33.1463, Review: General Linguistics; Syntax: Cinque (2020)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-1463. Mon Apr 25 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.1463, Review: General Linguistics; Syntax: Cinque (2020)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Billy Dickson
Managing Editor: Lauren Perkins
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Goldfinch, Nils Hjortnaes,
      Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson, Amalia Robinson, Matthew Fort
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Amalia Robinson <amalia at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:27:01
From: Martina Gerdts [martina.gerdts at ymail.com]
Subject: The Syntax of Relative Clauses

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36706417

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/31/31-3543.html

AUTHOR: Guglielmo  Cinque
TITLE: The Syntax of Relative Clauses
SUBTITLE: A Unified Analysis
SERIES TITLE: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2020

REVIEWER: Martina Gerdts, Universität Hamburg

SUMMARY

In the monograph “The Syntax of Relative Clauses”, Cinque aims to give a
unified analysis of relative clauses (RCs). The idea is that double-headed
structures with an external head in the main clause and an internal head in
the RC are the base structure for all RCs mentioned in this work (p. 6).
Several techniques assemble the different kinds of RCs based on the unified
structure: movement, deletion, pro-forms, raising, and matching (p. 6). These
are used variably, depending on the semantics and other properties of the
language.

Chapter 1 discusses the basis of the analysis: Cinque contradicts Kayne
(1994), who states that modifiers on the right of a head in head-initial
languages always originate somewhere else (pp. 6-7). Italian adjectives are
examples of lexical heads which originate at the right side of the head that
they are modifying, according to Cinque (p. 6). The author names the order of
syntactic elements according to their head (e.g., N[oun], V[erb], and
A[djective]) (p. 7). On the left, only one order of complements, adjuncts, and
modifiers is possible. In contrast, there are two possible orders on the right
side of the head: the one from the left and its mirrored version (p. 7). With
this chapter, Cinque lays the basis for his assumption that RCs can be base
generated postnominally.

Chapter 2 focuses on several kinds of restrictive and maximalizing RCs. Cinque
proposes that these structures derive via movement, deletion, and replacement
by a pro-form from a single double-headed structure. Cinque cites a wide range
of work on those structures in different languages, including Quechua,
English, Italian, Kombai, Hindi, and Warlpiri, and provides possible
underlying phrase structures. 

Raising is when the internal head moves to the Complementizer Phrase (CP) of
the RC, which deletes the external head. Matching is when the external head
moves to the CP, which deletes the internal head. In other words, the main
difference between raising and matching is which head moves and which head
appears overtly. Raising includes island sensitivity (p. 26). From a semantic
point of view, there needs to be reconstruction. The semantic interpretation
of the head must occur inside the RC (p. 25). The opposite is the case under
the terms of matching inside the RC (p. 36). Cinque demonstrates the
difference between raising and matching with an example from Italian. An RC
with the invariant “che” (‘that’) gives us an RC internal interpretation of
the head: “Il vestito che hai comprato non ti sta bene” (‘The suit that you
have bought does not fit you’; Cinque 1978: 35). According to Cinque, this is
not the case in “Il ragazzo con cui ho parlato” (‘the boy with whom I spoke’;
p. 38). Cinque (pp. 52-57) also presents evidence that there are structures
that include both, such as the English example, “I’m aware of the speed with
which that they work” (Tim Vickery, “BBC Radio 5” in Radford 2013: 29).

The data that best support the analysis of a double-headed structure come from
structures with two overt heads, as in Kombai (p. 90). Two examples include
“doü adiyano-no doü deyalukhe” (‘The sago that they gave is finished’; de
Vries 1993: 78) and “gana gu fali-kha ro na-gana-y-a” (‘The bush knife that
you took away is my bush knife’; de Vries 1993: 77) (p. 90). For Cinque, this
is not just evidence for the existence of double-headed structures, but also,
based on the Uniformity Principle (Chomsky 2001: 2), evidence of a universal
RC structure (p. 93). The Uniformity Principle states that unless there is
evidence otherwise, one should assume a uniform explanation (see Chomsky 2001:
2).

The Uniformity Principle is also Cinque’s argument against Chomsky’s copy
theory of movement (Chomsky 1993). In Chomsky’s framework for RCs, Cinque
would expect similar structures in RCs and wh-interrogatives. In literary
Italian, it is possible to have overtly double-headed RCs as in the following:
“Non avevate ancora trovato una sostanza dalla quale sostanza ricavare un
rimedio contro l’epilessia” (‘You have not found a substance from which
substance to obtain a remedy against epilepsy’; Cinque 1978: 88-89; see also
pp. 94, 96). However, while an overt double-headed RC can exist, this is not
the case for wh-interrogatives. Cinque shows this with the ungrammaticality of
the following Italian wh-interrogative: “*Che sostanza (dicono che) hanno
ricavato che sostanza” (‘Which substance [do they say that] they have obtained
which substance?’) (p. 96). I come back to this argument in the evaluation
part of this review.

Chapter 3 talks about how the unified analysis can represent other types of
RCs, such as finite non-restrictive, infinitival, and participial RCs, in
languages like Italian, English, Bulgarian, German, and French. As in Chapter
2, Chapter 3 discusses specific structures. In external merge positions,
Cinque observes the word and RC order of different languages and finds a way
to include RCs in his model of word order for adjectives and other parts of a
Determiner Phrase (DP); see p. 234 for the phrase structure. 
 
Chapter 4 discusses ways of realizing the internal head, including using
invariant relativizers and relative pronouns or adjectives (p. 242). Here,
Cinque refers to the techniques of realization of a double-headed structure
discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 and explains their connection. The main point of
this chapter is that the techniques used differ depending on whether the
external and internal heads are the same size (p. 242).
 
Chapter 5 explains a few puzzling structures based on the unified analysis of
the first four chapters. Similar to the previous chapters, Cinque cites
previous linguistic work on RCs in a variety of different languages.  
 
The Appendix summarizes the arguments and the linguistic literature for
techniques other than raising, which is essential for Cinque’s unified
analysis. The author also gives an overview of other linguistic work which
proposes similar ideas regarding structures without raising. 

EVALUATION

Although Cinque wants to provide a unified analysis, this does not mean what
one might expect. The focus is less on explaining the basis for the analysis
than on showing that the analysis works for a vast number of RC types in
different languages. Chapters 2 through 5 give many analyses of various
structures of RCs, while only the Introduction, Chapter 1, parts of Chapter 2,
and the Appendix explain the theoretical groundwork. Surprisingly, the content
of the Appendix does not appear in the main text of the book. I would
recommend this book to any reader interested in a step-by-step,
cross-linguistic analysis of RC phenomena. The book helps one understand how a
unified analysis can explain different structures, but a reader interested in
the theoretical groundwork must delve deep into the details to find the
answers to how the author justifies doing this analysis in the first place.
 
With this book, Cinque stays in the tradition of his former research. He
treats adverbs (see Cinque 1999) and adjectives (see Cinque 2010; 2014) as
specifiers of a Functional Phrase (FP). Heads without overt input having
filled specifiers seem to play an essential role in his work, as this is the
same interpretation for RCs in this book (p. 36). However, it is unclear how
the position of adjectives acting as lexical heads (p. 7) is in DP as
specifiers of Functional Heads (see Cinque 2010; 2014). In any case, the
observation itself, namely that we can observe a universal word order, is
crucial for laying the theoretical groundwork in this area of research.
Therefore, linking RCs with this observation and constructing the resulting
analysis around this is a meaningful step.

I recommend this text for researchers interested in RCs, especially those
interested in a Cartographic Generative analysis that differs from the idea of
one-headed RCs. However, since Cinque stays in the tradition of his earlier
research, the problems with his previous research also apply here. Examples
are the aforementioned adverbs, adjectives, and RCs in specifier positions of
an empty head that Cinque calls Functional Head F, a category which is not
further defined. There is an assumption that this is an acceptable phrase
structure that should be kept in mind because it is never stated explicitly.

The tone of the work implies that this is a first attempt to obtain a unified
analysis of RCs (p. 281). The groundwork Cinque puts in place lays the basis
for more research on the topic. That being said, for the syntactic framework
in which Cinque works, this piece of research represents a significant advance
for linguistic theory. It is easier to fine tune an existing analysis than to
establish a whole new analysis of RCs. Even if the analysis does not work in
the long run, it can work as a model for future investigations of RCs.
Furthermore, counterarguments to Cinque’s analysis that come to light could
create future theories of RCs.

The Uniformity Principle is the main argument for the idea of double-headed
RCs for this unified analysis. For me, the question arises of whether the data
of RCs with overt double-headed structures and RCs without overt double-headed
structures are enough evidence to justify straying from an explanation
involving a uniform underlying double-headed structure. Cinque does not find
this to be the case. In his opinion, Chomsky’s theory lacks counterevidence
for the hypothesis that there are always underlying double-headed structures
in RCs. However, it is unclear what kind of evidence Cinque would deem to be
acceptable counterevidence to this theory. Thus, the question is whether or
not Cinque’s point is a case of overgeneralization. Further research should
shed some light on this question.

Another issue linked to whether this analysis is a case of overgeneralization
is how one defines which constructions are RCs: as always, definitions are
connected to the specific properties of an entity. RCs can have several
different forms, and Cinque tries to include as many as possible in his
analysis. Thus, this work is not guilty of using too narrow a definition of
RCs, thereby creating an analysis that only works in certain situations. If
anything, the opposite is true: the broad scope of different RC constructions
that Cinque considers leads to an analysis that, ideally, explains all RC
structures, even ones not mentioned in the text. So, while there are some
hints that this is a case of overgeneralization, this has nothing to do with
Cinque’s definition of RCs. The work does not include a definition of RCs but
instead has a list of the different forms of RCs. Still, this list is not
supposed to be an exhaustive list that limits what an RC is. 

As previously mentioned, Cinque uses examples from literary Italian to
exemplify a problem with Chomsky’s copy theory for structures with two overt
heads. For further research, I recommend looking at those structures in other
languages, such as Kombai, which show double-headed RCs in less restricted
cases. Cinque himself mentions that the use of double-headed RCs in Italian is
very restricted. The observation that Italian limits these constructions might
be a possible explanation for the findings, and it should not be taken as an
indication of a universal property. This example also shows the problem with
cross-linguistic analysis between such different languages. How comparable are
double-headed RCs in Kombai and literary Italian? What general information
about the two languages do we need in order to productively compare their
structures? This example shows that many topics suitable for further research
emerge from this book.

While the focus of Cinque’s former work  (see Cinque 1999; 2010; 2014) lies in
Germanic languages (especially English) and Romance languages (especially
Italian), he includes data from many other languages in his analysis,
including Quechua (p. 4), French Sign Language (p. 35), Punjabi (p. 140),
Itzaj Maya (p. 140), and Yoruba (p. 166). Still, most of the structures
discussed in this book are based on English or Italian. If the aim is to give
a unified analysis, it is a good strategy to discuss more than two languages.
One can assume that Cinque is an expert in English, Italian, and some related
languages, but he depends on data cited by other linguists for other
languages. This method can lead to problems, such as native speakers
disagreeing over the grammaticality judgements of the data. A German example
of this follows in the next paragraph. On the other hand, it is impressive to
see the wide range of language families included. What is also noticeable is
the high amount of linguistic work cited. 

There is one sentence that is ungrammatical for at least some native speakers
of German, including myself, though Cinque includes it as a grammatical
sentence. Some native speakers that I asked could not even parse the meaning
of it. The sentence is the following: “Weil ich die Männer überzeugte, Renate
einer nach dem anderen zu küssen, …” (‘As I convinced the men to kiss Renate
one after the other, …’, p. 209). In contrast, the other example sentences
with slightly different syntactic structures given in that context are
perfectly grammatical from my point of view. The problem is that one relies
heavily on judgments by other linguists (e.g., this judgment; see p. 209) with
few possibilities to verify them. On the other hand, it is hard to find
universal structures without cross-linguistic analysis. In addition, there is
no one “correct” version of any language, but rather many varieties.
Therefore, grammaticality judgments made by native speakers differ from each
other, as even native speakers will have conflicting opinions on the grammar
of their language. Nevertheless, this is no reason not to analyze those
structures: every type of human language should be considered when analyzing
universals. And even when two speakers speak the same variety of a language,
differences in their judgments may arise depending on how the tasks were
presented to them.

As this book aims to give a universal structure, the methodology was well
chosen. Having an extensive literature review, putting different researchers’
data in context, and having several people checking the manuscript and
language examples seems to be the best fit.
 
In summary, Cinque constructs the idea of underlying double-headed structures
of RCs on theoretical assumptions, which future research must further discuss.
However, inside the theoretical framework, which includes those assumptions,
the analysis seems to work well. A large part of the success comes from the
wide range of RC structures from various languages that are included in this
book.

REFERENCES

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale,
Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in
honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken
Hale: A Life   in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1978. La sintassi dei pronomi relati vi “cui” e “quale”
nell’italiano moderno. Rivista di grammatica generativa 3(1). 31–126.
 
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic
perspective (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives: a comparative study
(Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 57). Cambridge, USA: MIT Press. 
 
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2014. The semantic classification of adjectives. A view
from syntax. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 35(1). 1–30.
 
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax (Linguistic Inquiry
Monographs 25). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
 
Radford, Andrew. 2013. The complementiser system in spoken English: Evidence
from broadcast media. In Camacho-Taboada, Victoria, Ángel L.
Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds.),
Information Structure and Agreement, 11-54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing.
 
de Vries, Lourens. 1993. Forms and functions in Kombai, an Awyu language of
Irian Jaya (Pacific Linguistics. Series B 108). Canberra: Dept. of
Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National
University.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Martina Gerdts is a MA student of Romance Linguistics at the Universität
Hamburg, Germany. Compositional attributive adjectives in European Portuguese
were the topic of her BA thesis. Her work focuses on the semantics-syntax
interface in the area of adjectives, adverbs and negation especially in
Portuguese and Spanish. Furthermore, she works as student research assistant
and also as student teaching assistant in her department. Her work as student
research assistant focuses on adjunction in Portuguese (and Italian).



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-33-1463	
----------------------------------------------------------