You are on page 1of 13

288

REMARKS AND REPLIES

Semitic Relatives Jamal Ouhalla


This article evaluates a promotion-based analysis for Semitic relatives along the lines of Kayne 1994 and compares it with an alternative analysis that does not make use of promotion but shares with Kaynes analysis an antisymmetric view of phrase structure. The alternative analysis is based on establishing a parametric distinction relating to categorial identity of the relative clause such that it is a CP in some languages and a DP in others. The first type is found in languages where the relative complementizer is the same as the normal complementizer of sentential complementation (e.g., Hebrew). The second type is found in languages where the relative complementizer is a determiner (e.g., Amharic and Arabic). This difference is shown to have crucial implications for the structure and derivation of N-initial and N-final relatives, as well as for some relevant typological generalizations, including a generalization relating to the phenomenon of (relative) clause nominalization. Keywords: CP versus DP relative clauses, construct state versus free state relatives, N-initial versus N-final relatives, external versus internal nominalization

1 N-Initial Relatives with Two Determiners Arabic definite relatives typically have the form [Det-N RC] seen in the Lebanese example (1). The pronominal element attached to the verb of the relative clause does not exclude cooccurrence with an (extracted/null) DP object (see Aoun and Choueiri 1997 and Choueiri 2002 for evidence). The relative complementizer illi is glossed as relative marker (RM) pending discussion of its status. (1) 1-baTT-a illi akalnaa-ha . . . the-duck-FEM RM we.ate-it the duck we ate . . . (Haddad and Kenstowicz 1980:144) Extending Kaynes (1994) analysis of N-initial relatives to (1) would consist of assigning it the complementation structure [ DP the [ CP RM [ TP we.ate-it [duck]]]], and a derivation that raises/ promotes some projection of the relativized category to Spec,C: [ DP the [ CP[duck]i [RM [ TP we.ate -it [e]i ]]]]. (Here and throughout, English words are used in representations for convenience.) However, there is a significant difference between Arabic and English relatives that casts doubt on this particular version of the promotion analysis. The difference relates to relatives such as (2), often cited as evidence for the complementation structure and the promotion-based analysis.
Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 35, Number 2, Spring 2004 288300 2004 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

REMARKS AND REPLIES

289

(2) (*1-)paris lli bibba the-Paris RM I.love.it the Paris that I love (Lina Choueiri, personal communication) When the head N is a name, a definite article is excluded from the initial position in Arabic relatives, contrary to what is found in their English counterparts. This suggests that the definite article is associated with the relativized category rather than being the head of the outer DP in Arabic relatives. The difference in (2) appears to be linked to another difference that involves the relative complementizer. In English, it is the same as the normal complementizer of sentential complementation, as is well known. In Arabic, however, the relative complementizer (ya/i)lli is different from the normal complementizer of sentential complementation, which has the completely unrelated form enno in Lebanese. (3) xabbaret-na laila enno l-mmaslin madrabiin told-us Laila that the-actors on.strike Laila told us that the actors are on strike. (Choueiri 2002:209) Aoun and Choueiri (1997) argue that the Arabic relative complementizer (ya/i)lli is actually the definite article l- the with additional number and gender inflection. This property is more transparent in Standard Arabic, where the relative complementizer has different inflectional forms depending on the number and gender features of the head N it agrees with: for example, (a)lladhii the-MASC.SG, (a)lla-tii the-FEM.SG, (a)lla-dhaani the-MASC.DUAL, (a)lla-dhiina theMASC.PL (see also Fassi Fehri 1981). Aoun and Choueiri (1997) and Choueiri (2002) provide additional evidence for their claim, including the fact that the relative complementizer enters into an (in)definiteness agreement relation with the relativized category. When the relativized category is indefinite, in which case it lacks an (overt) definite article, the relative complementizer is excluded. (4) kteeb (*yalli) kyit ann-o laila book theAgr talked.she about-it Laila a book that Laila has talked about (Choueiri 2002:211) The conclusion that the Arabic relative complementizer is a definite article raises the possibility that it is the relative complementizer that functions as the head of the outer DP. On this view, Arabic relatives can be assigned the complementation structure and the promotion-based derivation outlined in (5), where the relative complementizer theAgr occupies the outer D position (see Choueiri 2002 for an alternative version). (5) a. [ DP theAgr [ CP C [ TP we.ate-it [ DP the duck]]]] b. [ DP[ DP the duck]i [theAgr [ CP C [ TP we.ate-it [e]i ]]]]

290

REMARKS AND REPLIES

Besides the fact that the definite article in initial position is associated with the relativized category, the analysis in (5ab) differs from the one briefly entertained above in that the promoted category is a DP rather than a smaller projection of the relativized category (see Bianchi 1999, 2000a,b). This is necessary to account for the fact that (2) is excluded in Arabic. Moreover, promotion targets the Spec position of the outer D rather than Spec,C, which is necessary to derive the required ordering while excluding (2). It turns out that the analysis in (5ab) has the additional advantage of accounting for agreement in (in)definiteness between the relativized DP and the relative clause by reducing it to a specifier-head relation. Before I outline an alternative analysis for Arabic relatives, a word about the observed difference between their relative complementizer and its English counterpart. This difference can be found within Semitic and opposes Arabic to Hebrew, where the relative complementizer is the same as the normal complementizer of sentential complementation. e- rina ohevet oto (6) ha-yeled s the-boy that Rina loves him the boy that Rina loves (Borer 1984:221) e- oto rina ohevet (7) amarti le-david s said.I to-David that him Rina loves I said to David that Rina loves him. (Borer 1984:241) It seems that there is a genuine parametric difference between languages relating to the categorial identity of the relative clause such that it is a CP in Hebrew and English and a DP in Arabic. Internally, though, Arabic relative clauses are similar to their Hebrew and English counterparts in that they have the same properties as normal finite clauses. This can be taken to mean that both types of relative clause contain a TP. (8) Variation in the categorial identity of the relative clause a. CP with a [ CP C [TP]] structure in some languages (e.g., Hebrew) b. DP with a [ DP D [TP]] structure in others (e.g., Arabic) The alternative analysis I would like to consider here assumes the traditional structure of relatives with the simple but crucial difference that the relative clause is located in a left-branching Spec position of N rather than being right-adjoined to NP. The Det-N-initial order is guaranteed by head raising of N to D, widely attested in Arabic noun phrases (see, e.g., Mohammad 1989, Ouhalla 1988). (9) a. [ DP the [ NP[ DP theAgr [ TP we.ate-it]] [ N duck]]] b. [ DP the [ N duck]i [ NP[ DP theAgr [ TP we.ate-it]] [ N [e]i ]]] Example (2) is excluded as explained above, on the grounds that Arabic names are incompatible with the definite article. Agreement in (in)definiteness between DN and the relative clause in Spec,N is an instance of the type of (long-distance) agreement relation more familiar from

REMARKS AND REPLIES

291

combinations that involve TV and a postverbal subject located in Spec,V found in numerous Arabic varieties, including Lebanese (see Benmamoun 2000 and references cited therein). The Hebrew relative (6) can be assigned the same structure and derivation, given that Hebrew noun phrases exhibit the same range of evidence for N-raising to D (see, e.g., Ritter 1988, 1991, Siloni 1994). The difference is that there is no (in)definiteness agreement relation between DN and the relative clause in Spec,N simply because the head of the relative clause, being C in Hebrew relatives, does not include the relevant feature. Obviously, the antisymmetric representation in (9), with the relative clause as a left-branching constituent of NP, is made possible by the fact that Arabic and Hebrew noun phrases involve Nraising to D. Whether an analysis along the same lines can be extended to N-initial relatives in other languages is a question beyond the scope of this article. 2 N-Initial Relatives with One Determiner Haddad and Kenstowicz (1980) report the existence in Lebanese Arabic of another type of definite relative illustrated in (10). (10) baTT-it illi akalnaa-ha . . . duck-FEM theAgr we.ate-it the duck we ate . . . (Haddad and Kenstowicz 1980:144) (10) is a paraphrase of (1), but differs in that it includes only one instance of the definite article, namely, the one associated with the relative clause (i.e., the relative marker theAgr). The definite article normally associated with the relativized category is missing. Moreover, the relative noun phrase has a definite reading even though the definite article of the relativized category is missing. This property suggests that it is the relative marker that functions as the head of the relative noun phrase, and therefore appears to confirm the version of the promotion analysis outlined in the previous section (5ab), whereby the relative marker occupies the outer D position and the relativized DP raises to the Spec position of the outer D. (11) a. [ DP theAgr [ CP C [ TP we.ate-it [ DP e [duck]]]]] b. [ DP[ DP e [duck]]i [theAgr [ CP C [ TP we.ate-it [e]i ]]]] According to the analysis outlined in (11ab), the relative in (10) differs from the relative in (1) only in that the D of the relativized DP is null, which is consistent with Bianchis (1999) suggestion that the relativized/promoted phrase is a DP and that its D can be null in some languages. However, when the two relatives are placed in a broader context that includes other types of noun phrases in Arabic, significant differences between them emerge that do not readily reduce to whether the D of the relativized DP is overt or null. An appreciation of the relevant properties of the two relatives requires discussion of other types of noun phrases, although the discussion below is restricted to possessives to minimize complexity. Haddad and Kenstowicz (1980) point out that there are close similarities between the type of relative in (10) and the type of possessive in (12), called idaafa or construct state.

292

REMARKS AND REPLIES

(12) suur-it l-bint picture-FEM the-girl the girls picture (Haddad and Kenstowicz 1980:143) First, (12) lacks a definite article associated with the head N, as in (10). Second, the absence of this definite article does not prevent the noun phrase as a whole from having a definite reading, as in (10). Third, the head N and the possessor that follows it appear to form a single phonological word, a prosodic property with structural implications as we will see shortly. To provide background information: Arabic feminine nouns are marked with the suffix -at/-it, the consonantal member of which, [t], remains silent in word-final positions but is pronounced in word-internal positions. The fact that the [t] of the feminine suffix of the head N is pronounced in (12) suggests that it is word-internal and that the head N must form a single phonological word with the possessor that follows it. Exactly the same situation is found in the relative (10), where the [t] of the feminine suffix of the head N is also pronounced, suggesting that it forms a single phonological word with the relative marker immediately following it. To put the distinctive properties of construct state noun phrases in perspective, it is necessary to compare them with another type called the free state, found in some Arabic varieties, including Moroccan. (13) t-teswir-a (lqdima) dyal l-bnt the-picture-FEM old of the-girl the girls (old) picture In (13), the head N carries a definite article of its own independent of the definite article of the possessor. Moreover, the head N and the possessor do not form a single phonological word, as shown by the fact that an adjective can intervene between the head N and the possessor, which is not possible in the construct state possessive (12). In the absence of an intervening adjective, the noted property is reflected by the fact that the [t] of the feminine suffix of the head N is silent as it usually is in word-final positions. Exactly the same properties characterize the type of relative discussed in the previous section. Example (1) is repeated in (14). (14) l-baTT-a illi akalnaa-ha . . . the-duck-FEM theAgr we.ate-it the duck we ate . . . (Haddad and Kenstowicz 1980:144) The conclusion to be drawn from the comparison is that relatives of the type in (10) are a species of construct state noun phrase, along with the possessive in (12). On the other hand, relatives of the type in (14) are a species of free state noun phrase, along with the possessive in (13). The question whether the two types of relatives have the same or different representations therefore is part of the more general question whether construct state and free state noun phrases have the same or different representations.

REMARKS AND REPLIES

293

Construct state and free state noun phrases have attracted a substantial amount of attention in the literature on Arabic and Hebrew, and the view that emerges is that their respective distinctive properties imply different representations and derivations. For example, Borer (1989) argues at length that construct state noun phrases such as the possessive in (12), but not free state noun phrases such as (13), are characterized by merger of the possessor with the head N, resulting in a single complex word. Benmamoun (2000) basically endorses this analysis for corresponding Arabic possessives and goes further in arguing that the remaining distinctive properties of construct state possessives follow precisely from merger between the head N and the possessor. The details of the analysis are not crucially relevant to the point of the discussion. What is relevant is that both studies stress that merger takes place under structural adjacency, with the clear implication that the head N and the possessor are structurally adjacent in construct state noun phrases, where merger takes place, but not in free state noun phrases, where merger does not take place. Extended to relatives, this reasoning implies that the relative clause is structurally adjacent to the head N in construct state relatives such as (10) but not in free state relatives such as (14). Therefore, any attempt to assign the two types of relatives a uniform representation where the head of the relative clause bears the same structural relation to the relativized N would be inconsistent with the observed crucial difference between them. To arrive at the desired representations of the two types of relatives, what needs to be done is identify the representations of construct and free state possessives and then extend them to relatives by substituting the relative clause into the position of the possessor. Adopting the structure of the noun phrase and analysis outlined in Ritter 1988, 1991, and numerous other studies, construct state possessives such as (12) have the structure and derivation outlined (15). (15) [ DP[picture]i [ NumP[ DP the-girl] [Num . . . (Adj) . . . [ NP[e]i ]]]] The structure includes a Num category intervening between D and NP. The possessor is located in Spec,Num (the genitive position), and the head N raises to D (via Num). The resulting structural adjacency between the possessor and N in D makes it possible for the possessor to merge with N. Free state possessives such as (13) have the different representation outlined in (16), where the possessor is located in Spec,N (the lower subject position). The fact that the possessor is not structurally adjacent to the head N located in D is what accounts for the absence of merger between the two constituents in free state possessives. (16) [ DP[picture]i [ NumP Num . . . (Adj) . . . [ NP[ DP the-girl] [ N[e]i ]]]] The derivational difference between (15) and (16) that yields the two different representations is that the possessor raises to Spec,Num in (15) but not in (16), where it remains in Spec,N. Turning now to relatives, construct state relatives such as (10) have the representation outlined in (17) with the relative clause located in the position of the possessor in Spec,Num. The structural adjacency between the relative clause and N under D makes it possible for the head of the drelative clause to merge with N. (17) [ DP[ N duck]i [ NumP[ DP theAgr [ TP we.ate-it]] [Num [ NP[e]i ]]]]

294

REMARKS AND REPLIES

In comparison, free state relatives such as (14) have the different representation outlined in (18), where the relative clause is located in the position of the possessor in Spec,N. (18) is basically the representation assigned to (14) in the previous section, except that it includes the additional category Num. (18) [ DP the [ N duck]i [ NumP Num [ NP[ DP theAgr [ TP we.ate-it]] [ N[e]i ]]]] To round off this section, a word about the nature of the merger operation that takes place in Arabic and Hebrew construct state noun phrases and its absence in free state noun phrases. The evidence relating to the pronunciation or not of the consonantal sound [t] of the feminine suffix -at in Arabic noun phrases, and indeed also the evidence relating to stress placement in their Hebrew counterparts discussed in Borer 1989, while it does not exclude merger in Syntax (Borer 1989) or at the level of Morphological Structure (Benmamoun 2000), does not necessarily imply it either. As far as this particular kind of evidence is concerned, which is phonological in nature, the merger might as well be prosodic and takes place at PF. To summarize, the promotion-based analysis assigns construct state and free state relatives the same representation, with the difference between them reduced to whether the D of the relativized DP is overt or null. However, the two types of relatives exhibit significant differences that do not appear to be reducible to whether the D of the relativized DP is overt or null. Rather, the differences appear to reflect a structural difference relating to whether the relative clause is structurally adjacent to the head N or not. In contrast, the proposed alternative analysis allows for the noted difference by virtue of treating the relative clause as a subject of the relative noun phrase that can occupy either the higher subject position (Spec,Num), adjacent to N in D, or the lower subject position (Spec,N), which is nonadjacent to N in D. 3 N-Final Relatives Amharic relatives are N-final, consistent with the fact that the language is generally head-final, where main verbs follow their objects, auxiliaries follow main verbs, determiners follow nouns, and so on. The identity of the grammatical marker (GM) ya - on the verb in (19) is discussed in detail below. ya (19) lj-u -ga dda la -w baab boy-the GM-killed-the snake the snake the boy killed (Mullen 1986:386) Kayne (1994:9297) bases his version of the promotion-based analysis of N-final relatives on Amharic relatives such as (19). The analysis assumes the same head-initial complementation structure as for N-initial relatives, where the definite article occupies the outer D position and the relativized category is located in the relativized position. The N-final order is derived by promotion of the relativized category to the Spec position of C, followed by raising of IP/TP to the Spec position of the outer D. The derivation and structures are repeated in (20) with English words corresponding to the Amharic example (19).

REMARKS AND REPLIES

295

(20) a. [ DP the [ CP C [ IP boy-the [[snake] GM-killed]]]] b. [ DP the [ CP[snake]i C [ IP boy-the [[e]i GM-killed]]]] c. [ DP[ IP boy-the [[e]i GM-killed]]j [the [ CP[snake]i C [e]j ]]] The analysis outlined in (20) treats the definite article attached to the verb of the relative clause as the head of the whole/outer relative DP. However, this is not the only possibility available, at least in the present context. Another possibility, suggested by the facts of Arabic discussed above, is that the definite article in question has the same role as the relative marker of Arabic relatives, meaning it is the head of a DP relative clause with a Det-final order consistent with the Det-final character of Amharic noun phrases in general. On this particular view, (19) will have the representation [ DP[ DP[ TP boy-the GM-killed] the] snake], where the definite article is bracketed along with the DP relative clause of which it is the head. In other words, (19) will have a representation essentially similar to that of possessives such as (21) with the possessor in place of the relative clause: [ DP[ DP[boy] the] notebook]. (21) ya da -lj-u bta r GM-boy-the notebook the boys notebook (Mullen 1986:307) The possibility that the definite article in (21) may not be a constituent of the possessor is excluded by the fact that when the possessor is a name, the definite article does not and cannot appear. s a (22) ya -brhanu ws GM-Birhanu dog Birhanus dog (adapted from Mullen 1986:312) To be in a position to outline the details of an alternative analysis of Amharic relatives based on the conclusion that the definite article attached to the verb is the head of the relative clause to its left rather than the head of the outer relative DP, it is necessary first to provide the derivations of simpler noun phrases, starting from the simplest type such as da bta r-u notebook-the. Following Kaynes (1994) antisymmetric approach to head-final phrases, these can be assigned the headinitial structure in (23) with the Det-final order derived by raising of NumP to Spec,D. (23) a. [ DP the [ NumP Num [ NP notebook]]] b. [ DP[ NumP Num [ NP notebook]]i [the [e]i ]] Pursuing the same approach to head-final phrases, relative clauses can be assigned the structure and derivation outlined in (24), where the Det-final order is derived by raising of TP to Spec,D. (24) a. [ DP the [ TP[boy-the] GM-killed]] b. [ DP[ TP[boy-the] GM-killed]]i [the [e]i ] In both (23) and (24), the raised category is not of the DP-type; moreover, it targets a non-Case position (Spec,D). It is possible that these movements apply at a postsyntactic level and involve

296

REMARKS AND REPLIES

PF considerations having to do with word ordering, including the possibility that the definite article is a phrasal clitic on a par with English s. It is worth noting that when the relative clause includes an auxiliary in addition to the main verb, the definite article appears attached to the auxiliary, the nearest word to it. (25) wa dKo ya -na bba ra -w beet fallen GM-PAST-the house the house that had fallen down (Mullen 1986:371) The remaining types of noun phrases are possessives and relatives. The strategy adopted for Arabic in the previous section is to assign them basically the same representation and derivation such that the possessor and the relative clause occupy the same position within the larger DP that includes them. Starting with possessives, they can be assigned the representation in (26), corresponding to example (22), where the possessor occupies Spec,Num. No movements of the type assumed for (23) and (24) are required. (26) [ DP D [ NumP[ DP GM-Birhanu] [Num [ NP dog]]]] Substituting the relative clause for the possessor in (26) yields the representation in (27) for relatives such as (19). (27) [ DP D [ NumP[ DP[ TP boy-the GM-killed] the] [Num [ NP snake]]]] According to the analysis in (27), Amharic relatives are basically similar to Arabic construct state relatives in that their relative clause is a DP that occupies Spec,Num (the genitive position). The N-initial versus N-final difference reduces to the existence of N-raising to D in Arabic noun phrases and its absence in Amharic noun phrases. It turns out that Amharic relatives include more direct evidence that their relative clause is a DP and that it occupies the genitive position within the relative noun phrase. The evidence has to do with the prefix ya - that appears on the verb of the relative clause noted earlier. Earlier analyses of ya -, which include Bach 1970 and Fulass 1972, treat it as a relative marker, presumably corresponding to the Comp position of the relative clause (see Mullen 1986 for discussion). Its appearance in possessives was taken as evidence that they are hidden relatives insofar as they derive from an underlyingly complex structure that resembles that of relatives. Manahlot (1977) cites a third context for the prefix ya - that is not amenable to treatment as a relative marker. The context is factive complements such as in (28). CM stands for clause marker and is identified in section 4 below in the context of a discussion of the phenomenon of clause nominalization. (28) ya bet ma -kasa-n -gzat sa mma-hu of-Kasa-OM house CM-buy heard-I I heard that Kasa bought a house. I heard of Kasas buying a house. (Manahlot 1977:123)

REMARKS AND REPLIES

297

Manahlot considers in detail an analysis for factive complements that treats them as constituents of a noun phrase headed by a null N with the meaning fact. The analysis has the consequence that factive complements are included in a context that, at least at the time, was deemed similar to that of relative clauses (a complex noun phrase). Besides the fact that complement clauses of nouns and relative clauses are not the same thing, Manahlot goes on to point out that the analysis has the significant problem of failing to explain why the prefix ya - appears on the verb in relatives (19) but on the subject in factive complements (28). The analysis of the prefix ya - compatible with its distribution in all three contexts is one that treats it as a genitive Case marker. On this view, its appearance on the possessor in possessives is self-evident. Its appearance on the subject of factive complements is not unexpected either given that factive complements are known to have nominal properties across languages, including English (see the second gloss of (28)). What may be considered unexpected is the appearance of ya - on the relative clause in relatives. However, according to the analysis outlined in (27), where the relative clause is a DP that occupies the same position as the possessor in possessives, the fact that it bears a genitive Case marker is precisely what is expected. The reason ya - appears as a prefix on the verb rather than as a phrasal clitic associated with the whole relative clause is simply due to its property as a prefix. It is worth noting that ya - consistently appears on the last member of the relative clause, so that if the relative clause includes an auxiliary in addition to a main verb, as in (25), ya - appears on the auxiliary. To summarize, an analysis for Amharic N-final relatives that treats the relative clause as a DP that occupies the genitive subject position of the relative noun phrase is not only possible, but arguably more desirable. It provides a unified analysis of Amharic noun phrases in general, and a consistent account of the prefix ya - in all contexts as a Case morpheme that marks DPs located in Spec,Num. 4 Relatives and (Relative) Clause Nominalization Kayne (1994) cites the two typological generalizations in (29) and explains how they both follow from an analysis of N-final relatives based on a complementation structure and promotion of the relativized category. Given that both properties implicate CP, they follow from the idea that what moves to the prenominal position is something smaller than CP, namely, IP (see derivation in (20)). (29) a. N-final relatives lack relative pronouns. b. N-final relatives never display a complementizer that is identical to the normal complementizer of sentential complementation. (Kayne 1994:93) Properties (29ab) also follow from the alternative analysis outlined above, but with an interesting twist. As far as Amharic relatives are concerned, these properties follow from the conclusion that the relative clause is a DP with a [ DP D [TP]] structure that lacks CP altogether. The interesting twist is the implication that (29ab) are expected to be properties of relatives where the relative clause is a DP irrespective of whether they are N-final or N-initial. In other words, the proposed alternative analysis predicts that both properties should characterize Arabic

298

REMARKS AND REPLIES

relatives, which are N-initial. The prediction is consistent with the facts since Arabic relatives lack relative pronouns and, as explained in section 1, do not display the normal complementizer of sentential complementation. (30) a. Relatives with a DP relative clause lack relative pronouns irrespective of whether they are N-final or N-initial. b. Relatives with a DP relative clause do not display a complementizer that is identical to the normal complementizer of sentential complementation, irrespective of whether they are N-final or N-initial. Kayne (1994) discusses another typological generalization about relatives pointed out in Keenan 1985 and repeated in (31). (31) In prenominal RCs, VREL is almost always some sort of non-finite form. . . . We have often above called such verb forms participles. . . . By contrast, postnominal RCs most typically present VREL in the form it would have as the main verb of a declarative sentence though this is certainly not always the case. (Keenan 1985:160161) (31) implicates the phenomenon of clause nominalizationthat is, processes by which a clause is turned into a noun phraselike category. As far as Amharic and Arabic are concerned, there are two major strategies, which I will call here internal nominalization and external nominalization. Internal nominalization involves replacement of the finite inflectional category specified for tense and nominative Case (INom/TNom ) with another inflectional category specified for genitive Case and no tense (IGen/NumGen ) (see Abney 1987). This inflectional category corresponds to special morphology on the verb, giving it a form variously known as the participle, gerund, verbal noun, and (in the Arabic tradition) masdar (see Comrie and Thompson 1985). An instance of internal nominalization can be seen in Amharic factive complements, where the verb is uninflected for tense (and agreement) and instead carries a nominalizing morpheme glossed as CM in (28) (see Manahlot 1977 for discussion). External nominalization, on the other hand, involves replacement of C(P) with D(P), leaving the rest of the clause untouched, especially its internal finite character. Instances of this strategy of nominalization can be seen in Amharic and Arabic relative clauses, both of which are DPs (rather than CPs) that contain a finite TP, as concluded above. (32) Strategies of (relative) clause nominalization a. Internal: replacement of TNom with NumGen b. External: replacement of C(P) with D(P) As far as Amharic factive complements are concerned, it is not clear if internal nominalization necessarily involves simultaneous replacement of C(P) with D(P) (i.e., external nominalization). Example (28) does not include a definite article associated with the factive complement. However, there is evidence from Hebrew relatives of the type in (33) that some instances of internal nominalization within Semitic also involve external nominalization.

REMARKS AND REPLIES

299

ha-xos ev rak al kesef (33) hine ha-is here the-man the-think only about money Here is the man that thinks only about money. (Siloni 1995:447) Hebrew relatives of the type in (33) are discussed by Siloni (1995), who explains that they differ from the type in (2) in at least two major respects. First, their relative clause is nonfinite. Second, their relative marker is the definite article instead of the complementizer of normal sentential complementation. In other words, the relative clause in (33) is a DP relative clause, although it differs from its Amharic and Arabic counterparts in that it is internally nonfinite. The nonfinite prenominal relative clauses referred to in the first part of generalization (31) are presumably instances of internal nominalization. According to the analysis outlined in the previous sections, prenominal relative clauses are expected to be nominalizations because they occupy a Case position (Spec,Num). Amharic relative clauses are actually an exception to the strong tendency described in generalization (31) because they are internally finite. However, they are not an exception to the generalization emanating from the analysis proposed here that prenominal relative clauses that occupy Spec,Num are expected to be nominalized one way (internally) or the other (externally). Turning now to the second part of generalization (31), postnominal relative clauses are not expected to be nominalized because they have the option of occupying Spec,N, a non-Case position. In Semitic, nonnominalized postnominal relative clauses are found in Hebrew relatives of the type in (2). (31) makes it clear that postnominal relative clauses can also be of the nominalized type, bearing in mind that nominalization can also be of the external type. In Semitic, nominalized postnominal relative clauses are found in Arabic (external nominalizations) and Hebrew (simultaneous internal and external nominalizations). Moreover, they can either occupy the lower subject position (Spec,N), as in Arabic free state relatives, or the higher genitive position (Spec,Num), as in Arabic construct state relatives. It is not clear which of the two positions the nonfinite DP relative clause occupies in the Hebrew relative (33). What the proposed analysis predicts is that if a relative clause occupies the genitive position of the relative noun phrase, then it is expected to be nominalized. To summarize, the alternative analysis of relatives outlined in the previous sections, which treats the relative clause as a subject that can occupy either of two subject positions of the relative noun phrase, is not only consistent with the typological generalizations in (29)(30) and (31), but arguably offers comparatively better insights into the reasons behind them. References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Aoun, Joseph, and Lina Choueiri. 1997. Resumption and Last Resort. Ms., University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Bach, Emmon. 1970. Is Amharic an SOV language? Journal of Ethiopian Studies 7:920.

300

REMARKS AND REPLIES

Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bianchi, Valentina. 2000a. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31:123140. Bianchi, Valentina. 2000b. Some issues in the syntax of relative determiners. In The syntax of relative clauses, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, Andre Meinunger, and Chris Wilder, 5382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2: 219260. Borer, Hagit. 1989. On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In Morphology yearbook, ed. by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 4564. Dordrecht: Foris. Choueiri, Lina. 2002. Issues in the syntax of resumption: Restrictive relatives in Lebanese Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Comrie, Bernard, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1985. Lexical nominalization. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 2:349397. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. tation. Rabat: Publications of the Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1981. Linguistique arabe: Forme et interpre Faculty of Letters. Fulass, Hailu. 1972. On Amharic relative clauses. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Languages 35:497513. Haddad, Ghassan, and Michael Kenstowicz. 1980. A note on the parallels between the definite article and the relative clause marker in Arabic. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 10:141148. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Keenan, Edward. 1985. Relative clauses. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 2:141170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manahlot, Demissie. 1977. Nominal clauses in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Mohammad, Mohammad. 1989. The sentence structure of Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Mullen, Dana. 1986. Issues in the morphology and phonology of Amharic: The lexical generation of pronominal clitics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ontario. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1988. The syntax of head movement. Doctoral dissertation, University College London. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1988. A head-movement approach to construct state noun phrases. Linguistics 26:909929. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Hebrew. In Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, ed. by Susan Rothstein, 3762. Syntax and Semantics 25. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press. de Gene ` ve. Siloni, Tal. 1994. Noun phrases and nominalizations. Doctoral dissertation, Universite Siloni, Tal. 1995. On participial relatives and complementizer D: A case study in Hebrew and French. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13:445487. University College Dublin Linguistics Department Belfield, Dublin 4 Ireland Jamal.Ouhalla@ucd.ie