This paper discusses the syntax of relative clauses in European Portuguese (EP) by focussing on the status of the relativizer
In EP, the relativizer
(1)
a.
Havia
there.was
uma
a
azenha
watermill
tinha
had
duas
two
rodas.
wheels
‘There was a watermill that had two wheels.’
b.
A
the
comida
food
se
fazia
made
antigamente,
formerly,
se
dava
gave
para
to
os
the
porcos
pigs
era:…
was
‘The food that was made formerly and that was given to the pigs was the following: …’
(2)
a.
Brito & Duarte (
O
the
cão
dog
to
fizeste
you.did
festas
caresses
fugiu.
fled
‘The dog that you caressed fled.’
b.
Veloso (
O
the
país
country
in
eu
I
vivi
lived
mais
more
tempo
time
foi
was
o
the
Japão.
Japan
‘The country in which I lived most time was Japan.’
(3)
a.
Veloso (
A
the
Ana,
Ana
está
is
sempre
always
a
to
chatear-me
annoy-me
não
not
me
me
escreve.
writes
‘Ana, who always annoys me, doesn’t write me.’
b.
Eu
I
tenho
have
o
the
meu
my
neto,
nephew
um
a
futuro
future
advogado,
lawyer
está
is
na
in.the
universidade.
university
‘I have my nephew, a future lawyer, who studies at the university.’
Only in a subset of these contexts, relative
(2’) | a. | O cão |
b. | O país |
(3’) | a. | A Ana, |
b. | Eu tenho o meu neto, um futuro advogado, |
With human antecedents,
(2’’)
A
the
pessoa
person
com
with
/
/
com
with
o
the
professor
professor
conversou.
talked
‘The person to whom the professor talked.’
In contrast,
(1’) | a. | *Havia uma azenha |
b. | *A comida |
Given these differences in distribution, Brito (
This paper contributes to the ongoing debate regarding the categorial status of relativizers by extending the DHR to the analysis of the European Portuguese relativizer
Since Klima (
(4) | a. | Pronominals inflect for number and/or case, complementizers do not. |
b. | Pronominals can be selected by prepositions, complementizers cannot. | |
c. | Pronominals are sensitive to animacy, complementizers are not. |
In this spirit, Kayne (
(5)
a.
Les
the
livres
books
de
of
J.-P.,
J.-P.
lira
will.read
tous,
all
sont
are
três
very
bons.
good
‘J.-P.’s books, that she will all read, are very good.’
b.
Je
I
sais
know
que
that
Jean
Jean
est
is
là.
there
‘I know that Jean is there.’
As already mentioned in section 1, Brito (
According to Brito (
Brito’s (
Poletto & Sanfelici (
(6)
Poletto & Sanfelici (
a.
I
the
jogn
boy
dij
says
mangia
eats
massa
too.much
ćern.
meat
‘The boy says that he eats too much meat.’
b.
La
the
ëra
lady
te
ás
has
encunté
met
ennier
yesterday
ćianta
sings
pal
for.the
cor.
chorus
‘The lady you met yesterday sings in the chorus.’
c.
I
the
jogn
boys
laora a Milan va vigne dé
work in Milan go every day
con la ferata.
with the train
‘The boys that work in Milan take the train every day.’
d.
La
the
Talia,
Italy
à
has
les
the
leges
laws
dër
very
rigoroses,
rigorous
prodüj
produces
le
the
miù
best
ere
oil
d’orì.
of’olive
‘Italy, that has very strict laws, produces the best olive oil.’
e.
Tö,
you
manges
you.eat
vigne
each
dé
day
ćern,
meat
cumpres
you.buy
püćia
less
ordöra.
vegetable
‘You, who eat meat every day, buy few vegetables.’
In contrast,
(7)
Poletto & Sanfelici (
Haverno
they.have
facte
done
cose
things
mai
never
tenarono
they.tried
fare.
to.do
‘They did things that they never tried to do.’
Poletto & Sanfelici (
In the next section, we turn our attention to the Determiner Hypothesis of Relativizers (DHR).
Although the relativizer
Several authors explicitly argue in favour of an analysis of relative elements in terms of determiners. Manzini & Savoia (
(8) | Manzini & Savoia ( |
|||||||
a. | fai? | [che x [fai (x)]] | ||||||
you.do | ||||||||
‘What are you doing?’ | ||||||||
b. | camicia | hanno | portato? | [che x [camicia (x)]] | ||||
shirt | they.have | worn | ||||||
‘What shirt did they wear?’ | ||||||||
c. | Mi | hanno | detto | vieni | domani. | [che x [x: vieni domani]] | ||
me | they.have | said | you.come | tomorrow | ||||
‘They told me that you will come tomorrow.’ | ||||||||
d. | Sono | quelli | chiamo | sempre. | ||||
they.are | those | I.call | always | |||||
‘They are the ones that I always call.’ |
The authors argue that (8d) can be analysed in a parallel fashion. They assume that the relativizer
Kayne (
(9) | Kayne ( |
|
a. | *the book |
|
b. | *the person |
Kayne (
(10) | Kayne ( |
|
a. | *Your oldest friend, |
|
b. | Your last paper, *(? |
Hence, there are contexts in which
(11) | Kayne ( |
|||
a. | book | |||
b. | bel | libro! | ||
what | beautiful | book | ||
‘What a beautiful book!’ |
Kato & Nunes (
Bianchi (
Kato & Nunes (
(12)
Kato & Nunes (
a.
Que
which
livro
book
compraste?
you.bought
‘Which book did you buy?’
b.
Que
what
coisa!
thing
‘Gee!’
The arguments given in section 2.1 and 2.2 in favour of the DHR can easily be transferred to the relativizer
First, as we have seen, the fact that
(13)
Veloso (
a.
O
the
idiota
idiot
to
emprestei
I.lent
esse
that
livro…
book
b.
O
the
idiota
idiot
to
emprestei
I.lent
esse
that
livro…
book
both: ‘The idiot to whom I lent that book…’
In this sense, EP
Second, the diachrony of
“The elimination of the categories Case, Gender and Number which took place in the Relative/Interrogative pronoun system in the evolution from VL to Portuguese led the QUE to be interpreted as an unmarked form, a merging of forms that were contrastive in Latin. QUE is the Portuguese primary Relative pronoun, independent of its double origin, Subject QUE having originated from the Nom., QUI and QUE in other syntactic functions from the Accusative.” (
According to Cohen (
Third, coming back to the synchronic similarities between interrogative and relative
It is a well-known fact from language acquisition and language processing that subject-relatives are strongly preferred over object relatives (
In our corpus study (cf.
(14)
a.
É
is
um
a
carneiro
mutton
que
já
already
está
is
capado.
castrated
‘It is a mutton that is already castrated.’
b.
Isto
this
era
was
uma
a
terra
land
que
dá
gives
produto.
product
‘This was a fertile land.’
In (14a, b) the head noun is an indefinite DP complement of a presentational clause. The relative pronoun
Fourth,
(15)
a.
Kato & Nunes (
Ele
he
sempre
always
cita
cites
um
a
livro,
book,
book
this
que
na
in.the
verdade
reality
não
not
existe.
exists
‘He always cites a book which in reality does not exist.’
b.
Veloso (
O
the
constituinte
constituent
relativo
relative
que
contém
contains
que
(
(constituent
this,
as
saw
can
consist
only
in.the
pronoun
é
is
aquele
that.
que
aceita
accepts
maior
bigger
diversidade
diversity
de
of
contextos
contexts
no
in.the
que
respeita
concerns
à
to.the
sua
its
função
function
dentro
inside
da
of.the
oração
clause
relativa.
relative
‘The relative constituent which contains
Fifth, it has been noted that demonstratives have an influence on the interpretation of a relative clause, if the two are combined in a noun phrase. In particular, in a noun phrase containing a demonstrative determiner, a relative clause cannot be interpreted as restrictive. Restrictive relative clauses contribute to the identification of the referent by restricting the scope of the head noun. The interpretation of a noun phrase modified by a restrictive relative clause can be described as an intersection of the set denoted by the restrictive relative clause and the set denoted by the head noun (
The incompatibility of demonstratives and restrictive relative clauses can be illustrated on the basis of anaphoric resolution. Fabricius-Hansen (
(16)
Context: In 2012, 200 candidates applied for the job.
a.
A
the
comissão
commission
convidou
invited
{
these
candidatos}
candidates
={-
=-them
para
for
um
a
workshop
workshop
(#mas
#but
não
not
todos
all
os
the
candidatos).
candidates
‘The commission invited {
b.
{A
the
comissão
commission
convidou
invited
{
these
candidatos,
candidates
were of Portugal
={-
=them
para
for
um
a
workshop
workshop
(#mas
#but
não
not
todos
all
os
the
candidatos).
candidates
‘The commission invited {
c.
{A
the
comissão
commission
convidou
invited
{os
the
candidatos
candidates
were of Portugal
≠{-
para
for
um
a
workshop
workshop
(OK:
OK:
mas
but
não
not
todos
all
os
the
candidatos).
candidates
‘The commission invited {the candidates that were from Portugal}
In the context given in example (16), anaphoric resolution necessarily leads to the same result for the non-modified (16a) and the DP modified by a relative clause (16b). In (16c), where the noun phrase is modified by a relative clause and introduced by a definite article, anaphoric resolution may yield a different result for the modified and the non-modified DP (subset relation). Hence, in the presence of a demonstrative determiner that establishes referentiality (16b), anaphoric resolution yields the same result for the modified DP as well as for its unmodified counterpart. In these cases, the relative clause cannot be interpreted as being restrictive.
This can also be shown on the basis of examples like (17a–b). In general, restrictive relative clauses can both occur in the indicative and in the subjunctive mood, whereas appositive relative clauses are incompatible with a subjunctive. The examples show that, as soon as the head noun combines with a demonstrative, a subjunctive is excluded.
(17)
a.
Procuro
I.look.for
uma
a
secretária
secretary
que
saiba
knows.
inglês.
English
‘I’m looking for a secretary that should know English.’
b.
Procuro
I.look.for
uma
a
secretária
secretary
que
sabe
knows.
inglês.
English
‘I’m looking for a secretary that knows English.’
c.
*Procuro
I.look.for
esta
this
secretária
secretary
que
saiba
knows.
inglês.
English.
Demonstratives and restrictive relative clauses seem to share common features as can also be illustrated on the basis of the following observation: both demonstratives and restrictive relative clauses are incompatible with a generic interpretation. In the examples (18b, c), the sentence cannot refer to
(18)
a.
Os
the
gatos
cats
gostam
like
de
of
leite.
milk
‘Cats like milk.’
b.
Estes
these
gatos
cats
gostam
like
de
of
leite.
milk
‘These cats like milk.’
c.
Os
the
gatos
cats
que
vivem
live
no
in.the
nosso
our
jardim
garden
gostam
like
de
of
leite.
milk
‘The cats that live in our garden like milk.’
The incompatibility of demonstratives and restrictive relative clauses within one and the same DP as well as the similar effect they trigger with respect to generic interpretations show that both share common features. This indicates in our view that both are introduced in the same position within the DP spine. Based on the assumption that restrictive relative clauses (in contrast to appositive relative clauses) as well as demonstratives are merged in a low structural position in the DP spine (cf.
It has to be admitted that there are cases in which the demonstrative can be associated with a relative clause that is not clearly appositive. One such case is reported by Kleiber (
(19)
Kleiber (
Tu
you
te
souviens
remember
de
of
ce
this
professeur
teacher
qui
ne
not
donnait
he.gave
que
but
de
of
bonnes
good
notes?
grades
‘Do you remember that teacher that only gave good grades?’
According to Birkner (
(20)
Adapted from Birkner (
Oder
or
kennste
you.know
diese
these
Typen
guys
die
auf
on
diesem
this
Boot
boat
immer
always
reisen
they.travel
da.
there
‘Or do you know the kind of guys that always travel on this kind of boot?’
Crucially, the demonstrative in (19) or (20) does not correspond to the prototypical interpretation of the demonstrative: it has neither an anaphoric nor a deictic interpretation and serves as a kind of discourse marker. In our view, such examples do not represent counterexamples to the general incompatibility of demonstratives and restrictive relative clauses.
The fact that demonstratives can co-occur with appositive relative clauses results from the analysis of appositions: the reason is that appositions are attached at a higher structural level, outside the scope of the external D (cf.
In the previous section, we have argued that relative
(21)
a.
Demonstrative:
Li
I.read.
this
book
‘I read this book.’
b.
Interrogative:
which
book
leste?
you.read.
‘Which book did you read?’
c.
Relative:
*O
the
livro
book
book
li.
I.read.
One possibility to explain this difference would be to assume that relative
We assume that
For this kind of relativizer, we extend Cinque’s (
(22)
a.
L’unico
the.only
che
potrebbe
could
è
is
tuo
your
padre,
father
potrà,
could
credi,
you.think
perdonarci
forgive.us
per
for
quello
that
che
abbiamo
we.had
fatto?
made
‘The only one who could is your father, by whom will we ever be forgiven, you think, for what we have done?’
b.
Da
of.the
quando
when
i
the
russi
Russians
se
ne
sono
they.have
andati,
gone
non
not
si
erano
they.had
mai
never
veramente
really
integrati
integrated
con
with
la
the
popolazione,
population
la
the
pace
peace
è
is
finita.
finished
‘Since the Russians left, who had never really mixed with the population, there is no more peace.’
Cinque (
Now, interestingly, EP
(23)
a.
O
the
único
only
que
podia
could
é
is
o
the
teu
your
pai,
father
poderá,
could,
pensas
think
tu,
you,
perdoar
forgive
aquilo
that.
que
fizemos?
we.did
‘The only one who could is your father, by whom will we ever be forgiven, you think, for what we have done?’
b.
Desde
from
que
that
os
the
russos
Russians
se
foram
they.went
embora,
away
nunca
never
se
tinham
they.had
realmente
really
misturado
mixed
com
with
a
the
populaҫão,
population
a
the
paz
peace
acabou.
ended
‘Since the Russians left, who had never really mixed with the population, there is no more peace.’
Although example (23b) is judged as marginal/ungrammatical by some speakers, it seems to be the case that appositive relative clauses introduced by
(24)
a.
Veloso (
O
the
constituinte
constituent
relativo
relative
que
contém
contains
que
(
(constituent
this,
as
saw
can
consist
only
in.the
pronoun
é
is
aquele
that
que
aceita
accepts
maior
more
diversidade
diversity
de
of
contextos
contexts
no
in.the
que
which
respeita
concerns
à
to.the
sua
its
função
function
dentro
inside
da
of.the
oração
clause
relativa.
relative
‘The relative constituent which contains
b.
Depois
after
fica
stays
aquele
that
bocadinho
bit
de
of
cabedal,
leather
in.the
bottom
is
for
to.put
there
the
little.stone
‘Afterwards there is that little bit of leather left, at the bottom, which is for putting there the little stone.’
One possible interpretation of these facts is that Portuguese also disposes of two types of non-restrictive relative clauses, but the status of relative
(25)
a.
*La
the
ragazza
girl
con
with
ho
I.have
parlato
spoken
ieri.
yesterday
b.
La
the
ragazza
girl
con
with
ho
I.have
parlato
spoken
ieri.
yesterday
‘The girl to which I spoke yesterday.’
As shown above, EP
(26)
a.
Falei
I.spoke
[com
with
este].
this
‘I talked to this one.’
b.
Nunca
never
tinha
I.had
visto
seen
antes
before
o
the
homem
man
[[
com
with
falei].
I.spoke
‘Never before had I seen the man I talked to.’
c.
Nunca
never
tinha
I.had
visto
seen
antes
before
o
the
homem
man
[[
com
with
falei].
I.spoke
‘Never before had I seen the man I talked to.’
If
According to Kato & Nunes (
More precisely, Kato & Nunes (
(27)
a.
O
the
quadro
painting
que
ele
he
viu.
saw
‘The painting that he saw.’
b.
[DP AgrD+
In other words, relative
(28)
a.
Li
I.read.
[este
this
livro].
book
‘I read this book.’
b.
[Que
which
livro]i
book
leste
you.read.
[que [livro]]i?
which book
‘Which book did you read?’
c.
Não
not
gostei
I.liked
do
of.the
livroj
book
[que
[livroj]]i
book
me
me
deste
you.gave
[que [livro]]i.
‘I didn’t like the book that you gave me.’
Both raising derivations (27a) and (27b) are unexpected given general assumptions about the DP in Romance languages. In Bianchi’s (
Nonetheless, the raising analysis has become widely accepted, primarily because it is able to account for reconstruction facts, i.e., contexts in which the head noun has to be interpreted in its argument position inside the relative clause. One famous example of a reconstruction effect is the binding of anaphors such as
(29) | Schachter ( |
The [interest in [each other]i]k [CP that [John and Mary]i showed tk] was fleeting. |
According to Principle A of the Binding Theory, anaphors like reflexives and reciprocals must be locally bound by their antecedent (
On the other hand, relative clauses also display
(30) | Salzmann ( |
the [picture of Billi] that hei likes — |
A raising analysis would predict the ungrammaticality of (30) because the R-expression
The discussion shows that the raising analysis cannot account for the whole range of reconstruction effects. Furthermore, raising is problematic regarding the interpretation of a restrictive relative clause as the intersection of two sets: a noun phrase marked by a restrictive relative clause cannot be interpreted as an intersection of the description of the noun and the relative clause if the head noun itself is part of the relative clause. Additional problems for the raising analysis are coordinated antecedents and case/theta role assignment, which we will address briefly here (cf.
(31)
a.
[O
the
homem
man
e
and
a
the
mulher]i
woman
[que__i]
foram
they.were
detidos.
arrested
‘The man and the woman who were arrested.’
b.
O
the
João
João
viu
saw
um
a
homemi
man
e
and
a
the
Maria
Maria
viu
saw
uma
a
mulherj
woman
[que__ i+j]
foram
they.were
procurados
wanted
pela
by.the
polícia.
police
‘João saw a man and Maria saw a woman who were wanted by the police.’
c.
A
the
Maria
Maria
deu
gave
um
a
beijo
kiss
[
ao
to.the
homem]
man
[
que]
te
to.you
falou
talked
na
at.the
festa.
party
‘Maria gave the man a kiss that talked to you at the party.’
In (31a–b), the relative clause refers to a coordinated head noun, i.e. the plural conjunction of two singular DPs. (31a) is an instantiation of a Link (
In (31c), the head noun and the relativized position represent different kinds of syntactic positions, and therefore bear different cases and theta roles. If the head noun were to start off as a complement of the relativizer, it should already be marked for nominative. However, once it ends up in its superficial position, it should enter in agreement with the external determiner, which is part of a dative object. Therefore, the whole derivation should crash due to case mismatch, which it does not.
Brito (
(32)
Brito (
a.
O
the
Conselho
cabinet
apresentou
presented
saudações.
greetings
Que
ninguém
nobody
já
no.longer
esperava.
expected
‘The Cabinet brought greetings. Which nobody had expected anymore.’
b.
Os
the
Portugueses,
Portuguese
aqueles
those
que
têm
they.have
dinheiro,
money
viajam
they.travel
muito.
much
‘The Portuguese, those that have money, travel a lot.’
c.
Eles
they
não
not
se
dão
they.give
bem
well
há
since
algum
some
tempo,
time
problema
problem
que
se
agravou
aggravated
desde
since
o
the
verão.
summer
‘They haven’t gotten along well since some time, a problem that has become worse since summer.’
d.
O
the
famoso
famous
político
politician
demitiu-se,
resigned-
o
the
que
chocou
shocked
o
the
país.
country
‘The famous politician resigned, which shocked the whole country.’
All of these four empirical phenomena pose serious problems for a raising account because it seems not at all clear what element exactly should be raised, and how the structure could be derived in this way.
Finally, Brito (
Concerning the analysis of EP restrictive relative clauses with
A second kind of analysis, which was proposed in order to account for the before mentioned reconstruction and non-reconstruction effects in relative clauses, is the
(33) | Salzmann ( |
the [book]i [CP [ |
In order to account for non-reconstruction effects like in (30), Sauerland (
(34) | Sauerland ( |
|
a. | Pictures of Johni which hei displays prominently are likely to be attractive ones. | |
b. | [picture of Johni]j λx which hei displays [x, |
The matching analysis also poses a number of difficulties, e.g., with respect to the licensing of idioms (cf.
(35) | Webelhuth, Bargmann & Götze ( |
Parky pulled the stringsi [RC that ti/stringsi got me the job] |
A matching analysis would assume two instances of the idiom chunk
Furthermore, the
The discussion of existing analyses leads us to believe that the head internal proposals, i.e. the raising and the matching analyses, lead to serious theoretical and empirical problems regarding both restrictive and appositive relative clauses. Therefore, we will explore a
Assuming that
(36)
O
the
livroi
book
[CP [DP
que
[NP
ei]]
C
[TPli
que e …
I.read.
‘The book that I read.’
The modification analysis resolves the problem of case assignment of the raising analysis because, syntactically, two different noun phrases are involved, which can bear different case markings, different thematic roles, and distinct syntactic functions. Semantically, only one noun phrase (the description of the head noun) is present, which identifies the reference of the empty noun phrase inside the relative clause. This guarantees that the description of the head noun and the description of the relative clause are in principle independent enough to ensure an intersective interpretation, but connected in the sense that the head noun referentially binds the empty noun phrase embedded by the relative determiner
As for the reconstruction effects, Brito (
(37)
O
the
retrato
picture
de
of
si
próprio
self
que
o
the
João
João
tirou
took
ficou
stayed
muito
very
bem.
good
‘The picture of himself that João took was very good.’
However, we believe that reconstruction effects are not problematic in this analysis because the empty noun phrase in the relativizer [DP
Assuming a modification analysis for subject and object relative clauses, we expect the relative clause itself to be attached in the spine of the DP in a similar way as other (restrictive) modifiers. We assume that this position is SpecnP or some other functional projection hosting restrictive elements between NumP and NP
(38)
O
the
livro
book
que
li.
I.read.
‘The book that I read.’
As becomes clear in (38), restrictive relative clauses are base generated pre-nominally. The superficial order Det-N-RC is achieved via obligatory head movement of the nominal to one of its functional projections, which has been argued for independently (cf.
We have argued against an analysis of relative
With respect to the derivation of relative clauses, three competing analyses are available: a raising, a matching, and a modification analysis. Since there are several theoretical and empirical problems for the raising and the matching analyses, we have argued in favour of a modification analysis. We believe that this is an adequate analysis in order to account for the derivational particularities in EP.
On the basis of an observed incompatibility of demonstratives with restrictive relative clauses, we have argued that demonstratives and relative
This work has been carried out as part of the research project “The relative clause cycle. Accounting for the variation in Italian and Portuguese relative clauses” funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG) in the framework of the research group 1783 on “Relative Clauses”, Goethe University Frankfurt.
Interestingly, in some cases, this replacement seems to be mandatory, e.g. in the case of (i), an appositive relative clause modifying a proper noun, in which the relativizer is selected by the preposition
(i) A the Ana, Ana, com with quem/ ??com with que discuto I.discuss muito’ a.lot, não not me me escreve. writes ‘Ana, with whom I argue a lot, doesn’t write me.’
This is expected if agreement, as we understand it, is an abstract syntactic operation that may or may not be morphologically visible.
According to the authors, complementizers and pronouns are quantifier-like elements that are linked to different types of classifiers. We will not go into the details of this analysis.
Unfortunately, the authors do not provide a formula for the relative clause.
This incompatibility of
(i)
a.
In fact it was Mary who/*?that got me interested in linguistics.
b.
I met somebody who/*that told me you were back.
In object cleft sentences (iia) and in object relative clauses with indefinite head nouns (iib), however,
(ii)
a.
In fact it was Mary who/?that I learned linguistics from in the first place.
b.
I met somebody that you’ve known for a long time.
This DP involves
A reviewer rightfully points out that there is no full agreement on the diachrony of complementizer
We leave aside wh-in-situ questions, which serve as so-called Echo Questions in European Portuguese.
Carvalho (
In this sense, we adopt an analysis similar to that of Brito (
Some native speakers accepted this example although they found it somehow marginal; others find it completely ungrammatical.
Note, however, that Cardoso (
For an extensive list regarding empirical problems for a raising analysis in general, but also especially for English and German, see Borsley (
We adopt Salzmann’s (
This kind of idiom licensing is also problematic for a raising analysis.
In fact, this argument only holds for DP-like strong pronouns and not for pronouns with a reduced structure (cf.
In addition, this has the desirable result that [que[e]] has been independently proposed for EP interrogative clauses by Ambar (
(i) Ambar ( a. what the Pedro gave to.the Joana b. what gave the Pedro to.the Joana
It is generally agreed that demonstratives are base generated in a low position and then move to SpecDP in order to make the specifier of a strong DP visible (
Alexandre (
Note, however, that Cinque’s (
The authors have no competing interests to declare.