5.2 Relative Clauses
5.2.2 Sag (1997)
the empty relativizers can be replaced by surface constructions which are organized in a multiple inheritance hierarchy. His analysis is presented in the following section.
CHAPTER 5. RELATIVE CLAUSES IN HPSG 108 are not main clauses (expressed as [M(AIN) C(CLAUSE) –]), that (ii) they block auxiliary inversion ([INV –]), that (iii) they modify a nominal constituent, and that (iv) they denote a proposition.14
(196) rel-cl⇒
HEAD
MC –
INV –
MOD
h
HEAD noun i
CONTENT proposition
These constraints are inherited by eight different specific phrasal types for relative clauses.
Sag distinguishes between wh-relative clauses and non-wh-relative clauses, for which he in-troduces the types wh-rel-cl and non-wh-rel-cl, respectively, as immediate subtypes of rel-cl.
In contrast to Pollard and Sag (1994), he does not make a distinction between that as a com-plementizer (as in (191c)) and that as a relative pronoun (as in (191d)), but rather treats all these occurrences of that as relative pronouns, similar to wh-relative words. This view is based on Hudson (1990, 396) and supported by the fact that that-relatives, in contrast to bare relatives, may be coordinated with wh-relatives, and that in some dialects relative that allows a possessive form (Sag, 1997, 463). Consequently, that-relatives are classified as wh-relative clauses.
The constraint for the type wh-rel-cl is shown in (197). It requires that the non-head daughter of the wh-relative clause must have aRELvalue containing an index that is identical to the index of the relative clause’sMOD value. Note that theREL value is introduced by a relative word through structure-sharing the relative word’sINDEX value with itsREL value, and it may percolate up the tree to the non-head daughter of the relative clause.15 Since the
MODvalue will be further identified with the NP that the relative clause modifies, it follows that the latter is coindexed with the wh-word inside the non-head daughter.
(197) wh-rel-cl⇒
HEAD
h
MOD NP1i
NON-HD-DTRS
Dh
REL
n
1
oiE
Like Pollard and Sag (1994), Sag (1997) distinguishes between subject wh-relative clauses and non-subject wh-relative clauses. The former are analyzed as head-subject struc-tures; they are instances of the type wh-subj-rel-cl, which is a subtype of both wh-rel-cl and hd-subj-ph.16 The latter are analyzed as head-filler structures, which are divided into the
14As in Sag (1997), the attribute value matrices shown in this section are simplified in systematically omitting features likeSYNSEM,LOCALetc.
15It should be noted that nonlocal feature inheritance is treated differently than in Pollard and Sag (1994).
The featuresINHERIT and TO-BIND are eliminated, and the Nonlocal Feature Principle is replaced by the following mechanisms: words amalgamate theSLASH,REL, andQUEvalues of their arguments, and the in-heritance of these features is governed by two distinct constraints on the phrasal type hd-nexus-ph, theSLASH
Inheritance Principle and the Wh-Inheritance Principle.
16More precisely, Sag (1997) introduces a subtype fin-hd-subj-ph of hd-subj-ph, which is the immediate supertype of wh-subj-rel-cl. The constraint associated with this new type requires that the phrase be headed by a finite verb.
two subvarieties finite and infinitival. These are treated in terms of two distinct subtypes of the type hd-fill-ph, namely fin-hd-fill-ph and inf-hd-fill-ph. Finite non-subject wh-relative clauses are then treated as instances of the type fin-wh-fill-rel-cl, which inherits from the supertypes wh-rel-cl and fin-hd-fill-ph, while infinitival wh-relatives are instances of the type inf-wh-fill-rel-cl, which is a subtype of wh-rel-cl and inf-hd-fill-ph. The multiple inheritance type hierarchy of phrases describing English wh-relative constructions is shown in Figure 5.1.17
rel-cl hd-nexus-ph
hd-subj-ph fin-hd-subj-ph wh-rel-cl
wh-subj-rel-cl hd-fill-ph
fin-hd-fill-ph
fin-wh-fill-rel-cl inf-hd-fill-ph
inf-wh-fill-rel-cl
Figure 5.1: Phrasal type hierarchy for wh-relative constructions (Sag, 1997, 464) For non-wh-relative clauses, Sag introduces the type non-wh-rel-cl, which is restricted by the following constraint:
(198) non-wh-rel-cl⇒
HEAD
h
MOD N′1i
SLASH {}
HD-DTR
h
SLASH
n NP1oi
Note that this constraint requires non-wh-relative clauses to modify N′ constituents, i.e., nominal projections with a non-empty SPR value, rather than specifier-saturated NP con-stituents as required for wh-relatives.18Sag (1997, 465–468) motivates this analysis by point-ing out that bare relatives, which are a subtype of non-wh-relatives, must precede wh-relative clauses when they both appear in the same sentence:
17Note that among the headed phrases, Sag draws a distinction between the types head-adjunct-phrase (hd-adj-ph) and head-nexus-phrase (hd-nexus-ph), the latter being broken down into the four subtypes hd-fill-ph, hd-comp-ph, hd-subj-ph, and hd-spr-ph, in order to account for the different semantic combinatorics in these phrases. The constraint on the type hd-nexus-ph identifies theCONTENTvalue of the phrase with theCONTENT
value the head daughter. The constraints on the type hd-adj-ph are shown further down below.
18Sag (1997, 467) adopts this idea from Weisler (1980).
CHAPTER 5. RELATIVE CLAUSES IN HPSG 110 (199) a. The only person [I like _ ] [whose kids Dana is willing to put up with _ ] is Pat.
b. * The only person [whose kids Dana is willing to put up with _ ] [I like _ ] is Pat.
This constituent order follows automatically from the assumption that non-wh-relatives are adjoined to N′, while wh-relatives must adjoin to NP. Further independent support is given by the fact that wh-relatives, but not bare relatives, may modify nominal phrases that do not have an obvious internal structure consisting of a specifier and an N′:
(200) a. [Who [who/that you like _ ]] does Sandy also like?
b. * [Who [you like _ ]] does Sandy also like?
However, since bare relatives may modify expressions like someone, everything, and nothing, Sag (1997, 468n39) is forced to treat such expressions as NPs with an internal structure (e.g., some one). While this is conceivable for the cases mentioned, it is difficult to see how an expression like none, which may also be modified by a bare relative, would be analyzed with an internal structure. In Chapter 7.3.2 (page 181), I will discuss this problem and provide further evidence that challenges Sag’s claim that the different relative clause constructions have distinct adjunction sites.
The other constraints in (198) require that theSLASHvalue of the head daughter be bound off in phrases of type non-wh-rel-cl. Since the NP in thisSLASH value is coindexed with the
MOD value, it follows that the gap inside a non-wh-relative clause is referentially linked to the head noun of the modified nominal.
The type non-wh-rel-cl has the two subtypes bare-rel-cl and simp-inf-rel-cl. Bare (or that-less) relatives are treated in terms of the former, which also inherits from the type fin-hd-subj-ph. Simple infinitival relatives belong to the latter type, which is also a subtype of the type hd-comp-ph.
Finally, Sag proposes an analysis of reduced relatives, for which he posits the type red-rel-cl, which is a subtype of both rel-cl and hd-comp-ph. Reduced relatives may adjoin to either NP or N′. The type hierarchy of phrases describing English non-wh-relative construc-tions is shown in Figure 5.2.
For the combination of relative clauses with their antecedents, Sag (1997) has to intro-duce a distinct type of construction. Relative clauses cannot simply be treated like regular adjuncts in a head-adjunct structure, as in Pollard and Sag’s (1994) analysis. The reason for this is that in Sag’s analysis, relative clauses are headed by a verb, which has verbal seman-tics (i.e., propositional content). But to combine a relative clause with a nominal projection, it must have nominal semantics (i.e., a restricted index).19 To solve this problem, Sag intro-duces a new type hd-rel-ph, which is a subtype of hd-adj-ph, and whose constraints account
19Recall that in Pollard and Sag’s (1994) analysis, the characteristic semantic properties of relative clauses, in particular that they are clauses syntactically but show nominal semantics, follow from the lexical specifications of the empty relativizer.
rel-cl hd-nexus-ph
non-wh-rel-cl hd-subj-ph
fin-hd-subj-ph
bare-rel-cl hd-comp-ph
simp-inf-rel-cl
red-rel-cl
Figure 5.2: Phrasal type hierarchy for non-wh-relative constructions (Sag, 1997, 473) for the correct semantic composition in head-relative phrases. As shown in (201), the con-straints of the type hd-adj-ph ensure that in all head-adjunct phrases, theMOD value of the non-head daughter is identified with theSYNSEMvalue of the head daughter. The constraints on hd-rel-ph, shown in (202), require that theCONTENT value of a head-relative phrase be a restricted index whose restriction set is constructed by adding the propositional content of the relative clause into the restriction set of the head daughter.20
(201) hd-adj-ph⇒
HD-DTR
h
SYNSEM 1
i
NON-HD-DTRS
Dh
HEAD
h
MOD 1
iiE
(202) hd-rel-ph⇒
HEAD noun
CONT
INDEX 2 RESTR 3 ⊎n
4
o
HD-DTR
"
INDEX 2 RESTR 3
#
NON-HD-DTRS
Dh
CONT 4 proposition iE
Sag’s (1997) approach is criticized by Müller (2007, 196–197) for being in conflict with the basic assumption of HPSG, based on De Saussure (1916), that signs should be pairs of form and meaning. Thus, a relative clause has a specific syntactic structure that corresponds to the specific meaning of a relative clause. In Sag’s analysis, however, the meaning of the relative clause corresponds to the meaning of the verb, and the specific meaning of the relative clause is only arrived at when the relative clause combines with the nominal. The same issue is raised by Kiss (2005, 290n13).
20The symbol “⊎” is used to designate set union, which is like familiar set union, except that its result is undefined if its set arguments are not disjoint.
CHAPTER 5. RELATIVE CLAUSES IN HPSG 112 A further point of criticism is that by itself, Sag’s (1997) analysis does not account for ex-traposed relative clauses. The constraints on the various relative clause constructions require the relative clauses to adjoin to NP or N′, respectively, and the constraints on hd-rel-ph that account for the semantic composition of the meaning of the relative clause and the mean-ing of the modified nominal require the two to be realized as syntactic sisters. However, an extraposed relative clause is adjoined in a position non-adjacent to its antecedent.
This problem is solved by Kiss (2005). He develops an interesting alternative analysis, the theory of Generalized Modification, which allows a relative clause to adjoin to any kind of constituent, not just a nominal projection, as long as the phrase contains a noun that can be modified by the relative clause. The head noun itself thus constitutes the minimal domain of adjunction. In contrast to the theories proposed by Pollard and Sag (1994) and Sag (1997), this theory requires only one licensing schema for the adjunction of relative clauses in both canonical and extraposed position. While Kiss makes use of Pollard and Sag’s (1994) syntactic analysis of relative clauses, I will show in Chapter 7, where I introduce a further development of Kiss’ approach, that the theory of Generalized Modification is also compatible with a construction-based analysis of the internal structure of relative clauses as proposed by Sag (1997).
I will present the theory of Generalized Modification developed by Kiss (2005) in the following section. The section starts with a summary of two further approaches to relative clause extraposition that have been proposed in HPSG, a linearization-based approach and an analysis of extraposition in terms of a nonlocal dependency.