrietta Yang), who worked through an early
draftofthispaperandgavemecomments.
1 Unlessexplicitlyindicatedotherwise,allnon-EnglishexamplesarefromHindi.Ab-
breviations:Rel–RelativePronoun;Dem–Demonstrative;Rel-XP–anXPheadedbya
NaturalLanguage&LinguisticTheory 210: 485–541,2003.
©2003KluwerAcademicPublishers. PrintedintheNetherlands.
486 RAJESHBHATT
construction are shown in the schema in (1a(cid:1)) – there is a Correlative
clause that contains aRelative Phrase (henceforth Rel-XP). TheCorrelat-
iveclauseisassociated withamatrixclausethatcontainsaDemonstrative
Phrase(henceforth Dem-XP).CorrelativescanbeSimpleCorrelatives(cf.
1a)orMulti-Head Correlatives (cf.1b),depending uponwhether theCor-
relativeclausecontains oneRel-XPormore.2 (TheDem-XP(s)associated
withtheCorrelativeClausesin(1a,b)areitalicized.)
(1)a(cid:1). Simple(=singleRel-XP)Correlative:
[ ...Rel-XP ...] [ ...Dem-XP ...]
CorCP i i IP i
a. [[joCD] sale-parhai] Maya [us CD-ko] khari:d-egi:
i i i
Rel CD sale-on be.PrsMaya.FDemCD-Acc buy-Fut.F
MayawillbuytheCDthatisonsale.
(Lit.‘[WhichCDisonsale],MayawillbuythatCD.’)
b(cid:1). Multi-HeadCorrelative:
[ ...Rel-XP ...Rel-YP ...] [ ...Dem-XP...Dem-
CorCP i j i,j IP i
YP ...]
j
b. [jis-ne jo kar-na: cha:h-a] [us-ne vo ki-ya:]
i j i,j i j
Rel-ErgReldo-Gerwant-Pfv Dem-ErgDemdo-Pfv
Forx,y s.t.x wantedtodoy,x didy.
(Lit.‘Whowantedtodowhat,he/shedidthat.’)
Characterising theexactmannerinwhichtheCorrelative clause isassoci-
atedwiththematrixclauseinSimpleandMulti-HeadCorrelativesisoneof
themajorgoalsofthispaper.ItwillbeshownthatSimpleCorrelativesare
base-generated adjoined to the Dem-XP and can optionally be scrambled
awayfromtheDem-XPtoanIPadjoined position.
(2) [ [ ...Rel-XP ...] [ ...[t Dem-XP ]...]]
IP CorCP i i IP i i
Incontrast, Multi-HeadCorrelativesarebase-generated adjoined totheIP
andcanoptionally bescrambled awayfromthisIP.
(3) [ [ ...Rel-XP ...Rel-YP ...] [ ...Dem-
IP CorCP i j i,j IP
XP ...Dem-YP ...]]
i j
relativepronoun(includesrelativepronouns);Dem-XP–anXPheadedbyademonstrative
(includesdemonstratives);Acc–Accusative;Dat–Dative;Erg–Ergative;Neg–Nega-
tion;Prs–Present;Pst–Past;Pfv–Perfective;Impfv–Imperfective;Prog–Progressive;
Hab –Habitual; Ger –Gerund; Obl –Oblique; 1–1st Person; 2 –2nd Person; 3– 3rd
Person;F–Feminine;M–Masculine;N–Neuter;Sg–Singular;Pl–Plural.
2 Multi-HeadCorrelativescouldjustaswellbecalledmulti-Rel-XPcorrelatives.
LOCALITYINCORRELATIVES 487
Iwillalsoshowthatthedifferences betweenSimpleandMulti-HeadCor-
relativesfollowifweassumethatthestructurebuildingoperationofMerge
applies inaslocalamanneraspossible.
1.1. Plan
The paper starts with a brief introduction to the various relativization
strategies that are available in the Indo-Aryan languages: postnominal
English-typeRelativeclauses,prenominalNon-finiteRelativeclauses,and
Correlatives. In particular, the differences between English-type Relative
clauses andCorrelativeswillbediscussed.
Two potential structures for simple Correlative Constructions will
be discussed: the non-movement/IP adjunction structure proposed by
Srivastav(1991)andthemovement/Dem-XPadjunctionstructurethatwill
bearguedforhere.3
AccordingtotheDem-XPadjunctionstructure,theCorrelativeclauseis
base-generatedadjoinedtotheDem-XP.Itcanthenbeoptionallymovedto
an IP-adjoined position. The Dem-XP adjunction structure will be shown
tobeimplausibleforMulti-HeadCorrelativesand,forthese,bothanalyses
(Srivastav’s and mine) assume an IP adjunction structure. Since my ana-
lysis assigns different structures to Simple Correlatives and Multi-Head
Correlatives, one might expect certain phenomena to treat Simple and
Multi-HeadCorrelatives differently. Ishowthatthisisindeedthecase.
Section 3 shows that the Dem-XP adjunction structure is needed in-
dependently of the analysis being proposed here. The existence of island
constraints between the Correlative clause and the Dem-XP is used to
argue that the Correlative clause moves from its base position (adjoined
to the Dem-XP) to an IP adjoined position. Assuming that the Correl-
ative clause is moving also helps us to explain an otherwise mysterious
constraint that prohibits the fronting of two Correlative clauses. Further
evidenceformovementcomesfromtheexistenceofReconstructioneffects
which show that the Correlative clause can (and in some cases must) be
interpreted lower in the structure than where it appears. The phenomenon
of Rel-XP deletion in Dakkhini, Gujarati, and Marathi is introduced in
section 4 as an example of another syntactic process that discriminates
betweenSimpleandMulti-HeadCorrelatives.
Section5discusses whywefindthesedifferences betweenSimpleand
Multi-HeadCorrelatives.Myproposalisthatthesedifferencesfollowifwe
assumetheConditiononMerge,accordingtowhichthestructurebuilding
operation of Merge applies in as local a fashion as possible. Section 5
3 AnanonymousreviewernotesthatmyproposalbearssomeresemblancetoMahajan
(2000)’sanalysisofCorrelatives.
488 RAJESHBHATT
concludes with a discussion of some phenomena in Bulgarian, Modern
Greek, and Hindi that receive a straightforward explanation if we assume
theCondition onMerge. Section6provides ashortsummary, raisessome
newquestions, andconcludes thispaper.
2. RELATIVIZATION STRATEGIES IN INDO-ARYAN
Indo-Aryan languages use the following relativization strategies (cf.
Masica1991forasurvey;alsoseeMasica1972;Keenan1985).
2.1. English-Type RelativeClauses(ERC)
English-typeRelativeclauses,whicharealwayspostnominal,areavailable
inmostIndo-Aryan languages.4
(4) NPwithRelativeClause
[ vo [ kita:b[ jo sale-parhai]]] achchhi: hai
DP NP CP
Dem book Relsale-on be.Prsgood.F be.Prs
Thatbookwhichisonsaleisgood.
DP
(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)
(cid:1) (cid:2)
Dem NP
(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)
that (cid:1) (cid:2)
N CP
book‘whichisonsale’
English-type Relative Clauses can be extraposed yielding structures like
thefollowing:
(5) RightadjoinedRelativeClause
[ vo [ kita:b]]achchhi: hai [ jo sale-par hai]
DP NP CP
Dem book.F good.F be.Prs Relsale-on be.Prs
Thatbookisgoodwhichisonsale.
4 TheexceptionsareSouthernKonkani,Saurashtri,andSinhalese.
LOCALITYINCORRELATIVES 489
2.2. Non-FiniteRelativeClauses
Non-finite Relative clauses, which are always prenominal, are available
in all Indo-Aryan languages. They can be based on a participle or on an
adjectival form.
(6) Prenominalnon-finiteRelativeClause
a. Perfectiveparticipial
mE˜-ne[vo [RelCl pi:la: par. gaya:] phu:l]utha:liya:
I-erg Dem yellow fallGO-Pfvflower lift TAKE-Pfv
I picked up the flower that had become yellow. (from Kachru
1973)
b. Imperfectiveparticipial
[[ chal-ti:] ga:ri:]-se mat utro
RelCl
move-Impfv.Fvehicle.F-from Negdescend-Imp
Donotdescendfromthemovingvehicle.(fromHook1979)
c. Adjectival
mE˜ kal [[RelCl Ram-ko darshan par.ha:-ne
I yesterday Ram-Acc philosophy tech-Ger.Obl
va:le addhya:pak]-semil-a:
Adj.Oblteacher-with meet-Pfv
ImettheteacherwhoteachesRamphilosophy yesterday.
In most Indo-Aryan languages, only the (highest) subject position can be
relativized in non-finite Relative clauses. The fact that only the subject
position can be relativized is sometimes obscured. For example in (7),
whichinvolvesanon-finiteRelativeClausebasedonthepastparticipleofa
transitiveverb,itseemsasifthedirectobjectpositionhasbeenrelativized.
(7) [[(Avi-dwaaraa) kal kaat.-e] per.] neem-ke
Avi-by yesterday cut-Pfv.Pl tree Neem-Gen.Pl
the
be.Pst.Pl
Thetreescut(byAvi)yesterday wereNeemtrees.
However, the non-finite clause in (7) has passive syntax as is shown by
thefactthatthelogicalsubjectisrealizedthroughaby-phrase. The‘direct
490 RAJESHBHATT
object’ isactually thegrammatical subject ofthenon-finite clause andthe
relativization istherefore stillonthesubject position.
The exceptions to the generalization that only the (highest) subject
positioncanberelativizedinanon-finiteRelativeClauseareDakkhini,(ar-
guably)Gujarati,Marathi,SouthernKonkani,Saurashtri,andSinhalese.In
these languages, non-finite relative clauses allow fordirect objects (=8a),
adjuncts (=8b),andsubjectsofembeddedclauses(=8c)toberelativized.
(8) MarathiexamplesfromPandharipande (1997)
a. Relativization ofdirectObject
[[RelCl tu¯ pa¯t.hawlel¯ı] sa¯d.¯ı] surekh a¯he
yousend-PastPart-sf saree-sfbeautiful is
Thesareewhichyousentisbeautiful.
b. Relativization ofaplaceadverbial
[[ m¯ı ra¯ha¯t aslela] ghar] kh¯ı dzuna
RelCl
I live-pres be-PastPart-N.Sg house-N.Sg very old
a¯he
is
ThehouseinwhichIamlivingisveryold.
c. Relativization ofsubjectofafinitesentential complement
[[ ra¯m-ne [piklea¯het]sa¯Ngitlele] ã:mbe]
RelCl
Ram-Ergripe are tell-PastPart-Pl.Mmangoes-3Pl.M
a¯mh¯ıwikatghetle
we buy take-Pst-3Pl.M
Webought themangoeswhichRamtolduswereripe.
2.3. Correlatives
Correlatives areexemplifiedbelow:
(9) [ ...Rel-XP ...] [ ...Dem-XP ...](=(1a))
CorCP i i IP i
[jo sale-parhai] Maya us Cd-ko khari:d-egi:
Relsale-on be.PrsMaya.FDemCD-Accbuy-Fut.F
MayawillbuytheCDthatisonsale.
(Lit.‘Whatisonsale,MayawillbuythatCD.’)
LOCALITYINCORRELATIVES 491
A correlative construction consists of a Correlative clause and a Matrix
clause.TheCorrelativeclausecontainsaRel-XP(jo)andthematrixclause
containsaDem-XP(usCD-ko).5 TheCorrelativeClause(insquarebrack-
ets)mustappeartotheleftoftheDem-XPitisassociatedwith(initalics),
butitdoesnothavetobeeitheradjacent toitsDem-XPorclause-initial.
2.3.1. Crosslinguistic Distribution ofCorrelatives
The following is a non-exhaustive list of languages where correlative
clauses are found: Hittite (Berman 1972; Raman 197), Warlpiri (Hale
1976; Keenan 1985), Medieval Russian (Keenan 1985), Old English
(Curme 1912), South Slavic: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbo-Croatian
(Izvorski 1996), Sanskrit (Andrews 1985), Dravidian: Kannada (Sridhar
1990), Malayalam (Asher and Kumari 1997), and Tamil (Asher 1982),
and the Modern Indo-Aryan languages with the exception of Southern
Konkani, Saurashtri, and Sinhalese: Assamese (Masica 1991), Bengali
(Dasgupta 1980; Bagchi 1994), Bhojpuri (Grierson 1883; Shukla 1981),
Dakkhini Urdu (Schmidt 1981), Gujarati (Cardona 1965; Lambert 1971),
Hindi-Urdu (Kachru 1973; Srivastav 1991; Dayal 1996), Kashmiri (Wali
andKoul1997),Maithili(Grierson1883;Yadav1996),Marathi(Junghare
1973; Berntsen andNimbkar1975;Pandharipande 1997), Nepali(Masica
1991), Oriya (Sahoo and Hellan 1998), Punjabi (Bhatia 1993), Sindhi
(Trumpp1872).
Keenan(1985)(followingDowning1973;seealsoComrie1981)notes
that Correlative constructions are limited to verb-final languages, and in
particular to ‘loose’ verb-final languages. These languages permit some
NPs,especially heavyNPs,tooccurinpostverbal positions.6
2.3.2. Multi-HeadCorrelatives
There can be more than one Rel-XP in the Correlative clause. For each
Rel-XP in the Correlative clause, there must be an associated Dem-XP in
thematrixclause.7 SuchCorrelatives arecalledMulti-HeadCorrelatives.
5 Undercertaincircumstancesthatwillbediscussedinseciton5.3,theDem-XPcanbe
non-overt.Further,insomeIndo-Aryanlanguages(e.g.,Gujarati,Marathi),butnotothers
(e.g.,Hindi,Punjabi),theRel-XPcanalsobenon-overt(seesection4).
6 An anonymous reviewer points out that the existence of Correlative constructions
in the South Slavic languages that are not verb-final is a counterexample for the above
generalizationthatCorrelativeconstructionsarelimitedtoverb-finallanguages.
7 See McCawley (1992) for a discussion of some systematic exceptions to this
requirement.
492 RAJESHBHATT
(10) Multi-HeadCorrelatives:
[ ...Rel-XP ...Rel-YP ...] [ ...Dem-XP ...Dem-
CorCP i j i,j IP i
YP ...]
j
a. Marathi
[jya mula-ne jya muli-la pahila] [tya mula-ne tya
i j i,j i
Rel boy-Erg Rel girl-Acc saw Dem boy-Erg Dem
muli-la pasantkela]
j
girl-Acc like did
Forboyx,girly s.t.x sawy,x likedy.
(Lit.‘[Whichboysawwhichgirl],[thatboylikedthatgirl]’)
b. Hindi(=(1b))
[jis-ne jo kar-na: cha:h-a] [us-ne vo ki-ya:]
i j i,j i j
Rel-ErgReldo-Gerwant-Pfv Dem-ErgDemdo-Pfv
Forx,y s.t.x wantedtodoy,x didy.
(Lit.‘Whowantedtodowhat,he/shedidthat.’)
Multi-Head Correlatives are found in all the Indo-Aryan languages that
haveCorrelatives.
2.3.3. DifferencesbetweenEnglish-Type RelativeClausesand
Correlatives
Srivastav (1991) points out that several syntactic properties distinguish
English-type Relativeclauses from Correlatives. Someofthese properties
arediscussed here.Anyreasonabletheoryofrelativization shouldaccount
for the syntactic differences between English-type Relative clauses and
Correlatives while capturing the semantic similarity between these two
relativization strategies.
ItiswellknownthattheheadNPofarelativeclauseinEnglishcannot
be repeated inside the relative. Thus we can say the book which Mary
read, but not the book which book Mary read. Why this is so is the sub-
ject of much debate – explanations range from the obligatory use of the
head-raising analysis of relative clauses to the existence of an ‘obligat-
ory deletion under identity’ rule that deletes the relative clause internal
head (cf. Vergnaud 1974; Kayne 1994; Sauerland 1998; Bianchi 1999;
Bhatt 1999; among others). English-type relative clauses and extraposed
English-type relative clauses in the Indo-Aryan languages also do not
allowrepetition oftheheadNPinsidetherelativeclause.
LOCALITYINCORRELATIVES 493
(11)a(cid:1). English-type RelativeClause:
...[ N[ ...]]...
NP RelCl
a. Aamir[ CD ko [ jo (∗CD sale-par hai]]
NP RelCl
Aamir CD Acc Rel CD sale-on be.Prs
khari:d-ega:
but-Fut.MSg
AamirwillbuytheCDwhich(*CD)isonsale.
(11)b(cid:1). Extraposed English-type RelativeClause:
[ ...[ N] ...][ ...]
IP NP i RelCl i
b. AamirCDko khari:d-ega: [ jo (∗CD)sale-par hai]
RelCl
Aamir CD Accbuy-Fut.MSg Rel CD sale-on be.Prs
AamirwillbuytheCDwhich(*CD)isonsale.
On the other hand, the head NP can be repeated inside the Correlative
clause(cf.12).
(12) [jo (CD)sale-parhai] Aamirus CD-ko khari:d-ega:
RelCD sale-on be.PrsAamir DemCD-Accbuy-Fut.MSg
AamirwillbuytheCDthatisonsale.
(Lit.‘Which(CD)isonsale,AamirwillbuythatCD.’)
TheheadNPin(12)isCDanditcanappearinsidetheCorrelativeclause.
ADem-XPisrequiredinthematrixclauseassociatedwithaCorrelative
clause.
(13) [jo CDsale-parhai] Aamir∗(us) (CD)ko khari:d-ega:
RelCDsale-on be.PrsAamir DemCD Accbuy-Fut.MSg
AamirwillbuytheCDthatisonsale.
(Lit.‘WhichCDisonsale,Aamirwillbuy∗(that)(CD).’)
Nosuchrequirement holdsofEnglish-type Relativeclauses(cf.11).8
PerhapsthemoststrikingdifferencebetweenCorrelativesandEnglish-
typeRelativeClausesisthefactthataCorrelativeclausecancontainmore
than one relative pronoun (cf. 10). This is not possible with English-type
8 Thereare somesystematic exceptions totheDem-XP requirement on Correlatives.
If theDP associated withtheCorrelativeclause ismodified by, or is,sab/dono/ti:nõ/...
494 RAJESHBHATT
Relative clauses, irrespective of whether they are extraposed or not (cf.
14).9
(14)a. Extraposed English-type Relativeclause
∗[us lar.ki:-nei us lar.ke-koj pasandki-yaa] [jis-nei jis-koj
Demgirl-Erg Demboy-Acc like do-Pfv Rel-ErgRel-Acc
dekh-aa]
see-Pfv
∗Thatgirllikedthatboy,whosawwhom.
b. Non-extraposed English-type RelativeClause
impossible toconstruct
‘all/both/all-three/...’ (but not do/kuchh/adhiktam ‘two/some/most’), then it need not
containademonstrative.
(i) [jo laRkiyã:khaRii hE˜] [sab/dono/∗do/∗kuchhlambiihE˜]
Relgirls standing.Fbe.Prs.Plall/both/two/some tall.F be.Prs.Pl
∗ ∗
Thegirlswhoarestandingareall/both/ two/ sometall.
Thisexception followsfrom theanalysis proposed in thispaper –for independent reas-
ons, a Correlative Clause can form a constituent with Dem-XPs and sab/dono/ti:nõ/...
‘all/both/all-three/...’ but not with do/kuchh/adhiktam ‘two/some/most’). Thus, there is
justnowaytoderivetheoffendingcasesin(i).ItstillremainstoexplainwhyCorrelative
clausescanformaconstituentwithsab/dono‘all/both’butnotwithdo/kuchh‘two/some’.
A comment that Srivastav (1991) makes concerning Sportiche (1988)’s proposal that
floatingquantifierscontainacovertdemonstrativeseemspromising.
TherearealsocaseswheretheDem-XPthatwouldbeassociatedwiththeCorrelative
clauseisnotovertlyrepresentedinthematrixclause.
(ii) [jo CDsale-parhai] achchha: hai
RelCDsale-on be.Prsgood.MPlbe.Prs
[WhichCDisonsale]isgood.
Suchcasesarediscussedinsection5.3.
9 Thederivational linkbetweenExtraposed RelativeclausesandNon-extraposed Re-
lative Clauses is used by Dayal (1996, p. 197, fn. 5) to explain the unavailability of
Multi-HeadExtraposedRelativeclauses(cf.14a).(14a)isungrammaticalbecauseofthe
impossibilityofitssource,thecorrespondingMulti-HeadNon-extraposedRelativeclause
(cf.14b).TheexactnatureoftheoperationofExtrapositionthatrelatesembeddedRelative
clausestoextraposedRelativeclausesisnotcleartome.Butitdoesseemclearthatitis
(cid:1)
not A-scrambling, which iswhat moves Correlative clauses. Extraposition is subject to
stricterconstraints–theextrapositionhastobetoaclause-finalposition(cf.Dayal(1996,
p.154,ex.6)anditissubjecttotheRight-RoofConstraint(Ross1967)(cf.Dayal1996,
p.170).