Aldridge (2003) - Remnant Movement in Tagalog Relative Clause Formation
Aldridge (2003) - Remnant Movement in Tagalog Relative Clause Formation
Aldridge (2003) - Remnant Movement in Tagalog Relative Clause Formation
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Linguistic Inquiry
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Squibs
and
Discussion
l The following abbreviations are used in the glosses in this squib: ABS
= absolutive, AP = antipassive, APP = applicative, CAUS = causative, ERG
= ergative, LK = linker, NOM = nominative, OBL = oblique, P = preposition,
PERF = perfective, RED = reduplication.
631
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
632 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 633
The adjunct analysis would have difficulty accounting for this word
order, since the relative head, not the PP, would be predicted to be in
final position. The TP-fronting analysis, on the other hand, can provide
a straightforward account of the word order. First the PP can be scram-
bled. Then the head NP can move into Spec,CP and the remnant TP
can front to Spec,DP.
(13) [CP[NP candy] [xp[pp to child] [TP gave woman tNp tpp]]]
(14) [DP[TP gave woman tNp tpp] [CP[NP candy] [xp[pp to child]
tTP]]]
In what follows, I show that this type of stranding is possible just when
scrambling is possible, strongly supporting the TP-fronting analysis of
prehead relative clauses.
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
634 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION
(22) [DP[TP gave woman tNp tpp] [CP[NP candy] [xp[pp to child]
tTp]]]
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 635
head is, correctly, the absolutive nominal of the clause, the goal bata
'child' being licensed by the applicative suffix on the verb. The only
difference is that in (23) the scrambled XP is the oblique object kendi
'candy' and not a PP. The inability of obliques to undergo scrambling
can straightforwardly account for the ungrammaticality.
(24) *[DP[TP gave woman tNp tDp] [CP[NP child] [XPLDP candy]
tTP]]]
(28) [TP plan [XP[TP study at UP] [vP Maria [vP tplan tTP]]I]
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
636 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION
The PP can also be stranded when the TP moves to the matrix clause.
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 637
This indicates that relative clauses like (34) should not be analyzed
as head-internal relative clauses, since a nonmovement analysis can-
not account for the grammaticality distinctions in the different cases
of stranding.
A further point to be made here is that Tagalog does, in fact,
have internally headed relative clauses, and they differ structurally
from head-final relatives. First, the head occupies a different position,
appearing between the verb and the agent.
The fact that internally headed relative clauses like (37) and (38)
are grammatical indicates that TP-fronting is not involved in their
derivation. This is because the TP-fronting analysis would force the
ergative and oblique arguments to scramble out of the clause, which
would result in ungrammaticality. Elsewhere (Aldridge 2002a), I have
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
638 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION
(41) [cP OPi [TP bought [jFp booki [vP Maria [vP tbought tb.k]]l]]
6 Conclusion
References
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 639
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
640 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION
NOTES ON LONG ADVERBIAL The purpose of this squib is to show that in addition to the genera
FRONTING IN ENGLISH AND THE accepted distinction between fronted adjuncts and fronted argumen
LEFT PERIPHERY we need to introduce a further distinction between fronted adjun
Liliane Haegeman resulting from long-distance movement and those resulting from sho
Universite' Charles de distance movement (hereafter, short and long fronted adjuncts). It tu
Gaulle-Lille III out that, distributionally, long fronted adjuncts are in many respec
UMR 8258 SILEX du CNRS more like fronted arguments than like short fronted adjuncts. I will
first show the need for making this distinction on the basis of English
data and then provide some comparative data in support.
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Fri, 18 May 2018 10:20:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms