Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T16:26:49.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The puzzling nuanced status of who free relative clauses in English: a follow-up to Patterson and Caponigro (2015)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2021

RICHARD STOCKWELL Open the ORCID record for RICHARD STOCKWELL [Opens in a new window]  and
CARSON T. SCHÜTZE Open the ORCID record for CARSON T. SCHÜTZE [Opens in a new window]
RICHARD STOCKWELL
Affiliation:
Christ Church, University of Oxford, St Aldate's, Oxford, OX1 1DP, [email protected]
CARSON T. SCHÜTZE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, 3125 Campbell Hall, Los Angeles, CA90095-1543, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This squib challenges Patterson & Caponigro's (2015, this journal) claim that there are few acceptable free relative clauses with who. We show that free relatives with who are generally acceptable when they are ‘transparent’ free relatives or complements of a copula, and add further nuance to their findings concerning how the degree of acceptability of free relatives with who varies according to positional factors.

Keywords

standard free relativestransparent free relativesdegradation of who free relativeswh-wordscopular clauses
Type
Squib
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 185 - 202
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Our thanks to three anonymous reviewers and editor Laurel Brinton; four anonymous reviewers for LSA 2019, and the audience at our poster; Ethan Chavez, for his invaluable assistance in conducting Web and corpus searches and early stimulus development; and Ivano Caponigro, Alex Grosu, Jesse Harris, Stefan Keine, Gary Patterson, Yael Sharvit and Jon Sprouse. This research was supported by a grant from the UCLA Academic Senate Council on Research to the second author.

References

Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Grimshaw, Jane. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 331–91.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2003. Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives cross-linguistically. In Young, Robert B. (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, 38–55. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. www.english-corpora.org/coca/Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Lawson, Aaron (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 7, 99–116. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 2003. A unified theory of ‘standard’ and ‘transparent’ free relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 247–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 2016. The semantics, syntax and morphology of transparent free relatives revisited: A comparison of two approaches. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34, 1245–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinterwimmer, Stefan. 2008. Why free relatives sometimes behave as indefinites. In Friedman, Tova & Ito, Satoshi (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 18, 411–28. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part III: Syntax, vol. 2. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per B. & Christensen, Rune H. B.. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, Gary & Caponigro, Ivano. 2015. The puzzling degraded status of who free relative clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 20, 341–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk C. van. 2006. Grafts follow from Merge. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 17–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk C. van. 2017. Free relatives. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk C. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn, 1665–710. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schelfhout, Carla, Coppen, Peter-Arno & Oostdijk, Nelleke. 2004. Transparent free relatives. In Blaho, Sylvia, Vicente, Luis & Vos, Mark de (eds.), Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE) XII, 2003, Patras. Published online.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. & Stockwell, Richard. 2019. Transparent free relatives with who: Support for a unified analysis. In Farrell, Patrick (ed.), Proceedings of the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, vol. 4, 40, 1–6.Google Scholar
Shahin, Kimary, Blake, Susan & Kim, Eun-Sook (eds.). 1999. WCCFL 17: Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1999. Transparent free relatives. In Shahin, Blake & Kim (eds.), 685–99.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1999. Free relatives as indefinites. In Shahin, Blake & Kim (eds.), 700–12.Google Scholar