Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T08:33:04.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Head Position and Internally Headed Relative Clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

David Basilico
David Basilico*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama at Birmingham
*
Department of English, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294 [arhu055@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the phenomenon of HEAD MOVEMENT in internally headed relative clauses (IHRCs). Most theorists working in a transformational framework consider the internal head to move to an external position. I show that in some cases, head movement to an external position need not take place; an internal head may move but remain within the sentence itself. I show that this movement of the head to a sentence-internal position is a consequence of (1) the quantificational nature of IHRCs and (2) the mapping hypothesis of Diesing (1990, 1992a,b).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 498 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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

Abney, Steven P. 1987. The noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika; and Partee, Barbara (eds.). 1995. Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1995a. On the absence of certain quantifiers in Mohawk. In Bach, et al., 59–80.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1995b. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew, Hale, Kenneth, Perkins, Ellavina; and Speas, Margaret. 1989. Aspects of logical form in Navajo. Studies in Athabaskan syntax, ed. by Cook, E. and Rice, K., 317–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew, Hale, Kenneth, Perkins, Ellavina; and Speas, Margaret. 1990. Logical form and barriers in Navajo. Logical form: Cross linguistic perspectives, ed. by Huang, C. T. and May, Robert, 25–47. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 1993. Quantification and locality. Tucson: University of Arizona disseration.Google Scholar
Bonneau, Jose. 1992. The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Montreal: McGill University dissertation.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George A. 1985. Internally headed relative clauses in Choctaw. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 16–24.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George A.. 1987. A'-anaphora and relative clauses. North Eastern Linguistic Society 16. 47–56.Google Scholar
Browning, Margaret. 1991. Null operator constructions. Cambridge, MA.: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences in the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from Building 20, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1987. The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 5–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Hermon, Gabriella. 1994. Is there LF wh-movement? Linguistic Inquiry 25. 239–62.Google Scholar
Culy, Christopher. 1990. The syntax of internally headed relative clauses. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1990. The syntactic roots of semantic partition. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992a. Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 353–80.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992b. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly, and Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3. 211–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David, and Brodie, Belinda. 1984. The semantics of ‘floated’ quantifiers in a transformational grammar. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 3. 75–90.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David. 1992. Derivational constraints on Ä-chain formation. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 235–60.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1995. Towards a typology of natural logic. In Bach, et al., 271–320.Google Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1973. How to tell a head when you see one: Disambiguation in Diegueño relative clauses. Linguistics Notes from La Jolla 5. 63–82.Google Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1976. A grammar of Diegueño nominals. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Case and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1987. Headless relatives and pronominal arguments: A typological survey. Native American languages and pronominal arguments, ed. by Kroeber, Paul and Moore, R. E., 136–48. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Quantification in Straits Salish. In Bach, et al., 487–540.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic interpretation. Formal methods in the study of language, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen A., Janssen, Theo M.W., and Stokhof, Martin B.J., 277–321. Amsterdam: Mathematics Centre.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. A note on long extraction in Vata and the ECP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 4–74.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. Stage level and individual level predicates. Papers on quantification, ed. By Bach, Emmon, Kratzer, Angelika and Partee, Barbara, 225–64. NSF Report. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1977. Syntactic change and SOV structure. Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. by Li, Charles N., 255–90. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire, and Muysken, Pieter. 1988. Mixed categories: Nominalization in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 1976. Mojave syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 1979. On the syntactic status of switch reference clauses: The special case of Mojave comitatives. Studies of switch reference, ed. by Munro, Pamela, 145–60. UCLA Papers in Syntax #8.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Jongh, Dick de and Stokhof, Martin, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1995. Quantificational structures and compositionality. In Bach, et al., 541–601.Google Scholar
Pinar, Pilar. 1995. N-words as Heimian variables. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Platero, Paul R. 1974. The Navajo relative clause. International Journal of American Linguistics 40. 365–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxon, Leslie. 1989. Lexical versus syntactic projection: The configurationality of Slave. Studies in Athabaskan linguistics, ed. by Cook, Eung-Do and Rice, Keren, 379–404. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastav, Veneeta. 1990. Wh dependencies in Hindi and the theory of grammar. Ithaca: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 637–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tellier, C. 1989. Head internal relatives and parasitic gaps in Mooré. Current approaches to African syntax 6, ed. by Haik, Isabelle and Tuller, Laurice, 298–318. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Thompson, Chad. 1980. A comparative study of Athabaskan relative clause structure. n.p.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Karina 1986. Generic indefinite NPs. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, ms.Google Scholar
Williamson, Janis. 1987. An indefiniteness restriction on relative clauses in Lakhota. The representation of indefinites, ed. by Reuland, E. and ter Meulen, A. G. B., 168–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar