Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T04:24:04.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English relativization and certain related problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

S.-Y. Kuroda
S.-Y. Kuroda*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is claimed that what and which, both as interrogatives and as relatives, are derived from the same underlying representations, wh + some and wh + that, respectively. It is assumed that, in the basic form of relativization, the two occurrences of the noun modified by a relative clause, in the matrix and the constituent sentences, may take different determiners. Indeed, all of the four possible ways of distributing the two basic determiners in the matrix and the constituent sentences are claimed to be realized in certain types of relativization. A transformation called Definitization which transforms indefinite determiners into definite ones is substantiated in the course of the argument. Some considerations of semantic character are also added.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 44 , Issue 2-Part1 , June 1968 , pp. 244 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Annear, Sandra S. 1965. English and Mandarin Chinese: definite and indefinite determiners and modifying clause structures. Project on Linguistic Analysis, Report 11, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. (Janua linguarum, 38.) The Hague, Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Curme, George Oliver. 1931. A grammar of English: syntax. Boston, D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A modern English grammar, part III. London, George Allen & Unwin; Copenhagen, Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Postal, Paul M.. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964a. Relatedness between grammatical systems. Lg. 40.1–20.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964b. Negation in English. The structure of language: readings in the philosophy of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., 246–323.Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall .Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965a. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965b. A note on English relativization (mimeographed).Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1966. A transformational syntax of French. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1916. A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen, P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar