Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T23:10:16.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resumptive Restrictive Relatives: A Crosslinguistic Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Margarita Suñer
Margarita Suñer*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
*
Department of Linguistics Morrill Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 [ms24@comell.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the aims of linguistic theory is to account for language variation. This article contributes to that objective by examining resumptive restrictive relative clauses crosslinguistically. The major claims are (1) the core-grammar distinction between conventional and resumptive restrictive relatives is due to the feature composition of the relative complementizer; (2) the prohibition against pied-piping that some languages adhere to correlates with the lack of lexical relative pronouns; (3) particular grammars need to accommodate language-specific properties such as preferences for which elements may, must, or cannot acquire a phonological matrix; and (4) resumptive pronouns which appear in relatives in the absence of an island are inserted at PF for other than interpretive reasons.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , June 1998, pp. 335 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Barrenechea, Ana M., and Orecchia, Teresa. 1970. La duplicación de objectos directos e indirectos en el español hablado en Buenos Aires. Romance Philology 24. 58–83.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1995. Consequences of antisymmetry for the syntax of headed relative clauses. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore dissertation.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in modem Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 219–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio, and Brucart, José M. 1991. QP raising in Spanish superlatives. Madrid & Barcelona: Complutense de Madrid & Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona, ms.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1968. A new analysis of the relative clause: Evidence for an interpretive theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Brucart, José M. 1992. Some asymmetries in the functioning of relative pronouns in Spanish. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics. 113-44.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google 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: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T. Berlin: de Gruyter. (Reprinted in Chomsky 1995)Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1991. On resumptive pronouns. Current studies in Spanish linguistics, ed. by Campos, H. and Martínez-Gil, F., 143–63. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, Janet. 1967. Determiners and relative clauses. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1986. Predication and passive. Generative studies in Spanish syntax, ed. by Bordelois, I., Contreras, H., and Zagona, K., 51–66. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1990. Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1982. On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas Linguistic Forum 19. 1–48.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extraction. Linguistics 23. 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitas, Leslie, and Noonan, Maire. 1991. Head movement, agreement, and negation in Welsh relatives. Chicago Linguistic Society 27(2). 47–64.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1996. The proper analysis of ‘missing-P’ in the free relative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 257–93.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 1992. Gothic relative clauses and syntactic theory. On Germanic linguistics: Issues and methods, ed. by Rauch, I., Carr, G. F., and Kyes, R. L. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the theory of definiteness. Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, ed. by Bäuerle, R., Schwartze, C., and von Stechow, A., 164–89. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kany, Charles. 1963. American-Spanish syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Tammy, and Whitman, John. 1995. The category of relative clauses in Japanese, with reference to Korean. Journal of Asian Linguistics 4. 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1986. A note on long extraction in Vata and the ECP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 357–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1990. Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1. 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Stowell, Tim. 1991. Weakest-cross-over. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 686–720.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 609–65.Google Scholar
Lope Blanch, Juan M. 1984. Despronominalización de los relativos. Hispanic Linguistics 1. 257–72.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Emilio. 1971. El español de hoy: Lengua en ebullición. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A’-binding, and levels of representation in Irish. Syntax and semantics, vol. 23: The syntax of modem Celtic languages, ed. by Hendrick, Randall, 199–248. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. Modem studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar, ed. by Reibel, D. A. and Schane, S. A., 201–24. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1990. Syntax and discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns. Berkeley Linguistics Society 16. 482–97.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Marathon. 1956 [1896]. A textbook of modern Spanish. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Española, Real Academia. 1973. Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1994. Early null subjects and root null subjects. Binding, dependencies and learnability, ed. by Lust, Barbara, Hermon, Gabriella, and Kornfilt, Jaklin, 249–72. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1995. The fine structure of the left-periphery. University of Geneva, ms.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa. 1988. Welsh syntax: A government-binding approach. New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49. 19–46.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Binding resumptive pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 261–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 443–68.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert, Schachter, Paul; and Partee, Barbara. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Strozer, Judith. 1976. Clitics in Spanish. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 391–434.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1990. Impersonal se passives and the licensing of empty categories. Probus 2. 209–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1991. Two properties of clitics in clitic-doubled constructions. Logical structure and linguistic structure, ed. by James Huang, C.-T. and May, Robert, 233–51. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1995a. Neg-elements, island effects, and resumptive no. Linguistic Review 12. 233–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1995b. Restrictive relative clauses in Caracas Spanish. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, ms.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1995c. Conventional and restrictive relative clauses: A crosslinguistic perspective. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, ms.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Engdahl, Elisabet; and Maling, Joan. 1981. Resumptive pronouns can be syntactically bound. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 679–82.Google Scholar