Kayne´s (1994) raising analysis

Kayne’s (1994) analysis of RC builds on his theory of the anti-symmetry of syntax. A fundamental component of the theory is the Linear Correpondence Axiom (LCA), which determines that binary branching is the only way to build acceptable syntactic structures;

it follows that right-adjunctions are banned. Because of this modus operandi, maximal projections contain no more than three elements: a head, a complement and a specifier.

These can combine only according to the order generated by asymmetric c-command, namely the universal specifier-head-complement order.

Building on previous analysis from Schachter (1973) and Vergnaud (1974), Kayne comes to the conclusion that RCs are complements to the determiner in the relative head.

In other words, the relative head we find in the matrix clause consists of a D° that does not take an NP as a complement; rather, it takes a CP, the relative clause. The baseline structure of a RC is exemplified in (21):

(21) [DP D° CP]

128

Determiner and noun in the relative head do not form a phrase per se. Rather, the noun is initially generated within the relative clause (22a), merged either in the internal or in the external argument position (depending whether the RC to be derived is an OR or a SR), and it is subsequently extracted and re-merged in SpecCP (22b). The D-N-RC linear order is derived through this mechanism. A covert trace is left in the gap; this is still bound by the moved element.

(22) a. [DP the [CP that [IP the professor helped (the) student]]]

b. [DP the [SpecCP studenti] [CP that [IP the professor helped ti]]]]

The analysis above concerns that-RCs, namely RCs introduced by the general complementizer that, otherwise typical of declarative sentences. However, English counts a second kind of relative clauses, namely those introduced by relative pronouns of the which/who type. In this alternation, English exemplified the possible strategies found also in other languages. For example, Italian RCs are usually introduced by the general complementizer che, while their German counterparts make use of dedicated relative pronouns from the der/die/das paradigm⁴³.

Turning the attention to RCs introduced by relative pronouns, Kayne (1994) assures that this derivation is compliant with the structure exemplified above. The author claims that relative pronouns are generated within the argument in the relative clause (the internal one in the example in 22), in the position of the determiner, so that they are part of the DP moved to Spec-CP. Finally, the ultimate linear order is achieved through a further sub-extraction of the Noun from the moved DP (23c), while the first part of the derivation takes place according to an identical procedure, independently of the presence of a that-complementizer (22) or of a relative pronoun (23):

(23) a. [DP the [CP C° [IP the professor helped [DP who student]]]]

b. [DP the [SpecCP [DPwho student]i [CP C° [IP the professor helped ti]]]]

c. [DP the [SpecCP student [DP who tk]i [CP C° [IP the professor helped ti]]]]

43 This is just a generalization given that Italian disposes of relative pronouns (quale/cui) in use in indirect ORs and in non-restrictive RCs, while some varieties of German use the uninflected complementizer wo for RCs.

129

Although Kayne’s (1994) proposal can account for a variety of phenomena (among these the derivation of noun-final RC found in languages like Amharic⁴⁴), it is not immune from critiques. Borsley (1997) points out a few issues, which, in his view, are left unexplained by Kayne (1994) and require a certain machinery to be accommodated. In particular, the author focuses on the role of the determiner internal to the relative clause and wonders what its form and role are when it is not realized as a relative pronoun. He also wonders what triggers the movement of the head NP outside of the DP in order to reach the SpecCP position. A third issue arises from the observation of languages endowed with case morphological markers (German, for instance): in these, the relative head is marked for the case assigned in the matrix clause, rather than the one in the RC: a circumstance that speaks in disfavor of the raising analysis (and is actually one of the strong points used by supporters of the matching analysis). Answers to these (and other) questions are provided by Bianchi (1999) and De Vries (2002), who refine their initial hypotheses by building on Kayne (1994) in order to achieve the explanation of a wider range of phenomena.

With regards to Borsley`s (1997) first point, Bianchi (1999) assumes the idea that all NPs are actually computed as DPs, in which the determiner can be optionally null (Longobardi, 1994). In other words, bare NPs are not admitted and nouns enter the derivation only in the form of DPs, in which the determiner is eventually present, but silent. That is precisely the case of the derivation exemplified in (22) above. Moreover, it is claimed that the silent D that raises to SpecCP, is further incorporated and licensed by the determiner in the matrix clause that selects the RC. In Bianchi’s view, incorporation and deletion of the internal D° are allowed due to the fact that the two Ds, the internal and the external one, share their feature arrays (except for case).

Concerns regarding the actual trigger of the movements required to derive RCs are solved through the assumption of a system of features at work. Bianchi (1999) proposes that the internally-generated DP is endowed with a [+Rel] feature (which stays for

“relative clause”), and is therefore attracted to the CP layer of the clause in order to satisfy the Relative Criterion. The final step, namely the sub-extraction of the noun from the raised DP, is also justified by the necessity to satisfy a selectional requirement. The external D° is indeed characterized by an N-selectional feature, which is not satisfied by

44 Ahmaric has RCs with the following linear order: RC-D-N. According to Kayne (1994), they are derived through movement of the relative clause to SpecDP, above the Determiner that initially selects it.

130

the merged CP. Thus, it is necessary that the noun raises out of the CP in order to enter the minimal domain of D° and satisfy its selectional requirement for a [+N] feature.

The answer to Borsley’s third issue builds on Giusti’s (1993) proposal: D° is the element to be marked for case, while N° is not; N° tends to inherit case-marking morphology from the D° it is selected by. Under this assumption, it is therefore easy to explain why the head noun, per se not marked for any case, takes the case markers of the external D°, precisely the last determiner it is selected by. Under this view, the idea that head nouns are externally generated based on the observation that they are marked by the case assigned in the matrix clause, does not hold anymore. In contrast, a raising analysis is perfectly suitable.

The opposition between the raising and the matching analyses has been around for a few decades, until a new proposal tried to reconcile the dichotomy between the two positions. In Cinque’s (2008, 2014) proposal, the derivation of a relative clause implies the initial merge of both an external and an internal head noun and can imply both a raising or a matching procedure, depending on the language at stake. Details of the proposals are provided in the following section.